Saturday, May 12, 2012

Where politics, money, and LGBT meet


JFM said...

"In February he wrote a long reply, publicly stating that he has "many gay friends whom I love and respect"

Dennis Prager writes, "I am close to a gay man -- and his partner -- who lives in the heart of San Francisco. This man is a major fund raiser for Republican candidates. And given his homosexuality and where he lives, his Republican activism is quite courageous. He should be regarded as a major asset to the conservative cause."

Nowhere in any of the any of recent Church leaders laments about same-sex marriage can you find a single reference to the word "sin."

All of this, and people are surprised when the Christian position is seen as bigotry? "Gays are wonderful, I love and respect them..." and I want to actively limit their lifestyle options based on the fact marriage should only be about kids? If we think that will fly, we are fools. Gay marriage is most alarming as a component in the normalization of homosexuality, not as any "threat" to marriage in a nation where marriage is held in only casual esteem. If we have to trip over ourselves in our rhetoric ti prove we like gay people, they have already one the battle.

Richard "M-House" Nixon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Fr. Robert A. Sirico said on an EWTN program something to the effect that we lost the battle about homosexuality when sex became recreational by legalizing the pill. I tend to agree with him.


Ralph Roister-Doister said...

If sex is not tied to procreation, then it can only be tied to recreation, and who am I to gainsay any lad or lassie's notion of fun?

Well of course, there is prostitution to be considered, in which case the prostitute ties sex not to recreation but to income. Then the question becomes, who am I to gainsay any lad or lassie's aspiring to better himself or herself financially?

Drug companies that produce, promote, and peddle contraceptives are another interesting variation. They, like prostitutes, consider sex as an opportunity to make money. Although there are probably people out there who would only be too happy to have sex with a fiction of business law, if only it were possible, it is probably more fruitful to think of drug companies as pornographers. After all, the latter sells dirty pictures that promote sexual activity in order to make money, while the former sells various drugs and paraphenalia that promote sexual activity in order to do exactly the same thing. Unlike pornographers, however, the action of the drug company has the incidental side effect of murder.

In which case, the question becomes, who am I to gainsay the right of a business entity to make money by selling aids to sexual activity and incidental murder?

But . . . wait a minute. If it is known that the ingestion of contraceptive pills can result in the incidental side effect of murder, then are not the people who purchase and use these pills as guilty as the drug companies who sell them? Guilty of what? Of making access to fun a higher priority than life.

It wasn't just the battle about homosexuality that we lost when sex became recreational by legalizing the pill.