201. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 11:33 AM PT
In some ways, the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality is even worse than that of fundamentalists, since it teaches that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral disorder." We are immoral simply by being alive. We are immoral in the core of our being. It's not just a question of "behavior," it's a question of simply existing.
Most Catholics completely ignore the Church's teachings about contraception. I think more and more will just continue to ignore the Church's teachings about homosexuality, too. The Vatican has no choice: it must either change its ways or become increasingly irrelevant.
202. glendajean - July 14, 1999 - 11:35 AM PT
"Shouldn't they be chased away, if they reject the doctrine?"
As if human experience and the social questions raised by it are settled, as 109109 states, once and for all. But of course, that is hardly ever the case. Institutions change as does society. And Christian believers don't stop believing because they're told they are no longer welcome by the powers that be. Of course, I am Protestant, so my perspective is quite a bit different than 109109's.
203. CalGal - July 14, 1999 - 11:39 AM PT
GJ,
Yes, but the reason we pay attention to the Catholic church is because it is so powerful. It is powerful because so many people "believe" in its teachings. If the people don't actually believe in its teachings, but stay because it gives them spiritual comfort, etc., then they are giving the Church power that make its pronouncements heeded. Even those pronouncements that the followers don't accept.
I realize that this is spirituality and, worse, religion. I do not grok and never have.
204. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 11:41 AM PT
glenda
I'm a non-denominational Christian, a lapsed Catholic, and an apostle of VH1's "Behind the Music."
205. Jenerator - July 14, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT
109109,
It's interesting that the Catholic Church changes its official position on matters all the while saying that it never changed. Very recently, the Catholic Church issued a formal statement declaring that it agreed with the Protestants in that salvation is by grace alone and not works. So, did they admit to being in "error" for the last 1600 years? Nope.
206. cllrdr - July 14, 1999 - 11:45 AM PT
The Real Question, of course, is "What Will Andrew Sullivan Say?"
Most likely "Kick Me Again, Please!"
Meanwhile. . .
All The Cruise That Pat Kingsley Thinks Is Fit To Print
207. glendajean - July 14, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
Calgal, do you really think that the Catholic Church's teachings on birth control have power in America? Maybe they do. Maybe Catholic woman don't use contraceptives, and use the rhythm whatever it is called or just have lots of kids. Men and women who stay in the Church but who use contraceptives may stay for a variety of reasons, belief, comfort, whatever, and are able to ignore the Church's settling that question. I am not sure that the Church has any power on that subject and hasn't for years.
208. Jenerator - July 14, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
"We are immoral simply by being alive. We are
immoral in the core of our being. It's not just a question of
"behavior," it's a question of simply existing."
I wouldn't single out homosexuals. The Catholic Church (and most Christians) believe in original sin, and that we are born sinners. PD may tell you how warped it is, but it can be a comfort knowing that "all have fallen short of the glory of God", not just a few here and there.
209. glendajean - July 14, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
109109 -- I should have known that you watch VH-1. My father warned me of the type.
210. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
Glenda
Amazingly, there *are* many Catholic couples practicing NFP. The reasoning is interesting, and quite sound, and it takes a great deal of faith to practice it. I wish I were that strong, I wish my faith was that strong, but it just isn't. Hence, my struggle.
Cal
We're sometimes called 'cafeteria Catholics' - those who choose to accept some teachings but not others - and are blasted by more orthodox members to 'leave the Church'. I reject this label, however. I believe that any thinking person is going to have questions and doubts - those questions and doubts shouldn't automatically exclude one from the community of the faithful.
211. CalGal - July 14, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT
"Calgal, do you really think that the Catholic Church's teachings on birth control have power in America? "
Power of what sort? Power to make a difference in actual behavior? No. Power to use its standing to get funding denied, to cause politicians in heavily Catholic areas to waffle on issues? Yes. Even still on birth control, definitely on homosexuality.
212. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
glenda
How can it get any better than "Behind the Music"?
Same story, different players.
Start from nothing.
Hit it big, overnite.
Drugs, chicks, booze, high living.
Plane crash, overdose, car crash, suicide, jail, addiction.
Reunion, Pay-per-view, final tour, finding God, children, loved ones who cherish your memory.
Priceless.
213. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 12:02 PM PT
Jen
But, the Church also teaches that original sin is washed away by baptism, and that human beings are inherently good (Elliot - including homosexuals....the actual sexual practices are what is considered sinful - as is sex outside of marriage considered sinful - not the orientation or the individual, per se.)
214. CalGal - July 14, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT
I like the pictures on Behind the Music--seeing them when they were dweebs.
Diva,
"I believe that any thinking person is going to have questions and doubts - those questions and doubts shouldn't automatically exclude one from the community of the faithful."
My question is in reverse--why do you not reject the religion as being unfit? Given that the harshness of its dogma can do such damage? I'm not blaming you, I'm genuinely curious.
215. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 12:16 PM PT
Cal
The only way I can explain it is this: there is so much that's good about it, that the things I don't quite understand or can't accept are completely overshadowed.
216. Jenerator - July 14, 1999 - 12:22 PM PT
Diva,
"...and that human beings are inherently good..." interesting given that the Church follows the teachings of Athanasius, Augustine, and Tertullian on original sin. I wonder how its baptisms will fare dogmatically in position with the new revelation of salvation by faith alone and not works.
217. Ronski - July 14, 1999 - 1:17 PM PT
Jen,
None of the Catholic sacraments will change, because although the Vatican signed the document with Lutherans saying that salvation is through grace alone, they also make pretty clear that they define grace somewhat differently than Lutherans and other Protestants traditionally do. This also gives them the opportunity to appear not to have changed any of their teachings on this subject, imo. But I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this stuff, just an interested observer.
218. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
Jen
I'm not familiar with the "formal statement declaring that it (RCC) agreed with the Protestants in that salvation is by grace alone and not works", so I can't comment on it. Perhaps you can provide a link?
In any case, Ronski is correct, there would be no change WRT the sacraments.
I'll go look up some Church teaching on original sin and get back to you on the other stuff.
219. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 1:38 PM PT
Jenerator:
"Very recently, the Catholic Church issued a formal statement declaring that it agreed with the Protestants in that salvation is by grace alone and not works."
The Catholic Church has done no such thing.
220. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 1:40 PM PT
"Calgal, do you really think that the Catholic Church's teachings on birth control have power in America?"
The Catholic Church is certainly influential, but something like 90% of American Catholics ignore its teachings on contraception and also say they believe they can do this and still be a good Catholic.
221. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 1:43 PM PT
Diva:
"The only way I can explain it is this: there is so much that's good about it, that the things I don't quite understand or can't accept are completely overshadowed."
Yeah, good things like telling homosexuals they're intrinsically morally disordered and telling impoverished women in third world countries that it's a sin for them to use birth control.
222. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
Jenerator:
"I wouldn't single out homosexuals."
The Southern Baptist Convention does. That's your mother's church isn't it? Is it yours, too?
223. cllrdr - July 14, 1999 - 1:46 PM PT
Will the last person to leave the Catholic Church please put out the light?
Thanks, Andrew.
224. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 1:50 PM PT
Elliot
I know, I know. That's what I'm talking about....those are the things I struggle with. But I promise you, if I could have you visit me for one weekend and take you to church with me, you'd see what I meant. The face and love of God just fills the place. It's really beautiful....and I mean it from the bottom of my heart, if you are ever in this area, please come visit me - and I'll take you to mass. It's the only way I can possibly explain it.
And then we'll go back to my house and have some *really* good pasta.
225. JJBiener - July 14, 1999 - 1:50 PM PT
Elliot - "The Southern Baptist Convention does. That's your mother's church isn't it? Is it yours, too?"
Gee, that's President Clinton's church. How could you possibly support a man as President who belongs to that church?
226. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 1:50 PM PT
Jen
Here's some stuff on original sin from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator".[15]
339 Each creature possesses its own particular goodness and perfection. For each one of the works of the 'six days' it is said: 'And God saw that it was good.' 'By the very nature of creation, material being is endowed with its own stability, truth and excellence, its own order and laws.'[GS 36 # 1.] Each of the various creatures, willed in its own being, reflects in its own way a ray of God's infinite wisdom and goodness. Man must therefore respect the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things which would be in contempt of the Creator and would bring disastrous consequences for human beings and their environment.
405. "Although it is proper to each individual,[Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513.] original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence'. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."
227. JJBiener - July 14, 1999 - 1:52 PM PT
Diva - Can I skip church and still get the pasta?
228. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 1:54 PM PT
JJ
No! You have to hear my choir sing first. We're quite good.
229. Ronski - July 14, 1999 - 1:59 PM PT
Diva,
I buried my late partner with the assistance of a Catholic congregation, most of whose members would be prime candidates for excommunication if Cardinal Ratzinger stopped by and did some interviews (which he ain't interested in doing, I'm sure). I returned there recently for the baptism of my former neighbors' twins. And I have even stopped by to pray when I've been in the area and the doors were unlocked.
I can no longer bring myself to be active in the Lutheran Church because of recent crackdowns on gay ministers there, but still, I know exactly what you are talking about.
And I don't just mean the pasta.
(BTW, I have a made-up faux-Italian recipe for orzo, pignoli, and marsala that is truly to-die-for-and-go-up-to-heaven and sort out all that other stuff we're talking about here.)
230. JJBiener - July 14, 1999 - 2:03 PM PT
Diva - I forgot you were in the choir. OK. Next time I'm in the area on Sunday, I'll come to see you sing. It's too bad you aren't going to be here through Friday night. You could come out and sing with the band.
231. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
JJBiener:
"Gee, that's President Clinton's church. How could you possibly support a man as President who belongs to that church?"
He's in the liberal wing of the denomination. But I'm still not happy about it.
232. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 2:06 PM PT
Ronski
I love you. Have I said that yet?
This is what I mean.....the Church is more than its teachings, the Church is me and Miss Emelda and Mama Rose.....you get the idea. Jesus would have done what you've described - and *that* is really what we (meaning Catholics) should consider when we speak and act - what would he do in this situation?
And please please please post that recipe in the HG thread ohpleaseohplease!
233. JJBiener - July 14, 1999 - 2:10 PM PT
Diva - WWJD?
234. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 2:12 PM PT
Ronski:
"I can no longer bring myself to be active in the Lutheran Church because of recent crackdowns on gay ministers there, but still, I know exactly what you are talking about."
Even if I were a believer, I couldn't bring myself to take part in an institution that told me that my deepest desires for sexual and romantic love, and the natural expression of those desires, were sinful and repugnant to God. I don't know how anyone else can do that either. Minor disagreements are one thing. Attacking the very core of your being is another.
235. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 2:15 PM PT
JJ
Exactly.
236. harper - July 14, 1999 - 2:46 PM PT
WWJD?
Probably kick Ratso Ratzinger's ass.
Once again the Catholic Church has demonstrated its rampant collective homophobia and intolerance. It's a good thing the Pope has a good personality because he's perceived as being somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun on many issues. Ratzinger is his hit man (and Goddess forbid that man should *ever* become Pope when this one kicks the bucket)-- and the closest thing to the Inquisition we've got in the 20th century. Cardinal Hickey was another one who was so conservative he made my teeth hurt.
Actions and attitudes like this were part of the reason I left the Church many years ago.
I hope that Sister Jeannine Grammick and Rev. Nugent have the courage of their convictions and follow their consciences, rather than the church that is being so hateful. Like Charlie Curran, they have been betrayed by the institution they have devoted a lifetime to.
237. ChristinO - July 14, 1999 - 2:49 PM PT
The best of all possible outcomes would be for the next Pope to be Italian. I know the Franciscans have their fingers crossed.
238. Raskolnikov - July 14, 1999 - 2:59 PM PT
Catholics and *Lutherans* agreed, several months ago, that it requires both grace and good works for salvation.
239. ACEofSPADES - July 14, 1999 - 3:16 PM PT
Rask:
Re: Good works
I believe you're wrong. I believe Catholics and Lutherans both endorsed the Protestant view that *only* accepting Chirst as savior can provide salvation, but that a saved person would then tend to perform "good works" and this would be evidence/reinforcement of salvation.
In other words, the Catholics accepted the Lutheran position (with a little fudging), not the other way around.
240. BoomerJeff - July 14, 1999 - 3:18 PM PT
Elliot...
"Even if I were a believer, I couldn't bring myself to take part in an institution that told me that my deepest desires for sexual and romantic love, and the natural expression of those desires, were sinful and repugnant to God."
But what if the institution were telling you the truth? Would it matter? You wouldn't reject a Doctor who said you must undergo some painful, expensive, invasive medical treatment or you will die, even though that would be pretty awful news. Yet you would reject an institution, putting your eternal life at risk, because its news was awful and troubled.
You should want an institution that tells you the truth, whatever it is, wherever the chips may fall.
I'll confess that througout my life I have experienced deep, genuine sexual desires that are sinful and repugnant to God. In HS I had desires that nearly drove me crazy! Since I've been married I've had desires for other women, again sinful and repugnant to God.
However I am not repugnant to God. You aren't either. It is sin and desire to sin that is repugnant to God.
241. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 3:51 PM PT
Boomerjeff:
"But what if the institution were telling you the truth?"
It isn't. If your church, whatever it is, started teaching that Jews were subhuman and could be killed with impunity, would you accept that?
"You wouldn't reject a Doctor who said you must undergo some painful, expensive, invasive medical treatment or you will die, even though that would be pretty awful news."
Yes, I might well reject his claim. At the very least, I'd probably get a second opinion.
"Yet you would reject an institution, putting your eternal life at risk, because its news was awful and trouble."
It's not "news," it's religious bigotry. According to Christian Scientists, you have put your own eternal life at risk because its "news was awful and trouble." Maybe you should start worrying about that.
"You should want an institution that tells you the truth."
I do. So should you.
242. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 3:53 PM PT
Boomerjeff:
"I'll confess that througout my life I have experienced deep, genuine sexual desires that are sinful and repugnant to God."
How do you know?
"However I am not repugnant to God."
Well, that's for him to decide, isn't it?
243. BoomerJeff - July 14, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
So in the case of the Doc you would get a second opinion and maybe a third in order to verify the troubling news. But in the case of God's desire your criteria is simple: If it's troubling, I don't beleive it. I'll believe only that which is comfortable, convenient and non-challenging.
244. cllrdr - July 14, 1999 - 4:27 PM PT
How do you know what "God's desire" might be? And don't lob the Bible at me. I'm talking rationally. Is he sentient being with whom you are in direct communication? Of course not. God is part of a belief system -- not rational, proveable discourse.
245. ChristinO - July 14, 1999 - 4:35 PM PT
There are so many things running through my head right now.
First, the premise that one need not abandon The Church because one disagrees. It is certainly a valid choice to do so, but it is equally valid to remain and attempt change within. I don't agree with The Church on any number of issues, but I feel no conflict in remaining a part of that institution and speaking my mind much as did the reformers of the 19th Century who fought for abolition and women's rights.
Secondly I look at all the teachings of the past that are no longer accepted views of the Church. Scripture that was interpreted one way that is now interpreted differently. The words themselves have not changed so what that leads me to believe is that we bend them to suit our current prejudices and desires regardless of their original intent or historical context.
Last, I wonder at the intelligence of insisting that every word of a book that is thousands of years old be applicable in the modern world. That makes no kind of sense. Scripture is inspired not transmitted by modem from the Mind of God.
Oh I'm supposed to weigh in on these right?
Gay Marriage: For the inclusion of Gays in the presently accepted Marriage Laws or for the dissolution of any and all legal, financial or societal benefits conveyed to married people. It's for everyone or it's for no one.
Adoption: For
Civil Rights: For
Military Service: For
Repeal Sodomy Laws: For
Repeal ALL Blue Laws: For -----The Church is not nearly separate enough from State.
246. cllrdr - July 14, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
"First, the premise that one need not abandon The Church because one disagrees. It is certainly a valid choice to do so, but it is equally valid to remain and attempt change within."
Just like political parties, no?
247. ChristinO - July 14, 1999 - 4:40 PM PT
The Bible and those who represent it and its teachings are not analogous to the modern Doctor.
They would be analogous to a Doctor of two hundred years ago who still prescribed bleeding and diagnosed imbalances of phlegm.
Were I to be sent back in time it wouldn't matter to me how many doctors said so I would not believe nor would it be the truth that shaving my head would cure me of smallpox.
BJ,
You're still operating from the idea that because someone has said that the Bible means thus and such that idea is TRUTH. Your faith is commendable, but the situation is far more complex than that. For you that is truth, but it is not necessarily THE TRUTH.
248. ChristinO - July 14, 1999 - 4:41 PM PT
Cllrdr,
That was the analogy that came to mind along with the fact that my paternal grandmother is less than color-blind but I still love her.
249. BoomerJeff - July 14, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
cllrdr
I'm persuaded that the God of the Bible exists, as described in the Bible. It would take quite a long series of posts to explain why.
I can't prove to Elliot that God exists. But My point to Elliot was that his criteria is not rational. If God exists Elliot and all the rest of us should seek to find out what He desires -- the actual truth about what He desires. Elliot dismisses "an institution" that presents the possibility that God would have him abstain from the sex he desires, merely because he desires it.
250. cllrdr - July 14, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
Christin-- I haven't sat around waiting for the Democrats to "see the light." I'm too busy living to waste it in pursuit of repairing the moral failure of people who should know better. The same goes double for the church.
251. BoomerJeff - July 14, 1999 - 4:50 PM PT
ChristinO
I agree that my beleif in the Bible isn't proof that it is "THE TRUTH".
My point is that Elliot is not seeking THE TRUTH. Elliot simply says, "it can't be the truth because i find it troubling."
252. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 4:55 PM PT
Boomerjeff:
"So in the case of the Doc you would get a second opinion and maybe a third in order to verify the troubling news. But in the case of God's desire your criteria is simple: If it's troubling, I don't beleive it. I'll believe only that which is comfortable, convenient and non-challenging."
It's not a question of "discomfort," it's a matter of religious bigotry.
You reject the "troubling" Christian Science teaching that medical intervention is against God's will and may condemn you to Hell.
I assume you would deny that in doing this you are simply rejecting the "truth" because it's uncomfortable to you.
253. bubbaette - July 14, 1999 - 4:55 PM PT
elected officials are more likely to vote the prejudices of their costitunts than they are to vote for what's "right". thats why neither repubs or dems are likely to vote for gay marriage and other civil rights, unless a large enough portion if their constituency feels its an important issue. more likely, the majority may vaugly support (or not oppose)gay marrage but not enough to make it a voting issue while those who are vehemently against it are quite a bit more vocal.
254. ChristinO - July 14, 1999 - 5:01 PM PT
BJ,
I see your point, but there's more to it than that. No one chooses to be a homosexual. Homosexuality harms no one. There is little if any injunction against homosexuality in the Bible (I'm of the opinion that there is none) and certainly not the kind of injunction that should provoke such hatred and persecution of gays as we have seen. I am not gay and neither are millions of other people who disagree with the supposed injunctions against homosexuality. It's not a matter of "I just don't like it" it is a matter of truly believing the teachings to be wrong.
255. ChristinO - July 14, 1999 - 5:02 PM PT
Cllr,
So you no longer vote for Democrats?
256. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 5:04 PM PT
Boomerjeff:
"I'm persuaded that the God of the Bible exists, as described in the Bible."
You're in the minority. Like most people, I am not so persuaded.
"I can't prove to Elliot that God exists."
No, you can't even provide a good reason for thinking that he exists.
"But My point to Elliot was that his criteria is not rational. If God exists Elliot and all the rest of us should seek to find out what He desires -- the actual truth about what He desires."
Well, even *if* he exists, which is one of the questions in dispute, it certainly does not follow that we should seek to find out what he desires. Maybe he doesn't have any desires. Maybe he has them but he doesn't want us to know what they are. You are jumping to conclusions that do not follow from your premise. And the premise is itself in dispute. You're being irrational.
"Elliot dismisses "an institution" that presents the possibility that God would have him abstain from the sex he desires, merely because he desires it."
I reject the institution for a number of reasons, primarily that I don't think there's a God at all, at least not one that could remotely resemble the Judeo-Christian God. But even if I did believe in such a creature, there are many other reasons for rejecting the institution of the Church.
257. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 5:08 PM PT
Boomerjeff:
"My point is that Elliot is not seeking THE TRUTH."
Yes I am.
"Elliot simply says, "it can't be the truth because i find it troubling.""
No, I would never say that something cannot be true because I find it "troubling." You continue to attribute statements and positions to me that I have not expressed and do not hold. Try reading more carefully.
258. cllrdr - July 14, 1999 - 6:37 PM PT
"So you no longer vote for Democrats?"
Let's put it this way -- I rarely vote, and when I do it's to defeat a particular Republican-sponsored ballot initiative or make sure that especially noxious Republicans are not elected to office.
259. cigarlaw - July 14, 1999 - 10:11 PM PT
ELLIOT, A SECULAR MARRIAGGE 'IS' A CONTRACT. YOUR HUSBAND CAN CONTACT HEALTH INS., SO WHAT IS PROBLEM, EXCEPT FOR YOUR DESIRE TO BE ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE ELSE AND SUCK ON THE PUBLIC TEET?
260. CalGal - July 14, 1999 - 10:19 PM PT
Cig, that's such bullshit. Besides, you yourself are a teatsucker, and your wife too.
261. EricCartman1 - July 15, 1999 - 1:40 AM PT
From Gore Vidal's essay "Monotheism and Its Discontents", from the political booklet _The Decline and Fall of the American Empire_, Odonian Press, 1992, pp. 80-81.
"Although many of the Christian evangelists feel it necessary to convert everyone on earth to their primitive religion, they have been prevented -- so far -- from forcing others to worship as they do, but they *have* forced -- most tyrannically and wickedly -- their superstitions and hatreds upon all of us through the civil law and through general prohibitions. So it is upon that account that I favor an all-out war on the monotheists.
"....The ongoing psychopathic hatred of same-sexuality has made the US the laughingstock of the civilized world. In most of the First World, monotheism is weak. Where it is weak or nonexistent, private sexual behavior has nothing at all to do with those not involved, much less the law.
"At least when the Emperor Justinian, a sky-god man, decided to outlaw sodomy, he had to come up with a good *practical* reason, which he did. It is well known, Justinian declared, that buggery is a principal cause of earthquakes, and so must be prohibited. [A special 'warning' for our friends in the Bay Area? -- E.C.] But our sky-godders, always eager to hate, still quote Leviticus, as if that loony text had anything useful to say about anything except, perhaps, the inadvisability of eating shellfish in the Jerusalem area."
262. uzmakk - July 15, 1999 - 6:10 AM PT
Ronski:
My apologies. We were going to talk and I have absolutely no time this week. If I get sucked into the Fray it will interfere with things too much. My early morning Fray time is occupied with a daily automobile trip this week. Perhaps next week.
One thing I must say is that Elliot is completely egocentric and does want the world to revolve around him and his boyfriend. He seems incapable of enlarging the scope of his argument, or seeing that there is a bigger argument than simply Elliot.
Actually, Ronski, staying off the Fray for a week has its benefits. One gets to think, jot down ones thoughts, mull them over, just like our fathers and grandfathers used to do.
263. Ronski - July 15, 1999 - 6:11 AM PT
cigarlaw,
The problem is unequal benefits provided by the State. Married people (at least after the marriage penalty is repealed) will be living at the expense of gay couples: when a married heterosexual dies, the survivor receives monetary benefits from the government; not so for the surviving partner of a homosexual relationship. It's a matter of equal treatment under the law. In the Vermont constitution, it's called the common benefits clause.
264. cllrdr - July 15, 1999 - 6:16 AM PT
"One thing I must say is that Elliot is completely egocentric and does want the world to revolve around him and his boyfriend."
What boyfriend? Has Elliot been holding out on me? More to the point -- What egocentrism? That's my balliwick.
Oh well, none of you have the vaguest idea of who Elliot is or what he's actually like anyway. Never have.
In that sense, he's the Stanley Kubrick of the Fray.
Which reminds me -- I'll have my review of "Fly Wide Open" in "Movies and Television" ASAP!
265. uzmakk - July 15, 1999 - 6:37 AM PT
I guess he has been holding out on you, cellar. He has stated that he is in some kind of permanent relationship with a fellow and that they are both heavily involved with the families of their "in-laws", blah blah, blah. Now I may not know Elliot, all I can do is respond to what is associated with the moniker, elliot, that appears on my computer screen.
Egocentric??? ie, the argument always goes back to Elliot's personal desires, elliot's personal experience, elliot's personal problems, . He doesn't seem to argue very expansively, Mr. Door, even if he is the Stanley Kubrick of the Fray. I believe Mr. Socko said that he met Elliot and was surprised. I was under the impression that Elliot lived in Western NY. (musical notes) Who is Elliot? What is he? (musical notes)
266. Ronski - July 15, 1999 - 6:38 AM PT
I suspect Elliot is very nice in person.
267. uzmakk - July 15, 1999 - 6:42 AM PT
I'm sure he is, Ronski. Ta-ta until the weekend or next week.
268. Ronski - July 15, 1999 - 6:50 AM PT
uzmakk,
Ta, and see you then.
269. LAPORTE - July 15, 1999 - 8:43 AM PT
Elliot is a good man from what I've seen. My greatest joy when logging on to the Fray is watching him destroy right wing hypocrites. Keep up the good work Elliot!
270. Jenerator - July 15, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
eric,
Monotheism = primitive?
Au contraire. Polytheism is much more primitive.
271. Jenerator - July 15, 1999 - 12:04 PM PT
My impression of Elliot is that he is a soft spoken, insecure, completely egocentric, repetitious, computer geek who loves to read APA publications, attend gay pep-rallies, and has a closet full of Tommy Hilfiger shirts. On his spare time, he probably goes to see avant garde films and attends coffee house presentations on obscure topics. He barks, but has no bite.
But, I could be wrong...
272. Jenerator - July 15, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT
He may have a closet full of Polo shirts, or something.
273. colossus - July 15, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT
"So it is upon that account that I favor
an all-out war on the monotheists."
Leave it to Miss Vidal to make a silly ass comment like that.
He'd have made a good Senator though
274. colossus - July 15, 1999 - 12:08 PM PT
I fancy that, as a tike, Elliot used to be a scholar in Hebrew school. He is deeply, if not avowedly religious and frustratingly talmudic.
275. Ronski - July 15, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
If Elliot owns any Tommy Hilfiger shirts, I will eat them.
276. Jenerator - July 15, 1999 - 12:22 PM PT
Why? Do Hilfiger shirts taste good?
277. glendajean - July 15, 1999 - 12:28 PM PT
Well, I'm out of the loop. I don't have a clue what it means to have any Tommy Hilfiger shirts in one's closet (not that I would care).
The House of Representatives voted down by about 40 votes today an amendment by Rep. Jerry Nadler (NY-Dem) to amend the proposed Religious Liberties Protection Act.
Nadler's amendment would have shielded local and state housing and employment anti-discrimination laws (particularly those providing protection on the basis of orientation) from the proposed RLPA.
Texas passed a similar RLPA this year, but it did have the protection that Nadler was seeking in the federal bill. George W. Bush signed the Texas bill.
Bill Clinton and People for the American Way didn't think Nadler's amendment was needed. Some key Congressional staff were spreading info about the Bush signed Texas law as a reason for killing Nadler's amendment, saying it was a victory for gay people.
278. marjoribanks - July 15, 1999 - 12:33 PM PT
I've met Elliot.
He's about 5' 10", sharp-looking and neat, with clear-cut features and an open and honest manner. He looks you in the eye when speaking to you, and his own eyes are lit with a certain honesty and decency that alerts you immediately to the fact that he is a sincere and upright gentleman.
279. Jenerator - July 15, 1999 - 12:39 PM PT
Seeing as how I'm 6'3" in sandals, I wonder what it'd be like meeting dapper little Elliot.
280. PsychProf - July 15, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
Jen...you would like him...
281. Ronski - July 15, 1999 - 1:19 PM PT
And Elliot would *never* be caught dead in anything so gauche as a Hilfiger shirt. Understand?
282. cllrdr - July 15, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
"He looks you in the eye when speaking to you, and his own eyes are lit with a certain honesty and decency that alerts you immediately to the fact that he is a sincere and upright gentleman."
In other words HE'S DOWNRIGHT BABE-A-LICIOUS!
283. ChristinO - July 15, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
If he were president he'd be Babe-raham Lincoln.
284. cllrdr - July 15, 1999 - 2:21 PM PT
Precisely!
285. colossus - July 15, 1999 - 6:28 PM PT
Yum Elliot Yum!
286. EricCartman1 - July 15, 1999 - 10:37 PM PT
Jenerator Message #270:
"Monotheism = primitive?....Au contraire. Polytheism is much more primitive."
Well, the mythologies of the Greeks, Norse, and Romans *were* primitive, but you could say the same thing about much of the Old Testament, which is a pretty bloodthirsty compendium. I'm more of a New Testament kind of guy, suffice to say.
What I couldn't really get across in just a three-paragraph excerpt is that the essay is written in a largely polemic tone, from the standpoint of a hardcore atheist.
I don't mean to turn this into a religious discussion; I just thought the Vidal excerpt had relevance to the discussion then at hand.
He didn't say anything about Elliot, one way or the other.
Colossus Message #273:
"Leave it to Miss Vidal to make a silly ass comment like that."
Like I said, the excerpt is from a very polemic essay. That doesn't mitigate the underlying truths though. He was aiming for Twain (in level of polemic style), I think, and came damned close.
"He'd have made a good Senator though."
As Gore said himself in his Playboy Interview (12/87),"The Republicans would have spent $50 million to buy that Senate seat for Pete Wilson."
287. cllrdr - July 16, 1999 - 6:24 AM PT
"I don't mean to turn this into a religious discussion"
Too late! It's *always* a religious discussion-- even for those of us sick to death of talking about religion.
Organized religion is the socially acceptable form of sadomasochistic mind control. I'm reminded of the scene in "Lord Love Duck" where Tuesday Weld conspires to spend the evning making out wiht her boyfriend by telling her mother that she went to see "The Ten Commandments." "I'm not sure about the entire plot,"she says, "but the overall theme was 'Thou Shalt Not.'"
288. elliot803 - July 16, 1999 - 9:17 AM PT
Cellar:
"I'm reminded of the scene in "Lord Love Duck" where Tuesday Weld conspires to spend the evning making out wiht her boyfriend by telling her mother that she went to see "The Ten Commandments." "I'm not sure about the entire plot,"she says, "but the overall theme was 'Thou Shalt Not.'"
Hahahahaha!
289. Jenerator - July 16, 1999 - 9:57 AM PT
Eric,
I understand what you meant.;-) Vidal strikes me as a sour faced Napolean with a giant bone to pick against authority figures. Also, I'm a NT person, myself.
290. Ronski - July 16, 1999 - 10:25 AM PT
Politically, Vidal is an authoritarian of the Left. He can be amusing, however.
291. Jenerator - July 16, 1999 - 10:29 AM PT
Ronski,
I'm weary of anyone named "Gore."
292. Ronski - July 16, 1999 - 10:33 AM PT
That, I understand, even if we arrive at the conclusion from slightly different perspectives.
293. Jenerator - July 16, 1999 - 10:40 AM PT
;-)
294. colossus - July 16, 1999 - 12:20 PM PT
"Organized religion is the socially acceptable form of
sadomasochistic mind control"
Sounds clever but what the fuck does it mean?
295. Jenerator - July 16, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
Colossus,
It's like Jedi-mind-control, only a lot more mean.
296. cllrdr - July 16, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
You beat me to it, Jen!
297. EricCartman1 - July 16, 1999 - 1:59 PM PT
Jen:
Vidal *is* a curmudgeon, no doubt, but he's a very intelligent and articulate curmudgeon, and generally makes some very solid points. What makes his attacks on organizations of power, particularly the gov't, is that he's talking about the precise class whence he came. He's the one that broke ranks; it's nice that at least *someone* did. Not too many mavericks at that level of American society.
I'm still waiting for Gore (Vidal) to start slamming (Al) Gore; maybe he's keeping quiet in the name of distant family unity. (Supposedly they're fifth or sixth cousins.)
Cellar:
"Organized religion is the socially acceptable form of sadomasochistic mind control."
Most are, I agree. Anytime spirituality (which should be a personal thing, imo) becomes organized under a simplistic rubric, trouble's afoot. Someone will have to give up something important so someone else can attain power and/or money.
298. elliot803 - July 16, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
Seems pretty obvious to me. Deriving pleasure from the infliction of pain on yourself and others.
Like those monks who beat themselves with a lash so they can offer up their pain to God.
299. Jenerator - July 16, 1999 - 2:04 PM PT
Elliot,
I wonder how much pleasure I would experience whipping you.
(Yes, I'm kidding, even though you think I'm not.)
300. cllrdr - July 16, 1999 - 2:09 PM PT
You're right about Gore being a class traitor, Eric. That's one of his most winning qualities. He's still a snob, of course, but for the right reasons. He does not suffer fools gladly.