Not long ago, some reader sent me something from “Equality California” where its prejudiced leader Geoff Kors was breathlessly reporting that people who opposed gay marriage were motivated by “hate.” I replied that anything that anything that highly partisan Democrat said should be taken with a grain of salt because he was so keen to find hatred among his ideological adversaries.
Mr. Kors acts as if every person who doesn’t support his agenda on gay issues does so because of some kind of animus against gay people. Only he doesn’t use such eloquent language, preparing to use various forms of the word, “hate,” either as verb (“to hate”), noun (“hate”,”hatred”), adjective (“hateful”) to describe social conservatives harboring un-PC opinions of homosexuality.
And yet, as per Nick’s post yesterday, Mr. Kors’ prejudice against those who do not share his worldview is, in many ways, the prevailing attitude among the politically educated gay class. They have determined, as Nick put it, “an uncanny knack for painting opponents of their agenda as being full of ‘hate’.”
Like Obama Democrats seeking to discredit their opponents by questioning their motives to create an excuse for dismissing their arguments without debating them, gay leftists wish to smear their adversaries so as to press ahead with their agenda without making their case.
Perhaps that’s it, perhaps there’s something more to it than that. And were I not traveling and spending time with my family, I might give it more thought. Perhaps tomorrow when I return to the open road.
Nick made a great point which bears repetition and re-articulation–and serious consideration. Why is it that gay leftists wish to paint anyone who disagrees with their agenda as “haters”? Note how many of their number insist on calling us “self-hating.”
ADDENDUM: And this relates closely to the point I have made repeatedly wondering why gay marriage advocates prefer to smear their adversaries than make the case for gay marriage.
“And this relates closely to the point I have made repeatedly wondering why gay marriage advocates prefer to smear their adversaries than make the case for gay marriage.”
Because our adversaries are not the rulers of society, and they don’t deserve to have us grovel to win their approval.
I personally don’t care if social conservatives “approve” of my marriage. They can suck it when the Supreme Court figures out that equal protection means equal protection, and if they go to their graves mewling and whining about gay marriage, they’re no different from people who take their last breaths as unrepentant racists. Either way, it’s not my fault that they wasted their lives thinking they lived on a pedestal they didn’t earn.
I think that’s the greatest point of contention between the greater gay community and gay conservatives: the rest of us understand that we don’t have anything to prove, and to grovel in the face of pig ignorant tradition is the ultimate in ignorance and yes, self-loathing.
Because the gay left doesn’t think marriage means lifelong, sexually exclusive, publicly accountable relationships. The gay left thinks marriage means open relationships with access to health benefits.
Evan, thank you for validating the point I often make that same-sex marriage isn’t about honoring relationships, but about winning an “in-yer-face” against the Christian Right.
Two reasons:
1. Its a tactic straight out of Alinsky to marginalize their opponents and cut off support for them by smearing them as something contemptible. And
2. Because they are projecting. They reflexively oppose tax cuts and everything else the right wants because they hate religious conservatives. So they wrongly assume that Christian conservatives simply reflexively oppose anything gays want because they supposedly hate gays.
I hate to break it to you, but the Supreme Court has already rejected gay marriage when they rejected Baker v Nelson on the merits because they recognize what you apparently do not, that homosexuality is NOT EQUAL to heterosexuality. The latter has produced EVERY human life on earth throughout all of history (save One), and the former has not, cannot and never will produce ANY life. Zero, Zip. Nada. NONE!
And because they are so drastically, fundamentally, consequentially different, your claim that the law must treat them equally is both ignorant of the law and delusional in nature.
I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are hard-core leftists. They speak of “hate” for the same reason they assign “racism” to people who disagree with Obama or oppose illegal immigration. It is also the same reason that cultures who have not developed very far technologically assign demons or magic as explanations for occurrences in the natural world.
They literally have no idea what the opposing arguments actually are. They either don’t comprehend them, or simply can’t be bothered to figure out what they are. They instead assign an explanation which is more comfortable to them.
Obi — It takes intellect to argue one’s side rationally. Any idiot can spew about “racism,” “bigots,” and “ignorant pigs.” Or spout dumb bumper-sticker slogans about “Equality” for that matter.
I think AE is right about projection, too. The Gay Left genuinely hates and despises the people who are opposed to their agenda, and they imagine that their foes are motivated by hate as well.
The latter has produced EVERY human life on earth throughout all of history (save One), and the former has not, cannot and never will produce ANY life. Zero, Zip. Nada. NONE!
AmericanElephant, I get your point here. All human life that has been created has been a result of one egg and one sperm. Whether the sperm and egg came from heterosexuals or not, who knows in all cases. But any pregnancy that resulted from sex, was of the heterosexual nature. As a side note, many Catholics believe there were two exceptions.
And because they are so drastically, fundamentally, consequentially different, your claim that the law must treat them equally is both ignorant of the law and delusional in nature.
And this is where many disagree. You’ve noted an obvious difference (that no one on this blog has ever disputed) between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Then concluded that there must be a drastic difference between the two. The Supreme Court apparently buys it, but fewer and fewer people are buying it. One thing that separates humans from other animals is that sex is not always tied into reproducation. In fact, I would argue that at least 99% of the time, sex happens without pregnancy being the goal of sex. Women are receptive to sex even when they are not immediately fertile.
As for the Supreme Court, they apparently never made the ability to procreate as the sole reason for marriage. As far as I know, they never stated that persons who have no intention, or are unable to procreate, should not marry. Now this part is speculation, but I am fairly certain that the Supreme Court would knock down any law in which such couples were prohibited to marry.
I’d rather any change in laws regarding same sex marriage happen in the legislatures. But if it ever comes down to the Supreme Court again in the future, who knows how fundamentally different they will view heterosexuality and homosexuality. There are differences between men and women. But the question is, how fundamentally different are they? And how should they be treated differently in the eyes of the law when it comes to those differences? Well, for over 100 years, they were disenfranchised. Then people determined that any differences should not prevent them from being able to vote, as well as attain all of the other rights afforded to men. This, despite the fact that only women can get pregnant, a difference no more fundamental than the difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
As for the point of the post, the term “hate” is overused, and doesn’t necessarily apply to one’s opponents. However, hyperbole seems to be a tool of many to demonize their opponents. Something that the left, and gay left in particular, are guilty of, but something that they do not corner the market of either.
These comments are hilarious.
1. Yes, laws restricting the rights of specific groups of people are motivated by animus. There’s no getting around that.
2. Yes, gay couples are often in open relationships. So are the majority (latest studies are at over 2/3) of heterosexual marriages. So what’s the point again?
3. I agree that advocates for the freedom to marry have not done a good job of making the case to the country. It’s not that hard. Introduce them to gay couples who are married in every way except the legal status and the hundreds of legal privileges that come with legal recognition. Mocking and name calling the religious right just aids their paranoia and persecution complexes. We need to make the case to people who are actually open minded (which would be virtually no one reading what I’m writing now).
An EXCELLENT reason for NOT allowing gays to marry. They have no intention of upholding the characteristics of the institution that make it worthwhile to begin with.
Bullsh*t. Citation please!
Pat,
I am convinced that gays have SO identified themselves with their sexuality that they are no longer even capable of understanding the difference between identity and sexuality, between “homoseuxal” and “homosexuality”. And your comment does nothing to dissuade me of that conclusion. Indeed, you reinforce it.
Nonetheless the law is required to treat homosexuals as equivalent to heterosexuals, and it does. But it is NOT required to treat homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality, because they have vastly different impacts on society.
Point taken.
All life on Earth vs. a barren, empty rock floating through space is not a drastic difference to you? >
Phew! That is a relief! because we really are trying to pound square pegs into round holes here.
Yes, I think that’s because fewer and fewer people see marriage as a policy that serves a purpose, and more and more people think of it as just another entitlement, a reward for being in love.
But holy cow are we in a shit load of trouble if that’s all marriage actually is! And we better do our best to ensure it doesn’t become that.
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.” Dr. Suess
For some gay folk, ‘coming out’ comes early. Some of the younger folk are coming out earlier and earlier and for many it is an easier process and ‘hate’ and ‘rejection’ are not part of the equation. Some families see the writing on the walls when it comes to their children and family members. Some gay folk (young men are a tad bit to even the more to the extreme are effeminate and young women, well more masculine – yet these gender benders are not always gay but comes across gay. )
For many who deal with rejection from family and friends are unhappy and often have to deal with the rejection, lack of support and even hateful responses. Then there are those folk who come out later in life (my brief history with GP is that both Dan and Bruce are late bloomers).
For those who come out later in life, there may be similar responses of rejection by their adult counterparts and family, but sometimes it is due to a sense of betrayal. “WHO ARE YOU” and “WHY DIDN’T YOU TRUST ME ENOUGH TO TELL ME EARLIER” For many who come out earlier in life, bonds are established with the ‘facts’ and not the closet game.
I too agree that the ‘hate’ term is thrown about quite freely. And then Dan pointed out his story in CP’s post on hate. But these folk didn’t have a history with Dan and were open to hosting him and yet expressed their concern for him without ‘hatin’ him’.
But there are folk who have stepped out of the closet only to be met with shock and initial rejection. For those folk faced with a ‘coming out story’, it may be confusing and sometimes leads to the reaction that there are those out there that will ‘hate’. But having dealt with late bloomers who come out later in life, some of these late bloomers come to terms with the fact that many who are upset with their coming out/new identities as a betrayal of the relationships they had.
Not everyone is going to ‘hate’ those loved ones who come out late. But there are folk who are so uncomfortable with homosexuality, that feelings get heated, even ugly.
A friend who is a teacher finally decided to ‘come out’ to his coworkers and even to his class and their families. He was met with support for the most part. GAY MATH, 40 plus man still unmarried equals. . .well you get it. But this friend didn’t realize that his coming out process was going to be reenacted with each new student group and family.
For some, coming out is a very personal endeavor and for some it is not something that comes up because they don’t have alot of ‘turnover’ in their lives. But introducing the ‘gay’ thing is alot easier to new folk because ‘it is what it is’ and for most it is a non-issue.
For some families, there is shock, despair and frustration when a love one comes out, and much of the discomfort comes with ‘why didn’t you tell me’ and ‘why didn’t I see it’ coupled with ‘now what do we do’.
For some coming out comes without ‘hate’ and ‘rejection’, and are not part of the situation, but for some, coming out is a very ugly, heart breaking process. 🙁
So what’s the motivation again? Should gays resign themselves to some bastardized idea that they shouldn’t aspire to be any better?
Are you setting examples or making excuses?
Ok. Now he’s just advertising. There’s no point in coming out to his class except maybe to get as much validation for himself as possible. I never had a teacher who felt compelled to share their home story with us and, in some cases, I thank God for it.
Why is it that gays don’t want the government in their bedrooms, but have ZERO problem bringing their bedroom out to everybody else?
Here is my hate filled, homophobic animus on the topic at hand:
1) Leftists must have moral relativism to combat what bugs them.
2) Moral tradition eats at many leftists like a cancer.
3) Leftists see themselves as morally superior for their tolerance and understanding and inclusiveness except for their hate and animus and drive to repress, suppress and eradicate those they see as haters, full of animus and an unwillingness to accept, tolerate and include those the leftists accept, tolerate and only occasionally include. Got that?
4) Leftist want a short cut past individual rights which, when coupled with societal responsibility can lead to the highest heights in the USA. Leftists want their select list of “human rights” and “social justice” imposed on everybody. They just hate people who don’t quite get it when it comes to social justice. (For a definition of social justice see the mouthings of Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Fidel Castro, Adolph Hitler, Obama czars, George Bernard Shaw and Bertrand Russell in his dotage.)
5) Gays can live as couples, alone, in groups, openly or closeted with the provisions of the 14th amendment protecting them.
6) Gay marriage is not an idea that society has placed high on its “to do” list and for many, it is on the “don’t do” list. It is up to gays and their allies to change the public perception.
So, the left name calls, shifts the topic and ignores facts. That is their constant and only game plan. They can not actually argue the general benefit to society for gay marriage. They can not show that the military needs gays for it mission success.
Instead, we get the following sorts of “arguments:”
#1 Evan Hurst:
#9 Houndentenor:
#12 Rusty:
Evan Hurst presents the militant in your face farce. I say farce, because in the sense that if “might” makes “right,” I would start with something larger than the puny gay population that wants to go Braveheart.
Poor Houndentenor does not grasp that all laws restrict freedom, but he says all law restricting groups of child molesters, arsonists and would be slavers springs from animus. Why does he want to lump gays in with the psychos society must suppress?
And Rusty writes his epistle on the terrors of “coming out” by quoting a really silly Sam I am type of feel good, Hallmark cards boilerplate. “Tommy, you can be a cannibal, just don’t eat anybody we know and love. OK?”
Feelings. Leftists need feelings and they hate people who hurt their feelings. Hate, hate, hate them. Because people who hurt your feelings are worst haters of all. They are dirty-birdie level haters. They are poopie heads.
#9: And further down the rabbit hole of Houndfordinner’s ignorance we go…
“1. Yes, laws restricting the rights of specific groups of people are motivated by animus. There’s no getting around that.”
There’s no getting around it for you because you’re not open minded enough or intelligent enough to consider legitimate opposing viewpoints that are not based on hatred. There’s no getting around THAT.
“2. Yes, gay couples are often in open relationships. So are the majority (latest studies are at over 2/3) of heterosexual marriages. So what’s the point again?”
I think you meant that two-thirds of the heterosexual marriages that you are familiar with are “open relationships.” Bill and Hillary Clinton–Open Relationship. John and Elizabeth Edwards–Open Relationship. Barack and Michelle Obama–Monogamous Relationship (pending further investigation by the National Enquirer).
“3. I agree that advocates for the freedom to marry have not done a good job of making the case to the country. It’s not that hard. Introduce them to gay couples who are married in every way except the legal status and the hundreds of legal privileges that come with legal recognition. Mocking and name calling the religious right just aids their paranoia and persecution complexes. We need to make the case to people who are actually open minded (which would be virtually no one reading what I’m writing now).”
Conservatives ARE open minded precisely because we are reading what you have written. We simply reject it for the factually unsupported bullsh*t that it is. Like all liberals, you have abandoned any critical thinking and analytical skills that you may have had at some point in the past. Otherwise, you would recognize your own misuse of the expression “open minded.” Liberalism has brainwashed you into redefining those two simple words into = “agrees with me unequivocally without further debate.” The expression actually means = “willing to listen and consider alternatives that may or may not change one’s ultimate beliefs and conclusions.”
It’s just one of thousands of simple words and phrases that liberals spontaneously decided have meanings that have nothing to do with their ACTUAL meanings or definitions–and more often than not, mean the polar opposite. A wise man named George Orwell wrote extensively on this subject. (See also: unconstitutional; character; fiscally conservative spending; landslide; moderate Muslim; hatred; free speech; rich; entrepreneurial; growth; increase; decrease; competition; taxes; equality; racist; racial profiling; predatory; tax credit; violent; women’s rights; reproductive freedom; war criminal; pro-gay; anti-gay; etc.) In your whimsical Obama-world, all of these words and expressions mean something completely different than what they actually mean for those of us who think for ourselves and live in the land of reality. You fools should just go ahead and publish your own dictionary so the rest of us will know exactly what you’re babbling about when you open your ignorant pie-holes.
Sorry to go off topic, but this is just too good not to share.
Another mindless Obama foot soldier (this time a spokes-hole from the State Department) has: (1) gone on national television; (2) unequivocally condemned the unconstitutional, racist, and discriminatory Arizona immigration law; and (3) admitted that he hasn’t read the actual law. (In that order.)
Just further confirmation that our government is staffed from top to bottom with nothing but rank, unqualified amateurs.
Sorry, forgot the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPBFdUnJTD0&feature=player_embedded
All of these Obamacrats who denounce the Arizona law based not on their reading of it, but on the media propaganda about it raises the question… is the MSM a branch of the Democrat party, or is the Democrat Party a branch of the MSM?
Pat, indeed. In fact, they never even made it a necessary reason for marriage.
Sean A: I actually have to defend Houndentenor’s statement as quoted. What I would disagree with, is his conception of what is or is not a “right”.
Take free speech. We can all agree that’s a right. Laws restricting it are surely motivated by animus. However, being given a State license for something (like, say, marriage) is not a right, and laws restricting or actually saying who qualifies for the license need not be motivated by animus. In failing to understand that, is where the Gay Left goes wrong.
As another example – does anyone remember Colorado’s Amendment 2? (Struck down in Romer v. Evans) As SCOTUS found, A2 singled out gays and lesbians for special burdens on their constitutional right to lobby government for redress of grievances. That would be a reasonable example of a law motivated by animus. Fortunately that was all back in medieval times, the mid-1990s.
… are another example of laws restricting things that actually are not rights.
A “fundamental right” is something that you are morally right to do, whether or not you have the approval of your neighbors and/or the government. The operative words are “you”, and “right”. God gave you life; that is the basis of all the fundamental rights. Because God gave you life, *you* are *right* to live, to act in support of yourself, to create property for yourself (or acquire it by fair means), to defend yourself, to defend your property, to express your views, to choose your associates, to be free from unearned injury (criminal acts being criminal because they violate rights), etc.
Those things are your fundamental rights. Government doesn’t create them or grant them; government merely recognizes them (if it is just or non-tyrannical). They belong to you as an individual. Fundamental rights are not, and can never be, attributes of groups.
In creating a complex society, we have created non-fundamental or derivative rights, i.e., things that you are right to do, only by virtue of the law saying so. For example, your right to file joint taxes with your spouse (if you legally have one). When my comments talk about rights, I generally mean the fundamental kind.
I am convinced that gays have SO identified themselves with their sexuality that they are no longer even capable of understanding the difference between identity and sexuality, between “homoseuxal” and “homosexuality”.
And I am just as convinced that this is no more than straight persons. It’s just that we take for granted when a person is straight, we don’t even blink when they wear it on their sleeve. In fact, we still live in an age where gay people still hide about who they are, or even take on wives to hide it.
Nonetheless the law is required to treat homosexuals as equivalent to heterosexuals, and it does.
When heterosexuals are only allowed to marry people of the same-sex, they’ll make some headway on being equivlalent to heterosexuals. 🙂
Actually, I get your point. I just don’t agree with it.
All life on Earth vs. a barren, empty rock floating through space is not a drastic difference to you?
It made a drastic difference in the evolutionary process. It got us here, and that’s great. What do we do with it now. It’s not a drastic difference now, because we don’t concentrate as much on propagating the species. We no longer have sex just for procreation. And we value all human life, whether or not the person is infertile, or is, but do not plan to procreate. So, if you are going to say that ability and willingness to procreate as what differentiates heterosexuality and homosexuality, then there is virtually no difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple that cannot or will not procreate.
Yes, I think that’s because fewer and fewer people see marriage as a policy that serves a purpose, and more and more people think of it as just another entitlement, a reward for being in love.
That may be so, and the source of our disagreements here. But I was brought up to be believe that marriage was a commitment between two people in love. That most of the people I knew got married because they are/were in love, including my parents and grandparents. Even in Catholic or other religious settings, love was the main component of marriage (and yes, agreeing to be committed to each other).
But holy cow are we in a shit load of trouble if that’s all marriage actually is! And we better do our best to ensure it doesn’t become that.
The goal here is to promote and encourage adults to eventually settle down with an adult partner of their choice, who is willing to do the same. We’ll still propagate the species, and in a more optimal fashion by doing so.
In conclusion: Laws restricting fundamental rights inherently go against what is right (or against God-given rights), and as such, inherently are an expression of animus. But that still doesn’t validate the Gay Left’s approach to gay marriage. They are wrong, in treating a State marriage license as a fundamental right.
Ok. Now he’s just advertising. There’s no point in coming out to his class except maybe to get as much validation for himself as possible. I never had a teacher who felt compelled to share their home story with us and, in some cases, I thank God for it.
Most of my teachers came out, as straight. Because I do remember, on occasion, they mention something about their spouse and family. It was no big deal.
Yes, laws restricting the rights of specific groups of people are motivated by animus. There’s no getting around that.”
In other words, we have a National 21 Year Old Drinking Age because we hate adults between 18 and 20.
Is drinking at age 18 a fundamental right, V? I think it’s arguable at best. If the answer is no, then laws against drinking at 18 can’t be classified as laws that restrict someone’s fundamental rights.
(Which I think you would agree with. It may even have been your point. I’m only relating it my point, that laws which try to restrict *fundamental* rights are… wrong; and yes, very probably motivated by some kind of animus.)
I’ve never understood how you win friends and influence people by pissing in their Cheerios.
Did they take class time to announce that they were straight to make themselves feel better? Casually mentioning is one thing, sitting the class down and announcing it is quite another.
A couple of major distinctions have arisen here between the Right and the Left. The Right believes in the primacy of the individual — the person is the unit to be addressed, not the collective in any sense. The Right also believes that rights come not from the State, but from God.
The biggest reason this country is in the shithole right now is that so many conservatives have forgotten these two concepts. They are thinking like liberals, and attempting to address problems like liberals. Hence the problems we face, and the difficulty in getting out of them.
The right to marry, to drink or whatever else does not come from the State, as the State has no power or inherent authority to bestow rights. Nor is the collective (or the “common good,” however the term is couched) the primary consideration in determining who has rights or who doesn’t.
No right — including the right to marry — is dependent upon what might be best for “the collective,” considering persons as means to some utilitarian end. Not even when that end is as worthy as that of having and raising children. This is a Marxist fallacy, and a “progressive” trap.
Indeed, if persons had no inherent value in and of themselves, reproduction would have no value, either.
The right to free contract, between consenting adults, springs from the right of each human individual to autonomy in his or her own life. It exists as a simple fact, and does not need the Omnipotent, godlike State, in all its pretentious, Emperor-With-No-Clothes majesty, to validate it.
I personally don’t care if social conservatives “approve” of my marriage. They can suck it when the Supreme Court figures out that equal protection means equal protection, and if they go to their graves mewling and whining about gay marriage, they’re no different from people who take their last breaths as unrepentant racists.
And this is why gay marriage has lost in every state where it’s gone to a popular vote.
Did they take class time to announce that they were straight to make themselves feel better? Casually mentioning is one thing, sitting the class down and announcing it is quite another.
Since it was a long time ago, I can’t remember all the details. But I do remember that they had the luxury to be able to casually mention it. I don’t recall any of the teachers that were suspected of (and in some cases, later confimed to) being gay mention their partners, casually or otherwise.
Wow Sean.
So let’s make this clear so I’m not misunderstanding. The bloggers who created this site are not worthy of marrying the partners of their choice? Please explain to them and to me why this is so.
BTW, given what the Republican and Democratic parties have stood for in my lifetime, I fail to see how either has advocated staying out of people’s personal business. They just each get into our personal lives in different ways. I’m tired of Republicans talking like Libertarians and acting like nothing of the kind when it comes to passing actual laws and making policies.
And one other thing. I don’t give a crap if people think I’m going to burn in hell or whatever else they might want to think or believe about me. I have learned over the years not to worry too much about what people I don’t even know think about me. I do care about the laws. And I notice no one has actually answered my question. How does my marriage to another man adversely affect anyone else or infringe on anyone else’s rights? It doesn’t.
It’s find if you believe homosexuality is a sin or gay people should not enjoy the same status in society as heterosexual people. But wanting to enforce that through law is another matter. I realize not everyone on the left sees the difference, but I do.
Fine, Houndentenor. That is between you and God or you and nothing but the exhaust from a passing bus as you prefer.
However, if you are without anchor in a moral code, your moral drift is without compass, stability or even relevancy.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Hat tip to Jefferson.) Some people do not “have” a creator and they go it on their own and declaim their “rights” from atop their own soapbox. Unfortunately for them, the world is full of soap boxes topped by free spirits who promote their agnostic/atheist visions of “rights.” Naturally, in their self-centered view of the world, the rights they proclaim the loudest fulfill their desires.
What a concept. Why don’t you take a poll or something.
#33: “So let’s make this clear so I’m not misunderstanding. The bloggers who created this site are not worthy of marrying the partners of their choice? Please explain to them and to me why this is so.”
Go fu*k yourself, Houndsfordinner. I have posted numerous, reasonable requests for you to back up your statements with facts and/or to answer a couple of simple, straightforward questions about your views. You have responded to NONE of those requests so I have no obligation to defend my opinions to you at your request.
Um, Catholics — like all other Christians — believe that there was exactly ONE exception to the rule that every baby was the result of a human male’s spermatozoon fusing with a human female’s ovum: namely, the Li’l Baby Jesus, who purportedly just appeared in Mary’s uterus via the power of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus’s mother Mary, on the other hand, was conceived in the standard way: her mom and dad had sex.
Um, Catholics — like all other Christians — believe that there was exactly ONE exception to the rule that every baby was the result of a human male’s spermatozoon fusing with a human female’s ovum: namely, the Li’l Baby Jesus, who purportedly just appeared in Mary’s uterus via the power of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus’s mother Mary, on the other hand, was conceived in the standard way: her mom and dad had sex.
Throbert, personally, I don’t believe there were any exceptions. But in Catholic teachings, Mary was completely without sin. I’m sure her mother and father had sex, but not when she was conceived. In fact, there is a feast day for this event, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on Dec. 8. A lot of people mistake this for Jesus’ conception. The feast day for Jesus’ conception is in March. So even though both Jesus and Mary were conceived immaculately somehow, pregnancy still lasted about 9 months. And not 17 days in the case of Jesus. A quickie google will confirm this.
Anyway, it’s a mistake a lot of Catholics and non-Catholics alike make regarding Catholic doctrine.
Pat, congratulations on knowing that the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception are two entirely separate things — the former relates to Jesus the Fetus, while the latter relates to his mom’s entry into the world.
However, you’re quite wrong on the exact nature of Mary’s “Immaculate Conception” — which, according to Calflicks, was indeed a miracle, but was not a miracle of the type that suspends the physical laws of nature — such as seas parting, or water turning into wine, or a pregnancy happening without dad’s jizz getting into mom’s hoo-hoo. Rather, the Immaculate Conception miraculously suspended “supernatural laws” — specifically, the one saying that every human being’s supernatural soul inherits the supernatural taint of Adam and Eve’s Sin from the parents.
Thus, in a nutshell, Saints Joachim and Anne got nekkid and made the beast with two backs, resulting in Mary the Embryo — but Mary the Embryo’s soul remained miraculously pristine, and was not affected by Original Sin.
P.S. In case any non-Catholic Christians are scratching their heads and wondering “where the heck in the Bible does it say that Jesus’s maternal grandparents were called Joachim and Anne?”, the answer is that it’s NOT in the Bible. The traditional names of Mary’s parents come from the “pseudo-Gospels” that circulated among believers in the earliest centuries of the Christian church, but which were later rejected as part of the authentic Canon (generally because they were chock-full of theological heresies like Gnosticism or Arianism).
Rather, the Immaculate Conception miraculously suspended “supernatural laws” — specifically, the one saying that every human being’s supernatural soul inherits the supernatural taint of Adam and Eve’s Sin from the parents.
Thus, in a nutshell, Saints Joachim and Anne got nekkid and made the beast with two backs, resulting in Mary the Embryo — but Mary the Embryo’s soul remained miraculously pristine, and was not affected by Original Sin.
Thanks, Throbert. I’ll defer to you and others on the exact nature on how the conception of Mary came to be. I know it’s really important to many that Mary had absolutely zero, zippo, nada to do with sex (poor woman), and I guess the explanation you gave is a way for her to be conceived because of sex, but yet somehow still untainted by it…I suppose.
Because, according to you, they are racist, self-loathing bigots who hate themselves, are enslaved by religious interests, and are essentially Jewish Nazis who will do everything in their power to harm the gay community.
Don’t even presume to exploit for your purposes people whom you have publicly bashed, you loathsome hypocritical piece of gutter trash. You and your fellow gay leftist bigots have attacked this site since day one, tried to get GayPatriot fired from his job and harassed his employer, and said even worse about GPW.