You Can't Run & You Can't Hide: Gay Marriage Wants You (& Your Children)

At the site MassResistance you'll find this chilling story. I remember hearing in one news reports on the gay marriage referendum in Maine how a disappointed voter wondered why conservatives opposed gay marriage and what were they afraid of? They just couldn't understand the "opposition."

Ask Peter Vadala that question:

As Peter described the incident (see video above), he came to work on August 10 and began his day normally. A female manager from another store was in the store and began talking to Peter about her upcoming marriage.  When Peter asked “where is he taking you for the honeymoon,” she corrected him and said she was not getting married to "he" but to another woman.

Peter did not immediately react, but when the manager sensed Peter’s discomfort with the subject of same-sex “marriage”, the woman apparently continued bringing it up to Peter throughout the day, reiterating that she was getting married to another woman. Finally, after the fourth or fifth time she brought it up, Peter remarked that his Christian beliefs did not accept same-sex marriage. At that point the woman became very angry and bluntly told Peter that he needed to “get over it” and said that she would be immediately contacting the Human Resources department.

A few hours later Peter was notified by a Human Resources representative that he was suspended from work without pay, effective immediately. Two days later, on August 12, after some further interaction with the Human Resources department, he was formally notified that he was terminated from the company.

No one created marriage so as to exclude others. The institution itself does that. It is a fact, a thing in itself, an objective reality: the one-flesh biological union of a male and female in the marital act in which the complementary organs of generation come together. In fact, "sex" (look up the word) can only be between a male and a female. Anything else is, well, something else.

This insistence on "gay marriage" is but another facet of the sexual revolution. The homosexualists insist on No Disapproval (You must change your mind at their insistence) and on the Right to enshrine in law and in public school teaching K-12 of your children that you are wrong about marriage, and bigoted.

What if I believe that all of cultural history shows that marriage as we have known it is foundational to a just and humane society and is part of the order of nature (or, is there no order of nature at all? And don't even (especially?) Darwinists believe in Nature?), and that to mess with it is to court disaster for the coming generations? Does that make me a bigot and hateful, because I believe I see a necessary Good for human flourishing being undermined and I want to protect that Good? Wouldn't it be wrong of me to ignore my conscientious convictions on the matter and say, "Sure, it will undermine families in the long run and society, but, hey, whatever. I don't care." Call me wrong, but not uncaring. That's wrong. And that's what children say when you won't let them do something you think will harm them: "You hate me."

I found the story above through Robert Gagnon's account of his recent speech at Bowdoin College, which he concludes:

how insane it is for anyone who believes homosexual practice to be immoral to support, or fail to vote against, “sexual orientation” laws and “gay marriage,” or even to keep in office those who support such agendas. In effect, such a person would be voting for his or her own cultural and civil oppression.

Who would do that? Sorry, but the two versions of "marriage" cannot be married together and live happily ever after. That is why we are "against" gay marriage. Because there is no such thing, and taking "marriage" for that purpose is an act of cultural theft. Those pushing the alarm button must be silenced so that the thieves can get away with it. "Gay marriage" is an act of aggression and leads to the oppression of us "others." Just ask Peter Vadala.

Comments

[Warren Heaven]

Marriage is a sacrament of the church with a specific technical meaning. To legalize the use of the word, 'marriage', with regard to homosexual union is a step toward making Christianity illegal. The thought police would soon be on the doorstep of every church in America insisting that it either pervert one of its sacraments or face being shut down.

You can't redefine the word, "murder", either--although they're trying.

[Jerry Purvis]

I wonder if Peter Vadala's former company knows how to spell ... litigation.

[Kent Cordray]

It seems to me that this portrays more of a problem with people becoming hyper-sensitive to criticism, rather than direct aggression against Christianity. Also the fear of frivolous lawsuits by companies, specifically over issues of sexual harassment. It isn't as though people who identify themselves as Christians down through history haven't brutalized, both verbally and physically, homosexuals so the woman's overreaction was understandable, whether or not it was justified. Fear will make most people hostile.

I agree that this hostility has certainly created an attitude of reverse-bigotry among many homosexuals. But I would say that while that's a bad reaction, it certainly isn't somehow tied to their sexuality. This same sort of thing has happened to greater or lesser degrees with most any group that is marginalized and mistreated by their overall society. Name nearly any minority that has been mistreated through history, and if they came out of that oppression and into a position of power they almost universally become the abusers of another group, whether it be the group previously in power, or some other group which they perceive as a threat. From African Americans and women, to Communists or advocates of Democracy. It happens every time that political control of America changes hands between parties to some extent. And yes, Christians have oppressed many people in ways very similar to the way we were treated by the Romans in the early days of the Church. Its a flaw in human nature that runs much deeper than sexuality.

And while I'm sure you are choosing a good example, I really have no way of knowing that what you say Peter said is an accurate representation of things. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I also know that there are many examples of situations where religious beliefs are used to justify truly heinous acts against homosexuals and others. And that sort of thing is just as unacceptable as this situation was for Peter!

This sort of thing has resulted in many "no-tolerance" policies for anything perceived as sexual harassment in the workplace, when it would be much easier for people to simply work them out in an adult way. I would point out to Mr Purvis that its extremely certain that the company involved knows very well that litigation is possible, and perhaps they fired him because they knew he was more mature and wouldn't stoop to exacerbating part of the overall cultural problem - frivolous lawsuits! Perhaps they thought he would "turn the other cheek", and meekly accept the wrong done to him, as we have been called to do by Christ and the Apostles, or maybe they just ran the numbers(culturally speaking) and realized that they would probably do better in a suit from a white Christian male, than against a lesbian?

It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that often we are trapped into anger and feeling sorry for ourselves as we lose control of American society but we aren't even supposed to be "of" the world in the first place. We can share God's love as much as we like, but we can't expect the world to listen, and we shouldn't get upset when society as a whole begins to collapse, or occasionally when it moves in a direction we don't think God approves of. We should be above it. We should be filled with the love of Christ, so that no one will doubt that we love them, whether they be gay, or adulterers, or people who look at porn, or murderers, or liars, or even just generally unpleasant! It's up to the Holy Spirit to convict them of their sins. We are here to be witnesses, not enforcers.

[Kent Cordray]

I also have to ask you, Mr. Kushner, if you would still define "sex" so strictly if it applied to say... a sitting president saying "I did not have sex with that woman", because by that definition he would apparently have been telling the truth... I personally think he was lying! :)

This definition bothers me a lot because I've heard it given as a reason why Christian youth can have as oral, anal, or manual sex as they want, without losing their virginity! I think that it may largely be because of this sort of position which you have taken which has given youth of parents who make the same argument the poor excuse of feigned ignorance.

If it is sex for our children I fail to see why it would not qualify as sex for gay people.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Here's my weekly column on the topic of the Maine vote:

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=294305&ac=PHedi

BTW, I am also a graduate of Bowdoin College. Nothing in the account provided in the link is surprising in the slightest.

[Tony Esolen]

Kent,

What in the name of all that's holy did that woman have to fear? She pestered the man into his admission -- she went well out of her way to elicit it, and all he did was to say that he believed that what she was doing was wrong.

You are also begging the question when you say that there is an identifiable group of people, and always has been, called "lesbians," who were as you say brutalized -- when we are instead talking about a behavior, not a class, that has been proscribed, along with plenty of other sexual behaviors, heterosexual too. I can show you references to the absurdity of lesbianism in Renaissance literature -- not to its immorality, but to its impossibility; as if it never occurred to anybody that women would engage in such behavior.

Finally, don't confuse biological fact with linguistic usage. When Bill Clinton said that he did not have sexual intercourse with that woman Monica Lewinsky, he was equivocating -- which is just to describe the kind of lie he was telling. He knew perfectly well what his questioners were asking, and he responded the way he did in order to mislead them. It is one thing to ask, "How do people these days use these words?" and another to ask, "What is the reality, aside from linguistic usage?"

As far as the education of Christian youth is concerned, we need to resurrect the notion of the virtue of purity, and impress upon them the unnaturalness of sodomy, heterosexual or otherwise. That is, just because the culture out there foists upon our children the stupidity that sodomitical acts are somehow all right, or that they somehow fall short of the sinfulness of sexual intercourse, that doesn't mean we have to accept the stupidity.

[GL]

Very good points, Tony. Clinton was technically telling the truth when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman." Of course, he failed to reveal that he had sodomized her. I guess he thought it best to leave out that detail.

And, yes, we should teach our children that they should remain virgins until marriage. But pre-marital virginity is not the only virtue. Telling them to avoid sexual intercourse by engaging in sodomy is hardly an improvement. Indeed, while both pre-marital sex and sodomy are gravely sinful, Luther considered sodomy to be a worse sin than adultery and likely held the same view regarding the relative gravity of sodomy and fornication. If his views were correct, then teaching young unmarried people to commit acts of sodomy so as to avoid fornication is to teach them to choose the graver sin in order to avoid a less grave one.

[Juli]

What in the name of all that's holy did that woman have to fear? She pestered the man into his admission -- she went well out of her way to elicit it, and all he did was to say that he believed that what she was doing was wrong.

Maybe he was correct in his perception that she was trying to provoke a reaction from him, but maybe she was just talking about an upcoming important event in her life that she was preoccupied with ...

Do traditionalist Christians want or expect civil divorce laws to reflect Christian teaching on divorce? Other marriage laws? In an ideal world, would civil marriage ceremonies - not sanctioned by any church - even be legal?

[Gary Keith Chesterton]

And that's what children say when you won't let them do something you think will harm them: "You hate me."

I never thought of this before, but it is spot on.

[John FB]

As pigheaded as the woman in the story apparently was, this isn't usually how the story goes. Gays have put up with this for years. Not a nice place to be, is it?

I worked with a manager who fired a woman (who never brought up her sexuality at the workplace) because he "didn't want a dyke working for him". She could have sued in our state but chose not to. Here's another account of a worker fired (unjustly, in my opinion). It was not all that long ago when gay establishments were raided by police simply because it was where gays were congregating.

Why should Christians, Mormons, Jews, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc. receive "special treatment" under the law which protects their lifestyle choice of religion, but not gays?

[Christopher Hathaway]

Why should Christians, Mormons, Jews, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc. receive "special treatment" under the law which protects their lifestyle choice of religion, but not gays?

I don't believe anyone should have that protection. If you run a business and don't want gays working there, that should be your right. It should also be your right to only have people who agree with you working with you. I think it's a dangerous business practice because it limits one's available help and may alienate one's clientele who don't like the chosen discimination. But it's a free country. I mean, it used to be a long long time ago, before we decided to solve all of our disagreements with lawsuits and antidiscrimination laws.

Welcome to a world only a lawyer could love.

[Bill R]

"Why should Christians, Mormons, Jews, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc. receive "special treatment" under the law which protects their lifestyle choice of religion, but not gays?"

Wait, John FB--you mean being gay is a "lifestyle choice"? I thought it was supposed to be innate!

[Clifford Simon]

>> In fact, "sex" (look up the word)<<
But not in the Oxford English Dictionary 2009 edition. The first edition has it fine. The present edition has entries too odious to mention.

For the one wondering whether virginity is or is not lost by so-called "sex acts" which are not intercourse... I would suggest that the question is academic. The thing you must not loose is the thing that _promiscuity_ costs you. That thing is not quite your virginity (although it might be your virginity too, since that's likely enough in today's climate). And so we speak that way, saying, "stay a virgin" when we really mean don't be promiscuous.

At the risk of going too far, here's an extreme counterexample. An innocent girl who has been raped is not a virgin but does not, of course, suffer a loss of virtue with her loss of virginity. This is contrasted to the one who loses the same thing (her virginity) but through promiscuity. For the ill effect occurs only through the promiscuity. Since she was not promiscuous, she is not tainted as a girl. I speak only in the very strict sense which is related to the admonition to "marry a virgin" or "be married as a virgin."

[Rob Tisinai]

Vadala wasn’t fired for his Christian beliefs. He was fired because he directly insulted a colleague, and because Brookstone hires its staff with the understanding that they won’t go around condemning each other’s religion, gender, sexual orientation, or race.

And, for the record, Brookstone would be right to fire someone who said to Vadala on the job, “Your Christianity? I believe that’s bad stuff.” Because Brookstone’s employees have promised to not to do that sort of thing as a condition of their employment.

But the irony! Vadala is fine with talk of opposite-sex fiances, but at 2:15 into the clip, he says:

"I was going to explain that I prefer she didn’t bring [homosexuality] up in the workplace, because I don’t believe that controversial issues like that have any place in the workplace at all."

Vadala wants one rule for what straights can say about their families, and a different, more restrictive rule for gays. Do you see the irony? He’s complaining about being punished for expressing his beliefs at work, AND he’s saying gays shouldn’t be allowed to talk about their families at work.

He’s not asking for freedom of speech. He’s asking for special rights.

[John FB]

Bill R writes: "Wait, John FB--you mean being gay is a "lifestyle choice"? I thought it was supposed to be innate!"

Everyone chooses their actions. Yes, homosexual conduct is a choice, as is heterosexual conduct.

However, homosexual inclinations and attractions are not a choice. Did you choose to be a heterosexual? Did you wake up one day and say, "Gee, I think I'd rather be a heterosexual? I 'choose' to desire to have a relationship with a woman"?

[LUKE1732]

I have an inclination to help someone who just had an accident. I have an inclination to punch someone in the nose if they annoy me.

An action is not moral just because I claim that it sprang from some innate inclination.

[Tony Esolen]

He did not insult a colleague. He expressed a moral opinion, after having been fairly pestered into expressing some opinion or other. Do not beg the question: do not assume from the outset that there is nothing objectionable or unnatural about same-sex pseudogamy. That is the very issue at stake. What the bookstore has essentially done is to say that the expression of that opinion, regardless of the manner of its expression or the circumstances, is proscribed; as if grownups cannot take care of themselves, or defend themselves in polite argument.

[Rob G]

Luke1732, you forget: in the wake of Freud, Kinsey and the sexual revolution it is only inclinations related to rumpy-pumpy that need not be examined. Attempting to seduce my friend's wife is one thing; but I could never pocket her jewelry, tell lies about her, or make fun of her in a sexist manner, as THAT WOULD BE WRONG.

With this crowd sexual inclinations always get a pass. And as C.S. Lewis once observed, what if we applied the same sort of logic to another "natural" inclination, eating?

[AMereLurker]

"An action is not moral just because I claim that it sprang from some innate inclination."

I've never understood Christians using the "it's just inborn and so no one can help it" argument. Aren't all our natural inclinations already somewhat suspect due to our sinful nature? In raising my children, I certainly don't have to teach them to want the whole cookie for themselves, to hit their sibling if they don't get what they want, or to throw a tantrum when the world does not bend to their will. If we are by our natural bent enemies of God, our natural inclinations are probably going to lead us away from, rather than towards, him and others. Interestingly, I'll concede that often my first (i.e., natural) inclination in any situation is almost invariably towards sin. Anger, bitterness, frustration, sexual immorality, selfishness, pride... these things come easy. Sacrifice, self-discipline, forgiveness, sexual purity... these are not natural, they are the work of the Spirit of God in me.

[John FB]

I'm not sure where this conversation is going.

The initial post was about supposed "persecution" of "normal" people by the gay community and that it should be expected on a mass scale.

IF the gay community started raiding churches and arresting everyone there, IF they all fired Christians for where they attended worship services on Sunday, IF they slandered all Christians by lumping them into the same category as the awful Phelps clan and IF they stated that Christians, because of their "lifestyle choice" do not deserve protections under the law to live where so choose, they would only be returning the favor for the exact same treatment received at the hands of Christians for decades.

As it stands, that's not happening (nor do I expect to ever see it - not that I'm hoping for it, either).

There will always be intolerant nitwits and isolated anecdotes such as the one this article portrays. What's the point, exactly, other than to stir up more anti-gay sentiment (as if that were possible)?

I guess religion always needs its boogeymen, now that preaching against the "infidel Jews" as St John Chrysostom did wouldn't fly as well, anymore.

[LUKE1732]

The initial post was about supposed "persecution" of "normal" people by the gay community and that it should be expected on a mass scale.

No, it was about a cowardly HR department firing a guy based on political correctness and hypersensitivity gone wild.

I'm more afraid of the coward community than the gay community simply because it is much larger.

It reminds me of using Adolf Hitler as an icon of evil. Hitler was one guy. The real evil was the hundreds who followed his orders and the millions that passively went along with it.

Same here. Triumph of evil, good men do nothing, etc.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

The "you didn't decide to be heterosexual" argument has more than a whiff of moral equivalence to it, as when in the Cold War days campus and political Marxists would say, "So what if Stalin starved 30 million Kulaks? The United States had slavery and Jim Crow!" No, I didn't choose to be heterosexual. That is the way God created men and women to be. Homosexuality may be rooted in circumstances so deeply buried in a person's past that their effects may seem to have existed forever (as several former homosexuals have told me), but if Christianity is true, God cannot have created people that way, for that would make God's condemnation of homosexual behaviors a cruel joke and an evil act. Thus, to say He created people to be homosexuals and then condemned them is clearly a open blasphemy -- attributing evil to God, who is purely Good. It is impossible to see how one can be a true Christian and do that.

[Kent Cordray]

Mr Harmon, it is not up to us to determine what a person can think and do, and still retain their salvation. And it is not up to us to foist God's judgement upon others. These things seem to be reserved to God, the only person who can truly strip away all of the complications of being human and know what the true status and nature of any person's decisions.

God did not stone the woman caught in adultery, even though his own law prescribed just such a punishment, rather he communicated that it was a sin personally and told her to stop, after telling the religious leaders of the time to cast their stones only if they were without sin themselves. It seems to me that the religious leaders of this time seem quite excited to cast stones at anyone they judge to be a sinner. And they may very well be, but it is up to God to judge or have mercy, and to convict people of their sins. To attempt to take that mantle itself is a form of blasphemy which many who call themselves Christians fall into.

And in answer to the person who asked what that woman had to fear, I will point out that, whether you or anyone else on this site chooses to think of homosexuals as a class of people or not technically, it makes little difference if people who perform acts of aggression specifically because of a person's class do think of it as a class.

I will point you here to the people who specifically measure these sorts of hate crimes for a living. And while I am sure, like all stastics, they are somewhat limited in the details of their uses, they are useful for making generalities.

For instance "An analysis of the 7,621 single-bias incidents reported in 2007 revealed the following:

* 50.8 percent were racially motivated.
* 18.4 percent were motivated by religious bias.
* 16.6 percent resulted from sexual-orientation bias.
* 13.2 percent stemmed from ethnicity/national origin bias.
* 1.0 percent were prompted by disability bias. "

Whether you think its reasonable for them to be considered a class or not, they are being persecuted as a class, the nature of the crimes is, on the whole, more violent than with several of the other classes(particularly more than against people for religious reasons!), and, given the significantly lower numbers of the population who identify as being homosexual, they are being targeted at a higher rate than at least most(if not all) of the other groups which are targeted!

These statistics are determined by law enforcement who investigates the cases based on many factors of course, and some mistakes can and I'm sure are made, but you can't sit there and tell me that homosexuals shouldn't fear being made the targets of harassment, intimidation, and in lots of situations, violent assaults!

Whether all of this actually contributed to this woman's overreaction(from the story as you presented it I'm not arguing that it was definitely an overreaction) I don't know, but what I am saying is that there are good reasons why homosexuals are afraid of harassment! That's all!

To say that they aren't is similar to denying that black people shouldn't be afraid of becoming targets because of their race, or that muslims or jews shouldn't due to their religion. It doesn't matter whether the class is based on a particular set of choices or not, turning a blind eye to bigotry and discrimination based on any class implies that you don't care whether or not those people are mistreated and that seems to me to encourage the behavior.

If one does not speak out against discrimination then one is effectively encouraging it, whether that is your intent or not.

[An Observer]

Mr. Tisinai believes that for Person A to tell Person B that what the latter believes or does is morally wrong is perforce for A to insult B. But Mr. Tisinai has just told the defenders of Mr. Vadala here that they are morally wrong for defending him. Therefore, Mr. Tisinai has just insulted those defenders.

The meretriciousness of such pseudo-moral posturing is rich indeed.

As for the "you didn't decide to be hetero-/homo-sexual" argument of John FB -- true but misleading.

First, the fact that something is not chosen does not make it innate -- it could arise, and thus be altered, by environmental factors.

Second, Christian theology distinguishes between sexual inclination and sexual conduct. All of us have sinful sexual inclinations, which are objectively disordered when measured against the standard of God's unfallen original creation. Some are more disordered than others. But we are guilty of sin only we act act upon those in thought, word, or deed, or seek to justify those. In other words, the important issue is not "Did I choose to be hetero-/homo-sexual?" but "Given that I have hetero-/homo-sexual inclinations, what do I do with those?" And the answer is either to surrender them to godly obedience, or to indulge them in sin and seeks justifications for so doing.

[LUKE1732]

If one does not speak out against discrimination then one is effectively encouraging it, whether that is your intent or not.

As a Catholic, I see a parallel between marriage and the other "state of life" sacrament, namely Holy Orders.

If I say that women can't be priests, am I a bigot? A misogynist? Do I "hate" women? Am I encouraging discrimination against them? Or am I simply stating a religious belief about a sacramental reality? Should I be fired because a co-worker who is a member of the feminist class takes offense?

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Mr. Cordray: You have a very sensitive appreciation of God's forebearance against sinners, which is good. However, you have a reluctance to call sin, sin, which is not. God may indeed forgive those who blaspheme against Him, and we are all in need of His forgiveness. However, that doesn't mean that calling open blasphemy (attributing to God approval of something He has labeled an abomination) is not sinful. One would think that a person who lived in holy fear would forebear from calling God evil.

[Kamilla]

"Mr. Tisinai believes that for Person A to tell Person B that what the latter believes or does is morally wrong is perforce for A to insult B. But Mr. Tisinai has just told the defenders of Mr. Vadala here that they are morally wrong for defending him. Therefore, Mr. Tisinai has just insulted those defenders."

Observer,

You have just discovered the first law of the Animal Farm.

The same rule is applied with the same vengeance in conversation with religious feminists as well. It all gets a bit dizzying after a while.

Kamilla

[Art Deco]

It is not all that dizzying. The complaining employee and several commenters here are practitioners of socially-sanctioned aggression, with the blessings and assistance of the personnel office trolls at Brookstone. The rest is humbug.

[Joe]

Wait? It was BROOKSTONE? Oh for Pete's sake. Would you expect anything else? If you wanna live in Bohemia, get used to Bohemians. Likewise, don't go to Wheaton and get hired by Tyndale if you want to share pics of your gay lover in your cubicle. Sounds like a Tempest in a teapot to me.

[Art Deco]

THIS is bohemian?

[Art Deco]

Ach. Linking no work.

http://www.brookstone.com

[Christopher Hathaway]

One aspect of this story I haven't noticed anyone comment upon is the fact that the one who was offended by his statement and thereby "harrassed" was a superior. She was a store manager. Therefore, there is no way that she could have felt threatened or intimidated by his opinion. Rather, her constant mention of her relationship to him was the clear instanceof intimidation.

Think Thomas Moore and Henry VIII. Henry and his ministers repeatedly asked Thomas what he thought of Henry's new marriage. Once Moore expressed his opinion to that issue he would be charged with treason. In our day the charge is bigotry or harrassment. Same DAMN thing. Of course Henry knew what Moore thought, just as this manager knew what Peter thought. That was why she kept bringing the matter up, to intimidate him into renouncing his belief or to expose him.

But I'm sure that an instance of a superior being "harrassed" by a lower level employee will be chalked up as instance of "bias" by the groups Kent says "measure these sorts of hate crimes for a living." Obviously no bias in their methodology.

Poor King Henry, living under the opression of so many Englishmen who wouldn't tolerate his divorce. I'm an Anglican, and it makes me get all weepy just thinking about it.

[Tony Esolen]

I'm glad to see that the defenders of the superior at Brookstone have now moved away from asserting the moral neutrality of homosexual behavior. Now I wish they could move away from assuming that sexual misbehavior has no consequences for everybody else -- for the common good. To see the principle more clearly, just substitute some other sexual sin for the homosexual one:

Smug Superior: "I'm going on a honeymoon next week!"
Polite Underling: "Really? Where's he taking you?"
Smug Superior: "It's not a he, it's a they!"
Polite Underling: "Oh, I see."
Smug Superior: "Do you have a PROBLEM with that?"

Smug Superior: "I'm going on a honeymoon next week!"
Polite Underling: "Really? Where's he taking you?"
Smug Superior: "Oh, to Arizona, where we used to stay when we were kids."
Polite Underling: "A childhood sweetheart, eh?"
Smug Superior: "I'll say! He's my brother."
Polite Underling: "Your brother?"
Smug Superior: "Do you have a PROBLEM with that?"

Smug Superior: "I'm going on a honeymoon next week!"
Polite Underling: "Really? When's the big day?"
Smug Superior: "Oh, there's no big day. We aren't married."
Polite Underling: "I see -- I think."
Smug Superior: "Do you have a PROBLEM with that?"

Smug Superior: "I'm throwing a baby shower for Jennifer tomorrow. Do you want to pitch in something little?"
Polite Underling: "Well, I think I'd rather not, thanks."
Smug Superior: "What's the matter?"
Polite Underling: "She's not married. I have nothing against the little baby, but I don't think that's something that ought to be celebrated. Or I'm just not comfortable with it."
Smug Superior: "So, you have a PROBLEM with it, don't you?"

Smug Superior: "I'm going on a honeymoon next week!"
Polite Underling: "A honeymoon? But I thought you were married?"
Smug Superior: "I am! But once a year my husband and I go on a honeymoon!"
Polite Underling: "Well now, that must be delightful. Where is he taking you?"
Smug Superior: "He's not taking me anywhere. He's going to Arizona, and I'm going to Florida."
Polite Underling: "That's not much of a honeymoon, then."
Smug Superior: "Silly -- we won't be alone!"
Polite Underling: "I don't understand."
Smug Superior: "We have an open marriage."
Polite Underling: "Oh, I see."
Smug Superior: "Do you have a PROBLEM with that?"

Yes, I have a problem with that. My problem is not just that we are talking about personal sins. There is no such thing as private evil anyhow, and not especially when we are talking about sexuality, which constitutes the "language" we all must use, men and women, when dealing with one another, both members of the same sex and members of the opposite sex. Excuse me, but in this regard the "queer theorists" and I are on exactly the same page: they understand that what they are about is revolutionary for ALL people, not just for a small percentage of the population. Then I am perfectly within my rights as a citizen to ask, "Do I believe that the result of this revolution would be good?" And within my rights to do what I can, especially if it as little as express disapproval, in the workplace or not, to oppose the coming dystopia.

[Art Deco]

Whether all of this actually contributed to this woman's overreaction(from the story as you presented it I'm not arguing that it was definitely an overreaction) I don't know, but what I am saying is that there are good reasons why homosexuals are afraid of harassment! That's all!

If you will remark the statistics here,

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_02.htm

some of which you cited, you will note that about 1,270 'bias crimes' were reported to police, per the Federal Bureau of Investigation and having as their object the homosexual population. Common estimates of the population given to homosexuality in any measure put it at about 6.6 million, so the annual frequency would be about 0.0184%. Over a period of 50 years (say age 17 to one's death at 67), one's chances of being the victim of a 'bias crime' would be about 1%. I doubt the store manager's reaction was derived from personal experience within her circle of friends. One might also note that 60% of the victims reported themselves the victim of 'intimidation' or vandalism. 'Menacing' and 'criminal mischief' are crimes in New York (the former a class b misdemeanor and the latter variable according to severity); one suspects they are also crimes in Massachusetts and she could have reported him to the police had he done any such thing. It is not very credible from the description of events that he played Kojak-with-the-lollipop with her ("you come near me, or any of my...FAMOLEE...I'm gonna scatter your brains from here to White Plains"). It is also not credible she feared he would swathe her car in graffiti.

[Juli]

Alternative scenario: the colleague is planning a (heterosexual) wedding, and it is a second marriage for one of the parties. If the colleague talks excitedly about wedding plans is it appropriate to speak up and tell the colleague that you don't approve of divorce and remarriage?

[An Observer]

It well could be appropriate. But you are ignoring the original story, which states that Mr. Vadala "did not immediately react", but that the lesbian supervisor "sensed Peter's discomfort with the subject" and "continued bringing it up to Peer throughout the day." So it was not the person with the objection forcing the issue into the public arena, but the person doing the action, who was demanding not just tolerance but outright approval, and then carrying out a vendetta when that approval was not forthcoming.

[Art Deco]

If the colleague talks excitedly about wedding plans is it appropriate to speak up and tell the colleague that you don't approve of divorce and remarriage?

If you were the deputy personnel director, would it be appropriate to intervene in such an intramural dispute, or mighn't you just tell babbling bridezilla that you expect their STORE MANAGERS to have a thicker hide?

[c matt]

maybe they just ran the numbers (culturally speaking) and realized that they would probably do better in a suit from a white Christian male, than against a lesbian?

I think they did run the numbers and, based upon their clientele demographics, decided they had less to lose from bad publicity generated by firing a straight white male, than Lesbobridezilla storming through a cyber-Tokyo.

[Kirsten]

IF the gay community started raiding churches and arresting everyone there..."

They would if the churches held orgies. Or worse.

Police regularly raid clubs, brothels and hook-up joints of every sexual persuasion; whether or not they should is a libertoid discussion for another day.

But of course, most Christians are a relatively sheltered bunch who have not read, say Pat Calafia, or know anything about "boi" culture, or why Fire Island is famous or have read Pedro and Me, and so you feel safe making such a comparison. I, however, am somewhat conversant with the alliance the "gay community" has made with the most perverse sexual revolutionaries who idolize the most dangerous, promiscuous and irresponsible behaviour--including the predation of vulnerable adolescent sexual service providers--as a desirable social norm. The great irony is that most of their soi-disant allies are straights who probably could care less about the lives and suffering of actual homosexuals except insofar as they provide useful cover for their own unchecked appetites.

IF the gays would lump all Christians in with the Phelps crew—-? Whoops! They already do, as well you know. So let's rephrase accurately: If gays could do so effectively--? Well they could IF only Phelps weren't a rarity; one quickly, and unanimously, and publicly denounced by the vast majority of Christians. Christians who will, indeed, even organize to provide honor / protection guards to prevent the Phelpians from disturbing, say, normal Christian funeral processions.

A more useful argument is perhaps that a story about a grievance feminist managing to successfully act out against The Patriarchy is essentially dog-bites-man: no news. What's despicable is the nature of harassment and sensitivity laws in the workplace. If my own institution's are typical (which they may well be) there is swift, terrible and immediate processes in place against the accused harasser to guarantee he does not continue in his behaviour. Huzzah! But there are – and I am not exaggerating – absolutely no penalties or procedures in place for anyone making a false accusation: interesting.

N.B. Thanks Art Deco for doing the math on percentage of bias crimes vs. the population against which such crimes are committed. I would also add that while the table identifies victims it does not identify aggressors. Assuming that these must necessarily be white Christians? Racial and religious bigot, much?

[John FB]

Kristen writes: "I, however, am somewhat conversant with the alliance the "gay community" has made with the most perverse sexual revolutionaries who idolize the most dangerous, promiscuous and irresponsible behaviour."

I know gay couples who have been together for 10-15 years. Other gays I know have done quite well for themselves in their various fields. They aren't in rehab, they don't attend bath houses or orgies.

The problem is that the responsible gay community (which is larger than you might think) is never taken into consideration.

I've been in lots of night clubs, some of them gay, some not. I've never seen an orgy occurring in any of them. Take a look here. Some people who were cuffed in the raid were not engaging in sex: they were standing next to a bar.

Before you continue your tirade about the moral bankruptcy of the entire homosexual community, keep in mind that the multi-billion dollar heterosexual pornography industry is a problem even within the church say those here. There are numerous heterosexual "swingers" clubs. Many, many heterosexual couples can't stay married with even the strongest incentives and societal support mechanisms. Child sexual abuse is also a problem and sadly not as uncommon as you would like to pretend: are most girls molested by adult women or adult men?

You know all this though, or rather, you should.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Yes, John, many of us do know all this. We know very well the truth of what goes on in the homosexual community, either from friends who have come out of it or who are still struggling with it but who aren't trying to justify it (we all have our sins which we must confess and combat). Many of us also know the evils of pornography in and out of the "straight" community (are any of us REALLY straight?). But it is odd you should bring that up, because I'm not aware of any who seek to normalize homosexual acts who is really on a tear about pornography.

[Art Deco]

The problem is that the responsible gay community (which is larger than you might think) is never taken into consideration.

Over the last 30 years, one jurisdiction after another has put laws on the books which compel employers to hire and landlords to rent to people they would rather not. The central organs of ecclesiastical bodies have spent an inordinate amount of time jabbering over whether long settled conceptions of the limits of permissible sexual expression should be jettisoned. Escalating shares of the federal government's medical research budget have been consumed by inquiries into venereal disease. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the electorate of Colorado has violated the federal constitution by transferring the authority to make certain sorts of labor and landlord-tenant regulations from local governments to the state government. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts has ruled that an organic law adopted in 1784 requires town clerks to issue marriage licenses to a rather novel set of affiliations. Public schools, which have some difficulty imparting basic literacy and numeracy, have decided they've got the slack to ration time to the discussion of unorthodox sexual practices.

It seems like some set of someones are being taken into consideration....

[Rob G]

"it is odd you should bring that up, because I'm not aware of any who seek to normalize homosexual acts who is really on a tear about pornography."

Yes, and on the other hand there's no doubt that rampant porn has been a boon to the homosexual movement, and that there is loads of gay porn out there.

Want to see what homosexuality is really about? Forget 'Will and Grace' and 'Milk.' Instead, watch some footage from one of the GLBT pride parades in San Fran or New Orleans.

[John FB]

Rob G: Does Mardi Gras (with its drunken displays of public female nudity) or "Girls Gone Wild" exemplify the heterosexual community?

Why does "Gay Pride" reflect the gay community as a whole, but Mardi Gras (which draws in thousands upon thousands of revelers) not reflect the heterosexual community?

That's the problem with these parades (which most gays never attend): they portray one segment of an very diverse population.

[An Observer]

"...the responsible gay community (which is larger than you might think...."

And just what is your definition of "responsible"? I'll offer one -- monogamous fidelity. On which point --

The famous Bell & Weinberg study "Homosexualities" examined some 4,000 homosexual couples in California. [The authors are "pro-gay", by the way.] Among the questions asked was in how many instances both partners in a homosexual relationship has practiced sexual monogamy with each other for the preceding five years.

The answer? ZERO. Yes, zero. Not one single gay couple had been sexually monogamous for just five years. Yet even in this degenerate age, over 50% of heterosexual marriages endure for a lifetime.

Likewise, an article on AIDS some years ago in the "Detroit Free Press" (an editorially liberal newspaper) cited research showing that the average heterosexual male has between 5 and 9 female sexual partners in a lifetime.

By contrast, the average male homosexual has over 1,000 male sexual partners in a lifetime. Yes, over 1,000. The average one, mind you.

The article further noted that:
- over 50% of male homosexuals admit to NEVER knowingly having engaged in intercourse with the same man twice, and
- less than 5% of homosexual "relationships" last more than three months.

So, do tell us all about the "responsible" gay community. Please do.

And, larger than we might think? Is that, say, six members instead of four worldwide?

[Christopher Hathaway]

Hey, observer, what are you doing? Do you go around telling little girls that there's no Santa Claus too? Some people need their fantasies.

[An Observer]

Here are two sources that provide documented statistics regarding: a) homosexuals as a proportion of the population;
b) homosexual vs. heterosexual promiscuity and duration of "relationships"; and
c) homosexual activity and disease.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

[Art Deco]

Why does "Gay Pride" reflect the gay community as a whole, but Mardi Gras (which draws in thousands upon thousands of revelers) not reflect the heterosexual community?

Because 99.64% of the population of the United States do not live in metropolitan New Orleans.

[John FB]

Observer, apparently you also find The National Enquirer and Star as "reliable sources of information". Hey, it MUST be true, after all, you can't print lies can you?

Most of those studies are from the widely discredited Paul Cameron.

Do you know any gay people? I do: dozens. None of them live the way you've
described (although some probably do).

Art Deco writes: "Because 99.64% of the population of the United States do not live in metropolitan New Orleans."

And that 99% of the population is just oh-so-chaste and pure, right? Again, how much money does heterosexual pornography bring in every year? How many young girls are sexually molested by their fathers or other male figures every year?
How many divorces occur every year in a population that has had every social, religious and economic reason to succeed? How frequently does infidelity occur among married couples?

I've said it before: the guilty dogs bark the loudest.

Check your facts.

[Art Deco]

Thanks Art Deco for doing the math.

Actually, I made a transcription error. The correct number is 1,580, not 1,270. However, the victims of 240 offenses were heterosexual, so it's a wash.

I have a native suspicion that the studies 'an observer' cites may be outliers which overstate matters, but you do see the same basic picture painted over and over by sociologists (e.g. Edward Laumann) who have no axes to grind with the homosexual population.

Quite apart from that, though, is that law discriminates by its very nature. Matrimonial and family law have, heretofore, recognized affiliations that form quite naturally. Nuclear, stem, and extended families indemnify their members against the vicissitudes of life and are venues where 'the economic man' does not dwell. The boundaries between families are demarcated in mundane life: you are someone's cousin or you are not. Friendship is much more fluid in its definition and function.

The laws in question grant legal recognition and privilege to some sorts of male-to-male friendships and not others and to some sort of female-to-female friendships and not others. The discriminating criteria in this case is the incorporation of the practice of sodomy into the life of the friendship. The simulacrum of family so formed is an artifact requiring the intervention of medical technology and probate law; it does not exist in fact.

Mr. Vadala's story is a tale of contemporary manners. The notion that sodomy is sterile, undignified, and disgusting cannot, in retail establishments and workplaces in Massachusetts be uttered without penalty; that sodomy is an unsuitable basis for formalizing social relationships now cannot be uttered without penalty.

Our political class is quite adept at giving the brush off to constituencies considerably larger and less rude than the homosexual population. Of late, they have been tossing that population bon bons which have no other social purpose than to please said population. You have to hand it to the gay lobby. From 1977 to the present, they have through persistence managed to turn those at the commanding heights of the legal profession, of the medical profession, of the social work and mental health trade, of the educational apparat, and of the mainline protestant congregations into dancing bears.

Often you pay all your life for being a jackass. But sometimes you do not. You do not want to get to the end of your life thinking the whole world ought to revolve around your ass, but sometimes you do. Generally, the treatment you receive at home, at work, and in various other loci will effectively disabuse you of that notion. I think it reasonably to suggest that he personnel office twit in question was not (ultimately) doing the dyke in question any favors.

[Art Deco]

I've said it before: the guilty dogs bark the loudest.

Which 'dogs' did you have in mind?

Check your facts.

All checked.

[John FB]

"I think it reasonably to suggest that he personnel office twit in question was not (ultimately) doing the dyke in question any favors."

"Dyke"? You're as charming as a box of rocks, you know that?

"The notion that sodomy is sterile, undignified, and disgusting cannot, in retail establishments and workplaces in Massachusetts be uttered without penalty"

Personally, I think opinions can be stated with tact (you seem to have lost the ability to do so). I wouldn't want to see someone fired simply for stating an opinion on gay marriage or anything else. However, there are ways of stating things that could easily be seen as disruptive.

For example, maybe I find heavyset people disgusting to look at. Their flaps and folds and grunting and sweating disgust me. If I went to a co-worker and stated as such, do you think this would be conducive to a good work atmosphere?

"GEEZ, Delores! Can't you lose some weight, for God's sake? You know, gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins, right? Do you have a small child hidden in between one of your chins?!"

Perhaps that's how you'd say it: I doubt I'd want to work alongside such a twit.

[Juli]

For example, maybe I find heavyset people disgusting to look at. Their flaps and folds and grunting and sweating disgust me. If I went to a co-worker and stated as such, do you think this would be conducive to a good work atmosphere?

"GEEZ, Delores! Can't you lose some weight, for God's sake? You know, gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins, right? Do you have a small child hidden in between one of your chins?!"

Well, it wouldn't normally be justified ... but what if the glutton in question provoked the colleague by yammering about lunch dates or recipes?

[Juli]

I've seen methodological critiques of the Bell and Weinberg study that say the heterosexual samples were truly random samples but the homosexual samples were not ... that would account for some of those numbers - and that's not even raising the question of unreliable self-reports; are men in general (esp those who have signed up to talk about such things) known for giving accurate/honest accounts of their sexual histories or exploits?

[An Observer]

"Most of those studies are from the widely discredited Paul Cameron."

Several points in response --

1) Cameron is "discredited" according to a pro-homosexual group to which John FB posts a link. So John FB is merely indulging the penchant for the genetic fallacy and ad hominem argument he has shown in his other posts here.

2) The author of the first link is Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D. The author of the second link is Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr. There is no mention in either article of anything by Paul Cameron. So, where is the evidence that either author relied on Paul Cameron? Or is John FB too busy to check his facts?

3) The data in the studies comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Center for Health Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, numerous academic publications, and even data complied by pro-homosexual groups themselves. So, John FB, exactly which of those sources is "discredited"? Or are all of them?

"Check your facts."

Et tu, Brute. But then, you haven't presented a single fact in all of your posts -- just unsupported sweeping assertions, and ad hominem arguments against the other people posting here.

As for John FB's counter-example to Art Deco -- like Juli before hm, he fabricates a scenario totally contrary in character to what happened to Peter Vadala and then pretend that it illustrates the character of what occurred.

As I remarked before, the meretriciousness of such ploys as these is rich.

"The guilty dogs bark the loudest."

In which case, John FB's own bayings have by now echoed beyond the limits of the known universe.

[Juli]

It well could be appropriate. But you are ignoring the original story, which states that Mr. Vadala "did not immediately react", but that the lesbian supervisor "sensed Peter's discomfort with the subject" and "continued bringing it up to Peer throughout the day."

That may be what happened, but it also may be his interpretation. Brides planning weddings don't normally need any provocation to be preoccupied with the subject, and they're more likely to be guilty of self-absorption than guilty of careful attention to those around them (who - even if they are basically sympathetic - are typically bored with the details and tuning them out).

[Rob G]

"That's the problem with these parades (which most gays never attend)"

So it's mostly straights that show up at Gay Pride parades? Afraid I'm having an Osborne Cox moment here...

[John FB]

"So it's mostly straights that show up at Gay Pride parades?"

No, although there are straight people in the parades.
There are more gays that do NOT attend the parades than those that do, just as there are more heterosexuals that do NOT attend swingers clubs and Mardi Gras than those that do.

It all comes down to this: does anyone who desires to work and puts in an honest day's work deserve to be fired for their personal beliefs and/or practices (whatever they may be) if they are not a hindrance to the general workplace while they are there because of those things?

Generally, I think not, and the law should not allow it. If the facts are as true as the article above claims (I doubt it, but let's say they are), the person should NOT have been dismissed.

The problem is that many Christians want complete freedom and immunity from any repercussions for any public display of their "faith" at the workplace, while they simultaneously wish to be granted complete autonomy in making decisions in terms of who can be fired when others wish to enjoy those same freedoms. When a Christian discriminates against people of other faiths and/or practices, it's "freedom of conscience". When someone returns the favor, it's "persecution".

I'm no fan of political correctness. As I've said, I don't think people should be fired for deeply-held religious beliefs tactfully expressed. I DO believe in encouraging a diversity of types when it comes to the work force.

I don't think you're actually arguing for diversity, though (one that allows dissent from a more liberal popular mainstream). I'm not sure what you're arguing for, exactly: one where only Christian opinions are recognized, and that maybe only white male Protestant opinions?

This is an increasingly diverse culture: if that's what you're arguing for, let me know how that works for you.

[Art Deco]

For example, maybe I find heavyset people disgusting to look at. Their flaps and folds and grunting and sweating disgust me. If I went to a co-worker and stated as such, do you think this would be conducive to a good work atmosphere?

Excess weight is an abiding and difficult problem to control, is attendant upon poignant problems in social life, and is generally seen as such by the people who suffer it. The store manager was not complaining that he had called attention to her defects; it was his evaluation of certain of her characteristics as defects that motivated her complaint.

(I doubt the personnel office would have been much interested had I insulted someone for their weight, but perhaps the places I have worked are atypical).

The problem is that many Christians want complete freedom and immunity from any repercussions for any public display of their "faith" at the workplace, while they simultaneously wish to be granted complete autonomy in making decisions in terms of who can be fired when others wish to enjoy those same freedoms. When a Christian discriminates against people of other faiths and/or practices, it's "freedom of conscience". When someone returns the favor, it's "persecution".

The problem?

'Civil rights' legislation, by excising a large measure of discretion in the forming of associations, has opened up a can of worms in our public life. One is a problem in our political culture most common in the minds of the student affairs apparat at Anytown State U, who are given to insisting that Christian student groups are behaving illegitimately when they have by-laws which insist that members of the association be on board with the association's educational mission. It is perhaps most severe in the minds of lobbyists for the Planned Parenthood Federation, &c. whose object is to strip Catholic hospitals and service agencies of any autonomy in defining and carrying out their mission, because it is in fact at a variance with Planned Parenthood's mission. I am sure there are Christian communicants who want to can people from their sales jobs as well; whether their status as communicants is the most salient thing about them I leave for others to answer.

The mission of Brookstone is to sell appliances to people with a tendency to spend good money on baubles. Nothing Peter Vadala did or said was incongruent with that mission. He was offering a personal opinion on the spillage from the store manager's domestic life. It is difficult to argue he was disruptive. She was the one who complained to personnel and it was the personnel office (not his immediate supervisor or department head) that generated the disruption by firing him.

Peter Vadala has not undertaken any legal action, so Mr. Tisinai's insistence that he is seeking 'special rights' is non sequitur. MassResistance may be making use of the framework of 'civil rights' discourse in framing the issue. That would be unfortunate. The point is how incidents like this expose the guises and poses the gay lobby has been maintaining for a generation, expose something about what rank-and-file homosexuals think is their due in this society, and demonstrate how what can be said and what must be left unsaid have changed in a generation. (And changed in ways injurious to the common good).

[Tony Esolen]

It is not heterosexuals who say that homosexual men abide by an utterly different code of sexual behavior. It's the homosexual men themselves who say that. For instance: most heterosexual married men do not use pornography. Many do, but most don't. According to a homosexual friend of mine, ALL homosexual men use pornography. Oh, I guess you might find one or two somewhere who don't, but he insisted that the use is, for all practical purposes, universal.

On the promiscuity of homosexual males: AIDS could never have become such an epidemic in that subgroup were it not for that promiscuity. "Boys without girls" is how the sheriff of San Francisco County, himself a homosexual, described it, trying to get heterosexuals to understand what it was all about, and why they needed to change their thinking about these matters if they were going to get a handle on what to do to stem the epidemic. I'd say that though male homosexuality may mimic marriage, it is first a corruption of male friendship, and that once you get that, you get why it is no "betrayal" for Mike to seek release in a bathroom or a rest stop, or why it does not destroy the friendship when it is extended to men beyond the couple...

[An Observer]

"That may be what happened, but it also may be his interpretation."

The burden of proof is on you to prove the latter. Lacking that, this suggestion is simply disingenuous.

As for "methodological critiques of the Bell & Weinberg study" -- picking at the methodology of a study whose evidence and conclusion one doesn't like is an incessant academic parlor game. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that the heterosexual sample selection was entirely random but the homosexual sample selection was not. In that case, perhaps the monogamy statistic for the latter wouldn't be zero, but it certainly would still be enormously variant from the heterosexual monogamy statistic. And it strains credulity to believe that the sample was so non-random as to alter the data between the two groups from one of parity to such a huge discrepancy. That would require not just methodological flaws, but massive and deliberate statistical fraud.

It also doesn't answer the question as to why, barring fraud and anti-gay animus by Bell & Weinberg (who are unabashedly pro-gay in any case), the alleged skewing of the data by methodological bias is 100% in the direction of promiscuity. Given Bell & Weinberg's openly pro-gay stance, any deliberate skewing of data by them would surely have put the homoscual respondents in a far more positive light.

It is thus reasonable to deduce that if the methodology is flawed and the selection of subjects non-random, then the non-random "unreliable self reports" are a result of deliberate fabrications by the subjects interviewed. Now, statisticians are well aware of the fact that self-reporting subjects will, if possible, bias their answers in a way that puts them in the more favorable light among the possible options. That leaves the following alternatives here:

a) The data is not skewed by the self-reporting subjects and is substantially accurate.
b) The data is skewed by the self-reporting subjects, which means that the subjects here believe that promiscuity and rejection of monogamy is a positive trait.

In either case, the homosexual community is practicing or promoting promiscuity and rejection of monogamous fidelity. And let's not pretend that somehow homosexuals are bragging about promiscuity in words but rejecting it in deed. AIDS is not spread by the fidelity of monogamous sexual conduct confined to marriage.

------------------------------

"Do you know any gay people?"

Yes, John FB, many -- I've been in higher education and the performing arts world for decades. And perhaps you'd like to hear a little bit about my lesbian sister-in-law. My in-laws are both in the early stages of Alzheimer's (cognitively impaired but not yet legally incompetent in a provable legal sense). My wife and I recently found out that my sister-in-law and her partner (both of whom have decent paying full time jobs) have taken advantage of the situation to induce my in-laws to shell out over $150,000 in 15 months to them, even though they know that my in-laws lost half of their net wealth in the stock market crash and are paying several thousand dollars each month on 24-hour home health care aides. Despite all that extra tax-free income, said sister-in-law and partner are now five months behind on their mortgage, and months behind on other bills (bill collectors are even calling my house looking for them). Of course, that didn't stop my sister-in-law from throwing a big birthday bash for her partner by renting a room at a posh local tavern, inviting and paying for dozens of guests. Not to mention the time they took my in-laws out for dinner -- to a lesbian club where the walls wee painted with explicit sex scenes. Perhaps you would care to explain all this?

[John FB]

An observer asks "Perhaps you would care to explain all this?"

What can I say? Universal depravity?

Look, I can give you anecdotes of a man in my extended family who molested three of his daughters (he's no longer around but I hear he's done well for himself in some small district in the South). I have an uncle who was a heterosexual alcoholic who sucked every last cent off of his father (my grandfather).

I know some gay men who have donated a lot of their time to charitable causes and others who are vain and empty-headed and spend their time partying and doing generally nothing. I know some who bring in $500 or $600K a year and others who can barely make ends meet. I know a gay man who quit his job so he could take care of his elderly parents but another who contracted HIV doing porn.

No one's suggesting that gays are beyond criticism. What's unjust is to assert that because someone is same-sex oriented, they are necessarily promiscuous, disease-ridden, callous, shallow and even irreligious. John Heard (johnheard.blogspot.com) is gay, but doesn't support gay marriage. He's a conservative Catholic. However, he's quite honest about the fact that he is gay and probably always will be. Fr Mychal Judge (who perished on 9/11) is known to be gay (although he was celibate).

It's a diverse community. Like any other group, people need to be assessed on their own merits, not those of others simply because they happen to share certain characteristics. This seems obvious, but perhaps it is easily forgotten.

Does this seem unreasonable?

[Tony Esolen]

John FB,

People are evaluated as individuals. Law has to do rather with the common good. And the common good requires that certain sexual behaviors be proscribed. We are arguing about whether that includes homosexual behavior. Then we might argue about what "proscribed" means, for our practical purposes. I think it would satisfy most of the people here to say, simply, that the behavior is not natural, and though the people who engage in it are not to be treated cruelly, and are to be respected as human beings, still they do not have the right to twist the definition of marriage to their liking. That's all. They, in this case, are the innovators, and the burden of proof rests upon the innovators, to show that what they want would not cause harm. They must meet the objections of their opponents -- and not cast those opponents as ignoramuses or demons.

I disagree with your statement, "It is a diverse community." It is not a community at all, but an interest group. And its diversity is not to the point. People who buy Hustler magazine are diverse, too. Big deal -- Hustler should not be printed. People who have "open marriages" are diverse. Big deal. But as for the supposed diversity itself -- it is a diversity that at the least must pass off as irrelevant the illicitness of extra-"marital" sex. That alone is revolutionary.

Look, you either accept the sexual revolution and its presuppositions, or you don't. If you do, your argument is not with us; it is with every culture that has ever existed -- not to mention the word of God (which you should learn to read theologically, and not like a sophomore "discovering" things that careful readers noticed fifteen hundred years ago). If you don't, then you need to show us why this innovation does not rivet that sexual revolution in place. It is a degeneration of culture and community, by the way, that has hurt the poor and the lower middle class far more dreadfully than it has hurt everyone else. I see examples of this harm all the time. All I have to do is look at the apartment building across the street, or think of the people we know in the fishing village where we spend the summer.

[Juli]

Observer, sorry to hear about your in-laws, but do you imagine they're somehow representative of lesbians in general? I could go on and on about my sister and her partner and the good they do for their co-workers, neighbors, extended families (including elderly parents, aunts, and uncles), and those in need (volunteering, etc); they're also models of responsibility in terms of their work ethics and their financial and legal arrangements ... but I don't think that proves anything about lesbians in general; it's just who they are as people.

[An Observer]

I did not say my sister-in-law is a universal norm of every homosexual. I have treasured memories of a college professor (now deceased) who was an "old school" closeted homosexual, and was also a brilliant teacher who did me many kindnesses. His sin was an occasion of sorrow for me on his behalf, and I pray that it was one of which he repented (he was a churchgoing Catholic) and thus found salvation. But I have no hesitation in saying that my sister-in-law, not that professor, is by far the more typical example of the modern homosexual. The sexual sin itself is one thing, since that can be forgiven upon confession and repentance; it is the unrepentant practice and defense of the sin that hardens the mind and heart and soul in all areas of life, and ends in damnation.

-------------------------------------------------

"No one's suggesting that gays are beyond criticism. What's unjust is to assert that because someone is same-sex oriented, they are necessarily promiscuous, disease-ridden, callous, shallow and even irreligious."

What you try to do instead is to obfuscate with the bogus argument that pretends:

a) there is absolute parity between the conduct of a small minority of heterosexuals and a large majority of homosexuals;
b) sins of heterosexual promiscuity and immorality somehow make homosexual inclinations as normal as heterosexual inclinations; and
c) every Christian defender of traditional Scriptural standards of sexual morality is a bigot, hatemonger, liar, ignoramus, or other straw man caricature of your own devising.

Now, no-one here has said or implied that every homosexual is "disease-ridden, callous, shallow" -- for "promiscuous" and "irreligious" see below. But in virtually every post here by John FB, he has put invented words and ideas in the mouths and minds of his opponents that they have never spoken or implied. Who, then, is the liar here?

To forfend an easily anticipated casuistic reply, this is not to say that any homosexual sin is worse than every heterosexual sin. I for one would argue that any act of heterosexual adultery is a worse sin than homosexual fornication, because the former involves violation of a unique sacred vow which the latter does not. But that does not contradict the fundamental fact that, by God's design of the original unfallen created order and corresponding revealed commandments, some heterosexual acts of intercourse are natural and moral (those between husband and wife in marriage, when exercised with proper and not sinful intent and means), and others that are unnatural and immoral (fornication, adultery, emotional or physical coercion, and -- yes, I'll grasp the nettle here -- use of contraception). By contrast, all -- all -- acts of homosexual intercourse are both unnatural (objectively disordered) and immoral. And since all such acts are unnatural and immoral, all such actors are necessarily promiscuous in conduct.

Now, self-identified "Christian" apologists for the licitness of homosexual inclinations and acts necessarily base their arguments upon a denial of one or more of four points:

a) the divine creation of an unalterable foundational natural order that embodies a corresponding moral, in favor of a concept of physical nature that is indefinitely malleable according to increasing human technological capacities (which in effect idolatrously declares man to be God);
b) the divine revelation of that order in Scriptural precepts as an explication of that natural order, in favor of a view of Scripture as being merely a record of certain particular human speculations about and reflections upon the divine (leading to the supposedly "conversational" approach to Scripture that is in fact only a soliloquy with one's self);
c) the occurrence of the Fall, and the entailment therein of sexual inclinations, in favor of a view that (in conjunction with the two preceding points) sexual inclination with respect to objects of desire is neutral so long as the parties engaged give mutual consent (which therefore makes licit pedophilia, bestiality, sadomasochism, necrophilia, etc.); and
d) the indissoluble connection between the unitive (agape) and procreative dimensions of sexual congress, with the latter necessarily ordered toward the latter; in favor of a claim that the primary purposes of sexual congress are the expression of "love" (eros, not agape) and obtaining of physical and emotional gratification (and the emotional being in turn equated with the "spiritual" to provide a faux religious justification).

Now, anyone who denies these premises in favor of the alternatives is, quite simply, not a Christian. As evangelist Billy Sunday said, "Going into church doesn't makes you a Christian any more than going into a garage makes you a car." From the standpoint of Christianity, those who practice and/or defend sexual immorality of any sort are indeed irreligious; more precisely, they believe in a false religion of their own devising, rather than the true religion divinely revealed that they reject.

Prof. Esolen is right -- John FB needs to "learn to read theologically, and not like a sophomore 'discovering' things that careful readers noticed fifteen hundred years ago." The sophomoric approach is the mental equivalent of an infant investigating the contents of his own diapers, and smells equally odious.

[Rob G]

The notion that "private" sins, including sexual ones, are personal, and affect no one but the sinner(s) involved is a very modern idea which flies in the face of two thousand years of Christian moral teaching. Even worse is the belief that sexual sins are somehow "sins of the body" only -- that they don't negatively impact the soul.

[ari]

I suppose what I find odd is citing Mardi Gras in New Orleans as a gay festivel. It's not. It's Fat Tuesday, it's Carnival- Carne Vale- the farewell to flesh-- it's the days between the Three Kings finding the baby Jesus, and worshipping him with prophetic and sacremental gifts, and the forty days of Lent- where Jesus fulfills his prophecied role as a sacrifice.

It's a Catholic season. It's human- we eat and drink and celebrate and put on fabulous ( in literally the dream-like floats and flambeaux) parades for our neighbors and friends- and the rest of the US, being so much less Catholic and alive, comes here hungry for music and glitter, and mystery- and then, at midnight, it ends. The streets get cleaned, everyone goes home. What the tourists didn't see were the balls- where eligible young women are introduced to society- and young women and men meet ( including the crown prince of greece, to his (now) wife)- or that it ends.

At the start of Lent, everyone, and I do mean everyone, in the city starts Lent. Even the school lunch program follows Lenten practice. People give up drinking, meat, fornicating, cursing, amyl nitrate--everything.

Then, on Ash Wednesday, everyone all over town gets an ash- mark. Even gay bar owners, and gay boutique owners and girls gone wild-- you name it, you're marked. And then Easter. The Cathedral? On Jackson Square? And all the other cathedrals and chapels? Full. Full. Full. For service after service after service, all day long.

[Anonymous]

I like the Greeks, who celebrate the arrival of the Great Fast (on the Sunday before Ash Wednesday) not with raucous celebrations but by flying kites.

[Juli]

Jon Stewart on the Peter Vadala case

[Anna Dawson]

Marriage is to be celebrated as a thing of beauty and this whole discussion about gay marriage makes me feel sad.

[Jeff]

No offense but the man was wrong by saying what his religious beliefs were. All he needed to say was that please do not harass me by the repetition. Whether marrying male or female it is a form of harassment to constantly repeat something.