Boston Archbishop attacks gay marriage

[Sapphocrat]

Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley urged Catholic lawyers on Sunday to oppose gay marriage, saying the institution of marriage and the family are under assault and attorneys need to help protect them.

"The social cost of the breakdown of family life has already been enormous," O'Malley said at the annual Red Mass, which is dedicated to judges, lawyers and others in the legal system. ...

(In) an interview, he said: "We hope that (lawyers) will use their profession and their understanding of the law to defend marriage. They're in a better position than any of us to understand what needs to be done to correct a very complicated situation that the court has put us in." ...

O'Malley was installed July 30 as the head of the Boston Archdiocese, which has an estimated 2.1 million parishioners.

His first priority was to settle hundreds of clergy sex abuse lawsuits filed by people who accused priests of molesting them and the archdiocese of covering up the scandal. In September, the church agreed to a $85 million agreement.

More (including a quote from Bork the Borked, recent Catholic convert, agreeing with O'Malley):
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/01/11/gay.marriage.archbishop.ap/index.html

[foreigncorrespondent]

1. ROFLMAO!

Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley urged Catholic lawyers on Sunday to oppose gay marriage, saying the institution of marriage and the family are under assault and attorneys need to help protect them.

I would hate to tell him, but the institution of marriage has been under assault since they began allowing divorces to happen.

[WindRavenX]

2. Bingo

They dare complain about gay marriages when *straights* can't even make it work? Please.
And about the sanctity of marriage- look at what Brit Spears did this past week. Look at all these TV shows that totally devalue the real meaning of marriage. Are gays ruining marriages? Hell no- it's straight people :)

[Sapphocrat]

3. You know what I think it is?

A lot of hets are scared to death that we'll do a better job of staying married than they have.

No, no, potential flamers -- that's not a slam at all hets. Not at all. Some of you think you have valid reasons for opposing same-sex marriage (i.e., religion) -- but that's a subject for another discussion, and not at all what I'm talking about here -- which is: I believe many heterosexuals -- who have taken marriage and no-fault divorce for granted, for so long -- fear we may prove wrong every assumption they've ever made about our allegedly free-and-loose (read: promiscuous and unstable) "lifestyle."

Don't flame me, kids -- just think about it. Those of us queers who have been fighting all our lives for marriage sure aren't going to take lightly such a hard-won right.

And I think that scares a lot of people. Maybe that's what they really mean when they say s-s marriage will "erode" or "degrade" heterosexual marriage. They really mean, they run the risk of being shown up as treating it with little of the "sanctity" they preach.

[WindRavenX]

5. Dude, I think you hit the nail on the head...

And I'm not gay :)
Really, it is a fear thing.

[Sapphocrat]

10. It's "dudette"

:D

And, good, I'm glad you understand I wasn't slamming het society as a whole. Heck, my parents were straight! :D

[Cuban Peril]

31. "Alledgedly free and loose?"

As a healthcare professional, I've had access to some compelling documents in the past 25 years. Would you like me to forward some CDC reports from the early 80's about the gay communities "alledged" looseness. In most heterosexuals eyes, the gay & lesbian communities have never adequately atoned for the rampant irresponsibility and looseness of the 80's and 90's and its' resulting holocaust. Being against gay marriage has nothing to do with an irrational fear that you'll "do it better than us," but more like "why reward them for a lifestyle that's given us a modern plague?"

[Sapphocrat]

32. Please, feel free as a bird...

...to enlighten us all. And feel free to provide all the supporting data and links to your heart's content, right here in the open, where we all might learn from your experience.

Just leave out the Paul Cameron "research" about how we eat feces and die at 42 years old. Heard that already.

[Cuban Peril]

36. Hey....cool.

I love that "If it doesn't flatter me it can't be true" attitude. Did you get that free with your persecution complex or did you have to pay extra?

[Sapphocrat]

37. Deflection doesn't work here.

Armchair diagnoses won't fly either.

I challenged you to back up your claims, and you haven't delivered.

Isn't it time you get busy and enlighten us with your unimpeachable data, Mr. Healthcare Professional?

[Cuban Peril]

39. Sorry...new at this.

I don't know how to post a link. I'm sure you feel that completely invalidates this information, however, if the TRUTH interests you, here are the latest CDC numbers:

Known routes of HIV infection/U.S. men- June 1999-June 2002:

1) Via homosexual contact:
Asian-90.8%
White-86.5%
American Indian-74.4%
Hispanic-71.2%
African American-54.5%

Pretty abysmal huh? Especially when you think that this disease could be totally controlled, or even eradicated in this country IF ONLY THE GAY COMMUNITY WOULD COOPERATE. And you want heteros to help legitimize this?

[foreigncorrespondent]

40. Well here is a little cooperation for the gay community.

To post a link simply copy and paste the link over. That is all there is to it.

To copy and paste simply highlight the URL address window, right click on your mouse, and then click on the DU posting page in the box, and then right click again and click paste. Then simply hit post message, and you are done.

Now show us your links.

[Sapphocrat]

42. Let's explore your logic further.

So, by your logic, heterosexual African-American women just aren't "cooperating," as they account for "nearly 64 percent of HIV1 cases reported among women in 2001," as opposed to only 32% of African-American men.

CDC link:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/Facts/afam.htm

And, by your logic, we white folks should revoke all rights and privileges we oh-so-generously bestowed upon African-Americans in 1964, because they just haven't proven themselves responsible citizens.

In fact, let's start immediately by quaranting the whole of East Harlem, so the locals don't spread AIDS to the rest of us good, clean, white folks who are "cooperating":

713 or 48% of the persons living with AIDS in East Harlem are blacks, 679 or 45% Hispanics, 87 or .05% are whites and five persons are listed as others/unknown.

The primary mode of HIV transmission in East Harlem is intravenous drug use (IDU). A staggering 62.3% of all AIDS infections resulted from IDU, more than six out every ten HIV infections. This represents the highest percentage in all of Manhattan (ibid.).

Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for 716 or 17.3% of the transmission rate in East Harlem.

Heterosexual transmissions accounted for 392 of these the total AIDS cases in East Harlem. Women account for 80.3% of transmissions in this category.

CDC figures courtesy of the East Harlem HIV CARE Network:
http://www.aidsnyc.org/network/factsheet.html

Pretty abysmal, huh? Especially when you think that this disease could be totally controlled, or even eradicated in this country IF ONLY THE BLACK COMMUNITY WOULD COOPERATE. And you want white folks to help legitimize this?

What are you going to come up as a reason to oppose marriage between lesbians? How about Aileen Wuornos? Now there's a lesbian for you -- and who knows? The rest of us nasty lesbians might be serial killers too!

</heavy sarcasm off>

[Sapphocrat]

43. P.S.

If you haven't guessed by now, I don't believe for one minute that AIDS is your reason for opposing same-sex marriage. It's irrelevant to the entire discussion, and you know it.

You may as well deny blacks marriage in order to curb sickle-cell anemia, and Jews in order to stop Tay-Sachs disease.

And, as I said, without AIDS as a smokescreen, what possible "logical" reason do you have for denying marriage to lesbians? Even if your "health concerns" were valid in a discussion of equal rights (which they aren't -- the previous example was for the sole purpose of exposing the weakness of your "logic"), HIV infection really doesn't hold water when arguing against the rights of lesbians.

[arwalden]

45. If We Extrapolate And Follow That Logic Even Further...

... then Lesbian Americans are GOD's CHOSEN.

-- Allen

Here are some stats for DC. Interesting to note that the percentage of the HIV exposures caused by men having sex with men is far fewer than the exposure caused by other means (hetero, birth, IV drug use, other.)

Kinda blows their specious arguments out of the water doesn't it? It's TRAGIC that these myths are perpetuated by the opposition which inevitably fosters the belief of false-security among many heterosexuals that they are somehow "immune" because it's a "gay-disease".

Despite all the efforts being made to educate the public, there are still those who---in an effort to frantically fight against equality---spread lies and misinformation.

http://www.wwc.org/hiv_aids_services/dc_stats.html

<<<< Wow... what a distraction for the ORIGINAL TOPIC this little goatscrew has been, eh? Despite the fact that it was not on topic, it desperately needed to be addressed and refuted. >>>>

[Cuban Peril]

46. P.S.S.

You make excellent points and you seem really nice (just entertaining this dialog), and I feel guilty advancing this point (I'm not an opponent), but it is pertinent.

While HIV infection may not be a pertinent point in relation to lesbian rights, you are only half the equation. The hetero population is keenly aware that gay men suck at managing this epidemic and always have. Look at the numbers I posted. Now, gay men want blanket legislation from the hetero population to celebrate the same lifestyle that gave us this pestilence?

[Sapphocrat]

47. All right, let's try this again...

"Pestilence"? Watch it -- you're veering far afield from "health concerns" and getting into religious territory.

It appears that you're willing to give lesbians a "free pass" because we have virtually no incidence of HIV infection.

That's not how it works.

Gay men, HIV+ or HIV-, come part and parcel with the deal -- but probably not for the reasons many might assume. I don't fight for the rights of gay men in addition to the rights of lesbians. And I don't fight for the rights of gay men because of some blind, stubborn alliance (although I assure you, our oft-times oil-and-water relationship is based on a bond no less irrevocable than that of very different siblings for whom love, respect, and going to the mat for one another transcends petty differences).

I fight for the right of gay men to marry as much as I do my own, and will never accept full rights only for one "half of the equation," because we are one and the same, in this and in all battles against a world that wants to keep us down (for whatever unfathomable reasons), and will go to the most unreasonable lengths to do so.

The upshot: Gaining the right to marry has nothing to do with whether I or anyone else might or might not have a disease. The entire same-sex marriage argument is solely about granting the same rights to everyone.

If HIV status were really your objection to same-sex marriage, then you would not hesitate to deny marriage to (and revoke the existing marriages of) heterosexuals who test positive for HIV.

Anything less would be a hypocritical double standard.

P.S. Dining out every night and going to the opera three times a week is a lifestyle. Sitting at home every Sunday and watching your beer gut grow during football season is a lifestyle. Living in a shack in the desert with nothing but your mule and your goldpan is a lifestyle. Being a Deadhead is a lifestyle.

When will people ever learn that there is no gay "lifestyle"? All gay men are not Will, any more than all Jewish women are Grace. All lesbians are not Rosie O'Donnell, any more than all straight men are Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Put out a general question to the lesbians and gay men on DU and ask them what their "lifestyle" entails. Really, go ahead. You will get as many different "lifestyles" as you do replies.

Being gay is not a "lifestyle." It's just our lives.

P.P.S. I'm not nice -- I can't afford to be.

[Mushroom]

34. Also

I think the nutso conservatives are afraid women will walk away from their shitty hetero marriages for same sex marriages.

[Sapphocrat]

35. Yep...

Not that there's any possibility of that if a woman doesn't have lesbian inclinations anyway, but I agree with you -- I believe it does worry those who think it's as much a "choice" as changing hairstyles.

[PartyPooper]

4. Well, they can't blame Clinton's penis for EVERYTHING!

So, they're going after us gay folks! I suppose I'm even responsible for my own parents' divorce. Holy Moley! What have I done?!?

:crazy:

[Hoosier Democrat]

6. Anyone else think the Catholic Church is a bit sex-obsessed??

First of all, I am a Catholic, so no flames, please.

It just seems to me that the Catholic Church is becoming a bit sex-obsessed. Trying to wrap themselves in morality at this point seems a bit like locking the barn after the horses got away.

Perhaps the Church needs to police itself a bit and root out the pedophiles within its ranks before trying to blame all of the world's troubles on gays. I'll never forget early on in the Boston probe watching His Vileness Cardinal Law trying to put some of the blame on the parents of the victims for allowing their sons to be unsupervised with their parish priests. DISGRACEFUL! I hope the Cardinal is eventually assigned his own private level of Hell.

[foreigncorrespondent]

7. Don't worry, no flames from me. :)

I have no beef with the Catholic church apart from the fact they denounce my very existence.

In all honesty I think they are going after us queers for the simple reason, they are trying to save face. Because of these priest that have gone around molesting little kids.

It works the same as the Bush* administration. Take the heat away from the actual problem and get people focusing on something else.

[Sapphocrat]

11. Oh, absolutely...

The good news is that the overwhelming majority of Catholics I grew up with (and I was raised with "As long as you're under my roof, you're going to church!") take most of the Vatican's sex-oriented edicts with a grain of salt. That's one of the many reasons I believe the "split" between Rome and the American Catholic church is much wider and more serious than we're led to believe -- and that there is going to be a very big, "official" split in the next decade or so. I envision the founding of the American Roman Catholic Church, Reformed.

[transeo]

8. Would someone please explain

how more people getting married wil DESTROY the institution of marriage? Please, someone tell me because it makes absolutely no sense at all.

I'd also like to know what right an institution which intentionally harbored known child molesters has to be the moral authority on anything.

The day these "leaders" of the church make some sort of factual argument against anything, including gay marriage, is the day we'll all be ice-skating with the devil.

[Sapphocrat]

13. * sound of crickets chirping *

Excellent question that no one's ever been able to answer.

There's a wonderful essay you might enjoy -- but I doubt these are the reasons the Radical Religious Right wants to cite:

Some Common Yet Often Unstated Arguments Against Gay Marriage

1. If same-sex couples were allowed to marry, marriage would no longer be a sure-fire way for people to prove they aren't gay. ...

2. If the civil marriage of same-sex couples is allowed, it will be demonstrated once again (for those Americans who have skipped a Civics class or two) that Church and State are, indeed, separate. ...

3. Same-sex marriage will send a message to straight society that same-sex couples -- despite examples to the contrary offered up by television programs and films like Will & Grace, The Opposite of Sex, The Object of My Affection, Soap, Too Close for Comfort, Three's Company and Threesome -- can be whole, complete, happy people without them. ...

4. Same-sex marriage will force everyone, gay and straight, to confront and address the shortcomings, inequities, hypocricies and outright failings of marriage. ...

Much, much more (and well worth the entire read) at:

http://letters.johnkusch.com/1392.php

[arwalden]

44. It Reminds Me Of That Old "Separate But Equal" Argument

We're not actually "denying" you anything because you have your own separate water fountains and you can still ride in the back of the bus and get to where you're going. (It's the destination that ought to be important, not WHERE you sit on the bus, now.) You can still get your food "to-go" if you'll just go to the restaurant's back door for the pick up.

You're absolutely correct Isaac... this kind of "chicken-little" gloom and doom nonsense if inflammatory and serves no purpose toward an actual discussion of actual problems.

Ridiculous and unrelated arguments and irrational "reasoning" like the ones that appear in this thread are used to annoy and infuriate and to distract from the real issues.

Their continued and repeated efforts to dehumanize their opponents speaks volumes about their true intentions and the cruelty and hatred in their hearts and minds. It's doubtful that you can EVER do or say anything that will ACTUALLY change their mind... but what you CAN DO is to continue to point out that type of behavior wherever it exists.

One has nothing to do with the other. Except of course, to make abundantly clear that the purpose of all this is to continue to IMPOSE a second-class citizenship on Queer Americans and to LEGISLATE bigotry.

-- Allen

[Raven]

9. I've been to the "Red Mass" which

is held each year for lawyers and judges. Attendance is 95% male and it has always been super, hyper conservative. Attendance has also fallen off substantially in the last few years because of the scandal in the Boston church. It's a shame that the new Bishop hasn't learned that the church needs to rehabilitate itself before it mucks around in other people's lives.

[David Zephyr]

12. What Would a "Celebate" Man Know About Human Sexual Relationships

Frankly, I'd give more credence to the word of a prostitute when it comes to the complex issues surround human sexual/social relationships than a man who thinks his own penis is evil.

[0007]

14. I don't think most celibate religious catholic priest

think their own penis as evil, I believe from what I've read is to give complete devotion to God with no outside distractions.

I'm not Catholic or religious in any sense of the Christian meaning. Perhaps the one thing I don't understand is if one takes the vows, why do they want to become a priest. It seems to me that one would prefer to be a monk and in isolation in a monastery with like mind devotees.

I believe there are good practicing Catholics that hold true to form. The religion shouldn't be judged by a few bad apples. I just think the church has a piss poor way of screening who will be a priest and who won't. And it appears they don't refuse too many.

[Sapphocrat]

16. That's what my dad always said...

...which is why he never went to the priest for advice about sex, marriage, child-rearing, money, etc., etc. Thank God.

[David Zephyr]

17. Hi Sappocrat!

Really. To me, the idea of a grown adult man --- who has not only never known the beauty and joy of a sexual experience with another human, but also has sworn to never do so --- dispensing his "advice" on the subject from what he claims t have learned from "God" is simply absurd. Really!

[NotTooPrettyBad]

19. Not all sexual experiences are a thing of beauty and joy

I'd guess everyone has their own preconceived notions of the experience.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. One hell of an assumption

Priests join the seminary as adults and make a free join to set aside their sex life in pursuit of religion. To assume none of them ever had sex before that point is ludicrous and goes along with many of the other silly attitudes about Catholic clergy prevalent here.

[David Zephyr]

25. Yeah, Well Ask the Molested Kids Whether They "Set Aside Sex"

Ask the kids and families of kids who were assaulted by these men who had "set aside sex for religion" what they think.

If you feel comfortable taking your sexual advice from a Catholic male priest, then please do not let me get in your way.

In fact, let me publicly apologize to you, if you do receive your sexual advice from Catholic Priests and are happy with it.

Glad to hear their advice works for you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Many people molest children

Parents, students, coaches, politicians, rabbis, ministers, priests, doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs.

But what you seem to fail to grasp is how the Catholic Church works. That which you learn in confession, for instance, is something you aren't allowed to know or act upon. Add that to a very basic tenet of Catholic teaching, forgiveness.

For a church hierarchy to contend with those basic beliefs AND something horrifying like pedophilia is a mighty challenge. Inevitiably, they made huge mistakes. But to equally damn an entire religion for this or continue to trot it out anytime anybody in the church does something you don't like is entirely bogus.

Ultimately, your post is offensive and baiting. It is a not-so-oblique accusation that I am somehow a child molester for defending a Catholic priest. Such tripe doesn't belong here.

[David Zephyr]

29. Don't Project Your Catholic Guilt Trip.

My post was about taking advice from Catholic Priests on sexual matters, many of whom are child molesters. How you pick from that an 'accusation" that you are "somehow a child molester" is simply strange and not worthy of further discourse.

I'll repeat to you what I said one more time: if you feel comfortable taking your sex advice from a Catholic Priest such as this Boston "Cardinal" who condemns gay unions and thereby gay people, then don't let me stand in your way from taking your personal sex advice from the Cardinal or any other male Catholic Priest. Obviously, you think that the rest of us should listen to his worthless crap about how we should live our lives and practice sex.

He's your sex advisor not mine.

So why do you feel so obligated to defend his "sexual advice"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Catholic guilt

Since I am not Catholic, I don't feel able to muster "Catholic guilt," but I do defend religious folks against the incessant attacks many here aim their way. Yours was among the more offensive.

Taking advice from Catholic priests on sexual matters is just like taking advice from any sort of counselor. Many, in fact, have taken courses in counseling both individuals and couples and, with years of experience, they have more claim to the skill than most of us here.

As for your ridiculous claim, "many of whom are child molesters." Again, many in the general population are child molesters. There is no particular evidence to point that this problem does not afflict all walks of life, yet you choose to assault an entire group based on this.

Catholics and their clergy are entitled to believe that gay unions are wrong. I disagree with them wildly, but will not attempt to sway them from what they consider a core religious belief.

[Sapphocrat]

33. Hi, darlin'!

Good to see you -- and hear you! :hi:

[CO Liberal]

15. CO Liberal Attacks Boston Archbishop

Hey, Bishop!!!

Get yer pedophile priests in line first. Once your house is in order, THEN you can look to the outside.

:-)

[NotTooPrettyBad]

18. I don't get your connection between pedophiles and gays

Why lump pedophiles in with gays?

[yellowcanine]

21. The point is this, I think

While the Bishop is trying to root out gays in the shrubbery, the pedophile priests are romping across the lawn. He should pay attention to what he has jurisdiction over and stop trying to divert attention to other things.

[Imajika]

23. Hi NotTooPrettyBad

I don't think CO Liberal was trying to lump pedophiles in with gays. He/She was probably just pointing out that the Catholic church is busy whining about what should be a non issue (gay unions/marriage), all the while the church itself actually has a real problem (pedophile priests) that it can't deal with.

And just for the record, I am in favor of civil unions and/or gay marriage. In my opinion, telling two adults they can't be married is just silly. I just find it bazaar that anyone feels they have the right to determine who can and can't marry. So long as we are talking about consenting adults, what business is it of anyone but the happy couple?

I do however believe this could be a difficult issue for Democrats and the left in a national general election. We will ofcourse want our candidate to be for civil unions/gay marriage, but that candidate may have to be careful how he/she pushes the policy. I know it will irritate some people that our nominee may not be able to say the obvious, but Americans as a whole are not of a very progressive mindset and we need to understand that they can only be brought along slowly.

Imajika

[NotTooPrettyBad]

24. Then why pedophiles instead of condoms?

The connection was made. I only questioned it.

[IndianaGreen]

28. The Boston Church was silent while the children were being molested

That same Boston Church is now all gung-ho against gay marriage. I dare say that they have their priorities screwed up!

[David Zephyr]

30. Amazing, Isn't IG. These Creepy Perverts Now Want to Lecture Homos.

What a farce!

[Hobarticus]

22. Fer the love o' God...

I left the Catholic church long ago over archaic views on contraception in the face of AIDS, and I want to rejoin a parish and quit again when I read crap like this. Organized religion has become so far off from what being a person of faith is all about, it's scary.

[revcarol]

26. Very disappointing...

I had hopes for this archbishop. I won't say high hopes because look who appointed him.

[nolabels]

38. I would think a group of people that claim to be all good would make....

sure their own people are on the up and up before attempting to tell other people how to run their lives. My wife and I have a few good friends that have had that label Gay stacked on them. For them its normal, it just how they feel, that's what their heart says it needs. To me that makes them just ordinary people.

For someone to say that is wrong for that to happen is denying them being their own person. I don't need to defend them, they can defend themselves. But trying to influence other people that they are evil or an affront to others offends me.

They would be telling me that my Friends are wrong and in essence I would also be wrong. Frankly they no nothing of my Friends or me. I would say the burden is on the other side with any logic I can come up with to reason with

[truthspeaker]

48. where do they get off?

Where does an organization that protected child-rapists get off making statements on moral guidance, and why the hell would anyone listen to them?