#LoveWins

#LoveWins June 30, 2015

Sore winner makes clear that for an awful lot of the #lovewins crowd, this is not about love. It’s about vengeance. We’ll see how Love plays out in the New Normal. I hope this guy turns out to be an outlier (and note with some hope that, for all his spite, he does not speak of legal reprisals).

In his speech today following the Supreme Court’s ruling, President Obama reminded us to respect the defeated. He said:

I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply-held beliefs. All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact. Recognize different viewpoints, revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.

You know what, though? Fuck those people. Fuck their myopic “good will,” fuck their views on this issue that are anti-equality, fuck their misguided sincerity, their deeply held beliefs, their refusal to see what’s right, their insistence on hiding behind some passages (and ignoring hundreds of others) from their beloved Bibles.

But I have no special reason to think he will not, in fact, seek legal reprisals.  The ACLU is already talking about removal of religious liberties in reprisal for Ungoodthink, and the Pop Left is making the usual noises about punishing Christians for having theological views that conflict with Leftist pieties:

Cuz Martin Luther King, Jr. was just a total tax fraud, doncha know.

It remains to be seen how much the revanchists speak for the winners of this particular culture war battle.

Meanwhile, it behooves us as Christians to turn our energies toward prudence and not fear, anger, or self-pity.  The biggest effect the ruling has had in my life has been people gloating in comboxes or unfriending me on FB.  Woe is me.  Meanwhile, several black churches have been targeted for arson as payback for not enough black people being murdered in Charleston.  And, of course, abroad, we have actual holy martyrs shedding their actual blood for our Lord (you can support their orphans here).

Compared to that, life is great here for Catholics in these United States.  So I think the primary thing for Catholics to do is listen to our Lord and rejoice in the undeserved hatred we receive while making sure that it is *all* undeserved hatred.   Because, of course, while an awful lot of it is directed against the simple fact that the Church can never confer a blessing on homosex or pretend that there is such a thing as gay “marriage”, an awful lot of it also comes because of actual injustices against gay persons and our rank hypocrisies as Christians.  Every time a Christian cheers for a Donald Trump or a Rush Limbaugh as a champion of “traditional marriage”, or tells a gay person that, even if they are faithful and obedient to the teaching of the Church, they will *still* be judged with hostility and suspicion for their temptations while the rest of us will be judged on our actions, we only make clear our own hypocrisy and contempt for them.  That’s on us, not them.

Does the world hate the Church?  Yes.  It always has and it always will.  The delusion from which we are only now waking is that, in the US, we have jiggered a way around that.  Much of the anger and fear I’m hearing from Catholics about the SCOTUS decision is not about the real victims of this decision–children who have just been stripped of all rights at law to a mother and a father–but pitiable Us as losers in a culture war. What all that “I woke up in an America that is no longer my home” rhetoric says, loud and clear, is that the focus is still on our political and earthly power.

Fact: America was never our home because the world has never been our home.  We are and always have been strangers and sojourners here.   If the Faith is true, then the main victims of what has happened will be the weak and to poor (that is, Jesus Christ, the eternal Victim), and we should attend to them and to him, not to poor Us, because the real question is not whether the Church will survive the hostility of the United States, but how long the United States can survive attacking the greatest provider of charitable works in the world.  Without the chrism of charitable works of the Church lubricating our culture, the engine of our already overheated society is going to burn out and break down in short order.

What we lost was some of our earthly power. But such power is not and never has been our hope.  Jesus neither had nor sought such power.  Nor did the apostles.  So this may be a blessing in disguise if we recognize that the weapons of our warfare are not and never have been found in the blessing of Caesar. We must resolve ourselves, should some sort of serious persecution come (and none has yet) to rejoice as Jesus said to do and as the apostles did, being glad to be found worthy to suffer for the Name.  Fear and worry and resentment and anger are of this world, not of the Kingdom.

"This video makes me want to recruit DJT into my KC council. A REAL American ..."

MAGA Cultists are the main source ..."
"You guys don't fool me for a second."It's clear Megan was unsuited to the Royal ..."

MAGA Cultists are the main source ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Doyle

    “America was never our home because the world has never been our home.”

    Amen. Always great to be reminded of that. Raises hope and makes charity easier.

  • Dave G.

    I think, in the end, not reacting with anger is the best thing, but not reacting at all could be almost as bad. I realized, after listening to my boys talk about how their peers see things, that in a generation or so – all things equal and going the direction they are – any church that doesn’t bless gay marriages will be seen by most in the same light as a church today that would refuse to bless interracial marriages. Now we can just shrug and say whatever. Or we can take a stand. Trying to keep feet in both sides, the Faith and the fad, won’t help. I have never believed this was about gay marriage. It’s about a new world view, an alternate religion. And an increasingly intolerant one at that. One that does not value the old live and let live that the US tried, however imperfectly, to establish regarding religious freedom. One that promised the tolerance decades ago, but is now making clear it has no intention of following through now that it is getting more influence. Are we being beheaded by Isis? No. Thank God. For the sake of my kids and their kids, I want to do what I can to keep it that way.

  • OverlappingMagisteria

    …real victims of this decision–children who have just been stripped of all rights at law to a mother and a father…

    I hear this claim a lot, but I honestly do not understand it. I don’t think you are saying that gay marriage will cause children to be kidnapped from existing families. Gay (and single parent) adoption has been legal for years, so gay marriage doesn’t change that… so I’m confused. It what way does gay marriage strip children of a mother and father?

    • Guest

      I suppose it’s just another brick in the wall, as it were.

    • LFM

      First, gay and single parent adoption was never that great an idea except in special circumstances – i.e. gay couple who are old friends of parents of orphaned children adopt them, single aunt of whatever orientation adopts her brother’s kids when he dies young of cancer, lesbian woman with training in “special ed” adopts autistic child etc. Few people would object to such cases. However, without a potential or pre-existing special relationship, adoption – which is actually very difficult to get right (google “failed adoptions”) is just too tough for both children, esp. very young ones, and single or same-sex parents. I would not care to be a girl raised without a mother, even by excellent gay male parents.

      Second, your question is naive. Have you not heard of assisted reproductive technology? Do you know how dangerous egg donation can be, not just for the recipient but for the egg donor? Do you know how 3rd world women are being enlisted, sometimes against their will, to be gestational surrogates for rich people, because not enough Westerners are willing to lend their bodies to such a purpose? Do you think that children are really indifferent to being purpose-built for their would-be parents? Or that they don’t need to know something of their biological roots (for health reasons alone, never mind anything else)? Or that they don’t mind being essentially “sold” by one of their biological parents – that is, if they are even allowed to know that they were born of ART or to learn their bio. parent’s name/s? Is biology so unimportant to children? After all, it isn’t unimportant to their parents, or there would be far less demand for ART.

      Of course, these procedures were pioneered for infertile heterosexual couples, which is almost equally wrong. At least they, however, could provide a “social” parent of both sexes, something that gay couples cannot do. Nor have straight people so far succeeded in convincing every jurisdiction that they have a “right” to ART in any and every circumstance – but the additional push from gay rights advocates may change that. They certainly intend to try:
      http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-nejaime-gay-marriage-decision-does-not-solve-everything-20150628-story.html?utm_source=CBC+Newsletter&utm_campaign=c3c5b615b7-2015_06_29_Monday&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_56f2fc828e-c3c5b615b7-91804521&mc_cid=c3c5b615b7&mc_eid=2a18cc3740

      • OverlappingMagisteria

        Thank you for your detailed reply. However, I think you misunderstood my question. I had asked how gay marriage strips children of their right to a mother or father. I understand the argument of how gay (or single parent) adoption would do that, and you have done a good job of describing some potential issues with assisted reproductive technology. But these things have existed whether or not gay marriage exists. So they seem to be unrelated topics.

        • LFM

          Unrelated? No, not really. As long as gay people only had access to civil unions or cohabitation arrangements, it was possible to maintain that their partnerships were different in kind from those of heterosexual couples. Now that argument is going to be legally (not just socially) forbidden, in spite of the fact that their relationships are still different in kind from those of straight people. People fail to understand how changes in the law – especially in a common law system, which runs on precedent and its interpretation, rather than the letter of the law – can have what the newspapers call “sweeping ramifications.”

          In any case, gay marriage advocates, when they get over fussing about “transgenders” and their rights, will be much preoccupied with the issue in the next few years and, I suspect, will encourage their fellows to adopt or to have children via ART as a way of consolidating their victory. No, it won’t be only for those reasons, but that will be an element, just as it is for straight people sometimes. The difference is that gay people will require major support, from cash, health care, technology and the use of other people’s bodies, in order to pull it off.

          • If you’re interested in learning more about the real-life consequences of ART, you can read heartbreaking stories from the victims at http://anonymousus.org/

            • LFM

              I know of anonymousus, but I suspect most people here are unfamiliar with it, and I don’t think I ever linked to it myself. It’s true that many – perhaps most? – of its stories are sad. Although it does have a section for people with positive experiences of ART, these don’t appear to be as common – perhaps the result of selection bias, or perhaps representative of the reality of ART for most people who were created by it.

  • Alma Peregrina

    Yeah. It’s so strange that people are so imersed in it and still don’t see it. Since the Supreme Court decision all I’ve seen is “in yo face” type of comments, not true and pure manifestations of joy.

    We need just look at them. Love is not their primary drive. Hate for the ones who disagree with them is. Those are the “tolerant” guys.

    And when I say “them”, I don’t mean gays in general, I’m talking about those #luvwins activists, who many times are just heterossexuals trying to look trendy and take the oportunity to spit on those “ignorants”, “obscurantists”, “medievals”, “crusaders”, “whatever” that have a diferent worldview of how social issues should be conducted.

    Nowadays, all you have to do to be inteligent is to proclaim that you are atheist, and then you’ll have carte blanche to hold every stupid opinion imaginable. Likewise, to be loving and tolerant, all you have to do is put a rainbow across your photo, and then you’ll have carte blanche to be hateful and intolerant at will. So much easier than being loving and tolerant by carrying a Cross, right?

    • freddy

      Very well said!

    • Joseph

      Pretty much. New Atheists are typically dumb as rocks. And when their silly, inconsistent opinions get destroyed during discussion or debate, they simply retreat to their ‘well, I’m atheist… not like you dummies’ slogan to feel smart again. It’s really hard not to laugh or cry in their presence. I’m just shocked at how stupid people have become.
      .
      I wonder what the next hipster *cause* is going to be.

      • IRVCath

        It’s a reaction to the intellectual paucity of some Evangelicals. The problem with the New Atheists is that they forget that fighting using the same tactics as the fundamentalists is a classic “garbage in, garbage out” scenario.

        • Alma Peregrina

          “It’s a reaction to the intellectual paucity of some Evangelicals.”

          I disagree with this statement, given the similarity in praxis between these 2 groups. I’m more inclined to say that the intellectual paucity of New Atheists is the natural evolutive step of the intellectual paucity of Evangelicals.

          Or, as I usually say: New atheists are just protestants that rejected one additional Church dogma.

          • Joseph

            Hmmm.. neo-protestants. I like that.

          • antigon

            Sorry Alma, but, maybe particularly in light of the word, edit & correct your spelling of intellectual.

            • Alma Peregrina

              Thank you. This time it was an autocorrect error, since “intelectual” is how you spell it in portuguese.

      • Alma Peregrina

        Exactly my experience. It is very telling that some of the more important crusades for current generations are linked to “identities”. Do you identify yourself as a man or as a woman? Do you identify yourself with what sexual orientation? Etc…

        Because people don’t think nowadays. They compare you to a preconceived label and then spout the pavlovian response to it. So, if you’re pro-LGBT, you’re tolerant, if you’re catholic, you’re hateful. If you’re atheist, you’re inteligent, if you’re catholic, you’re dumb.

        The content of what’s being said doesn’t matter. As soon as you’re labeled, your destiny is sealed. Maybe that’s why identities matter so… people can’t reason without them.

        I’ve had debates over the Supreme Court ruling where rainbow colored photo people have told me that “I need to think with my own brain” because I don’t aprove of gay “marriage”, and then I tell them that thinking with my own brain is what I’m doing now, that thinking like them would be to throw away my brain. They just stare confused at me, like thinking: “Don’t you know your place? You’re the anti-LGBT hater! You’re suposed to not be thinking, right?”

        **********************************
        As for the next hipster *cause*, I’m most certain it will involve giving human rights to non-humans. Only then will people make the logical leap to allow marriages besides consenting adult humans. #Luvwins.

        But we could place some bets on which cause will be the next and see who wins.

    • antigon

      Love is not their primary drive? Well dip me in mustard & call me a hot dog!

      • Alma Peregrina

        Could you please pass the mustard, hot dog?

  • ManyMoreSpices

    I haven’t seen all that much gloating in the circles I run in, thank goodness, even though they’re chock full o’ godless leftists. But I am noting some curiosities, including examples of Rod Dreher’s Law of Merited Impossibility (“same sex marriage will have no effect on you, and boy do you deserve what you’re about to get”) and what I might call the Redefinition That Dare Not Speak Its Name (open to suggestions on this one), which goes “we’re not trying to redefine marriage, now please listen to how we plan to change it.” [EDIT: see below for a renaming and redefining (heh) of this concept.] We’ve seen some of that right here on Colbert & Enjoying It! yesterday, with SSM proponents swinging by to tell us that marital monogamy is overrated.

    Something new and fascinating has developed this morning, which I did not predict, but which of course makes perfect sense: SSM proponents are complaining that Justice Kennedy’s opinion focuses too much on marriage’s beneficial effects on children. But, you know, SSM isn’t about redefining marriage from being an institution that supports children to a celebration of romantic love.

    And if that weren’t enough, we’ve got this gal explaining to us that Justice Kennedy’s extolling of the importance of marriage is demeaning to singletons. Back in days of yore, by which I mean “last week,” marriage was super-important and it was of vital necessity that gays be allowed to marry because a fundamental human right was being denied to them. Today? Well, today… what’s so great about marriage?

    • Sue Korlan

      No, Bella has been pushing for the rights of us single people for years. Her book Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After came out in 2006. And the people at Onely did an economic analysis of the benefits people get for being married versus the single. Definite benefit to the married. Which I as a single person don’t object to as long as there are children involved, but often there aren’t, and often the single person not benefitted has children who could use the extra support.

      • LFM

        Marriage is an important social institution, but not generally for the reasons that Justice Kennedy made so much of. It’s also very Catholic to maintain that being single, which should of course comprehend chastity, is as much a good state as being married.

        Eve Tushnet makes much of the importance of friendship in the lives of single people, both gay and straight. She suggests that one reason for the insistent demand for same-sex marriage is that marriage has been presented in modern society as the only route to fulfillment and away from loneliness.

        • Sue Korlan

          She is right. I wrote that steadily ignoring single people except to suggest they join a religious order or get married is one of the reasons divorced Catholics remarry, and I hope the bishops paid attention to that point. I’ve never heard of a year for the single, but we get them for the other 2 groups. And so on.

      • ManyMoreSpices

        I certainly won’t disparage singlehood, particularly because the Church – starting no later than with St. Paul – has had so many great things to say about it. I certainly think we can debate the scope of the public benefits that should be given to the married. We can even debate whether marriage rates are too high, i.e., there are some married people who obviously were not called to the vocation of marriage. I further accept that single-rights advocates have been at this for some time, and that their arguments (with which I’m barely familiar) do not necessarily have anything to do with same-sex marriage.

        But make no mistake: removing some of the benefits of marriage will decrease the number of people who get and stay married. (This is one of the effects of the Great Society: decreasing the relative difficulty of single parenting by replacing husbands and fathers with the government). Although this is consistent with 1 Cor 7:8, the illegitimacy rate shows that not enough people are heeding the very next verse, and too few are staying married when they do. It is for those reasons that, at present, my default will be to oppose those who want to weaken marriage’s preferred position. I say this as someone who is not benefiting from those advantages. I’m open to persuasion, particularly if you can find a way to help single people without harming marriage. But I’m skeptical.

        With that throat-clearing out of the way, DePaulo (whom I see has been at this for many moons) is not the only one who objects to Justice Kennedy’s paean to marriage. Rebecca Traister doesn’t like Kennedy’s language, either. But overall she sees the ruling as a victory for those who wish to remain unmarried. How does she get there? By noting that, yeah, the fight for SSM has been about redefining marriage, after all:

        Gay marriage has presented a challenge to straight marriage in part because it resists the mandate that everyone be straight married. It also, ideally, takes the great things about partnership — love, companionship, commitment — and makes them the basis of the institution.

        As I’ve said before: thanks for acknowledging that you want to change the definition of marriage. Better late than never. She goes on:

        But the other thing that’s so revolutionary about fighting for marriage to be about love and companionship — and not about a strictly gendered economic or social power construct — is that it acknowledges human connections that are also available to millions of people outside of marriage altogether.

        I should add that I’m not following this argument at all. I don’t see how redefining marriage to be about love helps single people, and I don’t think there’s much offered as an explanation. For me, what matters is that she wants this to be true. Whether her methods are effective or not, Traister’s way of helping single people involves changing the definition of marriage. If that’s what it’s going to take, I’m getting off the bus.

        Oh, not that it relates to the whole “singlehood” thing, but simply because I found the link and I don’t have much use for it, here’s the tedious and execrable Amanda Marcotte explaining that oh yeah I guess SSM does mean changing the definition of marriage after all, but it had to change because it was all about oppressing women.

        In this sense, Douthat isn’t wrong that “support for same-sex marriage and the decline of straight marital norms exist in a kind of feedback loop.” To accept same-sex marriage is to accept this modern idea that marriage is about love and partnership, instead of about dutiful procreation and female submission. Traditional gender roles where husbands rule over wives are disintegrating and that process is definitely helped along by these new laws allowing that marriage doesn’t have to be a gendered institution at all.

        In other words, idiots like Ross Douthat were right that we’re changing marriage but wrong to oppose us.

        I think I’ve got my formulation for The Oppressive Resistance to Nonexistent Redefinition down now: “Same-sex marriage doesn’t involve redefining marriage and here’s why you’re a oppressor for not wanting to redefine marriage.”

        • Sue Korlan

          I think the accolades for love are probably aimed at friendship. Love and sex are not necessarily synonymous.

    • Vision_From_Afar

      “with SSM proponents swinging by to tell us that marital monogamy is overrated.”

      No, just none of your business.

      • Gunnar Thalweg

        Then why did you seek our approval?

        • Vision_From_Afar

          I wasn’t hunting for approval (love you guys, but I’m not expecting a miracle, *teehee*), but rather I was arguing against when one commenter espoused the argument ad absurdum that SSM would result in a sexy-time free-for-all. Somehow the fact that many people are already in non-monogamous relationships never enters into the equation of these arguments, because SSM is apparently the sparkle-encrusted catalyst we’ve all been waiting for.
          I admit it’s a bit of pique on my part to continually belabor the point in this kind of forum, but it really does annoy me when those kind of arguments are made. I have friends in open relationships who face far greater stigma than even LGBTQ+ people. The ideas aren’t related beyond the barest of tangents, and the argument that they are intrinsically linked annoyed me, so I spoke up.

          • ManyMoreSpices

            If you’re referring to me – and I don’t know who else it could be, but sometimes these discussions are confusing – I hardly think that “SSM would result in a sexy-time free-for-all.” I certainly think that admitting to the institution on equal terms a class that is quite open about its creative understanding of monogamy will not have salutory effects on the prevalence of monogamy within the institution.*** Polyamory among straights is a thing, but as you said, they tend to keep it quiet. Not so with Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan, two of the loudest SSM advocates.

            I also think that further solidifying a model of marriage that emphasizes personal fulfillment and happiness over children and lifelong commitment is dangerous in the sense that it suggests that once the marriage is no longer personally fulfilling, it has outlived its usefulness. Note that the hashtags are “lovewins” and “loveislove” not “commitmentwins” or “commitmentiscommitment.” If marriage is about romantic love, what happens when the love is gone?

            ***I’m going to add here that changing social norms are, in some ways, inevitable, and that the fact that the institution of marriage may be weakened or altered by allowing SSM may not necessarily be enough justification to oppose it. I recognize that many of the arguments against SSM identify diffuse harms that are impossible to trace back to these two particular men getting married. That’s the pro-SSM argument that I find the most persuasive: that the harm will be mild and spread around, but not being able to get married harms visible people.

            • Vision_From_Afar

              No, it wasn’t you. I’m trying to not call people out, but it wasn’t you.

              Honestly, I would posit love was used instead of commitment as a result of our 140-character limit on gloating and activism, more than any other reason, but that’s just a guess.

              When the love is gone, we will have another reckoning, I think. One that will affect everyone.

          • antigon

            Dear Vis, see Antigon’s helpful explanation just above.
            *
            Then of course repent, since the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. And always is.

            • Vision_From_Afar

              Did you really 3rd person reference yourself? lol
              I appreciate the thought (truly, I fully understand it comes from a good place), but I’m quite happy with my current choices.

              • antigon

                ‘Happy? Anybody can be happy. What’s the point of that?’ – Bob Dylan
                *
                Meantime, Vis, you’re just lucky I didn’t write the *estimable* Antigon!

                • Vision_From_Afar

                  Modesty, thy name is Internet Commenter.

                  • antigon

                    And so many of them – not Antigon of course – have so much to be modest about!

      • ManyMoreSpices

        I thought carefully about which words I would use before I used them. You’re forgiven for not knowing the full breadth of what has been advocated here in recent days, but it has happened nonetheless:

        A better model is Dan Savage’s “monogamousish” model, whereby a couple gets married and, by mutual consent, allows each other an affair once every year or so. It’s actual one thing we could teach straight couples that would help improve their marriages. Everybody cheats at least once so it’s much better to be open about it rather than be a hypocrite.

        http://t.fod4.com/t/177fcc0acc/c640x360_32.jpg

        • LFM

          More proof that gay people, married or not, do NOT understand the realities of heterosexual life, including our sexual relationships, het. men, het. women, and children.

          Just how is it that we’re all equal again?

        • Vision_From_Afar

          Huh, missed that one. I guess it really does take all kinds.

        • kenofken

          If you want to use advocacy/practice of non-monogamy as a yardstick for moral degeneracy, you might want to study up on hetero America before you hitch your wagon to that idea. There is a huge subculture of “swingers” in this country, essentially all heterosexual and mostly married couples. Most of them take far more liberties than Dan Savage advocates. They don’t turn a blind eye to an annual dalliance. They have one or more virtually every week.

          Estimates of their numbers vary, but on the high side, they would outnumber the entire LGBT population. This is not some way underground thing or some artifact of East and West Coast liberal perversity. It’s ubiquitous. If you were to look, virtually everyone reading this would find a club or meetup or some sort of venue for it within a couple of hour’s drive of where they live. Red State America, supposedly the bastion of traditional Christian family values, is a huge epicenter of it. They have hotel takeovers. They have entire resorts and cruise ships and campgrounds that cater to this. This subculture is chock full of police, firefighters, teachers, nurses, PTA moms, Democrats, Republicans, you name it. I would be decent money that at least one person or couple in your circle of acquaintances is involved in this at some level.

          In its modern iteration, it has been going on since World War II, and this is just one aspect of hetero non-monogamy. There are many millions of others who practice full time polyamory or who have a “don’t ask don’t tell” sort of arrangement. There are many, many tens of millions more who are just old-fashioned cheaters. It would take Dan Savage and the entire LGBT population at least two generations of ceaseless effort to even begin to catch up with the scale of “monagamish” behavior practiced by their straight counterparts.

          • ManyMoreSpices

            Might as well just throw in the towel then, right?

            That’s your point, no? That polyamory is so widespread that open advocacy of the same by gays can’t possibly make things any worse?

            Look, I know you think you’re doing all of us Catholic rubes a service by educating us as to things we don’t know about, but, well, we know. (I particularly like the part where you inform us – because we’re totally not aware – that adultery happens). And we’re doing what we can to prevent this sort of thing from being normalized further. Why? Because it can go a lot further. Marriage can further erode. Divorce can increase. Children can be treated worse.

            Of course, the fact that you think you need to educate us as to how widespread this is tells me something significant: that this isn’t being shouted from the rooftops, and you know it. That everyone isn’t doing it, and most people are keeping quiet about it. Even your upper-bound number would still be in the single digits. We’d like to keep it that way. I don’t expect to win – we don’t win many of these things in the long run – but we’ll resist for as long as we can.

            • kenofken

              I would merely suggest not firing the trebuchet in the living room of one’s own glass house.

              • ManyMoreSpices

                No, you’re doing far more than that. You’re implying that there’s no meaningful difference in the amount of advocacy (your word) for non-monogamy in heterosexual and gay-male relationships. Which is silly beyond measure.

                Dan Savage doesn’t agree with you that hetero marriages are open enough, that there are enough swingers, that there are sufficient numbers of “arrangements.” He thinks there need to be more. As long as he’s advocating for it, I’m going to advocate for the opposite.

                • kenofken

                  That’s fine, but the constant implication by you and others that gays and especially SSM advocates are somehow inherently and especially morally corrupt just doesn’t comport with reality. Neither Savage nor any other gay activists is bringing anything new to the table in terms of non-monogamy. In fact what he advocates is quite mild and conservative relative to what millions of heterosexuals are already doing and were doing long before gay marriage was even on the radar.

                  • antigon

                    The corruption is endemic to be sure, since Eden as to that.
                    *
                    Yet if slight the still decisive difference is the plutocratic manipulation of homosexual perversion in order to mock the very idea of sexual morality as a prelude finally to mocking any idea of morality at all, outside the confines of the various passing political correctitudes the pluts choose to impose.
                    *
                    Various perceived benefits for them (& their father below) in this, greed & the other deadly sins par example, tho do not underestimate libido dominandi, the sheer pleasure of domination as an end in itself.

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                So you’re calling ManyMoreSpices a swinger? Or, like mizzenmast meals and poor use of excorcise, is all that time with the white supremacists just making you soft in the head?

  • John

    Most of the love wins responses I’ve read basically say the same thing, You’re God can’t tell us what to do in this country.

    • SteveP

      You are correct: you are not the boss of me. You are no longer free to withhold any of my income: you do not believe in a “common good” and you have convinced me of the same.

      • John

        Not sure what you are getting at here but the SCOTUS has said sorry, we are the boss of you and will tell you what to do and only your arrogance thinks it will always be in your best interest or the best for your wallet.

        • SteveP

          Wait a bit I think. Cheers!

  • John

    The second response is you better be thankful the constitution protects your backward religion.

    • Guest

      From whom? People like you? Tell us more.

    • Joseph

      Great, another extremist.

    • John

      Sorry, didn’t realize the response got split. A large majority of Love wins responses I’ve read showed contempt for religion and a warning that only the constitution protects your backward out of date religious concepts from our wrath. Not my responses for or against SSM.

      • Guest

        Oh, I see. Thanks, and sorry for the grumpy response.

  • etme

    Quote: “As Germany tightened its laws against having sex with animals, zoophile advocates gathered in central Berlin on Friday to fight for their right to choose who, or what, they love”.

    “the right to choose who, or what they love” – they might as well be quoting from Justice Kennedy’s argument. #lovewins #equality

    http://www.thelocal.de/20130201/47711

    • kenofken

      Ah yes, the good old LGBT=bestiality trope. So, how are those tactics working for you? I’m hearing rumblings of some sort of setback for the anti-SSM movement in recent days. I just can’t imagine how you guys lost the hearts and minds battle. I mean, how could anyone NOT see Christ’s love in your words and deeds?

      • AquinasMan

        You’re right. Beasts don’t drag their young to sodomite parades.

        • Joseph

          Hahaha… this guy is just setting himself up with his zeal! I love it. He’s just displaying how mindless the herd is.

          • kenofken

            Maybe, but the mindless herd just ate yawl’s lunch. I’ll admit there may not be much cache in being an idiot, but getting outsmarted consistently by idiots is not exactly a solid basis for bragging rights either.

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              What is a Yawl’s lunch? I’m assuming some kind of seafood.

              This isn’t about winning for most of us, btw. Tell all your white supremacist buddies ‘hi’!

            • Joseph

              That’s where you’re wrong. You actually didn’t eat anyone’s lunch. You think you did, but it won’t take but a couple of days before you realise that you haven’t. You merely accomplished what was inevitable in an areligious democracy, it’s not a theocracy. The fact that it took you so long is actually pretty embarrassing. Once you realise this that’s when your hate and anger will surface and you’ll just start attacking the Catholic Church… because that’s what you’re really pissed about. That someone, even after this *late* victory, still believes that homosex is unnatural. That’s what you can’t stand. All voices of opposition must be quashed. You’ll use this ruling as a legal basis to swing your hammer down on anyone who doesn’t glory in homosex.

              • antigon

                It’s actually the father below that’s pissed about the Catholic Faith, from time immemorial so to say.
                *
                And of course the reason ‘all voices must be squashed’ is the hope that if the others are, perhaps the steady reproach within their own souls might finally be silenced too.

              • kenofken

                It was hardly inevitable. This country was not a theocracy, but that was not for lack of trying by the religious right. American until quite recently could have been said to be a non-denominational Christian confessional state ordered along a loose Catholic/Evangelical/New England Protestant consensus.

                Was the gay rights struggle embarrassingly long? That’s a matter of perspective. I would measure the modern struggle on a 46-year time scale – from the Stonewall Riots to the recent Supreme Court ruling. In the life cycle of today’s social media on-demand culture, 46 years is an eternity. On the scale historians use, not so very long. Gays went from being arrested on sight and murdered with virtual impunity to full equality. They did so against one of the most vicious regimes of hatred ever conceived in this nation and through the midst of an epidemic that wiped out a generation of the movement’s best leaders and intellectuals. They changed our cultures entire conception of LGBT persons and rights in 40-odd years. The pro-life movement has had roughly the same amount of time since Roe. Certainly they have changed the nation’s consensus or comfort level with abortion to a degree, but nowhere near the sea change that leads to sweeping and definitive SCOTUS rulings.

                I can’t speak for the millions of other LGBT rights activists, but I can say I harbor no hate and anger toward the Church. If their disapproval on any issue meant anything to me, I would have stayed Catholic and sought to bend official theology to my own. I did not and will not. I left on good terms and I don’t care a whit whether Rome disapproves of anything I or anyone else does.

                It has no more bearing on me than the disapproval I would incur from Jewish Halakah, the Koran or any other religion I don’t follow. I don’t care if the Catholic Church ever marries same sex couples or has women priests or any of that. Not my ecclesiastical circus or monkeys. All I have ever cared about as regards LGBT rights is equality before secular law and achieving true separation of church and state. I’m content. I got exactly the outcome I was hoping for

                • Joseph

                  Interesting that you say you harbour no hate for the Catholic Church when your comments on this blog seem to indicate otherwise.

                  • kenofken

                    Rejecting the Church’s position on an issue or many is not the same as hating it. I certainly don’t hate Catholics in the aggregate as they were key to making SSM and other advances happen in this country. I don’t have much regard for the anti-SSM movement as a whole, which for decades has spoken much more with the voice of Fred Phelps than the voice of any pope. It is a movement which prosecuted a vicious no quarter culture war against LGBT Americans and made it known that there would be no second place winners or gracious treatment of the defeated. I have no respect for the sniveling and facetious outrage now that some gay activists are visiting this “no-quarter” ethic against the people who set that rule.

                    • SteveP

                      Ha, ha, ha, ha! Your lies are not usually so amusing – thank you for providing an opportunity for mirth.

            • antigon

              Yup, amazing the power of plutocrat dough. Who’d have thought?

      • etme

        How dare you judge who they choose to be, love, and be with? How dare you impose your traditional understanding of what sexuality is, on their individual choice of sexual identity and behavior? Calling it “bestiality” is simply speciesism – aka the new racism. I am looking forward to the day when we will shatter this glass ceiling as well!

        The simple truth is that it is love, and love always wins.

      • antigon

        But Mr. Ken, anal marriage lost overwhelmingly, generally with more than 60% of the vote & not infrequently by 80% in more than thirty referenda. Whereupon hearts & minds be damned, the plutocracy ruled, via its dutiful judiciary.

  • Gunnar Thalweg

    Fortunately, I have an inner atheist so I can have these arguments all by myself.

    Here’s how 24-year-old me sees this: It really doesn’t matter. Marriage no longer applies; it’s Very Seriously Going Steady and could involve children and stuff. But mostly, it’s about a commitment between two people for living together, not necessary and not a real thing, just two people agreeing that they are doing this, whatever. Gays, well, I would say marriage involves a man and a woman, but OK, if you want to order your life that way, sure, I suppose. I don’t really care. But I still don’t think you are a hero just ‘cuz you’re gay and your lifestyle is still really creepy and disgusting. Could you stop swishing and bear yourself as a proper man?

    As far as Catholicism, we are trying to create a new world based on more humane philosophies and we are doing a good job, so if you could just stay out of the way with your killjoy rules, we’ll all be just fine. Wine, women and song, for tomorrow we die. Or be a Stoic. Whatever. We end life when we want to, and we live on our own terms.

    My 51 year old self replies: Why does everyone sound like you now?

    • IRVCath

      Because the oligarchy prefers it that way, because they want to corner the market on that wine.

  • Episteme

    Beyond other arguments, the problem of the “stay out of politics of lose your tax-exempt status” is that disagreement with settled Supreme Court decisions on constitutional matters does not render invalid the work of non-profit organizations. There continue to be, for example, numerous campaign-finance organizations opposed to the Citizens United decision, as well as numerous gun control organizations opposed to the Heller decision. In neither case does work against what is the settled interpretation from the high court stop those groups from doing their work in a non-profit, untaxed capacity. Of course, the same thing can be said for the number of pro-life groups stemming from Roe – questions of the freedom of religious expression clause are not constitutionally discrete.

    Likewise, non-profit status does not hinge on whether the aim of the organization is epistemological correct or democratically popular, but on larger issues of community role. The only actual route of acting against the tax-status of one liberty (as noted, the issue isn’t democracy; like with most matters of American constitutional life, it’s liberty) is to do away with broader tax-exemptions. To do so, if you look over the precarity of 95+% of non-profits would to bankrupt the vast array of all sort of civic organizations and services. In the name of either of teaching a lesson or of somehow gaining tax revenue (the two rationale that I’ve seen for such an act at different levels), looking to remove this third leg of the economy would be a disastrous and failed attempt that many (even conservative boosters of civic institutions and liberal boosters of community organizations alike) don’t realize the depth of.

    • Alma Peregrina

      Very good comment. I have never thought about those non-profit organizations that oppose current policy. It’s a very valid observation.

    • Scott W.

      Well put. Historically, the IRS rarely steps in except in the most flagrant cases of directly telling churchgoers who to vote for. Yet the ignorant call keeps going up. It betrays I think a kind of mindless vindictiveness, as does the obscenity-laced screed linked above. I think the Grinches Who Stole Marriage atop their desolate mountain know deep down they have a bag full of hollow victories.

      • Joseph

        ‘… bag full of hollow victories”
        .
        Yep. That seems to explain their turning their anger and hate towards the Church almost immediately after the Supreme Court decision (and the Referendum in Ireland). It didn’t take them long to realise that *gay marriage* didn’t provide them with the satisfaction they thought they were seeking. What they want is either to have Nero reincarnated or Nero channelled through them. It took the acceptance of *gay marriage* for the vast swaths of sheep to realise this. They are bigots.
        .
        Like the French Revolution… winning is not enough. Execute everyone that doesn’t agree with you.

    • IRVCath

      Unfortunately, a lot of these people don’t realize this delicate balance. It’s like a spoiled brat in a china shop.

  • Gunnar Thalweg

    By the way, if we lose a Scalia or Thomas, who are getting up there, to another liberal judge, we will face a very serious problem. Namely:

    1. They will try to make us all pay for abortions.
    2. They will rule the Second Amendment is not an individual right, but a group right for a militia only which can be regulated by the state. All second amendment jurisprudence will be thrown out.

    In other words, they are going to push us into a corner where we cannot obey the law on abortion, and then try to get the guns.

    Meanwhile, affirmative action and political correctness will go haywire.

    The only good news is the left eats itself, and we will get to watch. It’s a like college campuses now … where everyone is grasping for greater victimhood status.

    • MarylandBill

      I think you missed the point. The hope of a Christian lies with Christ, not with guns. Yes, they may make us pay for abortions (in reality most of us have already since most of the companies we work for do provide coverage for abortion and it comes out of our health premiums), but Christians have often had to pay a tax to her enemies (remember that Christians are often required to pay a tax in Islamic countries just for being Christian). Whether our rights are respected or not, things will get worse before they get better… but they ultimately will get better, even if only at the end of the world.

      • Gunnar Thalweg

        The point is they will interpret away the Second Amendment … and try to take guns. I will predict this will happen by 2030. That is not going to go over well. My feelings are irrelevant. The storm is coming.

        • chezami

          Nobody’s coming for your guns. But the immediate way in which so many Christians cope with decisions like this by having their minds immediately turn to thoughts of shooting people is… revealing.

          • Alma Peregrina

            I see you vaticanized your photo. I’ve done the same on facebook, cool!

            #lovewillwin

          • MarylandBill

            I think it is possible that we might one day need to “buy a sword” to defend the faith, but I agree it should not be our first thought, nor should the status of the second amendment be at all important with respect to religious liberty in our country.

          • LFM

            Mark, I do think that was an unfair comment, and I am no gung-ho advocate of gun ownership, etc.

        • kenofken

          If an extraterrestrial anthropologist analyzed modern American political Christianity with only online forum material, they might well conclude that Christ and Yahweh are relatively minor figures in a pantheon where the highest supreme being was an AR-15.

          Second Amendment proponents have seen nothing but victory for the past decade. They have had no significant setbacks in any courts or legislatures anywhere in this country of late. Concealed carry is legal essentially everywhere. Outside of the restrictions on machine guns left over from John Dillinger’s day and a few obscure import regs, there are no limits on the type of weaponry you can own. Background checks have been diluted down to the honor system in many locales. We don’t even make a pretense anymore of denying weapons to the flagrantly mentally ill. Where is this looming threat to gun ownership?

          • Gunnar Thalweg

            Right. Because so far it’s been a democratic process. But it won’t be if the Supreme Court just says, “The Second Amendment doesn’t involve an individual right. It’s a militia right.” It’s really not a stretch.

            • kenofken

              Some of the biggest advances for gun owners have come from the Supreme Court. In the last seven years, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago have specifically spelled out the Second Amendment as an individual right. In Illinois, Moore v. Madigan two years ago led to the legalization of concealed carry. We never would have had that without the court decisions. Could some future courts radically reverse course? Sure, anything can happen, but it doesn’t seem like a proximate danger. In any case, I don’t buy the proposition that ownership of small arms confers any real protection against tyranny. No modern military is deterred in the slightest by semi-automatic rifles and handguns. They’re not really even a deterrent or moderating force against civilian police, who are vastly less well armed and armored than military troops. If anything, the high levels of civilian gun ownership have tended to furnish a handy justification for a “shoot first” culture on many police forces.

              • Gunnar Thalweg

                Agreed, but progressives would not hesitate to reverse those decisions.

          • antigon

            Dear Mr. Ken:
            *
            You arguably do extraterrestrial anthropologists a disservice, despite thy well-known devotion to the moon.

      • antigon

        Meanwhile, the New (& more comprehensive) Dhimmitude!

    • Dan13

      I believe Clarence Thomas is relatively young (for a judge). Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsberg, and Breyer are, I think, in their early 80s. It is common for judges to stay active for a long time but we could see as many as four new justices in the near future.

    • Jamesthelast

      Umm, you think you can stand up to the world’s best armed ground and air forces with your puny handguns?

      • antigon

        Likely not. The oligarchic worry of course, is that when those best armed air & ground forces are ordered to kill their fellow subject-cum-citizens, they might decide to shoot the oligarchs instead.

      • Gunnar Thalweg

        Um, the Taliban did. The North Vietnamese did. The Iraqis have. So, yes, I think playing home court, the U.S. military would be cut to ribbons trying to pacify this country, even with drones. Let’s pray it never comes to that.

        • kenofken

          Handguns played no significant role in any of these conflicts. Vietnam was not really about citizen soldiers with regular rifles either, the Vietcong narrative notwithstanding. North Vietnam had a real army backed with the technology and training of a major superpower. They had an air force which was getting the better of us for a time and major anti-aircraft capability.

          In our modern Middle East wars, rifles have caused casualties certainly, but nothing compared to the untold tons of high-explosives deployed against us in IEDs and suicide bombs. In the busiest years of Iraq and Afghanistant, the last decade roughly, IED casualties outnumbered bullet casualties 6:1 or more. They also had a much greater impact psychologically and on the ability to conduct operations. Most of our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq also had state backing and access to a whole lot of gear that falls outside the purview of the Second Amendment.

          Without vast quantities of explosives, heavy machine guns and at least some anti-aircraft capability, insurgencies are not even a speed bump to modern militaries, including many armies which pale in comparison to our own – the Syrians for example.

          Our enemies in the examples you cited also had one other major factor: a willingness to die in staggering numbers to inflict even modest losses on us. Those cats were/are a hell of a lot tougher than the vast majority of pasty middle aged Americans who play militia on the weekends with their sporterized AK-47s and AR-15s.

          I don’t have anything against gun ownership, mind you. I just see them as very thin insurance against tyranny. The NRA crowd and conservatives in general spend a lot of time and money obsessing about their arsenals and ignoring – or denigrating – the things that really deter tyranny, such as true participation in governance, an economy that works for everyone and a healthy civic atmosphere.

          • Gunnar Thalweg

            The Second Amendment protects more than handguns, and we had overwhelming firepower in Vietnam. It wasn’t enough.

            • Jamesthelast

              Well if you think getting surviving after getting Napalmed and Agent Oranged is a good example to follow, more power to you.

              • Gunnar Thalweg

                I think we are getting into the weeds here, no pun intended. You have essentially conceded the point.

    • antigon

      Not to mention the Constitution’s clear mandate that (fill in the plutocracy’s latest enthusiasm).

  • Mike

    again beautiful.

  • AquinasMan

    the real question is not whether the Church will survive the hostility of the United States, but how long the United States can survive attacking the greatest provider of charitable works in the world. Without the chrism of charitable works of the Church lubricating our culture, the engine of our already overheated society is going to burn out and break down in short order.

    Beautifully put. The only way to appease the wrath of God against this nation will be our own willingness to be a sacrifice. Word to the State, word to the gay-stapo, word to the monied elite: You’re going to have to kill me to stop me from practicing the One True Faith. And when you do, I pray that I will have the courage and grace of Stephen to forgive the evil that you do …

  • anna lisa

    Well–one good thing came out of all the chest pounding and nyah, nyah, nyah –a lot of people got to see some serious arrested development up close –and it didn’t look much like “love wins”. It was more like a bunch of spoiled brats demanding everyone to pretend like they should be taken seriously.

    My daughter was literally exhausted by seeing so many ugly naked people strutting around in public.

    The only other humans that I know of who like to rip their clothes off and run around in public are toddlers. At least they’re cute (and have an excuse when they’re demanding to be taken seriously.)

    • Alma Peregrina

      «lot of people got to see some serious arrested development up close –and it didn’t look much like “love wins”.»

      In secular websites, like facebook and 9gag, lots of people were complaining exactly about that.

      • anna lisa

        I’m glad my daughter got to see the freak show! Sometimes reality is the best antidote to what is often carefully crafted.

        • Joseph

          Exactly. I actually want these fools to behave the way they are inclined to anyway. Some of the sheep who donned the rainbow filter will actually get to see what they were really supporting. I don’t remember black people running around naked when slavery ended or when the civil rights movement advanced. Guess they don’t have much in common after all… and guess by their actions they’re proving it wasn’t even about equality in the first place.

          • kenofken

            How is it you guys always just manager to happen upon naked gay libertines in the streets? I’ve been in this cause for the better part of two decades and spent a fair amount of time in or around the gay districts of major cities. Never once saw any of this Bacchanalia. I’m sure it can be found, but unless you go out of your way to make it to radical demonstrations or pride parades (which happen exactly once a year), you should be pretty safe from all of this unwanted eyeslaughter.

            • anna lisa

              …Um…San Francisco? They even do naked bicycle races. I’m pretty sure public nudity is still legal there–there’s some rule like “just bring a towel to sit on for public transportation”.

              • kenofken

                Maybe, but they still happen at set times and places, and if someone is making a point to go to them and then watches until they’re “exhausted” by nudity or feel their lunch come up or are otherwise scandalized, I’m gonna save my tears for real victims. With all of the iPhones and other electronic junk out there these days, no one in a city environment looks at anything they don’t want to look at. Most of the time, they don’t even see three feet around them.

                • anna lisa

                  Yeah, that’s what I told the 28-y.o. when he went to Burning Man.

                  Maybe you don’t have teenagers and 20-something-year- olds?

                  They are known to do all kinds of questionable things to victimize themselves until their lunch comes up.

                  • kenofken

                    If they’re legal adults, they need to make their own decisions and figure out their own values. If they’re minor teens doing something they shouldn’t be doing, that’s on the parents to intervene, unless some third party is committing some crime as part of it.

                    • anna lisa

                      First part of your answer: Yes! Precisely. Face-plants are more effective than any parental lecture.

                      second part of your response: In theory you are absolutely correct, but life is much messier than theories.

                      Question: do you remember when you were a minor?

                      btw, I got out of a ticket because a police officer used the same rigorous theory on me. We were driving to school one morning, and I said “Look! That’s a real cop hiding in the bushes, not just the ( HO association) patrol!”
                      So the then fourth-grader turns around in his seatbelt to look out the rear window.
                      He pulls me over. When I explain what happened he told me “you really need to learn how to control your children better.”
                      I did a written deposition and got out of the $500 ticket.
                      I assume that the judge was a parent.

              • Rebecca Fuentes

                Your weather is conducive to it. Half the year here, nudity would risk frostbite.

                • anna lisa

                  There is actually something to that–cold places having more modest styles. But SF can be quite chilly even in the summer,(insert Mark Twain quote)– Across either bridge, it can be 20 degrees warmer on the other side. Crazy micro climates! Maybe that’s why the naked people have to keep doing silly dances.

            • Joseph

              Umm… New York, 2007. The pride parade which happened on a Sunday and deliberately marched past the entrance to St. Patrick’s Cathedral synchronised with the start of Mass. I was there. When they got to the church, they pulled out their junk and started wagging it while others on floats were simulating sex acts wearing gimp leather wear and giving each other tongue and groping each other. You stating that it *doesn’t* happen and you’ve been part of the movement for two decades is totally disingenuous. You’re essentially a liar.

    • kenofken

      “My daughter was literally exhausted by seeing so many ugly naked people strutting around in public…”

      Not so exhausted as to find something else to look at. Did they have her strapped into a chair with eyelids taped open like Alex in “Clockwork Orange.”?

      • anna lisa

        See, –when you’re 21, and a little bit starry eyed about how avant garde your life is, (and there’s a friend from out of town visiting), a giant street party is a little tempting. There’s music, drums, drinks and electricity in the air. I guess it’s a bit like finding yourself in that bar scene in Star Wars. You can’t look away until you realize your lunch is coming up.

        • kenofken

          So she and her friends sought them out and spent some stretch of time staring at the parade goers/performers bits, but THEY’RE the perverts? Nevermind, the Puritan Algorithm is coming back to me…

          • anna lisa

            She has six brothers, –She might feel a little jaded by male anatomy by now.
            I’m pretty positive she wasn’t interested in staring at any fat middle-aged guy’s unit.

      • Joseph

        Awesome. I’m glad you think thar type of celebration is cool. You’ve just outed yourself as a complete idiot. Lol. Now we can totally disregard any comments you may have in the future. Hahaha… what a dummy.

    • LSpinelli

      Long before the ruling, our family was “treated” to this sort of thing via Facebook by a young gay man (who happens to be my long-estranged stepson). Nude or just about nude (meaning an ass thong and studded leather straps. Sorry if TMI) snapshots are the norm, as is tongues down the throat and other “displays of affection”.

      I witnessed his upbringing up close. (He was raised by my mother in law – way too long of a story to recount here.) It really put the “fun” in dysfunction. His development was stunted to where he didn’t progress beyond his toddler years. He can’t hold down a job, wants someone to support him for the rest of his life, and has a domestic violence charge on his record.

      #LoveWins? Hardly, from where I stand.

      (And as much as I have to swallow my anger when I do it – I keep this lost soul in daily prayer.)

      • anna lisa

        So, so, so, sad. I knew someone who led a similar life. He had no father and was adopted by someone kind enough to take him in from foster care. She also had no husband. My heart ached for him. He died from AIDS about 20 years ago. He had such a lost look on his wasted face, the last time I saw him on this earth. He lived hell here.

        • Joseph

          Same here. My gay acquaintances and family members seem to have one thing in common: a father that in one way or another was not a part of their lives. This probably isn’t the only factor, but in my case it’s 5 for 5.

          • LSpinelli

            In this case, the mother took off “because she wanted her own life and didn’t want to be tied down by a kid”.
            She wasn’t an active part of the kid’s life for 16 years. The father, my husband, was always working. He was traveling for work for almost all of the short duration of that marriage (it lasted barely two years). He and the kid moved to my mother in law’s, where they stayed until we got married.

            An absent mother (she reappeared after he turned 18 and became his drinking buddy – like young adults need any more of those) and a distant father: it’s not too surprising that the kid went looking for “family” somewhere else.

  • Elmwood

    the funny thing about reproduction is that believers have way bigger families and are much more likely to reproduce than those of the culture of death. self-identified gays only amount to like 3% of the population.

    • Alma Peregrina

      They know that… that’s why liberals want to seize the believer’s child’s minds via ideologically biased sex ed. Otherwise, their ideas would sterilize them in 2 generations and they would eventually dry out of society.

      • kenofken

        Male homosexuality is associated with higher fertility and family size among their female relatives. If homosexuality were a true evolutionary dead end, they would have vanished from the population long before the Sexual Revolution and the supposedly incorrigibly perverse “liberals” came on the scene.

        • Elmwood

          3-4% is not very many, and that includes both sexes. probably like 1% are male homosexual and much less of those are going to get married.

          • kenofken

            Then why are you all so exorcised about it?

            • LFM

              Because changes to laws and customs as foundational to society as those surrounding marriage have repercussions throughout society. The effects are not limited to those people whom the new laws and customs were intended to benefit. In any case, same-sex marriage is itself the product of cumulative changes brought about by the sexual revolution, although that doesn’t mean that it won’t lead to further, and probably undesirable, social changes in and of itself.

            • orual’s kindred

              I don’t know about your use of ‘exorcised’. And are you saying that you are not in fact advocating that an entire populace support a national ruling that focuses on a small group of people?

            • antigon

              Because the oligarchy intends to use the promotion of this perversity for yet more savage perversities.

          • Ladybird

            1.6%

        • Alma Peregrina

          It doesn’t hold water.

          1) Assuming what you say is true, then you’d have a point about male homosexuality. You’d still have to explain the evolutionary benefits of female homosexuality.

          2) Your point seems to be that because heterosexual relatives have more fertility, then homosexuality is not an evolutionary dead-end. But people who practice exclusive homosexuality still don’t pass out their genes, making homosexuality a de facto evolutionary dead-end. The continuation of the genealogy is still linked to heterosexual relations.

          3) As for the typical dawkinsian argument that if homosexuality were an evolutionary dead-end, it would have vanished a long time ago, it ignores that there are a variety of genetic disorders that, being evolutionary dead-ends (meaning they can’t pass on to the next generation, because they render the next generation inexistent) they still pop-up on their populations for a variety of non-hereditary reasons.

          4) As for the reasoning that homosexuality didn’t vanish before the “incorrigibly perverse liberals” (your words, not mine) appeared… it also ignores that many closeted homosexuals had marriages and families before homosexuality was acknowledged as normal. I know many such cases and I believe you know too. So there’s that explanation.

          ****************************************
          However, I do not wish to proceed down this line of reasoning. Because you overestimate the value I gave to homosexuality in my previous comment.

          The Sexual Revolution is an evolutionary dead-end, even if homosexuality doesn’t get into the picture. That is proven by the fact that every single country that embraced it (to the point that contraception and voluntary childless marriages are no longer frowned upon, not even by most conservatives) is now with a fertility rate bellow replacement level. It is a fact that is already crippling those countries and negatively influencing policies, namely on welfare and healthcare. Those countries are on the path to demographic collapse.

          So, using your own explanation… maybe female relatives of homosexuals have higher fertility rates. But, if they subscribe to suixant-huitard hedonism, they’ll self-sterilize themselves with contraception, rendering that fertility potential useless.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    Just had a thought. Tax-exempt status comes with a price; namely, clergy cannot electioneer from the pulpit. Otherwise they could lose that tax-exempt status.

    So what would happen if certain people got their way and that status were removed from all the churches in the US? Wouldn’t clergy then be free to outright tell their flocks: “Don’t vote for Candidate X – vote for Candidate Y!”? With no negative consequences from Uncle Sam for blatant electioneering from the pulpit, who’s going to stop them – and how? Report them to the IRS? If they’re not tax exempt then what could the IRS do about it?

    I’m not saying it should happen. Just wondering whether it might have unintended consequences that proponents might not like.

  • #lovewins = #theResurrection

  • Na

    he who controls the present, controls the past. he who controls the past, controls the future.

    I wish I could tell you that the prez’s acknowledgement of religious liberty is a reprieve for catholics…but nope. He is merely setting the frame and controlling the narrative. He will go after them full force. It will start in private through regulations and administrative rules…nothing with visuals that would make a good story…but trust me that it is coming.