This guy has gone over the rainbow. He claims to be a Catholic but the position he holds is far from what the church teaches. At its most conservative the church teaches that those engaged in sexual activity must be open to the creative aspect of that activity. The idea that sex is a duty only for procreation is a fundamental misunderstanding of the church. He should, in fact, read the Holy Father's book on sexual love in which intimacy has its own value.

Hmm.

Maybe Keyes is one of those "Catholics" like Mel Gibson for whom even the pope isnt catholic.

Brad - your blog is becoming better & better every day. I'm addicted. I'd be even more addicted if another *woman* could back me up on that. Hum, hum.

As for this looney - oh boy. Let's criticize the Muslims for making their women wear scarves & let's "free" the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator. Oh, by the way, no more abortions, gay marriages or casual sex allowed. We're not dictators though. We're just religious. Cause those Muslim people aren't religious, they're just nuts.

I'm just wondering one thing though (scientifically). If the whole purpose of life is procreation, then why be monogamous? I mean, let's talk evolution & advancement of the species here, cause that's the issue, is it not? Why not just scrap the idea of marriage and have the men impregnate multiple women? Other species do it, why don't we? Why even bother with a thing like marriage?

Let's scrap that thought & just concentrate on procreation. Men should be able to just go around & spread their seed. Women should carry the child for 9 months, pop it out (pop!) & wait for the next guy to come and impregnate her. Wouldn't that work much better?

Johanna I mean Mrs. Johanna,

Looks like you are the only one breaking up this stag party. How can you in one breath tell us you don't want any man telling you what you can or can't do with your body and on the other blast Keyes for criticizing the Muslims treatment of women. I hope you get on your knees every day (facing Mecca) and thank your God you don't live there.

(not Mr.) ed

Not Mr. Ed,

You're not understanding my point. I suggest you read my post again and again until you get what I'm saying.

Mrs. Johanna,

I commented on the part I chose to comment on. The rest of it is garbage.

> The idea that sex is a duty only for procreation is a fundamental misunderstanding of the [Catholic] church.

That is correct!

I am one of those married couples who cannot have kids. Keyes is a brilliant guy but he is way over the top on this one. Be against gay marriage because it is an oxymoron and immoral but don't say that sex is for pro-creation only. There is also nothing wrong with people who do not get married and remain abstinent.

Johanna, do you wanna have sex?

Paul. I don't know what the hell the last sentence was for but I don't like it one bit.

I commend you for recognizing that Keye's is "over the top" on this one. I find it sad that you can't open your eyes beyond that slit and still call him Brilliant, even after such a claim.

But then again, you are the one who chanted:

"Be against gay marriage because it is an oxymoron and immoral ".

Allow me to give you a few definitions:

Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined.

Immoral: wicked; unjust; dishonest; vicious; licentious

Gay: having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

Marriage: The state of being married. Wedlock. Union.

Now that you know the definitions, maybe you'll re-think your claims. What you claim is "wrong" is only wrong by your standards.

Johanna, can't you lighten up and take a joke?

Mar´riage

n. 1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

marriage - two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; Synonyms: man and wife, married couple

MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. Dig. 23, 2, 1; Ayl. Parer. 359; Stair, Inst. tit. 4, s. 1; Shelford on Mar. and Div. c. 1, s. 1.

Paul,

Yopur defense and definition of mariage on dictionary grounds requires me to ask a simple question: what about Scripture? Certainly you are in good stead with Catholic thinkers such as Augustine who rejected what he asserted was the polyamory of the "ancient fathers" but he did not do so on a Scriptural basis. He wrote in The Good of Marriage, "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with ROMAN CUSTOM, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living." He was referring to the custom of the Roman state and civil society, not the church. On the other hand, Luther suggested that polyamory was better than divorce. Martin Luther advised Philip of Hesse that although he found nothing unbiblical about polygamy, he should keep his second marriage a secret to avoid public scandal, and because he couldn't use the bible to refute it effectively. Calvin's position became that of Protestantism but to condemn polygamy he felt in necessary to accuse the patriarchs of sin. You will note that Israel (Jacob) did marry two wives. So do you follow Roman customs, or do you simply reject Scripture by promoting your partially biblical view of marriage?

Thanks for asking. The view I use on the scriptural definition of marriage comes from what Jesus said in Matthew.

19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Just because God allowed multiple wives and concubines, does not mean that that was desire for man. We have the written scriptures and 6,000 years of wisdom taught to man by God. We also have the Holy Spirit, which was not given to man (except for a few) until Jesus ascended into Heaven.

I am not a Catholic. Most Catholic theology are biblical but I have issues with some other things like purgatory, etc. I have some problems with Calvinism. My German roots of course are Lutheran. But, I am a fundamentalist Baptist.
My faith is not based on what Luther or Calvin believed or didn't believe.

Paul,

This was supposed to be a joke? "Johanna, do you wanna have sex? "

Actually , now that I think about it, you're right. The idea of having sex with you is REALLY funny.

I could've sworn you said you had a wife. I bet she'll find that sense of humour of yours absolutely hilarious too. Let's ask her input shall we? And while I'm at it, maybe I'll ask my fiancee to come and take a look at this "joke" of yours too. I'm sure he'll find it funniest of all.

He loves it when his wife-to-be is treated like a common prostitute.

But aren't you a prostitute, MRS. Johanna? You're a woman, after all!

Someone needs to remind our friends that there is a world of difference between humor, patronization and good ol', subtextual, cromagnon sexism. Though I doubt they would recognize your point without dismissing it as the rantings of a haughty, humorless bitch. Which you are! You're a woman, after all!

Don't let the boys get you down. There are millions of 'non-girlie' men around who are unafraid to show bravado, not by chest-puffing but by respecting everyone equally. Let's hope our friends come to their senses, and drop the act.

Paul,

But Jesus was criticizing divorce there not polyamory. The question about Moses did not refer to more than one wife. Now which is it, do you reject the polyamory of Scripture or do you have some othe basis?

One last thing on this idiot Keyes: i heard a clip of his remarks in which he claimed homosexuality was "self directed". i hate to inform him but that would be materbation not homosexuality.

Thanks Bryan, I think. It's a little hard to decipher your tone in that last post.

But about those non girly-men you speak of, I know. I'm marrying one.

Paul. I'd like you to respond to my last post please.
LIKE A MAN.

It was sarcasm and not directed at you, Johanna. No offense intended, I apologize if it came off that way.

None taken. That's what I thought. And in that case, thanks again.

Paul- anytime you're ready for your manly response.

johnhp wrote -

"But Jesus was criticizing divorce there not polygamy. The question about Moses did not refer to more than one wife. Now which is it, do you reject the polygamy of Scripture or do you have some other basis?"

the "two shall become one flesh," not the 3 or 4 shall become one flesh. I think Jesus answered it quite plainly.

Are you a polygamist Johnhp? Are you even married?

Johanna - you wrote
"Let's scrap that thought & just concentrate on procreation. Men should be able to just go around & spread their seed. Women should carry the child for 9 months, pop it out (pop!) & wait for the next guy to come and impregnate her. Wouldn't that work much better?"

Hence my comment - do you wanna have sex? Do you want to procreate?

Yes - my wife thinks I am funny and she is very funny. She once saw a drunk fat guy kissing on two drunk fat women and said "Hippos in heat!"
She is very witty!

By the way Johanna, I don't live at Brad's Blog so if I do not reply immediately, I am off doing something worthwhile. Not talking to leftists is worthwhile.

Bryan wrote -
"But aren't you a prostitute, MRS. Johanna? You're a woman, after all!"

We got the sarcasm and I thought it was very funny.

Mrs. Johanna,

If you only have a fiance you aren't really Mrs. Johanna yet are you.

Paul,

He was answering a question about divorce and it necessarily involves two people. he did not address himself to the question of multiple partners.

My personal life is not at issue here; your inability to defend your faith notwithstanding.

Ed, better?

Paul.

"Hence my comment - do you wanna have sex? Do you want to procreate?"

You're even more dense that I thought. Go back and re-read my posts with a sarcastic tone, mm-kay?

" She once saw a drunk fat guy kissing on two drunk fat women and said "Hippos in heat!"
She is very witty!"

Oh.

My.

God.

"Bryan wrote - "But aren't you a prostitute, MRS. Johanna? You're a woman, after all!"We got the sarcasm and I thought it was very funny. "

He was making fun of you, Einstein. Did you catch on to that one?

> Go back and re-read my posts with a sarcastic tone, mm-kay?

Duh! I did and mine was sarcastic too.

> He was making fun of you, Einstein. Did you catch onto that one?

I do not care who he was making fun of - it was still funny.

Soon to be Mrs. Johanna,

Much. However you can call yourself anything you like on this blog. I call myself ed but get called much more interesting stuff by the rest of the bloggers.

BTW we have had a change of plans and will not get to see your beautiful country this year. We are now shooting for spring or early summer of 2005.

The offer is still open, meet us in Victoria and bring Mr. Johanna (STB) and we can burn pictures of Paul to keep warm.

Brad I see that you disagree with Mr. Keyes stand against homosexuallity. The facts are America is in great trouble if we allow homosexual marriages. If this comes to pass all of our school text books, magazines and telivision ads will hafe to portray this lifestyle as normal. You can say it is ok, and normal , but it simply is not true. Homosexuality is not a crime true, but it also is not a crime to say that it is WRONG and society is worse because of it.

Wow, Danny. Thanks for commenting.

You made some strong assertions. As such:
"The facts are America is in great trouble if we allow homosexual marriages. If this comes to pass all of our school text books, magazines and telivision ads will hafe to portray this lifestyle as normal."

Is there any "fact" you can actually show as evidence to support your assertion that "America is in great trouble if we allow homosexual marriage"?

And if this "lifestyle is portrayed as normal", how exactly does that hurt you or me or anybody?

I'd really like to see your evidence for any of this, other than your opinion (which you are certainly welcome to!). But it doesn't seem to be based on anything factual, other than your "feelings" and "opinions" about it.