Gay priest's clumsy felix culpa

The Lord works in mysterious ways...

I'm sorry, but this is funny

I doubt either of those statements is true.

I'm sensitive to Rod's making fun of gays posts (because I know he takes every chance he can to undermine our dignity), but I agree that this is pretty funny.

I don't care if you're a 12 year old punk or a Catholic priest....

Leave the pr0n at home!

I honestly do not care if gay men enter the priesthood as long as they fulfill all of their vows. As for what the men in the photos were wearing; I'd imagine it would be something like adult men in short pants and no shirt. Anything can be "pornographic" if you make it that way.

"Marching into the detention area is not what I had in mind." ~~ Cpt. Han Solo, SW IV: NH

Looks like the gays will lose marriage equality in Maine. Laugh harder.

Where do you see that, Elizabeth?

In all seriousness, Elizabeth, if you or any homosexual person wants to get "married", what is stopping you. Buy your rings, invite your friends and family, find a Unitarian minister to do the ceremony, have a cake. I don't think many proponents of real marriage would try to stop you, and couldn't even if they did try. Some private organizations might refuse to rent you a hall or forbid you from using their church -- but surely that is their right.

No, what you want is the state -- i.e. all of us -- to recognize that you are "married", and apparently the voters of all the States who have been consulted don't want to give you that status.

Elizabeth,

I don't think most supporters of traditional marriage would oppose letting you and your significant other contract for a civil partnership that gave the two of you mutual legal rights in a medical emergency or at the end of life.

They just oppose redefining marriage Humpty-Dumpty style.

And they would also oppose limiting civil partnership rights to gay and lesbian couples.

If two men or two women who are sleeping together get civil partnership rights, so too should, say, a group of six men and women only some of whom or *none* of whom are sleeping together.

If what gays and lesbians really wanted was civil partnership rights, they would probably have them already if they had argued for civil partnership rights for people in general, not just for gays and lesbians in addition to married couples.

But since what gays and lesbians seem actually to want is for the public to give up its right not to affirm gay and lesbian relationships as "marriages," they have failed to get what they want 31 times in a row now and counting.

Rod,

This is a little mean spirited. "I'll tell you what he's not- in the closet any more!" Poor guy. Have you no compassion for this man's struggle? He was probably raised a devout Catholic and, seeing no happiness in marriage, chose the priesthood instead, seeing it as his only other option. You accuse him of 'falling so far' because of his 'gay porn habit'- but the pictures weren't pornographic. Why go out of your way to ridicule this person?

Also, what connection are you trying to make in the last paragraph? Another gay person you know of was told to get rid of incriminating pictures? It's a dreadful story, but what does it have to do with his sexuality?

Elizabeth,

What you're failing to see or perhaps choosing not to see is that the civil partnerships I'd be willing to support would be civil partnerships open not just to *pairs* of people and not just to people having *sex* with one another.

I think that kind of civil partnership option has a good chance of gaining support as a compromise position, but I don't think a civil partnership option that's extended *only* to gay and lesbian sex-partners and to unmarried heterosexual sex-partners has much more chance of gaining support than same-sex "marriage" does.

What people who object to same-sex "marriage" and civil partnership limited to gay, lesbian, or straight sex-partners object to is the idea that we should either voluntarily give up or accept the state taking away our right, based on deeply held moral and religious belief, to affirm that marriage is a lifelong monogamous union of one man and one woman, as opposed to anything else, which, whatever its virtues or vices may be, simply isn't marriage.

As for heterosexual civil partnership "undermining" traditional marriage, it probably would do that, in the sense that it would significantly fewer people getting married at all.

And that, I think would be a good thing.

We are too inclined to gloss over the decline of our culture by defining down our standards or else stretching our definitions out out of any meaningful shape.

And we've ended up with "marriages" that aren't really marriages, "churches" that aren't really churches, "schools" that aren't really schools ... a "culture" that isn't really a culture.

I'd rather have higher standards and firmer and more meaningful definitions of cultural terms, even if that meant a much smaller sphere for traditional culture -- since in point of fact the actual sphere for traditional culture is quite a bit smaller than some of us suppose.

I'd rather polarize things a bit more and force people to choose a bit more between traditional culture and progressive non-culture or anti-culture.

If people don't want to embrace the traditional sense of marriage, then they shouldn't get married -- they should go form their own alternative social arrangements instead.

If people don't want to believe what the churches have to preach, then they shouldn't go to church -- they should go form their own alternative moral and spiritual institutions instead.

If people don't want to learn what schools have to teach, then they shouldn't go to school -- they should go form their own alternative institutions for socialization, indoctrination, and vocational training instead.

This is a long way of saying I have more sympathy for cohabiting homosexuals who read Sam Harris on Sunday morning and work for left-liberal non-profit advocacy groups than I do for same-sex "marriage" activists, for left-liberal revisionists in the churches, and for commissars of politically correct group-think ... or, excuse, me "critical thinking" ... in the schools.

"his gay porn habit"

What on earth are you talking about, Rod? This is specifically denied by the very report that *you* quoted.

You'll deny that the whole post was mean-spirited and vindictive, and we'll have to take your word for that. But there's an outright calumny in it, issued with no evidence whatsoever, for which you need to apologise.

elizabeth- I know someone who literally wants to marry their dog.
Should that be allowed too? Do we have to allow anything and anyone to get legally married because they want to?
And don't dare ridicule this person- they have the right to love and marry whomever and whatever they want, do they not, according to your logic?
FInally, why not just get medical power of Attorney over your loved one and then you can make medical deisicons for them at the time of illness?

"elizabeth- I know someone who literally wants to marry their dog.
Should that be allowed too? Do we have to allow anything and anyone to get legally married because they want to?"

I've never heard a gay marriage supporter, who supports the right of two consenting adults to get married, state that a person should be able to marry their dog. The dog cannot consent--that is a key difference between gay marriage and human-animal marriage. The gay marriage will lead to polygamy slippery slope is more feasible imho because you could have consent all the way around. However, gay marriage supporters want two consenting adults to be allowed to marry, not multiple consenting adults.

In my opinion, when the government prevents homosexuals from marrying, they are supporting/favoring conservative christian (and other religious) denominations, over liberal denominations.

The government should not be involved in marriage at all--the government should only recognize civil unions, and would have no secular reason for discriminating against homosexuals. They should leave marriage up to churchs, and allow individual churchs to marry or not marry whoever they want. In this way, the government is keeping church and state separate, not favoring one denomination over the other, and not discriminating agains individual rights.

Can someone please tell me why there are so many gay clergy to begin with? Even churches that allow married clergy, divorced clergy, married bishops, women bishops, married women bishops, divorced .....
still have disproportionately large percentages of gays as clergy. Is is the vestments?

It is often desired that a priest be an empathetic person who is full of compassion and is willing to spend a great deal of time with elderly women. Also is willing to spend Sundays in church rather than watching sports.

On the male side that's likely going to be a disproportionately gay group. I don't think gay men are necessarily or inherently more compassionate or empathetic, but if you're a heterosexual male with those qualities other men will often try to beat it out of you in time. (Although it's possible gay men are naturally better at dealing with elderly women. Even really nice straight guys don't necessarily want to spend a bunch of time comforting old ladies.)

Granted this doesn't work in all cases. On the Baptist/Evangelical side I think emotional men who like to "comfort" older women often means someone quite heterosexual. (I have Baptist relatives and I think it's not that uncommon to joke about this happening on occasion) So Baptist preachers I don't think are disproportionately gay. Some might be, becoming a minister might be seen as "saving them" from vice, but I don't think it's too common.