No Seriously, Rosie Meant An Actual Cruise

I'll be the first to admit, the idea of a Rosie O'Donnell special documenting gay parenting while traipsing about the Carribbean isn't my first choice of prime time programming. It's not even my eighth.

But ahoy there, matey. There be controversy brewin' on the horizon. It seems the Washington Post's Tom Shales found the HBO special about as entertaining as I did:

It's as if the primary concern of Rosie O'Donnell, who captained the project, was presenting to the mainstream TV audience a scrubbed-up, politely tidy image of gay men and women -- a portrait meticulously devoid of the drag queens, pierced nipples and campy vamping one often sees when a local TV station rushes off to cover a gay-themed event. O'Donnell earns herself a citizenship award or a political correctness award, but the unfortunate byproduct of the consciousness-raising is that it isn't engaging, it isn't much fun, and sometimes it's punishingly platitudinous.

O'Donnell almost robs her subjects of their sexual identity in the pursuit of making them wholesome. In short, there is no gay cruising on this gay cruise.

While many are decrying Shales stereotyping of gays as people who flutter about in a world of queens, piercings, and Broadway street re-enactments, there is a point to his description. The subjects of this documentary are the most boring gay people ever encountered.

(Video and commentary after the jump)

This is, of course, the goal. Any honest gay person knows what an all-mo cruise is like. Whether or not two gay men are coupled, dating, wedded, what have you, a gay cruise almost always has its orgiastic elements.

While watching All Aboard, it was difficult not to be aware of the editing. Rosie and the producers went to great lengths to clean up the footage as much as possible. Loving, monogamous gay families and their children frolicking across the sun-dappled decks are the image meant to be projected. This program is targeting a very specific audience, and it does so effectively. Look at it this way, my mother was the one who alerted me to All Aboard. She's the kind of person who watched it, she's the one who will be seeing, perhaps for the first time, that there are typical, run of the mill, house-with-a-white-picket-fence gay families out there.

Is there a more heart-wrenching image of the difficulties gay families face today than protesters screaming at couples with kids in strollers? When a toddler is lead away in tears because Christian fundamentalists are shouting at him, what more needs to be said?

All Aboard is a carefully crafted piece of propaganda. However, it is not false propaganda. It promotes selected families in selected situations, and it gives a face to those who are most affected when politicians and "pro-family" groups attempt to outlaw things such as gay adoption.

Shales may have communicated his point indelicately, but it is undeniable. Rather than engaging in disingenuous outrage, perhaps the best reaction would be pointing out the families featured, speaking about the difficulties faced by threatened adoption laws, and using the program as an illustration in the gay marriage debate.

Gay culture is what it is, and we get no points for throwing conniptions about remarks like Shales. Especially not when any member of the religious right can hop on an all-gay cruise with a video camera and find plenty of Shale's examples come to life. Honesty is more difficult than indignation, but it does us a better turn in the long run.

[Watch video – 15:47, WMV format, high bandwidth]

[Watch video – 15:47, WMV format, low bandwidth]

Comments

[Josh]

I like this.

[Gregory]

The average american relates to people just like themselves... everyday and everyday can be boring. Rosie is trying to show the world that gay people can and are everyday and boring just like everyone else. Gay people aren't always the geniuses, clowns, artists, performers, dancers, entertainers, freaks... that the world so loves to point at in awe or disgust. And to some of the world, mundane gay people are even scarier than the dragqueens.

[Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest)]

Well said, Robbie.

No wonder your blog has hit 1,000,000!!

[louis]

No Seriously, Rosie Meant An Actual Cruise

Yes indeed she did!

Wow things got pretty provacative near the end there.

And OMG, no I did not see former NFL defensive lineman Esera Toaolo in some 5 inch platforms, strumming a ukulele while carrying a falsetto little melody high enough in key to rival an American Idol Ace number on his gayest of day! What a hoot and three snaps that was!!

[blewsdawg]

*Claps loudly*

[Tommy]

I don't understand your defense of Shales. My first reaction was boring gays need love too. I agree that if its boring television to Shales, its boring to Shales and maybe to me and maybe you too. That's all fair. What I don't understand is his seeming extrapolation that 'robbing people of thier sexulality' is the same as presenting thier wholesomeness. There is nothing "unwholesome" about our sexuality.

If the point is that all media depictions should give equal focus to the "depravity" of gays. I would ask why? It is, of course, true that popular gay and straight culture is highly sexualized but if someone was doing a documentary on the vacations of young straight families would anyone think of criticzing it for not also showing the nightlife debauchery of young straights?

[Robbie]

Of course there are all kinds of gay people out in the world, but Shales critique is that there was obviously a lot of cleaning up to project a middle-American image involved.

Perhaps you'd need to see the entire "documentary," but out of a thousand gay families, maybe five or six were actually profiled. You stuff a thousand gay folk on a cruise, and you're going to get, at the very least, a few ribald comments, some quirky humor, and some typical gay fun.

It was all so painstakingly vanilla. There was effort involved in projecting everything "just so."

There's nothing wrong with that, either. Rosie was trying to get a certain message out, and as I said, she does it effectively.

It's just kind of funny to anyone familiar with gay culture, or any gathering involving more than a handful of queers, at how carefully selected and screened the entire thing was. It's obvious to me, and I think it's pretty obvious to others.

And I think that's what Shales was saying. No, all gay people are most certainly not the stereotype, but it's just sort of hilarious at how far O'Donnell goes, how meticulous they must've been in their editing to have ended up with the program they did.

I want to emphasize, I'm not saying what O'Donnell did was a bad thing at all. The profiled families are real people, in very real situations that will hopefully give viewers on the fence a serious think.

But I didn't really find Shales remarks offensive. I thought he was dead on in what O'Donnell did to create the program she wanted.

[louis]

ooops, *provocative* that is.

And on the heels of Dan's compliment to Robbie, excuse me while I just slip ths in real quick, I too would just like to express my appreciation of this site right down to the little navigational details etc. that really makes for an outstanding site, especially in the way of a multi-media site! This in addition of course to the fine writing skills and the overall eruditeness that both you and Mal share.

great work guys!

[Robbie]

Louis is bein all nice to me.

*suspicious glance*

Oh, what the heck *group hug, group hug* I could go for one today anyhow.

[louis]

{{{{{{{ }}}}}}}

[Robbie]

LOL, thanks guy =)

[Tommy]

I'm all in {{{{{{}}}}}}!

[Robbie]

Woo!

[blewsdawg]

??? Am I interrupting anything here?

[blewsdawg]

Oh, what the hell? {{{{{}}}}}

[Robbie]

Atta guy =)

[blewsdawg]

I'm the straight guy.

Should I be doing this?

[Robbie]

It's a group hug, not a group grope.

Though, you might want to have a six pack, just in case.

There are laws about all this, you know.

[North Dallas Thirty]

If the point is that all media depictions should give equal focus to the "depravity" of gays. I would ask why? It is, of course, true that popular gay and straight culture is highly sexualized but if someone was doing a documentary on the vacations of young straight families would anyone think of criticzing it for not also showing the nightlife debauchery of young straights?

Actually, in most cases, they do, Tommy.

However, that's something that the vast majority of people out there, being straight, understand. They may not approve of it, but they watch it and understand the motivations behind it.

Shales sounds almost...well, cheated.....that he isn't getting to see drag queens, weird piercings, or orgies. Part of that is media sensationalism, but on the other hand, we've done such a fine job of drumming THAT as "normal" for gays into peoples' heads, anything else is going to look suspicious.

As it stands, to get people to think otherwise, they by and large will have to be presented very sanitized chunks of gays at work. That's what this is.

[blewsdawg]

*Pauses Bruce Willis movie*

NDT is right. Most shows about straight families include the misbehavior (if you wish to call it that) of some family member(s) (read: Growing Up Gotti)(also read: The Osbournes). Otherwise it would be pretty boring TV.

*Swigs a Guinness* *No- A Budweiser!!*

I don't think there's anything wrong with this either, but if it is that sanitized, it's probably pretty transparent.

*Restarts Bruce Willis movie* *No- Schwarch- Shwarz- Bruce Willis*

[blewsdawg]

Specifically, I mean reality shows, documentaries, etc. Not Sitcoms and such.

[beautifulatrocities]

Would. Rather. Die.

[Tommy]

I have not seen the whole show but the point is, is it a true depiction of these peoples vacation/lives or not.

What Shales says is a really stupid criticism if he is saying it can't be real because they were not gay enough.

[just me]

Sounds like the issue is reality TV and entertainment.

People don't watch reality TV to see boring stuff, they watch it to see the other stuff.

If they did any kind of show about our family, it would probably make for really boring TV. I suspect that most families fit in this catagory. Good family times, but not really something anyone wants to spend an hour or so watching.

[Mark]

It seems to me that Rosie is trying to show people what they'd see if they accepted the homosexual lifestyle, and while people might indeed see such things, is that reflective of most of what they'd see?

Was this presentation was an accurate presentation of the entire gay community? (Which is what everyone knows Rosie wants us all to accept.) Did what was shown reflect a small subculture of the gay community, or did it show people the whole picture, i.e., what those who oppose same sex marriage, gay adoption, gay culture (in its variant forms), and homosexual activity (in its variant forms) would see if they were to honestly look at the gay community in order to assess whether or not they find such values as espoused by all the variant forms of homosexuality as acceptable?

An even simpler question is this: What is essential to being gay, regardless of what type of gay someone is, what qualities and behaviors are required to be a part of the gay community, or to be considered gay? Seeing that would cut through any sort of criticism about what "type" of gay person is presented and get to the heart of the matter so that people could honestly decide their own feelings and reactions to homosexuality.

Then moving from what is essential, what is common should be honestly considered. For example, it seems to me that gay porn is generally a part of the lives of most gay men. Am I wrong? Pornography may be widespread among heterosexual men, but it's generally not considered acceptable or respectable in the heterosexual community. It's still generally considered sleazy, and it's also generally considered bad/deviant behavior to watch pornography (especially among those who are faithful to most major religions, which is a large group of people).

If every adult American were to look at gay porn, mainstream gay porn, and by that I mean the type of gay porn that is consumed by most gay men, how would they react? My suspicion is that most heterosexuals would react with honest revulsion.

More pointedly, consider what is entailed in homosexual acts, which I assume are to a large degree essential to being gay, if not in actual practice, at least in desire. Again, I think most people find that stuff gross. Yet homosexual acts are essential, at least in desire, if not in practice to being gay.

I know some of you will try to say that heterosexual acts gross you out. While I can't relate, I understand, but here's the point: the heterosexual community isn't asking or demanding that you accept them or their sexual activity. It kind of doesn't matter if you accept it or not we aren't going to develop a complex about your non-acceptance. At least that's my perception of what heterosexuals would feel if the subject came up.

Which brings up an important point that confuses a lot of homosexuals: Why do you care about making us approve of what you do? Why do you want to be so visible? It really does feel like the gay community is trying to force heterosexuals to embrace the totality of what it means to be homosexual. What if many, if not most, of us don't want to and never will? Why do you care?

And why does what you do with your genitals need to be everybody's business?

What is wrong about having sex be something private and discreet? I am confident in saying that most religious people (if not most people in general) think it is in poor taste to discuss genital acts, or sexual tastes, (especially in public) whether they be homosexual or heterosexual, so it isn't even an issue of discrimination. It's an issue of whether or not a person has social grace.

Look, homosexuality (or being gay, or whatever people want to call it) means being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, wanting to have sex with them, and having sex with them. There's pretty much no way to get around that. Yet most people don't want to even think about what that entails, and the gay community seems to want to shove everybody's nose in it.

Even though I will never endorse homosexual activity, or heterosexually oriented sexual sins, I will also never run around trying to learn who is doing what. Frankly, I don't want to know. I don't need to know. I prefer not knowing. I don't think I'm alone in that boat.

I think most people want to live and let live. Yes there are extremists (on both sides, I might add), but I honestly think that most people don't want to hurt gay people. I think most people just don't want to hear about what you prefer to do with your genitals, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.

Why is that wrong?

[Robbie]

Personally, Mark, I don't honestly care if you approve of me or not. I barely care what my parents approve of, so I'm certainly not going to do rhetorical gymnastics for a stranger on the internet.

The issue isn't really approval, though many gay people do indeed seek that. The issue is one of tolerance. You don't have to like everything gay people do, not by any stretch of the imagination. It's a free country, and you're entitled to your point of view.

However, you ask if the image being projected is the "real" gay community. The big secret is that there is no gay community. We're too diverse, too different, too separated by our individual lives. What binds us together is a social situation. When you condemn people for one specific thing, those people will naturally band together.

However, here's the trick. If there was gay marriage, you'd see a lot more people growing up to become the people in that Rosie documentary. If you make marriage, monogamy, and children the expectation for gay citizens in the same way it's an expectation for heterosexuals, you will see more and more gay people funneled into that construct.

Right now, you want to deny gay marriage. You're basically saying, "You're on your own. We don't care what becomes of you." It's a socially destructive position. You expect gay people to behave "respectfully" but you deny them the greatest social engine for leading a "respectable" life. And you do this without a shred of irony or self-awareness.

Gay people will never go away. They're not going to convert, they're not going to go straight, they're not going to change who they are. That ship has done up and sailed. The question facing America now is what to do with gay people. Do you want to keep them in the shadows? Well, according to the culture, that's not happening. So, what are your other choices? Deny them the basic tools for relationship stability? Create an uncertain family situation for their children by denying basic adoption laws?

The Christian conservative position in this country is the ultimate hypocritical paradox. You want us gay folk to behave more "normally" but you deny us the one institution that would make us most normal of all.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Was this presentation was an accurate presentation of the entire gay community? (Which is what everyone knows Rosie wants us all to accept.) Did what was shown reflect a small subculture of the gay community, or did it show people the whole picture, i.e., what those who oppose same sex marriage, gay adoption, gay culture (in its variant forms), and homosexual activity (in its variant forms) would see if they were to honestly look at the gay community in order to assess whether or not they find such values as espoused by all the variant forms of homosexuality as acceptable?

In some senses yes, in other senses no.

Did it show everything that gay people do in public? No.

Did it show what gay people generally do when around their children and others? Yep.

An even simpler question is this: What is essential to being gay, regardless of what type of gay someone is, what qualities and behaviors are required to be a part of the gay community, or to be considered gay? Seeing that would cut through any sort of criticism about what "type" of gay person is presented and get to the heart of the matter so that people could honestly decide their own feelings and reactions to homosexuality.

You need to be attracted to men and prefer long-term emotional, physical, and spiritual relationships with men (or women, if you're a lesbian).

Believe it or not, being gay does not require you to renounce Catholicism, Christianity, conservativism, or the Republican Party, nor does it require drug use, party attendance, multiple sexual partners, supporting abortion, or everything else that the major "gay rights" groups tend to tell people that gays do (normally for the purpose of soliciting lobbying dollars).

I think most people want to live and let live. Yes there are extremists (on both sides, I might add), but I honestly think that most people don't want to hurt gay people. I think most people just don't want to hear about what you prefer to do with your genitals, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.

The problem is, Mark, that quite often matters of everyday life seem to trigger the "prefer to do with your genitals" part.

Think of how often who you are seeing or with whom you are in a relationship comes up in conversation, be it with your family, at the office watercooler, and so forth. With heterosexuals, thanks to social conditioning, the first thing people think of usually isn't the act of sex when you mention your wife or girlfriend's name. But because homosexuality is relatively unusual in the population, not as many people have experience with it. When the mind doesn't have much in the way of experience or continuity, it has trouble interpreting facts, and that tends to magnify matters.

A good example would be public displays of affection, i.e. holding hands or kissing in public. Usually, this is not frowned upon when a man and woman do it. But when two gay guys do it, the mind in several cases lacks the context to interpret it, and leaps to the only conclusion it knows -- men having sex with men, which most heterosexuals find vaguely disturbing at the least and "gross". Therefore, the simple act of holding hands with your date will be interpreted by people unfamiliar with the concept as equivalent to having sex.

So, to summarize, we're more than happy to leave direct and detailed conversations about our genitals out of things. But, at the same time, heterosexuals need to realize that not everything gays do involves sex; you just THINK it does because sex-related experiences are the only ones involving gays with which you are familiar.

Then moving from what is essential, what is common should be honestly considered. For example, it seems to me that gay porn is generally a part of the lives of most gay men. Am I wrong? Pornography may be widespread among heterosexual men, but it's generally not considered acceptable or respectable in the heterosexual community. It's still generally considered sleazy, and it's also generally considered bad/deviant behavior to watch pornography (especially among those who are faithful to most major religions, which is a large group of people).

One thing to remember, Mark, is that a lot of gay subculture grew out of situations that were intensely private and homogenous. Back in the bad old days, you made damn sure someone else was gay before you let them into your gay bar or your house and dropped your guard, as it were. As we slowly grew in number and came out of the backrooms and closets and more out into the open, we still kept with us that whole "it's in the family" attitude.

A good analogue here in San Francisco is in Chinatown. You see things there, i.e. live chickens being slaughtered, people eating odd fish parts and the like, that are WAY outside mainstream for most Americans, but taking place out in the open -- just as they would if they were in China. It's because in Chinatown, they are the majority, and that's what they do. As those areas become more heterogenous and more integrated, those things migrate back into more private places, and the "public" cultures and mores tend to predominate.

Similarly, in the gay sections of town, you see things that you ordinarily wouldn't see in the heterosexual universe out in shop windows -- just as you would if we were still back in the dark corners. But, as we become more heterogenous and more integrated, those things migrate back into more private places, and we start to assume more "public" cultures and mores.

You can think of gays, Mark, as a second-generation immigrant group, "born" into a mainstream culture, but "raised" into another one that is quite different in many ways. Some people embrace the polar extremes, but others take bits and pieces from each. For example, my partner and I are of different religions; he's Jewish and I'm Lutheran. Neither of us converted; we simply celebrate both sets of holy days in our own fashion, which is a fusion of each tradition in the manner most meaningful to us.

In the case of porn, you'll see less and less of it as we start to integrate more and more because, believe it or not, we know you think it's yucky and, as gracious hosts/coworkers/neighbors, we would put it away, just as we might expect you to do with the Playboys, and we DO think that some of it's very sleazy. But it's not going to vanish completely.

[Jack Malebranche]

I think most people want to live and let live. Yes there are extremists (on both sides, I might add), but I honestly think that most people don't want to hurt gay people. I think most people just don't want to hear about what you prefer to do with your genitals, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.

Why is that wrong?

I think it's perfect, actually.

In my ideal world, no one bothers with what other people do with their genitals, so long as it is consensual and non-violent. Now that sodomy is no longer a legal issue (who made THAT an issue in the first place?), I personally see very little reason for the gay rights movement to exist.

If you don't want what people do with their genitals to matter, though, you have to build that out a bit, Mark. It means removing legal preferences for what people do with their genitals, does it not? In my opinion, this shouldn't be within the state's jurisdiction at all. Isn't marriage, in a civic sense, the government overseeing what people do with their genitals?

I'm not a proponent of gay marriage. I'm a proponent of civil arrangements that are seperate from the religious construct of marriage. I think churches should be able to marry whomever they please and exclude whomever they please. In my estimation, they are simply private clubs. They should be able to do as they please, but their conventions should be seperate from state conventions, which should be based not on superstitious morality, but on reason. It is my position that the state has no special interest in binding one man to another, but that it also has no interest in denying the ability of any man to designate a benificiary or a person who will make healthcare decisions, etc.

The whole issue, really, is that the government is already more involved in the placement of genitalia than it should be.

Churches should be able to proscribe what they think is morally correct for their followers, but attempting to hold non-believers or those of other faiths to their codes is unfair and disrespectful.

[just me]

Back to Rosie for a minute.

But she is showcasing gay families. This means children are involved.

Children tend to be civilizing. When you have kids, you can't go out and party all night. You can't even go out on the spur of the moment, because you have to arrange for a sitter.

Now I am not gay, but there are things that my husband and I do not do around the kids, or discuss around the kids, there are things my kids aren't permitted to watch on TV, we monitor internet use etc.

I admit I have never been on a cruise with gay families before-but I suspect that most gay families are in reality similar to mine-pretty boring as reality TV fair, but still a great life to live.

[Mark]

I really appreciate the insightful comments to my post from Robbie, North Dallas Thirty, and Jack. I will try to say something about each in different comboxes as I am able.

I'll start with:

Robbie,

I get that you personally don't care if I accept what you do, but that's not the message the gay community puts out in the media, or at least it's not what I am hearing. I am definitely hearing a demand that I recognize homosexual activity as equivalent to heterosexual activity, as though these were two sides of one coin. Where is my perception wrong?

You admit that Rosie's program is propaganda, but what is it propaganda for? Isn't it designed to get heterosexuals to accept homosexuality? Isn't that why it's so "carefully edited" "scrubbed-up", "tidy" and "wholesome"?

You said this about gay cruises: "Any honest gay person knows what an all-mo cruise is like. Whether or not two gay men are coupled, dating, wedded, what have you, a gay cruise almost always has its orgiastic elements."

I would assume that gay people know that, as you've indicated it is common knowledge, and I also assume that you are indicating that most gay people are okay with that. Who, then, is Rosie targeting by editing out these elements, if not heterosexuals who are unfamiliar with gay culture and perhaps open to accepting homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle?

Why would she go to such trouble if she didn't care about getting us to accept homosexuality? I suppose she may only really care about getting gay marriage legally accepted, and not really give a damn if heterosexual people accept homosexuality as a good thing, but that's not the impression I get. I think she wants heterosexuals to see homosexuality as not only benign, but wholesome and good; just like folks, and no different from anybody else.

However, you have indicated that what she presents isn't the whole truth, or even most of it.

You have also indicated that homosexual cruises have "orgiastic" elements to them. In contrast, heterosexuals orgies are not normative (on cruises or in other places) and the type of people Rosie is trying to persuade aren't likely to think kindly of a heterosexual orgy any more than a homosexual one, so it's not even a matter of picking on people because they are gay.

You don't seem to have a problem with the orgiastic elements, but most people would, if they knew about them. I think that if gays want acceptance, they should be honest about what they are asking people to accept.

I am confused when you say: "The Christian conservative position in this country is the ultimate hypocritical paradox. You want us gay folk to behave more "normally" but you deny us the one institution that would make us most normal of all."

Because you already said: "Any honest gay person knows what an all-mo cruise is like. Whether or not two gay men are coupled, dating, wedded, what have you, a gay cruise almost always has its orgiastic elements."

So you are basically saying that gay marriage isn't really monogamous (and monogamy is the norm for marriage, and it is a vital norm for a marriage that includes children), but you want society to legitimize gay marriage to make you "more normal".

Doesn't that seem problematic?

Everyone knows that monogamy is more or less a relative term when speaking of homosexuals. You basically admitted it. How can you have good gay marriages if they involve infidelity (especially if children are involved).

Asking that marriage be redefined so as to include legal homosexual unions is also a demand for public acceptance. How am I wrong in thinking that?

You even hint at the fact that homosexual unions aren't currently respectable (in your own eyes) when you call marriage "the greatest social engine for leading a "respectable" life." Saying this implies that you want society to consider homosexual unions respectable and believe that homosexual unions a means to that end.

Yet you deny caring what anyone thinks of your lifestyle.

Here's my problem with homosexual unions.

Words mean things. Institutions (like marriage) mean things. Redefining marriage so as to include homosexual unions is problematic for four reasons:

From the order of right reason:

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law, but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience. Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behavior, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behavior as a private phenomenon and the same behavior as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They "play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior". Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

From the biological and anthropological order:

Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

From the social order:

Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and nondiscrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfill the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

From the legal order:

Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law -- like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy -- to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.

Gay marriage involves gutting marriage of its meaning, namely, the union of one man and one woman, thereby rendering the common understanding of what marriage is obsolete (which then devalues the institution itself, whether the gay community intends this or not). Marriage can be of benefit to no one if marriage doesn't really mean anything, and by demanding that society should chuck out its understanding of what marriage is and replace it with a whole new concept is to say that the old concept was essentially worthless (which leads one to wonder why the gay community is so desperate to acquire the right to a concept they wittingly or unwittingly consider of no real value or meaning).

Redefining marriage is a slippery slope. Accepting consensual homosexual unions as marriage opens the door redefining marriage to include accepting polygamy (having more than one wife) or polyandry (more than one husband), and why stop there? Why not allow people to marry children? Or even animals? You may say that won't happen (especially the bit about children and animals), but why not? The very same arguments used to justify homosexual activity can be used to justify these other things. NAMBLA already does so with children. The arguments they make to justify their "love" are pretty much identical with the arguments for justifying homosexuality. Absent any moral standard, which, of course has already been eroded (if not completely denied) to allow for the acceptance of homosexuality, what arguments can be made to prevent allowing these things later on? Remember, the new morality says I can't tell you what is right or wrong and you can't tell me. Morality is all just personal opinion in this view and binding on no one. How can we argue that anything is wrong then? Some will say the rule is that people must consent and/or not be hurting others and/or be adults. But those are moral standards. Those are statements of objective morality, and we've already abandoned the concept of objective morality that is binding on everyone, remember? No one can be sure of the truth, right? There are no absolutes. There is no black and white. Everything is gray and fuzzy. We can never prove anything, we can only be reasonably certain of things. Right? Isn't that sort of belief what is required to overthrow the tyranny of religion? So let's go with that, but then nothing is right and nothing is wrong, or at least we can never know what is right or wrong, we can only have a sense of it, yet if we buy into all of that, it really is wrong to legislate any type of morality, whether it be about murder, rape, paying taxes, or stopping for traffic lights. Morality becomes a social construct, to be taken up or discarded at will.

The problem with this is that it is all a lie. There is an objective right and wrong. We must treat others as we wish to be treated. If I steal from you, then I am saying (by my action) that stealing is okay, but nobody really believes stealing is okay, because nobody thinks it is okay for people to steal from them! The same goes for any number of moral, immoral, or indifferent acts (just plug in words like befriend, comfort, feed, visit, and nurture; hurt, rape, and kill in place of the word steal).

Furthermore, morality can't be a mere social construct because there are things that are always considered bad, no matter what time or place in history. Show me the society that has ever decided that it was noble to betray one's best friend, or steal.

No, morality isn't just a passing fad to be redefined at will.

Moral principles reflect what things are, calling them by their proper names and treating them according to their nature. When we use things in accordance with their nature, things go smoothly, but when we go against nature, we destroy the nature of the thing we abuse. We can't redefine red to include green, squares to include circles, or bachelors to include married men. To do so only causes confusion and destroys the identity of the thing we would be trying to redefine and to act as though the new definition has merit will only cause problems. So we put gasoline in gas tanks and not sugar. We treat a head of lettuce like a head of lettuce, a puppy like a puppy, and a human being like a human being. It's wrong to chop up a human being and toss them in a bowl or to raise a human child as though it were a puppy with dog collars and leashes and newspapers on the floor.

Once we know what a thing is, we then know how to treat it. We can't redefine puppies to include kittens or human infants, because then we'd have a mess. We can't redefine marriage for much the same reason. If we do, then marriage doesn't mean anything at all, never did, and never will.

Marriage exists not just for the good of the spouses, but for the good of children that come from marriage. It benefits society to have stable family units which bring children into the world in the most loving and supportive environment possible. (I understand this doesn't always happen, but it's the ideal, and the law of the land, at present, favors the ideal so as to encourage it). Single parents have a hard time. This isn't to say that they aren't good people or well-meaning. It just means they don't have all the help associated with a two-parent household. If two parents were all that mattered, then homosexual unions might be okay (in a non-religious sense). However, it is a fact of human nature that children are best served by having a mother and a father. I don't mean a mother figure and a father figure. I mean a mother and a father. Sometimes this is not possible (due to death or even due to sexual immorality among heterosexual couples) and then people have to make due. However, these circumstances are not only less than optimal, they are observably detrimental to children, despite the best intentions of the single parent, and minimizing the damage that will stem from the absence of a married mother and father. Divorce and remarriage causes similar observable developmental difficulties in kids. it is in the best interest of society to reward the optimal circumstances for raising children so as to encourage those circumstances. If homosexual unions are legitimized, that renders the optimal circumstance (by virtue of law) equal in status to a circumstance that primarily seeks the good of the homosexual couple and not the children. It destabilizes the meaning of marriage, the value of marriage, and hence the perceived need for marriage, thereby encouraging that more children are born into less than the best possible circumstance for their upbringing. You yourself called marriage "the greatest social engine for leading a "respectable" life." Why would you want to devalue the meaning of marriage and consequently destroy that engine, especially when children are involved?

[Patrick]

Word count: 2,974.

[just me]

I think that was the longest post in comments I have ever seen.

[Aatom]

yeah, someone is just a teensy bit obsessed with homosexuality. even I don't think about it that much, and I have sex with men.

take a valium, Mark!

[louis]

Dearest Mark

These never ending diatribes and rejoinders of yours are practically becoming inappropriate as it would seem, from the thread flooding effects of them alone.

Let's just cut to the chase here. Why is a heterosexual man up in the wee hours of the morning on a gay board, cutting/pasting and splitting hairs with respect to every word written from those who have chosen to entertain your neurotic rants?

Have you been a participant in a/some homosexual experience for which you haven't been able to forgive your person?

Are you feeling some homosexual urges that have you confused or upset?

Or is all this, going-thru, of yours just the worrisome results from the stringent doctrin by which you've chosen to live? Which incidentally, no mortal (namely you) would ever be able to champion.

Indeed, why are you truly soooo, malcontent?

Tell daddy where it hurts.

[Queer Conservative]

Mark, you think about "gayness" way too much. Eating cheeseburgers is a sin in the Old Testament too. Now go play at Burger King for a while.

Tommy, Rosie's program is to gay people/family life what the Brady Bunch is to straight people/family life. A bit too vanilla, a bit too smooth, a bit too "filmed in Hollywood before a life-like audience."

[Tommy]

louis - noooooooo,

All of louis's questions are rhetorical and require no response - (in case someone doesn't get the subtext). The answers can be found all over this blog, here, here and here (if I knew how to do that - most notably in the famous never ending thread) in great detail.

QC - if Shales would have said that, then I'd understand what he was saying. Maybe you should write for the WP, or is that too MSM for you.

[Ishkabibble]

Oy!

I read some of the posts yesterday, and thought about posting today. I have to say that I feel somewhat intimidated at this point. So much to address, so little time.

My first thoughts were about the show, and how much I enjoyed it, and how much sense it made that we weren't seeing a showcase of sexual behavior because, just like straight parents, gay parents are capable of putting their sexual lives on a back burner for the sake of the children. I wasn't on this cruise, but I'll wager that the voyagers found the time spent around partners and children so much more fullfilling than any "orgy" could ever be, and so the need to participate in such was quite possiblly the last thing on anyone's mind. The reason the sexual shennanigans and wild partying were not shown was quite possiblly because it never happened.

I have been with my partner for nearly 20 years. It has been a wonderful, fullfilling, monogamous relationship. Our lives are consumed by the mundane, and happily so. We haven't been to a bar in years, can't imagine partaking in an orgy, haven't had sex in public, and are ordinary, tax-paying citizens concerned with the good of our community (and by this I mean the community in which all people live, not just a "gay" community). We have a life, not a "lifestyle."

This Mark character who has posted so much originally made sense when he posited that acceptance of sexual activity one finds abhorrant is unlikely to ever occur, so why should it be expected, why should gay people continue to foist their lifestyle on those who will neve acccept gay sexuality. To this I say, as my father would, to each his own said the man as he kissed the cow. I "get" that homosexual acts will never appeal to many people,

But where my knickers get knotted is when he starts ranting about homosexuality and relationships and conjugal dimmensions and marriage being for children and the obscure abomination known as NAMBLA. While erudite, the man hasn't a f..king clue. Marriage provides the same emotional benefits and support to married people who are childless. Emotionally supported people of whatever stripe become beneficial to society as a whole, rather than a burden. "Gay" marriage is about all of the same things and carries with it all of the same benefits and psychological, ethical, legal, and societal supports as does traditonal marraige. Gay relationships (as opposed to homosexual acts) are about everything that straight relationships are about. Being in a gay relationship takes away nothing from straight relationships. Gay marriage takes away nothing from "traditional" marriage. Truly allowing for difference and providing support for healthy emotional development within Gay relationships will be of enormous social benefit on so many levels, and in particular for those Gay families of which children are a part. People with conservative views informed by dogma rather than pragmatics are not likely to open their eyes enough to see this, and so we all suffer.

But like I said, so little time.

[louis]

All of louis's questions are rhetorical and require no response - (in case someone doesn't get the subtext). The answers can be found all over this blog, here, here and here (if I knew how to do that - most notably in the famous never ending thread) in great detail

Oh hell, well then by all means, Mark, please ignore all questions that I've submitted that may be of a redundant nature! PLEASE I say!

Thanks for the threads-up Tommy. Although there is/was no way that I could ever make my way through the aforementioned thread. (parochial school victim here)

I'll just hope that Mark has taken in a heavier swig of Jesus Juice this morning during communion. It would seem as though he's in need of its calming affects.

[louis]

Ishkabibble - beautifully conveyed.

[Tommy]

Ditto - and only in a few short paragraphs

[James]

Wow, Mark’s argument against gay love, marriage, and child rearing is dripping with so much passion and clarity that I just can’t help but admire its originality and zeal. And yet it almost seems to ring of some sort of bored repetitive rhetoric.

Oh yeah, because it is: almost all of the ideas put forth in his statement are unabashedly ripped from the Vatican’s own “CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS” published in July 2003 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

Due to the length of his plagiarized statement and the fact that the Vatican’s argument has been disassembled by many more qualified individuals (including the Spanish government) I won’t even bother with a rebuttal. But if any of you would like to compare Mark’s sorry stolen argument with the Vatican’s check out this: http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/printer_474.shtml.

I knew Mark rung too smart for his own intellect.

[Queer Conservative]

James,

Did you really think that Mark was coming up with this stuff on his own? :-)

He admitted in the thread "Where's Your Messiah Now" that he doesn't think for himself. He finds it much easier to let Benny Sixteen do it for him.

[Mark]

I would have simply linked Considerations, but if I had, I felt certain that people wouldn't have read it. I also figured if I said this is from the Vatican people wouldn't have read it. I wasn't trying to make people think I'm smarter than I am or whatever. It's just that in the other thread people said they wouldn't bother with the links because they could see the sources within the name of the links.

I wrote my stuff first, and I hadn't really ever read Considerations. I knew it existed, though. So I looked it up and thought it said some things so well that it would be a shame not to be able to have it seen just because it was linked. I was also surprised that some of the stuff I reasoned out for myself in my initial response was fairly close to the ideas set forth in Considerations, because, as I said, I'd never really read it before.

I wrote all but these four parts:

From the order of right reason
From the biological and anthropological order
From the social order
From the legal order

Those parts are from Considerations.

Then it concludes with more from me.

I also happen to work overnight shifts and was bored at work. I'm not up at all hours working out inner demons. lol :)

Louis: I've never had a homosexual experience, and I'm not interested in having one.

I'm confident that doesn't disappoint anyone.

I've often wondered why gay people seem so excited to find evidence of homosexuality in everyone else. Sometimes it feels like gay people think almost everyone is potentially gay. Maybe it's because gay people always have to be on the lookout for other gay people so they are always looking, whereas heterosexuals don't think about that stuff.

I am fascinated by moral theology, and I love Church teaching. Homosexuality has been a problem of late in the Church, and there is a lot of confusion about Church teaching on homosexuality among priests and lay Catholics, and sadly, some bishops (and possibly a cardinal or so). Anyway, nothing sharpens me like discussing the reasons behind what I think, and talking about them in an environment that is challenging helps me work out the best way to express things in the future.

I'm glad James linked Considerations. Thanks James. :) And thanks for keeping things honest and real.

Consider reading Considerations. I'd be genuinely interested in honest intellectual criticism of the document.

I'd also love to hear what qualifies the Spanish government as experts in philosophy and moral theology who are able to "disassemble" Considerations. Do elected positions or political appointments automatically confer such qualifications? WHo are the other "more qualified individuals"? I honestly would like to read what they have to say. I wouldn't even be snarky in my response (even though they would be challenging my beliefs).

It would be great if people could have intellectual dialogues without getting their undies in a wad and acting snippy.

I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind gay politics, etc., from real gay people.

[steve]

Did it ever occur to Shales that the "drag queen, pierced nipples and campy vamping" crowd is not that interested in adopting? Even if they were, those characteristics or "proclivities" would almost certainly cost them the child during the vetting process.

[Mark]

Queer Conservative - That's not true. I said that I submit to the authority of the Church.

The reason I submit is because Jesus is God, he founded a Church. He promised to preserve that Church in truth by sending the Holy Spirit to guide it. He promised to remain with it until the end of time. He also promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against that Church. The Catholic Church is that Church.

I believe that Jesus, who is God, can neither deceive nor be deceived. He speaks the truth because He is Truth. Because He is God he can do all things that are possible. And he keeps His promises.

It follows, then, that the Church He founded would have to exist from His time to the present day, and that it will have never fallen into error, or else Jesus didn't keep His promise (and consequently He isn't God).

Jesus gave St. Peter special authority: I give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven also. Whatever you loose, shall be loosed in heaven.

He also prayed specifically for Peter to confirm the faith of the other apostles: Simon, Simon, Satan has sought to sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.

(Just so nobody accuses me of stealing, I'm loosely quoting from memory the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, in that order.)

So the Pope, the successor of St. Peter has this special charism from Jesus to never lead souls into error, because Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built his Church.

That's why I submit to the Church, because I properly understand that it is to the Church that Christ gave His authority. That's why He said: The man who will not hear the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and the tax collector. He also said: As the Father has sent me, now I send you, go therefore, and make disciples of all nations... (giving them His authority, His commission, and His promise to remain with the apostles (the first bishops)and especially Peter (the rock on which He built His Church) until the end of the world at the same time (Matthew again for both of these passages.)

I say, with St. Augustine, that I would not believe in the gospels themselves were it not for the authority of the Church. (A Catholic Council set the canon for the New Testament, weeding out non-canonical books and discrediting gnostic "gospels" like the Gospel of Judas in the recent headlines.) Were it not for the Catholic Church preserving the texts of the New Testament for centuries, you wouldn't even have a bible (or at least a New Testament).

[louis]

Mark - even God gave it a rest on Sunday.

[Robbie]

Of course, the Church is more than just a little fallible. Anyone with a history book can list dozens of incidents where they really, really hope God's not guiding the Church.

You worship a God who, by the Church's logic, is responsible for some of the most despicable acts in human history.

I don't really want to worship a god like that. The Catholic god seems like a complete asshole. My neighbors are better entities.

[just me]

Did it ever occur to Shales that the "drag queen, pierced nipples and campy vamping" crowd is not that interested in adopting?

I think this is probably a good question.

I would also add that if they did opt to adopt, having kids will probably tone down some of this stuff, just by virtue of the responsibility. Kids put a cramp in everyone's lifestyle-and things change.

I also suspect that by virtue of the fact that there were kids on the cruise, those who might opt to party in some situations, may have chosen not to in this one. Most people-gay or straight recognize that some things aren't apprpriate, when kids are around.

[Queer Conservative]

Mark: Queer Conservative - That's not true. I said that I submit to the authority of the Church.

Tomato, Tomahto
Potato, Potahto

[Queer Conservative]

As Blanche said on the Golden Girls when she cursed in front of a nun: "I'm a Baptist."

[Jack Malebranche]

It would be great if people could have intellectual dialogues without getting their undies in a wad and acting snippy.

Actually, Mark, your entire approach, from your very first post on the board, has been self-righteous, condescending, and generally obnoxious.

Your stated desire to 'understand' is overtly smarmy, manipulative, and insincere. You came here with pre-formed opinions, which seem to have been meticulously worked out (even typed out) beforehand. You're not approaching this with an open mind any more than anyone else here, so hop off the pseudo-intellectual hobby horse.

What's more, you're telling homosexuals about homosexuality. You're a layman preaching to priests.

If you want to 'understand' the strategy of professional gay advocates, go ask them what they think.

There is no Holy See for homosexuals, we don't all have our personal policy and viewpoints set by a ruling authority. Activists set policies according to what they imagine homosexual people want--there's not a vote or anything, and they don't determine what people with homosexual preferences say, think or do. (Though they would surely like to.)

The Vatican has a rather nice, rather extensive web site. It is here.

A useful resource for Catholic apologetics and general 'approved' information and viewpoints, New Advent, is here.

Your regurgitation of that information is redundant. Anyone interested can certainly go there and read the original documents that define your opinions in their entirety. Why would we trust you to disseminate and interpret this information for us? Why not go directly to the source?

The accessibility of this information makes you an entirely disposable pedant.

(The kids today call this "being a tool." I'm sure you'd like that, but it's meant as an insult.)

Further, if you actually want to have an intelligent discussion, try focusing on what you actually want to talk about, instead of lecturing at length about hypothetical bullshit that may or may not have happened. Your beliefs are beliefs, and are not necessarily based on verifiable facts.

Arguing the intentions of a diety is little more than intellectual masturbation. What is the Vatican's stance on that sort of self-abuse?

[Jack Malebranche]

Oh, yeah...by the way...

I sold the Jesus Christ Bukkake painting today, and I sold the Muhammed yesterday.

Blaspheming both dieties really improved my financial outlook this month.

Nyah nyah nyah.

[wakka wakka]

isnt the HBO speacial about gay parents who has adopted kids. family event?..then
of course there wouldnt be gay crusing, if they are alredy in a relationship.
And the cruise isnt about a gay pride march...so i think the the HBO did a good job in showing what was suppose to be shown: boring gay people.

i think its a positive thing that shows that gay parents are just as boring as Straight parents.
It points out that we are all the same: stupid humans.

[Ishkabibble]

>It would be great if people could have intellectual dialogues without getting their undies in a wad and acting snippy<

Again, a dilemma. To add to the beauty that is Jack's post, or to let my two cents go unheard.

Intellectual dialogues, dear Mark, presuppose that you and I are speaking the same language. You speak the language of faith, and I speak the language of the real world. No matter what I say or how intelligent an argument I might make, your fall-back position will be a version of, "God said it, I believe it, that's it."

Your position will refute science. Your position will refute observable fact. Your position will run counter to any discipline that seeks to rationally explain the variation that is a very real part of the real world. Your position will rely upon dogma, and your reward will come from your having been loyal to the establishment in this world (sorry, but I believe that, on judgment day - should such even ever be - you will be found sorely wanting and without a reward).

However. No matter how many tomes of rationalization you provide for a position based on a human-referenced diety that bears no logical resemblance to a truly superior and enlightened being, let it be known that I shall not be swayed.

Nothing you say will discount the relationship I have enjoyed for 20 years.

Nothing you say will defile the meaning and the beauty and the validity of the love I have given and received.

Nothing you will say will make me return to a faith and a Church that I long ago rejected as irrelevant, immoral, and the closest approximation of all that is truly evil: a belief that all people should be one in being as well as spirit.

You see, I do believe in an ultimate truth: that we can make this life a better one for all. I just don't believe your religion will get the job done. In fact, all evidence leads me to conclude just the opposite.

Sorry, dude. But if your mission was to bring the lost back to the fold, you failed with me. Big time.

[PatrickP]

Blaspheming both dieties really improved my financial outlook this month

Muhammed is not a deity. He's revered my Muslims as a prophet.

[Worth Repeating]

You make some valid and interesting points, Malco-men.
I've cleared my calendar for the rest of the day so I can read the comments.

[Queer Conservative]

Mark honey,

Is this you commenting just a tad bit more belligerantly over at Gay Patriot?

Homosexuality is a choice and it certainly doesn’t help people to tell them “you were born that way.”
I would challenge you to find the elusive “gay gene.” It doesn’t exist.
Having said that I don’t believe we should have a police state to see how people behave in the bedroom. But I’m certainly not going to change my views about gay marriage based on a myth.

Comment by Mark — April 8, 2006 @ 12:03 pm - April 8, 2006

[Jamie]

Well, remember guys, according to Mark's ilk, all of the fairly modern archeological finds--the gospel of Judas, the dead sea scrolls, the gospel of Mary Magdelene--are HERESY!! No matter that they are actual physical documents from the same time, in the same language--Coptic--as the "original" gospels. But instead of looking at them with a critical eye and trying to find what the actual story was back then, it doesn't fit into the paradigm so it's got to be the work of SATAN! (Which would suit Jack just fine, but not perhaps the majority of us.) Perhaps just ONE of these people could pick up a different book once in a while?

When will those people stop worshipping a CHURCH instead of practicing the beliefs of their professed SAVIOR? Never.

Good thing my kharma can keep running over their dogma. I have hakkapalitas. :)

As to the Rosie HBO special: I liked it and thought it was hopeful. We're hoping to adopt someday and it was nice to see other gay couples on TV that aren't fake like on W&G, or complete flamers like every pride parade. Sure it was carefully edited. As if the propaganda against us isn't?

[Queer Conservative]

When will those people stop worshipping a CHURCH instead of practicing the beliefs of their professed SAVIOR? Never.

Because doing the former is easy and can be "modified" to fit the current mood. Doing the latter is extremely difficult.

[Mark]

Queer Conservative: That wasn't me. This is the only gay oriented blog I've ever posted on.

I don't think it matters if people are born homosexual or not. It doesn't affect the morality of homosexual acts either way.

People are reportedly born with a pre-disposition to alcoholism, but that doesn't mean that alcoholism should be considered a legitimate lifestyle choice.

A person can't say: God made me an alcoholic, so it's okay to get drunk all the time.

Catholics believe in Original Sin: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Catholics also believe in concupiscence. It is essentially an inclination to sin. It is the rebellion of the bodily passions against right reason and it is our human inheritance because of the Original Sin of our first parents.

Concupiscense is more fully defined here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

It is because Original Sin that all disorders,including concupiscence, sickness, suffering, and death, have entered the world.

[louis]

That reminds me; I once had an infamously pleasurable sexual encounter with a delicious hot drag queen named Original Sin. In fact, I think I'll go look her up. Thanks for the memory jog Mark!!

[Good Idea]

So as long as we are amusing to the straights they will tolerate us?

There is a name for that and is was abolished in the 1800s.

[Queer Conservative]

Louis - I'm retracting my first impression of you. You're pretty cool, and funny as heck!

Mark - you either need to increase your daily self-flagellations ala' Opus Dei or decrease them. I'm not sure which.

[Queer Conservative]

Or maybe just hire a leather daddy to beat the devil out of you.

Or seriously, just suck a dick and get it over with.

[Queer Conservative]

I know gay people who are less infatuated with homosexuality than you are. I'm one of them!

[Patrick]

It is because Original Sin that all disorders,including concupiscence, sickness, suffering, and death, have entered the world.

OMG please enough with the Catholic talk. It's so boring. Original sin is hokum.

[Queer Conservative]

Tell me about Patrick,

If I didn't know better I'd think Mark was running for "Miss Vatican City 2006."

[Jack Malebranche]

Muhammed is not a deity. He's revered my Muslims as a prophet.

Yup. Mybad.

[Aatom]

see? Mark is bringing people like Louis and QC together, which may have been impossible without his inane bloviating to bond us. makes me feel all warm, gooey, and Christian inside.

nothing a lot of alcohol can't fix.

[Jack Malebranche]

I personally love Louis because he called me, "an especially vile queer," and I thought it was so awesome that I've been telling everyone and anyone who will listen.

It's just so loathesome and delicious at the same time.

"Hi, my name is Jack, and I'm an especially vile queer."

You almost have to gnash your teeth when you say it.

[louis]

[chortle!]

[blewsdawg]

Jack, you are just a freak

I suspect that makes me one of your new best friends.

((shudder))

[Jack Malebranche]

Jack, you are just a freak

Well...yeah.

I suspect that makes me one of your new best friends.

Not yet, dawg.

Yer gonna have to give me an insult with more pizazz to work with.

[Mark]

More On The Gospel Of Judas: http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/more_on_the_gos.html

[Robbie]

Thank you for that objective, and totally unbiased source, Mark.

[Jack Malebranche]

Seriously...

Mark is definitely the guy I would want handing out propaganda leaflets for me. Boundless enthusiasm and mindless, myopic devotion.

Queer Conservative:

Your advice was unbecoming of someone who claims to be a Christian.

Do you think Jesus would talk like that?

Here is the way Jesus spoke:

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name? Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.' (Matthew 7:13-23)

It doesn't sound like St. Paul thinks Christians should talk like that:

But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be joint-partakers with them, for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:3-10)

...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all (kinds of) unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, and malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, implacable, unmerciful. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32)

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral (fornicators), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [two different Greek words are used here denoting the different roles of the active partner and the passive partner in homosexual behavior], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, The two shall become one flesh. But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin, which a man commits, is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Cor. 6:13-20)

Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself. (Phillipians 3:17-21)

St. Peter warned against your brand of wisdom as well:

There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep. For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but condemned them to the chains of Tartarus and handed them over to be kept for judgment; and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, together with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the godless world; and if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (to destruction), reducing them to ashes, making them an example for the godless (people) of what is coming. (2 Peter 2:1-6)

And that's just the New Testament. Consider the Old Testament:

Then the LORD said: "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave, that I must go down and see whether or not their actions fully correspond to the cry against them that comes to me. I mean to find out." While the two men walked on farther toward Sodom, the LORD remained standing before Abraham. Then Abraham drew nearer to him and said: "Will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty? Suppose there were fifty innocent people in the city; would you wipe out the place, rather than spare it for the sake of the fifty innocent people within it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to make the innocent die with the guilty, so that the innocent and the guilty would be treated alike! Should not the judge of all the world act with justice?"

The LORD replied, "If I find fifty innocent people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

Abraham spoke up again: "See how I am presuming to speak to my Lord, though I am but dust and ashes! What if there are five less than fifty innocent people? Will you destroy the whole city because of those five?" "I will not destroy it," he answered, "if I find forty-five there."

But Abraham persisted, saying, "What if only forty are found there?" He replied, "I will forebear doing it for the sake of the forty."

Then he said, "Let not my Lord grow impatient if I go on. What if only thirty are found there?" He replied, "I will forebear doing it if I can find but thirty there."

Still he went on, "Since I have thus dared to speak to my Lord, what if there are no more than twenty?" "I will not destroy it," he answered, "for the sake of the twenty."

But he still persisted: "Please, let not my Lord grow angry if I speak up this last time. What if there are at least ten there?" "For the sake of those ten," he replied, "I will not destroy it."

The LORD departed as soon as he had finished speaking with Abraham, and Abraham returned home. (Genesis 18:20-33)

The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, "Please, gentlemen, come aside into your servant's house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey." But they replied, "No, we shall pass the night in the town square." He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking cakes without leaven, and they dined. Before they went to bed, all the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old--all the people to the last man--closed in on the house. They called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them." Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him. He said, "I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But don't do anything to these men, for you know they have come under the shelter of my roof." They replied, "Stand back! This fellow," they sneered, "came here as an immigrant, and now he dares to give orders! We'll treat you worse than them!" With that, they pressed hard against Lot, moving in closer to break down the door. But his guests put out their hands, pulled Lot inside with them, and closed the door; at the same time they struck the men at the entrance of the house, one and all, with such a blinding light that they were utterly unable to reach the doorway. Then the angels said to Lot: "Who else belongs to you here? Your sons (sons-in-law) and your daughters and all who belong to you in the city--take them away from it. We are about to destroy this place, for the outcry reaching the LORD against those in the city is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had contracted marriage with his daughters. "Get up and leave this place," he told them; "the LORD is about to destroy the city." But his sons-in-law thought he was joking. As dawn was breaking, the angels urged Lot on, saying, "On