Remember This Headline Three Years from Now

…when everybody is screaming that you have an absolute moral obligation to vote for Chris Christie, God’s Republican Candidate and the Last Best Hope for Christian civilization in The Most Important Election of our Lifetime:

NJ bans reparative therapy for gays; Gov. Chris Christie’s office emphasizes disagreement with Catholic teaching…

I’ve been wrong before, but it looks like it’s shaping up to be Christie vs. Hillary or Biden (for people who think they have to vote for either the Stupid Evil Party or the Evil Stupid Party).

Me: I’m going spend my widow’s mite on somebody who doesn’t use the Church as a punching bag for racking up votes.

The main thing your vote in a national election affects is not the outcome of the election, but you.  The sooner we figure that out and stop settle for the lesser of two evils, the sooner we see change, starting with ourselves.

  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

    OT: about the way the media lie to Americans about their own condition – do we really have to wait for Al Jazeera to spell out elementary facts like this? http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/201381615448464851.html

  • SteveTirone

    Constitution Party, all the way.

  • Dave G.

    Chris Christie is the Media’s candidate. From what I hear, he’s no favorite overall among Republicans. At least those I personally know and hear. I’m sure some like him. Any pol has supporters. And because of the media spotlight, he probably figures large in early polling and surveys. But he’s clearly the one being pushed by the media. If he’s nominated in 2016, then it will be another 2008 and 2012. And you never now, perhaps that’s the point. I know I won’t vote for him if he’s the candidate.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      John McCain 3.0.

  • Debra

    I don’t expect the next GOP nominee to be Christie. But I am not entirely sure that really matters in regard to your general assessment of the situation. Both parties are off the rails.

  • Catholictexan

    Amen, Mark.

  • Dsarker

    Hey, hold on a second. I’d look for some clarification, but it doesn’t look like he’s contesting Church teaching at all. He’s saying homosexuality (that is, the state of being homosexual) isn’t a sin. Which it isn’t. It’s disordered, but it’s not a sin. It’s when it is acted on that it is a sin.

    • ivan_the_mad

      It is, I think, possible that he is reiterating the teaching and doesn’t know it, but that he would be so ignorant of the teaching doesn’t exactly inspire confidence either.

      • The Deuce

        More likely he’s deliberately trying to fudge the issue so he can plead ignorance on it.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      Yeah, l read what he said and thought, “Does he really know what the Church teaches on this?” Catholicism doesn’t necessarily “look at someone who is homosexual as a sinner” either, only if they are sexually active.

      As for banning “reparative therapy,” I’m not sure how well that works, anyway. Depending on how it’s done, many young people have actually been hurt (and the article says it’s banned for “youth,” not adults). The Church does not demand that anyone undergo that, all she counsels is chastity.

      • Stu

        Similar to Biden’s assertions that “his faith” tells him that “life begins at conception.”

      • TheodoreSeeber

        And the church’s method is more in line with current psychological theory, which suggests that the vast majority of “homosexuals” are really just people who had a same sex attraction in high school and got labeled by their peers as “gay forever” when in reality, most grow out of it. But once stuck with the label, it’s really hard to change in this society.

        • B Park

          Wow, you’re sadly misinformed. Gonna need some statistics to back that up.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Someday when I have more time I’ll do your research for you, if you pay me.

            • B Park

              I don’t need your research Mr. Seeber, I just was wondering where you got that idea because I’ve never heard it.

              • TheodoreSeeber

                Got it here on Patheos, but it was big news a couple of weeks ago, there were lots of stories about it. Basically the idea is that an incident or two of same sex attraction is normal in adolescence, but the vast majority ignore it and it goes away. A few get trapped, bullied over it into “becoming” homosexual, trapped in a lifestyle that nobody in their right mind would want.

                • B Park

                  Never heard of it and frankly really doubt we’re talking about a vast majority. I know many gay people and not one who feels trapped or has ever changed their sexuality. Thank you for responding, interesting

      • lspinelli

        I always thought “reparative” therapy was hogwash. Follow the Church’s teaching on chastity, or seek out Courage if you have difficulty.

    • http://ascensionpress.com/ John Harden

      He’s contesting the freedom of conscience, and arguably religion, when he signs a bill banning reparative therapy. A homosexual individual, even if born that way, has a right to seek therapy to help him overcome those tendencies.

      • jroberts548

        And he can, just not from a state-licensed therapist if he’s a minor. If he’s not a minor, he can get that therapy. Likewise, he can get that therapy from someone who isn’t a state-licensed therapist.

        • http://ascensionpress.com/ John Harden

          How many therapists are feasibly able to operate without a state license? Plus, it’s my understanding that minors are more likely to benefit from this therapy than adults. It makes it worse in my opinion that he would target those persons who are in most need, and most benefited by this therapy. He’s bullying therapists who have a state license into renouncing it so that they can help those in need.

          • jroberts548

            “The idea of conversion therapy is an old one that has increasingly drawn criticism for its methods. Last year, four gay men sued a Jersey City group for fraud, saying its program included making them strip naked and attack effigies of their mothers with baseball bats.

            Lawmakers heard horror stories from some during hearings on the ban, including Brielle Goldani of Toms River, who testified she underwent electric shocks and was given drugs to induce vomiting after being sent to an Ohio camp at age 14 to become straight.”

            http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/chris-christie-gay-conversion-therapy-new-jersey-95666.html

            Minors also stand to be harmed the most by bad conversion therapy. An adult, when asked to strip naked and beat an effigy of his mother, is free to leave. Unless those examples are extremely rare relative to non-harmful, effective conversion therapy, the harm of banning conversion therapy for minors is probably less than the harm of regulating it through the tort system.

            • http://ascensionpress.com/ John Harden

              Yeah, I’ve heard horror story about dentist’s offices as well, but I still send my children to get their teeth cleaned. You don’t ban a good thing because of the bad behavior of those who claim to practice it. You regulate that bad behavior from happening.

              • jroberts548

                The difference is that dentists who practice teeth cleanings aren’t at odds over whether teeth cleanings are an effective and necessary therapy. The ADA or similar body could develop standards about what dentists have to do and not do when cleaning teeth.

                Who should come up with the standards for conversion therapy? Both APAs don’t recognize homosexuality as a disorder, and don’t recognize any treatment as effective. Is there any one out there with standards that are measurably effective and more likely to good than to do harm?

                ETA: That is, unless there are some empirically effective and non-harmful standards that could be imposed by the state on conversion therapy for minors, the state doesn’t know how to regulate that bad behavior from happening other than by just banning all state-licensed therapists from providing such conversion therapy for minors.

                • The Deuce

                  The APA is a political hack organization, and their claims about homosexuality are political ones rather than scientific ones.

                  • jroberts548

                    Fair enough. What organization would you have provide empirically effective and non-harmful standards?

              • TheodoreSeeber

                I’ve had such horror in dentists offices that I now prefer a quart of peppermint schnapps and a pair of pliers to any dentist.

      • Irksome1

        I think it ought be noted that the bill in question restricts only such therapies for “youth.” That’s an important detail, being that an adult individual is far more likely to make a mature decision for such therapy free from coercion and will therefore be more likely to succeed.*

        *i ought note here that, while I find the prospects for “success” dubious under this form of therapy, even NARTH concedes the indispensability of internally-directed motivation as key to their therapies.

        • enness

          Why will that individual be more likely to succeed after his habits are set for several more years? I get what you’re saying about being free from coercion, but I don’t think it follows that it would necessarily be easier. It might be more difficult.

          • Irksome1

            Except I didn’t say “easy,” I said “likely.” Since the individual in question must freely and actively participate in his own therapy in order to realize any benefit (a cure is never imposed on the patient against his will), the question of internal motivation as a vector for success will always supersede any hypothetical decrease in mutability through age.

            Further, habits are founded upon repeated actions, either physical or mental, and since the Church has insisted on a distinction between inclinations and acts, we can never infer the presence of even one act, much less a habit, from an individual of any age who admits to experiencing same-sex attractions.

    • Dave G.

      I think you’re splitting more hairs need to be split. Plus, what John Harden said.

    • Irksome1

      I think it’s difficult to sustain the argument that he’s not contesting Church Teaching when he draws a dichotomy between what the Church supposedly teaches and what he thinks on his own and is prepared to act on.

  • http://ascensionpress.com/ John Harden

    He’s also said he’s “pro-life with exceptions. Take it or leave it.” I’ll leave it. If he can’t recognize the inherent dignity and right to life of every child conceived, then he’s not getting my vote, and I won’t be referring to him as “pro-life.”

  • Evan

    Christie vs. Hillary? My prediction was Ryan vs. Hillary, but I think your guess is better. Christie has the same moderate “appeal” that made Romney and McCain the “electable” candidates. And since the GOP likes to repeat its mistakes, Christie probably is a more likely choice than Ryan (although I certainly wouldn’t vote for Ryan either.)

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      If Christie is the GOP’s anointed candidate next election, they will lose again. A lot of conservatives are still P.O’d at Christie for his treatment of Obama after Hurricane Sandy.

      • B Park

        Is that real? Conservatives are mad because Christie did what was best for his state? I think you just summarized another reason I find conservatives hard to side with.

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          Some conservatives do think he sucked up to Obama too much and that somehow affected the election. I’m not convinced but some believe that.

  • Michaelus

    So if a 16 year old in NJ seeks absolution for homosexual actions or thoughts is the priest a criminal?

    • jroberts548

      Is the priest a state-licensed therapist? Is absolution the sort of therapy being banned?

      • http://decentfilms.com/ SDG

        No to both questions. Reparative therapy in this case means “conversion” therapy, i.e., therapy in the direction of replacing same-sex attraction with opposite-sex attraction.

        • jroberts548

          So the answer to Michaelus’ question is no.

          • Michaelus

            The text is here: http://legiscan.com/NJ/text/A3371/2012

            Whether or not this applies to a priest-penitent is not clear to me. It is clear that it applies to all social workers and that it is not limited to formal therapy sessions – it applies to any action that seeks to change or even reduce a child’s interest in sodomy.

            • jroberts548

              Which section(s) of title 45 of the New Jersey statutes apply to priests?

              None of them. Priests aren’t licensed under title 45 of New Jersey statutes. Priests are only mentioned 3 times in title 45, and only to clarify that the licensing requirements for social workers, marriage and family counselors, and drug and alcohol counselors don’t apply to priests, as long as they either don’t charge for their services or perform them under the auspices of a legally cognizable church or religious organization.

              Unless a priest is charging for confession (in which case the priest is a simoniac who will burn in hell) AND is hearing confessions not under the auspices of the Church (in which case the priest is a schismatic), N.J. licensing law won’t touch him. The ONLY priests affected by this are simoniac schismatics. If the state indirectly bans them from hearing confessions, I don’t mind.

            • http://decentfilms.com/ SDG

              “any action that seeks to change or even reduce a child’s interest in sodomy”

              The law specifically addresses efforts at “sexual orientation
              change.” Moral direction at avoiding particular actions, and forgiveness for actions along related lines, are not covered.

            • Rosemarie

              +J.M.J+

              If anyone ever tries to argue that in court, hopefully the Church lawyers will point out that:

              a) The Catholic Church does not claim the ability to cure a homosexual inclination, does not assert that it can be cured at all, and does not require that Catholic gays attempt to cure it,

              b) absolution is not psychological therapy but the forgiveness of sins, and

              c) a homosexual inclination is not itself a sin as such so that is not what’s being “absolved” anyway.

              The most the Church can do is to counsel chastity, but that’s a far cry from “reparative therapy” since chastity doesn’t change someone from gay to straight. It’s just voluntary modification of ones personal behavior.

              • jroberts548

                I would just hope that the Church’s lawyers read the statute and point out that the statute doesn’t apply to priests at all.

                • Rosemarie

                  +J.M.J+

                  Well, that too.

  • Stu

    Since he is so concerned about the youth, I suspect he will now target the ability of minors to obtain an abortion without the consent of their parents.

  • Dave

    Christie would lose by 5+ percentage points if he were the nominee. Way too many Republicans loathe him. He’s as elite-establishment as they come.

    As far as I see now, the only contenders that would even have a CHANCE to get my vote are Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul. Some of those guys are probably only because I don’t know enough about them to reject them.

    • chezami

      Unlike Dole, McCain, and Romney. Never underestimate the GOP’s ability to nominate sure fire losers.

      • Imp the Vladaler

        I wouldn’t call McCain a “sure fire loser.” Of the three you mentioned, he was certainly the best candidate. The fact that he lost in 2008, well, Our Lord probably would have lost to the Obamessiah.

        • chezami

          The sad words here are “he was certainlyt the best candidate” because they are true. This bellicose pro-choice cynic who put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency was the very best the GOP could do.

          • Imp the Vladaler

            We sure dodged a bullet there with Palin, didn’t we? America very nearly voted an empty-headed buffoon into the Vice-Presidency. Sure glad we avoided that one. Whew!

            Jokes aside, McCain’s loss in 2008 doesn’t do much to support the theory that the GOP runs “sure fire losers.” I’m not arguing that McCain was the strongest of all possible GOP candidates. I’m simply noting that, barring Obama’s dismembering and eating a baby live on television, he was going to win. So his loss is not evidence of his weakness.

    • B Park

      Conservatives with vote with whatever nominee gets the ticket. You really think people who were going to vote for Walker and Cruz would vote for a Democrat because their primary favorite was beaten? Christie could sway voters, Walker and Cruz will just be too conservative.

      • Dave

        There’s at least a couple percent of the electorate who would do neither if the candidate sucks as bad as the last 2 GOP candidates. They won’t vote for a Dem. They just won’t vote for POTUS or they’ll vote for a 3rd party candidate. I am more or less “conservative”, though the GOP basically seems increasingly like Dem lite.

        I can’t speak for anyone else, but while there’s a probability I’d vote for someone like Rand Paul, and a possibility I’d vote for Walker or Cruz (at least until the likely event when I find out that they, too, are empty suits), there is no way on God’s green earth that I’d vote for Christie. He strikes me as another McCain/Dole, and even worse than the Rombot2012 IMO.

        • B Park

          You think Repubs have gone to the middle? I believe that Demos have gone to the middle because the Repubs went way right. I think history backs me.

          Question: Was there anyone in the last GOP nomination process that you would vote for? I find it hard to believe that Santorum and Romney were in the same party.

          • Dave

            I think they are both going to “the middle”; there’s not really much difference between the two parties at this point. They just use a different set of voters to get elected, and once they are in, they throw out the minimum number of bones necessary to appease their crowd, while they continue their self and corporate enriching ways, and do their best to bankrupt our country.

            In the last election I would have comfortably voted for Ron Paul. I’m not really a libertarian, but he understood the financial mess we’re in, and would have done what he could to slow down the out of control behemoth that is the federal government.

            • Stu

              Ron Paul isn’t the answer. But at least he drives the argument back in the right direction. So I would have been with you.

            • B Park

              Wow, interesting how much different I see things than you. I think your second sentence was right one. I could have been a Ron Paul supporter if he ran third party, the GOP and media just made him a side show. Good wishes Dave!!

      • enness

        Voting for a Democrat is not the only alternative, thank God.

        • B Park

          I was just saying there is a lot of straight ticket voting in the GOP, but I would prefer Green or Libertarian anyway

      • The Deuce

        Yes, because if there’s anything the past twenty years have taught us, it’s that RINOs always win in general elections, and the public is very enthusiastic about them.

  • Susanne

    I am one of those whom you describe. I was a “lesser of two evils” advocate. I was adamant. I was wrong. I get it now. You were part of my enlightenment. I’m kind of disgusted that it took me so long. Denial is difficult to detect in oneself.

    • Stu

      I don’t think you can say the “lesser of two evils” approach is “wrong.” It’s a question of tactics and sometime that approach might be valid. The question is whether it is valid for national politics at this point in time when both parties are increasingly the same?

      Ultimately, I think the answer to put less stock in changing the World through the election of princes and concentrate more on influencing those around you and bringing them to Christ.

    • chezami

      The important thing is that you get it! God bless you!

  • Michael in ArchDen

    Mark says: “The main thing your vote in a national election affects is not the outcome of the election, but you”

    I know this isn’t the first time you’ve said it, but I think this is one of the most important and valuable things I’ve ever read here. I hope people don’t skim over it, or see it as a throwaway line.

    • enness

      Except when it isn’t true. YMMV

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Nunez/100000281459047 Chris Nunez

    You haven’t actually said anything? Elaborate please.

  • Joe

    So the only issue is using the Church as a punching bag? Because I don’t know if the ban itself is such a bad thing. This sort of therapy could do more harm than good.

    • Stu

      Does Christie really know if the ban is a good thing? Seems to me that it should be the call of the parent.

      • B Park

        The ban is necessary because of parents

        • Stu

          Holy mother state knows best.

          • B Park

            In this case, yes. However, you can pick one of the other 48 states to pray the gay away.

            • Stu

              No, I don’t pick and choose my horses selectively that way. State encroachment in such matters is an overstep. “Gay” identifies lifestyle not a fallen inclination like many other such inclinations.

              But I suppose you can “pray for gay to stay.”

              • B Park

                I find attempting to change people’s sexuality is a much bigger overstep then the state. I’m 1/8 libertarian though, so I see your point.

                • Stu

                  Why is sexuality sacrosanct? There are therapies to change all manner of behavior.

                  • B Park

                    Because there is nothing wrong with being gay. Do you think there should be straight to gay conversion therapy?

                    • The Deuce

                      Sure there is. It’s disordered, even though it’s not morally evil in and of itself.

                    • B Park

                      So you think being gay is icky, and you’re obviously entitled to your opinion. Riddle me this Batman, wouldn’t gay people find us disordered?

                    • Rosemarie

                      +J.M.J+

                      The Catholic theological definition of “disordered” is “not ordered toward its proper end.” The Church is *not* using the term in the sense of a disease or psychopathology. The proper end of sexual attraction and activity is procreation. So the desire to commit a sexual act that cannot bring new human lives into existence is not ordered to the proper end, and therefore “dis-ordered.” This does not mean that gays are mentally ill or anything like that; the Church is talking philosophy and theology, not medicine or psychiatry.

                      I don’t see how heterosexual genital intercourse can be considered “disordered” (apart from contraceptive use), since it is ordered toward its proper end as long as it is open to new life. That being said, the Fall affects all of us one way or another, and disordered passions are a part of that. We may not all be attracted to members of the same sex, but our desires, emotions, etc. may be disordered in other ways. If more Christians really took to heart that fact, perhaps they would be more merciful toward gays.

                    • B Park

                      Well, I stand corrected and confused. If that’s what The Deuce meant, I stand corrected, confused and embarrassed. This is why I don’t understand religion, clearly nature has a different idea but Catholics are still following a 3500 year old book that’s clearly written by people who want to have power over others (then translated by other people who want more power). Thank you, that was informative (seriously, no sarcasm).

                    • Li Min

                      Very well said. Unfortunately though if a practicing Christian says they support gays, it is taken as–they support the homosexual lifestyle or ar condoning gay marriage. But true Christians are only meant to love and respect all people, not condone any sinful behaviors.

                    • The Deuce

                      “The Church is *not* using the term in the sense of a disease or psychopathology.”

                      Although all three are rooted in the basic observation that the body and our rational faculties have functions or ends that can malfunction or be subverted (which observation forms the very basis of biology and psychology as disciplines). However, as groups like the APA have become dominated by the gnostic Left, their designation of what counts as a disorder has become arbitrary and politically-driven.

                    • The Deuce

                      “Riddle me this Batman, wouldn’t gay people find us disordered?”

                      It doesn’t matter if they did. They’d be just as wrong as a person with epilepsy claiming that being not-epileptic like everyone else was the *real* disorder. Obviously our sexual organs have a function (or order), and obviously homosexual desires are a malfunctioning (or disorder) relating to that function (just as epilepsy is a malfunctioning of the brain). Whether or not it’s “natural” (in the sense that you don’t choose it) is irrelevant. The APA singling it out as “not a disorder” is a political position, not one of fact. This doesn’t rely on a 3,500 year old book, but merely the idea that political edicts don’t redefine reality.

                    • B Park

                      So, no sex unless babies are end result. Got it, silly, but got it. The APA and the Catholic Church have a different definition of disorder. But as I said in my previous post, “Rosemarie cleared some things up, I take back previous comment. Now I understand your post and it’s a good point.”

                    • Rosemarie

                      +J.M.J+

                      >>>So, no sex unless babies are end result.

                      Well, not exactly. More like “No sex in a manner that cannot possibly result in babies.”

                      The idea is that the function of an organ determines its proper use. The reproductive organs of the male and female bodies function together to transmit human life, so their proper use involves acts that can potentially result in procreation. That doesn’t mean that every single conjugal act *must* result in conception, but that that end must not be directly prevented.

                      Now, if semen is deposited into either end of the digestive tract (of a male or female), conception cannot possibly result. Therefore that is not the proper use of the male reproductive organs, which are naturally ordered toward depositing semen in the female organs where there may be ova to fertilize. Similarly, if the female organs are used in a sapphic way, fertilization cannot occur, therefore the purpose of those organs is thwarted as well.

                      This is why homosexual acts are considered to be “against nature,” because they, by very nature, thwart the natural end of the generative organs. Of course, so does contraception, so does masturbation, so do a variety of things that heterosexuals do. This is why we shouldn’t have contempt for gays; we’re all sinners in one way or another and should love one another. As the Pope recently said, gays are our brothers.

                    • B Park

                      Rosemarie cleared some things up, I take back previous comment. Now I understand your post and it’s a good point.

                  • Dan C

                    Show a disciplined successful proven program. Demonstrate the positive and negative outcomes and adverse events of this program. That is therapeutic discipline. Whatever sexual orientation change therapy is called today, lacks these requirements.
                    We would not tolerate marketing pill that did not work as “therapeutic” as reparative therapy either.

                    • Stu

                      Sure. But that’s much different than making it illegal.

                    • Dan C

                      It is absolutely illegal to market medicines that do not work. It is even illegal to market a medicine for a usage that likely works, but for which the drug has not been approved.

                      This phony therapy has no outcome measurement for me to even assess its value (25% success? Who knows?) and zero data on whether it harms folks.

                      As I noted before, this is a “light touch” regulation. Minors cannot get it from a category of professionals whose practice is regulated already by the state (licensed). That is bare minimum protection for a vulnerable population (youth) that can be accorded by the community.

                      Making this illegal is not a bad thing. It may be a responsible matter. (As for Christie’s venture into catechetical matters, I make no comment.) I am sticking to this policy decision.

              • Dan C

                “Gay” does not necessarily indicate lifestyle, which then means one cannot infer lifestyle from a label, or sexual activity, or frequency of sexual activity. Ron Belgau has been writing on this at First Things, to little avail.

                “Gay” is shorthand for homosexual. Some conservatives would like to see this as a label to be able to identify sexual behavior of an individual. As several young writers point out, this fails.

                In conversation, self-identification as married does nothing to assure me of an individual’s fidelity to his spouse, anymore than identifying as Catholic and heterosexual permits me to identify someone’s sexual continence.

                Suggesting reparative therapy is really a scientifically proven therapy worthy of respect is somewhat laughable. It is an undisciplined field, full of charlatans. Therapy is a licensed profession, suggesting a body of disciplined behaviors, and the licensing body is the community. As such, the community gets to regulate this, and this is but a light regulatory hand on a group of snake-oil salesmen. There is no error in preventing parents from subjecting their children to this. Parenthood gives much much authority to individuals over their children, and sometimes, yes, the community and its representatives have to step in and say “no” to a parent’s desires. It does so on the matter of alcoholic beverages, it does so about employment in family businesses. Should reparative therapy or conversion therapy or whatever it chooses to call itself this decade ever demonstrate some discipline, perhaps I could stomach a change in attitude to permitting minors to be subjected to its techniques.

                • Stu

                  Homosexuality is an disordered inclination. I don’t define people by their inclinations especially in terms of sexuality. As to what “conservatives” want, that is of no consequence to me. Take it up with them.

                  If such therapy is conceivably so wrong then it should be outlawed for everyone. Instead, this is a clear play by the gay lobby to promote it’s lifestyle as normal bit by bit. When NJ decides minors cannot engage in an abortion without their parent’s consent, then I will give another look at their intentions. Until then, it just appears as more social engineering.

                • The Deuce

                  “”Gay” is shorthand for homosexual. Some conservatives would like to see
                  this as a label to be able to identify sexual behavior of an
                  individual. As several young writers point out, this fails”

                  That’s kind of funny, seeing as how the term “gay” was introduced by gays specifically to refer to the lifestyle, and now you’re talking as if conservatives are the ones trying to redefine it to mean that. At worst, you can blame them for not having pinpointed the moment at which it started to refer to homosexuality itself.

                  In reality, the term is just vague, and that’s the deliberate result of how the gay lobby presents it, since they want to conflate homosexual attraction with the gay lifestyle.

                  • Dan C

                    “the deliberate result of how the gay lobby presents it, since they want to conflate homosexual attraction with the gay lifestyle”
                    And no shortage of conservative Christians disagree with this idiosyncratic view of “gay.” Its the extremes on both ends that have their special code words.

                    • The Deuce

                      I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at. It’s simply the case that the term “gay,” as it relates to homosexuality, was introduced in the 60s by the gay movement. The point was to say that their lifestyle was great and that living that way made them happy (ie gay) and that they were proud of it. Conservatives didn’t invent the idea that “gay” referred to sexual behavior, so you can’t blame them for coming up with that idea. The gay movement did.

                      At best, you can argue that some conservatives have failed to keep up with the latest evolution of the word to refer to all homosexuals, including ones that are closeted or not otherwise happy and proud of their homosexual desires.

                      Of course, that also reflects the conservative resistance to the Left’s constant redefining of terms for purposes of political propaganda and confusion. Much of the reason for the broadening of the term is that the gay movement, like Chris Christie above, wants to obscure the distinction between homosexual urges and homosexual behaviors, such that understanding of the former is seen by the public as implying approval of the latter, and has largely succeeded in doing so.

  • MM

    “when everybody is screaming that you have an absolute moral obligation to vote for Chris Christie, God’s Republican Candidate and the Last Best Hope for Christian civilization in The Most Important Election of our Lifetime”
    I don’t know of anybody who has described Governor Krispy Kream that way, except for you Mark in your usual understated way. Christie may have the backing of money people in the NE, but he is generally loathed by GOP rank-and-file for his many deviations from GOP orthodoxy concerning immigration, gun control etc., whatever you may think of those positions. The only way Christie gets the nom is if we have a repeat of 2012 where all of the decent candidates stay out and he gets it by default. If Ted Cruz runs, he will get the nomination. Hence why the WaPo is already running birther articles about Cruz being born in Canada.

    • Stu

      Cruz isn’t the “party candidate.”

      Christie has a definite shot.

      • B Park

        Cruz: Tea party candidate that definitely has a shot winning the nomination, but lose the presidency.

        Christie: Progressive GOP candidate that can’t win the “go further right war” in the GOP election, but could win the presidency.

        • Stu

          That’s why Christie is the “party candidate”.

        • The Deuce

          Yup, but I don’t vote for candidates just because I like the letter ‘R’ more than the letter ‘D’, so I could care less if Christie has a better shot at the general.

          • B Park

            I think most conservatives would disagree with you, glad you’re not a sheep though

    • jroberts548

      Who is governor Krispy Kream?

      Also, the donuts are spelled Krispy Kreme.

    • wineinthewater

      If it happened in 2012, why can’t it happen in 2016? And when it happened in 2012, those of us who declined to vote for Romney were often upbraided for our decision, called “cafeteria Catholics” or “CINOs.” We were told that we had a moral obligation to vote for Romney.

      So, while no one has described Christie that way yet, the precedent is certainly set. And Mark is taling about the future.

      • enness

        I wasted my vote on Romney, pretty knowingly, I don’t feel the slightest bit of regret about it, and I can’t speak for everyone but I certainly will never upbraid you for not doing the same. I am not overly concerned that either of us is going to Hell because of whether we checked A or B — only the reasoning that got us to that point, which is something I will only know if you care to tell me. Otherwise it’s NOMB.

        • wineinthewater

          I am glad to hear it, but unfortunately there are a *lot* of Catholics that you can’t speak for.

      • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

        Exactly. It was astounding watching people go from, “O Lord, please don’t let that Romney get the nomination!” To, “Well, he’s not as bad as you are making him out to be.” to, “OMG if you don’t vote for Romney, babies will die!”

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      I know a lot of people who will view it that way if he is the nominee–not the Catholics I know, particularly, but quite a few others.

  • enness

    The Obamessiah can’t run again in 2016, assuming we don’t get a last-minute executive order. Even Hillary doesn’t have that much pop mystique.

    At the moment, I don’t plan on voting for Christie even if he is the nominee. I guess you could say I got it out of my system and feel better now.

  • mike

    The last few paragraphs really show up the extent of the agenda. In summary, it is completely wrong to try to help a child change the gender he/she is attracted to, but completely right to help them change the gender that they are.

  • wineinthewater

    There is often talk of the anonymous Christian, or the unwitting Catholic. I think we need to start thinking about the unwitting heretic. How often do we see people like Christie misunderstand Catholic teaching and then act on that misunderstanding. Christie seems to believe himself much more out of step with Catholic teaching than he actually is.

    • Almario Javier

      Precisely. Whether or not what he did is actually at odds with Church teaching, the very fact that he believes his proposed actions to be contrary to Church teaching, and his willingness to thus throw the Church under the bus should present a question of serious consideration for any potential supporter/

  • obpoet

    It all sounds like very flawed logic. Perhaps this is more sound: vote for the lesser of two evils, then next time eviler doesn’t get nominated, so on and so forth, lessening the evil each election. Or, cast your vote down the drain. Yet, people like evil, so they are going to vote for evil anyway, so it really doesn’t matter. Just cast a feel-good vote and enjoy it for an hour before you see the election results of candidate evil winning again, because votes don’t count anyway.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      How’s that been working out for, say, the last 30 years?

  • Imp the Vladaler

    Don’t look now, but New Jersey just outlawed all counseling. Pay attention to what’s in bold:

    A person who is licensed to provide professional counseling… shall not engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age. As used in this section, “sexual orientation change efforts” means: the practice of seeking to change a person’s sexual orientation, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors, gender identity, or gender expressions, or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward a person of the same gender; except that sexual orientation change efforts shall not include counseling for a person seeking to transition from one gender to another, or counseling that:

    (1) provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a person or facilitates a person’s coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and

    (2) does not seek to change sexual orientation.

    See what’s in bold there? You can’t try to “change a person’s sexual orientation.” Okay, fine. But what does that mean? What acts constitute an attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation. We’re given a list of things (“including”) that are attempts to change sexual orientation. Those include “efforts to change behaviors.”

    Whoa, slow down. What kind of behaviors? We’re not told. But there you have it, right in the text: try to change someone’s “behaviors” and you’re monkeying with his “sexual orientation.” It doesn’t specify what kind of behavior. Any behavior modification at all is an attempt to change sexual orientation.

    But wait, there’s a safe harbor! Great! We’re then told that you can provide therapy that doesn’t attempt to change sexual orientation. What are those acts? Um… we’re not told.

    Note also that if a confused minor boy goes to a counselor and says that he’s confused, and he doesn’t know if he wants to be a man or a woman, you can counsel him to “transition” to female, but you can’t help him if he wants to stay male.

    Bad drafting happens sometimes. But on this level? Not when a law is written in good faith. This is a horribly vague law written not to curtail abusive practices, but to enforce a political viewpoint. Shame on Christie for signing it.

  • Elmwood

    Christie is going to have conform his views to the cult of the GOP if he ever hopes to be nominated. I don’t believe he said anything contrary to the catholic faith because only homosexual acts are sinful.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X