DREADLETTERS: Gay Marriage Feedback - 'De Lama Lamina'

[UPDATE] New study finds most 'gay men' in Sydney are not monogamous:

"If research is to be believed, less than half of the gay men in relationships in Sydney are monogamous. The majority are in open relationships, with most having rules about what can and can’t be done outside the relationship."

"It’s a controversial topic. At a time when gay rights activists around Australia and the world are lobbying for legal recognition of same-sex relationships, the fact that a majority of gay men claim to be in open relationships might not sit easily with some. Gay and lesbian organisation Australian Marriage Equality, for example, refused to comment for this story."

No wonder, it contradicts one of their central reasons for 'gay marriage', the nonsense assertion that same sex attracted men form stable, monogamous relationships. This is demonstrably not the case.

The homoactivists then let the polygamy cat out of the bag:

"Whatever causes people to choose to live in open or monogamous relationships, it was important not to judge those who had different relationships to one’s own, Chalmers said. “The great thing about our community is that we have this great diversity of relationships. It’s quite possible for a couple to be monogamous, it’s also quite possible for a threesome to live together permanently. If they’re happy with that, then who are we to say that’s wrong?”

Who's to say anything is wrong using such sloppy, relativist evaluations? But some behaviour, especially when it hurts the man you claim to love, is obviously wrong. Indeed, the article also desribes how:

"Out of those who did have casual sex outside the relationship, 34 per cent agreed to always use condoms, the study of 1430HIV-negative men found. Of those who had agreements with their partners, 28 per cent reported having broken those agreements and a third of those men did not inform their partner. Research is still showing that between 25 per cent and a third of seroconversions happen in the context of a relationship, Chalmers said, adding that the most important thing for people in open relationships was honesty and communication."

No, the most important thing in a relationship is fidelity. Surely not giving your boyfriend HIV is also an important thing to take into account?! This moral vacuity is, literally, killing same sex attracted men. Surely, Catholic ideas about love, fidelity and the value of human life are just the tonic for the death-bringing relativism that has overtaken the 'gay culture'.

Lurking beneath the lies spun by homoactivists is an extremist agenda. Don't let the smiling babies and loving grandmothers they orchestrate for television shows fool you, this stuff is serious and good people everywhere must resist it, no matter how 'rude' or 'offensive' they claim we sound.

We can do much better than this. We can love each other right and demonstrate as much in a manner that accords with the universal law of love. We will never get anywhere by manufacturing a fake 'family' fantasy that obviously does not accord with the natural order, even as reflected in something as basic as where a man puts his genitalia in Sydney. We will certainly help no-one if we then co-opt children into the mess and demand the government take the blame for our personal failures.

[UPDATE] Reports of a significant drop in the number of couples applying for 'gay marriages' in Massachusetts ,where a grassroots electoral effort is underway to overturn the law brought in by State Legislature members:

"Couples rushed to the altar during the first few months after the historic start of gay marriage on May 17, 2004. New statistics from the state Department of Public Health show that the number of gay marriages last year fell sharply from 2004."

No one claimed that same sex attracted men don't like a wedding or a spectacle, but the novelty seems to have worn off remarkably quickly in Boston. Drive-thru 'gay divorce' anyone?

(Both articles linked by Andy Towle).

[UPDATE] Pope Benedict XVI urges Catholics to continue to resist 'gay marriage' and to encourage a focus on 'the path of life and authentic freedom'.

[UPDATE] It seems not even Will & Grace watchers want to see a 'gay marriage'.

In a piece called We Asked, They Told: A random survey of 100 (self-identified) gay men on the eve of Will & Grace’s final episode the sparky New York magazine asked a simple question and received some funny/telling responses. Here's a couple responses (in italics and shown after the question):

"Q/. If you were writing the end of the show, what would it be? A/. “Grace ends up being gay.” “Will finds true love.” “Get Will and Jack together.” “Grace is a man!” “Give a character HIV.” “It’s all been a dream Heath Ledger had while filming Brokeback Mountain.” “Not a gay marriage.”"

Speaks for itself really.

:: Out of Earth, a Blade ::

Needless to say, DREANDOUGHT has been overwhelmed with comments, emails, phonecalls, txt messages and skywriting* from DREADNOUGHTERS wanting to make their support or criticisms known regarding my appearance on television last night. Here are excerpts from three of the most entertaining/provocative/edifying examples.

:: Budding Greenman ::

DREADNOUGHT,

I am surpirsed that in this debate the "anti-marriage" case has not drawn on the wonderful rights debate in Monty Python's Life of Brian (maybe it's a Catholic aversion to the film, I still remember our parish priest telling us that it would be a sin to go and see the movie"). Any way, I have extracted it from the script below to jog your memory.

Regards,

DREADNOUGHTER

Excerpt from 'Monthy Python's The Life of Brian'

FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Where was I?
REG: I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

:: Flowering Greeman ::

Dear John,

Peace be to you...I got to thinking about the unitive aspects of sex. I think I ponder these more because I am a biology teacher and not a philosophy student, and that colors my thinking.

So, looking anatomically at sex, we note that only in the true act of sex (male/female, penis/vagina), do we truly have unity. The male and the female are truly connected. The reproductive systems have definite terminations.

Now, if we examine sodomy, fellatio, etc., we note that a reproductive organ enters the digestive tract. That system is essentially a whole, as human bodies are basically donuts (or tori, if you wish (singular: torus)). There is no unity, as there is no terminal end.

Peace,

DREADNOUGHTER

:: Don't Mess with Texas ::

John,

I have been reading your blog for some time now. I also have poked a bit into the responses to see what’s on your more adamant readers’ minds. Some of their forked-tongue responses have shocked me, to say the least. I can only wonder what their words do to you. And thus the impetus for this message…

Whatever befalls you, whatever slander smothers you, whatever persecution you endure – know that you are appreciated and prayed for. For whatever reason you are carrying on the good fight, know that it is for the right reason. You speak plainly, honestly, factually; your logic, spiced with those three adverbs, is wonderfully pungent. Your humor and your wit make the logic and the fact boil over in a most wonderful way. Your incomprehensible (to me) restraint when attacked is nothing short of completely admirable.

You have been given a gift by God, and it turned out to be a gift for all of us.

I am a Catholic – a “Cath-aholic,” as I am fond of saying – and it took me a while to get to where I am. Not to go into detail, but like tinkering with a clock to see how it works and then putting it back together again, it took a general deconstructing of beliefs and then a rebuilding to make my faith tick strongly. I love the sweet song of the Catholic Church; your blog bellows a loud chorus. It is a well-written and joyous read time after time.

I am not an SSA man, and this makes no difference. It wouldn’t even make a difference if I were. What you write – what I read – makes me a better person. It causes introspection and further stokes the fires of my faith, and you make a difference… to me, to the world.

For all I know, you are the strongest-willed man ever who will never give up this fight, this defense of what is good, no matter what anyone says, whether their words are for you or against you. I can reflect on what I wrote above and think, “He already knows this.” I can surmise that you’ve heard the compliments ridiculously often.

I then think of what others write and say to you and about you – of the vitriol and poison you’ve had to absorb, and I wonder where you get this magnificent strength to rise above it all. Another gift, I would say.

Still, I wanted to share this small note to tell you that you have a fan. And sometimes that’s what we need to hear.

You are doing it right.

Peace,

DREADNOUGHT
(a Pittsburgh Steelers fan stuck in Dallas, Texas. For the time being.)

:: Julia Butterfly Hill ::

I've already blogged the negative repsonses, and you can read the rest of the feedback in the comments boxes, but I wanted to give a balanced picture of the support situation and provide an opportunity to post some of the wonderfully sparky feedback I get from DREADNOUGHTERS all over the world. You continue to surprise and delight me!

:: The Upshot ::

For the most part I am glad I did the show. Of course, I'm sorry if I upset certain people with my tone. I maintain, however, that if I sincerely believe 'gay marriage' is bad for same sex attracted men and women and bad for society then my vehemence must be viewed in the proper light. That is, as an expression of my passion for true freedom and a token of my love for all men, no matter how they choose to order their lives. If I were really a self-hating, 'gay bashing' ideologue, I wouldn't have bothered debating these issues with people on the show, in the comments boxes or across emails. Thank you to all DREADNOUGHTERS - critical, supportive or both - who have ventured an opinion or helped to carry on the debate. No one is hurt by the truth, indeed Catholics believe it will eventually set us free.

*(There was, in fact, no skywriting - but imagine it! DREADNOUGHT SUX in storey-high letters across the wide blue. Now that would be criticism. Sub-heads taken from characters/ciphers in Matthew Barney's 'De Lama Lamina').