Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Businessman Tells City Bureaucrats To Go Fuck Themselves; Offers To Sell Them the Means To Do So
This story made my day.
Michael Zarlenga spent $350,000 to expand his hunting and fishing store in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia (just down the road from me). To cover his bases, Zarlenga paid an architectural firm to draw up eight separate plans he could submit to the city, and worked with the city's Board of Architectural Review every step of the way. According to the Washington Post, he consulted with and relied heavily upon the advice of the committee's principal staff member to be sure he did everything correctly.
You know where this is going.
But when the project came before the review board in 2007, it was rejected partly on Smith's recommendation that it would cause an "unreasonable loss of historic fabric." Zarlenga said Smith did not explain to him why he changed his mind. Smith has since died...
Zarlenga said he felt as though the rug had been pulled out from under him. He appealed to the City Council but lost in September 2007. Council members suggested he go back to the staff of the architectural review board and submit new plans.
For Zarlenga, it was the final straw. He choked back tears as he told the council he was finished: "I have no faith in the staff. . . . They have completely taken the integrity, as I see it, out of the system. . . . The simple fact is there's no money left, okay?"
But Zarlenga got his revenge. He leased the space—which is right on King Street, the main drag through utlra-touristy Old Town—to a sex shop. The shop is in full compliance with zoning laws, and even if the city were to change those laws, Zarlenga would have to be grandfathered in. Furious Alexandria officials are now looking into whether they can shut the shop down through obscenity laws.
In 2007, I wrote about how Alexandria's ridiculous zoning laws were achieving the exact opposite of their intent—to preserve Old Town's unique charm and identity.
preston|3.2.09 @ 3:00PM|#
this is a great example of blowback.
all too often, politicians refuse to think twice about the
potential unintended consequences of their actions. thanks to
patriots like michael zarlenga, they are occasionally woken up to
their boneheadness. as often happens when politicos are embarrassed
by their own policies, they simply try to find another law to point
to.
here's to hoping they fail to shut down the sex shop.
|3.2.09 @ 3:03PM|#
He leased the space-which is right on King Street, the main
drag through utlra-touristy Old Town-to a sex shop.
YESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!
la fascitis necrotizante|3.2.09 @ 3:06PM|#
I loved this story when I came across it. Though it's curious that sex shops were conforming in that district. It's a poorly written code that allows LULUs like those along without some kind of special use permitting. Or standards that keep them in "Light Industrial"ish districts. I would've guessed they'd've put some kind of "Historical Preservation Overlay District" over the older neighborhood that would've been tied to pretty strict use regulations in addition to the 'Board of Architectural Review' circle jerk. Haha, suck on it Alexandria, birthplace of my father.
|3.2.09 @ 3:09PM|#
Many, many years ago, when I was living in Colorado Springs, the
self-appointed morality leaguers wanted a certain topless club shut
down. After many attempts, the City Council managed to get their
liquor license yanked, assuming that this would force them to close
their doors.
The owner and his attorneys put their heads together, and after a
thorough examination of the law, reopened. Since they were not
selling liquor, they were allowed to offer fully nude
entertainers.
Be careful what you wish for, motherfucker.
Gimme Back My Dog|3.2.09 @ 3:10PM|#
This is winning the battle but losing the war. The lesson the joes of the world will take from this is that this is what happens when you don't regulate enough. At the end of the day, they still have all of the guns.
|3.2.09 @ 3:11PM|#
I remember when I first saw that sex toy shop on King Street
opposite all of the quaint restaurants, art galleries and antique
stores. I said to myself: "Self, there has to be some story behind
this."
And now we know the rest of that story. What a pity that Paul
Harvey died before he could have related this tale.
|3.2.09 @ 3:21PM|#
are you suggesting that a storefront window full of fluorescent vibrating dildos somehow detracts from a neighborhood's "unique charm and identity"?
|3.2.09 @ 3:21PM|#
The lesson the joes of the world will take from this is that
this is what happens when you don't regulate enough.
Sad, but true.
|3.2.09 @ 3:23PM|#
Good for Zarlenga, even though I personally can't stand the kind
of shop he leased to.
As another small business owner in Alexandria, I'll state you need
to be very careful here. The city bureaucrats have a way of
exacting their own kind of revenge. The City of Alexandria has
demonstrated to me, repeatedly, that they do not brook small
business owning citizens standing up for their rights, regardless
of the kind of business you run.
Again, good for Zarlenga.
|3.2.09 @ 3:28PM|#
anon-
Why can't you "stand the kind of shop he leased to?" I presume not
in the same way that you can't stand how people could ever work for
the government, particularly, as urban planners or as historic
district commission members.
|3.2.09 @ 3:32PM|#
The "hunters" and "fishers" need to bring their supplies to the City Council and just start "hunting" and "fishing" for motherfuckers. They should do quite well.
|3.2.09 @ 3:58PM|#
From the article:
"I believe it's an inappropriate business to be located in our old
and historic district,"
Actually I think the opposite. For a town populated by rebels who
overthrew their government, it's a perfect business.
|3.2.09 @ 4:02PM|#
It's totally fucking rediculous that we cede power to a board
whose policy is "First you spend the money, then submit your plans
to our whim".
There should be a constitutional amendment (state level) "Any
citizen making a good faith effort to comply with any regulation,
is in compliance with said regulation".
|3.2.09 @ 4:02PM|#
I'd encourage the sex shop to put up big signs that say, "All anal plugs and vagina creams 50 percent off."
|3.2.09 @ 4:04PM|#
anon, so you "can't stand the kind of shop" he leased to?
according to its owner in the article, business is booming, even in
this economy, and he owns nine other retail outlets in northern
virginia, so he obviously has skin in the game.
may i suggest that you speak to your significant other sometime
about how to enhance her pleasure? too many men don't do this. it
could be something as simple as a tube of k-y jelly before the big
saturday night, which is designed for this purpose and works a lot
better than peanut butter or whatever you're using now. then, if
the lucky girl has a birthday coming up, google "pearl rabbit" and
consider surprising her with one; when you're out of town on
business, it beats the pool boy for keeping her satisfied.
Max Rosett|3.2.09 @ 4:09PM|#
Excellent story. And there's definitely a lesson in here somewhere: if the government makes it impossibly to succeed running a traditional business, people will turn to, well, less traditional means of making a living. I feel horrible for Zarlenga, who clearly got caught in a bad situation, but I congratulate him for making the best out of it.
|3.2.09 @ 4:14PM|#
Or how about:
"Welcome to Historic Old Town! We've got all your knob-waxing gay
porn and fisting supplies to make your balls ache."
|3.2.09 @ 4:17PM|#
Elected officials trying to "fix" poorly written laws often
remind me of semi-competent programmers trying to salvage a buggy,
overly-complicated program by throwing more and more code at
it.
Eventually you have to accept that the program is utter crap and
re-write it from scratch.
robc|3.2.09 @ 4:17PM|#
The owner and his attorneys put their heads together, and
after a thorough examination of the law, reopened. Since they were
not selling liquor, they were allowed to offer fully nude
entertainers.
Something very similar happened in Louisville.
Jeff P|3.2.09 @ 4:17PM|#
Revenge would be if the sex shop sold a box set of assorted small withered dildos and called it The Alexandria Review Board.
|3.2.09 @ 4:18PM|#
Good for Zarlenga, even though I personally can't stand the
kind of shop he leased to.
I browsed the online store and it sells a whole lot of plus-sized
lingerie. anon hates fatties.
|3.2.09 @ 4:19PM|#
I'm litigating a case right now dealing with this crap. An architect and builder plans and executes a building according to the specs approved by the city. Then *poof* the city decides is doesn't approve of itself anymore. Millions of dollars are lost while smug politicians micromanage the city's vanity.
|3.2.09 @ 4:53PM|#
The owner and his attorneys put their heads
together, and after a thorough examination of the law, reopened.
Since they were not selling liquor, they were allowed to offer
fully nude entertainers.
Further proof that when you have a spontaneous-order system run by
acting humans, no amount of outside fudging and intervention will
deliver the expected results. This fact is reason why there cannot
be a successful command-and-control management of a complex system
like the market. Some people tend to ignore this, usually employing
irrelevant platitudes to justify interventions like "fighting
greed", or "working for community" (right, Neu?), with unexpected
and most often than not, nasty results. When things explode in the
face of the interventionists, they always blame anyone or anything
else but their stupidity.
¢|3.2.09 @ 5:07PM|#
Millions of dollars are lost while smug politicians
micromanage the city's vanity.
Think of the massive advantage that gives to friends of the city,
whose plans suffer no such *poof*s.
Alexandria's ridiculous zoning laws were achieving the exact
opposite of their intent
You misjudged their intent.
|3.2.09 @ 5:22PM|#
libertymike and bruce, thank you for upholding the H&R tradition of confusing libertarianism and libertinism. Perhaps libertarianism wouldn't be in the dire straits it finds itself in now if sexually "liberated" types who insist on social conservatives living and letting live could, well, live and let live.
BakedPenguin|3.2.09 @ 5:32PM|#
Rabscuttle, they may just be guilty of poor reading skills and
assumed his lack of a standard libertarian disclaimer amounted to a
belief that anon was arguing for a law.
Of course, that would be hard to do, since anon said "Good on
Zarlenga" twice.
|3.2.09 @ 6:03PM|#
Great move. I loved Old Town Alexandria when I lived in NoVA,
but there always was a terrible lack of sex shops in the
neighborhood.
-jcr
|3.2.09 @ 6:06PM|#
which is designed for this purpose and works a lot better
than peanut butter or whatever you're using now
I don't even want to know if people use creamy or crunchy style for
that.
-jcr
|3.2.09 @ 6:23PM|#
thank you rabscuttle, for your amusing conflation of the enhancement of a woman's sexual pleasure with libertinism. the women in your life, just like your employers, should just be damn glad that you manage to show up regularly with a halfway decent attitude, right?
|3.2.09 @ 6:24PM|#
thank you for upholding the H&R tradition of confusing
libertarianism and libertinism.
What's a libertine, if not a person that indulges in
pleasures YOU don't find acceptable? People have self-ownership and
are free to pursuit their happiness in any way they see fit,
provided they do not stop others from pursuing their own happiness
or step over their rights (negative, not positive).
This means that catering to your sensibilities is NOT a right you
possess, since the burden would be imposed on others. It is YOUR
responsibility to restrain your own hangups and prejudices.
Bottom line, nobody is confusing libertarianism with being
libertine, because there is NO such thing as being a libertine
PROVIDED the person acting in liberty does so without trampling on
other people's natural rights.
|3.2.09 @ 6:56PM|#
Nothing is more pitiful than libertarians who -- like their counterparts on the right and left -- cannot make the distinction between the legal and the moral. I absolutely oppose the use of coercion to stop people from doing things that don't harm anyone else. But at the same time I reserve the right to hold in contempt those who do victimless things I believe are morally wrong. If this is an imponderable conundrum for you guys to figure out, sorry, that's how I roll.
|3.2.09 @ 7:06PM|#
bruce,
I oppose sex toys designed for men as well, so playing the
misogynist card ain't gonna fly. And you don't know shit about the
women in my life, let alone the employers, so don't pretend you do.
Suffice it to say if they're not satisfied with my "showing up"
they're free to tell me to fly a kite. Free market and stuff, you
know.
|3.2.09 @ 7:23PM|#
for some reason, i imagined rabscuttle's 7:06 comment read in
the voice of that other uncompromising libertarian lover, popeye
the sailor man addressing bluto, and concluding "i yam what i
yam."
no rabscuttle, your 6:56 comment isn't an imponderable conundrum,
it's a transparent symptom of your moral hangups that compel you to
"hold in contempt" so many of your innocent neighbors. you sound
very judgmental, which at a wild guess based on decades of
experience and social interaction, suggests to me that you're
probably not very much fun to be around. my suggestion, and you're
free to take it or leave it, would be for you to develop greater
understanding and empathy with your neighbors at least enough to
dial your current contempt down to mild disapproval.
|3.2.09 @ 7:32PM|#
But at the same time I reserve the right to hold in contempt
those who do victimless things I believe are morally
wrong.
You have a right to feel outrage. However, your outrage is NOT
argument to question the libertarian principles of personal freedom
and personal choice. Either the position held is cogent and
congruent with the principle of self-ownership, or it is not.
Also, you confuse moral with palatable - you may NOT find certain
practices palatable, but again, your sensibilities are NOT the
benchmark for moral action. Moral action (i.e. what's good) should
be judged by the action itself - does the action trample on
someone's else rights to liberty, property, self-ownership? If yes,
the action is immoral, and if NO, it cannot be immoral. Again, it
may not be PALATABLE to you, but that would be your subjective
appreciation, not the benchmark or baseline for moral judgment. It
is not possible that your judgment is better than mine, or
anybody's else.
Piano|3.2.09 @ 7:34PM|#
A variation of this story played out years ago, near the burg
that I lived in. Where a guy that owned a rinkydink gas station
expanded and threw in a restaurant and new diesel pumps. This cut
into the action for a long established truckstop 10 miles up the
road. Soon, for whatever reasons, the county was all over the
upstart's business. After getting fucked with by aggressive
government for a bit, he sold out to a dildo and smut king with
lots of experience in navigating the legal action associated with
retail dildo and smut sales.
From a texpayer'sperspective, it was kinda ugly. The city,
township, and county took turns running into dude's wicked buzzsaw
of a legal defense for a while. Eventual they developed an aversion
to dragging the litigious old guy (and his attending savvy
attorney) into court. Something was learned by all involved.
the innominate one|3.2.09 @ 7:45PM|#
crimethink/ rabscuttle - isn't your morality Bible-based?
what happened to "judge not, etc."?
|3.2.09 @ 9:41PM|#
But at the same time I reserve the right to hold in contempt
those who do victimless things I believe are morally
wrong.
Knock yourself out. I'm sure the Supreme Being will be mightily
impressed with your moral sensibilities. As long as you stay in the
non-coercion camp I got no problem with ya.
ainokea|3.2.09 @ 10:28PM|#
This is the best news I've heard this year. I lived in Old Town
for many years, loved the old Orvis/Trophy Room, and was mightily
cheesed off when I heard the news about their closing. Given what
types of people run that city, my hunch has always been that they
were afraid of the (absolutely gorgeous) guns sold in the store.
Recall that the Peoples Republic of Old Town also exercised eminent
domain to remove Potomac Arms and Full Metal Jacket. The Potomac
Arms was a local treasure... a devastating loss.
Zarlenga is my new hero.
|3.2.09 @ 10:43PM|#
bruce,
this whole thing started with you guys ragging on anon for saying
he didn't like sex shops. And I'm the judgemental
one?
FTG,
Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a moral one, which is
why I like it. Under a libertarian regime people of wildly
different moral beliefs can live alongside each other in harmony,
so long as individuals don't try to foist their moral restrictions
(or lack thereof) on others.
tio,
Were we to interpret that verse the way you suggest, it would
swallow up the rest of the Bible in a poof of smoke, and you'd be
left with Unitarian "believe what you want, just give us money"
insipidity. Christians are not supposed to presume to know how
people are with God, but that doesn't mean we should pretend that
obvious sins are not what they are.
|3.2.09 @ 10:49PM|#
Under a libertarian regime people of wildly different moral
beliefs can live alongside each other in harmony, so long as
individuals don't try to foist their moral restrictions (or lack
thereof) on others.
Or, in the spirit of the article under discussion, you are free to
live with a stick up your arse and I with a butt plug up
mine.
And we're both free to ridicule the others choice.
|3.2.09 @ 11:20PM|#
I should say that the last thing I want is to get into an argument over sexual morality here. I know I'm vastly outnumbered and have not a snowball's chance in Antarctica of convincing people to copulate in accordance with God's will. But I could not stand idly by while anon was beleaguered by unjust criticism.
|3.2.09 @ 11:30PM|#
I'm a Catholic, not a fundie, dammit! If the literal meaning of a quote stripped from context is antithetical to the rest of the Faith, no, I don't believe it. In context it is clear Jesus meant that we are not to presume to know the state of another person's soul. He definitely wasn't saying that hey, maybe it's OK after all to lie and commit adultery and break the other commandments too. This is the same guy who said that lusting after a woman is equivalent to adultery, and detraction is equivalent to murder. Not exactly a cosmotarian.
The Angry Optimist|3.2.09 @ 11:47PM|#
Unjust criticism? you leaped down LM's throat for asking a
question and bruce's suggesting that anon had a (shared,
obviously) stick up his ass about sex toys.
I don't see anything unjust about either of those; likewise, I
don't see anything unjust about anon or you defending yourselves.
AFAICT, however, no one here was equating libertarianism and
libertinism. That was an argument YOU brought up.
at the same time I reserve the right to hold in contempt those
who do victimless things I believe are morally wrong. If this is an
imponderable conundrum for you guys to figure out, sorry, that's
how I roll.
And others reserve the right to call you a Papist-lovin'
masochistic fool who takes all the fun out of life with constant
moralizing. That's how THEY roll.
the innominate one|3.2.09 @ 11:51PM|#
"He definitely wasn't saying that hey, maybe it's OK after all
to lie and commit adultery and break the other commandments
too."
I never said he did. The Bible is for people to choose to follow
freely or not, and it's God's place to judge people and their
actions, it's not for other people to judge, if you believe in the
Bible.
Use the Bible to judge your own actions, or if someone asks for
your input. Otherwise, keep it to yourself as long as someone isn't
harming someone else.
Libertarianism might not necessarily equal libertinism, but it
allows for it and the possibility of a coincidence between the
two.
The Angry Optimist|3.3.09 @ 12:12AM|#
As a parting question, I'm curious if M. Potter follows
Leviticus 15: 19-24.
Of course, given I Corin. 7:1-2, I expect sexual repression to be
the order of the day:
"7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good
for a man not to touch a woman.
7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own
wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
Thanks tons, Paul.
|3.3.09 @ 12:15AM|#
TAO, bruce was way out of line. He was casting aspersions on
anon's sexual relationships (as well as my hypothetical ones)
because he doesn't like sex toys. Presumably if you don't use
mechanical devices in your lovemaking you must have sexaul issues
-- one wonders how humanity managed to reproduce during the
milennia before sexual technology advanced to its current
state!
And FTG was quite explicitly saying that nothing that is consistent
with the NAP is libertinism. That's precisely conflation of
libertarianism and libertinism.
Finally, libertymike's "question" was a rhetorical one. It was
clear from the context that LM disapproves of anon's
disapproval.
So yes, I may not have been as diplomatic as I should have been,
but I'm satisfied that I had just grounds for intervention in all
these cases.
|3.3.09 @ 12:24AM|#
I don't know Leviticus by heart, TAO. What are you referring
to?
As for Paul's quotes, they're being taken out of context. He was
probably responding to a suggestion that everyone should be
celibate like he was so that they could devote their lives to
preaching the Gospel -- this was a common attitude in the early
Church, as Jesus' return was thought imminent. If this is the case,
then Paul's statement acts as a moderating influence on possibly
overzealous underlings.
It's pretty implausible to say that he was asserting personal
authority to say whether people could get married or not. Verses
like this are why I'm glad not to be a fundie.
|3.3.09 @ 12:26AM|#
Libertarianism might not necessarily equal libertinism, but
it allows for it and the possibility of a coincidence between the
two.
That may be so, but it also allows for an overlap with puritanism.
This is what some in these parts have trouble with.
the innominate one|3.3.09 @ 12:31AM|#
No, some in these parts have trouble with puritanism being
forced upon them. Be as puritanical as you wish.
However, take it from a recovered southern Baptist: you really,
really need to get laid.
The Angry Optimist|3.3.09 @ 12:33AM|#
Here's the problem: to say that it is good for a man
not to touch a woman is stating that it is explicitly a good
thing to deny the urges that Nature (or God) placed in us for
a purpose.
And look at the purposive clause Paul puts in there: "to avoid
fornication". It isn't good to have a wife in and of
itself, it's good only insofar as it prevents
"fornication"...which, IMHO, is a pretty stupid motivation that an
omniscient God is going to see right through.
one wonders how humanity managed to reproduce during the
milennia before sexual technology advanced to its current
state!
Mein Gott...it's almost like those dastardly humans are attempting
to improve on something that people find fun! Like,
perhaps sex doesn't have to be about procreation?
Here's the point you're either intentionally missing or being
unwillfully obtuse over: When people "cast aspersions" about one's
sex life, they're saying you're not having very much fun
in your sex life, not that you aren't performing the rote mechanics
of the act.
it also allows for an overlap with puritanism. This is what
some in these parts have trouble with.
No one is having trouble with it. No one is advocating that your
rights be curtailed because you're sexually repressed. We're just
making fun of the repressed independently.
|3.3.09 @ 12:43AM|#
When people "cast aspersions" about one's sex life, they're
saying you're not having very much fun in your sex life, not that
you aren't performing the rote mechanics of the act.
Well I'm not doing either the fun or the mechanics, so it doesn't
apply to me. However, I would think there's a degree of "fun" in
doing things naturally without any specially molded plastics or
batteries required.
Jazz Discharge Party Hat|3.3.09 @ 1:19AM|#
Whatever you have to do to have a good time, let's get on with it, so long as it doesn't cause a murder.
Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 2:00AM|#
Rabscuttle is correct. After all, batteries get expensive over
time! Do you people realize the savings!!!
Rabscuttle,
I was raised deep woods baptist so I got questions. WTF is up with
Catholic ceremonies? All this kneeling, sitting, , greeting,
rising, praying, and what's up with the dude with the toy globe
with smoke coming out of it? It was simple with Baptists. Greet
everyone before church. Listen to sermon for an hour and a half,
greet everyone after service, go to Denny's. Done. No bizarre
wafer, no guy with smoking toy globe, no Latin, etc.
johnl|3.3.09 @ 2:01AM|#
City planners will pull this kind of stunt even in town with boarded up abandoned shops. Someone will try to open up say a dentists office in a boarded up abandoned shop and get a ton of hassle from the planning department. And not just about the wiring and whatever else the fire department makes them worry about, but with changes to the facade. Like anything the new business could do to the facade would be worse the leaving the place boarded up.
Abdul|3.3.09 @ 8:11AM|#
Reading the article, a lot of the complaining neighbors make a
big deal about how the sex shop is just a short distance from St.
Robert E. Lee's boyhood home.
The zoning board's response should read: How dare you disgrace the
honor of a Southern gentleman in this manner? Pistols at dawn,
sir!
|3.3.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Naga,
The Mass and Protestant Sunday gatherings are serving different
purposes. The Mass is a re-presentation of Jesus' death and
resurrection, where heaven and earth worship in unison. As heaven
will not closely resemble a stuffy meeting hall with a guy
preaching up in front, it would be inappropriate if the Mass
resembled this (though many parishes have, in contravention of
canon law, come awfully close to this). If Catholics want to sit
there and listen to a sermon for 90 minutes there are "missions"
and bible studies available at other times during the week.
|3.3.09 @ 12:26PM|#
rabscuttle: "one wonders how humanity managed to reproduce
during the millennia before sexual technology reached its current
state."
the same way we were able to start fires before matches and
disposable lighters were invented. manually! that doesn't mean we
need to rub two sticks together for 15 minutes every time we want a
bong hit.
so you're a catholic. tell me, how does your self-proclaimed
libertarianism relate to membership in a faith which holds that
women's bodies and choices should be controlled by legislation,
that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, that embryonic stem-cell
research should be banned, and that a terminally ill senior wracked
with pain shouldn't be able to get a simple, merciful prescription
to put him out of his misery with the same level of humanity that
we would have no problem exhibiting to a dog or a cat in similar
circumstances. isn't catholicism all about controlling what
nonbelievers do and bringing them around to your way of thinking
and acting?
|3.3.09 @ 6:58PM|#
isn't catholicism all about controlling what nonbelievers do
and bringing them around to your way of thinking and
acting?
Well that's not a loaded question at all, is it?! To address the
second part first, there's no conflict between libertarianism and
persuasion...however much you may prefer that there were when the
persuasion is religious in nature.
On the first charge, you're assuming that Catholicism requires that
all immoral things also be illegal. This is not so, as the Church's
binding teaching authority extends only to matters of faith and
morals, not law and politics.
In the case of abortion it's pretty much a slam dunk to go from its
immorality to illegality; if you think it's the wanton destruction
of an innocent human being, it's pretty hard to also think it
should be legal.
On suicide it's not as simple, as one can believe it to be utterly
immoral and yet acknowledge that it does not directly harm anyone
else. Recent popes and most bishops rail against legalizing
assisted suicide (and in many cases they have legit concerns about
the grisly possibility of elderly people being pressured to consent
by their family or the state), but this teaching is not binding as
it is political in nature. Ditto for the capital punishment
teaching, which carefully avoids contradicting Scripture and two
milennia of Catholic teaching by arguing not that CP is inherently
immoral, but that CP was needed in the past but isn't needed any
more, and the less nuanced gay marriage teachings.
|3.3.09 @ 11:36PM|#
one wonders how humanity managed to reproduce during the
milennia before sexual technology advanced to its current
state!
That was BEFORE TV, the intertubez, hell, even the printed word.
They didn't have anything else to DO. Catholic you might be, but
obviously not Irish.
|3.4.09 @ 2:17AM|#
I'd just like to point out that, according to St. Thomas
Aquinas, masturbation is more gravely immoral than
rape: ST 2a2ae, q. 154, a. 12.
Read it for yourself:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article12
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245