Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
smiling bigots

NY Archbishop Timothy Dolan: Gays Shouldn’t Marry 1) Because They’re Not Qualified 2) I Can’t Marry My Mom

“I have a strong desire to play shortstop for the Yankees. I don’t have a right to, because I don’t have what it takes. And that would be what the church would say about marriage.” That’s New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan offering some awful anecdotal explanation to 60 Minutes about why the Roman Catholic Church will never support gay marriage. You see, by being born homosexual, you don’t have what it takes to sign a piece of paper like heterosexual strangers can do.

In a profile piece that describes Dolan’s penchant for “smoking cigars [and] drinking beer, 60 Minutes joins New York magazine in portraying a Smiling Bigot — just a regular guy trying to get through the day who also shits on homosexuals.

“We would say marriage by nature, marriage by definition is between a man and a woman for life, giving children,” says Dolan. “Don’t tamper with the definition. If you want to give latitude to other types of relationships, go ahead. But please don’t tamper with that definition of marriage. It is a right for people who can live up to those expectations that are just encoded in the definition. It’s not a right who can’t. We will stand up for other rights with you, we will treat you with love and reverence, but we can not ever tamper with the necessary attributes with what we consider to be the very pillar of society, namely the very definition of marriage.”

Asked by Morley Safer — himself a man who discriminates against transgender people — why giving gays marriage rights somehow impacts breeders, Dolan responds, “Where would then the tampering stop? I love my mom, I don’t have the right to marry her. There are certain rights and attractions in life that are very beautiful and noble, but don’t entitle you to marriage.”

Interestingly, I don’t see Dolan out there campaigning to ban marriage between rapists and their rape victims, septuagenarians who cannot bear children, old dudes and 20-year-old chicks (still “noble” relationships, apparently), nor divorcées.

[CBS]

By:           Max Simon
On:           Mar 21, 2011
Tagged: , , , ,
  • 124 Comments
    • Drake
      Drake

      There are several religions that support gay marriage. Does this guy think his religion is in charge of America? This fat Queen doesn’t believe in separation between church and state, nor in properly policing his own religion’s abuses of women, children, and gays, all justified by his self-righteous interpretation of the bible.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 1:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      He can’t marry his mom b/c he’s a priest

      Mar 21, 2011 at 1:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jim
      jim

      Once the Church embraced reaction after the death of John XXIII the path of the next fifty years (and more) was pretty much set. Pope John was inspired but too many of his clerical colleagues were frightened little men who didn’t know much about the world, and a lot of what they did know scared them–like women and sex. the pope appoints bishops and cardinals, and the cardinals he appoints select the next pope. It’s a system designed to guard against change. In a rapidly changing world, it’s a prescription for reaction, bunker mentality, and disaster. There is no obvious way for serious change to occur. As a result, Catholics are stuck with buffoons like Dolan as an archbishop.

      Seriously, the best thing for Catholics to do is simply walk away and create their own independent faith communities, or a new Church that does away with mandatory clerical celibacy and ordains women as well as men. Or actually acts on the principle of the priesthood of all believers.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      Marriage equality is unimportant to him because the boys he has sex with are under the legal age.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 1:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Richard in DC
      Richard in DC

      Actually, according to the scriptures, it’s perfectly fine for someone to marry their child… fyi, Eminence.

      Genesis 9:20-27
      Genesis 19:30–38
      Genesis 35:22
      Genesis 38
      2 Samuel 13:13
      Leviticus 18:7-11
      Leviticus 20:11-21
      Ezekiel 22:10-11

      Gotta love selective readings of the bible.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Philip
      Philip

      But you don’t want to marry your mom, do you. You’d much rather hide priests who molest children.

      What a yutz.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex Sarmiento
      Alex Sarmiento

      I caught the latter part of this interview, and you know what I don’t get? I don’t get how the Church can say that same-sex marriage is wrong, and yet when one becomes a priest, they say that you are married to Jesus. (Nuns, of course, are known as “brides of Christ”.) Jesus Christ was a man, after all. Do they not see the fallacy of that argument?

      Mar 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Isn’t it interesting that these supposedly moral folks are ALWAYS the ones who’s minds immediatly go to things like incest, peodophillia, beastiality etc….?

      I think that any organization that covered up the rape and molestation of multiple thousands of girls and boys, and actively hid priests and moved them to locations where they could do the same to additional children has zero in the way of moral credibility to comment on anything.

      They should worry about the massive number of Lawsuits pending in Holland, Ireland, the U.S. and most of Northern Europe for the abuse, enslavement and rape of thousands of women in their string of Magdeline homes for girls, and the systematic molestation, rape and abuse of little boys througout the region as well, rather than spending additional resources on THIS bit of bigotry.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 2:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TMikel
      TMikel

      Yea, yea, yea. As if this fat slob of a bigot can be considered an authority on homosexuals. The RC Church is way behind the times and has been since about 1294. Of course is is quite all right for priests, bishops, cardinals and even popes to marry, have sexual intercourse with women – and mean – and live lavish lives of decadence, but we can’t let gays and lesbians marry. The RC Church no longer serves a legitimate purpose – anywhere!

      Mar 21, 2011 at 3:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darling Nikki
      Darling Nikki

      Dolan covered a lot of pedophiles back in Milwaukee from whence he came.
      Dolan continues in a long line of bigotted NY Archbishops but how IRONIC that some in the higher ranks have died of AIDS, including none other than Cardinal Cooke. The upper enclave is a who’s who of “A List” gays.
      Then there is his boss, the one who wears Prada, and has skiing
      “vacations” with his male sexcretary.

      The Catholic Church is freaking out because they’re losing relevance in the Western World. The “church” is nothing more than a ceremonial thing for Westerners. The power they still yield is in the massive tax-free properties they own. Imagine how many state budgets could be solved with the simple taxation of these places. Most of the churches are in the primest of real estates. How much tax do you think St. Pat’s could garner being located on Fifth Avenue and 50th, near Rockefeller Center, next to Saks Fifth Avenue?

      Bitch please, wasn’t it Jesus himself who warned about those who cast the first stone? Perhaps he should marry his mother, and continue the tradition of inbreeding that has so obviously warped his mind.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 3:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillBFair
      WillBFair

      The RCC is so weird. They have a history of social justice, mostly by individuals who’ve actually read the gospel. But the power structure is beyond disgusting. It’s so dumbed down, peasant superstition, ignorant.
      I have dear freinds, straight, liberal, as kind as Summer, who still go to mass and send cash to those goons. I think it’s because the RCC scares the s— out of them when they’re young.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 4:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      Dolan is a disgusting manipulative ignorant piece of shit. No one should take any advice about anything from a dysfunctional virgin.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      @justiceontherocks: Precisely! He shoudl have said “Homsoexauls can’t get married because I can’t marry my altar boy.”

      Mar 21, 2011 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      That ugly hearted institution ripping people off with guilt and shame does not and never had to marry people they choose not to. The Catholic Church should be stripped of its non profit status for speaking outside of its authority.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 4:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Flip
      Flip

      I watched this piece last night and a few points came to mind.

      First off, it is estimated that only 10-13% of the churchgoing public are practicing Catholics (this was reported in the news from 2005, when Pope John II passed). This means that almost 90% of the faithful practice other faiths or none at all. If it weren’t for the growing Latino population, the RCC would be on par with the Jehovah’s Witnesses in terms of numbers.

      Catholic influence is on the wane. More people have left the church than entered, and the “fish on Fridays” crowd is limited to a few regions of the country (parts of New England for example).

      That being said, I believe that one should be treated with respect no matter what faith they believe, whether I agree or not. That is a bedrock principle of our national heritage. This is why we have no established religion in this country (contrary to what some evangelists think.).

      I part company, however, with those who claim to hold authority in one particular faith to impose rules on non-believers in broader society. The Bishop has no authority to tell two men of the Jewish faith, for example, that they cannot marry and be treated as equals under the law. It goes against one of the basic tenets of the Catholic faith, in that every human life be treated with dignity and respect.

      Over time, we will look back on such voices and have no doubt that the tide history will have washed them away.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Flip
      Flip

      I watched this piece last night and a few points came to mind.

      First off, it is estimated that only 10-13% of the churchgoing public are practicing Catholics (this was reported in the news from 2005, when Pope John II passed). This means that almost 90% of the faithful practice other faiths or none at all. If it weren’t for the growing Latino population, the RCC would be on par with the Jehovah’s Witnesses in terms of numbers.

      Catholic influence is on the wane. More people have left the church than entered, and the “fish on Fridays” crowd is limited to a few regions of the country (parts of New England for example).

      That being said, I believe that one should be treated with respect no matter what faith they believe, whether I agree or not. That is a bedrock principle of our national heritage. This is why we have no established religion in this country (contrary to what some evangelists think.).

      I part company, however, with those who claim to hold authority in one particular faith to impose rules on non-believers in broader society. The Bishop has no authority to tell two men of the Jewish faith, for example, that they cannot marry and be treated as equals under the law. It goes against one of the basic tenets of the Catholic faith, in that every human life be treated with dignity and respect.

      Over time, we will look back on such voices and have no doubt that the tide of history will have washed them away.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      If it was trying to influence legislation (which I’ve read that it allegedly has) then yes it should be stripped of it’s nonprofit status. But if this is just the RC’s Church doctrine as they interpret it-then no I don’t believe that it should be stripped of anything. The Church as well as any other organization has the right to express how they feel about issues in the world at large. I feel if you try and strip it of having a non profit status because it does not agree with homosexuality; that you are going down a very slippery slope for the community as a whole. Remember there is freedom of speech. I would like to say that I do understand why you feel that way(even though I disagree), but even if the American Government did strip it of being a NP-it wouldn’t change anything because the Church is extremely rich and powerful beyond belief and we are just one country among many where it has great influence.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 5:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dukey
      Dukey

      You can’t marry your mom because incest is illegal (due to genetic concerns). Its not illegal to be gay. The problem with “slippery slope” arguments like his is, that they assume society and the law can’t make distinctions between situations that are different from one another. For example, that women got the right to vote does not mean that babies and children are next.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @Flip:

      Flip-finally somebody on here that makes sense.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @jim:

      Agreed!

      Mar 21, 2011 at 5:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Rocky: The media and the government does not not condone nazi skin heads calling for white supremacy. Freedom of speech is selective based on who is in power and who is saying what. Many of those people in the media and the government are christian based taking direct orders from the church.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Roman
      Roman

      Dolan can’t marry his mom because he’s already married to Jesus – Duh!

      Mar 21, 2011 at 5:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      It is not acceptable to discriminate against a group of people and hide behind your organization that claims to have direct contact with gODD. Dolan is psychotic and must be silenced by any legal means possible.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 5:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones

      @Richard in DC: The Bible has lots of bits many people ‘selectively forget'; especially the old testament. But none of the excerpts you quoted allow for or advocate marriages or relations between a mother and a son, in fact several out-right condemn such, and state the penalty shall be barrenness or death…

      There are plenty of logical, and correct arguments to be made, when you blindly and falsely bring out ignorant ‘points’ you demean the better arguments of everyone else who agrees with you; like myself.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @ewe:

      Like I said I can understand what you are saying, but I don’t really agree. Nazism and/or White Supremacy is not a religion and no matter how many times gay people scream that racism and homophobia are the same society will never see it that way. You can see that black and brown people are black and brown. For a lot of gays unless they wore a t-shirt stating I’m gay on the front no one would know it (so it is seen more as a behavior and not something more inherent) and that is the way society sees it and in my humble opinion (I know it is very hard to have one on here where you disagree with the popular opinion) they always will. I don’t agree with the Church’s stance on sexuality, but I don’t feel like they should change their doctrine either. If people don’t like it go to another church. And let’s say you did take away the NP status; it really wouldn’t change much-because there are still people who are devout Catholics who feel the same way and would call anything else otherwise heresy. And, those people go out and vote, join local Tea Party chapters, and are part of the Christian Right. I’m not one even though many gays are- that feels like you should throw the baby (being religion) out with the bath water. And, I get the feeling on here that a good amount of gays feel like the Bible should be made illegal (which is censorship) as well as religion that does not agree with homosexuality. And they have a right to those feelings-I’m just not one of those people.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 5:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Rocky: Wrong. One only sees sexual orientation if one is out of the closet? That is essentially what you are saying so to be open about who you are is not something you would choose to do because you can avoid harassment. That is not a solution. I repeat to you that being in the closet is not a solution and you feel if you just do not be yourself then you will not go through the same discrimination as people of color. Well you are wrong because you while you are standing up against racism, you are belittling and shaming yourself and/or others for being homosexual. Even the NAACP statted that although the circumstances are different the principles between racism and homophobia are the SAME. I do not advocate taking away free speech. You are mistakenly using that as a red herring. There is no counterbalance to this dispicable piece of shit that spouts his hatred toward his select target. The issue is not religion accepting homosexuality or outlawing the bible. The issue is confronting those that use bigotry as their platform to prosper and even worse, claim direct knowledge for their disgraceful rant by blaming some delusional gODD. It is irresponsible and it would be stupid to think that one is being sophisticated and open minded by just writing this off as free speech. “They” most certainly do NOT have the right to hate without reason. “They” do not have the right to deny what “they” themselves so freely take. And that is true even if you “are not one of those people.”

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @DavyJones:
      Wow, another person who makes sense!

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones

      @Rocky: There is a difference between maintaining their own religious doctrine; and advocating that their doctrine should be adhered to by the law of the land. Which the catholic church does quite often. Both here in this case, and in numerous other cases; listen to any speech the Pope gives when he comes to the US, or more recently his speeches in the UK; and you’ll hear him rail against ‘secularism’. He believes, as do many in the Catholic church’s hierarchy, that the church’s doctrine should be applied through law to everyone, church members or not…

      Should a church have the right to refuse to marry two men? Absolutely. Should they have the right to refuse to allow them to use their sanctuary or grounds for ceremonies; in most cases yes. But should a church have any say what so ever in what non-church members can do? No.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Rocky: And please do not contribute to the prejudice that being homosexual is a behavior between your legs by accepting that others have the right to feel that way.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @ewe:

      Ummm…I never said anything about the closet. Staying in it or coming out of it. So, I don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @DavyJones:

      I totally agree with you 100%. There is nothing that you said that I disagree with that’s exactly what I meant.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @DavyJones: society and nobody ever got anywhere or moved forward toward equality by being as passive as you suggest. Monkee. 60 fucking Minutes is not the church saying whatever the fuck they want to say within their own walls.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @ewe:

      You need to read what I said again. Cuz everything you are saying I never said.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @ewe:

      Then you should fault 60 minutes not the church.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones

      @ewe: Did you just call me a ‘monkee’?

      Despite what your apparently rage-filled logic is telling you, societies often do advance precisely by finding common grounds and accommodating each others’ differences; not by banning and restricting all opinions that do not conform to what a particular group wants.

      If your argument is that anyone you disagree with should be ‘silenced’ you open the door for those you disagree with to silence you; and considering the power of the side you disagree with, that’s a pretty silly route to take.

      Queerty often makes this point when they refer to anti-gay pundints’ views as ‘hate speech’ and say it shouldn’t be allowed on national news programs. However, despite the fact that we disagree with their view (and it may very well be hate speech), it’s only by allowing and engaging in the discussion that we will ever change the main-stream view. Not by simply saying they should be silenced as hate-mongers…

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe
      Joe

      I wish someone would out these mincing, evil little clerics

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @ewe:

      So, Ewe why don’t you just say that the church- any church that does not agree with you and/or people who think like you should be against the law? And, to have or own a Bible, Koran, or Torah should be made illegal as well?

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @DavyJones:

      OMG! I want to marry you!

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @DavyJones: dont talk about “rage filled logic” when you sit back on your ass and take the hate from the catholic church. Yes i called you a MONKEE DAVY JONES. If you don’t get it, then there are many things way over your head.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones

      @ewe: I don’t sit back and ‘take the hate’ from the Catholic church, or anyone else for that matter. I talk to them, I discuss their views, and mine; and why we should each be free to express our own, as well as free to act on our own beliefs, (so long as they don’t inhibit others).

      The solution to hate is not to insist that they be silenced; after all that gets you no where, they will still believe a they do, and many like them will also believe as they do, and will themselves take offense from your position. Hating each other solves nothing; open and frank discussions, and acceptance of others is what drives change.

      Am I saying we should sit back and let the ‘majority’ do what ever they want? No, of course not. I’m saying telling them to STFU because you disagree with them is the wrong way to change their opinion.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @DavyJones: (so long as they don’t inhibit others).

      kick yourself in the teeth why don’t ya. case closed.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 6:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones

      @ewe: Not quite. You see, that’s part of the discussion. If you never participate in the discussion, or allow it in the first place, it never get’s far enough to explain how a given practice inhibits the rights of another.

      As I said in my first post, the Catholic church’s doctrine shouldn’t be applied to anyone who doesn’t choose to up hold it; the Catholic church often disagrees with this, and it’s a point where they should be confronted and a discussion should be had (or many discussions). Silencing their views however, doesn’t address that problem. Neither does swinging the pendulum too far the other way and restricting their rights to hold their own opinions.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 7:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 7 · Alex Sarmiento wrote, “I caught the latter part of this interview, and you know what I don’t get? I don’t get how the Church can say that same-sex marriage is wrong, and yet when one becomes a priest, they say that you are married to Jesus. (Nuns, of course, are known as “brides of Christ”.) Jesus Christ was a man, after all. Do they not see the fallacy of that argument?”

      Hey, if nuns are known as “brides of Christ” and given that “brides” is plural, we can deduce that Jesus must be into polygamy big time! At least, that’s the logical conclusion. I’m sure they’d have a fit at the idea instead of realizing that, when you don’t like the conclusions and the logical argument is valid, then you have to change your premises. As it stands, though, the Catholic Church should be the last one to try a “slippery slope” argument – with their “brides of Christ” thing, they are walking around on ice skates.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 7:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @DavyJones: i do not give more credence to a billion strong hate group agains who i am anymore than i do to the wacky phelps westboro whacknuts.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 7:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @B: the logical conclusion is that jesus was a gay man, bi at the very least.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 7:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @B: after all he had 12 boyfriends and a whore he did not screw. come on. that is from their own book

      Mar 21, 2011 at 7:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      reasonable? moderate? Dolan does not fit the bill and does not deserve others to treat him as such.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 7:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @DavyJones: Girl please: even the two australian kids about bullying got airtime. There is no reason to validate this fat queen coming out in his dress, jewels and crown to spout hate without having equal time for someone to confront the ugly heart in front of her face.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 8:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      I have no doubt that Dolan is a self hating fag who spends all his time jerkin off while hating other gay people for show.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 8:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      Dolan is probably cruising around Vatican Square for boys and trolling around Trastevere when not in New York.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      Is that a splat of Santorum on Dolan’s chin?

      Mar 21, 2011 at 8:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • codyj
      codyj

      Anybody who DRESSES like that…I COULD NEVER believe…the hat, the shephards crook (or whatever the fk that is)…but i dont see his ‘trick or treat’ bag?, gee, maybe its in his pants…..

      Mar 21, 2011 at 8:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MikeHouston
      MikeHouston

      Religion should have no place in politics…or any other aspect of society other than YOUR HOUSEHOLD. Stop shoving your religious beliefs in WHATEVER you choose to brainwash your family with, be it flying pigs in the sky or the Bible into my household. I have every right to not believe, YOU do not have a right to force others to accept whatever ideology you chose to personally buy into. Seperation of Church and state are the only part of our establishment Conservative Bible Thumpers choose to ignore while making prominent everything else (Hateful comments in the name of Free Speech for ex)….SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE- get it through your very vulnerable, brain washed skull.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 8:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Donald
      Donald

      We had a friend in our social circle who would preach about religious text and how Christian she was…come to find out years later, she was cheating on her very kind husband all those years and lied to everyone she knew about it. SHE represents religious folks perfectly. It IS about them feeling better about their actions while pointing out your flaws. It IS all about hypocrisy. It IS a calculating attempt at dogma. I take every chance I have to speak against the ill and evil of religion and ecnourage people, especially gay people, to be free thinking and take off the chains inserted by their families in their childhood, and live, think and be for themselves. Aside from being laughable in claims, religion is NOT our friend and the sooner we grasp that, the sooner we grasp reality. Too many people are fearful to speak up against this instituition that has been promoting hate by it’s prominent members for decades now. That time is over, people are finally coming to their senses and calling the delusion of religion and it’s over zealos followers out.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 8:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Donald
      Donald

      @Rocky: ear, it’s clear your disdain for gay folks is as extremist as the most radical church going crowd. You playing devil’s advocate, or sugar coating your stance by justifying homphobia (“it’s not like race, people can’t tell who is gay”…SO?!) isn’t distancing the matter of fact that you harbor homophobic views. Homophobia is not just the act of bashing a gay. It’s the thought process of having disdain for gays. You essentially chose to undermine the great pain, injustice and discrimination the gay community endured and endures by falsely using faith and a divisive (and unrelevant) argument to race. I’d respect you far more if you were truthful with your intentions as opposed to walking here in a bambi costume while being a shark inside. When it comes to gay rights/gay respect, there is a right and there is a wrong….you are attempting to sell yourself as as “inbetween” so you don’t get a tongue lashing from either side. Our side knows better when dealing with your kind dear. Own up to your bigotry.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 8:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • IonMusic
      IonMusic

      DavyJones/Rocky: The all too predictable argument religious gay individuals make on these war of word debates on here completely is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and irrelevant to what those of us for equality as arguing. And I’ll explain why-

      You claim religious orginizations have every right to believe and express any notion they so choose. You then claim that pro gay rights groups/individuals speaking against those religious notions are trying to silence them. How incredibly misinformed if not manipulative from the truth. I have yet, in my 3 years on this site as an active member, seen any single poster say “Religion should be outlawed”….I have however seen many a posters rightfully challenge why religious individuals sustain homophobic views. I have seen many a posters rightfully say how wrong it was for them to have homophobic views. We are not arguing their freedom to say what they say, we are arguing the WHY of their thinking. Not their ability to express themselves or have those thoughts, but challenging the thoughts themselves. That same freedom of speech you so passionately fight for in the name of your religious friends protects us from challenging their religious thoughts and speaking out against NOT their ability to say their words, but the message behind their words.

      What I actually observe is gay religious individuals like yourself trying to silence the gay community in challenging these homophobic notions. What I often observe with religious gays is their eagerness to blow a whistle at fellow gays who confront and challenge religious doctrine, all while preaching we should kick rocks and accept being disenfranchised.

      We have every right to be motivated to speak. When legislation, orginizations and even crimes are targetting our very existence, the gay community has every leverge to challenge the MESSAGE, not the ability and freedom to express that message, but the message itself as it so profoundly effects our lives. We are just as entitled to that as your religious compadres. To say otherwise, which religious gay people often do with out even realizing, is the embodiment of hypocricy.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 9:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kyle L.
      Kyle L.

      @IonMusic: 100% AGREE! RIGHT ON!! Right on!

      Mar 21, 2011 at 9:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dynex
      Dynex

      @IonMusic: I actually right clicked and saved your poignant words. Thank you for saying what needed to be said.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 9:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michelle
      Michelle

      @IonMusic: I too have noticed the double standard in the argument of religious leaning LGBT who fight to the death for the freedom of The Church to say what it has to say yet when it comes to our truth being told, we’re asked to be silent and let them think what they think. THEN, in the most calculating manner we’re told that if we dare speak ill of the dated, hate laced words of some Churches that we are trying to silence them. huh? talk about trying to brain wash minds. they have multi million dollar movements working to strip us via legislation all while saying we are not worthy of equality and we shouldn’t have a response, even a firey fueled, heated response? Freedom of speech works both ways and freedom of speech does not protect anyone from freedom of religion. That includes the Church. rocky and davey are cheerleading the churches right to say whatever it so chooses but when it comes to us, we have to set boundaries and accept their words and walk on, otherwise we’re being bullies. Gimme a break. Just come out and say you want the church to have a more prominent presence in society.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 9:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      There’s nothing I hate more than inconsistent arguments. Either man up and start arguing against government-sanctioned divorces, or shut the fuck up about government-sanctioned marriages.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 9:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michelle
      Michelle

      * I meant. freedom of speech does not protect anyone from freedom of criticism, and that includes the church.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 9:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • microbrand
      microbrand

      @IonMusic:

      let me join the bandwagon and say I fully agree with your sntiments. our movement is not aiming to strip religious members from their thinking, it is trying to educate and enlighten their thinking. to say that WE are trying to silence church crowd is the most fabrication from reality and a subtle attempt to actually silence us. to disagree with someone infringing on your rights, and state that disagreement (even with passion) is not an attempt to take away their 1st amendment. it’s actually strengthening it but exercising your own. I wish more GLBT would exercise their 1st amendment by taking to bat the church and churches who speak against their freedoms. that’s how you ensure change, not by sitting on the sidelines letting people air misinformed bigotry about you in the name of religion all while you hope they evolve. they won’t unless you make them and let your voice be heard.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 9:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @ewe: We have disagreed in the past, but once again, I agree with what you’ve expressed throughout this post.

      There should not be any double-standards when it comes to hate speech, and religion does not grant an individual or organization a free pass to spew it.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 10:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Atomicrob
      Atomicrob

      Unfortunately, the catholic church is nothing but a corporation and this guy is one of their PR vice presidents. He will eventually be promoted for doing his job as the affable messenger of religious bigotry and dogma.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 10:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jen
      Jen

      Not supporting this guy, but just to clear things up for Alex and anyone else reading – while nuns and sisters are said to be “brides of Christ”, the priests’ bride is the Church, which is considered to be female. Bizarre, yes, but the fact that priesthood is a marriage to the “female” Church is actually one of the reasons Catholics argue women can’t become priests; they’d be lesbians!

      The more you study Catholocism, the kinkier you realize it is.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 11:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones

      @IonMusic: I’m an atheist.

      Mar 21, 2011 at 11:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones

      @IonMusic: Also, I never said you (or anyone) should be silenced. I also never agreed with the Catholic church’s position, in fact way up in post #26 I said the Pop, and many in the church’s hierarchy are wrong to try to stifle secular movements.

      I think debate is good, especially in a case like this where there are so many hearts and minds yet to be won. We need the Catholic church (and others) to state their point of view, and then we need to be ready to counter their arguments.

      My posts have not advocated ‘silencing’ anyone, in fact is it odd that you use that word, since my posts are actually directed at the fact that ewe (way up in post 21) said that this guy (and presumably those who agree with him) should be ‘silenced by any legal means possible’. All of my posts since have carried the message that conversation, and open acceptance is good, and should not be silenced…

      Nice try with the straw-man argument though, sorry my posts don’t hold up to it…

      Mar 22, 2011 at 12:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      The Church’s “definition of marriage” is irrelevant. It’s a matter for the State. And the argument that it leads to incest is silly. Canadians aren’t demanding to marry their mothers. Lay off the suds, Archbishop Drunk Slob.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 12:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      The Church’s “definition of marriage” is irrelevant. It’s a matter for the State. And his argument is silly. Canadians aren’t demanding to marry their mothers. Lay off the suds, Archbishop Drunk Slob.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 12:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 44 · ewe wrote, “@B: after all he had 12 boyfriends and a whore he did not screw. come on. that is from their own book”

      Err. read what I said – it was about a problem with the “slippery slope” argument that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy.

      BTW, you should have hear the Kinsey Sicks version of that “12 boyfriends and the whore” thing. Their conclusion was not “gay” but “bottom” (i.e., more specific).

      Saw it in San Francisco. Curiously no earthquakes or lightning bolts showed up to show any divine anger at such a blasphemous wise crack (the last big earthquake damaged the Marina district, home to a lot of rich people, and spared the Castro, which just goes to show that “God” is not happy with people who put up buildings on mud flats in earthquake zones)!

      Mar 22, 2011 at 1:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Vo Dong Cung
      Vo Dong Cung

      I see in Dolan’s brain there is full of idea “mary with mom”.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 2:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TimFromLA
      TimFromLA

      Uh, I’m straight and I don’t want to have sex with my mom. And neither do LGBTQs, therefore, WTF is he saying? I’m lost

      Mar 22, 2011 at 2:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @TimFromLA: Yes, you are lost. Somehow, in your quest for a heterosexual site, you ended up here and decided to comment.

      Now, beat it!

      Mar 22, 2011 at 2:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      People often ask “Why do we care what the RCChurch says?” Answer: Two (or is 3?) Supreme Court justices, several Senators, many Representives, governors, etc. Also, the church helps fund NOM and helped fund Prop 8. Catholics also run schools, private hospitals & adoption agencies. A Catholic org. was partially the reason that marriage equality didnt get approved in Maryland…..

      Although many US Catholics don’t agree with the church’s stand on many issues, it’s the more conservative ones whose voices carry the furthest.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 2:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 20 · Roman wrote, “Dolan can’t marry his mom because he’s already married to Jesus – Duh!”

      You got it wrong (but the basic idea that something is really screwed up was right) – he said that priests are married to the Church, not to Jesus. So you have Nuns (“brides of Christ’)
      symbolically married to Jesus and male priests married to a (female) church. It makes the Catholic Church the most flagrant
      polygamists since Joseph Smith married umpteen women to satisfy his sex drive and started his own religion to justify it!

      Mar 22, 2011 at 3:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TimFromLA
      TimFromLA

      @TheRealAdam: Huh? I’m a liberal and I am a supporter of the LGBTQ movement. But if you and everyone want to exclude a liberal much like the Log Cabin Republicans, then fine, but until then, I’ll post, unless I get a major consensus you do not want a straight liberal to post or I am banned

      Mar 22, 2011 at 3:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TimFromLA
      TimFromLA

      Oh and this is living proof that religion or organized religion is a cancer on society. It’s the religious right, like the LDS and the Catholic Church who promoted and funded Prop8, which I voted no for, and the LGBTQs and straight liberals are pushing Obama to take away the 501(C)(3), because, I do not want some sky-spook-loving bastards creating legislation for me let alone my LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 3:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KevinATL
      KevinATL

      @DavyJones: I side with IonMusic here. The bulk of your posts indicate a complacent message of “there will always be homophobic people out there. deal with it” and you essentially encourage gay people to accept homophobic POVs. Your over zealous fixation with freedom of speech for one group has actually resulted in your unconcious try at stripping the freedom of speech of another. To read between the lines of your words, your ideal world would be one where gay people state they are gay, bigots state their bigotry and we all walk away. *Challenge* is the word you fail to fully grasp here. For when we do challenge bigotry, folks like you all too eagerly scream foul. Our wanting to challenge religious ideology is viewed as our attempt to wipe out religion. The two are completely independent from one another and you should examine why it is that you feel the hyper sensitive need to defend something that doesn’t need any defending. Gay people are not trying to ban religion, but we are and will continue to challenge religious view points that demonize us, and we certainly should if we have an ounce of self respect. Don’t make a martyr out of religion for us doing so. As an old professor of mine stated, in the quest for true equality and human rights, there should be no tolerance of intolerance when it comes to the rights and liberty of people. The gay community has adopted an intolerance when it relates to being treated like dirt and that is directly related to the ground breaking advancements we’ve made. Our desire to not be complacent, and instead be passionate.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 3:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KevinATL
      KevinATL

      @TimFromLA: TimfromLA ignore that troll. We have people on here from hate monger sites who come here and like to pin both gays and gay allies against each other. They log on these sites with one mission in mind…to create tension and division amongst us. It’s the classic “divide and conquer” mentality adopted by them. Please don’t believe that just because you’re posting on a gay website that every poster is gay. As often depicted by the extreme homophobia and hate laced commentary on here, some days, the haters far outnumber the rational posters. I can tell you a great many of us thank you for your compassion, kindness and free thinking frame of mind to stand shoulder to shoulder with your fellow humans who seek the same respect and rights you’re granted, o the planet we both share. Don’t feed the trolls, and always remember that just because someone says they are something (while hiding anonymousley behind a computer screen) doesn’t make it is. When a poster lashes out at a straight ally for their pro gay presence on this site; it’s a valid point to question their intentions and realize it’s not noble.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @B: yup and i lived in South of Market on October 17, 1989 so… it was my wisecrack i guess smart ass.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @B: If the mission district was effected instead of the marina Peter Jennings would not have exploited the entire debacle which just goes to show the pathetic exaggeration of damage. PS. the 12 boyfriends and whore routine was around more than 1500 years ago. so much for avant-garde.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @TimFromLA: Ahhh, yes, the “straight liberal” ticket. Is that your calling card? Your justification for taking part in this discussion, on this site? Somehow, some way, that just makes you a better, less bigoted person, doesn’t it? Of course.

      Explain why you actually felt the need to reveal that you are straight, here. Nobody asked you, did they? It doesn’t make your opinion any more (or less) valid. And I don’t need any damn consensus from anyone to inform you that your presence is unnecessary.

      @KevinATL: Bitch, please. You can question my intentions all you like. And stop groveling at his straight balls and praising his apparent “compassion and acceptance.” It makes you sound pathetic.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @B: “Err”: Your underlying theme is jesus not the priests nor the nuns hence my statement about jesus’ sexual orientation which was and is always meant as a wakeup call to the christian fundamentalist dead sleep.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      This post is about Dolan and what an asshole he is for putting us down for who we are. It is not about us fighting with each other. There is nothing worthy of defending regarding Dolans hate speech.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @TimFromLA: And we are not your brothers and sisters. Quit trying to align yourselves with us. We are not the same. Go back to your straight world and quit preaching like you’re some straight messiah.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TimFromLA
      TimFromLA

      @KevinATL: Kevin, I appreciate the warm and kind welcome, and I guess getting thrown out on my butt on Facebook by the Log Cabin after I offered to support them by working with them to repeal Prop8 made me a skeptic. I need not walk on egg shell, because, like the LGBT, I too am a minority, and the struggle to end this minority status….as in representation…and as you say, stand should-to-should is my dream, my goal. As a liberal, I have many friends, striahgt who share my belief. I have a friend who is a union electrician. He said that he had a lesbian working with him. I said REALLY? He thought I was surprised that a lesbian was working with him, and he rightfully said that I couldn’t care less what her sexual preference is so long as she can work side-by-side with me and work with thousands of volts. The sexual preference didn’t cross my mind, but the fact that a job/career which is generally men, was done by a woman who worked as hard or maybe harder than men.

      I want to thank you again and I plan to write more too.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      Saying one does not deserve to marry because they are gay is the same as saying one does not deserve to marry because they are black, because they are women, because they are men or WHATEVA!!! It is a direct attack on gay people and sexual orientation and it is war. That is the gay agenda; a war for equality. Dolan is the enemy. Here’s the evidence.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TimFromLA
      TimFromLA

      P.S. Kevin, I guess the real Adam is either a confused/closeted homosexual who wishes to remain in the closet OR a straight Christians whose rationality is in question, because he believes in some Sky-Spook with a thick beard that floats around in the clouds playing the harp.

      There is no god: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pntS1nJfL6I

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @TimFromLA: what in the hell are you talking about?

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @TimFromLA: union electricians? I thought Jesus was a carpenter.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 4:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @TimFromLA: Ahhhh, yes, more traditional and expected anecdotal literature from the “straight liberal” discussing the newness of seeing and working with gays. Hooooooow original! I’m so proud! And he even used the blundering “sexual preference” terminology! I’m speechless with pride. Really. He MUST be our ally, what with his backhanded comments on lesbians/women in the workforce.

      @TimFromLA: Awwww, look at that attempt at psychoanalysis. Just wonderful. KevinATL, back him up, please. You’ve adopted this pitiful stray kitten, now take care of it.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 5:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      Dolan is hung up with definitions. From 2009:

      “Hard-wired into us is a dictionary, and the dictionary defines marriage as between one man, one woman for life”

      ———–
      From Merriam-Webster:

      mar·riage
      Definition of MARRIAGE
      1
      (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
      (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage: same-sex marriage

      From Dictionary.com:

      mar·riage
      –noun
      1.
      a. The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
      b. A similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

      Free Dictionary. com:

      mar·riage
      n.
      1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 5:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Oli
      Oli

      Did Cardinal Cooke really die of AIDS?

      Mar 22, 2011 at 7:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in NYC
      robert in NYC

      Rocky, the roman cult, among others, contributes huge amounts of money to causes for the defeat of marriage equality. In that context, that is direct meddling in the affairs of state, the political process and as such, should be stripped of tax-exempt status. In Maine, the NY archdiocese alone under Dolan contributed over $500,000 and look what happened.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 9:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      @Oli: @Oli:

      No, Cardinal Cooke died of leukemia, and it was well documented.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 11:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mikey
      Mikey

      @ Pete
      There are many forms of cancer that are more common in HIV+ patients, especially certain types of lymphoma and leukemia. Whether or not Cooke was HIV+ is something that the public will never know for sure. Just as we would never be told that the current former Nazi Pope is gay and partnered with his handsome, younger personal secretary who has been with him and frequently promoted over many years.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 11:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • krissy
      krissy

      Actually 63% of Catholics support gay marriage- abc poll last week!

      Mar 22, 2011 at 11:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Drake
      Drake

      Is that a santorum dribble on Dolan’s chin?

      Mar 22, 2011 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick
      Patrick

      Its amazing that the shite he spews is all pointing to EVOLUTION…”having what it takes” the reason why you can’t marry your mother is that there is a pretty good chance that if you had a child with her that child wouldn’t have what it takes…people adapt and evolve but the church just…

      Mar 22, 2011 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in NYC
      robert in NYC

      Richard in DC, don’t forget Deuteronomy 21: 15-17 in which polygamy was practiced and approved of.

      Why is it these religious bigots are so ignorant of all of the other verses that don’t put straights in a very good position but yet cling to that one verse in Leviticus? It was also permitted to kill one’s wife for adultery and children for insolence, among others. Polygamy is practiced in Islam but Dolan would never say a word against it, neither would Papa Ratzi. I would also argue that incest isn’t illegal even though the laws state otherwise. Its perfectly legal in the U.S. for a relative to marry his first blood cousin, Mayor Guiliani of New York City did, then divorced her, committed adultery, married, divorced, committed adultery again, then married for the third time and hasn’t been excommunicated, yet is cautioning Governor Cuomo for living with his girlfriend. Marrying any blood relative in my view is incest pure and simple. I wonder why the law thinks otherwise yet forbids the marriage of other close blood relatives? Weren’t Adam & Eve partakers of incest? They must have been to have populated the planet with their own children.

      In the new testament, Jesus Christ never once mentioned homosexuality let alone alluded to it. I just don’t get it.

      I’m convinced people like Dolan are mentally ill, most of religion for that matter.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul F
      Paul F

      “Religion is like a penis. It’s OK to have one, and you can even be proud of it, but don’t try to ram it down other people’s throats.
      ” – Huffington Post User What, because I’m gay I’m not QUALIFIED???? I’ve been with my “can’t be married” other half longer than most of these straights that spout thier B.S. “marrage is for them only” crap. Besides his momma wouldn’t marry his sorry ass if he PAID her.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 2:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert in NYC
      Robert in NYC

      Hmmm, makes me wonder why he uses his mother as an example as to why we shouldn’t get married. Seems as if he has an acute case of an oedipus complex.

      What his really alluding to of course is that allowing same-sex marriage would herald in incest and polygamy, something all of the religious bigots have in common. That said, I’d like him and all of the religious bigoted psychotics out there to provide documented statistical evidence from the ten international governments that allow same-sex marriage. I bet you won’t find one incidence.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 3:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TimFromLA
      TimFromLA

      I wonder how many boys Dolan molested or rape?

      Mar 22, 2011 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @KevinATL: Please by all means point me to what parts of my posts lead you to believe that I think we should accept the church’s point of view, or that we should state our points of view and walk away?

      Because that wasn’t my intention at all,nor was that what I said. What I said was we should each state our opinions and then we should hold discussions about those opinions, we should seek to convince the people who disagree with us Thayer are correct, not simply label them as ‘haters’ and demand that they be silenced.

      I never suggested we should accept the church’s point of view, I said we should accept their right to hold their own point of view, and that the correct response is to try to change their opinion,not simply ignore them and hope they go away…

      Mar 22, 2011 at 5:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones [Different person #1 using similar name]

      “Thayer” Should be “that we are”. I don’t know how my auto correct pulled that one off…

      Mar 22, 2011 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 83 · ewe wrote, “@B: “Err”: Your underlying theme is jesus not the priests nor the nuns hence my statement about jesus’ sexual orientation which was and is always meant as a wakeup call to the christian fundamentalist dead sleep.”

      LOL. My “underlying theme” had nothing to do specifically with Jesus or any theology. I was simply noting how these religious dudes don’t think through the implications of their statements.

      We’ve all heard the “slippery slope” argument where allowing same-sex marriages will somehow lead to polygamy. I simply thought it was incredibly funny how the Roman Catholic Church’s own statements suggest it is into polygamy – priests (plural) “married” to the Church (singular) and nuns (plural) being called “the brides” of Christ (singular).

      Is this really so hard to understand? Does it really have to be spelled out?

      Mar 22, 2011 at 8:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @Donald:

      Number one you don’t know me and I have had to put up with a lot of homophobia in my life particularly from my own family. I am out and proud of it and if you had any reading comprehension skills you would understand what I was trying to say. I don’t condone telling people how to live their lives or what to think on either side. Its just dangerous to me to do so. Even if I don’t agree with what you are saying you have the right to say it as long as it is not in my home, public schools, the workplace, and in the government. If your gonna get mad a priest who I could give a fuck about and hasn’t affected me a bit then you should be mad like I said before at 60 minutes and CBS for putting him on, because I don’t think he put a gun to their head making him do a segment on him. And unless you are an ethnic minority-SHUT THE F#$% UP!

      Mar 22, 2011 at 9:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @B: girl please, the whole damn topic is about the catholic church so here you are saying your point is not about jesus now. go take your meds and pipe down.

      Mar 22, 2011 at 10:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TimFromLA
      TimFromLA

      @Rocky: I’m an ethnic minority. I am of Japanese descent, a straight guy, but still face the same $4it as LGBTQs. How so? We are both discriminated against, our voices are silenced and our rights are doiwn the drain. One thing though Rocky, Everyone, including whites who are NOT the top 400 of the wealthiest are. how so? Representation. When the average white male is overlooked by say, the Koch brothers, then that white male is a minority and we are all in the same GODDAMN boat!

      And Dolan is a racist S-bag

      Mar 22, 2011 at 10:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TJ Parker
      TJ Parker

      No, Your Assholiness. You can’t marry your mom because you’re a priest. You can’t marry anyone or anything because you’re a priest.

      Mar 23, 2011 at 12:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TJ Parker
      TJ Parker

      Your Assholiness:

      (1) I *can’t* marry my husband?? We’ve been married for years!

      (2) You can’t marry your mom because you’re a fracking priest. You can’t marry anyone or anything because you’re a fracking priest. You’ve chosen to give up sex and family and romantic love so that you can officiate at those rites at which your people practice (symbolic) cannibalism.

      Mar 23, 2011 at 12:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 108 · ewe wrote, “@B: girl please, the whole damn topic is about the catholic church so here you are saying your point is not about jesus now. go take your meds and pipe down.”

      How daft can you be! I commented on what the Catholic Church was saying – as an institution too blind to see the contradictions in its own rhetoric, which has nothing to do in any substantive sense with Jesus, Zeus, Jupiter, Buddha, or the Dali Lama (who actually exists – I’ve seen him in person.)

      It is not my fault that you can’t understand it, but pouting and hurling childish insults to cover up your own shortcomings just makes you look bad. Try reading No 106 until it sinks in. Think about it – you have an institution using imagery suggestive of polygamy in describing its nuns and priests and then arguing that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Don’t you find that just a little bit odd? Don’t you think it just might be something to throw in that Timothy Dolan character’s face?

      Mar 23, 2011 at 2:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @B: @B: Shortcomings? Listen here Mary Louise, you say jesus was a polygamist while i say he was a gay man. Get over yourself. lol.

      Mar 23, 2011 at 2:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @B: i am sending love and good wishes your way.

      Mar 23, 2011 at 3:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      Dolan is rediculous. One should wonder and then ask him why he has thoughts of marrying his own mother particularly at his age. What a silly petty little worm.

      Mar 23, 2011 at 3:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 113 · ewe wrote, “@B: @B: Shortcomings? Listen here Mary Louise, you say jesus was a polygamist while i say he was a gay man. Get over yourself. lol.”

      Hey Ewe, learn to read – I said that the Catholic Church’s description of nuns as “brides of Christ” implied polygamy – “brides” (plural, “Christ” (singular). Meanwhile the Catholic Church touts this “one man, one woman” thing. Don’t you see the contradiction? The only way out is for them to claim that being a bride does not mean being married, the rejoinder being, “Hey, if you want to complain about ‘redefining marriage’ then don’t set a bad example by redefining ‘bride’!”

      Mar 23, 2011 at 6:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @B: Ms.cuckoo. If the brides are polygamists for being brides of your one christ that would make the christ a polygamist as well (aka Jesus). I know how to read and comprehend your words dear. Two to tango type of thing. What a dope. Secondly, i do not need to discuss the dogma of any religion or make them defensive about their own “brides of christ bullshit” when it comes to my secular rights to equality. You don’t have to either.

      Mar 25, 2011 at 5:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @B: FWIW: Your comments of the irony of nuns marrying Christ and priests marrying the church *were* clear. I am not sure how those comments could be construed as your acceptance of those beliefs or as support for the RCs, but I’ve read your posts often enough to know that you’re not a card-carrying papist! And that you don’t comment without knowing WTF youre talking about.

      I too have gotten skEwEred for something I didn’t even say or mean, but considering the source I realized that it’s pointless to argue with someone who’s playing checkers at a chess tourney !

      Mar 25, 2011 at 6:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Drake
      Drake

      Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Lady Gaga were both raised Catholic. Guess who is more influential today !

      Mar 25, 2011 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KevinATL
      KevinATL

      @Rocky: Ethnic minority? Honey, gays was been persecuted and discriminated earlier than any minority. Today is the day we’re fighting for our civil rights. You telling gays to STFU is making YOU look bigoted and hypocitical. Nice strawman attempt at brining up ethnic persecution in an argument about GAY persecution. As if the only group of people who can suffer are those whom are ethnic. Wrong. The last frontier in society is homophobia and we see it in the headlines daily. You Homophobic POS.

      Mar 25, 2011 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Jeffree: lol. You are akin to someone in rags giving fashion tips to someone in a tux.

      Mar 25, 2011 at 6:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tml
      tml

      actually if he really really wants to marry his mother (yuck btw) he can he quits his “job” and him and his mother move to a state that doesn’t require testing for marriage they both change there names go to the court house and get married by the justice of the peace like I said (ewwwwww) but anyway’s like the writer said so if a man and woman get married but can not produce children naturally through that union the church wont recognize them and it should be illegal right, right ok maybe not they would get condolences and pity but not rocks thrown their way (or so I hope) my definition of a marriage is ” A union between two people who are in love ” I know I know not everyone agrees with me there but really to define a marriage as ” between a man and a woman for life, giving children ” that’s just stupid if I married every man who could give me children hell id be a stretched out old hag living in a shoe with so many children (and apparently ex husbands ) I wouldn’t know what to do lol I married my husband and made the decision to have his children out of LOVE for him not just so he can give me kids so the definition is loving someone so much you don’t want to live with out them and you would give them anything to make them happy and having children weather by your body or someone else’s (i.e. adoption) is a by product of the love you have and want to give to another

      Mar 27, 2011 at 7:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Christine
      Christine

      Well this survey (ABC and Washington Post) says that 63% of Catholics support same-gender marriage, which is 10 % higher than the national average who supports same-gender marriage. So I’d say that the “leaders” of the Catholic church ought to start having the same values as those who follow its teachings.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/support-gay-marriage-reaches-milestone-half-americans-support/story?id=13159608

      I also think it’s funny that he describes marriage as natural and that definitions can’t change. Definitions of words, not to mention socially constructed institutions, can change, have changed, and will continue to change. Marriage is not a natural occurrence, we as humans have created the institution of marriage and its definition has changed much over time. “Within the last century, states could still place extensive restrictions on obtaining a divorce, ban interracial marriage, and subjugate the rights of women to their husbands. The picture now is very different. Racial discrimination within marriage has ended, married women have equal rights to married men, and most states have created access to no-fault divorce. Historians believe ending discrimination against same-sex couples in
      marriage is no more dramatic than other recent changes.”

      “Forty U.S. states, including Massachusetts, once prohibited marrying someone of the “wrong” race, no matter how much you loved them. Social prejudice accomplished much the same result in other states. Marriages between whites and persons of color were decried as “immoral” and “unnatural.” Polls showed that overwhelming numbers of Americans agreed. Massachusetts forbade interracial marriage as early as 1705, a restriction which was ultimately changed in 1843 after a three year campaign in the legislature. The legislature understood that withholding marriage based on race was an affront to human dignity and denied our basic guarantees of equality.”

      Read More at http://www.outcast-films.com/res_marriage/historyofchange.PDF

      Mar 27, 2011 at 3:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • William
      William

      @jim:
      AMEN JIM

      Mar 27, 2011 at 11:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.