Nope, nossir, this didn’t happen. is not happening. You’re CRAZY!!!!
there is no Gay Agenda!!! I’m sure some right thinking person will come along soon to tell you how CRAZY STUPID I AM for BELIEVING in this stuff!!!!
Money quote, from his Holiness, Pope Francis:
” “The “gay lobby” is mentioned, and it is true, it is there… We need to see what we can do…”
This of course isn’t true. he’s a powerful man! the vatican! the Church! Lies! money! intrigue!!! it’s not in this country! All Catholics are evil so this is YOUR problem! YOU made this happen! But it’s not happening! gays can’t decide when to have a party so there is no organization! YOU LIE!!! POOF, there goes your conspiracy!!!
hat tip, The Wielder of the Drawn Cutlass.
35 comments Og | Uncategorized
Why not cut to the chase? Are gay people by and of themselves EVIL? Is there no place in the Catholic church for gay people at all? For if there is a place then it is hardly surprising that they might wish to have some voice is the church that they belong to. The full quote seems to indicate that there is no place for gays as they are corrupt:
In the document, Francis is quoted as saying that while there were many holy people in the Vatican, there was also corruption: “The “gay lobby” is mentioned, and it is true, it is there… We need to see what we can do…”
Of course it is always easier to attack some group instead of defending the ground upon which you stand. This post is factually doing that same thing. I am not making any argument that some gay people are not trying to fundamentally change the church, they are. Reformers always are. The Catholic church has resisted reformation for a long, long time. They have the right to do so, even in the face of members of their own flock and their wishes.
But for you to position a Gay Agenda as some evil you should be able to reply with links to cogent arguments or facts that show the evil of this attack. Please do. And then please demonstrate how allowing society to accept or condone gay marriage damages religious institutions that oppose it. I would also like a link to the fact or argument that any religious organization BY ITSELF trumps individual rights. We may disagree as to what those rights are, but should the sanctity of any religion be more important than say freedom of speech?
Way to wholly miss the point, William.
Please copy paste where I ever said- anywhere on this blog, ever- that the sanctity of religion is more important than freedom of speech.
You cannot, because I did not
please copy past where I called gay people evil. You cannot, because I did not.
please copy paste where I have ‘Attacked” any group instead of defending the ground on which I stood. You cannot because EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID ABOUT THIS ISSUE IS DEFENDING THE GROUND ON WHICH I STAND AND NOTHING ELSE. I am only responsible for the things I say, not the demented and twisted version the voices in your head would have you believe I have said. thanks for playing. Try to make some effort to understand what the hell the conversation is about prior to leaving any more anencephalic comments. When your reading comprehension improves to about a fifth grade level maybe you will look at some of the links I have left and note that I have repeatedly demonstrated the harm that the gay agenda (Which I know, according to you and others, does not exist) has done and is doing to the Church.
Thank you for clarifying that gay people are not evil. That freedoms are more important that the sanctity of any religion.
No, they are not. The freedom of people to exercise their religion is EXACTLY THE SAME as other freedoms. get that straight.
You have however attacked Libertards. And liberals too. For the gall to suggest that we should value freedom above other values. Your quote:
“As I’ve said before, if libertarianism didn’t exist, the liberals would have to invent it. No other single force has done more to destroy conservatism and classical liberalism in America than the influence of the Libertards, and that includes the large L and small L types, just because of the tragic, fatal flaw in the concept of libertarianism itself; libertarianism wants everyone to be libertarians- or else.”
That seems to me to be an attack of some sorts. My childish viewpoint is that you have to respect everyone’s freedom or you eventually respect no ones.
lets see. You think I was mean, so I was mean. It couldn’t be that I was simply reporting what I saw, you consider yourself a libertarian so I was insulting you.
It is your blog, and by and large I agree with quite a lot of what you write. Please look again to my post, I was acknowledging that my post was in fact a challenge to yours, to what I saw as an assumption or unspoken point. So I ask it again, in a more plainly worded form. Please point to why a gay agenda is bad. I am interested in the argument or facts behind this attack on the church.
A gay agenda is bad because it specifically seeks to deprive the Faithful of their freedom to worship as they please, and their right to abide by the tenets of their faith. The gay agenda is based on forcing the Faithful to modify the tenets of their faith to accommodate the gay lifestyle. So long as that never happens I can and do and never will have one moments’ trouble with anything gay people do, never have, never will. I am in this for one thing and one thing only, to protect MY religious freedom. Not to harm another single soul, ever.
Note, I am asking for some direction to the links you mentioned in your reply. Please copy them into your response. I do promise not to try to debate those points or argue with them. I merely wish to read them and see what your position is.
I don’t care if you debate them if you do so with intellectual honesty
I added my comments in yours above in italics to make sure they were attributed to what you were saying, so don’t mistake that for rudeness as it is not intended to be such
William,
You wrote near the top after your acknowledgment of what they are trying to do. “Reformers always are.”
That very sentence takes a stand with one side.
You preclude that the Church is wrong and the gays are right, and have every right, but the loyal have none. How exactly do you do that?
This is a good one. And here this is another. more, and more, and more.These are but a very few. The state in other places has already forced churches to do things against their will, and they followed the same path to that final result we are following now.
I believed we would get to this point, because I believed I understood your position. You did not disappoint. I agree. You certainly have the right to defend YOUR religion and faith. I did note the Church has done so. I was not attacking it when I did.
To be honest though, I must point out that defending your faith from attacks from within the Church is none of my business. Nor any other persons who is not a Catholic. I am solely concerned with balancing the rights of individuals against the costs of those rights to everyone else. In that instance I find myself favoring gay marriage. I do not doubt I miss much. I do not doubt that there are in fact costs to us all for allowing gay marriage.
I also respectfully point back to my post and suggest that I did not say you said that gays were evil, or that the church stood above individual rights. I asked the question expecting your answer. I may be mistaken, but I think I do understand what you are saying. If I do not then please don’t assume I am trying to be mean myself.
Then you need to improve your writing skills. When you ask these questions:
“Why not cut to the chase? Are gay people by and of themselves EVIL?”
you clearly intend to infer that I think they are, and that I need to cut to the chase and say that.
Are you an employee of the Vatican? You must indeed be if you know that I’m talking about “Defending my faith from within’ the church. if you aren’t, let me conclude this: A gay lobby inside the church is not in and of the church alone, and must therefore also be working with components outside the church; that would be the definition of a “Lobby”.
Pascal,
I do not claim that reformation is always right. I do state that any religion with the exception of the very strongest cults is open to interpretation and within that you will find conflict.
I am not a Catholic. I don’t believe that any church should be forced to throw away its doctrine, period. I could personally care less if the Church decides to refuse marriage to gay people or not. Its YOUR church. The challenges it faces are not from me, its from inside or not at all. Or should be not at all.
The only case where I might differ is in any instance where the church has moved from being a religious to a secular force. In any other place, and many of your links OG, I agree.
Last point I will make:
Then you need to improve your writing skills. When you ask these questions:
“Why not cut to the chase? Are gay people by and of themselves EVIL?â€
you clearly intend to infer that I think they are, and that I need to cut to the chase and say that.
I do need to improve my skills. I apologize for that, but I make do with what I have and DO try to get better. What I intended to do is to clarify that your concerns are not about those things. If they are not then this becomes a matter dependent wholly about your own personal faith. As someone who has libertard tendencies I tend to fight against those trying to tell you how your church should be run.
William,
First of all, I am not a Catholic. I do not follow any organized religion for many good reasons.
But I also find it fascinating that anyone — and you in particular — can assert “The only case where I might differ is in any instance where the church has moved from being a religious to a secular force.”
You have qualms with those who are religious (again, not me) having any say in the laws they must abide with? But you have no qualms with the many secular believers who ARE having very great influence in how secular government operates? And just like the churches, they too are organized and well funded and have tax exemptions (at least, as we have learned, they pass the IRS’ favored litmus tests). And you have no qualms with them? BTW — that includes multiple numbers of gay organizations.
Answer?
The point William is that gays want to make gay marriage the law of the land so they can use that law to damage the church. And just as they damaged the scouts, left unchecked they will destroy the church.
Last post. For REAL. Pascal asked for an answer so I will oblige.
I reserve the position to disagree or comment with anyone who chooses to try to impose their beliefs through laws to anyone else. I think that if an organized body is trying to tell me what I can, cannot, or must do then I might have some say in that. I believe we all do. I will disagree with them at least some of the time and have the right to both do so and have an opinion about it. I DONT have the right to tell them how to worship god, or allah, or the sun.
So it has to be organized?
For absolutely no good reason that I can think of I’m going to jump in on this. I expect to get my ass chewed by everyone but it’s useful to get my thoughts in order.
Consider marriage without any qualifiers. In the catholic church it is a sacrament and two things must be true for it to bestow sanctifying grace; it is unitive and it is procreative. These elements have to be present in order to be married.
This means that if I’m unfaithful to my wife, or using contraceptives during marital relations, or watching Internet porn and spanking the monkey, then I am not married. It’s a hard standard, and maybe an impossible standard, but that’s the standard the church has set for people that want to be married in the church.
Pretend my wife and I are in full and joyous accord that we want an “open†marriage and that we can sleep with other people. The church tells us this is not unitive and that we aren’t married. The state will still issue us a license, and we have all the outward and legal appearances of being married, but the church doesn’t recognize our marriage. We are not married in the church.
What if I insist that the church SHOULD recognize my marriage, SHOULD allow me to participate in the sacraments, SHOULD do this and SHOULD do that? And along with my insistence I threaten to bring the full force of the state to bear and FORCE them to do what I want. Should that be permitted? The First Amendment says no.
Following Ogs’ links I have observed people threatening the church to make it do what they want it to do. I don’t know anyone that is making those threats personally, but it seems clear that threats are being made.
As for the church; as near as I can tell the church fears for the souls of people that have sex outside of marriage. Infidelity, promiscuity, pornography, and contraception all invalidate a marriage. So now let’s add in the qualifiers. I think the church considers my open marriage, or my contraceptive marriage, or my pornographic marriage, and your gay marriage equally; it isn’t a marriage. And the small c church encourages the big C church to pray for those of us in those dire straits.
To use the state to force the church to change its standards is wrong. For libertarians (small or capital L) to tell the church to change it’s standards is to deny the church the freedom to set its own standards and is equally wrong. And not only is it wrong, it’s a violation of the First Amendment.
I have to be free to be a racist, bigoted, redneck jerk; or I’m not free.
PS: The place for gay people in the church is to be celibate; just as the place for married couples that don’t want children is to be celibate. (Natural Family Plannins is a cop out, my non Catholic wife taught me that.)
As I said, a hard standard. Maybe impossible.
I followed you up to your closing line Tony. You are leaving it to be inferred that anyone who opposes the PC line must be one of those things.
That is a trollish thing to do. If you don’t wan to appear to be trollish, then ask Og to change it to “To be free I have a right to whatever my opinion no matter what patriarchal despot wants to construe that it might be deemed uncomfortable by his favored and faceless group.”
Pascal,
You are correct. I repeated a line I used in an earlier post. It made sense then but not now. I don’t know what trollish means; but I think I get the gist. I won’t ask Og to change it since you have and I agree with your correction. Thanks for the critical reading and careful editing.
I’m witcha tony. Pascal also makes a good point.
If only others would understand me so well and be half as open. Thanks Tony.
Og: “So it has to be organized?”
Good question Og. Too bad Will has left, I’d like to hear more.
See, given that William appears to be defending 1st Amendment rights, I wonder if he forgot about freedom of association that so many liberals only permit for their favored groups?
If you ever have a bad word to say about the gay agenda, you are branded as a homophobe. No matter how many words you expend on explaining that you are not, the idiots will continue to insist that you’re a homophobe because you don’t uncritically accept and LOOVE what homosexuality is doing to our culture.
It’s a load of horseshit.
Yep. Baldilocks has an excellent treatise on the subject right now.
Just jumping in for a moment before leaving work.
It does not have to be organized, but from a practical viewpoint if your special interest group is not organized then your chances of infringing upon anyone else’s rights is greatly reduced.
You are completely free to associate with anyone you want Pascal. When your group starts advocating for or against a public policy then you forfeit the protection that should accrue to any voluntary organization.
A muslim that is not telling my wife to wear some particular clothing is not going to hear any BS from me. I have such friends. A gay person who wants marital rights (such as deciding end of life issues for a spouse) is not going to find me making comments about their lifestyle. A Catholic who would like people who aren’t Catholics to shut their pie hole about how their church is run will likewise merit my respect. (NOT SAYING OG IS OR HAS DONE THAT, ITS JUST AN EXAMPLE.)
I should also say that in all of this I am not saying that I am factually correct. I am wrong about a lot of things. All the time. Og is right about a lot of things. All the time. More often than not from what I have read upon occasion. I do try to disagree without being disagreeable. My initial attempt to clarify what Og said was not my best, but to his great credit, he did clarify it.
Ed… Og clearly answered that hes NOT a homophobe. My intent was not to imply he was. But any conversation along these lines would eventually go over that ground. You make that point yourself Ed. Having gotten that out of the way there was clarification as to the harm or threat he identified. And frankly the highest voice in his church agreed with him. I am not a zealot. Within the framework of what I have said I will defend his church the same way I would defend anyone else’s rights.
If I were nearby I think I would be happy to sit down with Og and discuss this over beer. I hope we would have a civil and friendly discussion, ending with agreement on most if not all principles with no ill will for those we disagreed upon.
“You are completely free to associate with anyone you want Pascal. When your group starts advocating for or against a public policy then you forfeit the protection that should accrue to any voluntary organization.”
Many groups do this all the time William. Due the unequal protections afforded differing groups is the source, the meat of Og’s complaint. The denial of all blame for one group (the gay agenda radicals) shifted to the loyalist Catholic, and projecting upon them all the nastiness that is present in the radicals while calling them crazy or liars or both.
Now, which side did you seek to defend when you came here? Which did you think the underdog that needed your defense?
“You are completely free to associate with anyone you want Pascal. When your group starts advocating for or against a public policy then you forfeit the protection that should accrue to any voluntary organization.â€
There is another leg to this as well.
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
The secular administration that chooses to offer tax avoidance to one side of an argument but not the other is not a fair judge.
And this is the reality.
The fact that it is not regularly discussed is why I thought it necessary to make this a separate response. Og’s complaint as a traditional Catholic is that the Govt, using the tax code, is using it’s heavy hand to FORCE the tide of the discussion.
And now I take you back to your original concluding remark to me: “The only case where I might differ is in any instance where the church has moved from being a religious to a secular force.”
Given your prerequisites for “protection,” the Church has no right to meet force with force. That is diametrically opposed to natural law. Is that the libertarian in you? Or is it something else that had crept into your disposition?
When perverts show up in the Catholic Church or the Boy Scouts it is always presented as proof of institutional corruption, not the infiltration of the Purple Mafia in those institutions. When they show up in public schools or the State Department it is shrugged off as a bad apple or two.
Pascal, I think the Catholic Church in the USA could do itself a lot of good by surrendering it’s tax exempt status; it would take away that particular club.
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church in America is finding itself whipsawed; it’s been supporting Progressives so long it that it was part of the club and exempt from the bullying. That is rapidly coming to an end.
Tony, you may well be right about the best course of action. And you are right due the history of Marxists having made inroads with the Church so that they were in league with other progressives. The good news is that it appears the faithful have finally awakened and are trying to fumigate both species of “termite” infestations. If the IRS scandal is ever thoroughly investigated, it will be revealed that it is their comrades who have been providing aid to fellow travelers.
Because the current unequal treatment by the IRS and DOJ has too long been outside the discussion, I’m very happy Will provided us an opportunity to address it.
The tax exempt thing is a sore spot with me. I see the things the Church does with the money it acquires, and while a lot more than I wish is spent on physical plant, a good deal is spent in doing some pretty amazing work, and all that stops when they start taxing.
Yep. The government flat ass sucks at charity.
Graft, now that they know how to do.
Here’s more evidence for you Og.
http://pascalfervor.blogspot.com/2013/06/proofs-it-is-happening-here.html
Possibly too late in one quarter, but there are others for which this might provide sufficient warning.
Og. I’d forgotten this short prod that I’ve not seen mentioned anywhere else. (And it is something that has NOT happened anywhere else RobertaX).
I posted it in January. Its title is “Gay Marriage + Immigration Reform = Importing Terrorists that asked the questions.” Simple and admittedly provocative, I simply asked the following questions.
The only response that I’ve gotten today was one: “Please clarify.”
I find it hard to believe that that really necessary. Or is it simply too difficult for some readers who haven’t heard a new insight spoken about on talk radio or anywhere else before reading it here?
err
Its title is “Gay Marriage + Immigration Reform = Importing Terrorists.”
strike
that asked the questions.â€