What Do Same Sex Marriage Advocates Want?

[Jeremy Loesch]

Charles, You called Matt, or at least people like Matt (which would be me) "narrowly pro-life".  You called yourself "broadly pro-life".  You gave no descriptors as to what narrowly and broadly mean, leaving the negative connotation to stand, so that the narrow pro-lifers can only shamefully stand in the shining patina emanating from your visage, along with the glow of the other broad lovers of life. 

So Matt provides a listing of work that has taken place in the name of life from the Delmarva Peninsula to the Allentown PA region and you ignore that?  You demean the work he does on behalf of others because it's not quite good enough, or I suppose "broad" enough, to fit your undefined definition of pro-life?  He attempts to define what you feel no need to define and you tell Matt to get over himself?  Clean your mirror Charles.

Matt, I'm not trying to fight your battles and you can defend yourself, just thought I'd rise to your defense.  Carry on.

Jeremy

[Matt Hummel]

Jeremy, mi hermano, muchos gracias. 

And if anyone, even Chip, construed my list of 7 as bragging, my apologies.  The point I was trying to make was that most of the "Narrowly Pro-Life" are engaged on wide variety of fronts.  I am a piker compared to some of my colleagues.  And to those who are on this Board, who are likewise "Narrowly Pro-Life," know that I know that you too are broadly engaged and I thank you for being yoke-fellows for the Gospel of Life.

But I to note that when asked to list actions that made him broadly pro-life, the silence (as is often the case when challenged on specifics) was deafening.

Instead we have a snark attack about contraception and the need for more condoms to kiddies programs.

Here's the thing.  Were I a journalist (and I know something about it, having been raised by one) I would be very curious as to how a Lutheran with a degree from a prestigious university in the biological sciences  who used to think that contraception "made sense"  has changed his mind based on medical evidence. But that's just narrow minded me speaking.

Oh- and by the way- most of the thought on the Death Penalty at least currently at work in the Church is predicated on the writings of that horrid Polish reactionary, Karol Wojtyla, and that mean spirited German who followed him, Joseph Ratzinger.

But Jeremy- remember the epistemological bubble that Chaz and those like him live in:
They are strong willed.  We are obstinate.
They are principled.  We are obsessive.
They have a clear understanding of how the world operates.  We are rigid in our thinking.
They are quick witted.  We are mean spirited.

See how it works? 

Well, I need to go.  I have as part of my responsibilities, our semi-annual Forever in Our Hearts Mass for those who have experienced peri-natal loss (miscarriage, still birth, SIDS and other post-natal complications, and abortion.) Just wondering- is it narrow or broad?

[Charles_Austin]

There is nothing contemptible about a bureaucrat, Mr. Culpepper. I have been one. It is merely descriptive. I happen to believe in bureaucracy - and having lived in Switzerland - have seen the best of the best when it comes to such. There was no disrepect to Mr. Hummel, he works apparently in an administrative position for a Roman Catholic agency; hence he is a Roman Catholic bureaucrat. And he seems (rightly) to be proud of what he is doing.

[Matt Hummel]

Tee hee. Catholic Bureaucrat.  Tee hee.

Chick- here's the thing.  You flatter yourself on how you affect others (or at least me.)

But I do find it fascinating that I am not the only one who has the perception that you want folks to do as you say, but not as you do.  One wonders how people in the ELCA who listen to you go on at length about the need to stay and dialogue and how unity is greater than diversity of opinion react when they read your words?  I don't think the dogpile you received was because I am a swell guy & well liked in these parts (I am, after all, a faceless Catholic Bureaucrat- O the humiliation!) Nor, I think because people agree with me on the issues (see above re: faceless Catholic Bureaucrat).  Maybe (just maybe) it's because of your behavior. 

Case in point- the whole bureaucrat thing. I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to earn some serious shekels as a writer is unfamiliar with the inferences most people draw upon hearing the word "bureaucrat" today.  And then, after spending some time last night and this morning disparaging my work,  you now go on about me being (rightly) proud and that you meant no disparagement and were being merely descriptive.  With the vast array of words before you, you chose that one.

You are right- there is nothing contemptible about being a bureaucrat.  It's talking out of both sides of your mouth that poses a problem.

[Charles_Austin]

I rest my case.
Except to say again that being a bureaucrat is an honorable post, if one is good at it.

[peter_speckhard]

So another thread somehow devoles into the Charles show. I'll try to clean up the more useless of the exchanges.

Update: deleted several posts, several by Charles that said nothing about anything except another poster and about the same number that did the same about Charles.

[Scott7]

Goodness, Peter.  Charles gave a number of insults in posts that were allowed to stand.  What is up with the moderation on this site?

[peter_speckhard]

Goodness, Peter.  Charles gave a number of insults in posts that were allowed to stand.  What is up with the moderation on this site?

I delete posts that are useless or sections of posts that are easily deleted. When snide commentary is embedded in the posts I leave it alone because I don't feel like spending all my time re-writing and editing other people's posts. I know--Charles is obnoxious and can't help but post constantly. He blames everyone else for inability to leave well enough alone and then claims he is being singled out because of the positions he takes, which is manifest nonsense because other people mange to take the same positions without getting into endless spats with everyone else. The problem is that other posters love to bait Charles so when it comes to actually making a determination about removing Charles, he can point to other posts that are just as obnoxious as his, so no matter what happens it will always appear as though Charles is being treated differently than other posters, and several people who almost never post will send me private messages agreeing with Charles on that point and claiming that if I remove Charles I ought in fairness remove several others lest the forum become nothing but a right wing haven. Believe me, I am close to banning Charles, but this is a tedious job and if I am going to ban someone I want it to be clear cut; every time someone posts a cutesy one-liner jab at Charles it makes it less likely he'll be removed because if I do it, I'll have to go through and do to some others and the whole will stop being a genuine forum. Please-- if Charles bothers you ignore him. Don't respond to his responses. Let him have the last word. Yes, he is ever so clever and uses funny words like higgledy-piggledy so you risk missing out, but the forum will be better off in the long run if everyone ignores the nonsense of people who drive them nuts.

[Buckeye Deaconess]

"Narrowly" pro-life are those who are in Mr. Hummel's camp, and those who speak like the deaconess, along with those who would restrict access to contraception information.
More broadly pro-life is.... me.

OK let's look at just some of what this "narrowly" Pro-Life person has done.

1) Served on the Board of Directors for a major SMO that works with people with IDs and/or DDs
2) managed a basic needs operation on the Lower Eastern Shore of MD.  We we cared for over 60% of the COunty in which we were located, serving Black, White and Latino (primarily Mexican). We ha a Food share program and an Emergency food pantry.  Between those two we saw  15,000+ people each year
3) Over saw immigration and refugee concerns on the Delmarva peninsula.  Was in the process of liaising with the USCCB anti-trafficking program but that was shut down by the current administration. (I know who is waging the real war on women)
4) Supervise the ministry with persons with disabilities .
5) Supervise prison ministry.
6) Supervise Social concerns ministry (a lot happens between conception and natural death.  We Catholics know that and actually do something about it)
7) Coordinate the anti-death penalty work in the Diocese.  I didn't have time to sulk this week.  I was too busy working with others in keeping Hubert Michaels alive.

So- Chuck- you threw down.  Give me 7 things you have done broadly for the cause of Life.  Keeping people from Big Gulps & trans-fats doesn't count.  I'm guessing the Deaconess has a similar list, and I know the bishops do too.

Oh- and as for restricting information on contraception- as usual, you have it bass ackwards.  I am all for information on contraception being available.  It's the propaganda that the Abortion-Industrial  Complex to which I object.  I maintain that if people really knew what was going on in the insistence that it is perfectly fine for women to ingest a Class I carcinogen for prolonged periods of time not for therapeutic purposes- to heal or control a disease process- but to interrupt the very thing a woman's body was designed to do.  I have been working with the medical community in holding grand rounds on fertility awareness based medicine.

Thank you for your true service on behalf of the tiniest of humans who do not have the capacity to defend themselves (compared to those who would prefer to merely hide behind a social statement).  Your work speaks for itself.  Unfortunately, some only have the capacity to pay lip service to this issue, as they have nothing concrete to show in the way of contributions towards eliminating the atrocity of abortion.

[LutherMan]

In the end, the question is simple.  Does a participant as a rule add to the discussion or is the poster a regular problem?  If the latter, after many exhortations to reform go unheeded (say, over the course of many years), then why allow a poster who regularly detracts from and sidetracks discussion to continue to participate?

Yep.  That was why I said I found it astonishing that he wasn't banned forever in a post that was deleted.  I wasn't trying to bait him at all, just trying to follow a thread without his interruptions.  Thanks, Prof Yak...

[Matt Hummel]

Don't respond to his responses. Let him have the last word. Yes, he is ever so clever and uses funny words like higgledy-piggledy so you risk missing out, but the forum will be better off in the long run if everyone ignores the nonsense of people who drive them nuts.

Yes Pastor Speckhard.  Sorry Pastor Speckhard.  I promise to try harder.

Why do I feel like I am back in 8th Grade again and having been called on the carpet for disrupting Sunday School (yet again). [Probably because I have deported myself like that. Message received]

Golly- You aren't going to tell my mom, are you?  She'll kill me!

[Buckeye Deaconess]

Why do I feel like I am back in 8th Grade again and having been called on the carpet for disrupting Sunday School (yet again). [Probably because I have deported myself like that. Message received]

Golly- You aren't going to tell my mom, are you?  She'll kill me!

I thoroughly enjoy your posts.  You have an honest and no-nonsense style that I appreciate . . . no doubt developed through your years of working over and against those who support the culture of death.  It takes a tough sort to work in that arena where you walk the fragile line between life and death every single day.  God calls special people to that type of work for this very reason.  I find myself not very gifted at using the most flowery of language and often times lack patience in how I approach those who either support or turn a blind eye to the death of around 115,000 innocents per day, but it stems from my own firsthand experience with countering those who for the sake of profit and selfishness wish to do nothing more than push their agenda on the masses.  God provides us with a culture of Life and no doubt has little patience for those who oppose it.  Please don't apologize for the times when you exhibit your own lack of patience.  Thousands of babies per day depend on our impatience! 

[Brian Stoffregen]

I seriously doubt that most same sex marriage advocates, especially the gay ones, want abortions. So how did that topic take over this discussion?

[Dan Fienen]

Good question.  At least it is a step up from discussing the foibles of individual posters, I think.
 
Dan

[Matt Hummel]

I seriously doubt that most same sex marriage advocates, especially the gay ones, want abortions. So how did that topic take over this discussion?

Brian- I would emend that statement to read "some" instead of most, but after that I would find myself in total agreement with you.

First- you are naive if you do not recognize that many people are ideologically committed to abortion on demand for whatever reason.  They really like killing babies.  Really.  Read their literature. 

Second- you are right regarding some homosexuals aand abortion.  They realize that if, as they claim, that homosexuality has a genetic etiology, then it can be found on the genome.  If it can be found on the genome, it can be tested for. If it can be tested for, then the homosexual babies can be erridicated in utero.

Keeping in mind that this nations slaughters 80% or so of the children with Down's Syndrome, do you think they will blink over homosexuals?  In a nation that, depending upon the analysis of the election, is going increasingly secular, are you going to count on traditional virtues to stem the slaughter? Or on some tepid counterfeit such as "tolerance?"  I suspect that a lot of people will say all the right things about their homosexual neighbors and co-workers (after all, one has to- one can loose one's employment) but if given the choice, will opt to end.

And there will be a strong actuarial argument for it too.  Look at the disproportinate number of health care dollars spent on HIV and other STIs within the homosexual, especially male, community.  As we move towards rationed and limited care, what economic pressures will be brought to bear?

Now look at the fact that POTUS has not spoken out against sex selection abortions.  He's the father of two daughters. But killing daughters is OK.

Now look at the the fact that the ELCA which is on paper committed to reducing abortion. You, organizationally, have said nothing.

If in these instances where roughly 50% of the population is targeted for murder without so much as an "Excuse me!," what makes you think people are going to peep over the quiet killing of a mere 3-4%?

Finally- let me be the first to say, "Thank you Brian, for attempting to get this thread back on track."