The Christian case for gay marriage: The Smackdown

So a certain Mr. Osler wrote a wonderful piece for CNN entitled My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage. I take mild issue with it. Just to warn ye secular-fantastics, I know the Bible’s all ridiculous and sexist and fake and even if it’s not it’s old and has stuff like violence in it so why bother a discussion about it plus there’s no God. However, this is a conversation that makes the [idiotic] assumption that Sacred Scripture is sacred. So do bear with me.

Mr. Osler, then:

I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.

Cool. The reason I’m opposed to it is because marriage is about love. So we did a little role-reversal there.

What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.

Do prove.

A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story.

He’s a Pope too!

Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.

During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.

…to be the Pope.

After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold.

…and a Pope.

This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.

Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).

Alright Mr. Olser, I’m going to let you roll with that insinuation, that because Christians no longer have to be circumcised, they no longer have to believe homosexuality is wrong. But if you bring it up again, I swear…

His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

Time out. Mr. Osler, my dear man, sir, fellow, elder — allow me to note a few things.

You are arguing that because Peter could not withhold baptism from anyone who desires it, we cannot withhold marriage from anyone who desires it. Right? Two problems here:

Peter would surely not have denied baptism to any one who asked for it. However, I’m quite confident he would have denied baptism to any one who said, “I would like to be baptized. By this I mean I would like to get a spray tan and become an expert at sodoku.” Why? Because the issue here isn’t whether or not to give the man baptism, the issue is that what the man wants isn’t baptism at all.

In the same way, the reason the Church doesn’t grant gay marriages is not because gays are somehow worse sinners than others and therefore not eligible. The reason is simply that they don’t want marriage at all, for marriage is a covenant between man and woman. This is made very starkly and stunningly clear, not in the Old Testament — which you seem remarkably able to ignore — but in the New:

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife…” (Mark 10:6).

Because God create male and female, a man seeks union with a wife. So to ask for a gay marriage — at least to a man living during the time of Peter — would have been like asking for a spray-tan baptism.

But even then, asking for a gay mariage is in no way comparable to asking for Baptism.

Baptism is a sacrament of initiation. It is the sacrament by which one enters the Church. Because the Church — the Body of Christ — contains the fullness of Truth, anyone entering from from outside of the Church is necessarily in some degree of falsehood. Marriage is not a sacrament of initiation. It is a sacrament given to those already in the Church, those already inside that fullness of Truth. So your argument is essentially that, because Peter baptized those in falsehood into the Truth, those already in the Truth should be allowed to live out a falsehood.

I find this self-evidently whack, a little like saying, “Hey, we let these folks become members of the cool hats society, despite their not wearing cool hats when they joined. How then, can we deny people in the cool hats society their ardent desire to call their socks their hats?”

None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws.

Sorry, you brought it up again. Hate to be a buzzkill, but the condemnation of homosexual acts is not confined to the “ancient laws.” Here:

“In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another” (Romans 1:27).

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

If you’re going to use the Bible you’ve got to read the whole thing.

It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise.

It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.

That same passage where Jesus Christ tells Peter he’s a rock? Yeah, the awkward thing is the next part: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19).

It seems that Christ is in disagreement with you. If he’s giving Peter the power to “bind” and “loose” Heaven, it then the heavenly waters aren’t flowing where they will. (This is no limit on God, of course, for Heaven has chosen to work through the Body of Christ, which is the Church, built on Peter.)

Christ literally, specifically said that it is up to the Church — acting as the Body of Christ — to “sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit.” Ready?

Christ, speaking to his apostles: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld” (John 20:23). The forgiveness of sins — a bond between God and man if there ever was one — is not a thing flowing over us. It is a thing decided by the Church. Now don’t get me wrong, I wish it were otherwise. If every time I sinned I just got caught up in the flow of forgiveness, I’m sure life would be brighter and more fun and more sinful. But this is Christ speaking, and we are no Christians who would ignore him.

So.

Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not.

Intriguingly? Awkwardly, perhaps, for sin is defined as the rejection of God. You, Mr. Osler, define the “blessings of holy institutions” as when “God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life.” God cannot be present in actions which reject him. Principle of non-contradiction. It totally matters whether we see homosexual actions as sins or not.

The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are there—even to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.

Again, this is not a question of whether homosexuals are just too darn sinful to be married. This is a question of whether Baptisms are spray-tans. This is a question of whether marriage is just a union of people, or whether, as Christ notes, it is because God made us male and female that we leave our mothers and fathers and seek marital union. That Judas received communion is of interest to liturgists, but of no use here.

The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.

It’s not a bar to any of these things. No one advocates denying baptism to men with same sex attraction. No one advocates denying communion to men with same-sex attraction. No one is advocating denying holy matrimony to men with same sex attraction — matrimony is simply defined as a sacrament which unifies man and woman. No one’s being denied anything.

The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods’ love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!

I worship at St. Stephens, an Episcopal church in Edina, Minnesota.

Ah, well there’s your problem right there.

There is a river that flows around the back and side of that church with a delightful name: Minnehaha Creek. That is where we do baptisms.

Oh, word?

The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.

At the bottom of the creek, in exactly that spot, is a floor of smooth pebbles. The water rushing by has rubbed off the rough edges, bit by bit, day by day. The pebbles have been transformed by that water into something new.

Mr. Osler, cases for sacramental redefinition are not made by pebbles, as beautiful as this may be.

I suppose that, as Peter put it, someone could try to withhold the waters of baptism there. They could try to stop the river, to keep the water from some of the stones, like a child in the gutter building a barrier against the stream.

It won’t last, though. I would say this to those who would withhold the water of baptism, the joy of worship, or the bonds of marriage: You are less strong than the water, which will flow around you, find its path, and gently erode each wall you try to erect.

The redeeming power of that creek, and of the Holy Spirit, is relentless, making us all into something better and new.

But then what’s the point of a Church at all? If the Church doesn’t have the ability to deny any of the sacraments to any one for any reason, surely she doesn’t have the power to administer them? She is made merely an onlooker to the actions of God. And if the Church is a mere abstraction that watches as the “waters do what they will”, what on Earth was Christ talking about when he told Peter “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”? Your argument is one that says: “Whatever we bind on Earth won’t matter, for Heaven has nothing to do with us.” Mr. Osler, I’m sure you think you’ve made a good biblical argument for same-sex marriage. As it turns out, you’ve made a bad argument for the total dissolution of the Episcopal Church.

Christ is not a man to be made light of. As much as we want him to fit our current political beliefs, and our popular philosophies, he keeps on being a man we are either with or against. He gives the Church the power to bind and loose, to forgive and retain.We either believe this or we don’t.

Yours truly.

  • guest

    I really like that the words of Marc are in red.

  • Anonymous Fool

    AWESOME POST! Thank you!

  • MattheW

    I live in Minnesota… It’s not that bad here… ;-)

    • Emily

      =) The sun shines on the good and evil alike!

  • Cole

    I always consider it interesting to ask Christian supporters of same-sex marriage whether they support polygamy or other potential marital abuses. If marriage cannot be limited to the union of one man and one woman, it further cannot be limited to the union of only two people, or even-to an extreme degree- the union of human beings. It seems doubtful that supporters of same-sex marriage would consider the relationship between a man and his cat potentially sacramental, however much he loves him/her. However, if we are, as Mr. Olsen contends, unable to restrict the sacrament based on circumstance, then no Christian can reasonably condemn polygamous or even interspecies relationships. Relativism at its best!

    • bcisaldb

      When you move from polygamy (a reasonable argument) to bestiality (a disgusting attempt on your part to compare gay people to animals, or something not as human as you), you lose.

      Every time I read this sort of thinly-disguised bigotry and hatred, I side with gay marriage. I don’t really care, but when I read your sort of ugly-minded filth, I care on their behalf.

      • Alexandra

        Can I like this like 50 times?

      • Arnobius of Sicca

        Comparing it to Bestiality is a reductio ad absurdum, pointing out the flaws of the argument that sexual inclinations should be tolerated. It’s not hate speech — it’s merely pointing out the pro-homosexual argument is ridiculous.

        • bcisaldb

          Comparing gay people to animals is not a reductio ad absurdam. It’s hate. Pure, unadulterated hate. You’re evil.

          • Tom

            And telling people they’re evil isn’t ad hominem?

          • bcisaldb

            No. It’s a declarative statement, not arguing for or against anything. Marc is evil. Full stop. Get it?

          • Jay E.

            So is Marc right or wrong?

          • bcisaldb

            Marc is wrong.

          • Jay E.

            Because he’s the pure embodiment of evil?

          • bcisaldb

            Because he’s looking through an extremely narrow lens.

          • Booishboos

            What, the Bible?

          • Jay E.

            Metaphors aside, how does that prove he is wrong??

          • ChristendomStudent

            Allow me to clarify the point being made. I learned how to reason, you see, at my third-tier loser college.

            The argument for same-sex marriage generally proceeds by asking whether we may legitimately deny someone the pursuit of some deeply-held inclination so long as they harm no one else. A kind of Mill-esque argument.

            It is generally agreed by all parties to this debate that there is something wrong with bestiality.

            But the pro-gay-marriage argument fails to make the distinctions necessary to oppose the legalisation of bestiality.

            Since all parties involved recognise this as a problem, the *argument* (not gay marriage itself, just the argument being made for it) has been reduced to the absurd and found insufficient or problematic.

            The reference to bestiality addresses the argument meant to justify gay marriage, not the people involved or even the thing itself.

            I be hatin’ on bad logic, not on any person.

          • bcisaldb

            Wrong again. Animals cannot freely enter into marriage. There is no need to differentiate between gay marriage and bestiality because they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

          • bearing

            And what Marc is saying is that a male cannot freely enter into marriage with another male, because what is entered into is not marriage. There the similarity ends.

          • bcisaldb

            And yet, in several states, gay men and women ARE legally entering into marriage. Go figure.

          • Ultimoqueso

            And yet, this column keeps getting smaller and smaller. What more proof do we need?

          • Namg3

            So then we should allow marriage between brothers and sisters (incest) as long as they are both willing?

          • bcisaldb

            Not the same. Try again.

          • Kate1

            This is clearly a tr0ll. When he uses: “try again”, you know it is a teenage troll.

            Yes. To a certain extent you could argue that incest and polygamy are the same. If two adults (related or not) agree to enter into a marriage of their own will, then who is to say they can’t? After all, love is love? Right? You can argue against the inbred offspring, but what if both agreed to get themselves sterilized before they entered into a union? Who is to deny two people who love each other their right to marry?

            You also danced around the subject of polygamy too, my troll friend.

          • Ultimoqueso

            Holy crap.

          • Josh

            Nor do same-sex erotic relationships and covenants of matrimony.

          • Themetalheartstrings

            The more you talk, the more it is clear that you don’t have arguments or justifications, just accusations and “declarative statements.” Please stop.

          • bcisaldb

            No.

          • Themetalheartstrings

            Unreasonable troll is unreasonable. LOL

          • bcisaldb

            Yep.

          • Guest

            Such a troll.

          • bcisaldb

            Mmhmm.

          • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

            if he’s a troll you know you could just stop feeding in…different strokes for different folks. yes catholics do not believe that a gay couple can have a sacramental marriage, but i think we should all be able to agree that America is not a theocracy and a man who lives his life with another man (living in sin, like men and women do all the time after after some years are automatically granted legal rights) deserve to benefit the same ways that “sacramentally” married couples do. Call me a liberal (no, wait, please please don’t) or not a good Catholic.

            So long as the government isn’t forcing these marriages or civil unions into the church (which could very well happen with Obama in the white house, so vote RONPAUL!), living next to gay married dudes is the same as living next to anyone else who we recognize as living in some kind of sin.

            The reason I like this post is because it simply proves there is no BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN argument for gay marriage. I’m sure Marc would disagree, but to me this post doesn’t disprove the idea that people of every orientation in a secular country can’t have secular marriages/unions/spray tan baptisms.

            But there is also no biblical argument in favor of staying inside and being drunk all day -yet some people function that way, its a sin, and we aren’t lobbying against it.

            Instead of calling names because you can hide behind the internet and making Catholics look stupid or bigoted, can people please try speaking in love? Even if it’s to a troll.

            Trolls need love too!

          • bearing

            Somebody doesn’t understand what “absurdum” means.

          • bcisaldb

            Reductio ad absurdam is not the same thing as satire.

          • CPE Gaebler

            And using an analogy which includes both gay people and animals is not pure unadulterated hate. But you learned a nice trick.

          • bcisaldb

            Yes. It is. It’s intentionally meant to degrade and demean and dehumanize. But, hey, if that’s what you think, then when your father fucks your postmenopausal mother, it’s pretty much the same as him fucking a cow in the barn. On a lot of levels…

            And that wasn’t hateful at all, right…?

          • guest

            Just to point out, there have been multiple people explaining that the comparison isn’t between gay marriage and bestiality. Merely that the argument being made above offers no distinction as to one is ok and one is not, and needs to be clarified. No-one here is comparing, or implying a similarity between bestiality and homosexuality. Assuming another’s intentions in an argument and then saying they’re hateful, all the while cursing up a storm in your own, and also drawing up false comparisons, is really no way to have a real debate.

          • bcisaldb

            Bullshit.

            There’s no need for THAT analogy if your Church’s teachings are right. Actually, your own Church teaches that reducing gay people to something less than human is wrong, and that analogy specifically does exactly that.

            So try again.

            Instead of desperately trying to justify the analogy, make the same argument without using it, or comparing a gay relationship to incest or pedophilia.

            Can you do that?

            Or does your argument rely on dehumanizing gay people and on fostering division and fear?

            Which is it?

          • Tally Marx

            Marc made the argument already, in another post.
            I’m sorry, but you are the one equating homosexuality with bestiality and incest. If you did not think they were the same thing, you could come up with an argument that justifies the former without justifying the latter as well. As it is, your argument treats them all as the same thing and justifies them all.

          • bcisaldb

            No, it doesn’t.

            There is no argument against gay marriage.

            Gay people are human beings and benefit from living in marriage with the person they’ve chosen to share their lives with exactly as straight people do.

            That has nothing to do with bestiality — which, btw, is neither “straight” nor “gay”. If straight marriage didn’t lead to people wanting to marry animals, then there’s no reason to believe gay marriage would lead to such a thing. It’s a stupid, ugly, hateful argument, and the ONLY purpose in making it is to paint gay people as something not fully human, something “other”.

          • CPE Gaebler

            See, there’s exactly the difference, and why your criticism of that ill-advised analogy is nonsense. Because the analogy is drawing a comparison on one and only one level, and does not imply any further similarities. That is why you are a waste of everyone’s time.

          • bcisaldb

            Bullshit. The analogy makes zero sense in this country. Maybe you’re from some backwater third world nation where people are allowed to marry animals, but that’s not THIS country.

            When you claim that gay marriage is a “slippery slope” to state-recognized marriages between humans and animals, you place gay people somewhere below straight people and above animals on that “slippery slope”.

            That’s what the analogy IS.

            You’re just too stupid to think it through.

          • Tally Marx

            You seem to be mistaking “analogy” with “allegory”. I request an English course to remedy the situation.

          • bcisaldb

            No, I’m not.

          • BCSWowbagger

            See, that’s a fair analogy in response. Not a very good one, and obviously written out of anger, but you seem to have grasped what the pith of the argument is: what clearly identifiable, morally significant, substantive difference is there between sexual intercourse with a sterile person, a fertile person, a member of the same sex, or an animal?

            I’m not going to try to answer that, because I don’t want to wade into a conversation in progress, but you finally seem to understand what the conversation is *about*, bcisaldb.

            Notice how I’m *not* offended by your drawing an analogy between my parents’ sexual intercourse and bestiality. In certain extremely important respects, the act is identical in both cases. In certain other extremely important respects, it is not. Our work here is to identify which of those respects is relevant to the morality of intercourse and same-sex marriage in general, so, while your analogy is clearly made in anger, it is in no way hateful.

          • Kate1

            Interesting. I think you are evil. When you try to force others, especially children, to swallow perversity, such as homosexuality, then you are possessed, perverted and warped yourself.

          • bcisaldb

            Honey, I ain’t trying to force children to, ah, swallow anything. Too bad the same thing can’t be said for some of your priests.

            Gay people exist. God created them. Take it up with Him, and tell Him what a big possessed, perverted, warped, evil God He is.

            That you teach your children that gay people are possessed, perverted and warped is pretty damned sad.

            The good news is that, with parents like you, those kids will end up running far, far away from the Catholic Church as soon as they’re able.

          • Alyosha Nevskeyev

            Too bad the same can’t be said of a far higher percentage of the general male population, stepfathers, boyfriends, and especially teachers than the population of Catholic priests. People can lie their way into the priesthood, sadly, and even priests can succumb to temptation.

            You have made an interesting set of assumptions. First, you assume a statement that may be true, that homosexuality is caused by genetics. I do not deny this possibility. The second assumption, however, is that because in the world as it is now, some people have disordered desires, God created them that way. This is the assumption I find quite interesting. The Christian tradition from which I come, that is, Orthodoxy, understands that sin leads to evil. Sin is cosmic. It affects the whole of creation. So therefore, I must protest your second assumption. It is quite possible that the sins of mankind, that the fallenness of the world, has caused nature’s course to go awry in the genetic code of some individuals. God makes no evil thing. God is not a tempter. When one sins, even if it is alone, the sin first not only introduces evil to the soul of the one who commits it, but its effects ripple out in such a way that one can never know the extent to which they have caused the present damage in the world. It may very well be accurate to say that one should never revile another person, no matter how evil, because one cannot know if one’s own sin has not been the cause of their evil.

          • JoFlemings

            Not my kids, not one of the thirteen of them. I teach my children that homosexual attraction is disordered, and that to act on disordered inclinations is to separate oneself from God. To separate oneself from God is to endanger one’s soul and to lose the only source of true happiness in human existence.
            And throwing the bad priest card, well why don’t we talk about the number of homosexual poster children in jail for domestic assault? Or dying of AIDS from interacting with multiple sexual partners? Or how about the percentages of homosexual ‘monogamous unions that disintegrate in fact homosexual monogamous unions are almost a myth, that some might compare in magnitude oh you know to maybe Noah’s ark. Want some statistics? You show me yours I’ll show you mine.
            How about you prove your vitriolic apologetic, here for a change, instead of freely castigating everyone else without addressing the actual argument?

      • Tom

        He wasn’t comparing gay people to animals. He was taking Mr. Olser’s argument to an extreme extent: If we don’t have the divine moral authority to deny sacramental marriage from two men, then how can we deny it from a man and his dog? Whether you agree with that or not, Cole was not equating homosexuals with animals.

        • bcisaldb

          Cole was absolutely equating homosexuals with animals. We don’t extend marriage to animals, therefore it’s not even an issue. It’s a cheap shot, a poorly disguised, hateful, bigoted, evil statement, and you know it and Cole knows it. You’re disgusting.

          • Tom

            Well, I can see you’re not going to be reasonable, calling other people names and all….

          • bcisaldb

            I don’t reason with hateful little shits. You’re not worth it. You’re pure hate, pure evil. That’s who and what you are. That’s all I need to know about you.

          • Jay E.

            You don’t reason period.

          • bcisaldb

            With grubby little nobodies like you? Never.

          • Cal-J

            You heard it here first, folks.

          • amcraig

            Yeah, honestly, for people who “aren’t worth it,” this person sure likes talking at us a lot!

          • bcisaldb

            Nope, just cluttering up the comboxes and derailing the hate-fest, is all. Talking “at” you is exactly right, kitty-kat.

          • amcraig

            Haha, derailing, instantiating, same thing, right?

          • bcisaldb

            Nope.

          • bearing

            So you’re admitting you’re a troll, then?

            That was easy.

          • bcisaldb

            Sure. Got you to respond, didn’t I? What does that make you?

          • CPE Gaebler

            So you invent a reason to hate people and then puke all over them, but it’s OK that you’re not being unreasonable because they’re terrible because of your good reason to hate them that totally isn’t made up to make you feel superior.

            OK, dude, whatever floats your boat.

          • bcisaldb

            Uh-huh.

          • A Sailor

            If we’re a bunch of “hateful little shits,” then what are you doing here!? Our evil bigoted hatred might infect you!

          • bcisaldb

            Keep reading.

          • Jake E

            You are killing your credibility, which I want to thank you for but really I just feel sorry for you. You are, at this moment, proving Catholics right about anti-Catholicism. You are spewing hatred, which in itself is biased.

            Let’s for one moment make the assumption that I am an evil bigot; your hatred of me could arguably be justified. But even still, historically responding with hatred to hatred does not work.

            I truly with all my heart wish to respect you. Get off the internet, take a shower and a deep breathe, punch a few walls, and come back if you want to.

          • bcisaldb

            Broken record….

          • Ultimoqueso

            Speaking of broken records…

          • Alyosha Nevskeyev

            I am curious, sir, how you have come to the conclusion that we are “pure hate” and “pure evil”. I think that refuting that we are purely evil would be fairly easy, for Mother Theresa of Calcutta, even if she must have been hateful in your view, obviously did a lot of good and was at least somewhat good.

            It is true, there is a huge amount of hate that comes out of the Christian community towards homosexuals. It’s wrong. I am sorry that I have, at points, started to feel such things. I am sorry that we have hated. I am sorry that we even now continue to hate. I am sorry that in the future we will hate. To deny that we have not all given in, at points, to hate that which we oppose would be untrue. I do not know if anyone has ever apologized to you for the hate that we have spewed, and continue to spew, and will spew. If so, let me be the first, and if not, let me add my voice to those of the others.

            You have, however, also called us evil. I am glad that we can agree that there are some things that are objectively evil, in this case, hate. Hate, I understand, is wrong because the natural goal of the human being is complete, total, self-sacrificial love, and hate diverts a person from his natural goal. It is wrong because it is not in accordance with the nature of Christ.

            However, based on this same conception of good and bad (I do not say “evil” for the word is too often misused, and we have in the modern age deluded ourselves into thinking that it is right to hate a man because he is evil, rather than love and pity him all the more for his fallenness), I also believe that, because it leads man away from his natural goal, homosexual acts are not good.

            I would ask, since you, it appears, do not believe in the dictates of natural law nor Christianity, how you come to the conclusion that hate is evil.

          • bcisaldb

            Hating an entire group of fellow human beings because of their sexual orientation is evil. Period. That you don’t believe that to be true shows me what you are.

          • Alyosha Nevskeyev

            I agree that it is not good to hate on a group of people for their sexual orientation. Or any other characteristic, for that matter. Including the characteristic of hating on homosexuals.

            We believe the same; I am merely curious as to how you have come to your conclusion that hate is bad, since it is quite obviously not the same route as my reasoning.

          • Freeatlast
          • Jay E.

            Read Cole’s point. He’s demonstrating that Olser’s concept of marriage can be applied to anything, not just human beings.

          • bcisaldb

            Except that only human beings get married. So what he’s really doing is pretending he’s all intellekshual and all while he’s sneaking in his ugly-minded belief that gay people aren’t human beings.

          • Jay E.

            Only men and women get married. People have “married” their pets, even their houses… does this make it a “marriage” just because people call it that? No. So does calling it marriage when it’s between two men or two women automatically make it marriage?

          • bcisaldb

            Yes. Only men and women get married. Straight men and women. Gay men and women. No state or religious organization in the US recognizes “marriage” between a man or woman and an animal.

          • Jay E.

            And no state or religious organization should recognize a “marriage” between two men or two women. There isn’t such a thing.

          • bcisaldb

            There is. I’m living next door to gay men who’ve been married probably longer than you’ve been alive.

          • amcraig

            What makes them married?

          • bcisaldb

            Their commitment to each other and, oh, yeah, their marriage license and certificate.

          • amcraig

            So if the gov recognized that woman’s relationship with the Eiffel Tower as a marriage, then it would be a marriage?

          • Kate1

            And I live in Utah where my next door neighbor has 5 wives. They have been “married” longer than anyone I know. Your point?

          • bcisaldb

            Exactly. Marriage isn’t only between one man and one woman.

          • JoFlemings

            No, marriage is not open to redefinition by the state or by idividuals. The Catholics here merely state again what is the objective truth about the married state. It is not possible for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. What is going on there is not marriage, regardless of what the state determines. Again let me be clear, the state has no right to redefine marriage as anything other than it is. It is not open for discussion, debate or change. The whole debate is ridiculous. And those of you, bcisaldb, I warn you will bring down the judgement of God on your own heads if you do not repent and be converted. I warn you, repent. You have placed yourself outside the kingdom of God in advocating for what is an abomination to God, and contrary to God’s will, word, teaching, and Church. Repent, your soul is in danger of the fire of hell. I beg you as one who cares for your welfare.

          • Alexandra

            Do you not understand the fact that we live in a secular country? The State has every right to redefine secular marriage. It’s doing it too, and in 50 yrs you’ll all look just as hateful as the people who opposed inter-racial marriage.

          • Jake E

            Ma’am, we are the Catholic Church. We simply do not give a damn what the world thinks.

          • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

            I have to say that I agree, as a Catholic I believe sacramental marriage to be between a man and a woman. I also believe communion to be the consuming of the body and blood of christ, but that doesnt stop non catholic churches who do not believe in the real presence of the eucharist from having “communion” services.

            I also believe in a trinitarian bapstism, but that will not stop a cult from baptizing a person in purple flavor aid or whatever stuff people do outside of the church.

            as a joke, i signed my dog up to be a secular humanist minister -i thought it was funny because he is not a human and cannot perform any religious ceremony, but if I was 4 years old and wanted my dog to preside over a Barbie wedding I am free to do that. No it isnt marriage in the way the Church sees it, but Barbie isn’t in the church. and neither is my dog (apparently he is a secular humanist).
            Jesus was born under the law of Moses, and lived under the law of moses, and probably believed homosexuality to be immoral because that was the teaching of the law of moses. But those NOT born under the law of Moses were not expected to live by the law.

            To me that says that while we as christians can say “that’s immoral!” we can’t expect or try to force others to live under a law that they do not see themselves as part of. Right? Maybe I’m wrong.

          • Alexandra

            I liked that reply.
            :)

          • Kate1

            Yes. We live in a secular country. All the more reason why “marriage” contracts should not be regulated by the State, gay or straight. Marriage is a religious concept.

          • Luka Alexandrovich Nevskeyev

            I love it when people equate those who oppose gay marriage and those who opposed interracial marriage. It means I can point out all the similarities between the pro-slavery movements and the pro-abortion movements. Slave owners argued against banning slavery with “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave.” Slavery defined personhood by an arbitrary standard of personhood not based on being human, in this case, race. The same redefinition allowed for the rise of the Nazis, Communists, and instigators of all the other great institutionalized evils of the past few centuries.

            Moreover, there is a huge difference between defining marriage based upon a non-relevant criterion–race–and the most relevant criterion, sex, considering in large part marriage is about sex.

          • Victoria McLeod

            So tell me, JoFlemings, do you eat shellfish? According to Leviticus, eating shellfish is an abomination in the eyes of god (yes, uncapitalized, get over it), yet your community has been eating shellfish for the past, what, 2000 years, and nothing had ever happened es to you. How do you explain that?

          • Victoria McLeod

            Also, I really don’t need you to care for my welfare; that’s what Social Security is for.

          • JoFlemings

            Check back with me, Victoria, after you read the whole Bible and can then correctly and in context quote it chapter and verse, like the book of whatever it was you are evidently a scholar in. After you catch up with the rest of us in Acts with St. Peter and graduate to St. Paul on the Levitical law and its place in the Church of Jesus Christ in the post-resurrection era, when you have acquired some useful knowledge in order to participate in this debate we can progress on to the concepts of the fulfillment of the levitical law in Jesus Christ, the law He proclaimed that will not pass away until the end of time, and the law binding on the believer for salvation.

          • Kate1

            He didn’t say gay people weren’t human beings. Nowhere in the article was that mentioned!

          • bcisaldb

            No, Cole said it, and it was to Cole that I originally responded. Reading is fundamental…

          • David J Morgan

            maybe you are right on one count – perhaps the bestiality analogy is not all that constructive. not that Marc used it. and I think other arguments hold up anyway.

            you have some pretty fair dinkum hate inside you though. you call people lots of things but I think its true that it takes one to know one…

            peace man

          • bcisaldb

            Oh…so it’s okay to equate gay people with animals and gay relationships with bestiality, pedophilia and incest, but to tell someone who does that to fuck off is the “real” hate…?

            Guess I know where you stand…

          • Jake E

            You are killing your credibility, which I want to thank you for but really I just feel sorry for you. You are, at this moment, proving Catholics right about anti-Catholicism. You are spewing hatred, which in itself is biased.

            Let’s for one moment make the assumption that I am an evil bigot; your hatred of me could arguably be justified. But even still, historically responding with hatred to hatred does not work.

            I truly with all my heart wish to respect you. Get off the internet, take a shower and a deep breathe, punch a few walls, and come back if you want to.

          • bcisaldb

            See — still can’t make your argument unless you get to dehumanize gays…

            All this nonsense is just about you wanting what you believe is your religious right to hate gays and think they’re not really human beings.

          • Ultimoqueso

            I understand you’re a troll, but I’ve always been curious about people who think that there are immense crowds of people boiling over with hatred.

            In all seriousness (ha, right), how many people, in your opinion, are involved in this secret hate-cult whose purpose is to make gay people miserable?

          • ChristendomStudent

            We don’t at present extend marriage to two humans of the same sex. Expanding definitions of what is and isn’t a marital use of the sexual faculty is exactly what is at stake here.

            That is why the analogy holds such that we can graft the same argument that is made for gay marriage onto a putative argument for bestiality and show thereby that, as an argument, it lacks some necessary subtlety to avoid being easily abused.

            This does not necessarily preclude gay marriage, just one particular argument for it. That being said, since our law is built on precedent, it is not enough simply to do the right thing; we must do the right thing for the right reason. Otherwise the precedent could turn against us.

          • bcisaldb

            US law does not recognize animals as autonomous individuals. Still a non-starter of an argument. The comparison ONLY works if you have equated human beings with animals, and in this case that’s exactly what you did — equated gay people with animals.

          • bearing

            Now I’m *sure* you don’t understand what “absurdum” means in this context. It’s clearly not going to work to explain the reasoning to you, because you are denying the possibility that the argument was made in good faith.

          • Gene Fadness

            I understand both points being made here. But if you want to charitably persuade people that that state of marriage cannot biologically exist between persons of the same sex, no matter how much they love each other, why compare their relationship to that between a human and an animal. You only offend and lose any chance at persuasion.

          • Namg3

            That is why one should use polygamy or incest as more valid comparables to homosexual ‘marriage’.

          • bcisaldb

            No. It’s why, if your Catechism is true, you can state your case without having to reach for extreme and offensive analogies in the first place. That you have to resort to extreme and offensive analogies only shows that there’s something wrong with your Catechism in the first place.

          • Kate1

            How is it offensive comparison? Sorry, but you lose. If you don’t like our Catachism, then go find a forum or a church that teaches what you want to heat. That love is love. It doesn’t matter if you love your brother, five women at once, your sister, or a dog, its ok, because its “love” and “love is beautiful” full of rainbows and unicorns! But please, go find your niche in society, just leave us and our children alone and stop infesting our airwaves every gosh damn second about how sodomy is normal.

          • bcisaldb

            Equating gay people to animals is in direct oppostion to everything your Catechism teaches. It’s beyond offensive. If you’re a Christian, it’s sinful.

            That the only way you can make your case is to demean, degrade and dehumanize gay people only proves that there’s something wrong with your argument in the first place.

            Argue it without making hateful, evil statements about gay people. If it’s a solid argument, you can do it. Go ahead.

          • Dave

            Who are you to judge consenting adults? Your language is extreme and offensive towards the polyamorous and the incestuous – using your own standard.

          • bcisaldb

            Hardly. You’re the one who sees gay people as incapable of emotional intimacy.

            You’re the one who prides himself on his ability to “prove” that gay people are not as fully human as straight people.

          • JoFlemings

            You know what- homosexual acts are a perversion. They are contrary to natural law, so when a person acts contrary to his nature- as God created him, he behaves even less like an animal- more like something unnatural or depraved- demonic, or enslaved to the demonic is the word that comes to mind. And the same word comes to my mind in the necessity to even argue the point of what is perverse or contrary to nature and what is not. Homosexual acts are not something that have ever been accepted or understood, even among those who have practiced them, as normative. If you look back on the history of Sodom and Gomorrah, you get a pretty clear picture- smelling of smoke and sulfur, of how God views the society that embraces this as an acceptable expression of human sexuality. This is a very serious red flag for western civilization, and we ignore it or propose alternative BS as an explanation at our significan peril. I sympathize with disordered inclinations- my soul is full of them. But I am sorry even though I might want X, Y, or Z that is forbidden– really BAD— I in no way ever want to hear someone try to tell me that God is ok with my wicked desires and that those few of us who are enlightened and ok with the twisted and despicable are really the only good people on the planet. Even at my most conflicted I would rather die than be a prisoner whole-heartedly given over to my sins. It is the utmost in evil to make prideful apologetic for what God has clearly forbidden as contrary to His will.

          • bcisaldb

            Well, by your definition, whatever or whoever sticks it into your filthy cunt must be Super Double Depraved…

            You’re lower than an animal, you sick freak.

          • JoFlemings

            Wow that’s special. I am sure your mom would be impressed with your debate finesse and your adept use of the English language.
            Hmmm. “Lower than an animal”…. let’s say ‘insect’ for the sake of argument, or ‘worm’ how about that? And a “sick freak”, ok well that all maybe true- I am totally lower than a worm, or I’ll even give you cockroach- lower than a cockroach, and as far as sick freak goes- amen, amen, amen- you have me totally figured out. But you know what that doesn’t change anything about the Truth that I have very plainly stated here, it only goes to show that if the God of the Universe who was willing to allow Himself to die to save a sick freaky insect like me, is willing to communicate with us in this context here and now, if that same God loves me and loves you, we all ought to all sit up and take notice of what He says, and what He wants. If it were up to me to make it up believe me it wouldn’t dignify worms and insects like me- right there you have a God who must love you an awful lot if He was willing to show you so flagrantly how much He loves and shares Himself with those so clearly inferior to you. How much more of what is high exalted and filled with the Glory of the Eternal waits for you when you conform your mind to His?
            (I’m pretty sure He doesn’t have the same sentiments about my married life that you have expressed so eloquently here, which is why I freely assume you have yet to understand Him.) You know life is short and bad things happen to people who don’t expect them- I will tell you again, with all the conviction I can come up with in a combox- your soul is in danger. Repent.

          • bcisaldb

            My mother has been dead for over 20 years. I’m sure she doesn’t care.

            My soul is fine. You worry about yours, which is not so fine. It’s filthy. Just like your mind and body. You’re a hateful piece of crap, happy to “save” all those poor souls by saying that they’re even more perverted than people who fuck animals.

            Always nice to know what the Church is teaching these days.

          • JoFlemings

            Your soul is clearly not fine. And Mary the Mother of Jesus Our Savior and therefore, now Our Mother, cares ALOT about that, even if your own biological mother doesn’t.
            And yes, I do very much need to go to Confession, myself.
            I don’t hate you, and I am trying not to hate anyone, least of all people who are confused and lost, or even outright rebellious. For the record the word ‘perverse’ means contrary to nature. I used that word because there is a distinction between same sex acts which are unnatural and unlawful acts which are natural but still gravely sinful, such as adultery and fornication. You can’t normalize homosexual acts- they are an abomination to God. He said that, I am not making this up because it fits my agenda. Why would Christians spend so much time trying to explain this- it’s not like we need the abuse. The fact is there is no time when a follower of Jesus Christ can with integrity say otherwise, and still actually be a follower of Jesus Christ. Same with abortion, it is never a morally acceptable option. Homosexual acts are NEVER a morally acceptable option.

          • bcisaldb

            ~yawn~

            Did you say something…?

          • Alyosha Nevskeyev

            Oh, how I wish I could give you an onion right now. To think of oneself as righteous…I can barely fathom the horror. This is paradise: to be guilty before all for everything, and yet still all things forgive you, for nature is merciful as her Creator is merciful.

          • Victoria McLeod

            Wow, you really are a cunt

          • JoFlemings

            Victoria, that is an extremely undignified comment. You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • Kate1

            Its also nice to know what the perverts teach these days. You are a complete pervert. You are know different than a pedophile. Now troll elsewhere.

          • Kate1

            *no different

          • bcisaldb

            So you’re accusing me of being a pedophile? Bearing false witness? Making actionable statements?

            Prove it. Or fuck off, cunt. This isn’t your blog.

          • Johnbob

            So, you’re raging about Marc supposedly comparing gay folks to animals, yet here you are calling JoFlemings LOWER than an animal…. hmmm…

            To paraphrase iRobot, your logic is undeniable, and undeniably wrong!

          • bcisaldb

            No, I was originally replying to Cole, who equated gay people with animals. I just tossed Jo’s own words back in her repulsive face.

          • Alyosha Nevskeyev

            Seeing as how you’ve never seen Jo’s face, I’m curious as to how you can make a value judgement as to her face’s relative attractiveness. I suppose, though, you were just making the rather awkward mistake of mixing up one’s beliefs and one’s face. Clearly, I think it is her beliefs, and not her face, you feel are repulsive.

            I must remind you, however, that how you feel about her beliefs (repulsed) in no way affects whether her beliefs are true. It is quite possible that what she says is true and you simply do not like what she has to say.

          • bcisaldb

            She’s been around, dear. She’s a hateful little cunt. Period.

          • Luka Alexandrovich Nevskeyev

            I’ll spare you making stalker jokes lampooning the fact that you would have to have been up to some strange activities recently to know that, and just point out that ignorant, hateful statements are hateful and ignorant.

          • Kate1

            Troll.

          • bcisaldb

            Cuntwhore.

          • Luka Alexandrovich Nevskeyev

            Unless said person is her husband. Then it’s awesome, and I highly approve.

          • bcisaldb

            Who would be so desperate to marry that they’d marry that pile of rotting flesh?

          • Luka Alexandrovich Nevskeyev

            What pile of rotting flesh are we talking about? I thought I’d gotten rid of that squirrel I’d shot a few days ago…

            Oh, you were talking about Jo. I think it’s quite obvious she is not, in fact, a pile of rotting flesh.

            Answer to your question: whoever her husband is.

          • Dave

            I do not recall him saying it is okay to own homosexuals as pets. So no – he was not equating homosexuals with animals. Just because you keep saying it does not make it true. Your refusal to follow an argument does not make anyone disgusting who disagrees with you.

          • bcisaldb

            When ANYONE makes the argument that allowing gay people to marry is tantamount to allowing people to marry animals, and that gay sexual relationships are the same as practicing bestiality, they are equating gay people with animals.

            I’m not saying it. Several oh-so-holy CATHOLICS are saying it.

            I’m saying it’s wrong to use the analogy in the first place because it dehumanizes and degrades gay people and because it totally undermines your own argument.

            I’m following the argument just fine. You’re so brainwashed to hate gay people that you can’t even see what you’re actually saying.

          • Luka Alexandrovich Nevskeyev

            No one has said that they are the same. Rather, it has been noted that gay sexual relationships and sexual relationships with animals have certain characteristics in common: first, that they are acts that bring sexual pleasure, but, second, these are also acts that titilate sexual lusts without any possibility of allowing sex to reach its natural goal: reproduction. Even if sticking food up one’s nose were pleasurable, it would not be good for the organism to do so, for in doing this it would be misusing its nose in such a way that the nose could not fulfill its function, breathing and smelling, and the food also would not be fulfilling its natural goal, digestion and fuel for the organism.

            I will again note that I do not think gay people are animals. I do not think gay marriage is the same thing as bestiality. I know people who struggle with same-sex attraction, but that’s ok, because where I come from we’re especially fond of them and want the best for them. Like we’re especially fond of everyone and therefore want the best for everyone. It’s because I want the best for them that I tell them that gratifying the sexual desire, created good but bent by the fallenness of the world to attempt to have sex with someone of the same sex (which, from the standpoint of natural law above, isn’t really even possible), should not be gratified, but rather remind them that all acts must be able to achieve their natural goal, and the act of sex can only achieve its natural goal, reproduction, when undertaken with a woman.

          • bcisaldb

            Yes, and there are certain things the Catholic Church hierarchy has in common with NAMBLA — that’s not offensive, right…right…?

            My point is that there is no need to go to the bestiality comparison at all. None. The ONLY possible reason people go there is because they want to make gay people seem less human, seem something “other” than themselves.

            And that’s exactly why they do it. It’s acceptable bigotry and hate speech among Catholic circles.

            It’s wrong. And it needs to stop. The Church has become a joke because of people who use this kind of rhetoric. America is slowly (not so slowly, actually) but surely rejecting the Catholic Church. And that rhetoric is why. We see what you really are, what you really think and what you really believe, and it is in direct opposition to everything America stands for.

          • Luka Alexandrovich Nevskeyev

            Nope, it isn’t offensive. I’m not Catholic. I’m Orthodox. Even if it was offensive, I wouldn’t care if it also happened to be true. Besides, unless the common traits of both is a bad characteristic, then there is no reason to be offended. I am not offended to be called a man because Adolf Hitler was also a man.

            I agree that it is not a good place to take the argument. Especially the way some people have worded it. Yes, there is a difference, and there have been a good number of people who haven’t been good at noting that fact.

            I’m not sure that it is the only reason to take the argument there. They were attempting to note that certain strains of logic used to justify one could justify the other. That being said, making the comparison in the first place is a bad idea.

            It seems rather prejudicial of you to assume that hate is the reason for such speech and to immediately discount all other possibilities without due consideration. You assume a hidden agenda of hate where none need exist and where, to the best of my knowledge, one does not exist.

            Again, I’m not Catholic. I’m Orthodox. I think that Catholics have had so many problems because they aren’t Orthodox enough. That being said, I value truth more than Americanism, though I was born in the country of the United States of America. If you reject Christianity, however, it will not be because you have seen us as we truly are. It will be because you have prejudiced yourself into blindness.

          • bcisaldb

            Thank you for agreeing that the Catholic Church hierarchy promotes the same sexual predatory message as NAMBLA and that they conspire to procure children for their own sexual pleasure. Nice to see someone finally admit it.

          • Luka Alexandrovich Nevskeyev

            I don’t even know what the NAMBLA is. Moreover, your blatant abuse of the parts-whole fallacy here is bringing on the beginnings of nausea. Clearly, I was not accusing the Catholic Church of being sexually predatory. Go read some Aristotle, learn to reason, then come back here and try to talk with adults like a big boy.

          • Deven Kale

            NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association. A small group of homosexual pedophiles who wish, among other things, to repeal age of consent laws and therefore allow them to prey on young boys.

          • Dave

            If you had any credibility you lost it when you accused me being brainwashed saying I hate gay people. You know absolutely nothing about me and you cannot possibly have the required information to know such things about me.

            Saying one thing is analogous to another is not the same as equating one thing to another. It is basic logic that my 6 year old can understand.

            The point is that calling any sexual/emotional relationship marriage does not make it so. Marriage means something and always has. Calling something that is not marriage “marriage” is make believe – it is play marriage.

            Using the body of someone of the same sex (or opposite) or anyone or anything else (whether you feel affection for them or not) in a masturbastory manner is not sex. So in that way homosexual gratification and any other type of non-sex “sex” can be compared. It does not equate a person with a whatever. But it does draw attention to the fact that such acts are actually what is dehumanizing.

          • bcisaldb

            Saying gay relationships are analogous to bestiality IS saying gay people have more in common with people who fuck animals than they do with straight people.

            You can’t recognize the full humanity of gay people and your comment about gay people only being able to use their partners as “masturbatory material” proves that. You can’t even acknowledge that gay people are as capable of love as straight people are.

            But maybe that’s because YOU’RE the one who is incapable of love. You can only see sex as some utilitarian agricultural endeavor, or “masturbatory” in nature. You clearly have NO idea what a truly intimate relationship is, but then you couldn’t possibly, could you?

            It is YOU who dehumanize gay people, not gay relationships that are dehumanizing.

          • Dave

            First get a dictionary and look up analogy.

            You are the only one dehumanizing anyone. I spoke of objective biological facts. You then chose to personalize it and tell me how I am emotionally sub-human.

            I dehumanized no one. You did. In fact you demonize those who disagree with your emotional fits. There was nothing rational or reasonable in what you just wrote.

            Fully human people debase themselves in many different ways. That is reality. Using non-sex organs as sex organs is one way this is done.

          • bcisaldb

            I know what analogy means, and comparing two completely unrelated issues is not an analogy.

            You have done nothing but INSIST that it’s perfectly fine to place gay people along a continuum, or on a slope, somewhere between straight people and animals.

            You’re a hateful, evil little liar.

          • Dave

            I will have you know I am 6 feet tall. And I am not hateful… there is plenty more room in here for more.

            Btw, you are wrong. And you need to drink much less…or more.

          • Victoria McLeod

            Sorry, tall boy, but bcisaldb is the only one arguing from reason here. Your argument originatesfrom dogmatic indoctrination and from the dehumanizing belief that gay sex is not sex, but something along a continuum toward bestiality. YOU are the only one who cannot see that your analogy IS hateful.
            Thinking like this isn’t going to get you very far with women, even if you are six feet tall.

          • Dave

            Vie,

            Hate to break it to you, but my wife agrees with me not you. And she happens to be a women.

          • Tally Marx

            “We don’t extend marriage to animals , therefore, it’s not even an issue.”

            It wasn’t an issue for homosexuality, either, until recently. Whose to say that bestiality won’t become an issue in the same manner? That is the point. Your argument is a big gaping hole in the wall that doesn’t support marriage between people with same sex attraction, but anything anyone wants to call “marriage”. Your argument is as applicable to bestiality as to homosexuality. If you find that insulting and disgusting, narrow your argument; you made it.

          • bcisaldb

            Again, you equate gay people to animals.

            Animals are not recognized as citizens with rights in this country. It’s not an issue.

            The gaping hole in YOUR argument is that you equate gay people to animals — or, at best, to something somewhere between fully human and an animal. If gay marriage is a “slippery slope”, that’s the ONLY interpretation of your argument.

            Either gay people are every bit as human as straight people, have exactly the same rights as straight people, or they’re something less, hence your “slippery slope” with gay people falling somewhere midway along that slope.

            Insert black people for gay people. See what an ugly-minded bigot you are?

          • Tally Marx

            It’s not comparing gay people to animals.
            It is comparing the argument for same sex marriage to the argument for bestial marriage.
            It’s a comparison of arguments, not homosexuals and animals. It’s meant to disqualify an argument for same sex marriage, not the issue of SSM itself.

            I don’t use the bestiality argument-comparison myself; it is too easy to misunderstand in an emotionally charged atmosphere. I can see how you could so misconstrue it. But I would appreciate it if you at least *tried* to understand it before you begin calling everyone names that make me need to kick my seven year old out the room.

          • Alexandra

            But, Tally, can you understand why it is a bad and inherently offensive argument? Not because it can be misconstrued, but because it’s offensive.

            It’s the slippery slope fallacy, and makes the assumption that if we redefine marriage as between two adults, we open up the door to opening it between an animal and an adult.

            Homosexual couples and homosexuality is not a huge jump. It’s going from two adults of opposite sex to two adults. When you say if we go from two adults of the opposite sex to two adults period we might as well go to and adult and an animal. You’re saying that the difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples is so huge that you can compare that jump from hetero to homo to the jump from hetero to zoophilia.

            You’re comparing homosexuality and zoophilia as if they are of similar moral value. That homosexual sex is just as bad as sex with animals.

            I think the place where we’re crossing wires is people think they’re making the arguement of hetero is to homo as homo is to animals and that they’re not making a direct comparison between homo and zoophilia. That’s still offensive because you’re still saying that there’s any sort of similarity between a partnership between two humans and a partnership between a human and an animal.

            Do I make sense?

          • Tally Marx

            I understand, but I do not agree.
            “It…makes the assumption that if we redefine marriage as between two adults, we open up the door to opening it between an animal and an adult.” -Alex.
            It doesn’t make an assumption about SSM at all. It makes the assumption that a specific argument will be blown out of proportion by nut jobs. And, it can be (Never underestimate the power of nut jobs!). Is the dual-application of the SSM argument out there? Indeed. Everyone here finds it so. That is the point.

            Yes, saying that bestiality and homosexuality are the same thing is wrong and highly offensive, and I would be offended if anyone were saying it. However, if a person points out that the argument can be used for both, they are not necessarily saying they themselves see a legitimate similarity. They just have an unfortunately real expectation of the absurdity of humanity and its unfortunate habit of using *anything* to justify what they want.

            Again, the comparison doesn’t have a problem with SSM. Is has a problem with a specific argument that is way too vague.

          • Alexandra

            The thing is, even from the point of view you hold of what comparisons are being made, the analogy that you chose is meaningful. It says something about your point of view to pick an analogy like Nazis or bestiality or something else distasteful instead of something neutral like rocks or teacups.

            From reading your post I get the impression that you do get that point, and chose not to use the analogy, but the problem in this combox fight is that people did use it, and then people defended the use of it.

            When someone says, “that analogy offends me”, and there is a different way to say it just as well or even better, and people don’t respond and use a different analogy it really says something.

            I know whatsherface said “That offends me” in a much more colorful way, but the correct adult response to that is to say “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it that way, but I see your point. Thank you for calling me out for the way that I could be interpreted as hateful.”

            The fact that people defended the analogy really saddens me.

          • john

            This dialog is like an episode of Supernanny. The Catholic position sounds like sounds like Supernanny seeing one of the kids playing with knives and wanting to take it away. As his parents try to take it away, the kid screams and shout and say that his parents are evil, bigoted and hateful. When trying to reason with the unreasonable child, the parents say “what if your brother were playing with loaded guns and your sister with poison?’ thinking that would get through to him. Instead the child’s tantrum grows louder as he accuses them of comparing him to gun toting poison drinking idiots and continues to shout, “I want what I want!! You’re hateful bigoted and evil!” Are those parents really hateful and bigoted, or are they acting in love and trying to do what’s best for their child? If they continue to tolerate his knife play, have they done him or anyone else a favor?

        • http://twitter.com/CCNoroz CadeCabinet Noroz

          You can deny it because it is a different species that cannot communicate. A dog cannot say “I do.” Two men, or two women, can.

          It doesn’t matter what Cole was trying to do, his formulation made it seem that if gay marriage is legalized, so will beastiality be legalized.

        • c matt

          He knows that. Makes no difference. But, the more bci responds, the better the traditional marriage crowd looks.

          Keep feeding bci!

      • Jay E.

        As opposed to Mr. Barnes, who not only cares on their behalf but also thinks on their behalf.

        • bcisaldb

          Gay people don’t need that little turd to think for them. They’re capable of thinking for themselves. How condescending and hateful can you get?

          • Jay E.

            Well, we can at least go beyond calling people “little turds” as a justification of someone’s pure embodiment of hatred and evil….

          • bcisaldb

            So can I. But why waste words when the upshot is Marc, Cole, Tom and you are evil, hateful little bigots?

          • Jay E.

            There’s no bigot like the fellow who is convinced that all around him are complete bigots.

            Would you mind explaining how Marc is a bigot? Because, what he thinks he’s right? He has an opinion? How is Marc any more of a bigot than Mr. Olser?

          • bcisaldb

            I don’t think everyone around me is a bigot. I think people who have a clear agenda in dehumanizing gay people are bigots — especially people who clearly ENJOY dehumanizing gay people.

          • Jay E.

            I totally agree with you, as does Marc. If you read his post here – http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/our-godawful-objectification-of-men-with-same-sex-attraction.html he clearly is against people who dehumanize gay people.

            One doesn’t need to be married to another of the same sex to be human. I think those who claim that are dehumanizing gays more than those who suggest that homosexual marriage doesn’t even make sense.

          • bcisaldb

            Marc tries so very desperately to pretend he’s not dehumanizing gay people, but he doesn’t quite manage because he deeply, deeply believes gay people are not fully human and don’t deserve what humans deserve.

          • bearing

            All bcisaldb is doing is attempting to de-legitimize alternative viewpoints via repetition of straw men.

          • bcisaldb

            ~yawn~

          • Jay E.

            I’m sure I hold the same opinion as Marc, being of the same religion, and I would consider it gravely sinful and wrong to consider gays less than human and I have no deep conviction that gays aren’t human. To suggest that we think so is pretty lame.

          • bcisaldb

            Then stop the gay = bestiality arguments in their tracks. But you don’t. You let them stand. And you pretend it’s okay, you rationalize and argue, blahblahblah. When I see you say “NO” when people go down that road, I’ll believe you. Until then, you’re just a gay basher.

      • amcraig

        No, he hasn’t compared homosexual acts to bestiality at all. It’s just a reductio ad absurdum – Christians can’t redefine marriage to mean whatever they want it to mean. If they did, then these possibilities (polygamy and interspecies relationships) could logically follow, and it’s generally accepted that Christians do not accept those possibilities; therefore, Christians can’t redefine marriage. I think he has actually pointed a slope that’s not so slippery. As Marc previously pointed out, once we make the definition of marriage whatever we want, we see things like http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html
        and
        http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/bride-marries-herself-more-singles-throw-solo-weddings-202200537.html

        Of course, the premise here is that polygamy and bestiality aren’t acceptable to Christians. It’s cool if we want to argue that…my point is that this wasn’t “ugly-minded filth;” Cole isn’t comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

        • bcisaldb

          Yes, he has equated gay people to animals, and you’re using “reductio ad absurdam” incorrectly.

          Cole is a filthy little shit who clearly hates gays because they’re gay. Or because he’s gay and is too chickenshit to admit it.

          He’s garbage. All I ever need to know about him is that he thinks gay people are animals, not humans.

          • Booishboos

            He’s not comparing the gay man to the animal; at worst, he’s comparing him to the man who desires an unnatural relation with the animal. That’s not saying gays are animals any more than saying people who brush their teeth are toothbrushes.

          • bcisaldb

            So…he’s not comparing gay men and women to animals, just to people who want to have sex with animals…?

            And you don’t think that’s hate?

            You’re as bad as he is.

          • Themetalheartstrings

            The point is not the object of the sexual act: of COURSE homosexuals aren’t animals. The point is the disorder of both sexual acts.

            For example: Both murder and theft are wrong. This does not mean that thieves are murderers.

            It’s hard to use examples for people who don’t understand how examples work in the first place…

          • bcisaldb

            No, it’s hard for those of us who see gay people as fully human to accept an “example” that compares them to animals and/or people who have sex with animals.

            The mistake — the very telling mistake — your lot makes is jumping to the bestiality comparison Every. Single. Time.

            That shows me what you really think of gay people. And that’s enough for me. Nothing else you say matters after that.

          • CPE Gaebler

            Why, what do YOU have against practitioners of bestiality? It almost sounds like you think they aren’t fully human and you don’t want them to be happy!

          • bcisaldb

            I don’t see them as less human. I see them as not well. I see gay men and women as perfectly normal and I do not equate a gay man having sex with his partner with a person having sex with an animal. Gay people aren’t animals. There is no analogy to be made along those lines. Once you go there, you automatically equate one person in the relationship with an animal. Why do you do that? What’s wrong with you? What are you hiding about yourself that you have to throw up that kind of smokescreen?

          • CPE Gaebler

            You’re right. I can’t keep living a lie.

            bcisaldb…
            I’m gay.
            I’m a gay man, and I love you.

          • bcisaldb

            That’s not quite gonna work out the way you think…

          • Sullymom13

            The person who desires sex with an animal is still a person worthy of respect. The act of having sex with an animal is disordered in the same way that desiring sex with a minor child is disordered, in the same way that two adult siblings desiring one another is disordered. No one is equating homosexuality to bestiality, nor am I equating it to pedophilia or incest. What is being stated is that by erasing the religious definition of sacramental marriage to include unions of SSA couples (which the church views as disordered) essentially erases the ability to define it at all. Popular consensus is not the method used to determine religious standards. This is not the church forcing it’s views on society, it is society forcefully removing my right to practice my religious beliefs.

          • bcisaldb

            Fine. Get the state out of the marriage business and the Church out of the civil union business. The state performs civil unions, and the Church performs sacramental marriages. And stays out of state business. No more “votes”. Civil unions for all citizens, regardless of their orientation. And, hey, if more than two people want to enter into some kind of domestic contract, fine. When Catholics and other Christians vote down civil unions for gay people based on their religious beliefs regarding sacramental marriage, they are overreaching. If you want to practice your religious beliefs, practice them, but stop preventing other people from practicing THEIR beliefs.

          • Sullymom13

            The Catholic “vote” is to prevent the re-definition of MARRIAGE to include SSA couples. Same sex unions are quite a common thing, at least where I live: “In California, where domestic partnership (DP) has been available to same-sex and certain opposite-sex couples since 2000, a wholesale revision of the law in 2005 made it substantially equivalent to marriage at the state level.”
            Prop 8 was passed because the above rights were not sufficient for those who demanded the right to MARRIAGE. Please tell me why this is necessary other than to undermine the chruch’s belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

          • bcisaldb

            When the Catholic Church fights to SUPPORT civil unions for all, and actively severs all ties with the state regarding marriage (currently they act as agents of the state to some extent, or deputies of sorts), then you have a leg to stand on. The Church has fought to define civil marriage by Catholic doctrine. No can do. Not in this country. Sorry. So y’all go marry how you like in your Church, follow the Church’s laws regarding those marriages, and let non-Catholics make their own arrangements. You can’t enjoy the benefits of civil marriage and work to deny those benefits to other citizens at the same time and pretend it’s just about “sacramental” marriage. Sacramentally married people can turn to the Church to untangle the messes they make — get the Church to hunt down deadbeat dads, etc. Complete separation is the only answer.

          • Alyosha Nevskeyev

            Interestingly enough, we have come to the same decision regarding this issue. I salute you for, at least in this instance, your intellectual clarity and honesty.

            Though I will point out the fact that priests can hand out civil marriages is more the fault of the state than the priests.

          • bcisaldb

            Don’t see them giving it up, though — don’t see them telling the state that they’re bowing out of the civil union business. That’s the problem — the Church LIKES the power. They want it. Actually, they want more. They want to prevent non-Catholics from obtaining civil unions. When the arrogant, power-hungry “men” of the Catholic Church get their noses out of state business, they’ll have a better argument for getting the state out of Church business.

          • CPE Gaebler

            But at least he’s not as bad as you are.
            ^____________^

          • bcisaldb

            Ya, whatever. I don’t equate gay people to animals and then justify it by some bullshit argument, or claim that God is okay with that. That’s the difference, you disgusting little fucktard.

          • CPE Gaebler

            No, instead you equate Catholics to turds. So much more loving and not a waste of everyone’s valuable time. ^_____^

          • bcisaldb

            No, just Marc.

            And if it’s a waste of your ‘valuable” time, DON’T FUCKING READ IT!

          • CPE Gaebler

            But it’s so hard to find good comedy these days!

          • bcisaldb

            Then read it. Just stop fucking whining about it, crybaby.

          • CPE Gaebler

            Aww. Is regular whining still OK?

          • amcraig

            Actually, and respectfully, I am using reductio ad absurdum correctly.

            To everyone else, I’m sorry that I’m not articulate enough to explain why Cole’s comment is not the thing of which bcisaldb is accusing it… It’s like trying to explain to someone looking at a basketball that it really is a basketball, and they just keep yelling at you that it’s an air freshener.

          • bcisaldb

            No, every time you say that gay people who have sex are the same as a person having sex with an animal, you are equating gay people with animals. There’s no getting around that. Either gay people are not animals, therefore the sex they share is NOT the same as people having sex with animals, or they are animals, etc.

            You can’t have it both ways. You keep insisting gay people having sex is the same as people having sex with animals, therefore you think gay people are the same as animals. Thank you for letting us all know what you think of gay people.

          • amcraig

            “every time you say that gay people who have sex are the same as a person having sex with an animal, you are equating gay people with animals. ”

            Agree.
            Good thing no one said that.

            (Just a reminder: “if we are, as Mr. Olsen contends, unable to restrict the sacrament based on circumstance, then no Christian can reasonably condemn polygamous or even interspecies relationships. ”
            So. All that says is: unrestricted definitions can lead us to defining a thing to mean anything we want. If you think that that says the statement I quoted from you above, then I just really am at a loss. Straw man at its blindest.)

          • bcisaldb

            Except that the definition IS legally restricted to human beings, and when you say the definition now might include animals if we include gay people, you have equated gay people with animals.

          • Alyosha Nevskeyev

            You’re going off of a different definition. They aren’t using the legal definition, but the Scriptural Christian definition, under which Marc established the post would be written at the very beginning of the article.

          • wlinden

            I don’t see anyone else saying it more times than you keep saying it. Or at all.

          • bcisaldb

            Right. And I’ll keep repeating it until you people understand that it’s a stupid, hateful, offensive, degrading, demeaning analogy.

          • Dan

            Are you an athiest?
            if so, are you a darwinist?
            (here i mean that natural selection is the confirmed driver of evolution, just to clarify this is NOT someone who accepts evoultion as a scientific theory ONLY but also agrees with his Godless athiestic Philosophy of random survival of the fitest)

            Because people who hold these beliefs tend to say that human beings are animals. So they would probably have to accept the comparasion of bestiality to homosexuality, at least on the premis that the same case is true with Hetrosexuality.

            To then say that the act of bestiality is not equal to Homosexuallity would support surivial of the fittest concept, because humans are superior to animals due to our ability to survive. But then would introduce the factor that it is through sex that we are able to reproduce and thus survive. So an act contrery of reproduction is not sex and is not a useful act. It is though the desire to reproduce that we expieriance love, in an athiestic context. So, and rather unfortunately, Same-sex attaction is an evoutionary defect.

            Technically it means that Homosexuals are less than human, in this frame work (or at least in the way i have constructed the image)

            THIS IS OBVERSELY WRONG

            Humans are not animals, your anger at the suggestion confirms this.

            The point im making here is that the initial spark of you angry was saying that an someone said Homosexuality would lead to bestiality, but if your concluding from that that Homosexuals are animals then you also have to say that hetrosexuals are animals. And as others have pointed out, we could get to a point where marriage is simply a union of two things, be it a human and brick or a leaf and a dead body.

            SO we must ask what is marriage? answer: a friutful union between a man and a woman

            if gay marriage was legal: a union between two persons who are unrealted.

            If polygamy: a union between two persons

            If Bestiality: a union between two living beings

            And if it became legal to to marry and non living object: a union of two things.

            A civil parnership between two people of the same sex gives the same rights of a marriage without the need of Babies.

            Hope that helps, God love you my friend.

          • Dan

            whoops i meant to inclued polygamy and incest but they became the same in my head sorry for the blaten mistake!!!

          • Benjammin

            No one made the connection from gay people to animals except you. We’re talking about principles and policies here. Stop trying to delegitimize the people and focus on the argument, otherwise you’re no better than any gay-basher.

          • bcisaldb

            You fucked up your own argument once you went with the bestiality analogy.

            Cole made the connection, and then others flocked to his defense, saying that a gay person who has sex with their partner is the same as a person having sex with an animal.

            Stop using the analogy, and then MAYBE you’ll get people to hear you. Once you make that analogy, no one gives a fuck about you or anything you have to say anymore.

          • Benjammin

            I don’t think I’ve made the connection of gay people to animals any more than you have in your attempt to end any and all meaningful discussion on the topic. I don’t think anyone here is comparing gays to animals. People on this blog have argued that marriage is between a man and a woman. You have argued that marriage is between any two consenting adults, thus redefining the traditional definition of marriage. Your argument begs the question, “How are we supposed to define marriage?”

            Unless there is a reasoned basis for our definition of marriage, then marriage is just some word that we could define to apply to any two beings in any state of relationship. Like all words, it is only as valuable as the meaning we assign it. So I will ask, why do you think marriage should be between any two humans, and NOT simply between a man and a woman, and NOT between any other two beings (man and sheep, sheep and sheep, etc.)? From where should we properly draw the basis for our definition of marriage?

          • Alexandra

            The purpose of legal recognition of marriage is to provide protections for two people who form an intimate partnership, live together, accumulate wealth together, and potentially raise children together. What is key is that it’s a partnership.

            Because homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality in a secular world we have to acknowledge that some percentage of the population is going to have partners of the same sex. They’re going to do exactly the same things as a heterosexual partnership, where they will live together and accumulate wealth together, and denying them the same legal protections on the basis of the fact that they are of the same sex doesn’t really make a lot of sense.

            We already recognize intimate partnerships between men and women, but legally nothing about that partnership is unique to the fact that they are of the opposite sex. You can have infertile couples who can’t have biological children together, and they aren’t denied the right to those legal protections. If you’re not going to deny the right to couples that can’t have children you cannot construct a logical argument for why you’re not denying the protections to a couple of the same sex.

          • Benjammin

            Alexandra, thanks for your response. I appreciate and agree with your points that marriage is about more than the ability to procreate, and that homosexuals deserve the same legal rights and heterosexuals in a free and secular society. A few thoughts:

            I have to question what you mean when you say that homosexuality is a “normal variation” of human sexuality. Please don’t take my asking as a sign that I think being gay is an abnormal thing, but I want to understand how exactly you are defining normal. Is homosexuality normal because (a) A large enough percentage of the population happens to be gay, thereby becoming normal because it is common; (b) because medical science has declared it a normal variation of the human condition; (c) because we simply ascribe homosexuality to be normal by our own judgment and reasoning; or (d) none of the above? The basis by which we define something as normal matters for the sake of the argument because, we are making a distinction between homosexual tendencies, and bestial tendencies. They are not the same by any stretch. So what is it, then, that makes the former “normal” and latter “abnormal”?

            The other point I might take issue with is the idea of “partnership”. I just moved in with a roommate to save money, thereby forming a partnership with him. We are not intimate by any definition; nevertheless, we have partnered up to live together and accumulate wealth by saving money on living costs. Since raising children does not define a marriage, the only thing that separates my “partnership” from your definition of marriage is intimacy. Because certainly living together and accumulating wealth are, by your definition, necessary but not sufficient for marriage, does that make intimacy the only thing that really defines marriage? Surely people can be intimate without being married. Is it the legal piece of paper? Well, then marriage is whatever the law says it is, not some absolute institution that transcends the law.

            I say all this just to show how challenging it really is to come up with a sound justification for the idea of marriage. For my part, I believe that the state should just grant equal-rights civil unions to any two people that want them, and that the state should remove “marriage” from the books and leave it to religious organizations of all types to perform marriage. Thanks for contributing to the discussion in a positive manner, and feel free to reply.

          • wlinden

            Why only two? I am still waiting for an argument more convincing than “that’s DIFFERENT!”.

            I know living, breathing polyandrists, and they did not disappear at a chant of “there’s no slippery slope, there’s no slippery slope…”

          • Alexandra

            It’s true, some day we might have to address the issue of poly-marriages. I don’t see an issue with that. That isn’t a slippery slope argument, it’s a completely reasonable one.

            Slippery slope is going from consenting adults forming marriages to adults and animals who aren’t capable of consent, or adults stuff.

          • Kate1

            And how do you feel about pedophiles?

          • bcisaldb

            You’re a sick little cunt and that you think raping children is the same as two consenting adult entering into marriage shows how filthy and foul you are, you diseased old slattern.

            That you think people who won’t hate gay people are pro-pedophilia is just another example of what a filthy, putrid little cumbucket you are. Fuck off, whore.

          • Alyosha Nevskeyev

            You clearly hate those who hate gays. You aren’t ashamed of your hate. Why do you expect others to be ashamed of their hate?

            I thought it was wrong to hate. If hating makes one garbage, are you then not yourself garbage?

          • bcisaldb

            Hating hate is different than hating gay people and preaching that they are not real human beings. Very different. Why are you going out of your way to justify and defend hating gay people?

      • Booishboos

        Um… why? If you accept the arguments for gay marriage, what could possibly be wrong with bestiality?

        • bcisaldb

          How is sex between two adults anything like sex between one adult and an animal? You don’t think there’s a difference between gay people and animals? You’re a sick, hateful piece of garbage.

          • Jay E.

            How is sex between two men anything like sex between a man and a woman? It isn’t.

          • bcisaldb

            No. And sex between any individual man and any individual woman is nothing like sex between any other individual man and every other individual woman.

            Marriage is a human institution. Gay people are human and are as capable of entering into marriage as straight people.

          • bcisaldb

            *any other individual woman.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christian-Gjernes/1400126950 Christian Gjernes

            Yes, they are. The fact remains, homosexual marriage is not marriage. It is possible for a gay man to marry a woman, but it is not possible for him to marry another man.

          • bcisaldb

            It’s not possible for a gay man or woman to honorably marry a straight person.

            Gay people are currently married, so there is such a thing as gay marriage. Maybe not in your Church, but in some states and even some churches, gay marriage exists. It is quite possible for gay people to be married, and they are.

          • Elestethane

            “And sex between any individual man and any individual woman is nothing like sex between any other individual man and every other individual woman.”

            WRONG! There is always the POTENTIAL for natural procreation.

            And you’re right, Gay people can enter into marriage as well, but it still must.

            But Marriage is the indissoluble union between one man and one woman in which there is the inherent potential for natural procreation. (age and infertility inhibit actual procreative abilities not the inherent potential). Every other relationship is NOT marriage.

            If you take away the natural procreative characteristic, then you MUST include every other relationship that falls under an indissoluble bond as marriage, that would include parent/child relationships, widowed elderly friends living as roommates, even business partners. These all could, no should, nay MUST be considered marriages given this new definition; lest you be declared as hateful and bigoted as you are now declaring us to be.

          • bcisaldb

            We don’t force people into marriages.

            Parents and children already have a legally defined relationship. Business partners already have a legally defined relationship. Elderly friends may or may not have sought legal rights regarding hospital visitation, shared property, et al., but the operative word here is “sought”.

            I don’t share the Church’s utilitarian take on human beings. According to you, marriage only exists to breed more human beings. I see human beings as more than farm animals.

            Which is where all this began…

          • Elestethane

            Of course marriage often involves so much more. But those two characteristics are the basics. The backbone. Without them, it is no longer a marriage. It is simply a really, really great friendship or whatever.

            And for the record these defining characteristics existed long before the Catholic Church came into existence.

            You say, the operative word is “sought”. Why can’t other seek out those same benefits.

            Marriage isn’t something granted by the state to a few deserving couples who fall under guidelines. You’re either married or you’re not. If you have not committed yourself to an indissoluble relationship in which there is an inherent natural potential to procreate , then you’re NOT married.

            The state doesn’t confer marriage onto people, it recognizes marriage, and encourages marriage through benefits, because marriage is the institution that is, the MOST stable, the MOST cost effective, the MOST efficient building block of society. The state is not the “Almighty Granter of Marriages”. It might try to be. But I might try to be a lot of things that I’m never going to be.

          • bcisaldb

            So marriage between a man and his menopausal wife is no longer a marriage, it’s just a “friendship” at best?

            That’s Church teaching now? Good to know.

          • Elestethane

            No, if you remember in my first comment I said it’s the inherent POTENTIAL for natural procreation. Infertility and Age-induced infertility inhibit actual procreation, not the inherent potential.

          • bcisaldb

            Gay men and women have the potential to procreate.

          • Elestethane

            But not an inherent natural potential.

          • http://twitter.com/jdouglasj J. Douglas Johnson

            Please don’t kill yourself. You don’t sound well.

          • bcisaldb

            Oh, don’t worry. You pieces of shit aren’t worth it. More fun to ruin your stupid conversation about how gay people are animals or pedophiles.

            That’s a heckuva teaching you’ve got there — so glad Kate1 showed me that the Catechism teaches that gay people are the same as child rapists…which, I guess, means they’d probably make very good Catholic priests…

      • MCG

        Even if you don’t like it, it’s still called a reduction ad absurdum, and the fact that you call out bigotry doesn’t change the fact that the logic supporting one, leads to the other (merely asserting that it’s not a reductio doesn’t make it so). That fact that the logic leads to an obviously disgusting conclusion is the point, and if you want to argue against that line of argument, on rational rather than emotional grounds, you’ll have to show that the logic doesn’t lead there, and why it doesn’t.

        However, if you are too shocked by the ultimate results of that train of logic to think clearly, here’s a less extreme result that still posits a conundrum. You support same sex marriage, I gather, because who is the state or anyone else to oppose the private wishes of two consenting adults who love each other, right? And the reason we ban marriages between relatives such as first cousins or even siblings, even when it is a case of consenting adults, is that they can lead to genetic defects in offspring. In that case a third party is clearly hurt, so there is something significant enough to outweigh the question of consent. But if consent is all that counts, so long as no third party is hurt, then your logic leads you straight to the following conclusion: homosexual cousins, siblings, etc., should be allowed to marry.

        That leaves you with two options: you either man up to the logic you have accepted and say that, yes, the laws of the state should sanction the marriage of homosexual siblings if the are adults and there is consent, or you have to reject consent as the sole determinant of what is good or not when it comes to sexual/conjugal relations. In that case you’d actually have to inquire into the nature of what sex and marriage *are,* and to do that you would have to study their inherent ends/purposes.

        Look, let me add one thing: while my tone here may sound dismissive, I am only writing because I do believe that if you think clearly about this, you can see that, however much respect and love and compassion you may have for people who are gay, gay “marriage” makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to give yourself a chance to consider the opposing view for real, go read “What is Marriage?” by Robert George, published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf. Then feel free to go check out the critiques of that article, as may be found in Slate and other places, and THEN see the refutations of those critiques by George and his co-authors in The Public Discourse. Then, for once, open your mind and see who really is thinking clearly, and who isn’t. I used to have no objection to the gay agenda, until I started thinking about it more clearly.

        And one final point: if you are tempted to call me a bigot, put me in your “bigot box,” and dismiss me out of hand, let me remind you: you know *nothing* about me, about my life, about my relationships, about who I love, about why I think what I think, and what life situations have lead me to be who I am today, so don’t you dare pretend that you do.

        • bcisaldb

          There are cultures in which marriage between relatives, even siblings, is allowed. Currently, our law does not allow this, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. That’s a different law and, again, has no bearing on the right for gay people to marry.

          I don’t pretend to know anything about anyone outside of what they’ve written publicly in these comboxes.

          I still think the biggest mistake made by those who are against gay marriage is jumping to the bestiality comparison. It hurts you more than helps you. It is hateful and meant to hurt and offend and dehumanize, no matter how you try to paint the comparison as some highbrow intellectual argument.

          Here’s the thing — try to make your argument without going there — or going down the incest route.

          Why doesn’t THAT ever happen if you’re all so full of love and respect for your fellow human beings — including gay human beings?

          • CPE Gaebler

            The biggest mistake made by those who are for gay marriage is misconstruing their opponents’ arguments in the worst possible light and then putting their fingers in their ears and yelling BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT!

            Can YOU make your argument without resorting to insults and strawmen?

          • bcisaldb

            Not now. Not on this thread. Once people like you giggle over equating gay people with animals, I have zero interest in doing anything but spitting in your face.

          • Alyosha Nevskeyev

            My friend, how I wish that you would learn to love your enemies rather than hating them. Hate is a prison; love is a paradise.

            Do you not object when you see hatred towards gays? Why then do you hate us, even if we deserve it in your eyes. If it is wrong to hate, why hate us?

          • Alexandra

            I think it’s pretty normal to hate hate.

          • CPE Gaebler

            Hating something that isn’t hate but can be misconstrued as such through creative misinterpretation of analogies, though, goes a bit above and beyond the call of duty.

          • bcisaldb

            Hiding behind the name of God and pretending your hate is really a legitimate analogy is the worst kind of hate. The hoops you’re jumping through to justify your hateful analogy rather than rephrase your argument without using a degrading analogy shows what you’re really all about. If the Church’s teaching is true, you can explain it and justify your position without the analogy. And yet no one has managed to do it. Hmmm….

          • Luka Alexandrovich Nevskeyev

            You ask for explanation, and I will give it. Natural law claims two axioms: that all things have a natural goal, and that it is the good of a thing to reach that goal. The goal of a rosebush is to flourish; therefore it is bad to put a rosebush in a closet and let it whither, for this prevents the rosebush from reaching its natural goal. The natural goal of the sexual organs is sex. Heterosexual sex for the sake of reproduction. This is the natural purpose of the sexual organs. The natural goal of sex itself is both unity and procreation; love and life. Since homosexual behaviors attempt to gratify the sexual desire, without actually properly using the sexual organs, and cannot achieve both the natural goals of sex, homosexual behavior is not the good of the organism. That is, it is not good for people to practice homosexual behavior for this reason. Now as to how one gets from there to opposing civil unions between members of the same sex, is for myself quite a murky proposition. I suppose the reasoning is that it is not good to give legal sanction to actions which are not good for their practitioners e.g. it would be rather strange for the government to give tax benefits to using cigarettes.

          • CPE Gaebler

            ….. Marc’s original post here did not even remotely make this analogy, you deliberately obtuse dunderhead.

          • Alyosha Nevskeyev

            Just because it is normal does not make it right, my friend. Secondly, I think that hate is bad and therefore oppose it. That does not mean that I hate those that hate, but rather approach them with the words of St. Isaac the Syrian constantly in mind: “Spread your cloak over those who fall into sin, and shield them, each and every one of them, and if you cannot take the fault on yourself and accept punishment in their place, do not destroy their character.” The proper response to evil is redoubled commitment to the good. This is mercy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

            You’re right, it’s a shame that those who I’m sure on other board would promote loving their neighbor as one of the most important commandments cant live it on the internet.

            Cmon people, if you want to persuade people on the fence then speak your point without getting nasty. Jesus didn’t call the prostitutes and tax collectors “filthy disgusting vile excuses for human beings,” He sat down and ate with them.

          • MCG

            Again you fail to see the point of my example: consent is not the sole determinant of the good, and if you assert that it is, you get some pretty weird conclusions. You need to find better principles.

      • Jake E

        Polygamy is reasonable? Please explain.

        • bcisaldb

          Is it “reasonable”? I have no idea. But if three or more consenting adults decide to form some sort of domestic union and can come up with some kind of contract, there’s nothing I can or should do to stop them. I couldn’t care less what they do as long as they’re not breaking the law — I’d darned well rather see that situation than what we have now with these nutty LDS spin-off groups living in what they would refer to as “sacramental” marriages involving one man and several women, yet leeching off the state by applying for food stamps and welfare as “single moms”. At least it’s more honest.

      • Brian Crowley

        Ok, ignoring the bestiality comment as *presumed* hate speech, how would you address the comparison between homosexuality and incest? In both cases the two parties are willing participants in the union. What makes one wrong and not the other?
        And in the future, provided humanity develops machines with synthetic intelligence, would it be acceptable for a man (or woman) to marry their computer? If not, why?

        Also, let me be clear. Nobody is denying the right for a man to live his life with another man. By marriage, we mean the sacrament of marriage. Homosexuals SHOULD be allowed civil unions, though they should not be CALLED marriages.

    • Tom

      Ah, now I see the fallacy of Mr Olsen. He argues that we don’t have the authority to restrict sacramental marriage to anyone. This is clearly rebutted by Christ’s actual words (Keys of the Kingdom, binding and loosing, etc…). But furthermore, Mr Olsen’s argument develops into a slippery slope: If we can’t deny sacramental marriage to gay men, why deny it between adults and children, or a man and his dog, or even a man and his couch? We obviously don’t have the authority…

      • Thorny264

        It’s simple, if 2 consenting adults want to get married then it has no effect on you at all and the only reason you’re opposing it is because an old book says so even though it’s view of marriage is much more twisted. It won’t lead to a slippery slope. As pointed out before this is just a cheap shot to compare homosexual marriage(love) with animal marriage (love) usually it is compared with marryign children too, I am actually surprised given the chance you didn’t compare homosexuals to peadophiles.

        If you know that these people are going to burn in hell for all eternity because they are as god made them (bit sadistic but not the worse god has done) then can’t you just be happy with that and let people enjoy their lives.

        • Sullymom13

          If two consenting adults want to live together as man and man or wife and wife, and be treated by the government as equal to heterosexual couples, I as a Catholic will not resist that movement. Forcing me, as a Catholic, to go against my religious beliefs and allow SSA couples the sacred rite of Holy Matrimony, is a direct violation of my rights. Just as forcing my religious beliefs on you would be a violation. As for your comment “If you know that these people are going to burn in hell for all eternity because they are as god made them (bit sadistic but not the worse god has done) then can’t you just be happy with that and let people enjoy their lives.” I would dare to say, If you know that we are all just a bunch of over zealous idiots who made up a god so that we could pass judgement on others, why would you want the right to use our antiquated term Marriage? Why not pick some cool new word that sets your far superior intellect apart from my idiotic one. I mean, why would you want to use a word that by it’s very nature could imply that you agree that there is something sacred about marriage.

          • Jake E

            Very well rebutted, sir.

          • Nate

            except for how most same-sex couples don’t want a holy matrimony, only a civil marriage license. I agree with thorny, gay people don’t want the Church to change its religious laws to suit them, they want the state to change its laws to include them. The US constitution has this novel thing called: separation of Church and state, to where just like the state can’t force the catholic church to marry same sex-couples, the Catholic church can’t force the state to bar them.

            I understand the value of traditional, religious marriage, but you need to understand the value of letting others live they’re lives as secular beings un-affiliated with the church. and If you pull the slippery slope argument, I urge you to google continuum fallacy, or do a quick refresher course on rhetoric before hitting that post button.

        • Lhsdrummer

          Two fallacies in your arguement.
          First they are talking about Mr. Olsen’s arguement when they say it is a slippery slope. They are saying that his points would have to allow everything mentioned which they would according to his own logic. They are not specifically talking about gay “marriage”but the arguement at hand.
          Secondly to claim that people are born with same-sex atttraction is unfounded and does not hold any truth since there is no proof, but there is proof pointing towards same sex attraction being caused through environmental and relational causes in one’s life.

        • Timelady87

          They are not going to burn in hell for being gay. I don’t think that’s what this blog is saying. Nor the Catholic church. Same-sex attraction isn’t a sin. Sins are choices, not feelings. “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

          • Edge

            Your thoughts are good, but are like taking a trip from California to New York, but you only make it to Kansas.

            I do not blame you as you are obviously influenced by the talking points that the enemy wants you to use. Let me try to explain. You quote the Catechism, and it is correct. But what does it really mean? Does it mean we should allow the one who is suffering from the disorder to continue in what they are doing, and we just ignore it, do we participate in the fantasy that it is normal in the name of love, or to help them, y calling the disorder a disorder so that they may receive help? Apply the same section of the catechism to alcoholism, for it fits just as well:

            Alcoholism constitutes for most alcoholics a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Alcoholic persons are called to sober. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

            Alcoholism is a disorder that can be treated, difficult for the one who suffers from it, but possible. Same with kleptomania, Attention deficit disorder, and all other disorders, including homosexuality. We help those suffering from disorders, as that is what is right. Would you really let an alcoholic suffer or try to help them? Why would someone let a loved one suffer from homosexuality without trying to help? In both cases the first step is for the one whom is suffering to admit they have a problem. The biggest obstacle now is that we have let the enemy call the disorder normal, and in the enemy’s spirit of Politically Correct speak, making it that much harder to get help for those who are suffering fro the homosexual disorder.

            The enemy wants to twist the love that is due to all human beings and make it something it is not (same old trick satan has always done.) They want to take the argument that those suffering from homosexual disorder should not be slammed with unjust discrimination (which they shouldn’t) but attempt to change the meaning to “they should be left to their own vices and that it is normal, and that to say otherwise is just being a big ole meanie head.” They want to make the disorder that needs treated and make society call it normal. It is not normal, it goes against nature itself, and to fall for the claptrap argument that it is normal we actually do the opposite of what the Church calls for – which is to love and help those who are suffering – you cannot help them if you deny that they are suffering.

            We need to call things what they are – abortion is murder, homosexual inclinations are a disorder, and sin is sin. Stop using the enemy’s language and allowing the enemy to twist ours.

            Now as far as your comment that “They are not going to burn in hell for being gay” – that is also a judgement – just as saying that they will would be. We are not the judge, only Jesus is. We cannot claim who is going to hell, but we are told by Him that there are actions that are right, and actions that are wrong. When we choose to do what He says is right, we choose Heaven, when we choose to go against Him and and choose immorality, we choose hell. He made it very clear that those who choose heaven are few and those who chose hell are many. Research what the early church fathers had to say on how many will actually choose heaven – quite scary…

            God Bless!!

          • anonymous

            sorry, you equated Alcoholism (which is a disease, as defined by the American Medical Association), with homosexuality, which is not. they are unrelated entirely. Read a book and try again.

            cheers!

          • Polo_player87

            OK I take many issues with everything you said. Alcoholism is a disorder and people are called to sober up because it is destructive to their lives. Homosexuality is not destroying peoples lives and it is not a disorder. It is the way the brain is wired. Disorders such as alcoholism may have genetic pre-disposition but a person can lead a perfectly normal life without alcohol, with homosexuality you are asking people to be something that they are not, you are asking them to deny what they feel is right in the name of a God who proclaimed love for everyone, and calls you to love the outcast.

            Next to you stating that people are mis-reading things and making their own conclusions. I would like you to re-read the Bible and learn what it says. There are parts of the Bible that are considered culturally significant, even the within the Bible itself. Lets take Ruth for example, the heroine of Israel, she was a moabite, which in the Bible it is said that a Israelite should not marry and if they do marry they will not be accepted as a person of Israel, nor will their offspring for 10 generations. Now when Ruth saves Israel she is accept as an Israelite and her offspring lead to King David only 3 generations later, so he also should not have been accepted in Israel. Now even if Israelites took everything the Bible said as pertinent to them that would have never happened no matter what she did.

            Now to homosexuality, the Bible says that a man should not lie with another man, I will give you that, but if you if you read correctly you should see your mistake. In Leviticus, it says that a man laying with a man should be put to death, but only 4 verses earlier any person who curses his mother or father should also be put to death, along with adulterers, which we no longer do since it no longer fits the culture. Also the correct translations of a sodomite, would not be a homosexual but actually a male prostitute, bible says that something is “unnatural” it typically means not of their culture, not unnatural in god’s eyes. If you look at Corinthinians, again it says something similar. But if you follow it up with the verses after, it will say so were some of you but you have been washed clean. Also Paul says that everything is lawful. And if you read Romans, it will say that they have been given over to “lustful” desires, lust is a sin for all of us, so stop hating on the gays and read your Bible better.

          • Polo_player87

            I forgot to comment on one thing, just so you know the Bible says absolutely nothing on abortion, and if you disagree I can give you some scripture that does not equate it with murder.

        • Dbcoopercatcher

          born that way?
          if that were the case, then identical twins would both be gay, but that is very rarely the case.

          • JoFlemings

            This is actually a valid point.

          • Alexandra

            If you don’t think about it too hard.

          • JoFlemings

            Identical twins have the same genetic material . They are formed from one egg and one sperm, the fact that it becomes two people is miraculous, and unexplainable. The argument that same sex inclination is genetic does appear to be undone when research shows that identical twins are not always both same sex inclined. Ok, so don’t try to prove homosexuality is inherent in the make up of the person by science if evidence exists that it is not inherently transmitted through the fundamental biological make up of the individual.

          • Alexandra

            You clearly don’t actually know a whole lot about identical twins beyond what you shared there. Not that I claim to either, but doing a few google searches and reading a wiki article will show you why that argument is invalid.

          • JoFlemings

            Not completely- the only thing the wiki article states that might make a difference here is that there are environmental factors in the womb that can affect the genetics of the child in some degree. But if that is the case then those differences can still be attributed to environmental contributions and not to nature. The point being same sex inclination is not necessarily biological- in fact, I contend that it most definitely is not biological, in that one could claim to have been created that way. Does that diminish the power of the inclination, no, maybe not. But it should give hope to anyone afflicted with same sex attraction as a cross they bear- God did not make you this way, therefore He has a plan for your happiness and greatest good that includes you not acting on that disordered inclination. I think it would be more merciful to consider same sex attraction as a birth defect of sorts if you really insist on taking it all the way back to neonatal development.

          • Alexandra

            Where’d you get your degree in bio?

            I’m gonna go ahead and stick to what the consensus in the scientific community is instead of what Catholic lady on the internet comes up with. Which is that homosexuality is biological.

          • Alyosha Nevskeyev

            Even if it is an innate characteristic, this does not make it a good characteristic. Just because I have a desire does not mean I ought to act on it. From the standpoint of natural law, homosexual acts are an improper use of the reproductive organs. Therefore, the enshrined and sanctioned place for those acts, marriage, should not be extended to include relationships capable only of those acts.

          • Typlogo

            You know, like how heterosexuals shouldn’t act upon their sexual desires. Because I mean, just because you have desires doesn’t mean you should act upon them.

            Please, read the bible and tell me that sex isn’t a sinful act.

          • cat

            Alexandra, can you direct me to the study, or studies, where the scientific community clearly states that homosexuality is biological?

          • PopeFacker

            And the evidence for your contention?
            Oh, right, you have NO evidence.

          • JoFlemings

            Jesus Christ, risen from the dead.

          • Victoria McLeod

            Y R
            O E
            U T
            A
            A R
            R D
            E E
            D

          • Deven Kale

            That response quite clearly proves that you are projecting. LOL

          • Victoria McLeod

            I’m on your side, moron.
            Plus, I was posting this from a phone, So I couldn’t really use ASCII.

          • Deven Kale

            I don’t care whose “side” someone is on, if they’re going to resort to uncalled for personal attacks in a rather ironic way, I’m going to point it out. Just like I said to bcisaldb, if you really want to further a cause but can’t do it in a civil way yourself, it really is best if you just stay out of the way and let those of us who can be civil do it for you.

          • Fringles Masterson

            Perhaps I should have made myself a tad more clear, as you seem too intellectually inert and science illiterate to understand that magical books and zombie prophets do not count as evidence towards the confirmation of a hypothesis. The purported mystical occurrence of some dude coming back from the dead after his execution in the most ignorant part of the ancient Middle-East offers no support whatsoever toward the contention that homosexuality is a product of the environment in which a human being is raised.
            This lack of validation value exists because (1) it is a non-sequitur: “Because this dude was resurrected I contend that homosexuality is strictly a result of the environment,” was the gist of your argument, and as you can see, it does not follow a logical order, and therefore has no justification value. (2) Even if Jesus had said that homosexuality was a product of the environment (which, I am sorry to inform you, he did not, so go do your homework and read your magical book) it does not constitute a proper justification because it is an argument from authority, and which has no proper experimental backing. That means having controls and properly regulated variables, which I fear is neither documented in the bible (but if you do find something legitimate, please tell, I’m sure the scientific community would be thrilled to hear) nor particularly present in the twins experiment you mentioned (if you could please provide a link to the paper, I would be more than glad to clarify for you). To conclude: Your argument is invalid.

          • Jpacuska

            It’s evident from your post that you’re more interested in puffing out your chest and sh0wing off to satisfy your ego than adding anything substantial to the discussion. Why do intellectual phonies always feel the need to denigrate the opinions of others? “Magic book”, indeed!

          • Fringles Masterson

            Oh, I’m sorry darling, did I hurt your feelings? I apologize if my rebuttal to your buddy’s argument unquestionably destroyed any vestiges of its validity and left you squirming as your only defense. Let me clarify for you, however that I was “denigrating the opinions of others,” but merely applying simple logic to debunk a false statement. It’s nothing personal, you see, simply a matter of attacking an invalid source and exposing it for what it is.
            Now why don’t you man up and write a rebuttal which does not involve a personal attack? Ad hominem only legitimates my position, since it indirectly states that you have nothing better than to resort to low-blows and non-arguments.

          • Victoria McLeod

            So wait, he called you an “intellectual phony,” yet he was the using the logical fallacy?
            Hm, my Common Sense is tingling.

          • Victoria McLeod

            *the one

          • JoFlemings

            We have two differnet gods, you and I. Your god is the scientific community and your own definition of truth and mine died to save me (and you) from hell and then He rose from the dead. These two different gods say different things about themselves. You are listening to yours and I am listening to mine- how will we determine which one is right? Well, my God is actually very polite and He will allow refuge for the one who rejects Him in the rule of law apart from acceptance, honor and belief in Him, as long as that law is at the very least based broadly in natural law which is written in the normal conscience of every person. Natural law has been a dominant governing principle in all civilized societies in history. (I am not talking utopia here- just civilization in br

          • Fringles

            Sorry, I’d forgotten how super polite it was to say someone is going to undergo an eternity of suffering if he or she does not believe a certain dogma. I’ll also pass on the whole human sacrifice/filicide and ritual cannibalism involved in saving a metaphysical “soul” for which there is no evidence whatsoever from a supposed place of everlasting torment which is also absolutely baseless.
            And please, don’t insult the scientific community by calling them a “god” when they have the minimum common courtesy to provide an acceptable amount of physical evidence for their existence.
            Your sanctimonious attempt at pacifying the debate has failed miserably. Try again with something along the lines of “you’re free to believe whatever you may choose, as are we, however, in recognition of our utter inadequacy in providing physically grounded reasons for our aversion toward homosexual marriage, we’ll abstain from the debate, and altogether try to avoid pushing our creed onto the rest of the country,”
            Thank you very much

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1230382297 Des Biggins

            Genetics can be influenced at all points of life. Environmental from the womb on can cause differences, before you’d even know. It’s not a choice. People would never choose to be attacked and discussed and judged like this.

          • Deven Kale

            The fact that it becomes two people is neither miraculous nor unexplainable. When the zygote splits into it’s first two halves at the beginning of the blastocyst phase, the two halves then develop into their own separate individuals instead of staying together as one. That’s the simple explanation, if you would like more detail either you or I could actually take the time to search it out.

            As for your argument that that “identical twins are not always both same sex inclined,” that’s true. But what is interesting is that if one of those twins is gay, the other is much more likely to be than someone within the general population. In other words, there is a much greater chance they would both be gay than if they were born/developed separately. This is not the case with non-identical twins.

            Why that is nobody’s sure of yet, but the evidence definitely points to a “non-choice” cause for homosexuality. There are currently many factors being looked at and there is nothing even close to a consensus among the experts as to the true cause. The only expert consensus is that it is not a choice, based on the evidence we do have.

          • Jpacuska

            There is absolutely no scientific evidence of a “gay gene” or any other genetic determinant for homosexuality, despite over twenty years of fervent searching by the scientific community. That having been said, I haven’t seen anyone here argue that homosexuality is a choice, either. Neither causal theory, genetic or environmental, would be a valid argument for gay marriage anyway.

          • Deven Kale

            I never said there was a “gay gene,” in fact you’re the first here to mention it. Plus, the fact that we’ve been searching for one for over twenty years and found nothing doesn’t mean there isn’t one, it just means we haven’t found it if there is. If anything that means homosexuality is more complicated than anybody thought, not that it’s a simple choice.

            You imply there is a valid argument for gay marriage. Please, tell me what you think it is. Otherwise, if you’re completely set on there being no valid argument, what reason would I have for arguing this topic with you at all?

          • JoFlemings

            You did not really read what I typed did you? And for the record two of my thirteen children are twins, very likely identical. I know a few things about identical twins and how they are formed etc. By the way, in your last paragraph above you, as is typical here among the many adversaries keying in on my comments in particular, say two things which are the opposite of one another. So what is it? There is no consensus or there is an expert consensus? You people talk out of both sides of your mouths and then you curse and defame your opponent. You scream for tolerance and then you call me something less than human. I wonder if you would strike me if we were in the same room. It seems as if that would be the next move. So I ask you, WHY should anyone regard anything you say? You don’t regard or treat respectfully any other opinion than your own. And from the video I watched today on youtube where gay marriage advocates are physically assaulting TFP members in the midst of peacefully exercising their first amendment rights- I have no respect for any argument you might even attempt to make. And I have no respect for you. When the adults show up at this debate I will happily engage further. As far as I can tell only anti- Catholic, bigoted, small-minded, gay marriage advocates with monosyllabic vocabularies are still mouthing off here for their issue.

          • Deven Kale

            Consider yourself lucky that I am not who you accuse me of being. I’ve been trying to get those some people you’re mentioning (a surprisingly large amount of them) to get out of the this discussion exactly because their behavior is childish and only goes to make their arguments seem such. Now to the more adult parts of your comment:

            in your last paragraph above you [...] say two things which are the opposite of one another. So what is it?

            Actually they’re not opposites. It’s very easy to have a consensus as to what something is without a consensus as to why it’s so. Autism is a good example, experts agree it’s a thing, but they don’t agree as to the cause yet. It’s the same with homosexuality not being a choice.

            WHY should anyone regard anything you say?

            Because I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong, because I’m generally polite in what I say, because the majority of my arguments are based on facts, and because I’m willing to accept the arguments of others if they’re also logically based on facts and evidence.

            gay marriage advocates are physically assaulting TFP members in the midst of peacefully exercising their first amendment rights.

            That’s reprehensible, as I’m sure we’re agreed. Luckily behavior like that is criminal as well, and if there’s a video of it, I almost guarantee you they’ll get whatever punishment is allowed by law, as it should be.

          • Sam

            No it is not. Identical twins are not the same person. They are similar looking, but always different people. Identical twins usually still have differences, and their handprints are different. They don’t have the same personality, nor do they enjoy the same things.

            This is not a valid point.

          • Letish789

            That’s because they have different souls and spirits.

          • Deven Kale

            It’s also because of something called epigenetics, in that they can actually have identical DNA and yet the parts of the body which translate it do so slightly differently for one twin than they do the other.

          • Soccer2Player4

            That’s not remotely true, twins hve completely different personalities, thoughts, and brains so why can their sexual tendencies be different as well?

          • c matt

            Well, that would seem to support his point – if they have the same genetic makeup (post fertilization split), yet they have different personalities, thoughts and sexual tendencies, what can you deduce? That thoughts, personalities and sexual tendencies are not genetic, and therefore not “born that way.”

          • JoFlemings

            Not ‘created’ that way- not made that way by God their Creator- that is the point of contention. People are trying to make the case that if you cannot control your tendency because you have never acquired it by an act of your will, then you should have government and social sanction to act on it, and the rest of the universe should bend to that idea.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1230382297 Des Biggins

            Check your research on that and try again. Also, look into the levels of testosterone in the womb in respect to homosexuality in males.

          • Polo_player87

            You are actually very wrong. A study by bailey and pillard in 1991 shows a concordance of 52%, meaning that if one identical twin is homosexual there is a 50% chance that the other will be as well.

        • Alyosha Nevskeyev

          Just because their genetic code includes a mutation that causes a desire to do things not in accordance with nature does not mean that God made that desire. The affects of sin are cosmic and affect the whole of creation. The fallenness of nature is inflicted by the sins of man upon it, though it does not itself choose to do the evil that comes through it. A dog that attacks men does evil, but it does not choose to do that evil; rather, the sins of mankind have warped nature to cause the dog to attack men. Sin has caused also the natural human body to go wrong, and thus exists disease, congenital blindness, genetic disorders, etc.

          They will not burn for their natural desires. Our God is an all-consuming fire; to gold, glory will flow everlasting; the straw will burn away. Those who are in hell suffer from the invasion of love. They suffer from remorse. No one is condemned for his desires, or even his works, but by whether or not he loves. For spite cannot stand the presence of Love. No one who has same-sex attractions will burn for those attractions, or even acting upon those attractions, but if he burns it will be because in acting that way he has turned himself into something incapable of receiving love. He has degraded himself into nothing. He will burn, also, not because the nature of fire, because that does not change, but rather what he himself has caused himself to be, straw or gold.

          Though homosexuality is a sin, it is not the worst sin. It is little different than any other form of unchastity, and certainly no worse than any form of heterosexual sin that also violates natural law. One should treat the homosexual in the same way one treats one’s sister after she got drunk at a party and had sex with a guy, for their sin is little different. Treat both with love.

          • JoFlemings

            Alyosha- I think this is beautiful the way you state this but I am not sure I completely agree with some of your statements about judgement and hell, or about the degree of depravation in the homosexual act compared to other sins against chastity. I think because it is a perversion, that it is one degree removed from sins against chastity like fornication, and adultery. I would say fornication might be the lesser of these types of sins depending on the particulars, then adultery- which is more serious, then beyond that homosexual sins are a degree more serious- but motive and understanding etc. are part of the matrix and God sorts all of that out- not me. I think there is an effect to the whole of a society where these things become common place that is like a downward slope increasing in ange toward vertical the more serious and prevalent the unchastity. I think that is what we are seeing now. If the tide does not turn against this in our culture, an increase in violence will be the next fruit. I do agree completely with what you say about how to treat a sinner, although some times people do choose sin with little to no complicating aspects in their level of culpability. They sin because they want to, not because their judgement is impaired and therefore their self-control is compromised, at the same time- I have to admit in the grand scheme of things, few people crucify Christ fully knowing what they do.

          • annony11

            What is your reasoning behind homosexual actions being worse than other sins against chastity? As far as I can tell, fornication is a mortal sin, adultery is a mortal sin, homosexual sins (can be, depending on what exactly they are) are mortal sins. Unless I am mistaken, homosexual sins have not been deemed to be “automatically excomunicating” (like abortion for example) and can be absolved in confession with any priest.

          • Ceckiz Gzz

            not a genetic malfunction! find at least ONE study that proves SSA is a genetic malfunction? NONE! Their sin is to let lust rule their lives, not chastity.

        • Sara

          Sure, two consenting (homosexual) adults who marry each other would have no effect on me at all, just like a person who murdered another person in the world would have no effect on me at all.

          Wait, yes, actually it would. We’re all living on the same planet and we are all supposed to look out for the absolute best for one another, I hope you know. Remember for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? If two consenting homosexual adults marry each other, I will object out of concern for their best interest (a.k.a., righteousness and love in its proper sense). As will every other [practicing, true] Catholic in the world.

          Reread badcatholic’s blog post. Christians are in no way “happy” with the thought of people with same-sex attraction going to hell. That’s where the whole objection-to-gay-marriage-and-the-destruction-of-the-sanctity-of-marriage-itself-for-the-righteousness-of-all comes in. Get it?

          Also, Thorny264, spell-check.

          Also, it’s God. Not god. Get it?

          • Victoria McLeod

            Who are you to say what is in a person’s best interest?
            Our religion, or any religion, like it or not, is only a belief system that is not shared by everyone. As such, what we may judge by our teachings and dogma to be in a person’s best interest does not necessarily reflect what that person thinks.
            Your argument is not grounded on the defence of anyone’s “best interest,” but actually on your own aversion to the idea that two people of the same sex can love one another.
            Why don’t you go and kiss a girl for the funzies, eh?
            You won’t be disappointed, trust me.

          • c matt

            Who are you to say what is in a person’s best interest?
            Our religion, or any religion, like it or not, is only a belief system that is not shared by everyone.

            Vicky, vicky. vicky. Please stop and think a little bit. Why does a person have a “belief system?” Because it matches nicely with the drapes -NO. Because they “believe” this system to be true, accurate, correct. Thus, if this “belief system” says X is good for you, then by golly, getting others to abide by it is, by definition, acting in their best interest. Example: vegans belief non-animal product diets are good for you. Putting aside whether they are correct to believe that, only an unintelligent person would argue that they are NOT acting in my best interest when they want me to follow their diet. They may be mistaken (or not), I may not care about my health enough to go to the trouble of eating bean sprouts and tofu the rest of my life, but I cannot, in honesty, claim they are not acting in my best interest.

            So let’s stop with the “you do not want to act in my best interest” crapola and prove your case that homosexual acts deserve to be enshrined in marriage.

          • Alexandra

            Is part of your belief system that you should force other people to follow your belief system?

            Because not all vegans or Christians hold that to be true. Some people believe that their beliefs are the best for them and they follow the golden rule by not trying to impose their beliefs on other people because they don’t want other people’s beliefs imposed on them.

            Kind of like wanting to be exempt from certain employment laws, but also wanting to get to legislate secular marriage. You don’t get both, and if you try to, people lose respect for you.

          • Sara

            I am no one to say what is in a person’s best interest. I don’t claim that wisdom for myself. God has said what is in each person’s best interest; it’s goodness and living in truth. I have the wisdom and the responsibility to claim that much, you see?

            I’m not here to argue belief systems, but to argue the truth, and there’s only one. So the fact that not everyone shares my belief system is irrelevant to what is actually, truthfully in each person’s best interest. What a person thinks and what is actually in that person’s best interest don’t necessarily match up, you’re right. That’s what we call pride. We think we know exactly what we need, but if we really knew, or if we payed attention to the truth, we wouldn’t be where we are today.

            My argument is grounded in the defense (not ‘defence’) of the best interest of others. By having an aversion– a total rejection, really– of homosexual marriage, I am making an effort to defend others’ best interests and to support the righteousness in which we could live. I’m not sure how many times Catholics and other Christians will need to say it before the world understands it.

            Who are you to say I should go kiss a girl, eh?

          • Victoria McLeod

            By telling you I should kiss a girl, I am only defending your best interest. It says so in verse 1:23 of the Book of Cthluhu “thou shalt kiss a girl, if thou art a girl, for Orbison pleasing to the only True Supreme Being, the Great Lord of the Skies, the Earth and all the Observable Universe at all wavelengths of the Almighty Electromagnetic Spectrum, Cthluhu. Those girls who refuse to kiss another girl shall suffer the tentacular wrath of a googol Cthululings in the fourth ring of the Gmatagal for all eternity”
            If it says so in the book of Cthluhu, it must be true. You’d have to be insane to not obey it.
            Also, don’t correct my spelling of “defence.” In case you’re education has not permitted you, this is the correct form of the word in most English-speaking nations. I highly suggest you do some more research before making a statement of fact, otherwise you just sound like a bigot – OH WAIT

          • JoFlemings

            Oh that is right! All of western civilization for the last 2000 plus years is based on, what was it again? Ah! the book of Cthluhu- we really need to take a closer look at that….How could we have missed it with so many advances in modern education- like spelling for example, and science and technology etc. Gee, how fortunate to have finally been enlightened here by one who embraces this lofty and exalted and obviously time tested and proven heroic truth.

          • Polo_player87

            Did you honestly just compare homosexuality to murder? And why are you so busy focusing on homosexuality thinking that it is the biggest issue, why don’t you attack people for condemning others to hell because that is the sole job of God, and I capitalized it for you. Or why not go after adulterers, since over half of the world commits adultery. Since a no one should re-marry after a divorce but in special cases, most of the world is going to hell in your eyes then, so focus on that issue since it affects many more people.

            Also, it is not your job to save people from hell, the Bible calls us as Christians to love our neighbor as ourself, and to love God will all our heart, mind, strength and soul. It is Jesus’ job to save us from hell, so go and love your neighbor, no matter who it is and let your love speak for itself and then if homosexuality is a sin, people can come to that realization for themself.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1326555931 Travis Morton

          God did not make you homosexual. You choose who you take your pants off with. God did not make a person to murder, fornacate or steal but the reason people do those things is because of SIN. We choose what we do and who we do it with.

          • http://twitter.com/CCNoroz CadeCabinet Noroz

            This comment disgusts me and is simply wrong. If there is a god, and he is all-mighty, then according to your belief, doesn’t he bless you with the gift of a child? If he blesses you with the gift of a child, then is he not the maker of it?

            If this is the case, then god made you a homosexual. Also, there is a difference between gay sex and homosexuality. The one is attraction, the other is to actually have sex. Neither of which, are wrong.

          • Ceckiz Gzz

            God was more smart than just carrying a baby from Paris to your home.

        • c matt

          Thorny, you missed the entire point (hah, get it?). Osler was trying (poorly) to make a Christian case for SSM. The consent of the 2 adults has nothing to do with it. The “old book” has EVERYTHING to do with it, when Osler is trying to make the case FROM THE OLD BOOK that SSM is acceptable. Capice?

        • drummerboy

          As a Catholic, it is my duty to die before I let another man go to Hell. Its not my job for them to like me or even understand me. Nevertheless, I must strive to prevent this from happening. Having attraction to someone of the opposite gender is not sinful just as liking someone who is already married is not sinful. The sin arises when you act out on this feeling. The tragedy is that as a straight man, I cannot truly empathize with my brothers on this.

          And you talk as if God is the only one who speaks to the hearts of people. And I’d appreciate it if you would capitalize the name of my deity at least in the same way I would capitalize your first and last name if I were to write it.
          Thanks

      • CPE Gaebler

        Did you just compare gay people to couches?????
        YOU EVIL BIGOT, I HATE HATE YOU!!!!!!!!!!

        • Jake E

          You mis-interpret. Notice the use of the phrase “slippery slope.” Please, for the sake of respect of all human life, including yourself, don’t call someone a bigot and follow up with hatred.

          • Cal-J

            I, uh, I hesitate to insert myself here, but I think he was making a joke.
            :|

          • CPE Gaebler

            You are correct, I was parodying our silly troll friend.

      • Polo_player87

        You also don’t have the authority to deny it though

    • http://twitter.com/CharlesJones265 Charles Jones

      No one is asking to marry his cat. Gay couples want to make a life-long loving monogamous commitment to the one with whom they share their life, their love and all their resources. Being able to make babies doesn’t make marriage. Very close relatives can make babies, even people who hate each other, murderers and criminals make babies. Love and commitment make a marriage and build up the world. Fortunately, more Catholics than not (59%) understand this simple fact, which many on this blog do not care to see.

    • Polo_player87

      There is one thing different between homosexuality and almost all other forms of marriage you listed, homosexuality is a mutual love, while all others bestiality, and love for objects is not. And on polygamy, the bible actually supports it, read it sometime, you might learn something.

  • Lauren G

    Nice post, I really like the rebuttal format!

    Also: *sudoku

  • Albert

    a Spray-tan is not a baptism.
    a sock is not a hat.
    I like those. here’s another:
    grape juice is not wine. wine is way better.
    http://aboutincarnation.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/the-last-winemaker-a-parable/

    we must show people by our lives that the wine we drink is way better than their juicy juice drink box.

  • BadWolf

    He probably doesn’t believe in a visible Church.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RS2NGO5O4VTWXTXB2H2Q6Z6TDM Sky

      I had to like your post just because of your name.

  • Siobhan

    Great post, as usual Marc! You cut right through the BS and go to the heart of the matter. Thanks for your rational and edifying insights. (Although I think Mr. Olsen makes a pretty GOOD argument for the total dissolution of the Episcopal church.)

  • Nathancarson

    “Again, this is not a question of whether homosexuals are just too darn sinful to be married. This is a question of whether Baptisms are spray-tans.”

    lols

    • Alexandra

      Hate is fricking hilarious, yo!

      • bcisaldb

        They’re a bunch of dirty, grubby little boys at a third tier loser college knows as The University of Stupidville. The good news is just about every employer in the US has them on the automatic “do not hire” list.

        • Alexandra

          I know! I was talking to my husband about this yesterday and we both agreed. Resumes from universities like Franciscan will always go off of my desk and straight into the shredder.

          • bcisaldb

            Yep. Stupidville, Ave Maria, Belmont Abbey, et al. Thanks but no thanks. They’re an HR nightmare from day one.

          • ChristendomStudent

            Are the academics at these schools inferior? Are the institutions not accredited? Are the studies not of worthwhile subjects?

            Or is it that, in the name of inclusiveness and tolerance, you automatically reject any applicant whom you suppose to hold “wrong” opinions?

            Who’s hating now?

          • Alexandra

            Yes, no, and yes.

            I’d reject an applicant that chose to go to an insular school that is vocal about wanting the right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

          • Cal-J

            The academics are inferior? That’s a bit over the top, I’d say.

          • ChristendomStudent

            The studies are not of worthwhile subjects? English literature, extensive programmes (often) in the Classics (this is very rare nowadays), history, philosophy (very often studied in such a way that a student learns a system of philosophy, and thus how to think systematically, rather than a smattering of survey courses), and, yes, theology, which if you studied it would dispel many of your misconceptions about who Catholics are and what they believe.

            For instance, in the Social Teachings class at one of these “insular schools” that is “vocal about wanting the right to impose their religious beliefs on others,” it was *emphasised* that we precisely do *not* have the right to use force to create a Catholic society. Newman’s old motto still holds, “Heart speaks to heart.”

            We engage in this dialogue not to win power over you, but to discuss the wisdom and prudence of some very novel suggestions that are being made to change a very old, venerable institution, marriage. Yes, we have religious opinions on these matters, but we feel they are grounded in principles accessible to all reasonable men.

            The highest law is in fact love. It is a shame, particularly in discourse in public forums, we are too quick to dehumanize our opponents and dispense ourselves from that obligation.

          • ChristendomStudent

            Ah, and I have been to both a state and “insular” Catholic college. From firsthand experience (as valedictorian of my high school class and an “A” student through college), I can say, no, if anything the academics at these colleges are at a much higher standard than those at state schools.

          • Sullymom13

            AGAIN, please explain how the school is imposing their religious beliefs on others by asking for the right to have their religious views respected. You seek to justify taking away my rights in order to give equal rights to everyone? I’m confused here. And in the same breath, while calling Catholics bigots, you deny the catholic a job based on their religious beliefs.

          • Jay E.

            Because they actually can articulate their beliefs beyond calling people turds?

          • Alexandra

            I’m not sure what you even mean by that.

            Are you insinuating that people who go to those schools are more articulate, and everyone else is mocking and inarticulate? Because that makes no sense.

          • Ninja

            I believe Jay E. was making a reference to bcisaldb…

          • Alexandra

            Still doesn’t make any sense.

          • bcisaldb

            I automatically reject any applicant who is part of an exclusive community that proudly and loudly vocalizes its intolerance for people who they will be sharing a workplace with.

          • Peggy

            Hmm. Franciscan grad (hey, Marc! Making us fogies proud!); have had…oh…upwards of 10 GLBT CO-workers since, plus several “regulars” who are gay. We get along fine so far, but man oh man, you should hear some of the backstabbing from their fellow state univ grads. If college is a breeding ground for intolerance, you should be celebrating Catholic colleges for not fostering it!

          • http://spiritualadvocate.wordpress.com/ Mark Connolly

            I am in HR, and I am in the MTS program at Ave Maria University. You are describing what is potentially a discriminatory hiring practice, i.e. rejection of an applicant because of their religious affiliation. Your statement that graduates from those universities are “an HR nightmare from day one” would be interesting if you could support it with anything factual from actual circumstances. Alexandra’s statement that resumes from those universities go straight into the shredder displays a shocking lack of understanding regarding record retention requirements, a fundamental HR discipline. I can only hope you two are not actually practicing HR, or if you are that your employers don’t read these comments.

          • Darleneab

            Dear Mr. Connolly & Mr. Barnes,

            Given what Alexandra has publicly stated as well as bcisaldb, perhaps its time to seek a lawsuit as they have publicly claimed discriminatory hiring practices.

            “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;”

            Discriminatory practices include – “employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities, or based on myths or assumptions about an individual’s genetic information; and”

            Seems to me that Alexandra has publicly noted that she and her husband are in clear violation of The Civil Rights act of 1964 in discriminating against religion while hiring. And if what bcisaldb says is correct and students from certain universities are on a ‘no-hire’ list, then it seems the issue is widespread and perhaps worth investigating.

            Maybe a class action lawsuit for those who have graduated from Franciscan and applied for a job at the company at which Alexandra works and have been denied employment. The beautiful thing is that its likely that both have supplied an email in order to comment on this post and that owner of that email could be tracked down by court order.

            Never mind their employers reading the comments, there are those out there – like myself – who would like to see people like this served with civil lawsuits for discrimination. Perhaps its time to involve the Becket Fund and other non-profits that fight against religious discrimination.

            If its as widespread as bcsialdb says, then its likely that there might be an opportunity to file a few class action lawsuits.

          • bcisaldb

            Hmmm…well, good luck with that, lol!

          • Alexandra

            Yeah, seriously good luck. These colleges are academically inferior. That is related to the fact that they are insular and religious, but the fact remains that they are inferior colleges.

          • DAB

            Thank you. I appreciate the well wishes.

            The funny thing is that you took the time to comment on a post regarding someone’s religious beliefs as it pertains to gay marriage in asserting that religious objection to gay marriage is a violate of civil rights. But then you both took the time to publicly note how you have violated the civil rights (quite literally by admitting to be in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as it pertains to hiring practices) of others by not offering them an opportunity for employment because of what you ‘deem’ to be their beliefs since they attended a particular college. You can come back and cover your butt and say that its because its due to academic inferiority of a particular school, but then that would contradict other statements you made. I will be discussing your statements with both the EEOC and a labor lawyer. While I may not have been personally affected, I feel it important to notify the EEOC that there are HR representatives from companies who are publicly boasting about being in violation of the law – and, in the case of bcisaldb’s claim of a ‘no-hire list’, I feel its important that this be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities. You could, for all I know, work for a very large international organization and it would be important for the EEOC to know whether or not this was a widespread issue within your company. Whether or not they choose to follow up will be up to them.

            You and bcisaldb have both proven the truth of the statement that ‘you become what you hate’.

          • Alexandra

            TL;DR

            But you misrepresent my argument anyway.

            Copy/pasted from above:

            I never said it was because of a person’s religion, I said it was because of someone choosing to attend an insular religious school.

            I’d hire someone who went to a large religious school that was of high academic quality, and I’d hire a religious person with a good degree no problem.

            I just wouldn’t ever hire someone that specifically chose to go to an insular religious school, whether they’re religious or not.

          • CPE Gaebler

            So suddenly, misinterpreting people is a BAD thing?
            ^_______^

          • Ninja

            I’m highly doubtful of your claims that Steubenville is academically sub par. They have a nursing school, which must be up national standards, or they lose accreditation.If they can manage a respected nursing program, I doubt the rest of the school is as bad as you claim.

          • Deven Kale

            You’d be wrong in that assumption. Dixie State College in Utah has one of the greatest Nursing programs in the western US, but nearly all of their other programs are just barely at the average level. In fact, in just about every case it’s recommended you go somewhere else for anything other than Nursing.

          • bcisaldb

            Ya, but you’d have to prove I actually work for anyone, or hire anyone. Which might be hard, since I don’t. Which is why no labor lawyer is going to waste his time with a stupid internet combox comment that has nothing to back it up. But knock yourself out.

          • Alexandra

            Exactly.

            I didn’t say that I’ve rejected a hire because of their religion.

            I said my husband and I agreed over dinner that we’d reject an applicant that went to a school like Franciscan – an insular conservative religious school of lower academic quality.

          • Jake E

            Let’s get the record straight here. There are approximately 2,500 undergrad at Franciscan. The idea that every last one of them, as you state, is evil and “grubby” is statistically improbable.

            I am one of these people. Have I said anything mean or bigotory to you? Have you heard me say anything mean to you? Where does this assumption of me come from?

            Sir, my brother, you are killing your credibility, which I want to thank you for but really I just feel sorry for you. You are, at this moment, proving Catholics right about anti-Catholicism. You are spewing hatred, which in itself is biased.

            Let’s for one moment make the assumption that I am an evil bigot; your hatred of me could arguably be justified. But even still, historically responding with hatred to hatred does not work.

            Please, sir, I truly with all my heart wish to respect you. Get off the internet, take a shower and a deep breathe, punch a few walls, and come back if you want to.

          • Asdfjkl

            Hate is fricking hilarious, yo!

          • Alexandra

            People at conservative schools sure seem to think so. I’d prefer to work with people who went to college in the real world.

          • Mac

            I love the way hateful bigots run out of arguments and start with insults and threats. Hire or don’t hire whomever you wish. Yours is not the only source of employment in the country. Yawn.
            Mr. Olser tries to use Christianity to justify his support of SSM. While he might convince some who are not familiar with the entirety of Scripture, he fails to convince those who have read more than the few passages he selectively quotes and interprets. This is a common error, especially among liberal Protestants. Mr. Barnes corrects this interpretive error using the the same texts Mr Olser claims support his assertions, but continuing the readings beyond the edited passages. If you can do anything except insult Mr. Barnes and all who study at or have degrees from conservative colleges, then by all means, join the discussion. Your bigotry is real; your accusations of bigotry are imaginary.

          • Jake E

            Very well rebutted, sir.

          • JoAnna

            Religious discrimination is hilarious, yo!

          • bcisaldb

            Yeah, well right back atcha — you’re the ones always saying that you do unto others as you’d have done unto you.

            Maybe next time you should think twice before doing unto gays the way you do, eh?

          • thom

            If I was gay, I wouldn’t want to enter a homosexual union. So, so far I am doing unto others …

          • bcisaldb

            So you would equate those gay people who do want to enter into civil unions with animals or people who want to have sex with animals?

          • Tally Marx

            Your argument equates them.

          • bcisaldb

            Nope. Try again.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RS2NGO5O4VTWXTXB2H2Q6Z6TDM Sky

            So you’re going to treat people a certain way simply because they are Christians or went to a school?

          • Alexandra

            Because they chose to go to a specific university that is insular and espouses hateful ideas, absolutely.

          • Sullymom13

            For a “Cradle Catholic” you are amazingly ignorant of Catholic teachings. When you make statements about the ideology of an institution it would benefit you to base those ideas on fact not your personal opinion. When you can show one shred of actual proof that the Catholic church (not some catholic person you knew) teaches insular hateful ideas, I will take your rebuttals seriously. Until then, you are only making ignorant hateful biased comments to justify your obvious bigotry against Catholic believers.

          • Alexandra

            The CST are awesome, I agree with most of them. I’ve juat haven’t the schools like Franciscan act on them the way that I think they should. It’s a large part If why I don’t identify as culturally Catholic anymore.

          • Sullymom13

            I don’t identify as culturally Catholic either, I identify as Catholic, meaning that I fully support ALL of the Catholic Church’s (not the cultural church’s) teachings. I don’t feel it is necessary to cherry pick the ideas that suit me personally while disregarding the ones I find difficult to follow. By insinuating that an institution like Franciscan is acting against the actual teaching of the church without being specific shows me that you are simply cherry picking ideology’s that you don’t particularly like and then condemning the whole based on your opinion.

          • Alexandra

            It’s true. I am. Which is why I’m not Catholic in membership or in culture.

          • Sullymom13

            But not because the church is wrong…”The CST are awesome, I agree with most of them.” Just because you don’t like some of it’s rules? I truly want to understand what you found so terrible with Catholicism, that it has now become your enemy. Maybe I am missing it, so please help me understand I would hate to dedicate my life to a religion that is so flawed.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christian-Gjernes/1400126950 Christian Gjernes

            We don’t hate homosexuals. Stop assuming that we do merely because we’re against their beliefs.

          • Alexandra

            Do you hear yourself? Stop assuming we’re intolerant of homosexuals because we’re intolerant of them.

          • amcraig

            If I may, I think Christian Gjernes means we disagree with their beliefs (Christian Gjernes, I don’t think you spoke incorrectly, but I think that the “disagreement” wording is easier to discuss). Disagreement with someone isn’t intolerance.

          • Alexandra

            In this case, the disagreement also comes with not tolerating.

          • john

            It’s you who fail to understand the distinctions and that’s a reflection of an inferior education. The point at issue is a specific sexual behavior, not the inclination. The inclination is most certainly tolerated. The behavior, however is sinful. Christ’s model is to allow the weeds to grow with the wheat, while still knowing the difference between the two. Attempts to redefine sin as not sin, and even a good is an insult to the truth. The sin of the lie is greater and far more dangerous than the sexual sin. Consider that your attempts to do just that are tolerated in a Catholic sponsored forum. To censor contrary opinions by your hiring practices is the height of hypocrisy. No one has advocated hate for the person. That’s not the same as criticism of their behavior as something damaging to themselves and society. Attempting to explain that in the hopes it might be corrected is an act of love, not hate.

          • Alexandra

            Also, intolerance isn’t automatically a bad thing. I’m intolerant of a lot of religious beliefs. But I’ll own that and acknowledge that I think they are wrong, and I do not tolerate them.

            At least own up to what it is you’re doing. Don’t pretend you’re being tolerant when you’re not.

          • Jake E

            Intolerance equal disagreement?

          • Guest

            So…you gonna hate on the Muslims and Jews while you’re here too? Because I’m pretty sure they share many “hateful ideas” that Christians do.

          • Alexandra

            If they went to an inferior and insular school, yes.

          • Jake E

            Again with the cute, repetitive phrases! Where is your proof Franciscan is inferior?

          • Nichole

            As an HR professional, I can say with certainty that this is blatant discrimination. I hope your employer has good liability insurance, because with words and actions like that, you’re asking for a lawsuit.

          • Alexandra

            You can discriminate based on where someone went to school. That’s completely normal.

          • ChristendomStudent

            But not on the grounds of their religion.

            If someone went to a non-accredited institution, or wishes to work outside of his field, that is one thing.

            If, however, he has an accredited education relevant to his field, perhaps you can weigh his school against others in terms of prestige, but you certainly can’t simply throw his resume in the trash. What reason would you have to do it except…religion?

            What leg are you standing on now?

          • Alexandra

            Small religious schools like Franciscan are never as good academically as any other school in my field. These things are related.

          • Peggy

            And that’s different. If you’re hiring for an engineering firm, then yeah, probably resumes from our school with its barely-existent engineering program aren’t going to be that exciting. But you were not arguing academics above.

          • Alexandra

            I never said it was because of a person’s religion, I said it was because of someone choosing to attend an insular religious school.

            I’d hire someone who went to a large religious school that was of high academic quality, and I’d hire a religious person with a good degree no problem.

            I just wouldn’t ever hire someone that specifically chose to go to an insular religious school, whether they’re religious or not.

          • bearing

            Planning to go into HR? That’s ethical, yo.

        • MCG

          Oh, “Stupidville”! Ha ha ha ha! Good one! Please tell us more of your jokes!

        • Thom

          Wow. Now *that* is a good example of a hateful, discriminatory comment.

          • bcisaldb

            Yep.

          • annony11

            Eh… people from here(Steubenville) call the town that all the time. I don’t take it as an insult. In fact, I find it amusing that MCG thinks it would be so offensive.

        • Jake E

          Well thanks to your puns, you have rebutted everything I stand for. I now understand that because the school I attend is “knows” as stupid, I am a dirty, grubby little boy. Please shed me with your knowledge, oh enlightening master!

          #who is perpetuating hate here again?

          • bcisaldb

            Oh, I am, now. Like I said, right back atcha.

            When you people have the balls to stand up to your own people who use degrading and dehumanizing rhetoric, I’ll take you seriously. But you don’t, so I think you’re all useless garbage.

          • Jake E

            Let’s get the record straight here. There are approximately 2,500 undergrad at Franciscan. The idea that every last one of them, as you state, is evil and “grubby” is statistically improbable.

            I am one of these people. Have I said anything mean or bigotory to you? Have you heard me say anything mean to you? Where does this assumption of me come from?

            Sir, my brother, you are killing your credibility, which I want to thank you for but really I just feel sorry for you. You are, at this moment, proving Catholics right about anti-Catholicism. You are spewing hatred, which in itself is biased.

            Let’s for one moment make the assumption that I am an evil bigot; your hatred of me could arguably be justified. But even still, historically responding with hatred to hatred does not work.

            Please, sir, I truly with all my heart wish to respect you. Get off the internet, take a shower and a deep breathe, punch a few walls, and come back if you want to.

          • bcisaldb

            Like I said, direct your response to Cole. He believes gay people are animals. “Smackdown” your own, and then I might have a shred of respect for you little twats. Until then, uh-uh, bye-bye.

      • Sullymom13

        Please educate me on how the statement Marc made was hateful. The sacrament of Marriage is clearly defined, always has been. A same sex couple is not looking for the sacrament of Marriage. If I am a vegetarian I don’t go to the Deli and demand that they turn the bologna into lettuce so that it fits my particular tastes. By all means, lobby for equal rights for same sex unions in the eyes of the government. Please respect the SSA citizen as a citizen. But please don’t take away my right to clearly define what a sacramental marriage is. To deny me that right is hateful, and definitely not hilarious, yo!

  • Christina

    I do wish that, in making these “Biblical” arguments, people would bother to learn something about the Bible and the proper ways to interpret it. It wouldn’t kill anyone to have a tiny bit of knowledge about exegesis, although that could also be used to improperly interpret the Bible. At least it would make the wrong interpretations sound a little bit less like they were founded on some fanciful notion of “togetherness” and relativism.

  • Tom

    Marc, excellent post as usual. Very unique way of going about it. However, I think I may have had some difficulty discerning your main counter-point. Is your main argument essentially that Mr. Olsen uses Bible quotes incorrectly and then forgets about other ones? I’m guessing that’s exactly what he’s doing, given that he is a non-Catholic Christian, and we all know how prone our Christian brethren are to selective Scripture interpretation.

  • bcisaldb

    Marc, you’ve grown tiresome. You’re the typical clever little mamma’s boy whose been patted on his head all his life and told he shits gold.

    You are the nastiest little piece of shit I’ve ever come across. You are the embodiment of pure hatred and pure evil.

    • JP

      So you want to point out how Marc represents hatred and evil by insulting him?

      • bcisaldb

        Yes.

        • JP

          All you’ve done is represent yourself in a hateful manner, and shoot yourself in the foot when calling Marc shit, turd and evil.

          • bcisaldb

            Yes, but it’s only people just like Marc, Cole, Tom, Jay, et al., so who cares? You’re all hateful garbage, so your opinion is worthless.

          • conditus

            Who cares?

            Evidently you do or it wouldn’t have elicited such a strong response.

          • bcisaldb

            Read my comment re cluttering and derailing combox thread. And y’all played right into it…

          • conditus

            Whatever makes you feel better.

            Good luck with that.

          • bcisaldb

            Meh. I feel fine. But I will not tolerate the hate that is heaped on gay people all in the name of God. That’s just wrong.

          • conditus

            I agree, heaping hate on anyone in God’s name is wrong.

            I invite you to join me in praying for the softening of hearts of all those who hate.

          • Cal-J

            You sound like you could use a hug.

          • Tom

            Nah, then he might catch “The Hate” from us XD

        • Sullymom13

          Stop. Count to ten. Now breathe. Your claims are as unfounded as my assumption that you must be a baby killing, ultra liberal church attacker, dead set on shitting all over Christian human beings. Marc, in no way, insulted the SSA community. He stated the very clearly defined point that SSA couples are not looking for the sacrament of Marriage, but instead, looking to deny me the right to define what that is. You can twist this anyway you like, but the truth is, you embody exactly what you are accusing Marc of. You just so happen to be a bigot against the Christian minority.

          • bcisaldb

            It’s the way he does it. He gloats, giggles, chortles, titters, sniggers all through all of his many, many, MANY anti-gay pieces, crowing over how oh-so-fucking-clever he is all the while.

          • Sullymom13

            I must have missed that particular post. Oh, I mean POSTS. He must have hidden the I hate homosexual posts when I wasn’t looking. As a matter of a fact, the only time I have read HATE in these blogs is when Marc refers to the feeling many Atheists have for Catholics. Not agreeing with someones lifestyle does not equate to hate. Stating ones beliefs using humor does equate to crowing. If his method of writing is so offensive to you I don’t know why you choose to read it. You are not derailing me from getting anything out of this blog, In fact you are solidifying why I need to keep reading it. There must be a message worth reading if one who is so offended by it’s contents can’t even stay away. Thank you Marc for being such an interesting “little shit”.

          • bcisaldb

            The hostility + the self-congratulatory tone = crowing.

            I realize there are people like you who chase after young boys on the internet. Gross. But that’s your call. Technically, he’s a legal adult. Not sure your husband would be cool with it, but maybe he is. So much for Catholic marriage…

          • Sullymom13

            I would act all offended by your comment, but that would only only serve to make you think you had somehow scored a point. I really want to believe that you actually care about the SSA community, but so far you have only proven that your goal is less noble by a long shot. You only serve to try and defend your own self serving logic. The truth is you are simply using the SSA community as ammo against your “foe”. I doubt that you have ever actually DONE anything for the SSA community. As a matter of a fact I would imagine that actually talking to another living soul in person scares the shit out of you. I gladly invite you to continue your thought process about me in person. Not in California? We can use Skype if you’d like. I would love to talk to you without the luxury of hiding behind a computer screen. I have a feeling that you don’t have the testicular fortitude for anything other than anonymous name calling. If you’d like to wait to talk until my husband gets home (you know, to avoid my sexual predator tendencies) around 4 pacific time would be perfect. I warn you though, he’s not quite as tolerant as I am. I patiently await your call.

          • Alexandra

            WTH?

            This is creeptastic.

          • Sullymom13

            Please tell me how it is creeptastic. I am a living breathing human being, flesh and blood. Perhaps if you could remember that, you know by looking me in the eye when you insult me, then maybe we could have a civil conversation. The fact is, you only see com boxes and letters and forget that you are speaking to another human being. I encourage you to call as well. Not interested? Why, I thought you wanted to learn from one another. No, in reality, you would rather walk away from your screen and say, I got them…ha ha ha, without ever knowing who THEY are. I patiently await your reply.

          • Alexandra

            I never insulted you.

            You started talking about her testicles and challenging her to a skype duel with your husband. Totally creepy.

          • Sullymom13

            OOPS. I assumed she was a he. It’s been a long time since I met a female with so little tact. All the more reason this sort of talk should be done while looking the other person in the eye.

          • bcisaldb

            No. YOU try and remember that gay people are flesh and blood human beings too, and that equating their relationships to bestiality is ONLY ever meant to dehumanize and demean and degrade them. Start there. Work on that. Save your arguments for your own kind before you take it upon yourself to lecture the rest of us.

          • bcisaldb

            I’m in Cali, actually. Where are you? I’ll be at Speakeasy this weekend. Wanna hook up? I’m incredibly social, actually, although I’m not an activist for the gay community. Y’all come on down to Speakeasy Friday or Saturday, grab the mike, and announce who you are and what you want to discuss. I’m sure you’ll start quite the conversation.

            As I said, I’m not really vested in the gay marriage fight, but I am disgusted by the bestiality analogy. When you start calling out your own for their deliberate dehumanization of gays, get back to me. Until then, you side with them, therefore you’re as bad as they are.

          • Sullymom13

            It seems to me that you are not vested in anything but yourself. You act all offended on behalf of a group of people that you don’t give a damn about. Of course you would invite me to a party of your peers. I’m sure the conversation would be amazing, but I’ll hold out for a safer venue. Perhaps you’d like to meet at The Cathedral in Sacramento. I’ll be there on Saturday, all day. Don’t worry, my people don’t pack any heat, you’ll be quite safe. We can have a nice civil conversation about your ideals and morality and how by using your method we can better the human existence. I’ll bring a couple of my SSA friends so they can see what a knight in shining armor you are being for their rights.

          • bcisaldb

            Oh, wait…now that you realize you just invited someone who live within driving distance to meet up and they agreed, you’re backing down? LOL!

            I’m not going to a party. It’s a public event. You’re totally safe there. Cops and everything.

            C’mon — I thought we were going to lift a nice friendly pint and toast our differences, plus it would be such a good opportunity for you to spread the word among all us heathens…save our souls, and everything…

            Chickening out now?

            You’ll be up to your eyeballs in gay people — how could you, as a good Catholic, miss this opportunity to share your loving take on their relationships with them?

          • bcisaldb

            Oh, and I don’t have testicles, so not sure where you’re going with that “testicular fortitude” stuff.

            Whatevs, bitch. See you ths weekend? I’ll put an announcement on FB and Twitter that you’ll be there to enlighten the gay community about what a pack of disordered sub-humans they are…

          • Jake E

            You are killing your credibility, which I want to thank you for but really I just feel sorry for you. You are, at this moment, proving Catholics right about anti-Catholicism. You are spewing hatred, which in itself is biased.

            Let’s for one moment make the assumption that I am an evil bigot; your hatred of me could arguably be justified. But even still, historically responding with hatred to hatred does not work.

            I truly with all my heart wish to respect you. Get off the internet, take a shower and a deep breathe, punch a few walls, and come back if you want to.

          • bcisaldb

            So don’t respect me. Not being respected by people who think gay people are animals is a compliment.

          • bcisaldb

            Hubby home? I’m waiting!

          • Jake E

            You are killing your credibility, which I want to thank you for but really I just feel sorry for you. You are, at this moment, proving Catholics right about anti-Catholicism. You are spewing hatred, which in itself is biased.

            Let’s for one moment make the assumption that I am an evil bigot; your hatred of me could arguably be justified. But even still, historically responding with hatred to hatred does not work.

            Please I truly with all my heart wish to respect you. Get off the internet, take a shower and a deep breathe, punch a few walls, and come back if you want to.

          • bcisaldb

            You already said that.

        • Cal-J

          Marc is evil because he denies people dignity, according to your logic.

          An insult denies and seeks to demean another’s dignity.

          Therefore, by insulting Marc, you participate in the same evil.

          • bcisaldb

            Marc has it coming to him. Those who encourage his hateful rhetoric have it coming to them. I’m just throwing his brand of evil right back in his face.

          • Cal-J

            I didn’t realize Marc was going around calling people “nasty little shits”.

            How could I miss that one?

      • bcisaldb

        Yes.

        • Sullymom13

          So, you are female! We’ll let me tell you, after being in the military most of my life and being around many “vocal” militant females I can honestly say that I don’t know if I’ve ever encountered one with so little tact. You pretend to defend the oppressed, but really you are only trying to get attention. I had it all wrong!!! You just really like all the attention you get from posting vile comments. Well, princess, here’s your crown. You are hereby the protector of the SSA community. You hear what you want to hear on this site and nothing more. Don’t try to make it more noble than it is.

          • bcisaldb

            So are we still on for Saturday?

            As I’ve said repeatedly, including in my first comment, I’m not a gay rights activist, nor do I have a vested interest in the gay marriage fight.

            I will not tolerate filth who equate gay people with animals in a thinly-disguised attempt to paint them as something less than human, something “other”.

            So Saturday at the Cathedral in Sacramento, then? Who shall I ask for? You invited me because you wanted to do this face to face, and I’m accepting. I’ll call the Cathedral office and let them know I’ll be there expecing you, okay?

          • bcisaldb

            Your husband home yet? He can give me your name so I know who to ask for in Sacramento. Or were you coming here? I can give him the address, ‘k?

          • Jake E

            You are killing your credibility, which I want to thank you for but really I just feel sorry for you. You are, at this moment, proving Catholics right about anti-Catholicism. You are spewing hatred, which in itself is biased.

            Let’s for one moment make the assumption that I am an evil bigot; your hatred of me could arguably be justified. But even still, historically responding with hatred to hatred does not work.

            I truly with all my heart wish to respect you. Get off the internet, take a shower and a deep breathe, punch a few walls, and come back if you want to.

          • bcisaldb

            Is there an echo in here…?

    • Jay E.

      He’s pure hatred and evil because… ? He has a definition of marriage?

      • bcisaldb

        He’s evil because he’s completely and totally self-absorbed and gleefully, gloatingly revels in shitting all over other human beings. It’s the only way he can feel good about himself. He’s garbage, through and through.

        • Jay E.

          And it’s ok to call Marc shit and garbage and complete evil because you know all the details of his conscience, you being the expert on all things Marc Barnes, but it’s not ok for Marc to point out that there is no such thing as gay marriage and we should listen to the Pope?

          • Alexandra

            There’s no such thing as Catholic gay marriage.

            The pope has nothing to do with a secular gay marriage.

          • bcisaldb

            Why should non-Catholics listen to the Pope — the same Pope who aided and abetted child rapists?

            Clean up your own dirty house first and then get back to the rest of us about how we should listen to you.

            The details of Marc’s conscience are made crystal clear through his ridiculous middle-school tittering and sniggering over how oh-so-clever he’s been at reducing gay people to something less than fully human.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christian-Gjernes/1400126950 Christian Gjernes

            …When did he reduce homosexuals to said status? I know a homosexual catholic who reads this blog and loves it to bits. He isn’t offended in the least.

        • Alexandra

          I really have to agree, Marc.

          The gleeful bigotry in this post is just too much. I’m ramping up for my super classy rage quit.

          • Cal-J

            Which comes with extra rage and little quit.

          • Alexandra

            Nah, after this discussion dies out, I really am done. It’s gotten to the point where no one is getting anything positive out of this. I’m not completely masochistic.

          • CPE Gaebler

            I really have no idea what the heck you’re talking about when you say that sort of thing. How you can read a post saying gay people can’t get married by definition, and all that you seem to be reading is GAY PEOPLE ARE SUPER LAME, YOU GUYS.

        • Anon

          Well that’s okay, because no matter how much you hate us and think we hate you, deep down we really love you. It might not be something you understand or even care about, but we do, because God does and does so with a heavenly love, not an earthly one. Call us whatever names you like, accuse us of being the scum of the earth; it’s okay, we forgive you. We’re sorry for any true offenses that Christians have made against you in your life, but we can’t apologize for trying to follow God’s Word to the best of our abilities.

          • bcisaldb

            If the “best of your abilities” means equating gay people to animals or gay relationships to bestiality, then you might want to work on your abilities some more before you speak for your Church. You’re not going it any favors.

          • Benjammin

            Dude what’s your problem with bestiality anyway?? Stop hating on the sheep shaggers, they’re people too! If you dehumanize them, then I just might turn around and dehumanize you!

          • bcisaldb

            I don’t dehumanize them. I don’t think gay people’s human partners are animals.

            If you want to fuck a sheep, go for it. Seems to be just about the right intellectual match for you.

    • http://twitter.com/CMysliwiec Christian

      Hey! Fantastic argument! Socrates would be proud. No really, I’m really reconsidering Marc’s arguments because you used words like “mamma’s boy,” “shit” and, perhaps my fav, “embodiment of pure hatred.”

    • Marc Barnes

      Wait, time out: I can’t by any stretch of the imagination be BOTH a typical clever little mamma’s boy AND the embodiment of pure hatred and evil. I mean don’t get me wrong, I fine with either, but please, principle of non-contradiction and all that. ( :

      • bcisaldb

        Thanks for proving my point. Learn how the word “clever” is used next time, you revolting little asshole.

        • Pietra

          Hey, bcisaldb, great to see you! Stick around, we can always benefit from your comments. They give a great example to the public of someone of your viewpoint who is disinclined to reason and reduced to little more than name-calling in a desparate attempt to get his point across.

          • bcisaldb

            Huh? I don’t have a point, other than to get people like you to react. Duh. But thanks for playing!

          • Pietra

            Really! Then reason would state that you’re either 1. actually an anti-gay marriage troll posing as the opposite or 2. remarkably bad at thinking things through, since you’re bringing down the cause you claim to defend with each expletive, refusal to reason, and derogatory ad hominem.

          • bcisaldb

            ~shrug~

            Your pick.

            Whatever.

            How can I bring down my “cause” (which, as I stated from the beginning, I don’t have…) with this pack of idiots? They already think gay people are animals. That’s as low as it gets.

            What I can do is splatter this hateful thread with enough muck that most people don’t bother reading. And that’s good enough for me.

            I honestly don’t really care all that much about gay marriage. I do care when the usual Catholic types start dehumanizing other people, and then high five themselves over how clever and “witty” they are in doing it, and then when people who are two and three times as old as these sophomoric little twats encourage them and egg them on — parents, even, egging on this mentally disordered Asperger’s freak who is completely incapable of decent human empathy in spreading hatred for gay people.

            You can read, comment or ignore, and I don’t give a fuck. Do what you want.

          • Cal-J

            TLDR.

          • bcisaldb

            Good, ‘cuz it wasn’t addressed to you.

          • Cal-J

            You don’t give a fuck.

            Riiiiight.

          • bcisaldb

            Nope. Not about you. I care that people think it’s okay to use their religion and to use God to justify their hate for gay people.

          • Cal-J

            If you don’t care about me, why do you care enough to complain?

    • http://odgie.wordpress.com/ odgie

      bcisaldb wrote:
      “Marc, you’ve grown tiresome.”

      Apparently he is so tiresome you can’t stay away from his blog.

      Next, bcisaldb wrote:
      “You are the nastiest little piece of shit I’ve ever come across.”

      You need to get out more.

      • bcisaldb

        I get out plenty. I just don’t associate with the same kind of filth you do.

        • http://odgie.wordpress.com/ odgie

          What, they don’t have filth at Star Trek conventions and D & D tournaments?

          • bcisaldb

            Ah, is THAT where you’re hanging out? That certainly explains a lot…

          • http://odgie.wordpress.com/ odgie

            Now you’re resorting to “I know you are but what am I?” Really? You would have to stretch to even reach the level of a good troll.

          • bcisaldb

            ~snicker~

          • Zmeck

            I would appreciate less violent verbal hatred and more intelligent comments. Cussing at people and vitriolic ad hominem attacks are not very convincing or admirable responses.

          • bcisaldb

            Too fucking bad for you. That’s what you get when you equate gay people with animals.

          • Cal-J

            Sound effects? Coooool.

    • Jake E

      How many times will it have to be repeated? You react to someone’s hate with hateful speak. This is simply ridiculous. Relax, for the sake of your own argument. One this is certain, you will not change anyone’s view points with such degrading language. And if you only mean to piss us off – we’re Catholic, you’re work is cut out for you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

      “and told he shits gold.” I want to use this phrase some day, thank you for providing it for me :)

  • Bart Gingerich

    We can also notice that in the Dominical sacraments, you don’t approach the altar saying, “I full intend to continue in sin despite feeding on Christ body and drinking His blood.” St. Paul had some serious prohibitions against this. Such behavior=death. Likewise, when one is converted, one does not approach the baptismal font saying, “I fully intend to revoke my profession here. I really don’t intend to set myself at war against the world, the flesh, and the devil like my covenant actually says.” It is nonsense. I’m sorry–we’re not going to move Christ’s church to give a particular besetting sin a free pass. It is cheap holiness to do so.

    As an Anglican, I can verify that comments and beliefs of Mr. Olser have indeed contributed to a harmful dissolution of the ECUSA.

    • Bart Gingerich

      *comments and beliefs like Mr. Olser’s

  • Marek

    It was a nice post, but, being colorblind, I can’t differentiate the 2 colors in the post (guest mentioned there’s 2), so it made reading it confusing. Could you change the red text (again, guest said it’s red) to maybe a darker red, or blue, or something?

  • Emily

    I am from North Carolina. We just had a major vote on Amendment 1 for the state, regarding the legalities surrounding gay marriage. It caused a big uproar, especially where I live, which is a more pro-gay, etc part of the state (much to my chagrin). I say that not because I have hatred or anything. I actually respect and love everyone, because they are human beings with real lives. A lot of people here want to say things like “Just love” and they often quote Christ’s words about love to prove their point. I think the fundamental issue in that is the fact that people don’t really know what love is anymore. Love is reduced to feelings and that is all. A lot of people thing Catholics who voted for the preservation of traditional marriage in this state are backwater idiots who just listen to bishops and don’t think for themselves. It’s really tiring sometimes. What I have realized is that people on the other side of the fence say we won’t hear them out, when we’re also saying the same about them. I think what it is, is a sad inability to intelligently respect and discuss things between disagreeing groups anymore. I think this is somehow related to post-modernism…not sure how or what to do….a lot of Christians were even confused, some protestant friends of mine took a “live and let live” stance. I personally voted for traditional marriage because I want my children to live in a society where traditional marriage is the norm, because it will be better for their souls and all other’ souls (that doesn’t mean it always feels good! good things rarely do 100% of the time!). I know I am unpopular for this, but I can’t say it matters. Any response, Marc, on the voting and political side of this would be much appreciated.

    • Mikey G

      Apparently, it’s not that unpopular, Emily. Seeing that it passed by a fairly large margin in NC tells me that what you did IS popular. Just because the other position is argued louder doesn’t make it more popular or right.

      • Emily

        Mikey, I am aware of this. I am talking about my corner of the state, which I think I tried to make somewhat clear. I definitely know the outcome of the vote, thank you.

        • Blueshanna

          >>I think what it is, is a sad inability to intelligently respect and discuss things between disagreeing groups anymore.

          • Emily

            Yes, and I think Mikey proved this point Blueshanna. I only felt the need to add “thank you” to the end because I wanted him to know how assuming his comments were, reflecting my point and the one you restated Blueshanna.

          • Mikey G

            Emily are you saying I’m just like one of those “backwater idiots” who doesn’t think for myself?! I’m sorry if you feel that way — I was merely summarizing the outcome of the NC vote (and 31 other states) and limited my comment to that point, and that’s all. There are certainly people on both sides of the argument who can have a calm and reasonable discussion and I like to think I can contribute to intelligent dialogue, and there are those on both sides who are unreasonable and abusive (like a certain troll you’ve seen here). However, falling into the trap and buying into unfair suppositions such as the notion that faith and reason are incompatible should be dismissed offhand. The table of discussion needs to be fair.

    • Ciretower34

      Emily – I understand that you want your children to grow up in a society where traditional marriage is the norm, but you have to remember interracial marriage wasn’t even legal through out the US until 45 years ago and I’m sure people like yourself said the same thing back then. North Carolina already had voted to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples, but wanted to make sure that loving same-sex couples would be denied some basic rights. You stated that you have children – What if one of them turns out to be gay? Would you be so quick to vote away their rights? God knows if you have hate in your heart and if the reason you truely vote a second time to deny families with children a few rights out of bigotry. The pathway to hell is paved thru good intentions.

      • Dbcoopercatcher

        last time i checked, black people are born that way. if gays were born that way, identical twins would both be gay, but that is very rare.

      • Dbcoopercatcher

        and as for rights, a limited power of attorney can be had in these cases for a couple of hundred bucks.been that way for a long time.
        this is about re-defining things.
        it is about a tiny militant minority forcing normalization and secularization.

      • Emily

        Haha, I think you’re assuming a lot about the state of my insides. I’m really shocked you would say if I lived back then I’d be a racist. I think you just need to keep things to yourself when you want to make such ridiculous accusations about someone you don’t know.

        • Emily

          Also I did my reading on both sides and consider myself an informed voter. I am sorry since we don’t agree I’m obviously just an idiot in your estimation. I think this proves the point about the inability to have good dialogue. Also, two of my in-laws practice law and we discussed this subject in detail… and so I am not under any illusion about the ins and outs of the law. I personally wanted to make sure children and unmarried people had protection they needed, because I care about that. I may not agree with others lifestyles or morals, but I think they should have basic needs met. I think at the end of the day, you and I would just disagree about what those are. Anyway, I’m done unless you want to stop being so unkind to me.

          • Emily

            I will just add that if I’m a little firey…forgive me. I’ve been talking to people who really won’t even try to listen for a while. I hope I didn’t make too many assumptions about what you were saying.

  • Jay E.

    “Hey, we let these folks become members of the cool hats society, despite their not wearing cool hats when they joined. How then, can we deny people in the cool hats society their ardent desire to call their socks their hats?”

    LOL, freaking brilliant.

    Nice job with the whole article.

    • bcisaldb

      If this is what passes for “brilliant” (along with the subsequent “lolz”), then Stupidville truly deserves it’s name.

  • Bill

    It is quite difficult for a writer to successfully discuss the civil rights of human beings under a biblical context without appearing a bigot AND a fool.

    • Jay E.

      Does this apply to Mr. Olser or Marc? After all, it was Mr. Olser who is justifying “gay rights” because of unrelated Biblical passages….

  • Mikey G

    Regardless of where you stand in the gay ‘marriage’ debate, Marc is focusing on the fact that saying that Christianity somehow says homosexual acts and gay ‘marriage’ is endorsed by Christianity is simply false. He didn’t write the words, he’s just pointing out what they plainly read. Maybe it’s just too obvious…

  • Rumbleroar

    It’s the people that try to argue we should have gay marriage *religiously* that get me. As far as civil ceremonies go, there’s no problem with granting homosexual couples the same legal amenities as heterosexual couples. But arguing that theologically homosexual couples can have a “marriage” is somewhat ridiculous.

    • Alexandra

      I can agree with that, completely. This is where I get angry. Marc argues against a secular marriage, as well as religious marriage.

      • amcraig

        The thing that a lot of people who are smarter than me have gotten me thinking recently is why the government should even have anything to do with marriage in the first place. Tax benefits, next-of-kin, all of those legal things – the government should just say, “You want that? Here, fill out this form,” and not discriminate with whether that’s your sibling, spouse, life partner, best friend, whoever – and let religion work the marriage/sacrament part.

        • http://arkanabar.blogspot.com/ Arkanabar

          I’d fully agree, but for one thing: well-reared children are a benefit to society. In fact, they are a Public Good. It is entirely reasonable for governments to afford special privileges to those social constructs and units which provide them, which is to say, married families.

        • QDefenestration

          Seriously, if we put an end to legislating marriage PERIOD everyone would be much happier. Religions get to decide whether or not gay marriage is part of their definition of marriage. Legally homosexual and heterosexual couples receive the same rights. Everybody wins.

    • MCG

      The benefits that come with marriage exist as an *incentive* to marry, because the state has a vested interest that a relationship that produces children by its very nature be as stable and prosperous as possible. That’s why the amenities exist, as privileges meant to be incentives. You don’t get tax benefits, etc., just because the state is happy that you and your spouse love each other. What I don’t see is any reason why the state should provide incentives for gay unions, any more than it should provide incentives for friendships or the relationship between a girl and her grandma. It’s a private relationship. No one is keeping homosexual persons for vowing lifelong love and faithfulness to each other. But there is no reason why the state needs to get involved in that, let alone provide incentives for it. Now, if what you’re concerned about is things like hospital visiting rights, etc., I think that’s as simple as making such rights available to anyone a private individual wants to designate as having them.

  • Pthooftv3

    marriage isn’t just about love it’s about family and a family can’t be complete with a homosexual marriage the family must have a husband and wife and be open to the conception of children. marriage is about love to but the love in marriage is about building the kingdom of God through selflessness and generosity. Homosexual marriage is based upon sexual desire which is different from love. Homosexuals can still mary but to someone of opposite gender such in act would be a true showing of selfish love

    • bcisaldb

      So infertile couples, or couples in which the woman has reached menopause are not “complete” marriage?

      And gay people only have sex because of sexual desire and not love?

      You’re retarded.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christian-Gjernes/1400126950 Christian Gjernes

        The wording was “Being open” to the possibility of children, which homosexuality naturally denies, regardless of the condition of one’s body. And a man cannot have sex with a man, nor woman with woman. That’s akin to shoving a banana in my ear and calling it “cochlear eating.”

        • bcisaldb

          Except gay men and women have sex all the time. And gay men and women adopt children. Homosexuality doesn’t “naturally” deny openness to life any more than infertility or menopause naturally do.

          • http://arkanabar.blogspot.com/ Arkanabar

            You presume there is no difference between sexual activity nad having sex. To borrow a definition, “The abandonment of the function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it. So, as you will see, the breach and turning point in the development of sexual life lies in becoming subordinate to the purpose of reproduction. Everything that happens before this turn of events and equally everything that disregards it and that aims solely at obtaining pleasure is given the uncomplimentary name of “perverse” and as such is proscribed.” – Sigmund Freud

          • bcisaldb

            Sex between people who are infertile has given up the aim of reproduction.

            Of course, sex between people who are incapable of having children can also be for reasons other than sheer physical pleasure.

            But what could you possibly know about that?

      • Zaireunderorion

        I think the previous poster was slightly confused. I am inclined to think that the point being made was that marriage isn’t simply about two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together. It’s also about life and the passing on of who we are as people etc. Naturally speaking, homosexual relationships are a dead end as far as family building goes. Now, we have technology that can counteract this, but it is still not part of the natural way things work–as far as building families goes. Also, adoption has always been possible for both types of couples, but adoption itself is the sign of something that has gone wrong. Naturally and preferably, the man and woman who conceived the child stay together in a marriage of sacrificial love to raise said child. Our world is imperfect, so this isn’t always possible.

        Also, Ad Hominem statements are weak and trite. You may think many people posting here are hateful, but you do not, in fact, know them in the slightest. You seem to just be having an immediate reaction that is clouding your sense of reason and decorum.

        Civically speaking, I do not have a problem with gay civil unions having the same rights as a traditional married couple, but I do take issue with it being called marriage. From our point of view, it can never be so. Marriage is a sacrament and something specifically defined to be a certain way, however people may treat it. So, they can call themselves married, but I cannot. However, if they were to convert, they–like everyone else–would have to give up certain aspects of their lives in the pursuit of Christ. It will manifest itself in many ways, joining the priesthood, committing to a life of celibacy without being a priest, marrying a member of the opposite sex and having children, etc., but that does not change the fact that everyone is under the same law.

        Also, please read the catechism for the catholic view on SSA. It is clearly not bigoted.

  • amcraig

    TROOLLLL

    IN THE DUNGEOOOONNN

    Let’s not engage with those anymore. It’s so hard to try to have a reasonable argument with them without being called a hateful little shit, and while, try as I might, I just really don’t care, it is kind of a waste of time when I could be engaging with people who actually care about Truth and reason.

    • Joyfully

      and I might add: it makes a mess of our screens to the point of only one letter per line. grrrrrr.

  • Nick

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/21/pastors-anti-gay-anti-obama-sermon/
    This seemed an appropriate forum for something I found hilarious… While this pastor in North Carolina was CLEARLY mistaken about how to treat others as members of the Body of Christ, I found it odd that the pastor commentator on CNN had this to say about what being a Christian means:

    “The whole purpose of [the Bible] is to reveal the love of God who wants us to love each other and not attempt to judge each other but to show mutual respect, dignity, and worth for every individual and to learn to get along with one another and cooperate with each other. That’s ALSO what our government is about.”

    Yes, sir. In two short sentences, you have equated American national policy with Christianity. You’re right, they’re really the same thing. When I think Church, I think Washington, DC. *FAIL*

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Emily-Rachel-Hyche/100002996663417 Emily Rachel Hyche

    GAY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT REPENT FROM THE VILE ACT OF SLEEPING WITH SAME SEX WILL NOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN!!! You really need to study the word of GOD from beginning to end and in between cause your a very confused person!! love a little deeper, i pray for people who are gay and hopes that they will come to know God because being gay is wrong in all ways!!! i have love for gay people but will not say that they will enter into the kingdom of heaven, they need the truth! i go to google a lot on all kinds of different matters in the bible and am close to finishing my bible and understanding who God is and why things r the way it is. anyone who is truly searching the word would know that gays will not go to heaven on a account of love. the Lord says not to LOVE the ways of the world but to Love the Lord with all your heart, meaning all things that the world do should be cut off from the child of God through the blood of Jesus! you are very confused and i will be praying for you!! the love of this world will wax cold but the love of God will last forever, you would know this if you truly read your bible and loved God, you’re just a very confused person and confusion comes from the enemy the devil! all that i said comes from the bible and if you’re a christian like you say you are then you would know not to twist the word of God to suit you…

  • Peter Nuar

    I’ve always maintained the Church offers the Sacrament of Marriage to all, even the most “flaming” homosexual. Only everybody has to follow the rules: one man, one woman.

    • bcisaldb

      So the Catholic Church promotes fraudulent marriage? Good to know.

      • http://arkanabar.blogspot.com/ Arkanabar

        You presume a lack of erotic attraction automatically invalidates a marriage. Sorry, nope. It complements marriage, and enhances it, but it is not necessary to marriage.

        • bcisaldb

          You clearly are not married.

          • http://arkanabar.blogspot.com/ Arkanabar

            This year will mark our tenth anniversary. Just saying.

          • http://arkanabar.blogspot.com/ Arkanabar

            And, just so’s you know, I was talking about somebody else.

          • bcisaldb

            That’s….sad…

            So you grind away at sex for procreative purposes, hope for a little physical pleasure as your reward, and there’s nothing at all going on there…?

            Oh, wait, no — you’re the gay person married to the straight person. Forgot that. Or the straight person married to the gay person.

            Like I said, how sad…

          • http://arkanabar.blogspot.com/ Arkanabar

            Oh! What Fabulous Telepathic Clairvoiyant Soul-Penetrating Mind Powers you have, that you can tell that I am only able to ever speak of, or present as an example, myself!

            You deserve an Olympic gold medal for long-jumping to conclusions.

          • bcisaldb

            Hey, you defined sex as strictly for procreative purposes or sexual gratification purposes. And you were the one promoting fraudulent marriages. What did you expect? You have such a narrow, shallow, dim view of married life. That is sad to me. It’s very sad. You don’t know what you’re missing.

          • http://arkanabar.blogspot.com/ Arkanabar

            Actually, I didn’t. At no point do I claim that sex is exclusively for procreation or unity. As a Catholic who believes everything the Church teaches (see the header on my blog), I actually presume it must be for both at once. Neither of these requires an erotic attraction. Don’t you ever get tired of chopping down straw men?

          • bcisaldb

            No, your words are still there. You said that when the procreative aspect is removed from sex, all you have left is sex for physical pleasure. That’s what YOU said. Own it. Your marriage sounds like a misery from start to finish.

        • QDefenestration

          Yeah I’m no canon lawyer, but that seems like it would be grounds for an annulment (read: invalid marriage in the first place).

  • Angela Joyce

    Marc Barnes! You are firing on all eight cylinders!!! I can’t wait to see what next you will post! Keep soldiering on, Marc! If you are EVER begin on the “talk” circuit, I would really like to know. I would love to have you come speak to our youth groups!
    Peace and God bless YOU!

  • Olivia

    Wanting to change the meaning of “marriage” to include same sex couples implies one of two things.
    1) The term “marriage” has always included same sex couples but we are just now discovering this truth and so are simply allowing the true definition to come out.
    2) The term “marriage” includes only people of opposite sex attraction but we have decided that we want to change the definition to include same sex couples, because we have decided it should be so for whatever reason we have deemed worthy.

    If the first implication is true then is not possible that the term “marriage” also includes other unions that we haven’t thought of yet? And possibly should include any union we can think of? Why are we so sure that we have *finally* discovered the true meaning of “marriage?”

    If the second implication is true then I feel that is pretty poor logic in favor of deeming anything “sacramental” or “holy.” With this logic we can change the name of anything we consider holy, say, “baptism” to indeed include spray tans because enough people have decided that it should be so. Therefore rendering anything we have held sacred in the past, (because of it’s immutable and eternal meaning), earthly and ordinary. And by doing so completely stripped it of any “sacramental” or “holy” connotations and simply made it human. This isn’t what same sex couples want. They want to participate in the spiritual and eternal aspect of marriage (I assume since “unions” have not been what they are seeking but rather, specifically, marriage which has spiritual connotations)…

    Therefore I have to conclude that same sex couples seeking marriage, and their supporters, believe that the word “marriage” has always included same sex couples and now we are simply revealing the true definition. Is this a fair conclusion?

    Then what does this imply for the future of the meaning of the word “marriage?” And why does no one want to talk about that implication?

  • Angela Joyce

    Wow! Marc… you really stirred up bcis….whatever it ends with. Such snarky comments from him. And he calls you intolerant. :(

  • BCL12

    Maybe this was mentioned already, but as long as we’re talking about what was required of Gentiles who wanted to be baptized, I give Acts 15:28-29

    It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,
    namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from ****unlawful marriage****. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.

  • Brenda Becker

    Good job laying out the issues around gay marriage, but even better job laying out the nature of Church versus pebble-bottomed stream and “gentle army” on the banks. (Although I must admit it would be awfully relaxing to be a liberal Anglican, and positively blissful–like being in a sensory-deprivation tank, only devoid of controversy–to be a Unitarian.) Yet the good gay folks I know who have married and are raising families are just that: good folks, raising families, clearly in love and seeking the grace of blessing their union with new life (somehow). Their same-sex status seems almost like a handicap they have overcome, and their creative attempts to build families (whether through problematic baby technology or often very noble adoption of kids no one else wants) seem rather akin to adaptations to that handicap. No, WE (Catholics) cannot marry them to one another because of our theology, which you have laid out with your usual zest; but I could live with a middle solution where gubmint gets out of the marriage business altogether and simply legitimizes domestic partnerships of both types. It’s not like we Catholics accept the validity of a “City Hall” marriage anyway. The only thing that worries me, after this HHS insurance fiasco, is that we will be sued for discrimination if we hold to our theology.

  • CrabbyThomist

    I thank God everyday for people like you. It makes living this remnant of a Church a whole lot more entertaining, but also truthful and edifying.

  • bonerdude67

    who cares? just mind your business plz thx

    • Sue

      Don’t feed the trolls.

    • Corita

      >just mind your business plz thx
      So…you can….deal with your boner… without interference?

      • bonerdude67

        plz get mind out of gutter. obv a big fan of growing pains.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501717079 Sarah Hamilton Karnouk

    Points well made as per usual, still need to disagree with your overall conclusion because I repeat each time your re-write this article in different wording that American law in it’s totality cannot be based on the Catholic Church, it is not possible. America is supposed to be the home of religious freedom. Your entire argument is based biblically in a world where the bible is not used to create law, it cannot be. We should ACTUALLY be happy that the law is not based on the bible, the torah, the quaran or any other religious document. The fact is that marriage now refers to a contract between two consenting adults, and even if some hick states continue fighting it, it will ultimately mean this. Marriage is not necessarily sacred in this definition and it cannot be, because sacred is defined differently…oops…Am I relativist? I know you dislike relativists, pray for us please, and I will pray that you come to the conclusion at some point in your earthly existence that law cannot be built on bibles. There are all kinds of religiously run countries I can refer to as examples as to why this is a horrible form of government, but you are smart I will spare you the time. Be blessed.

    • Marc Barnes

      Sarah, great point. I’m ONLY responding to the biblical justification of gay marriage. I’m not in any way advocating that the Bible be used as justification for having/not having gay marriage. Cheers!

      • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

        You should really preface your article with this, it may help eliminate some confusion. Or not. I don’t know.

  • Dbcoopercatcher

    this is strictly about a tiny militant minority forcing society towards normalization and secularization.

  • Francis

    Discussion question: which convinces you more that Marc speaks the Truth?

    a) logic, eloquence, consistency, rationality and wit;

    or

    b) the fact that serial trolls like Alexandra and bcisaldb just can’t seem to stay away??? hmmmm…..

    please discuss.

    • Alexandra

      I promise you, after this conversation dies down, I’m done.

      I really was getting positive things out of conversations with people on this blog before this. I wasn’t trolling, but perhaps you see it that way.

      • Francis

        Still – even if you’re “done” – you’re not going to be able to shake the truth tugging on your heart strings forever. You can numb it, drown it out – you can pretend it isn’t there. But it is there. And you know it is. We’ve all tried to do this at some point, I sure know that I did. The sooner you can acknowledge the truth of the what Church teaches, the better. Why wouldn ‘t you want to stop living a lie?

        • Alexandra

          BHAHAHAHA!

          Cute.

      • Lauren G

        Maybe I’m just not particularly active in the comboxes, but I don’t see you as a troll at all, Alexandra. I disagree with you on most everything, but you’re pretty respectful and articulate.

        • Alexandra

          Thanks Lauren. I normally really really try to understand people’s points and be respectful and articulate. Sometimes I fail, but I do my best to apologize and I am grateful for people who call me out when I’m behaving badly.

          However, Marc’s posts on homosexuality just completely send me over the edge. I can’t handle them anymore and they’ve become much too frequent and more and more mocking. They incite a whole lot of meanness in the comments. I can’t manage to behave like an articulate adult with the way they make me rage, and so I’m gonna go ahead and bow out after this.

      • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

        It’d be a bummer for you to be done reading and commenting on this site. I think it’s productive to have open, honest, positive dialogue with people of different beliefs and opinions.

        I’m just sorry so many people have been so negative and rude on this topic. You wouldn’t know from the responses that being a Christian calls people to act “Christ like.” They must have missed the memo. Hope you stick around and keep adding to the conversation.

      • Free Lemons

        I don’t see you as a troll. You generally present the opposing arguments respectfully (from what I’ve read). Persistence does not a Troll make. Completely different … animal (get it? haha?). The other guy needs a nap.

      • Deven Kale

        I would also like to add that I would not like for you to leave. One of the reasons that I decided to start following Bad Catholic is because of you. I noticed that in a couple of posts referenced here from Friendly Atheist that you seemed quite alone in your occasional opposition of the status quo. I thought maybe you could use a bit of help, and I would hate to end up alone myself due to your leaving. ;)

    • bcisaldb

      c) none of he above.

      Yes, he’s consistently cold and dead emotionally, he’s consistently incapable of human empathy, he’s consistently gleeful and self-congratulatory over his attempts to once again spew his anti-gay message, but he has no logic, eloquence, rationality or wit — especially wit — truly witty people aren’t emotionally dead and willfully cruel.

      I stay away all the time. I draw the line when the usual assholes start with the gay people = animals bullshit.

      You people show the world who you are and what you really believe every time you go down that road. So a big fat fuck you, Francis. Shame on you for thinking that gay men and women who enter into committed, loving, caring marriages are the same as some fuckwit having it off with a sheep in the churchyard.

      • Francis

        … so that’s one vote for b — anyone else?

        • bcisaldb

          You’re a creep. But thank you for showing me what the Catholic Church really teaches.

          • Francis

            you’re only allowed to vote once! what do you hate democracy too?

          • bcisaldb

            Grow up, old man. Encouraging the dehumanization of gay people is evil. Deal with it. Just because YOU don’t think gay people are human beings doesn’t mean God thinks they’re not. You think you’re cute and clever and oh-so-hardy-har-har-funny, but you’re a pig. A filthy, revolting old pig wallowing in the much of hatred.

            Fuck you.

          • Jay E.

            Why is it so intensely important to you that we think gays aren’t even human?

            Our own Catechism says: “2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

            But of course – all lies and slander! All proofs of Catholic deep seated belief that gays aren’t HUMAN!

          • bcisaldb

            Your words and actions don’t match your Catechism. Start lining them up and maybe you’ll get people to listen to you.

            When you start with the bestiality analogy, no one cares what you say you believe. You already showed them what you actually believe.

          • http://arkanabar.blogspot.com/ Arkanabar

            Well, duh. The Church being as huge as it is, and designed from the start as a hospital for sinners, it’s no wonder that none of us fully live up to the Church’s teachings on this or any other matter. However, it does not automatically follow from the fact that we Catholics are all fallen, that we must therefore always equivocate SSA people with animals. As it happens, there are commonalities between homosexuals and those who practice bestialism: both engage in sexual behavior that is necessarily non-procreative. Interestingly enough, that doesn’t make these the worst of all sexual behaviors; far worse to my mind would be rape.

          • bcisaldb

            There is ZERO need to make the bestiality analogy when discussing the Church’s position on gay relationships. None at all. Yet is usually one of the FIRST arguments some idiot makes when these discussions crop up.

            Why is that? What’s up with that? It’s clearly offensive and inflammatory — just ask Rick Santorum — yet not one of these discussions ever manages to make their point without making that analogy.

            That says a lot. Screams it from the rooftops.

            You work on your own issues before you start telling non-Catholics how they should live. When you get it right all the time, you get to preach at other people. Until then, shut up. And if you can’t figure out that the bestiality analogy is just plain fucking retarded at this point, then you’re all a pack of idiots and no one should listen to you about anything. Which is pretty much what’s already happening. And you still can’t figure out why.

            It’s the hypocrisy, the hate, the stupidity, this bizarro focus on sex all the time (in spite of your own Church’s problems with sexual matters), and it’s the gleeful, gloating, sniggering pleasure y’all take when you “smackdown” gay people.

            You deserve nothing but contempt, and that’s all you’ll ever get from me.

          • Anon

            Why can’t you be nicer about this? I’m on your side of this matter, but your anger and meanness completely override anything else you are trying to say. It embarrasses me to see your comments, and I think there are a lot of other pro-gay marriage people that would feel the same. :(

    • eliz27

      b. St. Paul comes to mind.

    • QDefenestration

      I fail to see how this comment is any more productive than any other kind of trolling.

  • JoFlemings

    I very much appreciate that you actually, as a Catholic, know your Bible and aren’t afraid to use it, the same with your mind, intellect and blog. Well done.

  • Jenny Uebbing

    Marc, you rock.

  • ASEllis

    My absolute favorite part right here:

    “The forgiveness of sins — a bond between God and man if there ever was one — is not a thing flowing over us. It is a thing decided by the Church. Now don’t get me wrong, I wish it were otherwise. If every time I sinned I just got caught up in the flow of forgiveness, I’m sure life would be brighter and more fun and more sinful.”

    Love it!

  • Pamela

    I love your spray-tan baptism analogy, alongside marriage not being a sacrament of initiation. I love how you pointed out so clearly the errors and contradictions in his arguments, such as “because Peter baptized those in falsehood into the Truth, those already in the Truth should be allowed to live out a falsehood”.
    These “waters” he mentions are indeed eroding, but that doesn’t make them the Holy Spirit. Lies erode at ones spirit, too. There are plenty of examples of that and frankly, some days the lies can erode at my spirit, but not at my resolve in truth. Thank you for this post. It helps those of us that stumble over the words that express the conviction of our hearts and truths. It’s strengthening and witty, but respectfully clarifying. Keep up the awesome posts! May God bless you.

  • Sarah Dickerson

    I don’t disagree with most of your points made here, but the tone really bothers me. What happened to Jesus’ way of treating people with love and respect, even as you disagree with them?

    • Alexandra

      This makes me happy, Sarah. My impression from Marc’s more recent posts and the support that people have given for the way that he wrote them has been completely shocking to me. This isn’t loving or respectful, at least not by any definition I’m comfortable with.

      • eliz27

        I’ve been skipping your comments, but saw something in a response and took a look. You lose any authority and credibility on identifying yourself as loving and respectful and tolerant once you admit to shredding resumes of people from “insular religious schools.”

        • Alexandra

          I didn’t claim to be tolerant. I’m intolerant of a lot of things. Including a lot of Christian teachings – teachings that are valued and emphasized at insular religious schools like Franciscan.

          • eliz27

            “Resumes from universities like Franciscan will always go off my desk and straight into the shredder” sounds like an admission to me. Even if you “would” do it, your authority and credibility are gone. You’ve shown yourself to be no different than what you think you’re criticizing. I am back to skipping your comments.

          • Alexandra

            I’m cool with that, because you’re just refusing to see my point. Conversation is pointless and frustrating when people aren’t even trying to understand.

          • JoAnna Wahlund

            So, it’s okay to be an intolerant bigot as long as you’re intolerant of something unpopular? Oh yeah. That makes sense.

          • Alexandra

            Unpopular? Are you kidding me?

        • Alexandra

          Also, didn’t admit to it. Said that I would do it.

    • bcisaldb

      Marc’s tone is encouraged here. Marc lacks natural human empathy, which is about standard for Patheos Catholics. The Patheos Catholic way is to snark, sneer, snigger, degrade and dehumanize the “other”. Look around — we have fat piggy single baby-murdering moms telling the rest of us how evil we are for not hating gays like she does. I mean, it’s okay to murder your children, but it’s not okay to refuse to deny gay people marriage. We have the likes of fatso-slobbo-baby-killer Katrina and the mentally retarded Asperger’s-addled Marc, whose stock-in-trade is gloating and cavorting over who he can “smackdown” next, and we have Max-the-misogynist-Lindenman shitting all over women every chance he gets, all in the name of the Catholic Church. Great. This is the “new” evangalization! This is the new, improved Catholic Church! Forget the saints! Forget the Catechism! Hey, don’t look at that God over there! Look at us! We’re the new saints, the new god!

      Marc Barnes is the prime example of EVERYTHING that is bad and dead and evil in the Catholic Church today, and the evil adults who encourage his snarky, sneering, mean-spirited, self-congratulatory tone are Satan himself.

  • Nicholas Hardesty

    This blog post is so epic it’s not even funny. Well, it is funny, but it’s epic too. Epic and funny, yes, that’s it. Well done :D

  • Manny

    Olser’s is so shallow that it’s laughable. Good job in refutation Marc.

  • BriannaHeldt

    This.is.excellent. Had me laughing and nodding throughout!

  • A Sailor

    I have no idea when the government acquired authority over the English language .

    • Alexandra

      They…um…didn’t?

      But you have to come up with a legal definition things to be able to legislate things.

  • Alexandra

    Benjammin:

    I’m excited, I really do like talking to people calmly and articulately on here. Especially disagreeing with people, but I’ll take what I can get.

    When I say homosexuality is a normal variation, I’m mostly just quoting. Sexual orientation is very complicated, seriously people spend years studying it and never unravel it all. What I mean when I say it though is that it always occurs in human populations, experts have determined that it is natural, and it is not a psychological disorder because it does not cause the person distress.

    I really don’t claim to be an expert on any of this, but in what I’ve read homosexuality is never something something that like develops because of something traumatic, it’s just the way some people are born. Bestiality and other psychological disorders are things that arise in response to something specific and are often present in association with other severe mental disorders. It’s quite possible none of that is true, but that’s my feel for it.

    The essential difference between homosexuality and bestiality, though, the only thing that maters really, is that in one case we’re talking about two adult humans that can consent to a relationship, in the other we’re talking about rape. An animal cannot consent to a sexual relationship.

    It is hard to define the difference between a roommate situation and an intimate partnership. We could get married though. If you’re of opposite sex. If you chose to marry your roommate even if you weren’t intimately involved with them, you’d still have the right to get married and be afforded the legal protections that comes with getting married. You do have that option, I’m pretty sure though for like immigration purposes and things you have to show that your marriage is “real” and not just roommates getting married for a green card. You basically have to show that you’re invested in the relationship for the long term. Not that you’re sexually intimate, but that you have done things like opened a bank account together, have car insurance together, a cell phone plan…whatever.

    Secular marriage is “just” a contract really. It’s a serious business contract, but it’s just an agreement that gives you certain protections in the event of a divorce.

    We’ve already defined things that we expect a married couple to do through immigration law, and none of those things are things that you can’t do if you’re of the same sex. Sure it’s challenging, but we’ve already started to do it.

    I see your point in civil unions vs marriage, but essentially it’s just semantics at that level. Secular marriage is one thing, religious marriage is another. Secular marriage is like you describe, a civil union, but it isn’t necessary to change the language.

    • Alexandra

      I just noticed a bunch of weird typos (“we could get married”? I’m not sure where that came from, I think I mumbled some thoughts about how my husband and I were roommates before we were even intimate partners…)

      I was excited to have real conversation, please excuse the lack of coherence.

  • Burton

    Marc,

    This post beautifully articulates one of the most critical truths of our time; a potent antidote to the rampant, vapid sentimentalism that has infected the Church for too long.

    Keep it coming!!

    Burton

  • Adam

    Is it dehumanizing a man or woman with SSA by asking the following: Did anyone here ever stop to think that, maybe, just maybe, people who identify with SSA are man or woman first? As a married man, I never stop to ask myself, “how can I be a better heterosexual man today?”. No! It’s how can I be a better man! How can I be a man of Christ. This question is the same for men with SSA. God created you man!

    So, think about it… Is it really unreasonable to believe that men and women with SSA have a particular vocation or calling? No, it’s not. Just as I have a vocation to marry and be a teacher, people with SSA have a calling to love and to serve in their profession as well.

    What is their calling to love? This is the question! It seems to me that men and women with SSA have a unique calling to love. This love is bombarded and attacked with societal expectations for them, but the answer is not there, it is in God. That men and women with SSA should not marry is evident and supported biblically and by numerous Church fathers. So how are they called to love? Currently, their love is linked to Christ and His cross. If linked to Him, all of the sufferings and desires that society deems it appropriate to feel will melt away, because they will love and fulfill a higher calling. Let us lose ourselves in Him, and in doing so find freedom and fullness. Ask, and we shall receive he fullness of His peace. Ask.

  • Annonymous

    My gosh, you’re good. And also hilarious. Thank you for doing what you do so damn well.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=9220490 Mark Osler

    For all that analysis, you could have gotten my name right!

    I understand where you are coming from– it is a Catholic perspective, and a principled one. I am not Catholic, and that is a central point of our disagreement. I would say that if I was a member of the Catholic church I would feel compelled to defer to church teaching on this.

    • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

      I’m not sure Protestant Christian vs Catholic would make much of a difference, I would also be very interested Mr. Olser to see how you would respond to his analysis! I think it would be a very interesting read.

  • Deep Thinker

    As long as you cling desperately to your male hierarchy (note there is no real fear of lesbians in any of the sacred writings) and their homophobic inclinations, there is no hope for the Catholic church. You all insist on looking through the wrong end of the telescope…concentrating on hairsplitting and micromanaging human relations…why not be productive and go back to how many angels will fit on the head of a pin – at least no one…no human being…is hurt by that. In the meantime, spin this however you like…follow the instructions of a bunch of epistolarians with dogmatic axes to grind, little world view and possibly not even authors to parse out your wisdom for the ages. Believe what you like but don’t expect me to go along with it. Perhaps you can found a new country somewhere else and go back to a theocracy…look how well that is working out in Israel. Peace.

    • http://odgie.wordpress.com/ odgie

      “Deep Thinker”? Really? This comment doesn’t justify your name.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Angelo-Ocampo/100000081911147 Angelo Ocampo

        What do you expect from a radical feminist like “Deep Thinker”?

    • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

      As long as you cling desperately to your male hierarchy…there is no hope for the Catholic church.

      I don’t know, it’s endured fairly well so far. As well as other patriarchical faiths have…

  • enness

    That sound is me cheering!

  • Paula

    A+.

  • guest

    Excuse me, but a 2,000 year old divine institution put upon the Earth by Christ himself to spread the news of true Hope and salvation, who refuses to conform to the fleeting, passing, arbitrary movements of man, who will ultimately triumph over evil in the end… is going to be “thwarted” by a few mindless, senseless, idiotic, juvenile comments made in the comment section of one of the many articles made by one of the many bloggers of one of the many blogs in the vast infinite ocean of the internet by some anonymous person who has admitted to not wanting to converse with the faithful on any reasonable level?

    How… silly. How silly. Bcisaldb, please.

    • bcisaldb

      Um….Marc Barnes’ blog is the Catholic Church…? Huh?

      I’m not trying to “thwart” the Catholic Church.

      I’m just fucking up comboxes where hateful rhetoric towards gay people is encouraged.

      I “converse with the faithful” all the time. Just not with people who equate gay people with animals, or gay relationships with bestiality, incest and/or pedophilia.

      How silly of you to think this blog is the Catholic Church, dear. How silly indeed.

      • guest

        The message of the Church I suppose? Either way, the point remains.

        Anyways, this was great Marc. Please keep writing.

        • bcisaldb

          Nope. The twisted message of hatred people like you pass off as Church teaching. Big difference, you baby-murdering whore.

          • guest

            “There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance. Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God’s.” – Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

            We are not trying to pass off anything. This is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The institution of Christ. It’s kinda hard to be any more direct and transparent than that.

          • bcisaldb

            Right. So the Catholic Church teaches that it’s okay to equate gay people with animals, or gay relationships with bestiality, pedophilia and/or incest. Good to know. You’re the third or fourth person who has confirmed that position as official Church teaching. Okay, you’re not trying to pass anything off as Church teaching. That IS Church teaching. The teaching of the Roman Catholic Churhc. The institution of Christ. You’re right. That’s quite direct and transparent.

            The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ believes gay people are animals, not humans, and their relationships are the same as people having sex with animals, or raping children, or screwing their siblings.

            Gotcha.

          • guest

            No, it isn’t. That was the point of my included quote. We view homosexuals as human beings with an inherent dignity. To be treated with love and respect.

            But if you’re going to proactively twist and misinterpret that, that’s your issue. Not really mine. Or anyone else’s. You don’t “gotch” anything.

          • bcisaldb

            No. My entire point is that it’s wrong to make the kinds of analogies that equate gay people to something less than human. But you got all pissy about that and informed me that this was, in fact, Church teaching.

            So, which is it? Is it wrong to use analogies that demean and degrade gay people when you’re supposedly promoting Church teaching, or is that okay?

            And if it’s wrong — if all this smarty-pants, attention-seeking rhetoric of Marc Barnes and his commenters is wrong, then how is it in keeping with Church teaching for you to encourage him to continue that vein of rhetoric?

            Do you people ever give a flying fuck about anything but personal attention and chortling over “smackdowns” and “winning” something on the internet?

            Don’t bother — I already know the answer.

          • guest

            Son, it’s both. Yes, it’s wrong to reduce other human beings to animals. And nowhere did I say that reducing other people via said analogies was right. In fact, I quoted an Archbishop who said that we should’nt be intolerant of a person’s dignity precisely because they are human. But at the same time, we believe, and the Church teaches, that homosexual marriage is wrong. And Marc’s article is merely defending that. Nothing more. That was the message I was talking about. Splitting hairs with other commentators doesn’t change that profession of the faith.

            I understand that this doesn’t fit the narrative that you’re trying to construct in your head, and undermines the false dichotomy you wish to impose, but like I said, that’s not my issue. There are many things I care about in this world, but I am not obliged to list them for you.

          • Cristero

            Surprised you went along as far as you did with his uneducated droning. I’ve never seen anybody misconstrue people’s words so much. I would’ve just let bcisaldb wallow in his blind execration, hence my not responding to him. My hat is off to you sir.

          • bcisaldb

            Fuck you, cocksucker.

            You just want an excuse to look on gay people as something less than human.

  • Sara

    Marc, don’t ever stop writing as long as you live. Thank you.

  • marge

    ladies and gentlemen, I encourage you to treat every one with respect. Those crying out for tolerance and acceptance — you need to tone down your harsh comments. If you remember, Marc’s article is about homosexuality in the context of Christianity. If you do not believe God exists or is worth our attention, this is the wrong article on which to comment. when i ask for “respect”, I mean considering all opinions. “Respect” does not mean allowing anyone to do what they want. A parent can respect their child but not allow them to do certain things. God is our Father and as a parent, He does not allow us to do anything we want, including allowing men and women with SSA to participate in the sacrament of holy matrimony. “Respect” also does not mean calling anyone “retarded” “evil” or “stupid” as I’ve read in these comments. Lets be adults not and degenerate into name-callers.

    • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

      Those crying out for tolerance and acceptance — you need to tone down your harsh comments.

      Not just those crying out for tolerance and acceptance, but everyone. I’m super disturbed by a lot of the comments from Christians on here. Jesus was a lot nicer to the people he corrected, and he didn’t even call the money changers “pure evil and the most disgusting excuses for human beings” when he overturned their tables.

  • http://www.facebook.com/balf11 Brian Formica

    For what it’s worth: I like your style, Marc. Your boldness is a breath of fresh air (oof, and thanks for avoiding cliches … quite unlike me); I can forgive you for the times you may’ve crossed the line a smidgeon (and apologized). Usually I find your logic straightforward and clean (though often misinterpreted).

    But best of all, you’re showing us a beauty of Catholicism I know I often miss. I think many of us do. Please, press on!

  • http://www.facebook.com/maryliziz Mary Liz Bartell

    Jesus said (addressing divorce) in Matthew 19 Verse 4 – 7 that a “Man must leave his father and mother and be joined with his WIFE and the two shall become one flesh!” THIS APPLIES TO ALL MARRIAGES. So if it is Adam and Eve they are one flesh. And if it’s Kevin and Mary it’s one flesh. NOT Adam with Adam, Not Eve with Eve. All the sex toys in the world aren’t going to join a sexual abomination in the Sacrament of Marriage as it applies to the Christian Faith. So God Bless you Bad Catholic for standing up for this defense of Marriage between Man and Woman!

  • http://twitter.com/hihims MARK

    Young gay man here who stumbled upon this blog via a Catholic friend’s Facebook page. Two semantic issues that are bothering me:

    1) Should not the author of this blog have taken further into account that the fellow whose argument he so readily mocked and dismissed is expressing a “Christian” case for gay marriage rather than a “Catholic” one?

    By no means am I claiming to be an expert on the different sects of Christianity, but given the plethora of contrasting Biblical interpretations amongst the various sects, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that some denominations might approve of gay marriage whereas others might not. If the contested author had made a “Catholic” case for gay marriage I would better understand and tolerate your mockery and sarcasm towards his opinions.

    As a Catholic, what grounds are there to feel threatened by other Christian denominations’ acceptance of gay marriage? Should other denominations make such a decision it in no way places pressure on the Catholic Church to follow suit. The Catholic Church is its own religious entity and may continue as it wishes, regardless of the progresses (or perhaps regresses, in your thinking) made by other denominations within the realm of Christianity. I see little reason beyond immaturity in decrying the opinions of someone who’s “sect” has no bearing on that your own.

    2) Let’s talk about the word “marriage”. How unfortunate of a situation we find ourselves in when our political institutions are supposed to be separate from religion but, in fact, are filled with Judeo-Christian ideology. Of course taking into account the scope of religious authority at the time of our political institutions were created it follows that religious doctrine would find its way into our laws and constitutions somehow or another…

    But the semantic issue remains: marriage is both a political right and a religious right. Back in the good old days when religion’s hegemony was unquestioned, those two rights were synonymous. Now they aren’t. Bad news for all.

    And here’s where I come in. The homosexual who stumbled upon this fun little blog. I want all gay citizens to have the legal right to get married. I believe that homosexual marriages should be recognized by our political institutions so that homosexuals may enjoy the same legal status and its accompanying rights as do heterosexuals.

    In no way, whatsoever, am I asking for my right to marriage to be recognized by the Catholic Church. Or any other religious authority for that matter. I understand and accept that certain people (probably most of the people who read this blog) believe that marriage is a sacrament created by God and that it should remain between a man and woman. That’s great. Totally get it. Love it. Continue as you will, because that’s not what I want. I just want my government to recognize my relationship with another man so that I can enjoy the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples do within the realm of our secular, non-religious political institutions.

    The issue at hand is that religious groups and secular groups are fighting over a word that is exactly the same in its nomenclature and entirely different in its meaning. Perhaps one group (whether it be the secular or the religious) should change their nomenclature so as to end all of this madness on both sides. In a liberal democratic society Catholics should be allowed to believe their own definition of what marriage really is. And, however discriminatory I might find it, you should continue to possess the right to exclude certain persons from attaining the religious right of marriage within your own institutions.

    FINAL THOUGHTS.

    One of the things that really pisses me off about this whole marriage debacle is that “the gays” are being blamed for trying to ruin the sacrament of marriage. I take issue with people (not just Catholics, but ANY group who is adamantly opposed to gay marriage) in that they are inhibiting me from receiving a political right to which I should be undoubtedly be allowed in attempt to protect a religious right in which I have absolutely NO interest. The majority of gays I know do not want the right to marry as recognized by the Catholic Church; they want the right to marry as recognized by their secular government. We do not want to destroy your sacrament of marriage. We do not want to be recognized by your Church.

    And I find it hypocritical that secular heterosexual couples are not treated by religious groups with the same disdain that homosexuals such as myself are. Simply because non-religious people happen to be heterosexual does not mean that they necessarily meet the requirements of your marriage definition. Premarital sex, sodomy, the use of contraceptives, abortion, infidelity, and divorce are all far from uncommon within the scope of heterosexual marriage. (And, realistically these sins likely occur within the scope of Catholic-sanctioned marriages as well. They’re just not as instantly visible as two dudes kissing.). But seriously, what is it about gay marriage that is so much more contestable than premarital sex or heterosexual sodomy? Than the use of contraceptives? Than the practice of abortion? Than infidelity? Than divorce?

    What causes you to vote against the achievement of equal political rights for a minority within your country? Is it to protect the sacredness of your religious rights? Because that sacredness, in my mind, has long been gone from the vast majority of peoples’ lives and yet there is no war against married heterosexuals who contravene your sacramental definition of marriage. Why me and not them?

    I guess that’s just what I wanted to say.

    • Karli

      As a Catholic, I completely agree with you.

      • hihims

        Thanks! Glad to know that there are other people who idealize mutual respect amongst persons with differing opinions :). All the best to you

    • Korou

      Well said!
      I think it’s interesting that Christians argue against homosexuality by saying it’s unnatural. Which just doesn’t seem to be a good argument against it. The question should be, is it right or not? Does it hurt anyone or not? I think that the real reason Christians say that is because they think that saying being gay is unnatural sounds better than the real reason. Which is…what? That they don’t like the thought of it, it’s icky? That it’s against their religious beliefs, but that wouldn’t appeal to someone who wasn’t a member of them? So saying being gay in unnatural doesn’t make them sound prejudiced?

      Fred Clark, the Slacktivist did a very good series of articles on why Christians were so obsessed with gay sex. One of them advanced the idea that it was because homosexuality was a sin that you could accuse others of without sounding like a hypocrite; a sin, unlike others like greed, pride, jealousy or malice, that you really weren’t guilty of. Perhaps he was right.

      • bcisaldb

        >>Fred Clark, the Slacktivist did a very good series of articles on why Christians were so obsessed with gay sex. One of them advanced the idea that it was because homosexuality was a sin that you could accuse others of without sounding like a hypocrite; a sin, unlike others like greed, pride, jealousy or malice, that you really weren’t guilty of. Perhaps he was right.<<

        Ain't that the truth…

        • Korou

          Ah, here they are:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2007/10/16/gay-hatin-gospe-2/

          “Theory No. 1: The Safe Target

          “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to us all,” St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:13.

          If you’re a preacher, and if you possess the slightest bit of self-awareness, that’s problematic. It means that preaching against any temptation or sin implicates your entire congregation and yourself as well. That can be really uncomfortable for all involved. Pick any of the seven deadlies or the 10 commandments and you risk alienating everyone in the pews and exposing yourself as less than perfect. Awwwk–waaard.

          But lately, many American evangelical preachers think they have found a loophole: Homosexuality. Here is a temptation that does not seem to be common to us all. It seems to be the perfect “sin”* — the perfect safe target. Straight preachers can rail against it without worrying about exposing themselves as hypocrites or, even worse, as fallible humans just like everyone else. And statistically speaking, most of the congregation will be able to say “Amen” without squirming or feeling the least discomfort. It’s all win.”

  • BlueFox94

    Man, if we could only air the above debates on national TV… *sigh*

    Great post, Marc!!! God bless u ^_^

  • Charles

    Council of Jerusalem, Council of Jerusalem. The Leviticus ‘lawful marriage’ answer is right there in the scriptures. These homophilic advocates (pro-sterile, pro-promiscuous, anti-family heterosexuals and Christ-denying political opportunists in collars) reveal themselves to be terrible biblical scholars.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KDQFQTMD56CJAKMLXRFYUDNCPQ Montague

    The first thing I thought of when it came to indiscriminate dispensing of sacraments:

  • Deven Kale

    This is a subject that I’m woefully ignorant about, so I would like someone to please educate me on it. I have three specific questions that I would like to have answered honestly, without the venom I’m expecting from this particular audience.

    1) Is there a law that states, unequivocally, that just because two people can get married legally, that any given church and/or church official must, through fear of legal action, grant them that marriage?

    2) You argue that marriage should only be the act of “holy matrimony.” That it be a sacred act performed by a church official for a man and woman who wish to join in that holy union. Should you not then be arguing that any legal benefits granted to those individuals not only pervert, but also greatly diminish the value of that union and turn it into something far less than it’s intended holy purpose?

    3) If this marriage should only be performed by a church official, in that they are the only ones with the capacity to grant it “under the Lord,” should you not also be arguing against non-church officials being granted the right to marry two people outside of it’s holy bonds, such as a Judge or Justice of the Peace?

    Any real answers would be greatly appreciated.

    • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

      For the first one, my personal concern comes from our obnoxiously huge government. I am personally for gay unions/marriage because in our country they should be eligible for the same rights as any committed couple. But now that Catholic institutions are being forced to violate their consciences in regards to providing/paying for (insurance companies that provide) birth control, I think it is a fair assumption that the government could say, “Gays want to be married so they must have the access to marriage. Gays want to be married in the church so the church cant deny them that right.” Religious interference in government and government interference in religious freedom is a very dangerous thing. So while that may not be a big fear of “ani gay marriagers,” I wouldnt be surprised if I woke up this morning and Obama was trying to introduce legislation that no church can deny gays a sacramental marriage.

      Second point, in the church the marriage is a sacrament. Whatever people call it outside of the church, marriage,civil union, whatever, it may not be a holy union. It could be some satanist devil worshiping union. i think the church would be silly to argue about it diminishing a christian union -we enter marriage knowing what it means to us as Catholics, and should recognize that whatever unions are going on that we think are not holy don’t diminish what we have.

      Third, it goes back to the whole point that the way we define “marriage” isnt what others perceive it to be in the secular world. Justices of the peace, ordained internet minister, etc all are granted the right to marry couples civilly, it isn’t a religious thing. We could make a stink about the use of the word marriage, but I think it would be a waste of time. People use all kinds of churchy words in all kinds of various contexts and it has no bearing on what we hold to be the truths of our faith.

      Ron Paul said: “Marriage is a religious ceremony where a Man and a Woman commit themselves before God that they will be husband and wife. Take the marriage license and tax breaks out of the equation and you would have far less controversy regarding the issue of gay marriage.”

      If the governmental marriage was called anything but marriage, I dont think this would be nearly as huge an issue. But we don’t have the sole claim on the word -in the end, it shouldnt matter what it’s called, what should matter is that:

      A) All couples regardless of sexual orientation, race, etc who are entering into a contracted union should be entitled to the same benefits.
      B) A religious institution should not be forced to violate their conscience, so if they thank “gay marriage” is wrong they should not be forced to perform them.

      That’s just my two cents :)

      • Deven Kale

        Thank you. You pretty much confirmed all of my major assumptions in this debate.
        And by the way, I agree with you wholeheartedly as to whether or not homosexuals should be able to enter into that civil contract, as well as whether or not government should be allowed to demand churches recognize it as well.

  • Deven Kale

    Actually, I do have one more question, this one directed exclusively at Marc.

    You state “The reason I’m opposed to it is because marriage is about love.” Are you claiming that a homosexual couple cannot actually love each other in the same way that a heterosexual couple can? And if so, on what basis do you make that claim?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christian-Gjernes/1400126950 Christian Gjernes

      Nature?… Sex?… Psychology?…

      • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

        1) There are homosexual animals observed in nearly every sexual species in which we’ve looked for them.

        2) Heterosexuals often have sex in the exact same ways that homosexuals (male and female both) do.

        3) Psychology is a functioning of the mind, which is a by-product of the brain. Scans of the brain of a homosexual who is thinking of the person they love are functionally identical to those of a heterosexual.

  • Korou

    Reading Marc’s post, one thing seems lacking – regret.
    I get that Marc is saying that, according to Christian beliefs, it is impossible for a church to marry gay people. I get that, in this post, he is not necessarily saying that gays cannot or should not marry, he is arguing against the belief that a Christian church can marry them.

    But – and correct me if I’m wrong – Marc doesn’t seem at all unhappy about this situation. He seems happy about it, satisfied with it.

    By opposing gay people’s right to marry, a right that would not hurt them in any way, anti-gay marriagers are causing great hurt to gay people.

    So I think it’s a shame that Marc’s message is, “Fortunately churches can never be compelled to marry gay people because it clearly goes against our religion,” instead of, “What a shame it is that, as Christians, we are unable to let gay members of our churches marry.”

    That, I think, would be a much…godlier message.

    • Longinus

      “It’s a shame that, as Christians, we cannot steal from one another.”

      Doesn’t really work that way. ;)

      • bcisaldb

        Another analogy meant to degrade and dehumanize gay people. Gay people are now criminals just because they’re gay.

        Marc is clearly devoid of any capacity for compassion, any capacity for human decency or kindness. He’s unable to sympathize, much less empathize with other human beings.

        He’s the truly “disordered” one here.

        • Longinus

          “Another analogy meant to degrade and dehumanize gay people. Gay people are now criminals just because they’re gay.”
          Your words, mate, not mine. I’m comparing stealing to sodomy, not homosexuals to criminals.

          And you’ve got about a negative amount of proof for your attacks against Marc. Please employ some reason, or you’re as bad a bigot as you accuse us of being.

      • Korou

        Are stealing and gay marriage the same thing? Are they comparable?
        You could say, “Yes, because they’re both sins.”
        I can see why stealing is bad; it hurts people. But does gay marriage hurt people?

        • Deven Kale

          The argument that they are both sins and therefore equate doesn’t really hold up anyway. You have to look beyond the simple fact that they are sins and find the reason that they are to be considered sinful.

          In the case of theft, it’s most likely because it is taking away from someone that which is rightfully theirs. They have earned it, either by making it with their own hands or by trading something made as such for it. This is still just as much a negative today as it was back then.

          In the case of homosexuality, it’s likely sinful because it’s non-reproductive. At the time of writing having bloodlines, even entire tribes, die out was commonplace. So “spilling your seed” in a non-procreative way was seen as wasteful and therefore sinful. That is no longer an issue these days, so the fact that it was sinful 1900 years ago does not mean that it’s still valid as a sin today.

          You could also argue that marriage is no longer a religious term, which negates all of the “sinful” or “holy” arguments for or against it anyway. But that’s a totally different subject.

          • Drmcf

            No longer an issue? See “Japan – Countdown to extinction”. Being intentionally non-procreative ends the dreams and sacrifices of all your family that came before you. Some one gave their time, money, and a substantial portion of their time, here on earth, for you. It is sinful to intentionally deny another their turn at the same gift of life that you received. It is doubly so, when you deny that gift for self serving motives. Christianity is not about personal happiness.

          • Deven Kale

            No longer an issue? See “Japan – Countdown to extinction”.[sic]

            Well then it could be argued that it would be sinful for those who are Japanese to be non-procreative. We’re not living in Japan, however, therefore I don’t see how it applies here in the US.

            Being intentionally non-procreative ends the dreams and sacrifices of all your family that came before you. Some one gave their time, money, and a substantial portion of their time, here on earth, for you.

            This is an argument I’ve never heard. According to your argument, it’s selfish to follow your own desires and needs which arise naturally out of your own makeup, instead of capitulating to the selfish desires of your ancestors. If one person’s selfish desires must be followed, on what logical basis should the decision be made?

            It is sinful to intentionally deny another their turn at the same gift of life that you received.

            You’re making this argument based purely on the presupposition that all lives are a gift. For many, such as suicides or the severely abused, that life is not a gift but a curse.
            I also find this argument interesting in that your god already knows exactly who will be born to whom, which means that he’s already dictated who will be born to which parents (otherwise, he’s not omnipotent). In which case they cannot deny the gift of life to someone who was never intended, even by your god, to receive it.

          • Drmcf

            Ooops! Sorry. I didn’t have time to read your other 464 opinion posts. My mistake! @marc
            do you really have the time for an open com box!?

          • Deven Kale

            Was that actually directed at me?
            1) I rarely argue from opinion.
            2) I have not made 464 posts in my entire history with Disqus, much less here on this particular blog/blog post.
            I must admit, you’ve confused me.

          • Longinus

            Homosexuality’s not a sin, though. It’s the acts that are sinful (sodomy, etc.). It’s not a sin to be naturally sterile, either, or to be celibate; all these conditions are not procreative, and they physically can’t be, but they’re not sinful, because they’re not meant to be procreative. It’s when procreation is completely and intentionally removed from sex (both heterosexual and homosexual) that sin becomes involved. Therefore, my comparison was meant to illustrate that “it’s too bad that, as Christians, we can’t sin” is n0t a godly way of looking at things. It’s a very human thing to say, but not godly. As perfect followers of Christ, we shouldn’t even want sin at all, because of how abhorrent it is. Pretty much impossible, as we’re all human, but still.

          • Deven Kale

            Being a homosexual by definition means that you commit homosexual acts. Stating that a homosexual is not sinful, but the acts are, is nothing more than an evasion of the obvious in order to make yourself feel better about the judgements upon the person.

            It’s not a sin to be naturally sterile, either, or to be celibate; all these conditions are not procreative, and they physically can’t be, but they’re not sinful, because they’re not meant to be procreative. It’s when procreation is completely and intentionally removed from sex that sin becomes involved.

            I think you need to work on that argument a bit, there’s a glaring contradiction in it.

          • Longinus

            1. Actually, mate, being homosexual, by definition, means that you are attracted to the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with actions.

            2. I see no glaring contradiction; perhaps I simply worded it awkwardly? In any case, I was responding to your argument that homosexuality is regarded as a sin because it goes against the need to keep the species alive. A. Homosexuality in and of itself is not a sin, and B. it is only non-procreative sex that is a sin, not the overall state of being non-procreative (natural sterility, celibacy, etc.). And even the sinfulness of non-procreative sex can be mitigated by certain circumstances.

            Remember:
            “The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.” – CCC 1750

          • Deven Kale

            1. Actually, mate, being homosexual, by definition, means that you are attracted to the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with actions.

            I decided to look it up, turns out both of us are right. Homosexual actually means both.

            CCC 1750

            I am admittedly not catholic, and know absolutely nothing of your Catechism. In spite of that, I would still argue that the sinfulness of homosexuality is based on the intent of the law to continue tribes and bloodlines. Modern times negate that necessity (with the possible exception of the Japanese) and therefore there is no reason for it to be considered sinful.

          • Korou

            When you say, “At the time of writing having bloodlines, even entire tribes, die out was commonplace. So “spilling your seed” in a non-procreative way was seen as wasteful and therefore sinful. That is no longer an issue these days, so the fact that it was sinful 1900 years ago does not mean that it’s still valid as a sin today.” you seem to be saying that homosexuality is not now a sin because it hurts neither people nor society. If that is what you’re saying, then I would agree with you.

  • Thomas Rhys

    On a different board a Catholic told me Mark 10:6 was a response to a question about divorce involving a man/woman couple. That therefore it didn’t mean marriage is only man/woman, but that the question being asked involved man/woman so that was why the answer was as so. (Unlike some progressives, this Catholic agrees that divorce and remarriage is forbidden)

    I admit I didn’t know how to respond to that and I’m older than you. I wanted to say that if he simply wanted to condemn divorce there would have been no need in talking about “‘made them male and female”, but I wasn’t sure that would come out right.

  • Joyfully

    “Oh, word?” – hahahahaha! You funny, little bro.

    Now, on a more serious note: couldn’t you have had some fun with Pastor Olser’s “gentle army”?

    • bcisaldb

      Because it’s all about making fun, isn’t it, “Joyful”…? That’s where you derive your “joy”. Snarking and sneering at others. Dehumanizing them. Degrading them. That’s what makes you feel good about yourself.

      You’re filth. You’re putrid, rotting filth. You’re an evil bitch, and there’s nothing joyful about you.

  • ThomasSanjurjo

    To take Sullymom13′s point a bit further, I’d add that the origin of the word marriage is a latin word which means “to make a mother” so it is about procreation. Interesting that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology

    • Deven Kale

      According to your own link, the term “marriage” means nothing of the sort. It’s latin root “marītāre” simply means “to provide with a husband or wife.” It’s “matrimony” that means “to make a mother,” by it’s roots mater meaning “Mother,” and the suffix “-monium” meaning “action, state, or condition.” While marriage and matrimony are synonymous in modern times, that does not mean that you can take the root of one and apply it to the other.

      I find it interesting that even your own link makes no concrete argument against gay marriage. Marriage, based on the definition above, does not mean to procreate, it means to gain a spouse. There is no reason to think, according to that definition, that a man cannot gain a husband nor a woman gain a wife.

      Not that the root meanings of a word have any bearing on it’s modern definition anyway. There are plenty of words that mean something completely separate from or even opposite to their original meanings. Such as “gay.”

      • ThomasSanjurjo

        Sorry, I was being rather quippy with the first post, it would have served to have a deeper research before posting, I forget combox rules at times. I’m still researching a bit more on this topic, but I’ll have to link you to a post elsewhere about it. More the point I was trying to make is that the traditional definition of the word marriage (and yes, even to the Romans, it was synonymous with matrimony, see some of the ref. made at the bottom, not much reading required to find that out) is being challenged.

        I figured the cognitive leap wouldn’t be too extreme, so I went ahead and posted. What I really want in this whole issue is some honesty. If a redefinition of marriage is what is being called for, then s-s supporters need to say so, not hide behind calling those of us who would honestly like to know what’s being asked for here bigots (I realize you have not done that, it just seems to be the MO even though I have nothing more against gay people than I do against myself in my failings.) I also realize that the institution of marriage has taken a hit in recent decades because of a lack of care. Divorce rates among straight people are not an argument to expand the meaning of marriage, they are a reason to return to a more structured view of it.

        Here is the basic problem I am seeing: there are probably two groups that support s-s ‘marriage’
        1)Those who are fighting for proper transference of benefits, hospital visitations, etc.
        AND
        2)Those who want to force a change in the way religions deal with homosexuality.

        I agree with the first, but in a much broader sense than just focusing on s-s relationships. The Catholic Church would also be fine with the first, from my perspective, as that does not violate the integrity of the sacrament.

        I completely disagree with the second as it is a violation of the very nature of tolerance which we are talking about.

        I would like people who are in the camp supporting s-s marriages to pick a group, then I can more clearly discuss the topic with them.

        • Deven Kale

          Here is the basic problem I am seeing: there are probably two groups that support s-s ‘marriage’
          1)Those who are fighting for proper transference of benefits, hospital visitations, etc.
          AND
          2)Those who want to force a change in the way religions deal with homosexuality.
          [...]
          I would like people who are in the camp supporting s-s marriages to pick a group, then I can more clearly discuss the topic with them.

          Well then in the case of clarity, I will state that I am wholly for the first option, and also against the second option. I believe it would be unconstitutional to force a church to accept homosexuals. It could even be argued as to whether or not that would be an immoral stance as well.

          If a redefinition of marriage is what is being called for, then s-s supporters need to say so.

          If you wish to call that a redefinition of marriage, I won’t argue with that. It would be one of many throughout history.

          • ThomasSanjurjo

            That’s the danger in this situation, I think. Redefining marriage as a right along with expanding the definition beyond parenthood is very complicated. Is there a way we could add the rights without having to change the word marriage?

            Could it just be that I get married in my Church and go to the courthouse for the civil union papers? I honestly wouldn’t mind that, it’s pretty much the way I think of it now, they are two different definitions of the relationship my wife and I share.

          • Deven Kale

            Turning marriage into a purely religious institution and calling a civil marriage something else altogether is something I have no problem with. In fact, it’s the argument that I’ve been building towards. Then the religious conservatives who are so upset by the idea would be able to keep their definitions and restrictions, but homosexuals would be able to have the same rights afforded to their partners as heterosexuals.

            I believe that’s what they call a “win-win” scenario.

          • Alexandra

            I think that’s exactly what people are arguing for. Churches would never be forced to grant sacramental marriage to homosexual couples if marriage equality was achieved legally.

            The conservatives still don’t like that.

            Unless what you mean is changing the name of civil marriage? That just seems unnecessary. That’s just a semantic change. There’s a difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage already.

          • Deven Kale

            I agree with you in that I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody argue that there should be a law forcing churches to marry homosexual couples. My understanding has always been that the argument is for allowing homosexuals into civil marriage and all the rights and protections that entails.

            Therefore if it leads to greater clarity as to what the pro-gay arguments really are, then I honestly have no problem with a simple semantics change. After all, it doesn’t really affect what I have with my future wife any more than it would those who are already married.

          • Alexandra

            Right, it doesn’t affect your marriage for other people to be able to get married.

            I mean I never went through the sacrament of marriage, but I’m married legally. My marriage doesn’t affect yours. If anything the fact that I made a legal commitment, which is very difficult to break, to my husband affects society in a positive way.

            The stability of families is a good thing, and allowing people to make a legal commitment to each other that affords them rights and protections because of that stability is good.

            The more people who get and stay married the better!

  • Angela Joyce

    I come back this morning and you have over 500 comments, Marc! Great job. But some of the language that bcis…. and others are using… just goes to show… you hit a big nerve. When people can’t debate like adults and refrain from using vulgar language… it makes taking their arguments seriously hard to do. Press on, Marc! Press on! 1 Peter 3:15!!!

  • Pegra35

    this applies to catholics interpretion of the bible and the prescence of the ‘the church’ as equal to the father, son and holy spirit. it is not. not by a long shot. unless you are a former member of the hitler youth, who wears $5,000.oo designer shoes while ‘his children’ die of starvation in countries too numerous too count….

    • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

      ah, the “your pope is a pampered nazi who baths in cristal and is the reason for world hunger and aids.” good point. totally true and relevant.

  • JoFlemings

    Ok, for the sake of argument, let’s say homosexuality is genetic. Since it is a relatively rare occurrence then, genetically, we can basically classify it as a ‘defect’, you know, like Down Syndrome, right? Makes sense- following the current cultural clime, allowing that, for the sake of argument, homosexuality is genetic (which I still actually completely disagree with.) So what do we do now with over 80% of children with Down Syndrome again?
    Well, last time I checked we aren’t passing laws to make sure their special needs are enshrined in law. (Does that mean I don’t think we should do that- no. I am trying to make a point here.)
    Many of you want God or His people to validate the homosexual inclination as somehow not just a twisted reality we have to deal with as a society, but something we should all somehow bend over backward to accomodate- while out of the other side of your forked tongues you rally around allowing babies born with other ‘genetic anomalies’ to die untended, or even better you are happy to stand idly by while they are scorched to death with saline in their mothers’ wombs or ripped to shreds with surgical instruments. Why should anyone consider anything any of you say?

    • Alexandra

      Different does not mean disordered. Homosexuality is different than heterosexuality. It’s only a defect if you decide to consider it as a defect.

      Like left handedness. Is that different or disordered? We used to think it was disordered and force children to use their right hand, but now we realize it’s just different and let kids use their dominant hand.

    • bcisaldb

      I guess you never heard of the Americans With Disabilities Act, among other laws guaranteeing the mentally and physically disabled freedom from discrimination and securing them the considerations they need in order to pursue as autonomous a life as possible…

      • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

        And the fact that IEPs for students with disabilities (physical, emotional, psychological, mental) are legal documents which require schools to meet the needs of the student and make any number of adjustments regarding a student’s home/classwork load, testing procedures, etc…

      • JAGreene86

        You know…for one…someone who is so against hatred…you seem to have a lot of hatred against others.

        Another thing: If you are preaching Truth, and we are the opposite of Truth, therefore, you are Love and we are not…then we will hate, because it’s what we’re suppose to do. If you are love, and if you believe that the counter of love is hate, and you are for love, then we should be full of hate…so, in another words, Marc, as well as the majority of people who have responded to you, are doing exactly what they should be doing…hating you. Because of being persecuted by preaching Truth, you will be gladly rewarded in heaven and we will eventually face our inevitable doom.

        However, on the other hand, if you are not for Truth, and we are still hating you, then we are a kingdom divided, therefore, the hatred we have for each other will be the eventual end of every single one of us.

        If we are both preaching truth (meaning you and Marc and everyone else), then we will all be rewarded in heaven.

        Since philosophy would state that any two contradicting arguments cannot possibly both be true, there presents a fourth and final scenario:

        If Marc, as well as others, are preaching Truth, and you are persecuting them for preaching Truth, then it will not be you who is rewarded in heaven, but yet to those who endured the persecution for God.

        So, either way, by law of contradiction (and Paschel’s Wager), there can only be one True belief, if there is any at all. The rest will perish. If none are correct, then all perish, no matter what they believe.

        “The idea of God is enough for me to search for God.”

        - J. A. Greene

      • JoFlemings

        Somehow I don’t see anyone advocating for gay marriage also advocating that for the unborn, with any other genetic anomaly.

  • CPE Gaebler

    I think our trolls missed the REALLY offensive thing about this post, namely the spraytan analogy. Why complain about people supposedly comparing gay people to animals, when Marc clearly and obviously compared gay people to people on Jersey Shore?

    • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

      “when Marc clearly and obviously compared gay people to people on Jersey Shore?” hi-larious.

  • http://twitter.com/CCNoroz CadeCabinet Noroz

    To be frank. There is no case against Gay marriage.

    If marriage is to be allowed between a man and a woman, it is to be allowed between woman and woman, as well as for man and man.
    It doesn’t matter what faith you belong to.

    The human rights declaration, rule number 16, to be more exact says;

    “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.”

    They have the right to marry. They also have the right to found a family. That’s it. End of discussion. And no, it does _NOT_ specify that it is only between a man and a woman.

    • Fabius

      Oh wow, a recent innovation in abstract hyper-individualism gone crazy put forward by a joke of a political institution with no credibility and a hypocritical record on human rights.

      That TOTALLY trumps millennia’s of tradition and natural/moral philosophy.

      • hihims

        1) All innovations are recent at some point. Christianity and the values promoted by Christ were also at one point new; they were ridiculed, scorned and considered a “joke” with “no credibility”.

        2) What is hyper-individualistic about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Do you mean hyper-individualistic in the sense that it allows people to pursue individualistic goals? I generally don’t understand how a Charter that asserts our sameness and a Charter that glorifies egalitarian values can be considered hyper-individualistic.

        3) The credibility of said “joke political institution” – are not all political institutions “jokes” by this logic? Are not all religious institutions as well? What political institutions actually do possess credibility in this day and age? And what religious institutions possess a track-record worthy of being deemed credible? These institutions are governed by humans and are inherently subject to our mistakes…

        4) A hypocritical record on human rights. Every nation in this world has a hypocritical record on human rights. But we continue to live within nation-states. In North America the comforts and resources we take for granted are the result of the exploitation, suppression and murder of hundreds and millions of people. But we don’t often think about that because we’re removed from the unpleasant process. We just see the end result. But, when you stop to think about it the hypocrisy is alive and well within almost all aspects of our daily life?
        Furthermore, The Catholic Church, throughout its “millenias’ [sic] of tradition and natural/moral philosophy” also has a hypocritical human rights records. Whether it be through religious wars, inhumane evangelism, executions or through more recent cases of hypocrisy such as the sex-scandals… we shouldn’t ignore that hypocrisy is rampant within ALL aspects of our lives.

        I suggest you strive to see value in institutions such as the United Nations, however imperfect they may be. If you are capable of seeing value within the Catholic Church then by extension you should be able to forgive the wrong-doings of secular institutions whose overarching aims are the betterment of our race.

        No institution is perfect. Whether it be our governments, our international organizations or our religious institutions, all are governed by humans and all are subject to our errs.

  • Schmidtcaters

    “self-evedentaly wack” Thank God for a language and its user to create this.

  • PS Hathaway

    I’d just like to present my own sights on the whole “waters of the holy spirit” thing. Mr. Osler says that we are walls that the water will move around, but this is inaccurate. in fact, this river of God’s grace, and of His love, are rivers that cover the face of humanity, what Mr. Osler wants, and tries desperately to discribe, is an earth-covering ocean. Grace is granted to all who ask for it, but it does not flow freely over everyone, it is a river, flowing and enriching the lives and minds and hearts of all those who reach out to touch it.
    that is all.

  • Paul H

    I had to read pretty far into the post before I realized that the text alternates between his words and yours. The font colors are almost identical on my monitor, but I finally did notice the very slight difference in font colors. For legibility, you might consider selecting a different font color for your words.

    Sorry to be nitpicky, but I’m guessing I’m not the only one who was confused, given that my monitor’s color settings are pretty typical from everything I can tell.

  • http://twitter.com/CharlesJones265 Charles Jones

    I think Saint Paul would disagree with your contention, Marc – “For I am convinced that neither life nor death, nor angels, nor principalities . . .shall separate us from the love of God . . . ” Now, you were saying you would like to bureaucratize who receives what from God? And who, exactly, signs off on which people are excluded and for what reasons? There is your slippery slope.

  • Mary

    I’ve been listening to this song today, and it reminds me of this debate.
    Until we stop pointing fingers and get down on our knees and beg for humility, then we will never find resolution.

    “we are the fuse and the ammunition…look at the mess we’ve made of love…look what a mess we’ve made of love…we’ve got ourselves to blame….” ~Switchfoot (Ammunition)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uuouhnuuRw

  • JoFlemings

    I said this to Deven and I want to say it to everyone here who has decided it is perfectly acceptable to verbally attack their opponents with ugly epithets and degraded slurs, especially bsciswhatever, Alexandra and Victoria.

    Those very things you can rightly assume a devout Catholic is most unlikely to do- you all seem to feel quite free to do to others here in the public forum in print where there is NO accountability. Well, that is very telling.

    You people talk out of both sides of your mouths and then you curse and defame your opponent. You scream for tolerance and deference and then you call me something less than human. I wonder if you would strike me if we were in the same room. your language is so vile and so angry, and so filled with hatred and animosity it seems as if that would be the next move.

    So I ask you, WHY should anyone regard ANYTHING you say? You don’t regard or treat respectfully any other opinion than your own. And from the video I watched today on youtube where gay marriage advocates are physically assaulting TFP members in the midst of peacefully exercising their first amendment rights- I have no respect for any argument any of you might even attempt to make. And I have no respect for you personally either. When the adults show up at this debate I will happily engage further. As far as I can tell only anti- Catholic, bigoted, small-minded, gay marriage advocates with monosyllabic vocabularies are still mouthing off here for their issue here.

    Prove me wrong, I dare you.

    • Deven Kale

      And I’ll respond to you here as well. It’s less spaghetified here anyway. ;)

      Consider yourself lucky that I am not who you accuse me of being. I’ve been trying to get those some people you’re mentioning (a surprisingly large amount of them) to get out of the this discussion exactly because their behavior is childish and only goes to make their arguments seem such. Now to the more adult parts of your comment:

      in your last paragraph above you [...] say two things which are the opposite of one another. So what is it?

      Actually they’re not opposites. It’s very easy to have a consensus as to what something is without a consensus as to why it’s so. Autism is a good example, experts agree it’s a thing, but they don’t agree as to the cause yet. It’s the same with homosexuality not being a choice.

      WHY should anyone regard anything you say?

      Because I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong, because I’m generally polite in what I say, because the majority of my arguments are based on facts, and because I’m willing to accept the arguments of others if they’re also logically based on facts and evidence.

      gay marriage advocates are physically assaulting TFP members in the midst of peacefully exercising their first amendment rights.

      That’s reprehensible, as I’m sure we’re agreed. Luckily behavior like that is criminal as well, and if there’s a video of it, I almost guarantee you they’ll get whatever punishment is allowed by law, as it should be.

      • JoFlemings

        Deven you are exactly right I owe you an apology. I misunderstood what you wrote, and I am sorry. I tried to go back and retract my comment necking it down to the one thing I wanted to call you on- that you addressed- the two consensus’. Again I was overwrought by previous comments in this same thread and did not read your comment fairly. I am sorry.

        • Deven Kale

          You seem like an overall good person, from the comments I’ve read of yours so far (except that one. ;). Apology accepted.

    • Korou

      Alexandra? I think you ought to retract it in her case as well.

      • JoFlemings

        Do ya now? Well, I disagree. But this isn’t really a debate about retractions, and one more time let me point out the double standard here. Alexandra was rude to me personally, unlike Deven, but you, Kororu, place the onus of respectfulness on me. Ah, as it is oh so typical- the one who advocates the objective moral standard is required to act according to the assessment of the masses, while they cry for Barabbas’ release. I am certainly not Jesus Christ, nor am I anywhere close to perfect, and if I might remind you neither are any of you. At no time did I claim to be perfect, but I know the truth and I am not the only one for the first time in history mentioning it here. As well, I very much have limits as to how much egregious abuse I am willing to take at the typeset of strangers. No, Korou, I will not retract what I have stated.

        • Korou

          I did not place the onus of respectfulness on you. I said nothing about you one way or the other.
          I did a search through this thread for “in reply to JoFlemings” and I have to say that you’re right about the other two. But I couldn’t find where Alexandra was rude to you pesonally. Was it in another thread?

          Sorry – “objective moral standard” – do you mean you, or me?

          • JoFlemings

            Touche, Korou.

          • JoFlemings

            Actually I thought you said I should retract my comments directed toward Alexandra. I wonder what on earth would prompt anyone to search ‘in reply to JoFlemings’, apart from a desire to judge whether or not I had an ‘objective’ right to be offended- which is in itself a subjective and personal assessment.
            So, even if you do not think Alexandra was rude to me, I THINK Alexandra was rude to me. And that counts for something, whether you, unknown to me personally and frankly, a johnny-come-lately, after the fact of the the exchange, agree, validate, or not. It’s not really up to you, your opinion, your input, comment or discussion. If you were compelled to make a comment why not make it directly to Alexandra in her favor, or to the group? Why address me and only me? Am I the only one here you unsolicited feel a need to judge and to tell me what you think I ought to do?
            Seriously?

  • http://twitter.com/sanabituranima Sanabitur Anima Mea

    *applause*

  • http://www.facebook.com/thecherrytree Cheryl Tay

    I do find you’ve put into words what I have been trying to all this while (shame on me, I’m a journalist). I don’t really need to go into detail here, because you already have & it just reaffirms, in detail, what I think of this whole gay marriage “debate”: if any country’s secular government wants to legalize it, go ahead. But just as we Catholics are constantly reminded by so many non-religious folk not to force our beliefs on others, so too should they be mindful not to force their beliefs on us. The Church will not bend to the whims of the world. Two men or two women can marry each other in New York, Canada, Norway…just don’t ever DREAM of forcing the Church to perform the ceremony, then spit at her for not agreeing to do so & lobby against her. There are a good many practicing Catholics with same-sex attraction who do not force their priests to marry them, because they respect the Church. If gays believe marriage is truly about love & love alone, what’s wrong with a civil union?

  • Thomas Dubites

    Enough with the fighting already. If all the people in the world got rid of their emotions we wouldn’t even be having these discussions because everyone would be operating sola ratio and thus in harmony for one another, because reason cannot contradict itself. Please science, devise a more potent emotion-suppressing drug.

  • Claude

    Oh my. Garry Wills’s op-ed in the Times yesterday is apropos:

    Jesus, we are reminded, said to Peter, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” But Peter was addressed as a faithful disciple, not as a priest or a pope. There were no priests in Peter’s time, and no popes. Paul never called himself or any of his co-workers priests. He did not offer sacrifice. Those ideas came in later, through weird arguments contained in the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews. The claim of priests and popes to be the sole conduits of grace is a remnant of the era of papal monarchy. We are watching that era fade. But some refuse to recognize its senescence. Such people will run peppily up, like Charlie Brown, to the coming of a new pope. But Lucy, as usual, still holds the football.

  • M.

    As a Christian who sees no reason to make any effort to oppose gay marriage (note: this is different from supporting it), here are my thoughts:

    Every single argument I have ever heard against gay marriage is an argument against having gay marriages *within the Church*. This is all well and good, but the Sacrament of Marriage is an entirely different thing from the legal contract that also (confusingly) goes by the name “marriage”. The Sacraments of the Church are one thing, the laws of the state are another. There are already millions of people receiving something they call “marriage” but which is NOT, in fact, marriage according to the Church. This includes everyone who gets “married” in a secular, non-sacramental way. What business is it of ours if this non-Church, non-sacramental “marriage” gets expanded or re-defined? If atheists can get “married”, why not people of the same gender? Surely the atheist “marriage” is not any more valid than the homosexual one! Let the state “marry” whom it wills – that is not the business of the Church.

    Or to use your analogy with the spray-tan baptisms: Suppose there were already numerous people receiving something they called “baptism”, which was done entirely outside the Church and consisted of getting doused with a garden hose. Suppose, further, that a different group of people demanded the definition of this garden-hose “baptism” to be expanded to include spray-tans. Why should the Church care, or get involved?

    The word “marriage” was already redefined centuries ago to include things other than the Sacrament that goes by the same name. It is too late for us to complain about further redefinitions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dean.dickens.395 Dean Dickens

    “I know the Bible’s all ridiculous and sexist and fake and even if it’s not it’s old and has stuff like violence in it so why bother a discussion about it plus there’s no God.”
    This made me laugh so hard, thanks for the great article. You’re awesome, keep it up.

  • Amanda

    Even though you’re being pretty aggressive, bcisaldb, thank you for saying something. I was looking at some of these articles here and enjoying them, and then I got really disappointed reading Cole’s reply and this crappy article. On a whole, I’m agnostic, raised Catholic and I’ve always believed that the bizarre, hate-mongering attempt to narrow and define ‘marriage’ as a word was a very small part of the faith, but looking at this, I was starting to feel like it was truly perhaps a cornerstone of developing, modern Christian minds. I’m glad to see someone who is willing to stand up for the basic value system, not at all opposed to true Christianity, that the world that we are a part of is a beautiful gift, and that people within it should view true love, between equal adults, as a representation of this beauty. Thanks, because otherwise, looking at these “Christians” would have been really depressing. And I get being aggressive, because sometimes stuff like these arguments feel so dark and horrible and entirely ugly.

    Also, yes, all of those who for whatever reason oppose gay marriage, and are young enough to live another fifty years, certainly expect to be viewed in the same way that traditionalist Catholics opposing interrace marriage were. You certainly will be, and I look forward to that day as one where the world will be, in some small part, a better place.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X