Deleted Comments For Mark Noonan’s “A Correct Conservative Position on Gay Marriage”

Yesterday, Mark Noonan wrote a post at Blogs For Victory entitled, “A Correct Conservative Position on Gay Marriage.” This morning the B4V moderators felt compelled to remove challenges to Mark’s point of view. Below are some of the comments before the moderator did his work — commenter names in red indicate comments removed by the moderators — as well as the explanation of the moderator in bold.

The deleted comments can be viewed after the jump. (Click “Continue reading.”)

  1. ClusterJune 28, 2013 at 5:29 pm
    This is something I don’t think that any of us on the right can disagree with.Of course not. In fact, that is the position that most of us on the right have been supporting.

    1. dcobranchiJune 29, 2013 at 8:42 am
      My desire is to as swiftly as possible separate marriage and State (thus making the push for gay marriage moot) while at the same time enacting laws which put very long, sharp and powerful teeth in to our First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion (boiled down, the laws would come out to hold that when in doubt, a person’s claim to free exercise trumps State requirements). As for marriage, itself, that is for Christians and Jews who actually practise their faith and it is up to us – as believers – to make it work as God intended.

      Whose god? Your particular god who of your particular flavor of Christianity? Just your church out in Nevada? And are you and your pastor the only ones who can decide who is married and who isn’t? You see, there are lots of folks who live in this country who don’t go to your church. Approximately 300M, in fact. Why do you get to decide that they’re not married but you are?

      Posts which only want to disparage religion are not allowed. Reasonable discourse may include comments on religion but the final decision about if a post includes religion in reasonable discourse or is merely an attack on religion will remain that of the Moderators. This blog is not a forum for people to merely hurl accusations and hatred at people or institutions hated by the Left and religion is one of those hated institutions. This post will remain but any other post which appears to be an attack on religion will not. // Moderator

      1. ClusterJune 29, 2013 at 8:55 am
        Leave it to a progressive to miss the point entirely – well done. What Mark was getting at was that marriage should not be a government sanctioned union, and that the first amendment would allow his religious freedom to not be impugned. Therefore, those of his Faith need not recognize gay marriage. It’s called freedom.Moreover, every religion in every culture has recognized the union between one man and one woman to be that of a “marriage”. So it’s not just Mark’s “God”, as you so derisively implied. Try promoting gay marriage in an Islamic country. It didn’t even go over well in France.

        1. Robin Naismith GreenJune 29, 2013 at 10:24 am
          So Cluster your point is that to continue to discriminate against 10% of the US population marriage should be decided by churches only since the majority of churches will allow conservatives to have their way despite the fact that this dooms all same sex couples and transgender persons who wish to marry to second class citizenship. That doesn’t seem to be constitutional to me and gives religions that operate tax free the same sort of power that many here decry in regard to Sharia.
        2. Robin Naismith GreenJune 29, 2013 at 10:26 am
          And mark has his religious freedom. What the law can’t do is protect Mark from the actions of his employer if the corporate powers become sick of his preaching. Actions have consequences in a capitalist society. Mark either holds his religion higher than his lifestyle or he doesn’t.
        3. ClusterJune 29, 2013 at 10:39 am

          Your penchant for being a victim is duly noted, and always humorous, but I am afraid dear you still don’t get it. What the people of Faith recognize and what the State recognizes can be two separate things. In the eyes of the State, a union is a legal union regardless of the term or parties, and all legalities apply, tax or otherwise. In the eyes of the Church, only the union between one man and one woman would be deemed a marriage and no State entity could impose any other standard. Capiche?

        4. Robin Naismith GreenJune 29, 2013 at 10:51 am
          Cluster you don’t seem to understand that the church any church or religion has exclusive rights to marriage. Marriage can exist without any religion whatsoever as long as the legal jurisdiction where the couple makes their home has made a legal record of it. Churches don’t make laws, governments do. If churches don’t want to recognize same sex marriages that’s their right. Some churches still don’t allow marriages between different races for their own reasons and while I disagree with their position I still know they have a right to do as they please within their own doors. The problem it seems that you and Mark have is that you want the power within the cathedral walls to extend out into American society for your own political benefit. It’s far too late for that.
        5. bardolf2June 29, 2013 at 10:52 am
          Studies show that the actual number of homosexuals in America, gay men, lesbians and transgender, comprise about 1.7% of the population.
        6. ClusterJune 29, 2013 at 11:04 am
          If churches don’t want to recognize same sex marriages that’s their right.It may very well not be. Obama mused just the other day that he has decided not to impose recognition of same sex marriage on churches, but that day could easily come. And the Obamacare mandate of contraception which was imposed on the church dispels your assertion as well.

          The problem it seems that you and Mark have is that you want the power within the cathedral walls to extend out into American society for your own political benefit

          And yet, I just advocated the exact opposite. I know false assumptions can be hard to overcome, but you really ought to give it a try.

        7. Robin Naismith GreenJune 29, 2013 at 11:07 am
          But that day has not come Cluster and it will not come because to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples would be as unconstitutional as denying same sex couples the right to marry.
        8. Robin Naismith GreenJune 29, 2013 at 11:10 am
          Bardolf people often use small numbers to make a point seem irrelevant. That 1.7% figure may be as inaccurate as my 10% but either way you are talking about denying the rights of 5 million American citizens because your religious sensibilities are bruised.
        9. bardolf2June 29, 2013 at 1:40 pm

          As you can tell from my posts, I think gays should have the same state entitlements as heterosexuals. Your 10% figure is a complete fabrication of a fabrication and hardly the equal of my 1.7% figure . Your figure is taken from the Kinsey Report. But the underlying methodology was wrong, because believe it or not. male prison inmates’ sexual behavior is not a good representation of the sexual habits of males in the society as a whole. Add the fact that lesbianism is much less likely than male homosexuality and well you arrive at 1.7% which is the most reputable figure as of 2012. The whole point of your using 10% is to make homosexuality seem more prevalent than it actually is. Even if it was only .1%, I would still argue that gay’s should be entitled to state-sponsored marriage.

          As for the outrageous 5 million, time will tell. Based on Dutch experience, as time goes forward we will see that almost no homosexuals avail themselves of the heterosexual institution of marriage. The entire point of making a big deal of gay marriage is so that Obama can be seen as increasing ‘liberty’. But Obama’s war on drugs tells the real story. Is he interested in liberty applied to a large class of people who can’t give him campaign contributions? You know, like poor blacks who are in jail for using marijuana and other drugs that he himself took?

      2. bardolf2June 29, 2013 at 8:57 am
        I think Mark and you are in agreement here. He is actually saying that everyone gets to decide on what the word ‘marriage’ means to them secularly and do as they see fit.His use of the word ‘marriage’ at the end was connected to the Catholic concept of ‘holy marriage’ as a sacrament. Of course even here there is confusion, as Jews do not hold to the same sacramental nature of marriage as do Catholics.

        All the better! There are no governmental decrees on Baptism, Brit milah, Confirmation or Bar Mitzvahs. In a similar mode their need not be decrees on marriage. If nonreligious people want to have a coming of age ceremony analogous to a Bat Mitzvah they can call it a Debutante ball or Quinceanera or whatever, all without government interference.

        But, a Quinceanera is not a Bat Mitzvah.

      3. Robin Naismith GreenJune 29, 2013 at 10:28 am
        @dcobranchi:Now these people are starting to understand in a most minuscule manner what it felt like for minorities and women for the first 190 years of the American experiment.

      4. M. NoonanPost authorJune 29, 2013 at 12:36 pm
        I’m Catholic – and there are about 68 million of us, of whom somewhat more than half can be considered “solid” while the remainder can run from people who are either just a bit misinformed about the dogmas of their own faith, all the way down to those who consciously engage in intrinsic evil (such as Nancy Pelosi). But mostly it appears that you are misunderstanding me – I don’t want any State-sanctioned marriage, at all. I want this change to protect myself from you…to prevent you from using a State-sanctioned action to interfere with my Catholic-sanctioned action. Our marriages before God in the Church will be legally meaningless to the State and I’m fine with that…because what God has ordained is far superior to what the State does, anyway. In a very real sense I’m saving you from yourself – preventing you from engaging in an act of rank fascism.
    2. neocon01June 29, 2013 at 11:03 am
      Dr BAll legitimate religions recognize homosexuality as a state of sin. Therefore one can not accept our government to support it, define it, legalize it.

      1. dcobranchiJune 29, 2013 at 11:53 am
        “All legitimate religions” equals conservative christianity, of course. You might recall that the UCC got into some hot water with the far right because they accept LGBT folks as humans.
        1. M. NoonanPost authorJune 29, 2013 at 12:50 pm

          Your statement reveals your own bigotry, and ignorance. The Church has this to say about homosexuality:

          2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

          2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

          2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347)

          You are free to disagree with that, but to claim that it doesn’t respect the innate, human dignity of homosexual persons is absurd.

2 thoughts on “Deleted Comments For Mark Noonan’s “A Correct Conservative Position on Gay Marriage”

  1. dcobranchi

    Good luck documenting their deletions. Some seem to be near instantaneous. When I pointed out that one of them was engaging in the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, it disappeared within minutes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s