Howard Fineman, 2012
More to the point, politically, two of Obama’s leading strengths are foreign policy in general and his performance as commander-in-chief, according to the polls.
A quick perusal is enough to make the point. In the most recent national CBS/New York Times poll, Obama has a positive rating of 46-36 for his handling of “foreign policy,” his highest rating on any major issue or duty. A CNN recent poll gives the president a 52-36 lead over Romney on the question of who would be a better commander-in-chief. The CBS poll gives Obama a 30-13 lead over Romney on the question of which candidate voters have “very” strong confidence in to be commander-in-chief.
Obama’s lead on these topics reverse, at least for now, a generation’s worth of Democratic Party political weakness on defense and foreign policy — a crushing burden on the Democrats ever since George McGovern ran on an anti-war platform in 1972 and lost 49 states to Richard Nixon.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39_MDzf7zPM[/youtube]
“Al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQjztrnJzCM[/youtube]
Obama, 2011
‘We’re Leaving Behind A Stable And Self-Reliant Iraq’
President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.
This comes despite Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magarief, members of Congress, an administration spokesperson, and several press reports suggesting that al Qaeda played a role in the attack.
Joe Biden, 2010
“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government,” said Biden.
“I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.
How inept is the Obama team?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za7IIAMC08g[/youtube]
Today
Mosul has fallen to Al Qaeda
Tikrit has fallen to Al Qaeda
Baghdad is falling to Al Qaeda.
Liberals constantly repeat the phrase “It happened on Bush’s watch.” Well, guess what. This is happening on Obama’s watch. It’s his. He owns it. He is making the sacrifice of more than 4,000 US soldiers meaningless. That’s more lives lost than on 9-11, and it’s solely because of ego, because of hubris, the consequences of trying to forge a legacy instead of respond appropriately to world events.
Two years ago I wrote that Obama tended to leave destruction in his wake.
Three years I warned of Obama building an Islamic Caliphate and the he was demanding that US taxpayers contribute.
Al Qaeda is not dead. Al Qaeda is not decimated. They control more territory than ever. Al Qaeda in Mali is armed with the best weapons thanks to Obama and controls much of Africa. Obama has sought to depose all the leaders, bad as they are, who kept a lid on Al Qaeda- Gaddafi, Mubarak and Assad.
As Glenn Reynolds might say, it’s all proceeding as I have foreseen.
Barack Obama suffers from terminal narcissism and commemorates every single notable event on the calendar by including himself in a tweet and this is no exception.
The top image is courtesy of John Hinderaker. The bottom one is mine.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Retire #84:
“And don’t think it goes unnoticed that you never debate any point I make…”
That would be because most of what you spit out isn’t a “point” worth debating.
Much of it is bald insult:
“Those ESL classes not helping much?”
” Then stop pushing your perverted agenda, or leave. It matters not to me which choice you make.”
“What a hypocrite you are, George.”
Then, more of it is outrageous and insane crap that doesn’t deserve comment:
“There is one way to approach jihadist terrorism; total war.”
(Against who? Over a billion Muslims?)
And, of course, there is stuff that is so obviously wrong that it, too, doesn’t warrant correction:
“You can’t do it by public opinion where states will vote same sex marriage into law.”
(Three states having voted FOR gay marriage in the 2012 election.)
If I missed a legitimate argument that you made, it was because you buried it under a mountain of insult, insanity and error. If you were civil, and limited your posts to legitimate argumentation, I’d gladly respond in kind. You reap what you sow.
“Even Lawrence was based on lies and a gay lover’s spat, not police intrusion.”
Now, I can argue that. Not the statement you made (because the facts are not reliably knowable), but the statement’s implication that the ISSUE (not the case) would have been decided differently had the facts BEEN known. If your contention is correct, the case would have likely never made it to the SCOTUS in the first place, and so the ISSUE would have had to wait longer to be resolved. But several of the SCOTUS justices who sat on Bowers v. Hardwick changed their minds over how that case had been decided, and a correction would have been made sooner or later, regardless.
Hey, I thought that you small-government folks didn’t WANT the Government in everyone’s bedroom. I thought that you said that you couldn’t care less what people did in the privacy of their bedrooms. Are you now disagreeing with the Lawrence decision??? Let me guess… You want “sodomy” criminalized because, as Scalia reminded you in his Lawrence dissent, criminalization of gay sex was necessary to prevent gay marriage.
(“This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”
“If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”)
(Note that Scalia also argued in the Lawrence dissent that Texas should also have the right to persecute homosexuals REGARDLESS of conduct:
“Even if the Texas law does deny equal protection to “homosexuals as a class,” that denial still does not need to be justified by anything more than a rational basis, which our cases show is satisfied by the enforcement of traditional notions of sexual morality.”)
Gays were one SCOTUS vote away from God knows what horror. We have come so far in just one decade. Amazing!
@Ditto #94:
You are right, of course.
Retire05 hates gays, and me in particular, so I bait her. If Flopping Aces hadn’t given up on opposing Gay Marriage – because for Republicans it is now a losing cause – I’d be engaging her in a more appropriate setting. But so strong is her hate that she attacks me anywhere, on ANY subject – even when I agree with her position. So it’s just a sport for us both, I guess, and if someone has to throw in the towel, it’ll have to be her.
(Hear that, Baby?)
Hi George,
Couple points. Firstly, from the catechism of the Catholic Church:
I think that the phrase “love the sinner; hate the sin” is much too harsh. Yes, the Church definitely takes the position (which, though not from the lips of Jesus, appears elsewhere in Scripture) that homosexuality is a sin which can never be approved. But, unlike abortion, homosexuality is a sin which is tolerated, in a secular legal sense, in the same fashion that adultery (which was condemned from the lips of Jesus) is also tolerated in a secular legal sense. No one is so radical as to advocate making adultery a crime. Likewise, I don’t know of anyone who spews indiscriminately hateful invective against adulterers, while there are clearly many people who spew indiscriminately hateful invective against homosexuals.
I think that the reason for at least some of the invective is resentment against what is seen as in the face forced exposure to public taunting of religious conservatives by the gay community. While I applaud you for trying to be polite, for the most part, there was both taunting and gloating in some of your comments, which detracted greatly from points you were trying to make.
Marriage is a very emotional issue — for both straights and gays. You alluded to the hypersexuality of younger gays. Dan Savage isn’t satisfied with the reality of the tremendous momentum behind gay marriage; he’s already suggested that straight marriage should be more like gay marriage, with regard to tolerating extra-marital affairs and encounters. This is precisely what I (as the father of two married daughters) fear from gay marriage and why I think that gay marriage should always be called “gay marriage,” to distinguish it from traditional marriage. In traditional marriage, fidelity is THE bedrock principle. It enforces a high standard of behavior, to the particular benefit of women and children. This goes back to the origins of marriage, thousands of years ago, and is the main reason for the survival of marriage as a human institution over thousands of years.
My hope is that gays will establish whatever rules work for their form of marriage but that society will continue to view traditional marriage as a sacred commitment to fidelity. Alas, I fear the lowest common denominator effect of the dumbing down of fidelity as the principle on which marriage is based.
those terrorist are on the road moving, what about a plane throwing a nuke on them,
even if they are inside the tank,
they wood cook in there like hot dogs,
what is wrong with that, and the one in front would run like snake part cut off, from the tail,
@George Wells:
Re
There it is, you know, the word “hate” that progressives throw out when they have no cogent argument.
Let me reiterate my long ago posted comments to you, George. I DON’T HATE YOU. I don’t know you, but I suspect that if I did, I still wouldn’t like you. There is a huge gulf between dislike and hate. But anyone who doesn’t agree with you, I suspect you would label a “hater” just as your lackey, Greggie, did.
I find you dishonest; a builder of strawmen; someone who ignores rational points made by others in order to avoid discussion based soley on your opinion of what has value, and what does not; a liar; someone who claims others said things they did not; an agenda driven pervert who is here not to discuss politics (this is a political blog, after all) but to drive your own sick agenda.
You first came to this web site to support another queer who used to post here. One who referred, in disgust, to heterosexuals as “breeders” on his own web site. Of course, when that disgusting pejorative was used by him, and it was pointed out to you, it was a “point” you, once again, chose to ignore.
Were I the owner of this blog, I would tell you quit promoting your own agenda and get with the subjects at hand, or get lost. But I am no longer willing to tolerate cultural Marxism and its intended goal of destroying our social fabric, as others might be. They make their choices, I have made mine.
Don’t flatter yourself in thinking you are the first creep that has shown up here that I have challenged. You’re not. And don’t think that you are so special that you are really worth the time I have devoted in destroying your argument, you are not. But for 30 years I have watched as you, and your ilk, demanded more and more from a society that was more than willing to be tolerant of your deviation, only to watch as that was not, is not enough. I have researched, studied and spoken with others who are gay, and most admit that the ultimate goal is NOT same-sex marriage but a normalization of gay sex in every aspect of our lives. You know that, but are too damn dishonest to admit it.
I will continue to fight against your actual agenda. If you don’t like it, feel free not to respond to me again.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
I would refer you to the letter of one who is ultimately more qualified to speak on issues of the Church than you are:
Dear Fellow Citizens,
Your letter sharing with me your thoughts on the upcoming “March for Marriage” in Washington, D.C., was forwarded to me while I was attending meetings out of town, and I have reflected on what you have to say. I appreciate your affirmation of my Church’s teaching—not unique to our religion, but a truth accessible to anyone of good will—on the intrinsic human dignity of all people, irrespective of their stage and condition in life. That principle requires us to respect and protect each and every member of the human family, from the precious child in the womb to the frail elderly person nearing death. It also requires me, as a bishop, to proclaim the truth—the whole truth—about the human person and God’s will for our flourishing. I must do that in season and out of season, even when truths that it is my duty
to uphold and teach are unpopular, including especially the truth about marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. That is what will be doing on June 19th.
With regard to your request that I not attend the March, and the reasons you give for this request, allow me to explain the following points.
1. The March for Marriage is not “anti-LGBT” (as some have described it); it is not anti-anyone or anti-anything. Rather, it is a pro-marriage March. The latter does not imply the former. Rather, it affirms the great good of bringing the two halves of humanity together so that a man and a woman may bond with each other and with any children who come from their union. This is precisely the vision promoted by Pope Francis, who recently said, “We must reaffirm the right of children to grow up in a family with a father and mother.” Rest assured that if the point of this event were to single out a group of individuals and target them for hatred, I most certainly would not be there.
2. While I cannot go into all of the details here of your allegations against the sponsors of this event and scheduled speakers, I do know that at least some of what you say is based on misinterpretation or is simply factually incorrect. For example, it is not true that the National Organization for Marriage connects homosexuality with pedophilia and incest. What is true is that three years ago a conference was sponsored in Baltimore by the group B4U-ACT for the purpose of finding ways to encourage tolerance for pedophilia. A statement on NOM’s blogpost objecting to this conference affirmed that this is something that would outrage people in the gay community as well. Unfortunately, many conclusions are being drawn about those involved in the March for Marriage based on false impressions.
3. It gives me assurance that we share a common disdain for harsh and hateful rhetoric. It must be pointed out, though, that there is plenty of offensive rhetoric which flows in the opposite direction. In fact, for those who support the conjugal understanding of marriage, the attacks have not stopped at rhetoric. Simply for taking a stand for marriage as it has been understood
in every human society for millennia, people have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, and have suffered other types of retribution, including physical violence. It is true that historically in our society violence has been perpetrated against persons who experience attraction to members of the same sex, and this is to be deplored and eradicated. Sadly, though, we are now beginning to see examples, although thankfully not widespread, of even physical violence against those who hold to the conjugal view of marriage (such as, most notably, the attempted gunning down of those who work in the offices of the Family Research Council).
While it is true that free speech can be used to offend others, it is not so much people exercising their right to free speech that drives us further apart than people punished precisely for doing so that does.
4. Please do not make judgments based on stereotypes, media images and comments taken out of context. Rather, get to know us first as fellow human beings. I myself am willing to meet personally with any of you not only to dialogue, but simply so that we can get to know each other. It is the personal encounter that changes the vision of the other and softens the heart.
In the end, love is the answer, and this can happen even between people with such deep disagreements. That may sound fanciful and far-fetched, but it is true, it is possible. I know it is possible, I know this from personal experience. When we come together seeking to understand the other with good will, miracles can happen.
When all is said and done, then, there is only one thing that I would ask of you more than anything else: before you judge us, get to know us.
Sincerely,
Most Reverend Salvatore Cordileone
Archbishop of San Francisco
This letter was in response to certain California politicians, included Nancy Pelosi who claims to be a Catholic, that demanded that the Archbishop not march in a pro-traditional marriage event. I suspect that Nancy Pelosi, like yourself, is simply a cafeteria Catholic that thinks you can pick and choose what doctrine you are going to agree with, although I will admit that [some of] your comments regarding same sex “marriage” are valid.
.
openid.AOL.COM/RUNSWIM (Larry Weisenthal)
i work so hard on typing your name that i forgot what i wanted to say,
KIDDING PARTLY,
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT WORDS ON THIS ONE, YES PERFECTLY DONE FROM A WISE MAN,
THANK YOU,
Straw man.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
arsch loch
retire05
that is a good find, i guess the letter was adress to someone else than you,
BYE
@Nanny G:
One thing I’ve been thinking long and hard about related to this topic, is the suicidal insanity of the Obama administration’s ignoring the law, to leave our boarders nearly completely open. Let’s remember the words of one released terrorist leader from Gitmo
With the US Southern borders being completely porous (as Obama wants them to remain,) Along with the diversion of these floods of illegal immigrant children and the Border Patrol and ICE having to deal with them, is the very real national security risk the situation creates. While agents are playing ‘catch the kiddies’, Terrorists can take great advantage of the chaotic situation by moving groups of infiltrators over the borders, beyond the sight of agents. All it takes is well placed spotters to guide and coordinate terrorist infiltration teams, and even if agents manage to catch a few of them, all they have to say is that they are ‘fleeing Mexican cartel gangs’, and ICE will eventually release them with a court date per Obama’s orders. They are then free to meld back into society and rendezvous with their cohorts.
Federal agencies with evidence that should have tipped them off couldn’t even ferret out and discover foreign nationals who legally entered our nation and perpetrated 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing. What is the likely hood of the Feds finding terrorists that they don’t even know have entered the country illegally?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal) #103:
Hi Larry:
Thank you for your delightfully sane discussion. As I have remarked in my responses to others, “you reap what you sow,” and many of the comments here are so full of the “indiscriminately hateful invective” you mentioned that I am often tempted to respond in kind. I spent half of a century turning the other cheek, and have sadly learned that it accomplishes nothing. I also learned that waiting for the majority to come to its senses without being PUSHED also accomplishes nothing.
While my remarks about hyper-sexual youth were not meant to be orientation-specific, I have indeed read some of the discussions about gay marriage bringing to the institution a looser perspective on fidelity. I am hoping that the effects realized will be other than the ones you predict. Having grown up during a period when gays were shunned by the morality teachers and accordingly not taught the value of fidelity (but only abstinence) it comes as no surprise to me that gays in general have in the past been more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts. (Really, why else?) It is my hope that once the current dust-up over gay marriage has settled, more gays will be welcome into churches where they will learn the values that are fundamental to marriage, and their collective behavior will move in the direction that you would hope. (Also, I hope that parents will eventually outgrow their angry reaction to the discovery that one of their children is gay, and might eventually bother to teach that gay child some values that he or she can actually use in life.)
I would also offer to you that during my assignment to a Naval Warfare Support Group back in the 70’s, I was aware that 17 out of 18 married enlisted men in the group were actively and proudly cheating on their wives. I don’t think that you are justified in associating deteriorating fidelity in marriage with gay culture.
As a community, we have a duty to teach values to all of our members, not just the ones we favor, and I sincerely believe that in the future we will succeed in this. I have already seen numerous signs that this normalization is occurring in the gay community. There is much more social integration occurring now than was the case back in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. Gay-exclusive social associations and events still occur, but they are a shadow of what they once were. (The “gay beach” section of Virginia Beach has disappeared.) While it is true that some gay activists argue for radicalism, the vast majority of gay people don’t want that. And the gays who are fighting for the right to marry certainly are fighting for a marriage that includes fidelity, not one that simply calls what they already had a “gay marriage.” I do find that idea somewhat insulting…
@retire05 #105:
“most (gays) admit that the ultimate goal is NOT same-sex marriage but a normalization of gay sex in every aspect of our lives. You know that, but are too damn dishonest to admit it.”
Actually, I DO admit that this is probably a much more accurate assessment of what gays want than simply “gay marriage.” In spirit, the statement also captures what I would like to see, precisely because “every aspect of our lives” would include marriage. But I think that it is important for all gays to recognize that “normalization” in this case is statistically impossible, as the numbers of gay people will never shift significantly toward the middle of the bell curve of human sexuality, a defining element of the term “normal.” Most of the gay people that you have spoken with probably never took a course in statistics, so they have never been exposed to this inconvenient fact. So while the sense of your characterization of the “gay goal” is correct in a short-hand and uninformed sort of way, it is a fundamentally flawed goal as stated.
I would suggest that the term “assimilation” might have some relevance in the consideration of your use of the term “normalization.” I would think that what the gays you were talking to wanted was to be treated AS IF they were normal. I understand that they are not, but we are talking about how they want to be treated, not about their statistical significance.
How’s that for honesty?
George Wells
you try so hard to make the gay factor a normality,
that must be why retire05 can”t stand you and try hard to demolish the aura you speak so well to project,
which is, it”s okay to be gay, it”s okay to fight for it becoming a normality.
and by this it inject to the young who are questioning their sexual orientation at the begining of their adolescence, like planting an eazy out door to them that it”s okay to have dreams an thought of gay fornication, at the age of confusion,they are so easy prey to people like you, making it normal,
which is very wrong, and you know it,
you know that you all gay are safer when you keep it hidden , from the society , as now you are wide open because you have the acces of some judge who are gay but they hide it, but are there for helping your cause of making normal an anormality,
the normal people know that you want to be normalize and are afraid for their children to fall in your
noose of convincing them, that what they fee at that young age is because they are definitely gay,
which is a lie you carry to the whole society,
and once the young is hook and fall in the promiscuity he recieve the pleasure and the shame all his life, of dealing with the conflict,
it’s your open mic that is rejected by all the retire05, you have a better chance if you keep it a secret,
and live your lives with a close door to your bedroom,
many do it and melt in society better, but what you are doing in taking to court the ones who don’t want
to do business with you all is not serving your cause, and it take only one story leak in the media, ; to put you in the fringe as dangerous people for society , those to keep away from,
that’S the message which you got from retire05, not a hate message, and in his own words,
straight as you can get, no shade of blue or red,
in fact, he is doing you a favor,
BYE
Isn’t it ironic that Obama demands Maliki do the opposite of what Obama, himself, does when faced with opposition?
When Obama wants something, he pulls together his relevant constituents.
They ”circle the wagons,” and insist on their way.
Sometimes they win. (or used to.)
Obama wants Maliki to be INCLUSIVE with his opponents!
Or else no help from Obama.
While Obama makes this ”demand” Maliki’s forces are either being murdered or are deserting.
His opponents are consolidating power and strength.
ISIS has no interest in serving in a gov’t with Maliki or the Shia.
Maliki is pulling once-open-minded Shia away from their ideal of a blended gov’t.
As the WaPo puts it:
Obama is either so disconnected from reality or so ideological that he’s blind to his hypocrisy and to what’s really going on in Iraq. (Or, maybe, he just wants to do nothing except get our people out safely and let Iraq go up in flames….which is OK with me.)
@George Wells:
But you also refuse to admit that will never be accepted by heterosexuals. The gay population is somewhere around 1 1/2-2% of the population, yet they want to force social change on everyone who is not like them. From the first death threats to psychiatrists/psychologists in order to get the DSM changed, to what is happening now with all the intimidation for those who hold Christian/Biblical beliefs, you are not winning any hearts and minds.
You blather on about “equality” and there are those who claim gay “equality” is today’s civil rights movement. Well, that can only be true if I can determine someone is gay by merely looking at them like I can tell someone is black visually.
Being the arrogant jerk you are, you assume that any gay person that I might have a personal friendship with is nothing more than a Castro Boy with no formal education. Once again, you are making assumptions based on no knowledge of me, my friends, or my family.
If it is true, that you just want to live your life as you see fit, and not be an imposition on anyone else, you waste your time here. Why are you not on some radical gay web site telling them to cool it and stop the hate against Christians who do not subscribe to your life style? I would suspect that you are sympathetic to the goals of the Gay Gestapo.
@Nanny G:
Nan, no one can be that disconnected from reality. No one. But Obama is not concerned about America’s image on the foreign scene. He thinks we are an arrogant nation and that we must cease being so arrogant. Which is fine with me. I would be more than happy to have the U.S. say “Oh, you just got hit by a tsunami? Well, we send our condolences but that is all.” Let these nations learn what it is like to do without American relief and American charity.
As to the Iraqis slaughtering each other. For every one that is killed, that is one less that will eventually turn to radicalism and come after us. But at some point, they will stop fighting each other, will unite against the Great Satan, and God help us if we don’t have someone with a true desire to protect our homeland against the Muslim hoards, which we don’t have now.
I think the gays here need to combine these two things this thread has devolved into instead of treating them separately.
So, with that in mind:
Why is gay-friendly Obama arming anti-gay Islamist rebels in Syria?
http://www.gaypatriot.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Screen-shot-2014-06-17-at-5.48.52-PM-1.png
Why does Obama treat the only country in the Middle East where gay people can enjoy the basic human right of not being put to death by the state for being gay — Israel — so shabbily?
Why does Obama support the anti-gay Islamist Hamas regime?
Why is Obama even considering aligning with Iran on anything?
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/iran-executes-gays-e1315395671243.jpg
Obama must have a bad headache from the cognitive dissonance here.
If it comes down to a choice between gays and Muslims which way do you think he would go?
Hi George (#112):
You relate your prior experience:
One of the things I don’t like in the whole gay marriage debate is trying to quote various statistics that purport to show that traditional marriage is already in the toilet; so why be worried that introducing gay marriage as being indistinguishable from traditional marriage can hardly make things worse?
With respect to fidelity and infidelity; this has been the subject of an enormous amount of social research. Here’s a credible and thoughtful review. It’s easy to find information on this: simply Google “statistics on marital infidelity” or whatever.
The average first marriage endures beyond 20 years. This is enough time for the average couple to procreate and raise children to college age. But this is only a mean — many marriages endure for decades beyond this. Even if a marriage were to end in divorce after 30 years or so, I wouldn’t label it a “failure.” That’s a lot of time for the institution to have provided a lot of benefit.
More to the present point, in the average marriage there are an average of zero to one extramarital affairs over the course of the marriage. Let’s hold that thought for a moment …
I find your military experience highly credible. That’s the nature of young men. I don’t think that gay men are any more inclined to promiscuity than are straight men. It’s simply that, for gay men, the opportunities are almost literally unlimited, and gay marriage norms recognize this. I’ll readily admit that it’s much easier for a married straight man to remain faithful than for a married gay man (married to either a woman or gay married to a man). There are exceptions, however. Prostitutes and adventure seekers around military installations. Rock groupies, baseball groupies, political groupies, along with the men who take advantage of their travel away from home to have encounters and affairs. But, for the average straight married man, the reality is that the societal norm is that infidelity in traditional marriage is unconditionally an unacceptable breach of the marriage contract. Married straight men have markedly fewer opportunities, in large measure because most females view affairs with married men as being unacceptable.
What’s vitally important is to maintain the societal norm that infidelity in marriage is an unconditional breach of the marriage contract. When people like me talk about “the defense of marriage,” this is what we are talking about…the defense of the concept that fidelity is the bedrock principle on which marriage has been based, all the way back to The Code of Hammurabi and probably before that.
A majority of Americans are now in favor of the concept of gay marriage. Among millennials, it’s a lopsided majority; so gay marriage proponents have achieved a stunning victory, throughout the Western industrialized world. But I fear that there has been insufficient thought given to what is really at stake, as so much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric has been based on religious arguments and on indiscriminate anti-gay bigotry. At this point, the best for which the defenders of traditional marriage (by which I mean the traditional concept of marriage based on strict fidelity) is if society makes a distinction between “marriage” and “gay marriage” by simply calling them by different names (and I’d be perfectly happy with “marriage” and “gay marriage”). This simply recognizes the reality that they really aren’t the same thing, as any non-bigoted person with a modicum of common sense and not blinded by extreme political correctness should be able to concede.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Question to Nan: Did you guys ever move out of CA? – Larry W
openid. aol.com/ runnswim
another good point on having a word gay along the word marriage,
yes to difference them , with the real marriage,
we know that those who marry them are not legit representant of GOD,
they are defrock priest and shun out of the priesthood,
BYE
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
Yes, let’s do hold on to that thought for a moment.
Do they, Larry? Or has the educational system in this nation just managed to indoctrinate the younger generation into thinking that there is nothing abnormal about being homosexual? You know, they’re just like all the rest of us, except for one little minor detail. I would be interested in how that “majority” breaks down among age groups.
Do you not think public opinion is being manipulated when the federal government flies the gay rainbow flag under the American flag at the Israeli consulate? How about when the President creates LBGT month and the Director of National Intelligence post this on his web site:
“[T]his isn’t just about what’s altruistically right. It’s also about what the IC is about: integration. It means having and using a widely diverse workforce, and taking advantage of all those great intellects we have, while removing as many frustrations and distractions as possible. So – it’s not just about what’s right. It’s about good business in our profession.”
So you got that? So while Iraq burns and thousands of humans are being beheaded, our Director of National Intelligence is now the Director of National Integration.
So let’s go back to the thought you ask us to hold:
When it comes to same sex marriage, that horse has already left the barn:
New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1&
Why? Do you think by assigning a different name to same sex “marriage” it will actually be different? A rose by any other name………….
Sorry, Larry, but you have a choice; you can support same sex marriage, or you can support the teachings of the Church you claim to be part of that is based on Biblical teachings. There is no middle ground there. If you support same sex marriage, you do yourself a disservice when you enter the parish doors and you make a mockery of the very faith you proclaim to hold.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
Oh, yeah.
14 months ago.
We are in a little town on the ”benches” of the Wasatch Front.
Maybe 10,000 people all together with horses and orchards.
In less than three minutes we are in Salt Lake City (outskirts) with all the amenities.
Nice, rural feel to our place…..10.8 acres combo meadow and small stands of various fir trees.
A few cottonwoods (they blow billions of little fluffy seeds this time of year.)
We just had a dusting of snow.
Out mountain (Mt Olympus) got 9 inches.
Third most high snowfall for a June in Utah’s history!
Hi Nan, Sounds like God’s country. Congratulations on having survived and graduated from CA! – Larry W
@ openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal) #119:
“One of the things I don’t like in the whole gay marriage debate is trying to quote various statistics that purport to show that traditional marriage is already in the toilet; so why be worried that introducing gay marriage as being indistinguishable from traditional marriage can hardly make things worse?”
Well, forgive me of reminding you of an uncomfortable truth – that traditional marriage has been faltering for far longer than gay marriage has been on the table. The point there isn’t that gay marriage could hardly make things worse, it is that the problems already afflicting traditional marriage are not gay-related.
I have a traditional, faithful marriage to my husband, not an open, revolving-bedroom-door arrangement with a fly-by-night sweetheart. We’ve been faithfully together for 39 years, and the suggestion that the nomenclature of marriage needs to somehow be protected from our experience is illogical. Marriage already encompasses a spectrum of different types of arrangements, including marriages for the economic convenience of elderly persons, marriages of people who are either incapable of having children or disinclined to do so, marriages between two people who believe that happiness is best obtained by wife-swapping, marriage between the mentally incompetent, marriage between convicted felons and marriages between two (essentially) children who have none of the skills or maturity to make marriage work, but an accidental child to legally bind them together for the next 18 years. Personally, I DO believe that fidelity IS paramount to successful, traditional marriage, but I do NOT believe that all of the various OTHER types of couples who are allowed to “traditionally” marry need to have their particular arrangements retitled in order to protect or encourage fidelity. Furthermore, as there is no legal basis for restricting those other marriages to couples who are the most likely to remain faithful to each other, there would certainly be no legal justification for denying gays the right to marry FOR THAT REASON, even if they DO collectively liberalize the institution. While I sympathize with your concern, I don’t think that your solution would have the intended effect, and I am sure that it would hinder the integration of gay people into “normal” society.
Hi Retire, Our past “conversations” didn’t go well, and engaging with you wouldn’t be helpful to either of us. I say this simply so that you don’t feel that I am disrespecting you when I don’t address you (or your points) directly. It’s not that I don’t value your opinions; when I can manage to ignore the personal insults and name calling, I often learn something; you are intelligent and well informed. But it’s just best for me if I don’t “talk” to you directly, much less get into the non-productive trap of going around and around with tit-for-tat rejoinders.
In my earlier “Reader Commentary” (linked in an earlier comment on this thread), I gave several links to various studies concerning “fidelity” in male gay relationships. The data you currently cite isn’t anything new and, if anything, it indicates that gays are becoming more “faithful” than in the data I cited previously.
Regarding the position a principled Catholic should take on this: In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI explicitly stated the principle that there are situations where lesser evils may be tolerated to avoid greater evils. Prior to his papacy, Francis took the position that Domestic Partnerships could be potentially tolerated as an alternative to same gender marriage. This has been my own consistent, public position for many years. A Domestic Partnership would grant all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage, but it would not be recognized as “marriage” in the language of civil law.
Alas, that particular battle has been lost. The best that can be hoped for at this point is to make a clear, semantic distinction between traditional marriage and gay marriage. A very thoughtful gay proposed the term “twainage” for gay marriage (I gave a link/reference in my original “Reader Commentary”). Alas, this did not gain any traction. So all we are left with, at this point, is to try and popularize the semantic distinction between “marriage” (on one hand) and “gay marriage” on the other hand. It will be readily recognized that “gay marriage” has the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities, while it isn’t exactly the same thing — it’s a relationship between two same-gender individuals and it may well have different expectations, regarding fidelity and other matters, as in the case of traditional marriage. If this simple distinction can be made, there is the chance of preserving the traditional understanding that the traditional bedrock foundation on which traditional marriage is based is that of absolute fidelity.
As I pointed out earlier, the Catholic Church does not seek to outlaw in civil law every single thing it regards as sinful. Thus, there is no requirement for Catholics to support the criminalization of adultery, divorce, lying, masturbation, or homosexuality. Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone fought the good fight. He was certainly not supported in this endeavor by each and every bishop in the country, much less by every priest, much less by all the laity. At present, I take him at his word that he is marching in support of traditional marriage, which would certainly include a strengthening of the institution of traditional marriage through even greater commitment to its principles and its permanence, at the level of individual couples.
With regard to the level of support for gay marriage among the population as a whole and among different age and demographic groups, this is all information readily available on the Internet, with simple Google searches. I stand by my representation of the current state of affairs.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@retire05 #116:
“Actually, I DO admit that this is probably a much more accurate assessment of what gays want than simply “gay marriage.”
“But you also refuse to admit that will never be accepted by heterosexuals.”
Isn’t that what Nanny G calls “moving the goal post”?
Instead of acknowledging that you erred in claiming that I was “too damn dishonest to admit (that “normalization” was a common goal among gays)”, you instead tacked on an impossible conundrum. How on Earth would I EVER be able to predict what heterosexuals will or will not ever accept?
You (should) refuse to admit that you have stopped beating your wife for the same reason – both are traps unworthy of logical debate.
Ask a reasonable question, and I will give you an honest answer, as I did in my #113.
“You blather on about “equality” and there are those who claim gay “equality” is today’s civil rights movement. Well, that can only be true if I can determine someone is gay by merely looking at them like I can tell someone is black visually.”
The Supreme Court has already addressed this issue that you raise. They have agreed that civil rights do not only apply to classes of people who are visually distinguishable. For example, they have agreed that discrimination based on a person’s religion is an unconstitutional infringement of that person’s civil rights. I am astonished that you continue to press this illogical condition upon civil rights, when the matter has been long settled.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
Yet, here you are.
Compliment graciously accepted.
I will say more about this later.
Now, you didn’t dispute my assertion that the only reason the nation is becoming more accepting of same sex marriage is due to indoctrination of the younger generation. I don’t believe that people are more willing to allow homosexuality to become main stream now than they were 50 years ago. But like all things that are shoved down our throats with the label of “homophobe” being lodged at us when we speak out about our religious beliefs, most people just keep their opinions to themselves. As the good Archbishop said, people have suffered greatly because of the radicalism of the Gay Gestapo.
Let me be very clear; I have researched the gay movement for 30 years. And every road leads back to the same beginning, Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt Marxists. I don’t believe that it helps anyone to normalize abnormal behavior. It only creates other problems. Just take a look at what has happened with sexual harassment/assault in the military since the removal of DADT. Those cases have skyrocket, but not because of male on female incidents. But because of male on male harassment/assault.
I understand that you probably subscribe to the practice of social engineering. I do not. And I will not accept that abnormality is normal. My heart hurts for those who are affected by our acceptance, not treatment, of those whose lives are so against nature itself.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal) #126:
It is so refreshing to read you. Even as a few of your positions differ from mine, your obviously balanced perspective is admirable. And while your proposal that there be two different “types” of marriage (“marriage – not for gays” and “marriage – for gays”) is on the face demeaning, I suspect that no matter what the courts decide, this distinction will always be present in effect. Not because fidelity needs to be protected FROM gays (some gays like myself will always honor the monogamy that traditional marriage implies) but because most couples in social context share at least a modicum of the their personal details with their friends. The distinction will be relevant for a very long time, just as other vestiges of discrimination survive in the culture long after equal rights have been won in the courts: “He’s “black””, or “she’s “Jewish””, as if this information is necessary to convey. But I think that this idea of yours that is enormously better that the criminalization of homosexuality that we find in some other countries has passed its expiration date. Tens of thousands of gays are ALREADY “married” (not “gay-married”) and I doubt that Jeannie will ever fit back into the bottle.
@George Wells:
Religious freedom is part of our Constitution. Marriage is not. Being able to marry someone of the same gender is not a civil right. Actually, being able to marry at all is not a civil right. It is a privilege granted by the states to allow two people, a man and a woman, to be able to establish a family and provide legal protection for the children of that marriage.
Until you, and your partner, are able to procreate without the help of a woman, you have no standing.
@retire05 #128:
” But like all things that are shoved down our throats with the label of “homophobe” being lodged at us when we speak out about our religious beliefs, most people just keep their opinions to themselves.”
In 2012, three states’ electorates voted for gay marriage. Their citizens voted in private, as required by Law, and yet they decided in favor of gay marriage. Surely they would not have voted thus 50 years ago?
@retire05 #130:
AHhhh! I see your pattern! You changed the goal post again!
First you had to be able to visually identify gays as you can blacks. (Maybe then, if you were blind, you wouldn’t have to respect civil rights laws protecting race?)
But now marriage is about the ABILITY to procreate. So sterile couples should be denied marriage?
(Move the goal post again.)
I am legally married in the State of Maryland and in the other 18 states and the District of Columbia that accept gay marriage, as well as in the eyes of the Federal Government. With all of these I have standing. In places like Uganda, Syria, North Korea, Iran, and Texas I do not. Guess which one of those will fall first?
@George Wells:
Nope, it’s right there where it has always been.
Discrimination has always been based on the way people look. Even the Jews of German were discriminated on due to their looks, in many cases (not many blond haired, blue eyed Jews). If I cannot tell a person is gay just by looking at them, how would I be able to discriminate against them. Maybe you have some kind of gay “radar” but I don’t.
Procreation is, and continues to be, the sole purpose for the union (marriage) of one man and one woman and the legal protection for the off spring is the very reason marriage laws were created in the first place. The fact that two people learn they are unable to conceive later does not eliminate the intent.
So now you’re comparing my state to Communist and radical Islamic countries? And you wonder why I find you such a despicable person?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
Which section?
Francis’ opinion as a Cardinal is not Catholic dictate. And no, I don’t believe that the Catholic Church will ever support homosexual life styles or marriage. As a matter of fact, the Humanae Vitae clearly supports the unions, and responsibilities of a man and a woman.
@retire05 #133:
A growing number of civilized countries have concluded that homosexuality is a natural component of the diverse human condition, and accordingly have afforded equal rights to their gay citizens, INCLUDING “GAY MARRIAGE.”
Among them are Great Britain, France, Brazil, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Spain, The Netherlands, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Uruguay, South Africa, and parts of Mexico and parts of the United States, and in each of them I am legally married.
I am NOT legally married in Uganda, Syria, North Korea, Iran or Texas.
The State of Texas decided which of the above countries to align itself with in regards to gay marriage, not me.
If you believe that Texas should not associate itself with the stone age mentality of the rogue nations listed above, then help keep Texas out of their company.
For pointing out this cultural cess-pool that Texas has dug itself into, I am despicable?
What is despicable is that there are Texans who are proud that “In Texas, we know what to do with fags.”
“Procreation is, and continues to be, the sole purpose for the union (marriage) of one man and one woman and the legal protection for the off spring is the very reason marriage laws were created in the first place. The fact that two people learn they are unable to conceive later does not eliminate the intent.”
Procreation is the SOLE purpose for marriage??? Bald lie. Elderly couples marry for economic reasons, or simply because they love each other, sometimes well into their 80’s. Do THEY have “intent to procreate”? Of course not. And the “very reason marriage laws were created in the first place was not for the “legal protection for the off-spring” (another lie), it was to protect the MAN’S PROPERTY. All that crap in the Old Testament about stoning wives and children was about punishing property that got out of line.
“Discrimination has always been based on the way people look.”
This is either an unbelievably naïve view of what constitutes discrimination or else an incredibly flawed understanding of the law. Either way, it is astonishingly wrong.
Discrimination refers to the unequal treatment of people based on their membership in a group. That membership might be assumed from visible features, but that route of identification is by no means required for discrimination to take place. For example, laws against religious discrimination assign no burden to identify or demonstrate visually recognizable characteristics before discrimination may be claimed. Yes, in some cultures, the stereotypical features commonly associated with Hassidic Jews, for example, might be visibly recognizable, but the outward appearance of most Protestants and Catholics would not be, and they are none-the-less equally protected by laws against religious discrimination. The question of HOW a person who discriminates decides who they should discriminate against is legally moot.
Hi Retire: You asked for the specific citation about tolerating lesser evils to avoid greater evils. Very well, though I think that the resulting theological discussion to which this will likely lead will take this thread even farther afield and won’t be of interest to anyone, other than the two of us.
It’s in section 14 of Humanae Vitae:
Now, I think that this concept does apply to the issue of distinguishing “Domestic Partnerships” (which, in the present context, could be re-branded as “Gay Marriage”) from traditional marriage. If we simply referred to traditional marriage as “marriage” and referred to gay marriage as “gay marriage,” this would preserve the traditional definition of marriage in Western Civilization as the partnership between one man and one woman. As stated previously, “gay marriage” could then establish its own expectations and “rules,” which might or might not include fidelity as the bedrock principle. It would be a distinct institution, and it would frankly not be anything which would be the business of Archbishop Cordileone, the Mormon Church, or Governor Rick Perry. Sure, many people would still think that gay people shouldn’t be co-habiting and shouldn’t get equal rights and privileges, but at least it could not be argued that gay marriage presented any threat whatsoever to traditional marriage, because it would be recognized that it wasn’t the same thing.
Getting back to Pope Paul’s writings, above, when he talked about tolerating lesser evils to prevent greater evils, he was specifically referring to using contraception to obtain family benefits, such as being able to afford to feed and educate the whole family and so on. He concluded that the latter goals did not justify what he felt was the “evil” of contraception. As you know, this particular teaching has been almost universally violated by otherwise faithfully orthodox Catholics. Parenthetically, I’d note that the Pope did not consider the lesser evil of contraception as an alternative to the greater evil of abortion, but that’s a topic best argued in a theologically-oriented venue and not here.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim
EVIL IS NOT CUT IN LOW MEDIUM LARGE,
THE POPE IS PLAYING A DANGEROUS GAME WITH EVIL,
which evil is just evil being low medium large it”s always the same evil which hurt who is targetted,
being the unborns, or the killers, or the one who transgress the laws od the DIVINE CREATOR OF THIS EARTH, OF THESE OCEANS OF THEIR MAMALS AND OTHER WHO BELONG IN THE SEA,
OR THE ONES POISONING THE EARTH THE HUMAN , ANIMALS OR THE AIR WITH HER BIRDS INNOCENT AND WHO BELONG TO ALL THE AMERICA, AND OTHER TO THE REST OF THE WORLD,
EVIL IS THE ONE WHO HATE WHAT GOD HAS CREATED AND WANT TO DESTROY IT TO IMPOSE HIS LAWS DESTRUCTIVE SINCE THE CREATION,
THERE ARE NO COMPROMISE, WE ARE WITH GOD OR WITH EVIL,
NO MIDDLE CHOICES WITH THOSE TWO,POWERS,
THEY WANT TO INSTALL A NEW WORLD ORDER,
AMERICA, PLEASE NO,
RON PAUL IS RIGHT ON, DON’T LET THEM TAKE OVER,
they have written executive orders to make the citizens unable to fight their multiple take over of all,
I JUST READ THEM ALL, FROM ALL CARS ALL ROAD ALL FARMS ALL LANDS ALL HOUSES ALL ENERGY,
ALL EVERY THING WITH ALL MULTIPLE EXECUTIVES ORDERS,
AMERICANS CHECK IT UP, check it up,
this will advance the death of AMERICA, the snake is almost here,
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
And you would be wrong.
II. Doctrinal Principals: 14 is clearly named “Illicit Ways of Regulating Birth
The lesser sin is artificial birth control, not “domestic partnerships” or any other topic. But if any part of 14 applies to the sin of homosexuality, it would be this:
it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general
But alas, it only applies to abortion and artificial contraception. You’re trying to make whole cloth out of fairy wings.
So you think states should issue two types of marriage licenses? One that says “Traditional Marriage License” and one that says “Gay Marriage License” and then when you ask someone if they are married, and they say “Yes” they should respond with a clarification of which kind of marriage they have?
What you are proposing is a social change that has been rejected by all societies for millenniums. The acceptance of deviant behavior is a new phenomena that has been pushed only since the onset of Marxism.
Hi Retire:
I’m not proposing a “social change.” I’m dealing with the reality of the current situation, no less than Pope Francis did and continues to do.
This has been my position for many years, from the time this first emerged as an above-the-radar issue. It would have been my preference to use some word which didn’t have “marriage” in the title to describe the relationship. “Domestic partnership” and “civil union” were perfectly good, descriptive terms, for use in a civil law sense. No one “owns” a particular word, and couples would be free to describe their relationship in whatever terms they wished, but I was opposed to the use of the word “marriage” in civil law to describe anything other than traditional one man/one woman marriage, for the specific reasons described in my earlier “Reader Post.”
But I’m now simply being pragmatic. As has been pointed out, Gay Marriage is now a reality in virtually all of the Western Democratic nations of the world and in states with a large majority of the population of the USA. Furthermore, the only demographic group strongly against it are older voters, who will soon pass from the scene, while the large demographic of younger voters (and the generation following them) are lopsidedly in favor. Whether this is from “indoctrination” or for other reasons is quite beside the point.
My pragmatic solution, considering the reality of where we are now, is to draw a true semantic distinction between “marriage” and “gay marriage.” Even for strong supporters of gay marriage, there are legitimate, practical, semantic reasons for making this distinction, just as there are practical reasons for having gender-specific qualifications in many other situations in life. Without the need to rely on the courts or the voters or anyone else, we can simply choose to reserve the term “marriage” for its traditional meaning and use the term “gay marriage” to refer to unions of same-gendered individuals. I truly think that this is, at present, the only practical thing which can be done to preserve the ancient meaning of marriage, an institution based on fidelity.
Again, to address a persistent comment by George, traditional marriage is nowhere near the disaster it’s being portrayed by George and other proponents of the gay marriage movement, who tellingly feel the need to denigrate the success of the traditional marriage institution, while (curiously, one can’t help thinking, if it’s really all that bad) still seeking it for themselves. If gay marriage approaches the success of traditional marriage, in terms of the average first marriage enduring beyond twenty years and the average number of married lifetime instances of infidelity being zero to one, it shall have greatly exceeded all expectations, even of its proponents, I’d wager. I write the last, while recognizing and appreciating the long success of George’s own personal relationship. But anecdotes do not trump population data.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@retire05 #139:
While Larry Weisenthal’s #136 is perhaps the most intelligently written post I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading here, he apparently missed the significance of Pope Paul’s distinction between TOLERTING evil and DOING evil. That distinction seems to be a whole lot more important than whether the evil in question is contraception, abortion or homosexuality. The quoted section 14 of Humanae Vitae first successfully illuminated this distinction but then went on with an “in-other-words” that looks like a failed attempt to construct a “unified field theory of evil.” No wonder Larry got confused.
You are correct that Section 14 explicitly addresses birth control (contraception by various means), not gay marriage.
“So you think states should issue two types of marriage licenses? One that says “Traditional Marriage License” and one that says “Gay Marriage License” and then when you ask someone if they are married, and they say “Yes” they should respond with a clarification of which kind of marriage they have?”
Apparently, Larry doesn’t like that option because he wants “Traditional Marriage” to be licensed and referred to simply as “Marriage” (not as “Traditional Marriage”).
I don’t like that option because it creates two separate and unequal classifications.
And you don’t like that option because the only acknowledgment you’re willing to confer on gays is that they are mentally ill.
While Larry and I are both rational, and so may eventually find some room in which to reasonably compromise, I suspect that your faith will never allow you to accept gays as anything but sick. Your faith is the cross you bear, and I respect you for that. You will anguish over gay marriage in the coming years as it spreads across America and around the World, and I will be sorry for your pain.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal) #140:
I apologize if you believe that I have denigrated traditional marriage. While I acknowledge that the popularity of traditional marriage has fallen somewhat, and that I have mentioned this elsewhere, I am not one who advocates for its destruction. You are correct that my case is but a single data point, but if added, it would budge several of traditional marriage’s statistics in a positive direction. And it isn’t “curious” that I am none-the-less seeking marriage equality, you just misinterpreted by characterization of it.
I remain confused by your acceptance of “traditional marriage” for murderers, convicted felons, child molesters (and on and on) but you reject it for gays. I’m not calling you a bigot, because you appear too rational and contemplative for that label to apply. But your decision to single out gays as being worse than murderers, convicted felons and child molesters seems less than fair.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
Did Pope Francis Support Civil Unions?
By Joshua Bowman
Well, no. Actually he didn’t do anything of the kind. Of course, the liberal media will never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Here’s what CNN wrote yesterday:
Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.
The Pope reiterated the church’s longstanding teaching that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” However, he said, “We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety.”
Pope Francis
This is so weaselly that it gives a very different impression from what Pope Francis actually said. Here’s the actual transcript of the interview:
Q: Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?
A: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.
Pope Francis said two things here:
1) “Marriage is between a man and a woman.” Period. End of story. Crystal clear. Black and white. Not open to discussion. Etc., etc., etc.
2) The secular civil authorities have laws to govern people who choose to live together without the blessing of the Church.
CNN had it wrong. Also, you can search Bill Donohue’s comments on this issue over at the Catholic League’s website if you want. What CNN did was lose the meaning in translation.
But then, that’s what you get for relying on CNN.
Excuse me, but didn’t we fight a long, bloody war so that we would not be like European nations? Forgive me if I am wrong about that. And what else do you see in the EU if not a move toward Socialism? Is that what you want? Oh, wait, you are a California liberal. I had almost forgotten that ever so important fact.
While it is a relatively new issue, the research that has been done doesn’t bear out that expectation will ever materialize.
REDSKIN good luck, you’re the best, STICK WITH IT
don’t let the narrow mind disturb you,
IT”S NOT RACIST AT ALL, THE HARRY REID IS AN OLD HACK LOOSING HIS MIND BOX,
it took only a sport journalist to start the hate ball rolling,
he is nothing of interest, everyone forgot his name and his face,
but everyone know you all as great noble players,
@bees#144″
Amazing, isn’t it?
How much hate there is in the World?
Do you ever wonder why that is?
openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal) #140:
Regarding your prediction that gay marriages will continue to be inherently more flawed that heterosexual ones in spite of the rare exception (“But anecdotes do not trump population data”), what if you are wrong?
What happens if gay couples, when given the equal right to marry, embrace the concept of fidelity every bit as enthusiastically as heterosexual couples?
People who don’t have access to fine restaurants never develop the habit of cleansing their pallet with a dollop of lemon sorbet between courses. Until ten years ago, gays were widely considered to be criminals. This is such a new experience for all of us that the studies of gay relationships have hardly had a chance to assess the impact of legal marriage in our community. But the assumption that we will behave self-destructively in marriage is an unwarranted extrapolation of an unfortunate past. We DO have the heterosexual model to study, you know, and as some of us aren’t dirt-dumb and understand the financial liability associated with infidelity (divorce court having taught us well), it is more likely that those among us who are inclined to cheat won’t get married in the first place.
What if those of us who DO choose to marry do it AT LEAST as well as you?
If you cannot answer this question fairly, or refuse to, what does that tell you about yourself?
Hi Retire: Conservative Catholics and liberal Catholics (and this goes for the clergy as well as the laity) have been arguing over what Francis thinks and what he actually said ever since he assumed the Papacy. I’ll be happy to go with the translation you provided, above. It’s entirely consistent with my own point of view. No one — not even George — is expecting that the Catholic Church will change its teachings on marriage. I hope that I’ve made it clear that I don’t view gay marriage as being the same thing as traditional marriage. In this respect, I agree with the Church. Gay marriage is a different institution — again for reasons which are entirely obvious to any non-bigoted person with a modicum of common sense, who is not a slave to political correctness.
Here’s the issue that I’ve been writing about:
The issue is precisely this: Homosexual unions have ALREADY been given legal recognition and the issue is how to limit their harm. I’ve proposed the use of two terms: “marriage” for traditional marriage and “gay marriage” for same gender marriage. This makes clear that the traditional expectation of fidelity in traditional marriage is not being changed or weakened. Perhaps you have a practical suggestion of what to do in situations where homosexual unions have already been given legal recognition.
Since the issue of sodomy came up previously in discussions between you and George, the following has some relevance.
Thus, the official position of the Catholic Church is in agreement with the Supreme Court decision, striking down the Texas anti-sodomy law.
– Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them.
I have highlighted the key word for you, Larry. UNJUST
I do not believe that it is UNJUST to deny two people of the same sex the right to marry. And no amount of wordsmithing, by calling it something else, will make it anything other than it is; supporting deviant behavior by legitimizing it.
You’re a physician, so let me ask you a question; can you name one disease, or one malady, that has ever simply gone away without a cure, or a treatment system, simply because physicians made the decision it no longer existed?
DON’T FORGET THAT THE SUBJECT IS SENSITIVE FOR POPE FRANCIS,
because of what we kow of the previous scandals they had to deal with themselves,
so the POPE CANNOT CONDEMN TOTALY, OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE SOME PRIESTS AND TAKE AWAY THEIR PRIESTHOOD,
so he has to cover his words very carefully,
SO MUCH THAT WE DON’T GET THE CLEAR MESSAGE OF HIS LETTER, OR SPEECH,
FORCING US TO EACH have a different understanding of it content,
Hi George (#146).
Look, I am simply stating the reality that prominent gay marriage advocates openly state that fidelity need not be the bedrock principle of gay marriage and even suggest that traditional marriage could learn lessons from gay marriage, concerning greater tolerance of infidelity. Coupled with the objective data about gay infidelity quoted in my earlier “Reader’s Post,” this causes me great concern as the father of two married daughters. I hope that you can understand, on a visceral human level, the anxiety in the mind of a father were the bad apples to make the good apples go bad, rather than vice versa, as you hopefully suggest.
I think there’s a simple solution. I began all of this by quoting you — yourself — and quoting the lesbian comedienne on last Friday’s Bill Maher show. You used the term “gay marriage” because you wanted to make it clear that you were speaking of same gender marriage. The comedienne said that she was “gay married,” because she wanted to make it clear that her spouse was a woman. So let’s just be clear and accurate. There is “gay marriage,” with a clear meaning and there should be “marriage,” with an equally clear meaning.
I have no idea at all what you are asking in the last sentence of 146, but I don’t like the tone or implications. How would I feel if any couple in a committed relationship were to remain faithful and remain together for decades? Good, of course. I’m 100% in favor of happiness, companionship, and fidelity. What does this tell me about myself? Well, it doesn’t make me feel bad about myself.
It’s a very obtuse question. Rather than making me guess what on earth you are thinking about, why not just come out and say whatever you are trying to say?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA