Let A Thousand Weddings Bloom

New Hampshire became the sixth state to let gay couples wed. The new law was approved after revisions exempted members … Continued

New Hampshire became the sixth state to let gay couples wed. The new law was approved after revisions exempted members of the clergy from having to perform same-sex weddings and religious groups and their employees from having to participate in such ceremonies. Polls say regular churchgoers are more likely to support gay marriage with these ‘religious liberty reassurances.’ Is this a good solution to the divisive issue of gay marriage?

Of course the New Hampshire solution is a good one, but there is nothing new or unusual about it. No one in the United States has ever contemplated requiring members of the clergy to perform marriage ceremonies that violate their faith. That is just another canard of the Christian right.

State licensing of marriages is completely separate from religious marriage ceremonies. You may choose to be married by a priest, minister, rabbi, imam or Pagan priestess, but unless a marriage license is registered with the state, you are not legally married. Many rabbis refuse to marry interfaith couples. A divorced Roman Catholic may not remarry within the church unless he or she has obtained a Vatican annulment of any previous marriage performed by a Catholic priest. In similar fashion, God’s self-appointed representatives on earth may refuse to marry gay couples if they believe those couples are destined for hell.

Since I can’t imagine why any gay couple would want to be married by a hostile member of the clergy, I don’t understand why anyone considers this an issue. But I suppose there are enough uninformed voters who think that an “exemption” is necessary to prevent clergy members from being forced by the state to marry gays. The state allows clergy to perform marriage ceremonies; it does not require them to do so. Your minister may refuse to marry you for any reason–say, having eyes that make him think you’re Lucifer.You don’t need to be gay to be excluded from the marriage ceremonies of a particular church.

I must say that the amount of effort expended on this issue–both by gays determined to have the same right to legally sanctioned bliss or boredom as heterosexuals and by the modern Anthony Comstocks determined to keep gay sex in the closet (whether their own closets or someone else’s)–is mystifying, given the severity of the national and international problems we all share. The tide in favor of gay marriage is inexorable; polls show over and over that the majority of people under 30 don’t have the slightest interest in denying gays the right to marry. Yet the fervid religious right is still spending immense amounts of money to defeat gay marriage proposals at the state level. And I daresay that gay rights groups might prefer to spend their money on other political issues. Time and demography are on the side of gay marriage.

Of course, one group will derive particular benefit from the legalization of gay marriage in most areas of the country. Divorce lawyers specializing in gay marital breakups will have more business than they can handle seven years from today. Counselors for miserably married gay couples will proliferate. Since gays are now following heterosexuals in spending excessive amounts of money on a one-day extravaganza to declare their eternal love and commitment, they will surely have to spend as much money as heterosexuals on getting divorced. It’s The American Way.

LAST WEEK IN REVIEW

To those of you who were concerned about my absence from the blog for part of last week: you flatter me. I will disappear from time to time, for as much as a week, this summer. Jacoby’s First Commandment of Vacation: Thou shalt not enter the blogosphere, yea, though the earth should crumble without thy weekly dose of advice. Rest assured, I shall return.

Someone asserted last week (as someone frequently does) that while the crimes of religion against human rights are well-known, secular crimes (the Gulag was cited) are never mentioned. Nonsense. Most writers are skittish about discussing religious crimes against human rights unless they are at least 500 years old. The Gulag–hardly an unnoticed phenomenon–was the product of a secular religion that exhibited the main characteristic of all religion: imperviousness to evidence. Stalinist communism didn’t work economically, but because communism was wedded to the state (as the Orthodox Church had been wedded to the Russian state before the Bolshevik revolution), the response of the state was to imprison dissidents and a great many others.

Stalin, as some of you probably know, was a seminarian before he became a Bolshevik. The secular values of which I always speak have nothing in common with a non-evidence based ideology like Stalinism or Maoism. One of the chief values of the Enlightenment was, “If one thing doesn’t work, admit it and try another.” That’s how we got a federal government–because a loose confederation of states didn’t work. And I repeat: the secular values of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson et al are values that respect the diginity of individual judgement and conscience. They are the values that led to our constitution and its Bill of Rights.

It is the union of religion and government, not all religion, that is the absolute enemy of individual rights. Stalinist communism, like many religions, was an unmodifiable ideology wed to state power. It’s no surprise that since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church has once again become a religion privileged by the state.And in this new Russia, freedom of speech (and, by the way, freedom of religion) is once again endangered.

The sole reason why many religions appear tolerant today is that their power has been limited by decent secular governments, secular law, and secular values. This is not to say that all systems of secular thought are good, and all religions bad. It is to say that the secular values written into our Bill of Rights derive not from religion but from reason and that they–not pronouncements from a pope or rabbi or imam, not selective passages from the Bible or the Koran–are the source of our liberty.

To the person who said I apparently lived in a world in which only montheistic religion counts, I remind you that the question concerned what Obama said to the Muslim world. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the only religions that do count on issues involving the Middle East. Have I missed something? Have Hindus laid claim to the “holy land?” However, Hinduism is hardly a model for respect for the dignity of all people. As far as women’s rights are concerned, Hinduism’s historical record is even worse than that of the montheistic religions.

Susan Jacoby
Written by

  • captn_ahab

    Lepidopterix:See the State Supreme Court Decisions of New York, Oregon, Washington State, New Jersey, and the Court of Appeals decision from the State of Maryland for a proper legal understanding of why marriage is confined in those states to a male and female combination.There really isn’t space here to go into the actual details involving “suspect class” classification for sexual orientation, lack of validation of same sex marriage as a fundamental right, and rational state interest in the current definition of marriage.Of course, the Iowa Supreme Court chose an alternative constitutional view.That is the beauty of federalism.What is in the best interest of one state may not be in the best interest of another.The issue is best left to the state legislatures.

  • ccnl1

    Apparently, JJ has escaped the mental ward!!!

  • ccnl1

    We see InterfaithNation aka JJ has escaped the mental ward yet again!!

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    ccnl, you said,interesting point. first is it a “defect” or just a “difference”? it’s certainly not not useful for reproduction, but under-reproduction is not really a problem for humanity…. could be argued we need some of that. so, if a gay couple doen’t have kids, they don’t get the “kid benefits” of marriage. if they adopt or inseminate, they get the same benefits “regular” couples would. it’s not really so hard in terms of governmental implementation.obviously the judeochrislamic problem with gay marriage is about other than government benefits. it has something to do with masturbation or something apparently. which brings us back to your question, a variation of which could be, “why would god create people that way, then loathe them for it?” a mysterious god indeed. maybe it’s his 10% tithing to hell.

  • justillthen

    Walter-in-Fallschurch,”…”why would god create people that way, then loathe them for it?” a mysterious god indeed. maybe it’s his 10% tithing to hell.”:-)))

  • ZZim

    “No one in the United States has ever contemplated requiring members of the clergy to perform marriage ceremonies that violate their faith.”Well then, it doesn’t cost anyone anything to add an exception to the rule to make them shut up, now does it?

  • Paganplace

    “Well then, it doesn’t cost anyone anything to add an exception to the rule to make them shut up, now does it?”Posted by: ZZimNope, but it’s still an occasion to point out that the anti-gay forces in religion and politics have been claiming gay marriage would be forced on churches, as a reason to hurt gay couples, when it was never true. I’m all for reassurances. I’ve felt like a broken record *assuring* people of this easily-accessible fact while they’ve spent millions to claim otherwise, all along. If these provisions make equal marriage rights OK for a majority of Americans, well, great. Have another reassurance. 🙂

  • WmarkW

    “No one in the United States has ever contemplated requiring members of the clergy to perform marriage ceremonies that violate their faith.”While heretofore true, I’m glad the language was added. The diversity lobby has often turned the lack of prohibition into a requirement. For instance, if minorities score lower on a test than whites, it’s discrimination to use a test even if it measures job ability.It wouldn’t take long before the analogy of interracial marriage prohibitions got applied to intrasexual ones.

  • captn_ahab

    It is not so much the religious aspects that are important to what the state recognizes as a marriage as the civil ones.The definition of civil marriage endorses the particular values in a marriage, and requires the state to pay for those endorsements with state funds.In several states now, the main focus of marriage is romantic love between any two people of any sex connected to nothing else.In those several states that recognize marriage between any two consenting adults of any sexual combination, the state is now required to pay for the benefits accruing to those marriages, despite the fact that the initial benefits were intended to support the needs of child bearing women and their biological progeny.Who cares about religious marriages, really?It is the civil definition of marriage that is the most important.It has implications for what we as a civil society want marriage to be, and it commits the treasuries of the several states.Same sex marriage never was an across the board civil right.It is a new right, that should be decided in the state legislatures as in the several New England states.

  • Rob-Roy

    Gay marriage is a sham. The reality is very few homosexual couples opt for “marriage” when available. This is well shown in Canada where single digit percentiles choose it. It is all about social normalization. It also leads to a proliferation of lawsuits against those who disagree. And the country certainly needs more lawsuits!

  • lepidopteryx

    Ahab,Seeing as how same-sex couples do often raise children together, and seeing as how hetero couples are not required to produce or adopt children in order to enjoy the full spectrum of rights and benefits that come with a marriage license, potential progeny or lack thereof is no reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

  • lepidopteryx

    Rob Roy,The way I see it, it doesn’t matter how many same-sex couples takea dvantage of the right to marry, it matters that the right is there.

  • WmarkW

    Re: Blog Reply to Last WeekThe “Gulag Argument” against secularism is very real, and in my opinion very important. Both the Inquisition and the Gulag came about because the church and state didn’t provide a check and balance against each other.While I’m no fan of religion, it has had the beneficial effect of providing a form of social organization for those excluded from government:Since absolute power can corrupt absolutely, it seems likely that secularism is a luxury only a free society can afford.

  • ccnl1

    Call gay sexual activity in or outside of “unions” what it is and this debate will then be on a fair footing:To wit:From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation/outercoursing caused by one or more complex sexual defects. Some defects are visually obvious for example in the complex maleness of some well-known female comedians, singers and actresses. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies, show it outwardly as alluded to in the following synopsis:From Wikipedia:And before getting disturbed by such words as “mutual masturbation”, Google these said words. There are over one million references to said activity. And for those followers of some version of the Commandments:Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews but it should be a major concern to those religious types that believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries. So we have a Christian God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality? One might conclude from this that the Christian God would therefore approve same-sex outercoursing unions since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    susan,”The sole reason why many religions appear tolerant today is that their power has been limited by decent secular governments, secular law, and secular values.”thanks.gay marriage is a no-brainer. make sure gay couples have ALL the rights/responsibilities of “regular” marriage. if there needs to be a rule about “no pastor is “forced” to marry a gay couple”, fine. (none was anyway…) if the couple wants a “church” wedding they can find a pastor who’ll do it. a public judge cannot refuse to “marry” them. DUH.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    re secular religions:me, from another thread.

  • daniel12

    Part two.Well, use your brain. Again, that makes religion surrounded on all sides–makes religious people feel besieged. I am reading a book now by French philosopher Michel Foucault called “discipline and punish”(Susan Jacoby, you might want to check it out as it is an intersection of your interests in the Enlightenment age, women’s rights, problems with religion, torture and the law–so much more. But I warn you that Foucault opens the book with a description of torture which not only is something most wicked people would not imagine, but was THE LAW at the time). In this book Foucault while discussing chain gangs (the book is on the history of the penitentiary, etc.) talks about a priest who cut into pieces his pregnant mistress. While on the chain gang women especially hurled stones, etc. at him.The point is I analyze the priest’s crime in this fashion: He was one of the those religious people who instead of feeling his temptation toward women to be something located in himself–an evil located in himself if we want to call desire for woman evil–located the evil outside him, as coming from woman.–Therefore woman had to be destroyed no matter when really thought about God (if he exists) would sanction no such thing.Well when we have “solutions” to gay marriage and other things the church disagrees with as proposed here, the church gets more and more surrounded with what it disagrees with and the members of the church are faced with either abandoning religion, becoming more and more secular, or are forced more and more to feel that evil is not located in themselves so much as it is located outside…and if located outside, the religious group must arm itself, stockpile food, buy a piece of property out somewhere in the countryside, be prepared to fight evil in the name of God who will return quite soon and damn all the sinners to hell…That should be clear enough. So much for “solutions”. But this is not a defense of religion–merely an analysis for anyone to take as he will.

  • daniel12

    Part one.It has been proposed that gay marriage will be allowed so long as clergy, religious groups and their employees do not have to participate…Is this a good solution to the divisive issue of gay marriage? Yes, for gay people. For religion–no such thing. But if religious people cannot recognize that then so much the worse for them. In other words, every advance of gay marriage is bad for religion no matter how much religious groups think that distancing themselves from gay marriage will preserve religion.Think about it. Pretend this “solution” to the problem were to be the solution to everything religion disagrees with. We would have religious groups surrounded on all sides by all they disagree with. Mainstream religious groups would find themselves in the positions of religious cults, reduced to a narrow field of practice.Eventually religion would fade away completely. Just read for yourself the very wording of this “solution”: Gay marriages are allowed so long as RELIGIOUS GROUPS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES DO NOT HAVE TO PARTICIPATE. If we were to now propose this solution in a widespread sense, which is to say if someone were to announce that it would make good sense to allow most everything religion disagrees with so long as clergy, religious groups and their employees do not have to participate…

  • Farnaz1Mansouri1

    Gays will be married in by priests RCC churches long before the Johanna Justin-Jinich’s of this world stop being gunned down in the campus bookstores by crazed antisemitic gunmen.May her memory be a blessing to those who knew her.

  • Farnaz1Mansouri1

    Gays will be married by RCC bishops long before the Johanna Justin-Jinich’s are no longer gunned down in campus bookstores by antisemitic gunmen.May her memory be a blessing to those who knew her.

  • justillthen

    Daniel12, Your metaphor of religions surrounded by that which they disagree with is nothing new at all. Been that way since religions inception. Come to think of it, we are all individually surrounded by what we disagree with as well. As well as by that which we do agree with. It is the way of things. It seems the contra position inferred from your post is that religion should have a say in all these divisive issues. Well, they do have a say, and are quite vocal about it. But they do not have a deciding say, (unless they do!), as we are not a theocracy and there is no Ayatollah to rule on what shall be.Homosexuality and homosexual unions have been around for millennia and will continue to be so. The homosexual community includes a vast reserve of exceptional people, as they have throughout history. As does the heterosexual community. Including them into society as equal and good and valuable is the only right thing to do, and it is spiritually and morally correct as well. After all, they have been seen as the evil, though they are not that, even as in your priest example the evil sometimes abided inside the monastery or church.

  • withouthavingseen

    Ms. Jacoby,I generally enjoy your posts because of your writing style and knack for coming at things from angles that seem odd at first, and end up making some sense.”That is just another canard of the Christian right.”Ms. Jacoby, unfortunately it is not. Proponents of progressive secularism in this country have a history of saying, “We only want X and will never push for Y.” Now debates rage about whether pharmacists and doctors will be compelled to provide medical and surgical abortions against their conscience. When abortion was legalized, it was supposed to be about choice. When RU-487 was permitted to be sold in the US, the FDA was careful not to compel its sale more than any other drug permitted in the US. But when doctors or pharmacists do not want to become involved, all sorts of excuses are put up to rationalize why they should be compelled.The bottom line is that if somebody has a right to receive something, then somebody else has to give it, and if nobody else wants to give it, compulsion is the only option left.The previous poster who discussed the low rate of marriage among homosexuals where it is permitted has a very salient point. This whole phenomenon is about social acceptance. They are free to make vows however they want, and then to contractually award each other all the prerogatives of a married couple. That’s not what they want. They want to be recognized and esteemed.Mark my words. There will be lawsuits if someone who is esteem-deprived gets told “No,” and interprets that as, “Because we don’t like your kind, f–.”I’d also like to point out that the polls of those under 30 vis-a-vis gay marriage are more likely studying apathy more than anything else. As they get married and start having children, they will feel differently in many cases.Moreover, the rising incidence of deliberately starting families out of wedlock, and of couples who opt never to marry, and of a demand for gay marriage – all of it only becomes comprehensible when we start asking ourselves about the cause for the failure of 50% of (traditional) marriages, and what effect that has had on our collective psyche.

  • safiyah111

    I think as soon as you say “church” as in house where like minded believers who subscribe to a set of principles congregate, the whole idea that these people would be forced to do something that violated the very principles on which they congregate is anathema to me. Just as that notion offends so too does the notion that marriage is not one of the most regulated private affairs in the country. To put forward the notion that there is some cold and clinical divide between religion and the State on this issue is to argue something that is both untrue and absurd. The State has gone so far as to tell people that they are to closely related to this person or that; that one’s intended most be of the same species; that one can only have one spouse at a time and so on and so forth. The real canard here is that homosexuals are being singled out for restriction. It needs to be pointed out that the limits on marriage are many and varied leaving only one group with the legal sanction to do it-one man to one woman, both of whom have reached the age of majority

  • daniel12

    To Justillthen from Daniel. I apologize if my post made it seem I am on the side of religion on the gay question. I always try to get above the left/right wing battle and arrive at as objective a view as possible (although of course even the best minds are confined to their times). I wrote with the intention of supporting neither side on this problem and just trying to see ahead at what we can expect from the solution proposed to this problem in this weeks on faith question. In other words I simply asked what can be expected if “this” is put in relationship with “that” in the particular sense that the on faith question this week in fact stated and requested an opinion on. The on faith question was “is this a good solution to the problem?” and I tried to answer it the best I can–not trying to support one side over the other.–For the question in fact did not ask a person to take sides. The question was what is expected to occur from the solution proposed between gays and religion. Hope that answers your question. Thanks for the conversation.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    More and more, the anti-gay people are looking like silly cranks. It is not necessary to argue with them, because their arguments are lame an unconvincing. If they don’t want to live in the real world along side gay people, then they can go into their houses and lock the doors. What a waste of their pitiful lives, to squander all their energiesw and efforts in a fruitless effort to block the freedom and liberty of their fellow Americans.

  • onofrio

    Middlenmae,Thee:The man Jesus, if he really was a man with a fully human nature, would have had sexual desires of some sort – the common lot of humanity. According to your view, Jesus must have sublimated these desires into an ideal *agape* love for his followers – both male and female – as a collective entity. The NT imagines this collective as an eternal female – *the Bride of Christ*.Does this ideal, sublimated, theologised love for *the Bride* imputed to Jesus prove that he was actually heterosexual during his earthly sojourn? I don’t think so. Nor does it rule out the possibility that he was involved in a sexual relationship/marriage with one (or more) of his closest female followers – those who looked after his *needs*, as even the Gospels admit.If the latter were the case, it wouldn’t be the first time a sect leader used his charisma to gather a harem! Human, all too human.According to the NT’s *Bride* fantasy, all *saved* males become integrated into a female entity with which the Jesus *the Bridegroom* presumably has sexual relations (albeit of a mysterious, spiritualised, heavenly sort). So how is an individual *saved* male, as part of this *Bride*, meant to enjoy this passionately intimate consummation without some kind of divine homoeroticism? Perhaps he and his brethren in *the Bride* will all become Jonathans to the eternal David!Or maybe they will all be turned into Bathshebas – *spiritual* ones, of course.;^)

  • onofrio

    Middlenmae,Thee:I am not projecting *lusts*, nor do I see anything *perverse* in the love between Jonathan and David. Whether it stayed platonic or not, we cannot tell, but it was remembered as something exceptional. On Jonathan’s part, at least, there’s an implied sense of strong homoerotic attraction. And why not? David was supposed to have been a handsome charmer. Thee:Having a wife/female partner and/or children has never been a bar to homoerotic relations between men, especially those with power and influence. Achilles fell out with Agamemnon over a girl, yet loved his Patroclus best of all. Alexander the Great married the princess Roxane, to sire an heir, but remained devoted to his comrade-in-arms Hephaestion. Napoleon adored his Josephine, but on campaign also enjoyed watching his muscular guardsmen taking a wash. It’s not surprising that David was highly sexed, given his prowess and power. Nor is it surprising that he would express this energy through both regular married relationships and through intimate homoerotic ones. Happens.

  • onofrio

    And Middlenmae, you never answered my question:Who or what ordained you?

  • middlenmae

    Hello everyone, I hope all is well. This is my first posting, I hope you enjoy it. First of all, I am an ordained minister and from what I have studied in the KJV of After this happened Adam and Eve reproducedWith that being said Jesus never tried to change the world, because He knew it served a purpose the way it was. He did come to make a way of escape from the judgement of it and in the process of doing so he also showed us how we should live. Those he came in contact withSo I said all of this just to get the point across we should share the truth we God bless…have a great day all (-:

  • onofrio

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,O Titwisy Fam De Gagah Jemji (the Second)Pontificator deluxe,You never answered the question I put to you back on the Arroyo blog.ARE YOU A SYMPATHISER OF OPUS DEI?

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

    “HOMOSEXUALITY ACTS ARE A MATTER OF CHOICE.”“While they may not choose their desires, homosexuals do have the ability to choose whether they act on those desires, just as an alcoholic has the choice of whether to act on his desire to get drunk and just as a heterosexual has the choice of acting on his desires. For this reason, the Catholic Catechism states, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, traditions has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to Natural Law. Under no circumstances can they be approved.In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behavior as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, I Timothy 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in verse 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design.Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves, but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination that is essentially self-indulgent. As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically

  • onofrio

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,Pontificator deluxe,You never answered the question I put to you back on the Arroyo blog.ARE YOU A SYMPATHISER OF OPUS DEI?I’m assuming the answer is YES, since you have persistently evaded response.

  • onofrio

    Middlenmae,Who or what *ordained* you, O Merrily Trite Chirper of Sameold?So, “God does not condone homosexuality”And “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:1).Just best friends? Or something deeper, more passionate?And the NT’s deafening silence about the marital status of Jesus and Paul does make one wonder…

  • onofrio

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,You start off as The Truth Will Set You Free and end as Hail Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. In the heart there seems to be a lump of Latin – perhaps an Ave Maria, a Deo Gratias/Gloria…There was once a Calvinist huffer who – like yourself – posted slabs of dogma on this blog. I dubbed him *theo-machinist* for his doctrinaire predictability. Your mechanical Vaticanism makes him seem almost organic. Until you confirm otherwise, I shall assume you are an Opus Deist, and post accordingly.Do you wear one of those sharp chains around your upper thigh, to mortify your flesh?Or perhaps you prefer flagellation.Do you struggle with homoerotic desires, O TruthWillSetYouFree? Do you gaze lovingly upon the well-toned torso of the tortured cross-man?The truth WILL set you free…if only you will embrace it.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 All of your arguments amount to a bullying campaign against gay people, and attempt to beat them down, to keep them in their place, and to assert and perserver your ownn position of superiority over them, with God and Jesus as your alllies. It’s not good. It doesn’t fly.

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)The Church must operate in a culture of sexual depravity. In the ambience of a dysfunctional moral culture. When the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, and its Psychiatrists and Psychologists are telling you homosexuality poses no problems and the Bishop acts on such advise you have a hard time blaming the Church. Homosexuality poses no problems? Is it not a problem that over 26 million AIDS victims have died and are dying as AIDS proliferates across the world? They aren’t Catholic priest plagued by this depravity. Is it not a problem that 34 million people are infected with HIV and STDs are multiplying at alarming rates? The Catholic Church isn’t the cause; it’s those who defy the Church’s teachings.To hide the fact that 84% of AIDS children appear to be infected by heterophobic bi/homosexuals, the “World AIDS Day” artfully reports, “16% of adolescents with AIDS, aged 13 through 19… have been infected through heterosexual contact.”64 The Advocate magazine included this table, identifying at least 59% of adolescents with AIDS directly infected by adult bi/homosexuals. It is reprinted here verbatim.Said “The Advocate” gay magazine: “Now in the big cities, if you have sex with two [gay] men, you have a 50% chance of…someone who is HIV positive. Since homosexual activity allegedly starts younger than in the past–at about age 15 or younger “advisors” lure boys into “coming out” (‘the most important rite of passage in gay life’) to venereal disease for most, and death for at least 25% in approximately 5 years.The advocates of homosexual lifestyles are impervious to its consequences. In New York schools alone a study showed 5 percent of PSS teachers are pedophiles, in respect to 0.25% in all Catholic priests of the last 30 years and little if anything is done about it by public school officials. One child in the New York Public Schools is said to be molested per day by PSS personnel. The lunacy you speak of is all on the agnostics who defend gay sex. Yes, the Church has a lot to say on the dignity of man, there is no one of greater authority on the moral dignity of human nature.My friend, take the beam from your eyes before you take the speck from your brother’s.

  • onofrio

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2O TheTruthWillSetYouFree, learn from your own moniker.Those *IRTs* of yours are not replies at all, just prefabricated bursts of dogmatic assertion.Thee:Said Church revels in its very own *Culture of Death*, and resents the competition. Thee:You’re obviously blind to the sado-masochistic potential of the Stations of the Cross, featured prominently in Catholic churches worldwide – whips, domination, torture, naked flesh, ecstatic eyes rolled skyward…Ever seen a carven Spanish *Corpus Christi* with its all luridly gaping wounds, an agony of ecstasy? As for necrophilia – what do you call the adoration paid by Catholic faithful to martyrs’ body parts and the embalmed corpses of saints? What do you call it when St Teresa recounts kissing the open wounds of Christ? Pietas?Thee:Indeed. Like the Vatican. By the way, have you ever visited the magnificent collections of pagan classical statuary in the Vatican museums? Lots of naked flesh, particularly male flesh, in flagrant display. And of course there’s the Sistine Chapel itself, with its handsome ignudi perched overhead in an array of fetching poses. A lovely setting for a papal mass, yes?Thee:Don’t talk to me of beams and specks, friend.

  • onofrio

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2Thee:I have no objection at all against those who commit to genuine chastity. It can be a beautiful thing indeed. Yet I’ve always suspected that in Catholic parlance *chastity* and *vocation* can be code for *repressed/denied homosexuality*.Yes, Titwisy, chastity – whether practised by hetero- or homo- or bi- sexuals – can be the door to a rich dimension of spirituality. But that’s unfortunately not its only trajectory in the Catholic Church. I think its disingenuous of you to use its uncommon blessing as a cover for the sins of the Church.

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)IRT:ANS:What doesn’t fly is protecting illicit sex. Who is one’s friend who sees his friend is about to destroy his life and helps him do it, or the one who warns his friend, to the best of his ability, to prevent his death and show him a way were he will enjoy life to its zenith? Chastity is not a detriment to man but a gift that perfects him and leads him to eternal happiness. Homosexuality is a ticket to the Culture of Death.And who is it that claims to be a friend of the Homosexual? Is it the one who lies to him and tells him, as did the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, and its Psychiatrists and Psychologists, that homosexuality poses no problems and blame. In the face of such stats as:“According to the British Journal of Sexual Medicine and The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: ‘Homosexuals carry one-half of the country’s syphilis, although they are only 1.5 to 2.5 of the population, and are fourteen times more likely to have had the disease than heterosexuals. Two-thirds of all the AIDS cases in the U.S. are the direct result of homosexual conduct. Homosexual young people are twenty-three times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than their heterosexual counterparts. In San Francisco, the sexually transmitted disease rate is twenty -two times higher than the national average.”Is it the friend that tells children that gay sex has no problems? Or is it the Church who warns and admonishes them to do good and avoid evil, Who tells them that that they put themselves in grave danger such as death to participate in illicit sex? Is it not the Church?

  • onofrio

    Persiflage,Thank you for your kind remarks and your reflections; they mean a lot to me. As for the reams of good sense with which you’ve blessed this thread – I salute!Such a broad church, the Catholic, to include souls as utterly different as TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 and Thomas Baum…

  • persiflage

    And I doff my fedora to you Onofrio – for sharing your talents and incredible depth of knowledge. I agree that Thomas Baum is a kind of Catholic Gnostic with a most genuinely beneficent message, which he bases on honest experience. We may just find the true seed of Christianity there. On the other hand, a doctrinaire reading of Catholic theology as a guide to the sanctified life is quite a different matter – and something I had more than enough of in my youth!Rather than adopting a religious view, I personally prefer to keep my own fate a mystery until that very last moment, if it ever arrives at all.Nostrovia!

  • middlenmae

    ONOFRIO, Thanks for the respect, it’s much appreciated. You get props from me also. From reading your posts it seems like your mind is a sea of knowledge while mine is just a puddle…lol I hope we can communicate again because I’m sure I could learn a thing or two from you. I pray you have a healthy, prosperous life. God bless you

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)IRT:ANS:Next find out what the Corpus Christi is and maybe you wouldn’t make such a stupefying remark.If anyone is blind, it’s you. My friend, before you try telling Catholics what they believes, try first finding out what they believe instead of believing what you think they believe. You only irradiate your ignorance of the Catholic Faith.Because of your remarks, I don’t believe you have the slightest knowledge of what Catholics believe and that’s why I gave you the link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, viz. to avoid you embarrassing yourself by making these outlandish asinine and thoughtless statements whose only basis rest on your mordant and delusional biases.It appears evident from these fatuous and vacuous statements, that you know little of what you have pontificated on, and less about the terms you used. Consequently, I can assume you don’t want to know the truth or you would have checked the Catechism before you made these mindless and callow statements. I therefore have to conclude that you can’t handle the truth or you would have sought it rather than offering this prattle. That is evidenced from you not even checking what the truth is and relying on your lack of knowledge blinded by your prejudices.

  • persiflage

    Onofrio – you’ve brilliantly captured the symbolic sado-masochism permeating Christology and assorted clerical practices through the ages and up to the present – including of course the ingenious torture of heretics throughout history, that dared doubt the ‘absolute truth’ of the prevailing orthodoxy. Ironic and strange how the abolute changes over time! Self-flagellation and mortification indeed. Suffering, above all, remains the rough road to the divine…….Blood, gore and pathos all around, and yet Christianity is somehow found to be superior to Buddhism in this skewed schematic of the sacred.All in all, swearing off religion seems both more prudent and salutary than swearing off sex….

  • onofrio

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,Your huffing and puffing continues:”It appears evident from these fatuous and vacuous statements, that you know little of what you have pontificated on, and less about the terms you used.” My house ain’t blown down… Look in the mirror, TTWSYF. You’re not only a mangler of the English language, but well stocked with ignorance yourself. Remember “Ramsey”? Regarding sexuality – you definitely “protest too much”, betraying your own prurient obsessions. Furthermore, you are clearly ashamed of your own loyalties, since you won’t own up to your Opus Deism. Neither have you denied using Opus Deistic mortification techniques, which implies that you yourself practice the very sado-masochism you deplore in others. Nevertheless, I propose a parley:You stop fulminating ignorantly about queer love lives, and I’ll stop spouting acerbically about the implicit sado-masochism of Catholic aesthetics. Can you do it? Can you stop hiding behind your dogma and apopleptic adjectives, step down from your cathedra, and trust God? Or are you lost without fear?

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)IRT:ANS:The awesomeness of God doing such magnanimous act of love for mankind is inconceivable. Thus, it is written, Joh 15:13 – Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for the good of others.You really have to stop your willful neglect of the truth, or your refusing to acquire a modicum of knowledge of the subject you are spouting off about before making such reckless and ignoramus remarks. You could have avoided making your self look so nescient and mindless by first doing some homework on what you evidently have little or no sense of.Catholics do not adore the relics of the saints. The preservation of the saints’ bodies are a testimony to the sacred and holy lives they lead and the Church venerates them, not adores them.The Church venerates saints that those who want to live a holy life have the saints as models. Moreover, Catholics pray to the saints for their intercession to assist their prayers of necessity and lay them before the throne of Jesus that Jesus might grant the favors those in prayer ask.

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)IRTANS:““Homosexuals Commit 68% of All Mass Murders” In a January 2l, 1984 editorial, The New York Times reported, “many of the most violent multiple murders have been committed by homosexual males”They’re not talking about the Catholic Church: I can’t recall the pedophile and pederastic priest being accused of murdering people.You might try worrying about this rather than the Church who has corrected their problem. The advocates of homosexual lifestyles are impervious to its consequences. “ In New York schools alone a study showed 5 percent of PSS teachers are pedophiles, in respect to 0.25% in all Catholic priests of the last 30 years and little if anything is done about it by public school officials. One child in the New York Public Schools is said to be molested per day by PSS personnel.”Reading the article further you’ll find that all their pedophiles are transferred to other school districts of NY. You might also not that .25 percent of priest in the last 30 years were found guilty compared to the 80 percent of homosexuals in the Q Public, who admit to pedophilia and pederasty.The so called cover-ups weren’t really cover-ups. These homosexual priest were evaluated by professional doctors who told the dioceses these profligates were cured. That stands to reason when the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, and its Psychiatrists and Psychologists are telling you homosexuality poses no problems and the Bishop acted on such advise you have a hard time blaming the Church.

  • middlenmae

    ONOFRIO, I took your question about who or what ordained me as sarcasm and I do apologize.As for David, I can concede to the fact that it was possible for him to have beenNow onto my man Jesus Christ. As a christian you know He is th center of my faith. For me to believe that He did anything wrong is for me to denounce my faith. I know it sounds very closed mindedAs for the the joining of the Bride and Groom, I’m not that sure about any sexual I appreciate your feedback, I do have to admit you kinda scared me at first, but I’m glad you took the time.Have a great day!!!

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)IRTI see you still haven’t removed the beam yet.ANS:“According to a survey in the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse. Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them. Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them. [vii] “Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. Compared to heterosexual distrust or dislike, the rare assault inflicted on someone at a bar, and the singular although horrible aberrant murder–IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE ON-GOING, MOST SIGNIFICANT “HATE CRIMES” AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS ARE, AS KIRK AND MADSEN NOTED, INFLICTED BY HOMOSEXUALS.“[In 1987] the San Francisco police responded to no fewer than 100 calls per month for gay and lesbian domestic violence …[T]here are thousands upon thousands of victims of gay men’s domestic violence in the United States each month.”—from the link previously given you. My friend take the beam out of your eye before you try to remove the speck in the eyes of the Church.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2Gay people are not evil. You seem like a fairly ignorant and backward person on matters of sexuality. If you seek to defend your ignorance and predjudice with religious arguments, all you do is degrade your own religion and religion in general. Your views are silly and foollish. You are the one in peril, who needs help.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 Enough navel gazing. Come join the real world, why don’t you? Otherwise, this kind of silly discourse should be kept to your own crowd, in your own narrow and pretentious version of what I am sure you regard as “Christianity.”

  • Farnaz1Mansouri1

    Hello, All, Interesting Chat,What might we say about Fr. Hans Schmidt, mass murderer, for whom I believe stigmata may have played a part? Heterosexual, je crois. Farnaz Q

  • onofrio

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2Thee:Steady on there, Titwisy, you’re starting to sputter. Thanks for the laughs, O Flagellant.Given that you – in your utter rectitude – deem certain orgies “immoral”, could you perhaps explain to me what a *moral orgy* might be? Would that be the sort that takes place under the proper ecclesiastical auspices, amid ignudi, pyxes, chasubles, stoles, et cetera?As for “myopically blind”, pray tell, how can one who is already sightless also be short-sighted? I supposes such *paradoxes* are routine for self-flagellating Opus Deists…

  • onofrio

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,Thee:And now you descend to libel.If you actually read my posts, you would know that I praised genuine chastity just now. Scroll down a little to Posted by: onofrio | June 17, 2009 10:57 PM I quote myself:The Catholic Church’s complicity in covering up sexual abuse by its priests is the “immoral dissipated vice” (are there vices that are not immoral?) at which I kick.You must be feeling relieved to have ejaculated that little litany of genitalia just now…it ought to add zest to your *mortifications* for a while…

  • onofrio

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,Thee:Who is this Ramsey? I didn’t know the pharaohs of Egypt took Scots surnames!I assume you mean Ramesses II. He was actually quite pious, you know. Had texts inscribed all over the temples of his realm, detailing how his god Amun (“the Hidden One”) saved him in extremis from a surrounding Hittite horde – the defining moment of his life. In Ramesses’ time, Egyptian theologians articulated the perichoresis of three divine hypostaseis. Hymns were composed that revered the transcendent cosmocrator “Hidden is his identity”, “whose image is not revealed in the writings”. Seems rather familiar, no? If the pope had a conference with Moses and Ramesses, he would find he had much more in common with the latter…

  • onofrio

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,Thee:Says it all, really. You’d just love to see me slaughtered thus, wouldn’t you Titwisy. Me, and Persiflage, and Danielinthelionsden, and all the others who’ve challenged your fulminations on this thread.What a pity for you that the auto-da-fe is no longer de rigueur, O Opus Deist.

  • onofrio

    Middlenmae,Respect for maintaining good cheer in response to my acidic devilry.I hope you have a great day too.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 Gay people are a part of life. You have a special sense of privilege and entitlement that you thinks makes you better. Well, guess what? YOU’RE NOT BETTER THAN ANYBODY! especially gay people. You say that gay people are evil. But I know that is not true. And if that is not true, then it is a lie, your lie.On the contrary, what are you? who are you? a Godless agent of Satan? one of wolves in sheep’s clothing that Jesus warned us about?You speak as God would speak, putting words into the mouth of God and of Jesus. Far from being your “persosnal religion,” you are promoting a politically hostile anti-gay sentiment, which sets the stage for violence against gay people.But people like shouid keep in mind, that liberal people have second amendment rights too.

  • persiflage

    TTWSY – I never said there was not a highly developed conspiracy against homosexuality running amuck in the USA in the recent past, and very probably supported by elements of the mass media. I don’t think you will find that to be so much the case today. And do read the brief Times article that I included for for your enlightenment. Much has changed and continues to change in both the political and social climates of today regarding homosexuality and it’s acceptance as normative behavior, compared to even a decade ago. Certainly nobody expects the Catholic Church and it’s minions to keep up with the times!!

  • persiflage

    TTWSY – you are a veritable blitzkrieg of bizarre and unfounded notions, supported by ‘professionals’ with exactly the same bigoted mindset. And how many times must the following be said? There are no natural/moral laws handed down from supernatural/divine sources that have ever been proven to exist outside the minds of men. There is in fact no ‘supernatural’ anything, outside the minds of men. Please provide proof positive to the contrary. You are welcome to believe the most outlandish and freakish notions conjured up by the Catholic Church and assorted ancient philosophers – this does not constitute evidence of their true and separate origins and/or existence …. outside the minds of men. Another thing to ponder – American homosexuals are as steeped in consumerism and capitalism as the most inveterate flamingly heterosexual libertarian. The convoluted hypothesis that homosexual partnerships somehow threaten and undermine private ownership of property is just plain retarded (implicit communism?). This knot-headed idea is just more clear evidence that your entire thesis from start to finish is full of empty doctrinaire theology and rhetoric and nothing more. Grasping for straws in a very big way….. Given the relatively small numbers represented by the homosexual population in the USA, how do the statistics involved in gay marriages represent a threat to your beloved ‘traditional’ family arrangements e.g. one man, one woman, 2.5 children, and an all-too-likely divorce in the future??You really need to get a grip on reality – your perceptions are seriously impaired by a near-lethal overdose of religion…….

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

    “HOMOSEXUAL GAY SEX UNDERMINES THE FAMILY, SOCIETY, AND WOMEN.”A massive exercise in social engineering has been unleashed to undermine and destroy the traditional rights and power that women have long enjoyed in traditional society. Briefly stated the emphasis has been shifted from content to process. As George The new technology of reproduction has in fact separates women from their own femininity, assures the bondage of women to male technocracy, and removes men from the civilizing and socialization process of responsible fatherhood. Men are freed to pursue their own sterile and, without woman, meaningless, sexual cycles in uncivilized groups, while technology sustains the community. In the pursuit of a nonexistent and unattainable equality, women have been induced to forsake their true nature and to relinquish their natural erotic power over men. In the process, women have been deluded into becoming a subordinate class. In an authentic sexual society, the female physique is dominant. His tie to the future, and his engagement in civilized society, passes through her womb. As Gilder states, in a sexually suicidal society, the male body becomes the physical ideal, and the male pattern of insecurity, dominance, and group aggression will prevail over domestic, and individual values. Society forces others to underwrite and support marriage, not because marriage is good for the couple, but because it is good for the children, they produce. A union that cannot produce children is not one that the rest of society should be forced to subsidize. Thus, even if homosexuals can and do form permanent, emotionally serious partnerships, they do not merit the formal recognition of marriage. Attempts to redefine the institution of marriage to accommodate same-sex or gay marriage diminish marriage and inflict serious harm on the prestige and morale of those who make major economic and personal sacrifices to create and sustain their families.

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)IRT:ANS:Redefining Marriage as gay marriage is changing the meaning and structure of the family and that is equally having a devastating affect on the economy and society. Hence, Frum says the transmogrification of Marriage is more devastating than what Russia did to private property. Redefining Marriage, and compromising the structure of the family is a presage for the collapse of the State.IRT:ANS:IRT:ANS:Marriage protects the children that sustain the State. Gay Marriage and Gay Unions, are of no social value to the State and are detrimental to the State. Neither protects children, the family, or the State. Consequently, they are not subsidized.Hence, France, Japan, and Russia are subsidizing family births with bonuses because their death rate exceeds their birth rate, due to Contraceptives, Abortion, and Gay Sex. America is at the border of zero population.Consequently the post says, the foundation of all societies, the family, is being undermined and that is a presage for social suicide. Thus, the post explains why it is traditional for Marriage to be compensated by the State, viz. it is to sustain the State’s existence.

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

    IN REPLY TO (IRT) IRT:ANS:Consequently, matter cannot give what it does not have. Matter is the antithesis of spirit. The powers of man are reason and free will imbued in the fundamental principles of human nature, the intellect.No animal can reason, or has a free will. Hence, animals act on instinct; they cannot reason. Consequently, man is given dominion over the whole Universe by virtue of his intelligence that is mans intellect and free will that no other creature in the Universe has.Consequently man is not an animal, he does not act under instinct, but he has a free will to chose, Although man can choose to act like an animal, an animal cannot act like a human. He cannot reason, write a book, design a city, score music, and become an artist.IRT:ANS:IRT: “We have known for at least a decade that hundreds of animal species — including birds, reptiles, mollusks and, of course, humans — engage in same-gender sexual acts. But no one is quite sure why.”—Time magazineANS:

  • persiflage

    TTWSY – ALL of my biases as applied to your posts have to do with your interpretation of proper human conduct by way of your tightly wound moral philosophy – a charcoal-filtered world-view that is primarily informed by ultra-conservative Catholic theology and metaphysics. I’m not afraid to say that I find this orientation infinitely less satisfying now than when I departed Catholicism for good at age 17, nearly 50 years ago. I realized Catholicism had no answers then, and that view hasn’t changed one iota since. Relatively intelligent humans who have had the great good fortune to be born into a life of relative freedom have a confounding destiny – they must either learn to think for themselves, or be lost to the pre-patterned cognitive mechanics of political ideologies and religious primitivisms of one kind or another.All of this is ideological and theological structure is more appropriate to dealing with the insecurities of pre-modern man, in my view. Many opt for the security of a predictable future offered by religion – the good life is not now of course, but much later, after you’re dead. But then, who really knows much about beginnnings and endings with absolute certainty? By comparison, any kind of flexible humanist philosophy looks very good to me, not to mention it’s more explicit conformation to the reality of our observed existential fate. Individualism can be an aggravating and sometimes lonely calling, but it does have it’s rewards along the way…..one can actually acquire wisdom based on unconditioned experience.Even so, we can see that we’re all stuck in the same quagmire together. Appealing to supernatural forces for solice and support under such unholy circumstances as we find ourselves in is a thoroughly empty gesture, but that hasn’t stopped anyone from crying out in the night for the divine guidence they learned about as school children……We eventually discover that every problem is a human problem – something divinities surely have very little acquaintence with. Can we expect yet another Vatican-sanctioned rebuttal??

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)IRT:Naturally this seems to border on the supernatural, but another far more likely explanation (barring deception, which seemed unlikely) would involve viewing this as evidence for the extraordinary power of mind…..over matter, if you will.”ANS:Hence such phenomenon proves the intercession of God in these matters. Without question the Creator who made the Natural Laws can suspend them, and Jesus did just that. Now if a Yogi priest happens to accomplish such a feat, viz. going years without food or drink, then all that proves is God interceded. Saints are not the only ones that receive favors from God. it is written that to gain eternal happiness one only has to keep the Commandments and perform the Works of Mercy, and keep the two Great Commandments—“Love your neighbor as you love yourself and as God so loves you,” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” However, it is a lot easier to travel on the road to Paradise in a luxurious limousine (Catholicism) than in a horse and wagon (Other religions). Augustine say, “Love God with your whole heart, your whole mind and all your strength, then do what ever you want.”I did read your Time Magazine link about Homosexuality causing murder; they seem to have no answer, or any proof it does or doesn’t. However, the statics show that gay sex has a strong propensity toward violence, domestic violence, and sadomasochism. The DOJ study by Reisman finds male homophiles infecting hundreds of young boy with AIDS. Their studies seem to say the opposite of “Time.” “Time” has a predisposed left wing bent that slants its opinions. Sometime back it wrote that at times the intentional taking of an innocent human life is appropriate, in its defense of Abortion.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2Keep educating the word on “your truth.” You are doing a much better job of demonstrating just how much of a crackpot and crank you are, than I ever could.If this is your cause, to stamp out gay people and be-foul our society with anti-gay propoganda, and set the tone for violence against gay people, then that is your choice. But it is a waste of your engergy and your life. You only have one life; go ahead and throw it away on this nonsense, if you will.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2Keep educating the word on “your truth.” You are doing a much better job of demonstrating just how much of a crackpot and crank you are, than I ever could.If this is your cause, to stamp out gay people and be-foul our society with anti-gay propoganda, and set the tone for violence against gay people, then that is your choice. But it is a waste of your engergy and your life. You only have one life; go ahead and throw it away on this nonsense, if you will.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2Keep educating the word on “your truth.” You are doing a much better job of demonstrating just how much of a crackpot and crank you are, than I ever could.If this is your cause, to stamp out gay people and be-foul our society with anti-gay propoganda, and set the tone for violence against gay people, then that is your choice. But it is a waste of your engergy and your life. You only have one life; go ahead and throw it away on this nonsense, if you will.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2Your religious views on the nature of God are shallow and superficial, and to be blunt, simple-minded.Gay people are not evil, and being gay is not a sin. These points are not up for comment or argument by the likes of you.Please stop posting bigotry and slanders against people whom you do not and cannot pssislby understand. And more than that, I would expect you to apologize for the terrible things that you have been posting.