Karl Denninger's Personal Blog - Comments

Joe P.: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Joe P.) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:39:34 -0500

And for the record, I actually agree with your criticisms regarding (and solutions for) the Church's entanglement with the state regarding marriage. I think it would be best if the marriage sacrament and state contract be completely separate from each other, as you proposed in your 2002 letter. However, that doesn't mean that I also think that marriages conducted by the Church (especially mine) were performed with "fraudulent intent", nor are our criticisms any grounds to completely abandon the faith.

Karl: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Karl) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:33:10 -0500

You don't believe that knowingly taking a Sacrament from someone who you know is performing them with fraudulent intent is a sin. I do, and in fact believe it is an extremely serious sin for which one may not (at God's discretion, of course) be forgiven.

Joe P.: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Joe P.) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:27:14 -0500

Karl, I have to say that your reasons for leaving the Church are weak. Leave the Church if you no longer believe it's the church that was founded by Christ and whose authority was handed over to St. Peter and the Apostles. Leave the Church because you no longer believe in the Sacraments, especially Our Savior's Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Leave the Church because you no longer believe that each Mass is the continuation of Christ's eternal sacrifice in Calvary. Leave the Church because you no longer believe the Church is God's instrument for forgiveness and salvation. Leave the Church if you no longer believe in Jesus Christ as God's Son. The above are valid reasons why one would leave the Church. Your reasons for leaving the Church are not valid. To me, it shows that you had little or no faith in the Church and her Sacraments to begin with. Do you think St. Francis stopped practicing his faith considering the widespread corruption inside the Church back in his day? Of course not, because he still held on to the faith taught by the Church...not the faith in man. I can understand how you could be upset with your diocese, your bishop, and the American Church in general. I can also understand why you would no longer financially contribute to your parish/diocese and other Catholic charities. But why stop going to Mass? Why stop receiving the Eucharist? Why stop going to confession?

Karl: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Karl) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:11:32 -0500

I already have.

Ronduck: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Ronduck) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:10:43 -0500

If the church were to endorse the solutions you put forth in your letter, would you resume giving it money? I live in Arizona, a state on the Mexican border, and I have evidence off the website of the local diocese proving the church's involvement in keeping the border open. Would you be willing to boycott the church's fundraising efforts over its efforts to debase our country?

Melissa: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Melissa) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:40:18 -0500

I agree 100%...What happened if we refuse to be divided along such petty lines??? Head up, eyes open, brain working, and a commitment to our fellows to look, act together and stop the bullshit!

Karl: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Karl) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:29:05 -0500

You don't fix bad laws with more bad laws. You have completely missed the point of this entry... like so many others who are blinded by the intentional division that government uses. My reason for posting your comment was to illustrate how absolutely fucking idiotic that line of reasoning is. Wake the fuck up. Or not. That choice is yours, but so are the consequences of being diverted by this line of bullshit. Enjoy the depression.

kayl: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (kayl) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:15:08 -0500

Marriage, as a controlled institution by the state, shows itself for what it really is-- a scam. People in the 50s swore a solemn oath before God and country to form a union. So how is it possible that our government can revise that solemn oath and marriage contract? The marriage license is a tax upon the common man and invites a 3rd party into the private (commercial) interests of the union. Thus, the couple becomes subject to the statutes regulating children, IRS filing status, and dissolution. Child Protection Services, Divorce courts, judges, and lawyers make a lot of money in this business. They can't wait to get new customers with the passage of the same-sex marriage legislation!

Lloyd: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Lloyd) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:04:13 -0500

Melissa- That is the point. They're distracting us with emotional "hot button issues" so we don't notice they're robbing us and selling the next couple of generations into debt peonage. Convince people that their neighbors are more dangerous than the parasites in Wall Street or DC. Divide and rule.

Nate: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Nate) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:37:13 -0500

I find it fascinating that someone who spends so much of his time ranting against fraud, especially as it pertains to powerful, controlling organizations committing it against the helpless masses, cannot see that religion itself is the greatest fraud ever to be perpetrated on mankind. How does the man who mines mountains of data to justify every opinion on finance believe in a mythology with no evidence whatsoever to support it? Gay marriage is a completely simple issue, if you just free your mind from the nonsense of religion. After that's out of the way, it's patently obvious that there's no legal justification for having laws apply differently based on the gender of the person you're in love with.

jason: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (jason) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:45:58 -0500

want a good one? Have a child out of wedlock. As a man you are LEGALLY BOUND to provide for the child's "lifestyle" (in MA) and that WITHOUT EVEN ENTERING INTO ANY KIND OF ARRANGEMENT LIKE MARRIAGE! NO MARRIAGE, NO WEDDING, NO WIFE, BUT YOU HAVE A CHILD - CORRECTION, SOMEONE ELSE HAS YOUR CHILD WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT AND YOU MUST SUPPORT HIM AND HER UNDER THE LAW TO THE TUNE OF 40% OF YOUR SALARY UNDER THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT FOR 18-22 YEARS. LOOK IT UP. CAN THE STATE BECOME ANYMORE TWISTED!?!?!?!?!

TW: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (TW) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:43:53 -0500

Damn, Karl, Thank You for making me feel better about my non-praciticing as well. I have been strongly disillusioned by anullments of convenience being peddled by The Church for Decades.

Melissa: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Melissa) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:51:04 -0500

I agree with you Karl, that who is involved in a marriage is none of my damn business. The idea of making gay marriage a political issue is simply, more smoke and mirrors. We cannot be divided against one another anymore. The Constitution states we are all entitled to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". That means everyone, no exceptions. The issue of gay marriage has led people to ignore the far more heinous issues that get passed while they are arguing about who hates fags.....what ever happened to the seperation of church and state, or the universality and autonomy of individuals?

Markytom: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Markytom) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:48:33 -0500

Agree with you Karl. This isn't really about "gay rights" at all - it's about contractual agreements among the parties involved. The contracts should be written in a way that can be truly enforced and can hold up in the courts, including custody issues. If the people involved want a third-party house of worship involved in the contract so be it. If only with the State, fine. I know a woman who lives with two men. Should they be able to "get married?" I say sure. Just have the contract written up among all parties involved. There are areas that muddle up what "marriage" is about. One is taxes. Fix it by getting rid of income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. Eliminates the issue of married vs. single and who is or is not a dependent. Another is health care. Eliminate employee sponsored health care. My company doesn't provide for my auto insurance, why should they provide health care insurance? Everyone should go buy health care insurance just like they do auto insurance if they want it, and then everyone can buy insurance for whoever they want to. Hospital visitation rights? Refer to the marriage contract. Inheritance? Refer to the contract. Why is it so hard for people to come to a logical solution? I don't get it. That's my two cents.

Ciao: Gay Marriage: The Wrong Answer

nospam@example.com (Ciao) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:14:47 -0500

I understand marriage as an institution between the betrothed woman and man. I would respect another institution built of the union between gays and lesbians. I simply ask that they respect the retention of the institution I joined and the expectations of family that our institution embodies.