Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Mexican Catholic Archdiocese completely jumps the shark

Timothy Kincaid

August 17th, 2010

You think Mexico’s drug cartels are a problem? Well you ain’t seen anything so bad as what’s really destroying the country: Teh Gehs!! (On-Top)

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico has called gay marriage worse than drug trafficking, Mexico daily El Universal reported.

Kidnapping, executions, intimidation, and the all-out war on the Mexican government? Pshaw! That’s nothing compared to Anita and Isabel tying the knot.

Something must be done! The Church must get involved and tell the people how to vote!

The church called for the ouster of the government of Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard.

“He and his government have created laws destructive to the family, the laws do worse damage than drug trafficking,” Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Archdiocese, said. “Marcelo Ebrard and his party, the PRD, are determined to destroy us.”

Last Sunday, the cardinal of Guadalajara, Juan Sandoval Iniguez, accused Ebrard of bribing the court to rule in the city’s favor.

Speaking in Aguascalientes, Iniguez said the court would not reach such an “absurd” conclusion unless it was motivated by a large sum of money.

“I do not know of any of you who would like to be adopted by a pair of lesbians or a pair of fags,” he said. “I think not.”

Bring back good ol’ fashioned morality. Bring back the old ways when life was simpler and everyone knew their place, and stayed in it. It’s the Real Catholic way.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

L. Junius Brutus
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

I’m pretty sure that these lunatics are going to be rebuked in some way by the Catholic hierarchy. They’re going waaaaay overboard.

Ahab
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

WHAT. THE. @#$%.

If the Archdiocese sincerely believes this, they need to re-examine both their priorities and their souls.

tavdy79
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

As my friend Heasgarnich put it, “I’d say the priests shagging the children is a little worse than drugs or gay parents.”

What’s the old saying about glass houses and stones?

Burr
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

Over 26,000 Mexicans have died in drug trafficking-related incidents over the past six years.

Meanwhile, gay marriage’s death toll?

*crickets*

TomTallis
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

Uh OH! A complaint from Bill Donoghue will be winging its way to you shortly! Consider yourself honored…

Timothy Kincaid
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

[sorry… had to correct the code for the video to show]

Chris McCoy
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

Timothy Kincaid:

Bring back the old ways when life was simpler and everyone knew their place, and stayed in it. It’s the Catholic way.

The theocracy advocated by Mr Voris, isn’t just a Catholic idea. It’s also the very definition of Antidisestablishmentarianism.
And Sharia.

Greg
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

My fiancee is convinced that this is sarcasm.

Scott P.
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

I wonder if our nice, new Catholic monarch will institute an American Inquisition, or a crusade against Jews and infidels here. Will Mormons be required to wear special garments, so people will know them on sight? Can we expect wars of secession so we can fight for which ever prince we want to have ascend the throne? What other delights will our benevolent monarch have in store for us? And, of course, a Catholic monarch will be expected to be subservient to the Pope. What fun! And what about so-called “cafeteria catholics”? Will there be an orthodoxy requirement? Please, please tell us how to think!

RWG
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

Wow! I’m so glad we have a Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms in defense of liberty. This guy is advocating the return of the Inquistion…that time benevolence and peace which is fondly remembered as a flowering of culture throughout Western Civilization.

Rob San Diego
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

I may be a “fag” as cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez wants to call me, but at least I’m not a child molestering church official.

ricky
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

yeah, everbody gets to vote. the priest who raped me gets to vote. these people need to move to the vatican.

Chris
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

I love the video. I wish to god all the catholics would move to their own f*cking country and leave the rest of us alone… When is that rapture thing happening again? Not soon enough!

Willie Hewes
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

That video is one of the most over the top things I have seen in a long time. I don’t want to believe it is serious.

Dear Mr Vortex, please be a hoax? We’d all be very grateful. Yours, Sanity, History and Reality.

Donnchadh
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Sorry Chris, the Rapture is not part of Catholic doctrine, only of a section of fundamentalist protestants (and is opposed by the most theocratic of them, the Dominionists, since it distracts from believers’ duty to institute Biblical rule).

Gus
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

The Roman Catholic Church probably gets more money from the drug traffickers than the gays…just saying.

Bob
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Yeah…uhm, before you get upset about this man’s antipathy toward democracy, maybe you should examine your own.

Homosexuals have been on the war path against the democratic process. “We don’t vote on rights!” is your rallying cry. “Who cares if we lose at the ballot box, just go get a homosexual judge to give us what we want!” is what we really mean.

You don’t have a constitutional right to “marry” anyone you want. The word marriage is not in the constitution. It simply doesn’t exist.

The truth is that all rights were voted on at one time or another. When you say that it’s wrong to vote on rights, you’re not being entirely forthcoming. You don’t mean that NO ONE should be allowed to vote on rights, you mean that only judges–preferably homosexual judges who should have recused themselves in the first place–should vote on rights. You’re fond of judges because they have traditionally given you what you want, while the people have not. The people have voted over and over again, in states as liberal as California and Maine, to define marriage the way it always has been and always should be. If that trend ever reversed itself, you would fall out of love with judges and suddenly embrace the democratic process.

Basically, you’re like spoiled children.

Keep in mind that judges gave us the Dredd Scott case. Judges gave President Roosevelt the thumbs up to intern Japanese-Americans (Korematsu v. United States). Judges commenced the great baby-killing orgy we now call “a woman’s right to choose”. Judges are not gods, they are not omniscient, though they consider themselves to be omnipotent. You put your faith in them because they are friendly to your cause, and for no other reason.

Bob
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Wow, Ricky–you were raped by a gay priest? That’s terrible. I feel for you. It’s terrible that the priesthood has been infiltrated by slimy homosexuals.

dave
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

The church is the second group this man is talking about. The self absorbed, ignorant group, uninformed. Religion is the cancer.

Bob
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Dave,

Nice of you to show your true feelings. “Religion is the problem”. Yes, religion must be a HUGE problem for you, one that must be extinguished.

We have a right to practice religion in this country. It’s right there in the first amendment, unlike the right to sodomy, the right to marry anyone you want, and the right “safe space”–which are nowhere to be found in the constitution.

The urge to eliminate religion has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people during the twentieth century. Just ask Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, and Mao.

Bob
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Oh sorry. “Religion is the cancer”. And cancers must be cut out, right?

Now do you understand why I believe that homosexuals are the greatest threat to religious freedom?

Christopher
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Now do you understand why I believe that homosexuals are the greatest threat to religious freedom?

Speaking for myself, no, Bob, I don’t. First, you’re reading into the statement something that isn’t there (even if the analogy were accurate cancer can be treated non-surgically). Second you’re assuming that a statement made by one person is held by all homosexuals.

Earlier Bob said, Keep in mind that judges gave us the Dredd[sic] Scott case.

Bob, keep in mind that the Dred Scott case was one that limited individual rights. Judges eventually overturned it in favor of treating all citizens equally under the law.

Allowing same-sex marriage doesn’t harm you and it doesn’t hinder you from holding your own personal religious beliefs, Bob. However the Constitution does limit the extent to which you can impose your personal religious beliefs on others.

Jason D
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

“You don’t have a constitutional right to “marry” anyone you want.

Loving vs. Virginia, as well as 13 other cases say otherwise. The supreme court has continually classified marriage as one of our most fundamental rights.

You can claim it’s not a right all you want, but well-established legal precedent says otherwise.

The word marriage is not in the constitution. It simply doesn’t exist.”

You would have a point if the Constitution was created or served as an exhaustive list of our exact rights. However it is not, and was never intended to be.

The 9th Amendment makes it clear that the constitution is not an exhaustive list of our exact rights:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So yes, Marriage is a right, even though it’s not spelled out in the Constitution.

“You’re fond of judges because they have traditionally given you what you want,”

No, we’re fond of them because they’ve been charged with protecting the rights of disadvantaged minorities from the whim of popular opinion. It’s their job, in fact.

We’re a democratic republic, but not a true democracy. A true democracy is mob rule, and that’s why we have a Constitution, to avoid that mess altogether.

Hall
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

You don’t mean that NO ONE should be allowed to vote on rights, you mean that only judges–preferably homosexual judges who should have recused themselves in the first place–should vote on rights
Judges don’t vote. They check the constitutionality of laws. The “gay judge” meme has yet to be proved, and seems to be overplayed.

Keep in mind that judges gave us the Dredd Scott case. Judges gave President Roosevelt the thumbs up to intern Japanese-Americans (Korematsu v. United States)
It’s funny that you bring up these particular cases, because both of them have to do with the 14th amendment and equal protection (the same argument used in Perry v. Schwarzenegger). Dredd Scott was only overruled when the 14th amendment was ratified and became part of the constitution, and Japanese interment was ruled constitutional in Korematsu based upon the same type of thinking that will likely be used by conservative judges in Perry.

The thing is that our country is not a democracy but a democratic republic. The Judicial System was put into use specifically because direct democracy and referendum can be troublesome and infringe on rights or be discriminatory. An end to segregation and anti-miscegenation wouldn’t have happened near as soon as it did if it were up to the people.

If that trend ever reversed itself, you would fall out of love with judges and suddenly embrace the democratic process.
The same can be said of you. Constitutional amendments are hard to get rid of, even when the majority no longer supports it. So-called “Defense of Marriage Amendments” are a sort of last-stand for the anti-gay movement because trends are not on their side. If you seriously care about the will of the people, then you should be in support of Rhode Island and New York allowing same-sex marriage.

Now do you understand why I believe that homosexuals are the greatest threat to religious freedom?
I take incredible offense to this. I am a Christian and I happen to be gay. I sincerely hope that you aren’t a Christian as well, because I don’t see any follower of Christ writing things like this.
It is sentences like these that have given many gay and lesbian people the idea that there is no place for God with them. I have had friends kill themselves because many Christianists have made them out to be the Antichrist.
God is love and not hate. If you have these opinions, then you have them and it’s your right. But shouldn’t you do more productive things than troll gay websites?

Bob
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Thanks Christopher. Let me respond.

No, I’m not assuming that all homosexuals necessarily want to eliminate religious freedom. Only about 80% of them. Just a guess. There are some homosexuals who aren’t militant, angry, in-your-face, absolutist, totalitarian jerkwads. Just not here at the Box Turtle Bulletin.

Furthermore, will you at least admit that Dave is a threat to religious freedom? If not all homosexuals, surely he is, right? Calling religion a cancer is pretty straight forward. You can’t reason with a cancer. You can’t tolerate a cancer. You have to take proactive steps to remove a cancer. What if someone said that homosexuality was a cancer? Would you parse so finely about the analogy? Would you defend that person by arguing that cancer can be treated by other means?

The point I was trying to make about te Dred Scott case (and which you nicely dodged) was that all rights are voted on. If same-sex “marriage” is ever the law of the land, it will be voted on by SOMEONE. To say that we don’t vote on rights is not true. Homosexuals have tried everything in power to make sure that the body of persons who make this decision are judges and not the people. The reason is because judges usually give them what they want and the people never do. Judges do not always make wise decisions. Judges do not always make constitutional decisions.

Which brings me back to the original intention of this post. Yes, the man in the video is wacky by claiming that a benevolent dictator is better than a democracy (or democratic republic). I don’t want a dictator, benevolent or otherwise. But let’s not forget that the homosexuals’ have a favorite benevolent dictator–the almighty judge.

Homosexuals have a serious problem with the democratic process. In my entire lie, I’ve only known one homosexual who said to me “Bob, you and I disagree on this issue of gay marriage and that’s fine. We and I should be allowed to go into voting booth and solve this the American way.” All the others have simply shouted at the top of their lungs that the people should have no say in marriage laws.

Also, restricting to marriage to its natural definition doesn’t limit individual rights.

Bob
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

You think homosexuals don’t want to impose restrictions on my religious beliefs? That’s interesting. You don’t know what my religious beliefs are, or if I’m religious at all. In any case, you’re wrong. You can be fired from your job for opposing same-sex marriage. You can be fired from your job for reading biblical scripture from the pulpit of your church if homosexuals don’t want to hear it. Homosexuals are the leading threat to religious liberty in this country. Remember Dave and his “cancer”.

Also, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has tried to force the Catholic Church to give children to homosexual couples. The Catholic Church responded by shutting down its adoption services branch.

You seem to think that homosexuals have a live and let live philosophy. They certainly do not.

Christopher
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

No, I’m not assuming that all homosexuals necessarily want to eliminate religious freedom. Only about 80% of them. Just a guess.

Do you base all your arguments on mere guesses, or do you actually have some data to back them up?

Furthermore, will you at least admit that Dave is a threat to religious freedom?…Calling religion a cancer is pretty straight forward. You can’t reason with a cancer. You can’t tolerate a cancer. You have to take proactive steps to remove a cancer. What if someone said that homosexuality was a cancer?”

People have said that homosexuality is a cancer, Bob, and I’ve tried to understand the analogy because I don’t find it to be accurate in either case. In both cases, though, I try to understand how the person using the analogy intends to “treat” what they perceive as a cancer. Is Dave advocating violence? I don’t see that, although, if he were, I’d certainly have a problem with it. And you don’t have to look far to find people who consider being homosexual to be a capital offense.

As for the Dred Scott case, I didn’t dodge anything. Yes, rights have been voted on. Just because the majority has, in many cases, voted to take away the rights of a minority doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.

As for the Catholic Church being “forced” to allow homosexual couples to adopt, the Catholic Church (and other organizations) can’t show proof that allowing homosexuals to adopt would harm children. The Catholic Church also received funding from the state. If they preferred to refuse that funding and discontinue providing adoption services that was their decision.

You seem to think that homosexuals have a live and let live philosophy. They certainly do not.

You’re assuming that all homosexuals share exactly the same attitudes–perhaps that’s just another “guess” on your part. However I can just as easily say that a lot of people who claim their religious freedom is jeopardized by allowing same-sex marriage also claim to have a live and let live philosophy, but clearly do not.

Priya Lynn
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Bob said “Now do you understand why I believe that homosexuals are the greatest threat to religious freedom?”.

Gays don’t threaten your religious freedom in the slightest, other than the false “freedom” you think you have to deny gays equal rights.

Bob said “Furthermore, will you at least admit that Dave is a threat to religious freedom?”

He’s done nothing to deny your religious freedom so that’s a lie. Gays have been called a cancer over and over by the people on your side. Never once have you jumped on your side and said “you’re a threat to gays freedoms”.

Bob said “The point I was trying to make about te Dred Scott case (and which you nicely dodged) was that all rights are voted on.”.

False. Interracial marriage was decided by a court, not by a vote. Slavery was ended by mandate, not by a vote.

Bob said “Homosexuals have a serious problem with the democratic process. In my entire lie…”.

What a telling Freudian slip.

Bob said “Also, restricting to marriage to its natural definition doesn’t limit individual rights.”.

That’s a blatant lie. Loving vs Virginia established that the right to marry the person of your choice is one of the fundamental rights people have.

Bob said “Also, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has tried to force the Catholic Church to give children to homosexual couples. The Catholic Church responded by shutting down its adoption services branch.”.

Typical of a christian like you to strut out that lie. Massachusetts most certainly didn not try to force the Catholic church to adopt to gays. The Catholic church was taking state money to run its adoption agency and the state decided they weren’t entitled to that money if they didn’t follow state anti-discrimination law. The Catholic church was free to run its “no-gay” adoption agency on its own dime just as the Mormon church does in Massachusettes, but they decided if they couldn’t continue sucking on the government teat they weren’t going to continue with their service.

TampaZeke
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Bob, “Democracy” in a Republic doesn’t mean that a community made up of a lamb and nine wolves gets to vote on what’s for dinner.

Our founders understood this and that’s precisely why they established a Republic with a judiciary to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Pick up a book sometime and read what our founding fathers REALLY believed. You’ll be sorely disappointed if you believe that they were devout Christians who wanted America to be a “Christian nation”. Most of the philosophical founders were deists who were quite hostile to Christianity.

Timothy Kincaid
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Bob,

You are mistaken in your facts.

No, I’m not assuming that all homosexuals necessarily want to eliminate religious freedom. Only about 80% of them. Just a guess. There are some homosexuals who aren’t militant, angry, in-your-face, absolutist, totalitarian jerkwads. Just not here at the Box Turtle Bulletin.

We have a sizable number of readers who have a wide range of faiths (I, myself, am a Christian). And while there are no doubt some who would love to see religion removed from the planet, most of our readers and commenters support religious freedom.

For example, most of our readers know that the United Church of Christ conducts same-sex marriages but that the Catholic Church does not. Yet 45 states choose to honor the rites of the Catholics and disrespect those of the UCC.

Our readers support the religious freedom of the UCC churches along with those of the Catholics. Do you support religious freedom, or do you support the establishment of religious preference?

You can be fired from your job for opposing same-sex marriage.

You can be fired from your job for supporting same-sex marriage. You can be fired from your job for wearing the color orange. You can be fired from your job for liking the Dodgers over the Padres. You can be fired from your job for thinking the President Obama is the best (or worst) president ever.

Ideology does not enjoy employment protection.

You can be fired from your job for reading biblical scripture from the pulpit of your church if homosexuals don’t want to hear it.

Assuming that your job is as a pastor and your denomination or Bishop has rules about what is preached, well that’s up to them. I think that falls under religious freedom.

But if your job is secular and you are doing the preaching on your own time and without referencing your employer, then no, you cannot be fired. That’s just false.

Homosexuals are the leading threat to religious liberty in this country. Remember Dave and his “cancer”.

That is an opinion. It isn’t based on much and sounds to me like bigotry (opinion based in bias and animus, not on fact). But perhaps it’s just ignorance.

Also, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has tried to force the Catholic Church to give children to homosexual couples. The Catholic Church responded by shutting down its adoption services branch.

No. Catholic Charities could have continued to offer adoption services, but they could not do so under state contract unless they allowed access for all citizens. The Mormon Church in Massachusetts continues to operate their Mormon-only adoptions, but they don’t take money from gay taxpayers so it’s legal.

customartist
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Bob wants his own freedoms, just not freedoms for all.

If you are wanting to withhold the freedoms of Gays, then what do you expect in return, a foot massage?

It is clarely overwhelmingly Religious zealots that oppose secular equality.

ZRAinSWVA
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Bob wrote, “You don’t have a constitutional right to “marry” anyone you want. The word marriage is not in the constitution. It simply doesn’t exist.”

You are correct. It shows up nowhere. Not in regard to same sex unions nor with regard to heterosexual unions.

Therefore you also don’t have the constitutional right to “marry”.

So…where’s you’re ‘right’ to marry come from?

Could it be that the states issue a civil contract of ‘marriage’? Could it be that civil contracts of that nature should be open to anyone and perhaps if they are not that it’s discrimination? And because it is a contractual issue, is that not the purview of the courts?

TampaZeke
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

I’m still waiting on Bob to address the issue of MY church’s (Untied Church of Christ/Congregational) freedom of religion and expression.

Do you not respect the direct descendants of the Puritans’ right to freedom of religion and freedom of religious expression?

What about the Quakers and the Unitarians?

ALL of these denominations (Congregationalists, Quakers and Unitarians) were represented in the founding fathers yet you don’t seem to believe that freedom of religion and expression extends to them.

I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that ANY of the founding fathers were Catholic and I’m damned sure that none of them were Southern Baptist.

Timothy Kincaid
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Zeke,

Don’t forget that a significant number were Unitarians (who also conduct same-sex marriage) and Episcopalians (who are drafting rites).

Bob
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Oh, there are so many great myths to debunk here. I will get to more of them later.

But the primary myth that three commenters have recited is that Catholic Charities of Boston was not prohibited from running their own adoption agency their own way. The argument is that they were required to do things the state’s way because they were accepting the states money.

Wrong. While it is true that they were taking the state’s money, that point is irrelevant. Simply forgoing the money and operating on their own would not have relieved them of their requirement to give children to homosexuals. In other words, with or without state funding, the state was sticking its nose in the church’s business. State funding had absolutely nothing to do with it. Such a policy is completely unconstitutional.

So, yes–homosexuals are a major threat to religious freedom. More later.

Bob
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Oh yes, and it doesn’t matter a lick if you’re expressing your religious beliefs on company time or not. So don’t even try that one, as Tim Kincaid has. Just ask Sgt. Holyfield of the LAPD.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/03/local/me-holyfield3

Or Crystal Dixon of the University of Toledo:

http://www.toledofreepress.com/2008/12/05/crystal-dixon-sues-ut-for-rights-violations/

Christopher
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Bob, before you claim to want to debunk myths, make sure you have the facts first. As Timothy Kincaid said, “The Mormon Church in Massachusetts continues to operate their Mormon-only adoptions, but they don’t take money from gay taxpayers so it’s legal.”

State funding had everything to do with the Catholic charities.

As for myths, your claim of a “natural definition” of marriage is a pretty big myth in itself. Marriage, as recognized by the state, is not natural.

Timothy Kincaid
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Bob,

We’re all about myth-debunking here. But your “debunking” is factually incorrect.

As I said before:

But if your job is secular and you are doing the preaching on your own time and without referencing your employer, then no, you cannot be fired. That’s just false.

I had to laugh when you linked to the Holyfield story. Did you even read it?

In a fall 2006 eulogy delivered at a fellow officer’s funeral

Not exactly unrelated to work, now, was it?

And as for Dixon, she too referenced her employer in a rant to a newspaper, most of which, incidentally, was not based in religion at all.

You can’t be fired for “reading biblical scripture from the pulpit of your church”.

But regardless of Dixon’s “divine right” to say anything she wants anywhere at any time, employers have the right (irrespective of marriage law) to terminate any employment that publicly links them in the newspapers to extremist positions.

Do you oppose the rights of employers to protect their image?

ZRAinSWVA
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Bob wrote, “Just ask Sgt. Holyfield of the LAPD”

You linked to a 2008 article. What was the final disposition of the case?

And, “Crystal Dixon of the University of Toledo”

You linked to a 2009 article. What was the final outcome?

Further, and especially in the last one you cite, who actually took the action against her? Was it some rabid homosexual or the university itself for cause?

Christopher
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

It should also be noted that Bob cites these cases as evidence that “homosexuals are a major threat to religious freedom”, as though all homosexuals–and those who defend their rights–share a common mindset. In my experience it’s rare for any two people to agree on anything, regardless of sexual orientation.

To take two cases where the facts are actually contrary to what he claims and to extrapolate from those that “homosexuals are a major threat to religious freedom” is a fine example of intellectual dishonesty.

RICHARD OCONNOR
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

do we really care what some frustrated old queen in the church thinks about your lifestyle? mush more of this interference and people will rebuke the church as being vindictive and old fashioned.

Kay Buie
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

But they’re mighty quiet about child molestion aren’t they?? I think that their “defense” right now is to self-righteously point their collective finger at everyone else in the hopes that the World will forget about the Church’s crimes against children. Despicable!!!

Bob
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Okay, now I will respond to a few of your arguments.

Jason D:

“Loving vs. Virginia, as well as 13 other cases say otherwise. The supreme court has continually classified marriage as one of our most fundamental rights.”

If Loving v. Virginia had anything to say about same-sex marriage, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now. Loving v. Virginia was about race. Race is not the same as gender; Get it? Furthermore, it did NOT find that you can choose any partner you want. If it had, a man would be able to marry his mother, or his cousin, a person already married, or a child. (None of which would really affect me, by the way, so maybe I should just butt out. It’s none of my business, right?)

I find it interesting that you reach for case law first, before actually looking in the constitution. I would never claim to have a constitutional right to anything without first knowing exactly where in the constitution it’s written. I would not say “Well sure, the court found I have a right to X although I’m not sure where they found a right to X. I mean, it’s not really there, but the court found it, so I win!”

Then you reference the ninth amendment. Very nice. The ninth amendment is so wide that you can drive a truck through it. It could mean that you have a right to marry your sister. It could mean that you have a right to breakfast in bed every morning. It could mean that you have the right to hire and fire whomever you want whenever you want for wahtever reason. Obviously, common sense must be applied. Did the founding fathers intend the ninth amendment to be construed in such a way as to support same-sex “marriage”? Such an idea would have been unthinkable. The answer is no.

I asked where, in the constitution, there is a right for a man to marry a man, and all you can show me is an amendment that says that not all of the peoples’ rights are enumerated therein. That not good enough.

Furthermore, your buddies Boies and Olson aren’t making their case on ninth amendment grounds. Nice try, though.

“No, we’re fond of them because they’ve been charged with protecting the rights of disadvantaged minorities from the whim of popular opinion. It’s their job, in fact.”

No, it isn’t. It’s their job to enforce the constitution faithfully without prejudice or favor for either side, not even “poor”, “disadvantaged” minorities. While it is their job to safeguard rights, same-sex marriage is still not a right.

Bob
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Hall:

Now I will respond to you.

“Judges don’t vote. They check the constitutionality of laws. The “gay judge” meme has yet to be proved, and seems to be overplayed.”

Judges are SUPPOSED to check the constitutionality of laws. That’s their job. But it isn’t the reality. The late Thurgood Marshall described his judicial philosophy as follows: “Do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”

But you’re wrong about one thing. After deciding whether or not a law is constitutional, they do in fact vote. That’s why, for example, the recent gun control case won by a VOTE of 5 to 4.

Same-sex marriage is not a right, and homosexuals don’t require the protection of the judiciary to protect that right. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is a right. Now that we’ve assumed something really silly, let’s move on. The idea that “we don’t vote on rights” is based on the idea that the rights of a minority should never be up for grabs. They should be secured whether or not the majority likes it.

Here’s the problem–you’re still putting your rights up for grabs! They can be affirmed or denied based on the whims of a judge. Allowing judges to resolve all of society’s most contentious issues does not make your rights any more secure. They could just as easily decide against your rights (or my rights) as they did in the Japanese internment case, the Dred Scott Case, and Roe v. Wade. Do not lull yourself with the fallacy that we don’t vote on rights! We certainly do. Homosexuals would prefer if it were judges for one reason and one reason only–judges usually give them what they want and the people never do.

Oh yeah, and the judge is a homosexual. The results of the trial were fixed before the word “go”. It was a show trial.

“The thing is that our country is not a democracy but a democratic republic. The Judicial System was put into use specifically because direct democracy and referendum can be troublesome and infringe on rights or be discriminatory. An end to segregation and anti-miscegenation wouldn’t have happened near as soon as it did if it were up to the people.”

I understand that, and I would not say that we are a pure democracy. We’re a democratic Republic. But Prop 8 does not infringe on your rights any more than my rights are infringed because I can’t marry my mother. (I really love my mother, by the way. Isn’t that enough?) However, I can “marry” my father in this state.

Anti-miscegenation laws were already on the way out. Loving v. Virgnia only overturned the laws of a few states. In any case, the legal merits of the case are dubious. There were two better ways to deal with the problem of Anti-miscegenation laws: First, we could have amended the constitution, or second we could have worked to change hearts, minds, and laws in the remaining states. But as it stands, Loving v. Virginia is terrible law because it overstepped the boundaries of the federal government into what should have been state territory.

By the way, it wasn’t that long ago when the pro-homosexual crowd was arguing that marriage is a state issue. What happened to that?

Bob
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Just one more thing before I have to go to bed.

I’d like to bring Dave to the attention of the webmaster. Is he going to be banned for violating the comment policy?

He called religion a cancer. No one saw a problem with that except me. What if I had said that homosexuality was a cancer?

From what I can see, he’s violated the following points:

Terms which demean one’s religious affiliation (Christofascists, kike, sky-god, etc.)

Defamation against entire categories of people. This includes members of religious groups and political parties.

TampaZeke
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Tim, I mentioned the Unitarians.

The Episcopalians don’t have a denomination-wide policy of supporting marriage equality. In fact I don’t believe Episcopal priests are allowed to conduct same-sex marriages at all. They are only allowed to conduct union blessing ceremonies that are specifically not marriages.

Too bad Bob has attempted to respond to everyone BUT you and me. I guess he doesn’t have an answer for how his view of religious liberty should apply to the denominations that are being denied their religious liberty to perform marriages for same-sex couples as their churches see fit.

Tommy
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Oh, Bob, Bob, Bob! Will the simple minded anti-gay arguements ever loose their steam? (Or at least be self-aware?)

If Loving v. Virginia had anything to say about same-sex marriage, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now. Loving v. Virginia was about race. Race is not the same as gender; Get it?

You rather do not understand the concept of case law, do you? Or, possibly, you understand it perfectly and are attempting to subvert it because caselaw prevents populism from forming perpetual positions of privilege. Exactly as the founding fathers intended.

Anywho, Loving v. Virginia made no mention of gender. Rather it was about marriage. Funny how you keep employing this “divide and conquer” tactic. Mixed race marriages aren’t really marriages, just like same sex marriages aren’t really marriages. Because that line of reasoning worked so well last time.

If it had, a man would be able to marry his mother,

Let’s count the number of times you compare loving gay couples to incest: 1!

Now, if you really wish to have the tedious drawn out version of this conversation I will have it. However I’m more inclined to skip it and just state the issues with incest involve consent, exploitation and knowledge, and those issues are non-existent for gay people.

If you like I can give you some very simple and straightforward guidelines addressing those issues and ask you to find a single example of an incestuous couple fitting them. If you like.

I find it interesting that you reach for case law first, before actually looking in the constitution.

Why not? When one wants to understand a car one goes to a mechanic or an engineer. When one wants to understand the Constitution one goes to the Supreme Court. That is their constitutionally mandated role after all.

I would never claim

So far your claims tend towards the dubious. I would refrain from lending them too much credence.

Then you reference the ninth amendment. Very nice. The ninth amendment is so wide that you can drive a truck through it.

Look at those goalposts move all over. Poor form old man, poor form. When one is debating it is not a good idea to commit a blatant logical fallacy.

Please do admit that Jason caught you flat-footed and dead wrong.

It could mean that you have a right to marry your sister.

Number of times you compare loving gay couples to incest: 2.

It could mean that you have the right to hire and fire whomever you want whenever you want for wahtever reason.

Businesses pretty much already have that ability. The stipulations on those decisions are, ultimately, incredibly small. This has already been pointed out to you.

Obviously, common sense must be applied.

Common sense: the feeling of being right in absentia of facts. I believe that sums up the anti-gay position fairly well.

Did the founding fathers intend the ninth amendment to be construed in such a way as to support same-sex “marriage”?

I don’t know. Why don’t you list exactly what the intentions of every single member of the constitutional convention and every single person who voted in favor of the ninth amendment in each state legislature with regards to what, exactly and precisely, they intended. If you can’t, your argument is already a dead duck.

I can, however, say that the intentions of several (I’d hazard most) of the people there were to not hold the nation hostage to their intentions. So that makes twice your argument is already a dead duck.

Furthermore, your buddies Boies and Olson aren’t making their case on ninth amendment grounds. Nice try, though.

Because they don’t have to. That issue has already been settled. Remember when you were braying about caselaw? That was it. Do make an effort to keep up.

It’s their job to enforce the constitution faithfully without prejudice or favor for either side.

Exactly. Which is your entire problem with them in a nutshell.

Tommy
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Oh, Bob! I can not believe I have to wade through another post of this.

Same-sex marriage is not a right,

An unrecognized right is still a right.

and homosexuals don’t require the protection of the judiciary to protect that right.

Well then isn’t it wonderful the homosexuals aren’t seeking protection, but rather recognition. Something fairly blatantly true given caselaw and the 14th amendment.

They can be affirmed or denied based on the whims of a judge.

You really do not understand caselaw.

They could just as easily decide against your rights (or my rights) as they did in the Japanese internment case, the Dred Scott Case, and Roe v. Wade.

You might have almost had a point… until you hit Roe v. Wade. Fetuses have never been recognized as people (probably because they aren’t), so they have no rights to decide against.

Thank you for exposing the flaws inherent in your argument.

Homosexuals would prefer if it were judges for one reason and one reason only–judges usually give them what they want and the people never do.

Yes, we understand. You hate that your centuries of privilege and power are being eroded. To quote Fred Clark’s essay on how just this sort of hatred born of privilege plays itself out, “STEP ONE: Someone claims to be deeply offended that members of some minority are being treated just like members of the majority are. Equality under the law is portrayed as an attack on the majority, an insult and an affront to their way of life.”

Oh yeah, and the judge is a homosexual. The results of the trial were fixed before the word “go”. It was a show trial.

They were, but not in the way you wish. You see, the defense did a terrible job defending. Which was obvious even before the trial started.

Of course you have nothing but gross speculation with regards to Judge Walker’s sexuality (speculation that seems absurd considering he was denied his appointment once for being too anti-gay). And if Walker’s sexuality was relevant, well then you’d have to ask every single heterosexual or bisexual judge to recuse himself for the same reason. You wouldn’t want to be a bigot now, would you?

I understand that,

I find that doubtful…

my rights are infringed because I can’t marry my mother.

Number of times you compared loving gay couples to incest: 3

Anti-miscegenation laws were already on the way out.

Which has no baring on their constitutionality.

In any case, the legal merits of the case are dubious.

What you mean is that the 14th amendment is dubious. Specifically the parts that do not give you sectarian privilege.

But as it stands, Loving v. Virginia is terrible law because it overstepped the boundaries of the federal government into what should have been state territory.

I’m sorry, but how, exactly, is that what happened? Should I be questioning your understanding of federalism?

By the way, it wasn’t that long ago when the pro-homosexual crowd was arguing that marriage is a state issue. What happened to that?

It still is. Again, you seem to be confused on the concept of federalism.

L. Junius Brutus
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Bob:

“You seem to think that homosexuals have a live and let live philosophy. They certainly do not.”

Unlike some people, we have never established an “Inquisition” to police people’s thoughts. Unlike some people, we never burned people at the stake for disagreeing with us. Unlike some people, we never shut down Plato’s Academy. Unlike some people, we are not trying to give a legal status to one-celled organisms. No, fundamentalist Christians like yourself are totalitarians, only slightly less bad than the Taliban. Only God knows what the likes of you would do if you had the power the Taliban once had in Afghanistan.

“Oh, there are so many great myths to debunk here. I will get to more of them later.”

Mostly in your own posts, not?

“Wrong. While it is true that they were taking the state’s money, that point is irrelevant. Simply forgoing the money and operating on their own would not have relieved them of their requirement to give children to homosexuals. In other words, with or without state funding, the state was sticking its nose in the church’s business. State funding had absolutely nothing to do with it. Such a policy is completely unconstitutional.”

No, it’s not. The Church was sticking its nose where it did not belong (adoption), and it refused to abide by the rules that everyone else followed – after placing children with gay couples before the marriage decision – and it got appropriately slapped down. Perhaps it should limit itself to religious services in the future, or abide by general laws that others are expected to abide by.

“If Loving v. Virginia had anything to say about same-sex marriage,”

Nice bait-and-switch. First, you said that the Constitution says nothing about marriage, because the actual word is not present. Then, when confronted with Loving v. Virginia, you acknowledge that it does say something about marriage (not explicitly though), and make the claim that it says nothing about same-sex marriage.

“I’d like to bring Dave to the attention of the webmaster. Is he going to be banned for violating the comment policy?”

Now you want to call the shots on a gay website? The arrogance of some people is truly unsurpassed.

“He called religion a cancer. No one saw a problem with that except me. What if I had said that homosexuality was a cancer?”

Go ahead. You are the only one who cares about the nonsense that you spew. Moreover, it would hurt you in your cause of convincing the people here that they are EVIL! Not that you were making much headway to begin with.

L. Junius Brutus
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Fetuses and embroyoes are covered by equal protection, but gay people are not. The nerve of these people. Enjoy the sight from the ash heap of history.

Désirée
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

According to the Supreme Court, marriage is a right. Personally, I’d say it is derived from the 1st amendment right to free association. But that’s neither here nor there.

No one denies the right to marry, but the anti-gay crowd tacks on “the right to marry a person of the opposite sex” while the marriage equality people say “the right to marry the person you want” so anti-equality people see marriage as a right, but marrying who you want as a privilege, and one reserved to heterosexuals at that. And who gives out that privilege if I may ask?

Christopher
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Earlier Bob claimed that “there are so many great myths to debunk here”, but his favorite tactic seems to be ignoring arguments for which he doesn’t have a trite or sarcastic answer. Of course his “answers” have been effectively countered, but I’m still waiting for him to explain, among other things, where the “natural definition” of marriage comes from.

I’d also like to address Bob’s comment that, “[I]t wasn’t that long ago when the pro-homosexual crowd was arguing that marriage is a state issue. What happened to that?”

Again, Bob, you’re assuming that all homosexuals agree completely on a specific issue. Many opposed DOMA, and are still calling for its repeal, so that a marriage performed in one state will be recognized in all states.

Besides, I don’t think George W. Bush could be described as being part of the “pro-homosexual crowd”, but in 2000 he considered marriage to be a state issue. In 2004, though, he started calling for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. So there are those on both sides who’d like to see the issue decided at a federal level.

TampaZeke
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Bob-bye!

Jerry
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

See ya later agi-tater!

Priya Lynn
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Bob said ““Wrong. While it is true that they were taking the state’s money, that point is irrelevant. Simply forgoing the money and operating on their own would not have relieved them of their requirement to give children to homosexuals. In other words, with or without state funding, the state was sticking its nose in the church’s business. State funding had absolutely nothing to do with it. Such a policy is completely unconstitutional.”.

You’re completely wrong about that. If the Catholic adoption agency had refused the states money and chosen to operate on its own they’d have been free to refuse to adopt to gays. The Mormons operate an adoption agency in Massachusetts, don’t take any state money, and refuse to adopt to gays – no problem.

It had everything to do with the funding. The Catholic adoption agency wanted the state and gays to subsidize their discrimination and when they were cut off from sucking on the government teat unless they adopted to gays they refused to run their adoption agency on their own so they could refuse to adopt to gays.

Ironically the Catholic adoption agency in Massachusettes had been quietly adopting to gay couples for years. It was just when marriage equality passed they decided they wanted to make a statment solely for political reasons.

Bob
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Okay, a few more issues will be addressed. Every time I write something, I get multiple responses, so it’s hard to keep up.

Christopher:

“People have said that homosexuality is a cancer, Bob, and I’ve tried to understand the analogy because I don’t find it to be accurate in either case. In both cases, though, I try to understand how the person using the analogy intends to “treat” what they perceive as a cancer. Is Dave advocating violence? I don’t see that, although, if he were, I’d certainly have a problem with it.”

Give me a break, Christopher. Dave was showing his totalitarian impulse. Many evil men have tried to wipe religion off the face of the earth, always for “the greater good”, always because religion is nothing but irrational superstition. I think you know some of those men’s names. They’re the mass murderers of history.

Was Dave advocating violence? I don’t know. But I do know that if I suggested that homosexuality should be wiped off the face of the earth, you would take offense to that. Would you “try to understand” my analogy? Fat chance. You haven’t tried to understand anything I’ve said thus far.

You have a very different standard as to what constitutes inflammatory, hateful rhetoric, based on who’s saying it and who the object of hatred is. If someone says that religion is a cancer, he is implying that it is something that can not be reformed, not be tolerated, and not be appeased. It can only be destroyed. In fact, it MUST be destroyed. But you didn’t bat an eyelash at the comment because that kind of rhetoric is commonplace over here at the “tolerant” “accepting” Box Turtle Bulletin.

If Dave had a lick of power (and I don’t know if he does or if he doesn’t) he would use to further his stated ends.

“As for the Dred Scott case, I didn’t dodge anything.”

Yes, you did. You dodged my point.

“Yes, rights have been voted on.

Rights are ALWAYS voted on! That’s how they become enshrined in the law. Sometimes they are voted on by the people, sometimes by the people’s elected representatives, and sometimes by judges. But they are always voted on. Even the 14th Amendment, which serves as the “basis” of the baseless Prop 8 case, was voted on by both houses of the US Congress and by the state legislatures. Yes, we do vote on rights, and simply transferring that authority to a judge does nothing to ensure that minority rights are respected. A judge can take away your rights just as quickly as a referendum.

“Just because the majority has, in many cases, voted to take away the rights of a minority doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.”

And judges have too! That’s my point, which you so artfully dodged.

To be continued…

Bob
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

More for Christopher:

“As for the Catholic Church being “forced” to allow homosexual couples to adopt, the Catholic Church (and other organizations) can’t show proof that allowing homosexuals to adopt would harm children. The Catholic Church also received funding from the state. If they preferred to refuse that funding and discontinue providing adoption services that was their decision.”

You can take the word “forced” out of the derisive quotations marks. That’s exactly what happened. It’s not their job to show proof that homosexual adoptions hurt kids. It’s their first amendment right to run their adoption agency according to the tenents of their faith. No need to prove that faith to the satisfaction of an external authority.

Again and again, the decision did not hinge on money!

Ron Madnick of Americans United for Separation o Church and State ( a VERY left-wing anti-Catholic group) explained. “Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.” I don’t know who told you that the money was the issue. Money or no money, the Catholic Church was prohibited by law from running Catholic adoption agencies the Catholic way. That’s a violation of religious liberty.

Oh yeah, and if not all homosexuals agree with each other (and I never said that they did) where were all of the liberty-loving homosexuals coming out in support of Catholic Charities? Surely, with a wide range of opinions on the issues, there were some who were up in arms. Right? You seem to be saying that not all homosexuals were accomplices to this vicious assault on religious liberty, but I don’t know a single one who doesn’t. Where are they?

Priya Lynn
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Bob said “Rights are ALWAYS voted on!”.

Then you have no problem. In every state with equal marriage it was voted on, just like you’ve been demanding.

Priya Lynn
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Bob said “Again and again, the decision did not hinge on money!”.

It most certainly did. If the Catholic adoption agency had refused the states money and chosen to operate on its own they’d have been free to refuse to adopt to gays. The Mormons operate an adoption agency in Massachusetts, don’t take any state money, and refuse to adopt to gays – no problem. It had everything to do with the money, it was entirely about money.

Priya Lynn
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Here’s the truth about the Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts.

http://www.stopthemormons.com/2008/11/21/la-times-debunking-the-myths-used-by-prop-8/

They most certainly could have continued operating without state funding and refused to adopt to gays, just as the Mormons did after equal marriage passed and still do to this day. Bob is quite simply lying about them being forced to adopt to gays.

Timothy Kincaid
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Bob

I asked where, in the constitution, there is a right for a man to marry a man

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

“Any person” does not have an asterisk that says “* except for gay people”

Priya Lynn
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Here’s the truth about adoption in Massachusetts directly from the Mormons themselves:

http://www.mormonlawyers.com/2008/10/reply-to-morris-thurston.html

“LDS Family Services still operates in Massachusetts, as it does in California. There are several differences between LDSFS and Catholic Charities. LDSFS does not take federal or state funds; Catholic Charities does. LDSFS facilitates only voluntary adoptions and permits the birth mother to approve the adoptive parents. Catholic Charities handled non-voluntary adoptions (where the state seizes the children) and normally did not accommodate birth mother approval. Catholic Charities had contracts with the state and was, in effect, acting as an agent of the state. LDSFS does not. To date, LDS Family Services has never been forced to place any children with a gay couple, and has never been sued for not doing so.”

werdna
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Bob wrote: “Every time I write something, I get multiple responses, so it’s hard to keep up.”

Well your posts are a right old Gish Gallop of nonsense, so there’s lots to correct!

Have we fed the troll enough yet?

Timothy Kincaid
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

But Prop 8 does not infringe on your rights any more than my rights are infringed because I can’t marry my mother. (I really love my mother, by the way. Isn’t that enough?) However, I can “marry” my father in this state.

No, you cannot marry your father.

As to whether you wish to marry your mother (I think that’s odd, but it’s your wish not mine), if the state can meet the standard of proof (i.e. due process) for a rational reason to deny you that right and show that it is not just simply applied to you because you belong to a disfavored group (equal protections) then they can deny you that marriage. Otherwise they cannot.

I suspect that the state could easily make its case.

Timothy Kincaid
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

I’d like to bring Dave to the attention of the webmaster. Is he going to be banned for violating the comment policy?

He called religion a cancer. No one saw a problem with that except me. What if I had said that homosexuality was a cancer?

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. But Dave’s comment was not a violation of the comments policy.

We do not allow demeaning terms, but unlike virtually every anti-gay site on the web, we allow opinions. Even opinions as based in animus as yours and Dave’s.

Tommy
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Oh Bob… more of this foolishness? Really?

Give me a break, Christopher. Dave was showing his totalitarian impulse.

No, that was you. There was not a single totalitarian aspect to what Dave said. In fact, it was actually anti-authoritarian.

Many evil men have tried to wipe religion off the face of the earth, always for “the greater good”,

Most of which were men from other religions trying to eliminate the competition.

But I do know that if I suggested that homosexuality should be wiped off the face of the earth, you would take offense to that.

Of course Dave suggested no such thing. Also you seem quite confused about the difference between an ideology and a people. You were bemoaning totalitarianism earlier, despite the fact that you seem fine with it when it works in your favor, would you be opposed to totalitarianism being wiped off the face of the earth? What about communism? It seems to me conservatives put quite a lot of effort into that particular mission.

You haven’t tried to understand anything I’ve said thus far.

What you mean is: You understand everything I say (and the implicit motivations behind it) perfectly.

If someone says that religion is a cancer, he is implying that it is something that can not be reformed, not be tolerated, and not be appeased. It can only be destroyed. In fact, it MUST be destroyed.

I sincerely hope you have never said anything that could be construed as claiming Islam is evil. But I doubt it.

By the by, your statement that religion cannot be reformed, tolerated or appeased and should be destroyed is, arguably, a valid point of view within several different contexts and should be discussed. Why so adamantly opposed to freedom of discussion?

If Dave had a lick of power (and I don’t know if he does or if he doesn’t) he would use to further his stated ends.

And why shouldn’t he? Just because you have fetishistic ideas of Christians being marched off to the gallows does not mean that’s what’s actually happening. Dave could easily be winning the hearts and minds of people he meets.

A judge can take away your rights just as quickly as a referendum.

Please learn something about basic civics before saying something so woefully stupid.

You can take the word “forced” out of the derisive quotations marks.

You’ve used derisive quotation marks five times. In the future it is best to avoid blatant hypocrisy.

That’s exactly what happened.

No. It is not.

It’s their first amendment right to run their adoption agency according to the tenents of their faith.

Yes… unless they are taking state funds. Then they have to follow state guidelines for receiving those funds.

Some of us still believe in personal responsibility. Catholic Adoption Agencies were given two choices:

1. Refuse the funds and do as they please.
2. Accept the funds and follow state anti-discrimination law.

Instead they chose to cease to exist. THEIR choice, no one else’s. Blaming others for your poor choices is incredibly pathetic.

Again and again, the decision did not hinge on money!

Repeating a lie often enough will not make it true.

I don’t know who told you that the money was the issue.

The fact that Mormon Adoption Agencies still operates in Mass. without accepting any state funds and still doesn’t adopt children to gay couples.

the Catholic Church was prohibited by law from running Catholic adoption agencies the Catholic way. That’s a violation of religious liberty.

That’s a lie.

where were all of the liberty-loving homosexuals coming out in support of Catholic Charities?

Probably sitting at home, glad for another victory for true religious liberty.

You seem to be saying that not all homosexuals were accomplices to this vicious assault on religious liberty, but I don’t know a single one who doesn’t. Where are they?

They are the ones over at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the same ones you disparaged earlier. Those, and the ACLU among others, are the people actually fighting for religious liberty. While you are fighting for hedgmonic religion. Personally it is obvious from your comments that you, most likely, despise religious liberty. I’ll leave it to Fred Clark to explain in detail.

Christopher
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

You can take the word “forced” out of the derisive quotations marks. That’s exactly what happened. It’s not their job to show proof that homosexual adoptions hurt kids. It’s their first amendment right to run their adoption agency according to the tenents of their faith. No need to prove that faith to the satisfaction of an external authority.

Bob, just because you don’t like the facts you can’t argue as though they don’t exist. As has been explained to you repeatedly the decision did hinge on money. However, if you really insist that this was merely about Catholics running and adoption agency “according to the tenents[sic] of their faith” please show me the cases where non-Catholic heterosexual couples, or even Catholic couples where one or both spouses had divorced and remarried were denied the right to adopt a child. Although I suppose the Catholics do have a First Amendment right to be selective about which tenets of their own faith they choose to follow and which they don’t.

Oh yeah, and if not all homosexuals agree with each other (and I never said that they did) where were all of the liberty-loving homosexuals coming out in support of Catholic Charities?

First, Bob, while you’ve never actually said “all homosexuals agree with each other”, your comments paint homosexuals with an extremely broad brush. In the comment I’ve just quoted you’ve managed to contradict your own denial. But here are some other examples:

You seem to think that homosexuals have a live and let live philosophy.

If your comment here was not intended to refer to all homosexuals you should have been more careful in your phrasing.

[H]omosexuals are a major threat to religious freedom.

And again…

You think homosexuals don’t want to impose restrictions on my religious beliefs?

If you’re going to argue, Bob, at least do so honestly.

Noel
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Re: Catholic Charities

I would also note that when the Archdiocese decided to *change the policy* that Catholic Charities had been operating by for years, more than half their board of directors resigned in protest.

And no, the decision had nothing to do with marriage. The anti-discrimination law they were complying with while taking tax money to fund their operation was passed in 1989. Marriage equality came about in 2004, and all of a sudden the Archdiocese wants to get out of adoption altogether *even though the laws on adoption hadn’t changed*. It was the Archdiocese that made this about marriage, when it wasn’t at all.

Timothy Kincaid
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Thank you Priya Lynn for providing the factual evidence to debunk Bob’s Catholic Charities myth.

I have to correct myself, it isn’t just the money. It is also that the Catholic Charities were acting as an adjunct of the state, a subcontractor. Even if they did so without payment, they could not as an official state organization discriminate.

They could, however, have stopped being the arm of the state, terminated their contracts, and placed adoptions as a private religious organization.

Sadly, at times the Catholic Church forgets that the middle ages have gone and it no longer is the state.

Priya Lynn
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

No problem, Timothy.

Jason D
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Fred Clark is a genius. I’ve often had similar thoughts regarding the whole “secularization” of christmas debate.

TampaZeke
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Bob has said “But Prop 8 does not infringe on your rights any more than my rights are infringed because I can’t marry my mother”, or a variation thereof at least four or five times.

It seems pretty clear to me that Bob’s inability to marry his mother is what’s really got his panties in a twist.

Why he’s coming to a gay site and taking it out on us is beyond me.

Oh, and by the way, Bob, still waiting on your words of wisdom concerning the freedom of religion and expression for the UCC, Unitarians, MCC and Quakers fits into your nice little “violation of religious liberties” box.

I’ve asked no fewer than THREE times but have yet to be answered.

Of course, if marrying your mother is really what’s got you hot and bothered then I guess talking about UCC, Unitarians, MCC and Quakers religious freedoms would interest you since, I’m pretty sure, they wouldn’t support your burning desire to marry your mother either.

By the way, does your mother know how badly you want to marry her? Have you actually proposed to her? You might want to get her consent before going on this Quixotic campaign for mother marriage rights. It might all be for naught.

Tommy
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Yes, I love Fred Clark. He clearly and succinctly discusses religious issues in Evangelicalesse. He’s my all around go-to resource for discussing these issues with someone, such as Bob, who feels the need to label criticism of the church and/or religion in general as bigotry and hatred.

After all, no one can debate Fred Clark’s Christian credentials.

Jason D
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

I know this is something of a cheap shot but…

“the Catholic Church was prohibited by law from running Catholic adoption agencies the Catholic way.”

Considering the Catholic Church’s record on child safety in regards to predators, I think running an adoption service “The Catholic Way” is probably not in anybody’s best interest, least of all children.

Christopher
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Jason, it’s not a cheap shot. Some members of Catholic Church knew about abuses being committed and not only failed to act but actively covered up the abuses. However that may be a moot point. As Bob said, it’s not the Catholic Church’s “job to show proof that homosexual adoptions hurt kids. It’s their first amendment right to run their adoption agency according to the tenents of their faith.”

The implication here is that the well-being of the children is secondary, at best, and must take a back seat to the tenets of the faith.

Timothy (TRiG)
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Religion is a cancer on society because it teaches people to be credulous, to favour emotional intuition over evidence as a guide to reality, and because it peverts morality, saying that real people here on earth are less important than the rules set down by your imaginary friend. And for other reasons better articulated by Greta Christina, Ebon Muse, and PZ Myers, among others. And yet I passionately support religious freedom (though I prefer the terminology “freedom of conscience”.)

I see no contradiction here. Do you?

TRiG.

Bob
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Apparently, some of you have gotten upset because I haven’t responded to your comments yet. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but I’m taking all of your posts one by one. Due to the fact that every post of mine generates four of five posts in response, I am always falling further and further behind. At some point you’re going to have to give up and admit that I’m right.

But I will continue.

Priya Lynn

“Gays don’t threaten your religious freedom in the slightest, other than the false “freedom” you think you have to deny gays equal rights.”

Priya, there are so many examples. Yes, they do threaten my freedom and everyone else’s as well. Ever heard of the Swedish preacher who was arrested from his pulpit for saying that homosexuality is a sin? How about the man who was assaulted by lesbians because they didn’t like his sign, and then when the police showed up they arrested HIM? The the truth is that homosexuals do everything in their power to make sure no dissenting opinions are allowed. Giving them more power only increases their ability to shut down debate.

“False. Interracial marriage was decided by a court, not by a vote. Slavery was ended by mandate, not by a vote.”

Loving v. Virginia only struck down the laws of a few states. Most states were already doing interracial marriages at that point. All of those states permitted interracial marriage the democratic way. Even so, Loving v. Virginia was voted on by nine judges. I’m not even saying that Loving v. Virginia was solidly decided; it wasn’t. But it was voted on.

Slavery was ended by the Thirteenth Amendment, which passed the same stringent standards that all amendments must pass–two thirds of both houses plus three quarters of the state legislatures. So yes, we voted on slavery too. Slave owners would have argued (falsely of course) that owning slaves is a right. Using your own arguments, they could have attempted to block the Thirteenth Amendment on the grounds that “We don’t vote on rights!” But we did vote, and everything turned out okay. See? The democratic process is not your enemy. Slavery is not a right and it was legislated out of existence. Same-sex “marriage” is not a right and I’d like to do the same.

“Loving vs Virginia established that the right to marry the person of your choice is one of the fundamental rights people have.”

No, it didn’t. If it did, there would be literally no restrictions on whom you could select as a marriage partner. While the homosexual lobby seems argue that everyone has the “right” to marry “the one they love”, I have yet to meet a homosexual who takes this argument to its logical conclusion. If they did, you would have to allow a person to choose as a spouse a blood relative, someone who is already married, or a child. We don’t permit that because Loving v. Virginia did not find what you think it found. I don’t know who taught you history, but please go get your money back. (Aren’t you Canadian, by the way?)

“Typical of a christian like you to strut out that lie.”

I never told you that I’m a Christian. I’ve never mentioned my religious affiliation once on this site, but you’ve made an assumption. It’s your opinion based on animus. Every time some one has a different opinion, your anti-Christian hatred comes boiling to the surface. You don’t realize that you sound like a stark raving mad bigot. Is Christopher going to jump in at some point and chastise Priya Lynn for painting with so broad a brush? Of course not, because Christopher’s a fake. Pray tell, Priya Lynn–what is a typical Christian, anyway? Is that like a typical Jew? A typical black person? A typical homosexual? A typical Latino?

“Massachusetts most certainly didn not try to force the Catholic church to adopt to gays. The Catholic church was taking state money to run its adoption agency and the state decided they weren’t entitled to that money if they didn’t follow state anti-discrimination law. The Catholic church was free to run its “no-gay” adoption agency on its own dime just as the Mormon church does in Massachusettes, but they decided if they couldn’t continue sucking on the government teat they weren’t going to continue with their service.”

Wrong. The only documentation you have cited to support that is a blog called “Stop the Mormons”. (How about a blog called “Stop the Homosexuals”?) No credibility whatsoever. Your point remains unproven. In any case, Tim Kincaid (not that he’s a reliable source on anything) disagrees with you.

“It is also that the Catholic Charities were acting as an adjunct of the state, a subcontractor. Even if they did so without payment, they could not as an official state organization discriminate.”

I don’t think he’s correct on this point either. But even he’s admitting that with or without state money, the Catholic Church could not exercise it’s 1st amendment rights. By the way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State says that you are wrong. That’s not exactly a right-wing group, or a Catholic group.

“Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.”

So, you’re wrong. Again.

TampaZeke
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

You’re not GETTING to my question Bob, you long since passed it.

AGAIN, what about the religious freedom of UCC, MCC, Unitarians and Quakers? Why does the government prevent them from marrying same-sex couples in accordance with their religious convictions?

We’re not talking a fringe or new religions here. We’re talking about three denominations that were MOST prominent among the founding fathers themselves.

You’re not getting around to answering this question, you are clearly avoiding it.

Christopher
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Bob, earlier you took offense at my pointing out that you claim that all homosexuals share a common mindset. I even cited specific examples, but you don’t seem to understand that you can’t speak for an entire group.

And yet you continue to insist on doing so, saying, “[Homosexuals] do threaten my freedom and everyone else’s as well. …The the truth is that homosexuals do everything in their power to make sure no dissenting opinions are allowed.”

You’ve supposedly cited specific examples, although you fail to provide any detail so that anyone can check your facts, but you’re also continuing to make the assumption that everyone who is homosexual shares a common worldview and attitude.

You don’t like people assuming you’re a Christian, Bob. Stop making assumptions about what others think. Or are you incapable or arguing without putting words in your opponents’ mouths?

cowboy
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Bob,

The LDS (Mormon) Church is able to run an adoption agency in Massachusetts. How can they?

Franck
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

“Ever heard of the Swedish preacher who was arrested from his pulpit for saying that homosexuality is a sin?”

It’s funny, see, I never heard of that. What I heard, though, was that the Church to which 70% of Swedes adhere voted overwhelmingly for allowing same-gender marriages. So, if I subscribed to your views on votes and rights, I would say that he was arrested for speaking against the wishes and votes of the people, don’t you think?

“I have yet to meet a homosexual who takes this argument to its logical conclusion.”

Meet me, Bob. I support the right for any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult. I support polygamous relationships, provided that no one in the relationship is considered superior to all others (hence I don’t support Muslim- and African-type polygamy). I support the right of anyone to have a relationship with any relatives they wish, provided they make sure not to put a child’s life at risk (i.e. marry your sister if you wish to but don’t have kids with each other). And before you start accusing me of condoning pedophilia: a child is not a “consenting adult”.

Oh, and by the way, accuse me of being an ignorant anti-Christian if you wish to. I would only reply that, as someone who went through Christian schools, read the Bible at least twice by my own accord and went to Church regularly for years, let me tell you what I really am: a rabid anti-Pharisee.

Tommy
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Oh Bob! More of these feces?

Ever heard of the Swedish preacher who was arrested from his pulpit for saying that homosexuality is a sin?

Are you in Sweden? Because you are wonderfully ignorant about it. Sweden does not have a first amendment (amazing at that) but does have hate speech laws. You are lying about him being arrested (at the pulpit or anywhere else)he was sued for being in violation of the law and was not convicted based on… freedom of speech grounds.

How about the man who was assaulted by lesbians because they didn’t like his sign, and then when the police showed up they arrested HIM?

You’ll have to be more specific. Although looking at the likely candidates you are simply lying about that last line.

The the truth is that homosexuals do everything in their power to make sure no dissenting opinions are allowed.

You’re lying. Name one “homosexual” LEGAL assault on the first amendment.

Same-sex “marriage” is not a right and I’d like to do the same.

Besides simply being wrong,you’re on the losing side of history, my friend.

No, it didn’t. If it did, there would be literally no restrictions on whom you could select as a marriage partner.

That’s a lie. There would still be that whole issue of “consent.” You do understand the difference between “rape” and “not rape” don’t you?

I have yet to meet a homosexual who takes this argument to its logical conclusion.

Probably because you’re taking it to illogical conclusions.

If they did, you would have to allow a person to choose as a spouse a blood relative,

Number of times you compare loving gay couples to incest: 4

Once more, do you want to take the why incest is illegal challenge or not?

someone who is already married,

Polygamy is entirely independent and not related to marriage equality at all. If you want to have that discussion, go right ahead.

or a child.

So you don’t know the difference between “rape” and “not rape.” That’s… terrifying.

You don’t realize that you sound like a stark raving mad bigot.

Isn’t this the pot calling the Unicorn black.

Wrong. The only documentation you have cited to support that is a blog called “Stop the Mormons”. (How about a blog called “Stop the Homosexuals”?) No credibility whatsoever. Your point remains unproven.

You’re lying. Piyra Lynn also quoted Mormon lawyers discussing the issue.

Why do you feel this incessant need to lie?

In any case, Tim Kincaid (not that he’s a reliable source on anything) disagrees with you.

It always amazes me when someone lies about something as easy to check as this. No Mr. Kincaid did not disagree, he actually modified his stance based on Piyra Lynn’s evidence.

But even he’s admitting that with or without state money, the Catholic Church could not exercise it’s 1st amendment rights.

…because it was working for the state. You do know how to read? Don’t you?

So, you’re wrong. Again.

No, actually you are lying. Again. Mormon Adoption Agencies. Look it up.

Hall
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Ever heard of the Swedish preacher who was arrested from his pulpit for saying that homosexuality is a sin?

If you’re talking about Åke Green, the arrest was appealed and he was acquitted because of religious freedom, and because the European Declaration of Human Rights would have prevented it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147084,00.html
^source.
Same thing happened with the anti-gay cases in the Canadian Human Rights Council. All were acquitted because of religious freedom.
The other thing is that America has nothing like a Human Rights Council. Even if one were proposed, it would be unconstitutional. These cases are red herrings.

Loving v. Virginia only struck down the laws of a few states. Most states were already doing interracial marriages at that point. All of those states permitted interracial marriage the democratic way. Even so, Loving v. Virginia was voted on by nine judges. I’m not even saying that Loving v. Virginia was solidly decided; it wasn’t. But it was voted on.

The vast majority of states removed their anti-miscegenation laws as a result of California’s Perez v. Sharp or as a reaction to Loving v. Virginia. Many of these were court cases. As well, the legislatures’ votes were not “the will of the people” like anti-gay activists like to claim. 96% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage in 1958. This is much larger than the “will of the people” at 52% in Maine.
The “voting” that is done in the courts is completely different from the voting done by citizens. This is a misnomer.
The Thirteenth Amendment only passed because we put great restrictions on the South during Reconstruction. It was hardly a “free representation of the people” And it was hardly a referendum.

While the homosexual lobby seems argue that everyone has the “right” to marry “the one they love”, I have yet to meet a homosexual who takes this argument to its logical conclusion. If they did, you would have to allow a person to choose as a spouse a blood relative, someone who is already married, or a child.
The fact is that there are many other rationales on banning these types of marriages than the waving rationale of banning same-sex marriage.
One strong thing going for same-sex marriage is that homosexuality is biological and not chosen. Same-sex relationships are also stable like straight ones and involve both members’ consent. This is a slippery slope argument which is nonsensical.

Wrong. The only documentation you have cited to support that is a blog called “Stop the Mormons”. (How about a blog called “Stop the Homosexuals”?) No credibility whatsoever. Your point remains unproven.
They provided other documentation and the rationales behind the Catholic adoptions seem to be similar to the case Bob Jones University v. United States. Notice that Bob Jones is still up and running.

Hall
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

*wavering. not waving.

TampaZeke
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Now we know THREE things about Bob.

1) He desperately wants to marry his mother;

2) He’s taken some debate courses where he’s studied, in depth, the methods by which one may use fallacies to bolster or promote an argument with no merit. His screeds are case studies in the use, or misuse, of logical fallacies, formal fallacies, informal fallacies, rhetorical fallacies, strawman fallacies, red herring fallacies, BEGGING THE QUESTION and faulty generalizations; and

3) Even with his rhetorical training he won’t attempt to answer the simplest questions because his rhetorical gymnastics aren’t effective with the simple questions.

AGAIN I ask about the UCC, MCC, Unitarians and Quakers! Why can’t MY pastor marry my partner and me by the power invested in her by the state of Florida? Why does the government restrict MY church’s religious liberty and expression?

TampaZeke
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

An even simpler question for Bob, since I’m not getting an answer to the other simple question.

Bob, do YOU support the law that makes it illegal for a church that supports marriage equality to perform a civil marriage for a same-sex couple?

Priya Lynn
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Bob said “I never told you that I’m a Christian. I’ve never mentioned my religious affiliation once on this site, but you’ve made an assumption.”.

LOL, your christianity is so laughingly obvious it hurts. People who aren’t Christians immediately set the record straight when they’re referred to as such by stating they’re not christians, something you haven’t done because you’re a christian. When you see hoofprints, think horses, not zebras.

Bob said “Is Christopher going to jump in at some point and chastise Priya Lynn for painting with so broad a brush?”.

I didn’t paint with a broad brush, I said “Christians like you” tell that lie, not all christians. Its hilarious that you accuse me of sounding like a “stark raving mad bigot” when you’re the one trying to justify depriving people like me of equal rights and I on the other hand fully support and work to advance your equal rights.

Bob said “Pray tell, Priya Lynn–what is a typical Christian, anyway? Is that like a typical Jew? A typical black person? A typical homosexual? A typical Latino?”.

Non-sequitor. I never said you were a typical christian, your paranoia is getting the best of you.

Bob said “Wrong. The only documentation you have cited to support that is a blog called “Stop the Mormons”. No credibility whatsoever.
Your point remains unproven.”

Your ignorance is astounding. That wasn’t from a blog, it was an article from the LA times, and it most certainly wasn’t the only documentation I cited, I cited THE MORMONS THEMSELVES saying they run an adoption agency in Massachusetts and refuse to adopt to gays and that the reason Catholic adoption agency stopped was because they were sucking on the government teat and could no longer do so! Now, like a fool why don’t you tell us that the Mormons, even though they have incentive to deny that are lying.

Bob said “In any case, Tim Kincaid (not that he’s a reliable source on anything) disagrees with you.”.

Are you blind or just profoundly dishonest? Timothy Kincaid thanked me for debunking your lie, he most certainly didn’t disagree with me.

Timothy said “It is also that the Catholic Charities were acting as an adjunct of the state, a subcontractor. Even if they did so without payment, they could not as an official state organization discriminate.”

Bob said “I don’t think he’s correct on this point either. But even he’s admitting that with or without state money, the Catholic Church could not exercise it’s 1st amendment rights.”.

He never said that at all! He thanked me for debunking your lies! What he was saying is that they couldn’t act as an adjunct of the state and discriminate, but they COULD act as a private company and discriminate – just as the Mormons have done in Massachusetts since the marriage law has passed and continue to do to this day!

Bob said “By the way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State says that you are wrong. That’s not exactly a right-wing group, or a Catholic group.”.

And given that the Mormons themselves admit they are operating a PRIVATE adoption agency and refusing to adopt to gays the AUSC is obviously wrong.

Jason D
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

“Ever heard of the Swedish preacher who was arrested from his pulpit for saying that homosexuality is a sin?”

A) We’re not in Sweden.
B) He was acquitted.
C) Religious Freedom perfectly intact.

“How about the man who was assaulted by lesbians because they didn’t like his sign, and then when the police showed up they arrested HIM?”

How about the anti-gay christian who jumped off a stage and attacked a peaceful gay rights supporter and then had HER thrown out of the event?

See, I can make vague, biased references that sound scary, too!

“The the truth is that homosexuals do everything in their power to make sure no dissenting opinions are allowed.”

The truth is that you have yet to cite an example of this. You’ve got a swedish preacher who was acquitted and mystery lesbian. FAIL.

“Giving them more power only increases their ability to shut down debate.”

Really? We haven’t shut you down.
Or MassResistance, or AFA, or FotF or CWA or anyone else. If we’re doing “everything in our power to make sure no dissenting opinions are allowed”….we seem to have failed completely. Perhaps it’s because we have no interest in doing so.

TampaZeke
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Timothy, Priya, Christopher, Jason; would one of you please ask Bob if he supports the government’s religious oppression/suppression of UCC, MCC, Unitarians and Quakers?

It seems that you are the only ones he responds to.

TampaZeke
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Maybe if you ALL ask he’ll be forced to address the question.

Jason D
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

well, Bob
do you support the government’s religious oppression/suppression of UCC, MCC, Unitarians and Quakers?

Priya Lynn
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Bob said “Even so, Loving v. Virginia was voted on by nine judges. I’m not even saying that Loving v. Virginia was solidly decided; it wasn’t. But it was voted on.”.

If that’s your concept of a vote then why are you complaining about any of the judicial decisions allowing equal marriage? They were all decided by a vote (according to you) just like you wanted.

Bob said “While the homosexual lobby seems argue that everyone has the “right” to marry “the one they love”, I have yet to meet a homosexual who takes this argument to its logical conclusion. If they did, you would have to allow a person to choose as a spouse a blood relative, someone who is already married, or a child.”.

Christians like you argue that if gays are allowed to marry there is no reason to prevent polygamous or incestuous marriages. That gays aren’t allowed to marry is no justification for banning polygamous or incestuous marriages. Given that “because gays can’t” isn’t a reason, what reason do you have for banning those marriages? Christians like you keep saying “None at all.”.

I said ““Loving vs Virginia established that the right to marry the person of your choice is one of the fundamental rights people have.”

Bob said “No, it didn’t. If it did, there would be literally no restrictions on whom you could select as a marriage partner.”.

Yes it did establish that right, the judges explicitely said so in their judgement. The broad principle that you have the right to marry a person of your choice was established, but that doesn’t mean without no restrictions whatsoever, just that any restrictions must be justifiable, like the inability of close relatives to give informed consent, or the harm caused by polygamous marriages.

Bob said “The the truth is that homosexuals do everything in their power to make sure no dissenting opinions are allowed.Giving them more power only increases their ability to shut down debate.”.

Nonsense. Compare gay blogs with religious blogs. The gay blogs don’t moderate comments before posting, they allow the vast majority of dissenting comments while the religious usually moderate all posts before display and even those that don’t remove virtually every comment that is even remotely gay supportive, no matter how polite and well argued.

If giving gays power would increase their ability to shut down debate then anti-gay christians like yourself have an undue amount of power to shut down debate because you have more power under the law than gays. Even in your own logic the only way to provide equal freedom of speech is to give gays the same power anti-gay christians have, the power to marry the partner of their choice, the power to not be fired from their job or evicted from their home merely for who they are.

Priya Lynn
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

So, how about it, Bob, you’ve dodged the question several times. You’re on and on about gays allegedly denying christians freedom of religion so do you support the freedom of religion of the UCC, MCC, Unitarians and Quakers to marry gay couples? Or are you opposed to freedom of religion?

Christopher
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

TampaZeke, I would, but even though he responds to me Bob is extremely selective about what he’s actually willing to address.

Based on his arguments, though, I’d hazard a guess that the government isn’t actually suppressing the religious rights of the UCC, MCC, Unitarians, or Quakers. The problem is that, by validating same-sex marriage, those organizations are infringing on the First Amendment rights of other religious organizations to tell the government how “marriage” should be defined.

Because, apparently, the First Amendment rights of some religious organizations–the Catholic Church, for instance–trump the First Amendment rights of other religious organizations. Possibly this has something to do with the will of the people, although I’m not sure how.

L. Junius Brutus
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Fundamentalist Christians do not regard thinking as something positive. They just believe whatever they are told – which is why we hear about “the Swedish preacher” ad nauseam.

Also, the Swedish preacher did not just say that “homosexuality is a sin”. He excused violence against gay people. Bob would be proud, as he has is consumed by hatred and vitriol. From his sermon:

“Homosexuality begins with the desire of the heart. This is the result–sins of the mind. The fantasies you entertain, or the sexual dreams that you harbor. And here [you have] the porn industry, TV, movie and print business. They have awakened these powerful desires by openly promoting [this homosexual lifestyle] to all Swedish people. It is done unabashedly, without consideration for people who cannot bear to see such things. As a result, people may commit acts of violence. ”

See? The people who commit acts of violence are the victims. Bob doesn’t know squat about this case, as the only thing he knows is what he has been told. And he blindly and unthinkingly repeats what he has been told – which did not include the fact that this creep was acquitted. The self-delusion of these wannabe persecutor bigots is laughable.

Bob seems to be very uncomfortable in any country that is civilized. I think he’d feel much more at home in countries like Iran or Saudi-Arabia. Have you ever thought about moving to some place where there aren’t any evil gays to bother you, and where abortion is illegal?

Priya Lynn
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Junius said “Fundamentalist Christians do not regard thinking as something positive. They just believe whatever they are told – which is why we hear about “the Swedish preacher” ad nauseam.”

Thats so very true. Martin Luther said “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but – more frequently than not – struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God”.

I’ve heard a number of christian leaders say something to the effect that complicated thinking is Satanic and that good christians should avoid it. This combined with thinking that faith, belief without evidence, is a virtue makes for a lot of very unreasonable christians.

cowboy
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Thank you L. Junius Brutus. The quote about the Preacher from Sweden saying homosexuals are going to cause people to “commit acts of violence”. That was the crux of the debate there. Not just a sermon from some pulpit about the evils of homosexuality.

I have lived in Denmark and I’m sure it’s the same in Sweden. The State-run, official church is the Lutheran Church. That sort of relationship is unthinkable in the United States. The sort of preaching done in a Danish Lutheran Church is careful not to incite hatred or violence. Why? For obvious reasons, you have a State-Run Church which has to abide by State Laws; which include limits on hate-speech. This Swedish Preacher clearly stepped over the line. ikke?

Which brings to mind this brouhaha with Target and Best Buy Stores. It wasn’t the donation of the money to the Republican candidate. It was that this particular Republican candidate was linked to violence towards homosexuals. From hrc.org: supporting a vehemently anti-gay candidate closely associated with a Christian rock band that advocates death and violence to gay people.

The mainstream media made it sound like we were upset about a innocent campaign contribution but it was much more than that. I have to keep telling my friends and associates it was much more than just the money to some anti-gay candidate. But, the Target and Best Buy people are supporting candidates who are linked with ideologies of violence towards gays. There is a big difference in being anti-gay and being really anti-gay.

TampaZeke
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Thanks guys. Now we wait among the chirping crickets for Bob’s reply.

Oh, and Priya, thanks for pointing out Bob’s use of a non-sequitor. I missed that in my list of fallacy strategies that Bob uses in his rhetorical crusade.

Richard Rush
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Bob:

Yes, they [gays] do threaten my freedom and everyone else’s as well. Ever heard of the Swedish preacher who was arrested from his pulpit for saying that homosexuality is a sin? How about the man who was assaulted by lesbians because they didn’t like his sign, and then when the police showed up they arrested HIM? The the truth is that homosexuals do everything in their power to make sure no dissenting opinions are allowed. Giving them more power only increases their ability to shut down debate.

That is just ridiculous. If there was the slightest rational basis to your freedom-threat fears, you would have a lot more than a few specious anecdotal examples to cite. There would be at least hundreds of people now paying hefty fines or sitting in jail as a result of their anti-gay persecution-speech.

Some examples would include Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, Linda Harvey, Laurie Higgins, Bryan Fischer, Albert Mohler, Andrea Lafferty, Brian Camenker, Gary Glenn, Harry Jackson, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, Robert Emrich, James Dobson, Lou Engle, Michael Heath, Lou Sheldon, Michael Marcavage, Sally Kern, Pat Robertson, Gary Cass, Joseph Farah, Joseph Nicolosi, Tony Perkins, Cliff Kincaid, Janet Porter, Peter Sprigg, Robert Knight, Ken Hutcherson, and Scott Lively.

All of my cited examples (and many more) have been bombarding us with daily persecution-speech for years. If any people were going to be prosecuted, it would surely be many of those on my list. But none of them have been arrested or fined, have they?

Why don’t you admit that you really believe your presumed superior status entitles you to having your beliefs accorded an officially elevated status in the marketplace of ideas (and in courtrooms), while expecting immunity from criticism. You expect to exercise the privilege of persecution, but then expect protection when your victims defend themselves.

Timothy Kincaid
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Bob

Wrong. The only documentation you have cited to support that is a blog called “Stop the Mormons”. (How about a blog called “Stop the Homosexuals”?) No credibility whatsoever. Your point remains unproven. In any case, Tim Kincaid (not that he’s a reliable source on anything) disagrees with you.

I guess the LA Times isn’t a good enough source for you either.

And, incidentally, no, I don’t disagree. There is no material distinction between “the money” and “the money and the contract” that would count as “disagreement”.

Everyone (except you) is aware that the Catholic Charities in Massachusetts could conduct private adoption services of their own separate from the state, just like the Mormons do.

I’m not sure why you are so insistent on presenting a false case on this matter. We have provided the evidence that you are wrong and yet you insist – based on nothing whatsoever but your desire to believe it – that Massachusetts tried to force the Catholic church to adopt to gays.

Being insistent when you are clearly wrong is not going to win any arguments. It only makes you seem like a kook.

Timothy Kincaid
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

While the homosexual lobby seems argue that everyone has the “right” to marry “the one they love”, I have yet to meet a homosexual who takes this argument to its logical conclusion. If they did, you would have to allow a person to choose as a spouse a blood relative, someone who is already married, or a child.

I’ll happily take that challenge.

What the SCOTUS found in Loving v. Virginia was

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

This sets marriage as a right, a fundamental right, a basic civil right. But, like all rights, there can be restriction.

We have the right to free speech, for example. But that does not extend to the right to present false evidence in court, to defraud others, or to cry “fire” in a crowded theater.

What finding marriage to be a fundamental basic civil right does do, however, is place a very heavy burden of proof on restrictions. Before we make any restrictions on anyone’s right to marry, we have to prove that there is a state interest in doing so.

And, as this is a fundamental right, there is a very high bar on that proof. It can’t be “cuz I say so” or “it’s always been that way” or “my church wants to restrict the rights of others.”

So here in California we had a trial to see if the state had any interest in taking away the fundamental basic civil rights of gay people. As it turns out, it does not.

Now if you think that it has no rational interest in stopping you from marrying a child, you can go to court and present your evidence. You will lose, of course, because I’m pretty sure all of us will agree that there is a strong interest in refusing to allow you to marry a child, but you have the right to try.

Jason D
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

If Bob were correct, the Mormons (and any other faith or other group refusing to adopt to gays in MA) would also be barred.

Considering how the Catholic Charities situation ended up with national exposure, would not the same thing happening to the Mormon adoption agency ALSO garner national coverage? Indeed, if all adoption services that refused to adopt to gays (have to be more than just these two) were forced out of business, would this not receive NATIONAL attention??

Timothy Kincaid
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Bob,

Do you support the government’s religious oppression/suppression of Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ, Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian-Universalist Society and the Friends (Quakers)?

The Lauderdale
August 21st, 2010 | LINK

Bob: *chirp* *chirp*

TampaZeke
August 22nd, 2010 | LINK

OK, I give up.

At least we tried and at least we found the one question that he couldn’t find a way to do a rhetorical Mexican hat dance around.

Christopher
August 23rd, 2010 | LINK

I wonder if this is what Bob regards as homosexuals doing “everything in their power to make sure no dissenting opinions are allowed”, although not everyone who disagrees with Bob is necessarily homosexual. Not everyone who comments on this blog is homosexual, as far as I know, although I don’t want to speak for others. Bob has done enough of that.

He was also asked to cite facts in defense of his arguments and couldn’t. He made contradictory statements. At a certain point holding a dissenting opinion for its own sake, and in spite of all logical arguments, is merely self-serving and futile.

If he considers the criticism he’s gotten here to be an assault on his right to speak he’s mistaken. Bob hasn’t been prevented from commenting here. If he chooses not to do so that’s his responsibility.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.