Calm It Down, Church Lady

Tactically, I don’t understand his logic on this.  Polling in the US has been indicating that a very high percentage of Americans agree with the notion of a wall.  And last time I checked, a very high percentage of Americans considered themselves Christian (including the Evangelical base who are in large part, supporting Trump).  So in declaring Trump “not a Christian” for supporting a wall, the Pope has by extension declared millions of Americans to be no longer Christians.  …Do you really think this was a smart idea for you Pope?  How are you endearing Catholicism to the US by being as base as the rest of us?  Especially since you were already on tenuous ground with a large swath of Evangelicals who regard the perversion of Catholicism as the Great Harlot cult, and thus, not Christians either.

He is supposed to be the vicar of Christ on Earth, and this insight was about on par with a basement church lady in Oklahoma.

The Pope understands walls.  Whether literally or figuratively, The Pope is ensconced behind a cascade of them.  He has his bullet proof glass go-go cart.  His own private police force Corpo della Gendarmeria.…plus that weird albino thing from The Davinci Code.  He has the immense walls of St. Peter’s Basilica.  He has the purview of The Holy See.  He has his own country, with lines on a map, and a de facto military by way of The Pontifical Swiss Guard.  Last time i checked The Vatican isn’t accepting Mexican migrants either.  They’re not even accepting their regional equivalent – the Syrian refugees.  Maybe Italy is, certainly Sicily.  But The Vatican itself isn’t housing any number (beyond what may be for show, the typical m.o.).

But maybe the most disturbing aspect of the Pope’s hypocrisy is the sheer amount of wealth he has walled up.  If he were to make that potential energy kinetic, he could solve all of Mexico’s problems and thwart the need for anyone to even flee the country.  He could pay the administrative and adoption fees for the tens of thousands of migrant children who crossed the border in the 2015 crisis.  Is this Christian behavior, to hoard a vast amount of wealth when Catholics all over the developing world are in misery?  You’ve been more than happy to take collections and tithings from mothers who have to drink out of a puddle of water someone else just shit in for hundreds of years.  Why not auction off some of your rock and roll gowns and paintings like the real Madonna?  You could buy some Saudi desalinization plants and pipe clean water to all of Brazil.   This was illustrated best by unshorn devil Jew Sarah Silverman here in her “Sell The Vatican” campaign.

And slow your roll homey.  You are just a man.  Most of us are not under a fervent spell of you being divinely anything.  So you thinking you had some kind of don’t-hit-a-girl-back protection because you’re a Pope isn’t going to hold holy water.  You’ve made yourself a fair target in the now shit-slinging pig stye of American politics.  You’d better get some stain remover for your Papal vestments, cuz a lot of this shit’s gonna stick.  …And enough with over-praising him for pondering that gays might be equal….it’s like he’s in the special Olympics of thinking and we’re supposed to cheer on his subpar revelations.

It was my understanding that Christianity was a virtual feedback loop of sin and forgiveness of sin…and that if only those among us who had sinned were Christian, then no one would be.  So why couldn’t Trump have had this errant thought but maintained his Christianity?  What sassy set of rules did the Pope whip up just for The Donald today?  Would not have a more compassionate (and accurate) comment have been something along the lines of “having open arms to all who are in need is the most Christian response”?  A response affirming the virtues of Christian teaching would have been far more becoming of the Pope than this muck-mired tort that is so terrestrial, so basic, and just like everyone else.  …But that is because he is just like everyone else, and we’d all be behoothed to glimpse through this wizard’s curtain if you haven’t already.  There is no magic here.  Just one more bitchy queen in shimmery clothes.

Crucifying A Straw Man

It will always be a motivation in my heart to arm any LGBT people, especially teens, in the arguments they undoubtedly face in society from people who meet them with ignorance and bigotry.  Part of me will always be an awkward teenager in a MidWestern class room staving off mental, physical and psychological/ideological abuse from 30 people all at once + a teacher.  I will always have persons in that state of vulnerability in mind when writing about LGBT matters.  I hope that what I write could help someone somewhere, in asserting or protecting themselves…in feeling that they are less alone, and not having to have an answer for everything all the time, as the screed of prejudice is endless and comes from more directions than one person can be prepared for.

In keeping with that motivation, I have recently come across another blog regarding the writer’s irritation at all these Gay people who are perverting the definition of marriage.  He couldn’t be bothered with the fact that they feel oppressed and seek equality, and had this to say about it.

I left him 1 comment, which as of now, is viewable on his page.  He responded.  This is where the real unveiling begins.  His response was replete with presumptions, lies, and the typical rhetoric that we are often faced with.  It is for this reason that I wanted to publish my 2nd response to said commentary in order to serve as an Antidote because I am AntiDolt.  At last I checked, my comment was idling in ‘waiting to be approved’.  I suspect he will not have the honesty or courage to publish it, so I am publishing it here.  If he remains an ideological coward and does not publish the comment, I will quote & post his entire article precipitating the comments here as well, but for now, it is viewable in the link above and here.

BEGIN:

HomoSapienAgenda:

I read above that you’re a husband and father. I’d imagine those things are important to you. The next time you think about Religious opposition to Gay Marriage, consider that for a very long time that they have made it impossible for other men to be in those 2 aforementioned roles that are obviously of great import to you. How hard would you fight for the right to be married to your wife? How hard would you fight for the right to adopt or have your child? Unless you believe that a homosexual is somehow innately flawed or less humane than you, you must understand that they want for the same things that came to you without contention. Imagine what your life would be like, how void, if you lived in a Theocratic nation that was not a Christian one, and they disallowed you from your lifestyle “choice” – that being to practice Catholicism, marry your own kind, and raise a child in a household with your chosen beliefs.

Jeff Walker:

Thank you for your comment and I apologize for the delayed response. I am a husband and a father as you point out. In that part of your comment you were correct. However, where have you read anything written or said by me in which I object to gay marriage on religious grounds? After that assertion you present a series of hypothetical questions and then attempt to bait me into saying that homosexuals are “somehow flawed or less humane” than I am. Using your style of argument I can assume that you’re in favor of burning churches and threatening people of faith believe in “Jeebus Crispy”, but I reject that style of argument and false assertions. Here’s an idea: instead of trying to neatly cast me into a stereotypical role so that you may quickly dismiss anything I say and justify your prejudices, you try to communicate in a more honest manner instead.

I do not object to SSM solely on religious grounds as you say. I object to the dishonest attempts to remake the world in your own image in order to destroy a foundation of civilization. In 2013, there is no ban on homosexual civil rights. In all fifty states homosexual citizens stand equally before the law and their civil rights are unequivocally protected. LBGTs can live alone or together, vote, run for elected office, open any bank account, live anywhere they choose, buy property, eat in any restaurant, attend any play, enjoy picnics in any park, choose to start their own or join a religious community that blesses their relationship(s), choose any workplace, write any binding contract, seek any physician, attend any hospital, visit a domestic partner in any hospital, buy any car, travel freely, gather freely, protest any cause, start any business, join the military, buy health insurance from any one of 7,400 insurers that offer domestic spousal benefits, contract to designate legal inheritances, write any legally binding will, and make legal end-of-life contracts. Contrary to published, widespread misinformation, the IRS recognizes community property. It is not possible, however, for a homosexual citizen to extend citizenship to an illegal, same sex partner — but that illegal partner can obtain citizenship through established, lawful means. There are no inequalities for LBGTs in government benefits or rights. Marriage grants no advantage that legal domestic partnerships, legal reciprocal beneficiaries, or legal same sex unions do not provide. Hence the repetitive mantra that equates homosexual choices with Jim Crow “separate but equal” atrocities is not valid.

I object to the dishonest attempts at destroying a word in the name of obtaining something already attainable in this nation. The “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” manifesto written in 2006 states that legal equivalence (marriage) will not satisfy most LGBTs and gay marriage is not the end goal — “it is a way station on the path to a post-marriage society.” The end goal, according to “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” is not to have the same recognition, rights, and benefits as heterosexual married couples, it is to legalize a radical redefinition of marriage that includes unlimited diversity of families until the very idea of traditional marriage itself is “stripped of meaning.” (http://www.beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html)

Tell me, please, what is it that is truly wanted by gay marriage proponents if not the redefinition of a word. And be honest instead of setting up straw men. Don’t take away my chance to listen.

My currently banned rebuttal:

I’m going to have to do a line by line interdiction of your response in order to be thorough.  It is beleaguered with false assumptions on your part about my opinions.  As well, I would describe the integrity of your facts as leprotic.

You state:

“where have you read anything written or said by me in which I object to gay marriage on religious grounds?”

Answer:

Your blog.

You State:

“I do not object to SSM solely on religious grounds as you say.”

Answer:

….But you do object to them even in part on religious grounds then?  Your words — so which is it.

All the opposition you have stated is based on conflict between the Biblical view of Marriage and Gay marriage.  All of your statements of “redefining” are new definitions in contrast to the original Biblical one.  I would consider that religious grounds.

You state:

“Using your style of argument I can assume that you’re in favor of burning churches and threatening people of faith believe in “Jeebus Crispy”

 Answer:

It is not possible to be a Catholic who is against Gay Marriage unless you believe that sex between people of the same sex is a sin.*  A sin of homosexuals.  To call this act/lifestyle/choice a sin would be synonymous with saying that they are flawed and therefore accountable for enacting this sin.  Do you seriously want to tell me that the act of homosexuality is not flaw in the homosexual?  ….Or perhaps you also share this flaw.  Do tell….

A sin is an ontological flaw or imperfection, let’s not quibble over minutia…

Because if you don’t believe that Homosexuality is a sin, yet you still wish to disallow Gay Marriage, then you’ve got some serious accounting for prejudice and bigotry to do.

 *(and don’t bother to dig up people who are 1. Catholic  2. against Gay Marriage 3. but don’t think gay sex is a sin.  I don’t find the Chris Christie political approach to this to be ingenuous at all, and I will shoot that down the moment you attempt it).  ….More on that gluttonous Catholic later.

 You State:

“I object to the dishonest attempts to remake the world in your own image in order to destroy a foundation of civilization”

Answer:

Wow.  Destroy a foundation of civilization?  No one wants to stop Heterosexual Christians from marrying each other first of all,…only you are interested in doing that to others.  No part of Marriage Equality is to pursue a Federal Ban on Traditional Marriage.  That’s your schtick.  And whilst I freely admit, as would many others pro-SSM, that marriage and families do provide value and stability and growth to society—the inclusion of an additional form of union toward that same ideal does not take away anything from one man/one woman.  That is unless the foundation you speak of is not nearly as sturdy and effective in its segregated form as you would suggest.  I think your real fear lies in the insecurity you have about the veracity of your own Religious worldview—that being the necessity of traditional marriage and traditional values to be upheld in order for an ideal society to even exist.  I think the light being shed in on this by your own disastrous divorce rate of 50+% must be a frightening indication to you that these arcane notions of control are being evolved out of, and your jig is up.  If 50% of the straight married couples truly believed that divorce was a sin and could put them in Hell like a good Catholic does, then 50% of the married couples would not be getting divorced.  …It must really eat you up when that many people, of your own kind, are thumbing their nose at you.  This, is where the real seat of your protestations lie.  That you have lied about Protestants, reform, and evolution at large, since time immemorial.  The scent of death is on the Catholic worldview.  It is impossible for you to maintain the breadth of lies that you have with consciousness being as connected as it’s about to be.  Adieu.

Furthermore, what is dishonest about two people wishing to have their love recognized by law?  Isn’t that what you’re doing when you get married?  And the bit about remaking the world in “your own image” is histrionic, baseless and presumptuous, which is I believe something you chastised me for earlier.  I am not Gay.  And I have never even heard of a Homosexual stating that they are for Marriage Equality because it will alchemize the world into their own Gay image.  Such degrading rhetoric is why you encounter the dismissive opinions that you complain about.

 You State:

“In all fifty states homosexual citizens stand equally before the law and their civil rights are unequivocally protected”

Answer:

What an utter load of horse spit.

http://www.upworthy.com/29-states-can-fire-you-for-being-gay-is-your-state-one-of-them

http://www.ranker.com/list/8-things-gay-people-can_t-do/cdu827?page=1

…And that is to say nothing of the additional discrimination that Trans people face.  Nor are these two links meant to imply

the extent of how Homosexual citizens are unequal under the law.  This was that integrity of fact problem I had alluded to before..

The research you could do to edify your self on this manner is abundant, and would not have been difficult.  Your abdication of effort in doing so suggests a viewpoint rife with the very prejudices and bigotry that you chastised me for assuming you had.

You State:

A litany of things that Gays can do under Civil Unions that are the same as the Marriage Equality they desire.

Answer:

Here is a litany of things that are not the same:

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

You State:

“the repetitive mantra that equates homosexual choices with Jim Crow “separate but equal” atrocities is not valid.”

Answer:

Yes it is.

You State:

“I object to the dishonest attempts at destroying a word in the name of obtaining something already attainable in this nation.”

 Answer:

As was elucidated to you, an equality in Marriage is not already attainable. And I still have no idea what you mean to imply by calling the attempts ‘dishonest.’  There is no agenda in the pursuit of equality beyond equality.  To suggest otherwise is to fraught your argument with a level of irrationality that I think you’d like to think you are above.  No one wants to destroy anything.  They just want to be included in what you claim that they want to destroy.  So can we sit for a minute and see how your assertion doesn’t make sense…

 You State:

…What are tantamount to out right lies regarding the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” statement.

This has to be the low point of what you’ve written here, as you purposefully mislead your readers in a way that can’t be construed as anything other than biased and nearly hateful.  You actually put into quotations two derisive statements that are not contained anywhere in “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” statement that you linked to.  They were:

“it is a way station on the path to a post-marriage society.”

-and-

“it is to legalize a radical redefinition of marriage that includes unlimited diversity of families until the very idea of traditional marriage itself is “stripped of meaning.” ”

Neither of the phrases in quotation are found ANYWHERE in the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” statement.  In fact your first quote is from a FICTIONAL conversation made up by blogger Stanley Kurtz on the right wing blog EPPC.  It is NOT a statement quotable to “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage”.  It was someone else’s writing meant to express his interpretation of opinions he didn’t agree with.  It was never in fact, stated verbatim by anyone.  In addiction to that intentionally misleading plagiarism, your entire second paragraph was lifted as well.

It is amazing to me that you began your rebuttal with, and I quote: “Here’s an idea: instead of trying to neatly cast me into a stereotypical role so that you may quickly dismiss anything I say and justify your prejudices, you try to communicate in a more honest manner instead.”

Absolutely shameful.  

…And to think you are to be representing the ideals of an honest Catholic man.
You have portrayed content as your own, intentionally mislead, and outright LIED.
Congratulations on nullifying your own viewpoint beyond any way I ever could hope to.

Cathloholics Anonymous: A Sobering Communion With Facts

With the selection of a new Pope, certainly a lot of mention is being made of the Catholic Church sex scandals. It was a matter of time before someone took the crass easy shot of making sure homosexuality stays blended with molestation in the minds of the auto-pilot public. Leave that to Bill O’Reilly, who this week, took it upon himself to ‘whoopsie daisy’ conflate homosexuality with molestation (more on that later).  Alas, I figure it’s worth clarifying this matter as this poison calls for an antidote.  It is often said that the two have nothing to do with each other, and just as often silently assumed that they do. But it is never explained how the two got conjoined to begin with. Here’s how:

1.  Absolution of sin by proximity to God.

If you’ve grown up in a Catholic family/country, then you’ve been immersed in a culture that makes certain you are aware that any deviation from heterosexuality is an outright sin, and one that you should be immensely ashamed of.  The prolonged internalization of this feeling can cause some men to ‘hide’ from persecution on the the two fronts they face it on:  1. society/family and  2. God himself.  By entering the clergy, the men, who are deviants by Catholic measure, are ‘excused’ from displaying any normal sexuality because they are to be chaste, therefore, no suspicion is ever aroused that they are homosexual since they don’t take wives.  The same modality is applied the molestor-types, as obviously taking a child partner would never be possible.  That is the the model of deflection used toward society.  And for their personal concerns, they can assuage their guilt and sinful nature through their constant communion with and proximity to God working in the Church.

2. Law Of Attraction – if you were to describe the Cardinal signs of Catholicism, they might be: sexually repressed, and guilt ridden.  Who else might be feeling this way? Those who are told their sexuality is sinful. Life is set up in a way that people who are of a similar feather flock together. What an irony then that this grand institution has focused so much energy into fear and judgement that it has become the most vibrationally similar element to that which it condemns.

Obviously homosexuality is not a sin against anyone.  This differentiates it from the configuration of sexuality which imposes upon a victim through molestation.  It is unfortunate that Catholicism has erroneously condemned Homosexuality to be such a sin, and it is because of this that the Homosexuals – who are innocent of any sexual immorality – are subjected to the same feelings of shame as those who are actually inclined to sexual crime.  So…it ends up being people who internalize shame that gravitate toward the clergy, although their reason for harboring this shame is MARKEDLY different.