National Review Endorses Sodomite "Marriage"

The Stream ^ | May 21, 2015 | The Editors

[nickcarraway]

The matter of contraception

It is probably on the issue of contraception that Buckley has most consistently opposed the Magisterium of the Church, although, according to Garry Wills, he was initially bothered at the prospect of public dispute. Following the publication of Humanæ vitæ, Buckley stated that the anti-contraception dogma grew out of an “anti-Manichaean argument” that “fleshly pursuits were unhealthy.” More than two decades later, he told me that the Church had to decide between contraception and abortion because if it continued to insist that “contraception violates the moral law,” it would weaken its proper and needed moral arguments against abortion.

National Review strongly condemned the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in 1972. Buckley remains resolutely pro-life although he argues that the Republican plank on abortion in 1996, rather than supporting a human-life Constitutional amendment, should reaffirm that “life should be protected” but then argue that the position of voters in individual states on abortion, “rather than that of the courts, should prevail.” Buckley also justifies his contraception position by arguing that Humanæ vitæ was not declared ex cathedra — and is therefore not an unfallible doctrine. For him, contraception cannot be separated from the population explosion which he once called the “second most important problem in the world, after ideological communism.” He has quoted approvingly Catholic convert Clare Boothe Luce, who once declared that the difference between abortion — “the Hiroshima bomb of birth control” — and a contraceptive has got to evoke “some sense of moral distinction.”

Predictably, Buckley was quick to question John Paul II last fall when he led the battle against birth control at the United Nations conference in Cairo. By suggesting that contraception and abortion are “equally sinful,” Buckley argued, the Pope had edged “the Vatican out of the picture as an important player” in the continuing dialogue about overpopulation.

[nickcarraway]

Interestingly, that is the same position as Margaret Singer. Planned Parenthood pamphlets still said abortion was wrong into the 1960s. Margaret Singer's was pro-contraception, but not pro-abortion. (At least not publicly)

The acceptance of contraception led to the acceptance of abortion, then to the acceptance of gay marriage. Buckley would have been more informed if he had read Humanae Vitae etc.

[nickcarraway]

What is your native language?

I NEVER said Buckley supported gay marriage. I ASKED if he did. Then another Freeper posted links about it. Case closed.

Except you are confused or lying about what I said.

I had no proof he supported it, and never claimed to.

[nickcarraway]

I repeat my request for evidence in support of your assertions.

I request you show what assertions made. I asked a question. If you understand English, that is not an assertion.

[WTFOVR]

Let me make one thing crystal clear ... I am defiantly opposed to same-sex anything - that goes for relationships, civil unions, “marriage,” etc.

Sodomy is EVIL. Period. It is contrary to right reason, the natural law, human biology, human physiology (anatomy), and human psychology. Homosexual marriage is an ontological impossibility. I hate sodomy, because I hate evil. Evil MUST be destroyed - not tolerated, not placed on equal par with objective truth, and certainly not legalized.

Indifference to evil, and not “hate,” is the exact opposite of love. To be indifferent to that which destroys a person’s body, and soul ... To be indifferent to that which undermines noble culture and a just society, is to advance evil.

I have noticed a very peculiar thing about popular American culture - we applaud strong ideas expressed vaguely, or vague ideas expressed strongly ... However, Americans have a difficult time understanding strong ideas expressed strongly. IMO, this trait is why the middle of the road “moderate” politician and the “lukewarm” religious appear to hold appeal among many Americans ... It also explains why we do not “get” Islamic “extremism” ... They truly believe in their bullsh*t ... Whereas, in comparison, I find that many of my fellow countrymen lately do not much believe in anything. This will be our undoing - or rather has become our undoing.

[ansel12]

Are you drinking? This is is what I posted.

““”If you have proof that he supported homosexual marriage then post it, if not, then quit trying to smear the guy by trying to create the idea that he did.””.

You are using some pretty sleazy methods against Buckley to advance your agenda.”

You sure were working hard to create the impression that Buckley was a pro-gay marriage social liberal.

[donna]

Off on immigration, too.

William F. Buckley, Jr., RIP—Sort Of
By Peter Brimelow
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.audio.opinion/2008-03/msg00036.html

[nickcarraway]

Please, what is your native language? Because you aren't understanding what I am writing.

I never tried to create the impression Buckley supported gay marriage. I asked a question. It's pretty sleazy to give the impression I said something I didn't. Should I translate into Spanish, German, or Italian? What language do you speak?

[WTFOVR]

Contraception is abortion by other means. Preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall (which is exactly what “the pill” accomplishes) is tantamount to abortion - the shedding of innocent blood, the murder of a created soul, made in God’s image and likeness. An abomination that calls down the wrath of God.

Moreover, the practice of contraception separated the act from its natural end, and thus was the first nail in the coffin of marriage. Contraception opened the door to every other evil, including homosexual marriage. for, if you divorce the act from its natural end - the creation of new life - then all you have done is make sex a matter of frictional pleasure between two or more people ... Thus the combination no longer matters - a man and a woman, a man and a child, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and a beast, a man and an object, etc ... Contraception destroys the reason for being, and thus is evil. Buckley should have deduced this. Why he failed in that capacity, is unknown.

If you wish to place blame on who is responsible for homosexual “marriage” - it is heterosexuals who first began its destruction, starting with contraception, through no-fault divorce, through abortion, and so on ... WE are the ones who first made a mockery of the first purpose of marriage ... And now we are paying the price.

[Monterrosa-24]

The whole Buckley family supported National Review. Priscilla Buckley was a great soul and a tireless worker/patron for NR.

Bill’s brother, James Buckley the one-term senator from New York had a great sense of humor. At CPAC in the late 1970s I chatted with him and he lamented the recent defeat of our Tennessee Republican Senator, Bill Brock. I told him many of us in Tennessee were more upset about his recent reelection defeat and he remarked instantly, “But I was from a high-risk area.”

At James Buckley’s defeat National Review vowed that it would no longer name a “Man of the Year” as its previous recipient Daniel Patrick Moynihan had unseated the editor’s brother. Moynihan had been wonderfully outspoken at the UN but was of far from an all-the-way conservative.

NR supported Reagan fiercely in his 1980 GOP primary victory. It was always a very Yankee publication but it was just made to order for university students finding arguments to buck the campus trends of the 60s and 70s.

This is a sad day that NR jumped on the Homo-marriage wave and abandoned its traditonal Catholic and Christian activism. McFadden and the Buckleys were very Catholic but they were always civil to Cromwellians like me.

[ansel12]

You did more than ask a stupid question, you stayed with it until we finally dismantled your train of posting.

It’s over now, you don’t have to wonder anymore if William F. Buckley supported gay marriage.

[Bodleian_Girl]

I thought he went both ways?

[nickcarraway]

LOL. You should get your own show on MSNBC. You think like those hosts.

[ansel12]

Says the guy who claims to have thought that William Buckley supported gay marriage.

[WTFOVR]

Post 4: “Was Buckley against gay marriage?”

A leading question, considering the context of the subject matter, and WFB’s fairly well-known staunch conservatism.

Then you followed that question with ...

Post 12: “He was pretty liberal socially.”

An assertion on your part, that solidifies the tone and objective of your leading question.

Yes, I do understand English, and I can well enough read between the lines.

[nickcarraway]

You are just flat out lying. I never said I thought he supported gay marriage. Show me where I said that. Rachel Maddow, is that you?

[WTFOVR]

Troll much?

[nickcarraway]

You are reading way too much. I asked the question. If National Review is going to support gay marriage, it's a fair question.

As to the second point, even you agreed with me about his position on contraception.

[ansel12]

Yep, a case of the poster throwing out the thread bomb, and then continuing to push it in post after post, until it gets demolished, and then he pretends total innocence.

If you notice, he is still badgering and raging at the posters who corrected him and his train of posting.

He is just trolling, he has done this before on gay marriage threads, hijacked them.

[ifinnegan]

From the link in 21

Questions to WFB

Is there anything the Republican Party can do to regain its authority and luster?

It must abide by principles, salient among which at this moment is to pass the constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

Why do you oppose gay marriage?

It is extraconstitutional, marriage being a union between opposite sexes usually intending procreation.

Do you have any gay friends?

I once said, commenting on the revised estimate of the number of gays in the U.S. from Kinsey’s 10 percent to the corrected figure, ‘’If there are only 2.5 percent gays in America, I know them all.’’