/ 
Tristyn Bloom
Matthew Cantirino
Anthony Esolen
Gene Fant
Greg Forster
Matthew J. Franck
Collin Garbarino
Robert P. George
William J. Haun
Leroy Huizenga
Katherine Infantine
Joseph Knippenberg
David T. Koyzis
Robert T. Miller
Matthew Milliner
David Mills
Mark Movsesian
William Mumma
Nathaniel Peters
R.R. Reno
James R. Rogers
Russell E. Saltzman
Matthew Schmitz
Kevin Staley-Joyce
David Talcott
Anna Williams
Unaware that acting on his convictions was a bad career move, former Olympic gymnastics gold medalist Peter Vidmar resigned from his position as chef de mission of the 2012 U.S. Olympic team. His sin? Attending a couple of rallies on behalf of Proposition 8 and giving money to an organization supporting it.
The first word that comes to mind is McCarthyism.
May 13th, 2011 | 1:43 pm
Is there ANYONE who thinks if his position were the opposite he would have been forced out? ANYONE?
May 13th, 2011 | 2:00 pm
“The first word that comes to mind is MyCarthyism.”
To the best of my knowledge, MyCarthyism is not a word.
If McCarthyism was meant, I don’t really see the point. McCarthyism is making accusations without evidence. There is no question that Peter Vidmar held the positions that some consider to be controversial. The argument can certainly be made that he should not be penalized for supporting Proposition 8, but there’s no question that he did it.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:10 pm
O.K., I’ll settle for “expression” rather than “word,” to satisfy your fastidiousness (though, if I’m not mistaken, a name or an expression derived from a name is a word).
As for what the expression means in this case, it is that people are being “exposed” and hounded from their positions on the basis of their beliefs. When Joe McCarthy and others went after alleged members of the Communist Party, many were concerned about the chilling effect of their efforts on freedom of speech and association.
I have precisely the same concern here, though I’d add freedom of religion into the mix.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:13 pm
No, McCarthyism is the idea that because people hold certain unpopular views that they should be blacklisted from doing work, even work that has nothing to do with their unpopular convictions.
This is exactly that. And it’s just getting started. What believing in traditional marriage has to do with Olympic sports is, well, nothing. But that is beside the point. When gays are weak, they call for “tolerance.” when they are strong, they take a “stand for justice.” this is how it always works.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:20 pm
The analogy with McCarthyism is that in that instance self-described liberals and socialists were accused — usually but not always falsely — of being not only communists but spies for the Soviet Union, whereas in this case mainstream Christians are being accused of being “bigots” and “theocrats,” when they are clearly no such thing. There is absolutely a new blacklist being formed by the left against those who hold to Christian tradition where sex is concerned. It is indeed a new McCarthyism, one that threatens to undermine the First Amendment protection of Freedom of Religion. The Supreme Court will be very busy in the coming years as this new McCarthyism proceeds and as its blacklist totes up more and more names like Peter Vidmar’s.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:24 pm
Joseph Knippenberg:
My point was that the second letter in McCarthyism should be c, not y. I don’t think we would have the term McCarthyism if McCarthy had limited himself to exposing real, active communists.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:35 pm
Typo fixed.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:36 pm
Clean For Gene:
No, that is not what McCarthyism is. Look it up in Wikipedia, if nowhere else.
Communists during the 1950s were not merely looked on as people with “unpopular views.” Certainly the “Red Scare” went too far. But don’t forget the Cold War was fought against communism. It was not as if communism was no threat to the United States.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:37 pm
When gays are weak, they call for “tolerance.” when they are strong, they take a “stand for justice.” this is how it always works.
It isn’t just gays.
This is identity politics.
Whenever “right” and “wrong” are to be evaluated according to the identity of the people involved – instead of according to the rules of ethical argumentation – it is inevitable that they will keep pushing, pushing, pushing until the rest of us get fed up and stop tolerating it.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:38 pm
Merriam-Webster Unabridged:
McCarthyism: a political attitude of the mid-twentieth century closely allied to know-nothingism and characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges
May 13th, 2011 | 2:50 pm
So if, for example, there had been evidence of Lloyd Barenblatt’s Communist activities, he wouldn’t have been a victim of McCarthyism?
Beyond that, I’m not interested in getting bogged down in nomenclature. Can we agree that this sort of behavior on the part of proponents of same-sex marriage is indeed chilling, that it represents an attempt to intimidate and marginalize those who hold a traditional view of marriage?
May 13th, 2011 | 3:16 pm
The problem here is that the assumption that traditional Christian beliefs are anti-American activities, while pro-gay rights beliefs are fundamental.
Instead of framing the problem in terms that suggests believing in the traditional definition of marriage somehow equals being a communist infiltrator, we might want to identify the real problem, which is that gay rights activists are using political tactics that are in conflict with everything America stands for – including tolerance and equality.
BTW can we admit finally that it was in fact a communist who killed JFK?
May 13th, 2011 | 3:28 pm
Who would have thought that the Day would come when the right to discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate sexual acts and sexual relationships would be considered controversial? Oh what a tangled web…
May 13th, 2011 | 4:10 pm
So American Christians are now pushed around by male figure skaters.
Is there anybody left that we can bully?
May 13th, 2011 | 4:23 pm
It’s sad, although not surprising, that since homosexuals now have power, they use it to silence and humiliate anyone who disagrees with them. It doesn’t take long for “liberty, equality, fraternity” to turn into a reign of terror. Such is the nature of all revolutions.
There are many disturbing aspects to this story. First, why is it even considered newsworthy at all? It’s not surprising that “Outsports.com” is going to present this as somehow not “normal” in order to give a cultural cue. It’s less clear how it qualifies as national news to be published in a major metropolitan newspaper. Are the editors of the Tribune aware that Prop. 8 was actually successful? That more than 7 million people voted for it? I would assume that they are, so how is it newsworthy that one of the millions of Prop. 8 supporters happens to be on some Olympics committee? Or was the news item here the statement by Weir that support for Prop. 8 is “disgraceful?” Is an opinion news now? I guess I’m unclear as to how this became an “issue.”
Then there is this: “In U.S. Olympic circles, there was concern that Vidmar wasn’t just expressing his personal opinions on a controversial issue, but that he had moved into an activist role on an issue involving civil rights.” How is Vidmar’s activism different from Weir’s activism? (I think I know the answer…) Similarly, “The Olympic movement is about promoting equity for all.” “Equity” here must have a new meaning of which I am unaware; namely, the redefinition of “marriage” and the suppression of free speech.
Finally, the rape of the English language in the perversion of the words “gay” and “queer” takes on a new irony in this context. It’s clear that homosexuals are neither jolly libertines nor are they deviants from current social norms. The willingness seen here in the deployment of words like “activism,” “equity,” and the old stand-by, “rights” to distort language, and thereby distort thought, is disturbing. Orwell outlines this process in his idea of “Newspeak” which is an assault on language designed to suppress political opposition.
May 13th, 2011 | 4:40 pm
“The Olympic movement is about promoting equity for all,” [Aimee Mullins] said.
In the context of the news article, this quote is quite humorous.
May 13th, 2011 | 5:22 pm
Per David Nikol’s comment:
“There is no question that Peter Vidmar held the positions that some consider to be controversial.”
One of Vidmar’s positions *some* consider controversial from the article:
“Olympic gold medalist joins Rancho Prop 8 demonstration,” said The Orange County Register on Oct. 30, 2008, in which it quoted Vidmar as saying, “It’s good for our society to have a traditional definition of marriage.”
You have to wonder what would be considered an uncontroversial position…
May 13th, 2011 | 5:25 pm
““The Olympic movement is about promoting equity for all,”” [Aimee Mullins] said.”"
“”In the context of the news article, this quote is quite humorous.”"
A real knee slapper. Especially since the Olympics still segregate the sexes for competition…
May 13th, 2011 | 5:36 pm
I don’t think anyone would be complaining if it had been a proponent of slavery or racism who had been exposed and had resigned. I am not necessarily saying that opposing gay rights or same-sex marriage is the equivalent, but the reaction here is as if tolerance and equity mandated that all beliefs and positions should be welcomed. Face the fact that some attitudes that used to be widely acceptable among good Christians have now become anathema. Some of those positions, like second-class citizenship for women and segregation of blacks, used to be enshrined in law and supported by adherents who quoted the Bible to justify their positions. Plenty of people, especially white men, in the past were in the position that anti-homosexual Christians are perhaps in today, and they didn’t like it any more than anti-homosexual Christians do now. The tides they are a changin’.
Of course, those who saw women as inferior, or blacks as property, were wrong, but anti-homosexual Christians know they could not be wrong, because the Bible tells them so . . . just like the Bible supported slavery, the inferiority of women, the burning of witches and heretics, and anti-Semitism.
May 13th, 2011 | 5:41 pm
“since homosexuals now have power”
LOL. They are 3.5% of the population! You guys are hilarious.
May 13th, 2011 | 5:53 pm
You have to wonder what would be considered an uncontroversial position…
New York Times: Gay Marriage Opponents Now in Minority
May 13th, 2011 | 6:16 pm
Mr. Nickol:
So you’re cool with this. We got it.
May 13th, 2011 | 6:34 pm
“‘since homosexuals now have power”
LOL. They are 3.5% of the population! You guys are hilarious.”
@Lewis: LOL, and the 5% of the population that makes over $250,000 a year…*chuckles*…yeah, the ones liberals claim are keeping down the other 95%…They’re just like the homosexuals. Isn’t it funny what people believe?
Seriously, talk about double-standards…
May 13th, 2011 | 6:40 pm
Oh, and if you don’t think there is a push to popularize homosexuality and bisexuality in the media, spend a week inside a high school. Teens tend to tell it straight (no pun intended), and to bend in whatever direction the “marketing” blows. Being “bisexual” is the latest fad.
But maybe you’ve spent a little too much time in the latest Geico commercial.
May 13th, 2011 | 6:41 pm
Per:
“You have to wonder what would be considered an uncontroversial position…
“New York Times: Gay Marriage Opponents Now in Minority”
As you point out so well in an earlier comment Mr. Nikol, Americans have often been wrong about many things. Really wrong.
Per:
“I don’t think anyone would be complaining if it had been a proponent of slavery or racism who had been exposed and had resigned.”
This is such an over the top analogy as well as complete apples to oranges. Slavery and racism are morally wrong. They are never a moral good. Ever.
Traditional marriage –whether you like it or not– is a moral good.
This is why this man -Pete Vidmar -exercising his right to practice his religion and freedom of speech supported it. For the Left to hound him from his position on the Olympics – a position he earned by being a gold medalist – in other words the best in the world at what he did –is not only unethical and immoral, it robs him of his personal dignity and integrity.
If that weren’t enough hot stuff, it sends a chilling message of warning to everyone else.
Per:
“I am not necessarily saying that opposing gay rights or same-sex marriage is the equivalent,”
How big of you.
“but the reaction here is as if tolerance and equity mandated that all beliefs and positions should be welcomed.”
So, there’s no room in the inn for the traditional marriage supporters…
May 13th, 2011 | 6:50 pm
Let me clear about one thing. We’re not yet at the point where the state is routinely depriving proponents of traditional marriage of their First Amendment freedoms, though I’m not sure how big a step it is from the Hastings CLS case to that point. Thus Vidmar hasn’t been deprived of any constitutional rights.
But the logic of the position held by those who called or and/or celebrated his resignation or dismissal is this: to be opposed to same-sex marriage is to be opposed to gays, and anyone who holds this view should not hold a position of responsibility in an organization that includes gays. To include gays then is necessarily to exclude proponents of traditional marriage. And since we must include gays (a position of which I approve), we must exclude proponents of traditional marriage (a position of which I don’t approve).
For me, it would mean that I have no business teaching in a university. Although I’ve never attended any rallies supporting traditional marriage, I have not exactly hidden my views on the subject, having jousted with Jonathan Rauch on the air (NPR, of all places) and in print.
Let’s consider a different issue and apply the same logic to it. The Supreme Court has recognized a right to an abortion, which puts that right in a stronger position than the so-called right to same-sex marriage. Those of us who oppose abortion and wish to see greater legal restrictions often interact in our workplaces with people who favor the right to an abortion and may have had or may anticipate having an abortion. Should we be turfed because we oppose abortion, or rather if we dare to oppose it publicly and contribute to efforts to restrict access to it?
May 13th, 2011 | 7:17 pm
Joseph, McCarthyism may not be the right word. “Fascist” (a system in which one group or person has complete power and forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism) certainly is.
As Jonah Goldberg has pointed out in “Liberal Fascism,” our friends on the left have a disturbing tendency to resort to authoritarian methods when they have the power to do so.
May 13th, 2011 | 7:27 pm
Prop. 8 was about the nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It was not about sexual orientation, which concerns people’s inner life. To believe that marriage and marriage alone concerns the joining of the only two sorts of human beings the human race knows–men and women–seems obvious to most people. Because this is the nature of marriage, nothing of its nature prevents people with homosexual orientations from entering it, for it concerns men and women.
Knippenberg’s point can be extended: some people argue that abortion is required in order to women to be equal to men. In fact, the plurality opinion in Casey makes that very point. Would it be okay for the USOC to prohibit someone from coaching because he is prolife and thus “an anti-female bigot”? This person would reply: How can I be a bigot, since I believe that all people are equal in dignity and respect, including unborn people?
A prop 8 supporter could say something similar: I don’t want to bar homosexuals from marrying, since I believe that marriage is a good to which all human beings should have equal access. But without prop 8 that good is diminished since it treats non-marital unions as marital. It places in our law a falsehood, namely, that marriage is not about the joining of men and women. But for the state perpetuate a falsehood is to show disrespect for its citizenry and their good.
So, my basis for supporting prop 8 is tethered to a fundamental belief in human equality.
May 13th, 2011 | 8:21 pm
He shouldn’t've resigned. He didn’t do anything wrong.
May 13th, 2011 | 8:47 pm
David Nickol
“The tides they are a changin’.”
Of course, the mere fact of change does not indicate anything about the moral nature of that change. One needs a frame of reference to discern the difference between moral improvement and moral degeneracy. I don’t suppose you could grace this discussion with a description of the standard that allows you to determine such things as Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Truth and Falsehood. Your ability and willingness to judge us as wrong implies – in fact demands – that you have such a standard. So what would it be? By what authority does it bind the conscience?
Christianity is losing traction in the West precisely because Western man has rejected this notion of objective standards rooted in objective authority. He believes Truth must originate within himself, but he also realizes that no Truth can originate inside a limited finite creature. He can find no solution to this dilemma, and so he retreats to the primacy of authentic desire. He may not find objective morality within himself, but he knows what he wants. He then reasonably asserts that he should be free to act upon those desires – subject only to the constrain of not inflicting harm, where he gets to define harm. Even this is a fundamentally self-centered morality because he adds the restriction of harm principally to protect himself. This is the tide that has changed. The Christian faith demands certain standards and modern man responds “Who are they to set limits on my desires? I will do as I please for this is my life.”
The sea change is immediately visible in attitudes about sexual morality, and has effectively privatized sexual behavior. This has established two sea changes in our culture:
1. The primary purpose of sex is now considered personal gratification, with all other outcomes being optional.
2. The moral basis of sexual activity is authentic consent.
Both of these outcomes tear at the foundation of marriage as the vehicle for transmitting culture to the next generation of children. Marriage no longer has an exclusive monopoly on sex, and children are no longer viewed as a necessary outcome of marriage. It is now viewed primarily as a vehicle for personal fulfillment, and is therefore completely disposable should personal fulfillment so dictate. It is the elevation of the self as the penultimate purpose in life, and the devil take those who might interpose themselves between a man and his happiness.
If you think you can sustain a civilization on those terms, good luck to you. Marriage is the only institution in the history of man that has shown itself successful in civilizing the next generation. It provides the security and stability necessary to raise children. It binds men to their children and captures their labor for their children’s sake. This is precisely why people are abandoning it. They seek the benefits without the commitments, the privileges without the responsibilities. And the children who are conceived in this mix pay the price for adult irresponsibility. Those few children that are conceived, not aborted, but actually allowed to be born.
All over Europe (and increasingly in the US) the birth rates are catastrophically low. How do you sustain an economy in the face of falling birth rates, and how do you maintain a country that is so wealthy it has purchased for itself the “privilege” of childlessness? I don’t know, But we are going to find out. In the meantime we are going to have one hell of a ride. I hope that long collective orgasm is worth the consequences we have accrued for our self-indulgence.
carl
May 13th, 2011 | 8:53 pm
“the 5% of the population that makes over $250,000 a year…*chuckles*…yeah, the ones liberals claim are keeping down the other 95%…They’re just like the homosexuals. Isn’t it funny what people believe? Seriously, talk about double-standards”
ROTFL. The 5% who are rich HAVE power. The 3.5% who are gay aren’t necessarily rich and thus don’t have power. Need a Venn diagram?
“there is a push to popularize homosexuality and bisexuality in the media, spend a week inside a high school. Teens tend to tell it straight (no pun intended), and to bend in whatever direction the “marketing” blows. Being “bisexual” is the latest fad”
“Popularize” and “fad,” you mean like silly bands? Can you tell the difference between “popularize” and accept? Can you tell the differences among teen faddishness, teen exploration, and a couple that’s been together thirty years?
“Slavery and racism are morally wrong. They are never a moral good. Ever.”
Change “ever” to “now” and stop pretending that the Church has never changed its mind about what are and are not moral goods.
“This is why this man -Pete Vidmar -exercising his right to practice his religion and freedom of speech supported it.”
How about the right of free association? The USOC freely chose to no longer associate with Vidmar.
May 13th, 2011 | 8:55 pm
Vidmar campaigned on behalf of Prop 8, advocating a law that prohibits same sex marriage–an exercise of his free speech rights.
He voluntarily resigned his position (very unfortunate for gymnastics-I’ve heard him speak and he is an ambassador for gymnastics and a “great person” in every sense of the word.
“Thus Vidmar hasn’t been deprived of any constitutional rights.”
So far, that’s all correct.
Publicly advocating a position that “to be opposed to same-sex marriage is to be opposed to gays, and anyone who holds this view should not hold a position of responsibility in an organization that includes gays” is also an exercise of free speech.
Anybody who can’t distinguish between free speech and fascism doesn’t have a clue about the First Amendment.
Under the First amendment, you have the right to:
1. advocate against same sex marriage;
2. Advocate that those who oppose same sex marriage are not capable of holding a position of responsibility.
3. Call people exercising their free speech rights “fascists.”
4. Ridicule and mock people who don’t know very much about fascism or the law.
If you hold a minority position that is becoming more and more marginalized each day, you can expect to be mocked, ridiculed and generally dismissed. That does not mean you have been stomped into the ground by the jackboots of the stormtroopers and about to be shipped to re-education camps. The US is full of white supremacists, birthers, deathers and cigarette smokers who endure daily mockery and ridicule yet somehow have not been herded up yet.
In this country you can pretty much say what you want and the government cannot do much about it. Your fellow citizens, however, can do quite a bit to voice their displeasure at your message–and it is their right to do so.
May 13th, 2011 | 8:57 pm
Mike is correct, Vidmar didn’t need to resign, but Vidmar is a very classy guy. It’s not about “him”–it’s about gymnastics.
May 13th, 2011 | 8:58 pm
The discrimination goes one way.
May 13th, 2011 | 10:37 pm
I don’t think anyone would be complaining if it had been a proponent of slavery or racism who had been exposed and had resigned.
Gay marriage may not be about slavery per se, but it’s about exploitation.
For every gay man or woman who “builds” a family parasitically, one man or woman and at least one child have to be reduced to things – commodities, flesh to be bought and sold.
Not exactly slavery, but close enough.
May 14th, 2011 | 2:38 am
Awwwwww….. Poor straight white guy did something a group of people found offensive and they voiced their displeasure and he decided to quit.
Will this persecution ever stop? How dare people use their first amendment rights to speak out against something the don’t agree with!
I mean the only thing Vidmar did was use his position as a minor celebrity to protest against the rights of taxpayers (twice). Had the Soviets never boycotted the 1984 Olympics he’d have never even had his gold medals.
Let’s pass a law to require minority groups to have to spend money and agree with those in power, and lets blame the Russians for putting this poor Mormon boy in this position to begin with.
May 14th, 2011 | 9:45 am
We’ve been entirely overcome by cultural marxism. Might as well be living in the old Soviet Union.
May 14th, 2011 | 11:16 am
Joseph Knippenberg,
First, although I reject references to McCarthyism and Fascism, and thought I take a view very much different from yours, based on what I know so far, I think Peter Vidmar may have been unjustly singled out. If he was opposing same-sex marriage merely as a private individual, I would say that support should not have counted against his suitability as chef de mission for the London games. On the other hand, if (as Scott suggests, above) Vidmar was using his celebrity as an Olympic medalist to try to influence California politics or American politics, then he was involving the Olympics in a very controversial matter which many supporters of the Olympics found inappropriate. If he took a stand in his capacity as an Olympic athlete on same-sex marriage, then it was not unjust to object to him serving as chef de mission for the 2012 games.
Vidmar is a Mormon and opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds. I would be very much interested in your opinion of another controversy involving the Mormons, American politics, and civil rights issues. I am sure most are familiar with the fact that until 1978, black Mormons were not equal to white Mormons within their church. The matter is summarized in Wikipedia. Was it wrong—was it McCarthyism or Fascism—for the NAACP to pressure the Mormon Church on the matter of civil rights for black people? Was it wrong for the NAACP to file suit against the Mormons for discriminatory policies within its Boy Scout troops? Was it wrong for black athletes to boycott sporting events at Brigham Young University? Was it wrong for Stanford University to suspend athletic relations with BYU?
The inferior position of blacks within the Mormon Church was, after all, based on divine revelation:
I think many will be tempted to argue that the Mormon position on black people was wrong whereas their position on same-sex marriage is right. But it seems to me your argument would be, “Who gets to say whether a religious position, believed to be divinely revealed, is right or wrong?” Were not Mormons entitled to their racial beliefs prior to 1978? Who was the NAACP or Stanford University to tell Mormons that their divinely revealed truths were unacceptable? If public opinion about a church or its members should not be influenced by their views on gay rights, why should it be different when it comes to civil rights for blacks?
The public pressure was such that in 1978, the Mormon Church changed its policies on blacks. Would you say that they should not have? Did they compromise their religious beliefs and cave to the forces of secularism and “humanism”? Did they let other religions in the United States down by caving to popular opinion? When must a religiously held opinion be accepted and tolerated and those who hold it be exempt from criticism on the grounds of religious freedom and tolerance, and when may a religiously held position be challenged as incompatible with contemporary beliefs about tolerance, fairness, and human rights?
May 14th, 2011 | 11:22 am
What culture war? Meanwhile, over at National Review, we are encouraged to buy Tin Fey’s happy little memoir, where she also plugs gay marriage. All anyone wants is to allow differences as long as the blend seamlessly into the a pervasive, aggressively secular and seepingly sexualized culture. After all, Oprah, Ellen, Obama and the Olympic Committee cannot be wrong. Whereas we all know the Pope is a pedophile enabler, Sarah Palin a mean mom, GWB a buffoon, Victoria Jackson a homophobe and Dick Cheney the devil himself. But enough negativity already. Time to go watch “Glee” !
May 14th, 2011 | 11:35 am
If it is such an outrage that Vidmar believes the nature of marriage is between a woman and a man and thus ought not represent a group of people among whom some may disagree even more so should there be outrage over our president and his publicly held position that he believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Oddly enough the same people targeting Vidmar seem to turn a blind eye to president Obama. Perhaps it’s because he said proposition
8 is divisive (and so is his health care law) but he also said states should decide the issue. Oh, what
is an outraged citizen to do about such incoherence!?! If this is such an outrage why are
there not serious public cries from the
homosexual community for him to step down
because it’s a “disgrace” a bigot like him to
represent homosexuals. Because clearly it’s not
an outrage. No black person fighting for black
equality would EVER support a racist for president
during the civil rights movement. Clearly these
two issues are not the same; belief that marriage
is a union between a man and a woman is not
the same as asserting racial superiority. Everyone
knows this is true, otherwise president Obama
would not be in the White House enjoying popular
support within the homosexual community. The
distortion of the issues is powerfully exposed by
this inconsistency.
May 14th, 2011 | 12:04 pm
NPR4U,
You raise an interesting point. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton as candidates for the Democratic nomination supported same-sex marriage, and yet they both enjoyed great support from the gay community. I think the reason is that gay people assume, unless it is clearly demonstrated otherwise, that opposition to same-sex marriage indicates hostility to gay people. Frankly, I think most of the time, the assumption is warranted. Obama and Clinton were fully supportive of gay rights, including civil unions. Most who oppose same-sex marriage condemn homosexuality and disapprove of any kind of gay-rights movement. Eighteen states have passed constitutional amendments that not only rule out same-sex marriage, but also rule out civil unions or any legal recognition of same-sex couples. I would, of course, caution against making the assumption that because a person is anti gay marriage, he or she is anti-gay. But more often than not, it is probably true.
May 14th, 2011 | 12:14 pm
Per:
“’Slavery and racism are morally wrong. They are never a moral good. Ever.’
“Change ‘ever’ to ‘now’ and stop pretending that the Church has never changed its mind about what are and are not moral goods.”
From a tactical standpoint, we’ve got to talk. The Left is supposed to be far more educated & intelligent than us knuckle-dragging opiate addicts on the Right.
The one institution in the history of Western Civilization that can be counted on for its consistency is the Catholic Church.
So with that as a fact, please demonstrate when the Catholic Church has changed its mind on a moral good.
May 14th, 2011 | 12:21 pm
Mr. Knippenberg,
Your clarification in the comments was a concise summary of a subject usually so muddled that all manner of confusion often springs therefrom, as demonstrated by the commentary following your initial post. Well done.
Your excellent criticism inspires such varied and passionate reactions, and that is a testament to the insuperable confusions people import to the subject rather than an answer to what you have specifically advocated.
The subject is nearly impossible to discuss other than among the like-minded. This predicament is the product of our degraded democratic discourse. We are miles away from even addressing the First Amendment: we have reconceived free speech to entail positive rights with no concomitant duties. Without an expectation of rational deliberation among opponents, there is no possibility of protecting speech. But we have been conditioned to presume a God-given privilege to scream about whichever infelicity happens to be irritating any person at any given time.
Our immediate recourse to the First Amendment is a red herring. We citizens have to unanimously commit ourselves to a certain severe rhetorical economy before a high standard like free speech can become operable, but that natural give-and-take has been abandoned in the pique of elevated outrage over certain issues that, for cultural reasons, have been pronounced in certain quarters as “beyond debate.”
A robust regime of free speech is more involved than the elementary (and misleading) cliché, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” To disapprove of what one says in a respectable way requires commitment to an atmosphere wherein disapproval of a position does not necessitate the exile from polite society. Yes! even with regard to a person defending sanctimoniously and unanimously rejected positions on slavery, abortion, race, and, apparently now, sodomy.
But while you thought you were commenting on some poor fellow’s unjust ostracizing, you were actually reasserting a traditional and obsolescent understanding of free speech. We would do well to separate the two matters, as opponents of one are not necessarily opponents of both, and plenty of people still would like to resuscitate the First Amendment without qualification for certain issues considered sacrosanct and above the need for testing and reproving (in both senses of the word). Your clarification helps begin the larger conversation that needs to happen.
Will that conversation happen? No. Not until the loudest “proponents” of free speech begin to demonstrate their good faith, rather than asserting a right to which they feel no obligation to contribute in its defense. Until then, we have no recourse to even attempting engagement, for engagement has become proof in their mind of our automatic disqualification. Nor do we have recourse to even discussing the worth of free speech with them, as entering discussion with them naïvely presumes they share our commitment to respectful disagreement.
No, our only remaining recourse is to demand demonstration — not talk, not platitudinizing — of shared respect. And since they have made the very notion of respecting our position unfathomable, much less demonstrable, expect all cross-party discussions about this issue to be inert until the fruit of their self-destructive behavior comes to harvest.
May 14th, 2011 | 12:52 pm
NPR4U:
Too bad John Stewart conveniently ignores this irony; it would go a long way to exposing the absurdity of arguments comparing the black civil rights movement to the homosexual movement.
May 14th, 2011 | 3:06 pm
The public pressure was such that in 1978, the Mormon Church changed its policies on blacks.
And nobody is discriminating against gays based on who they are.
The only discrimination that is going on is based on behavior. Nobody is running gene tests and discriminating according to “who you are”.
It is a sleight of hand that requires conflating “who you are” with what you want to do.
There is a difference between “to be” vs. “to do”.
There have been attempts through the ages to suggest that the idea that “being black” means this or that – blacks speak a funny dialect, blacks use drugs, blacks commit crimes – and therefore it is “discrimination” to teach proper English or hold everyone accountable to the same standards of behavior.
But this line of thinking has been consistently rejected, when blacks are the ones asking for this special privilege.
Nobody’s right to be discriminated against includes a blank check to behave any way they want, regardless of harm or consequences.
Nice try, but the attempt at deceit is noted. How about an honest argument?
May 14th, 2011 | 3:43 pm
I’ll leave the Mormon apologetics to the Mormons, thank you very much.
As for Vidmar “using his position as a minor celebrity,” he is as entitled as the next person to have and voice his opinions. The people quoted in the article I linked in the original post are, for the most part, minor celebrities. Should they be excluded from their positions because they’ve used their “minor celebrity” as an asset when they’ve staked out controversial positions?
What I would like to know from those who favor same-sex marriage, is what kind of right the right to marriage is? Is it a prepolitical and/or traditional right, a right, in other words, that antedates the state? If so, it seems to me that we’re back to the traditional definition of marriage.
Is it a species of associational right? If so, in what ways is it the same as, and in what ways different from, other sorts of associational rights?
Are all associational rights “prepolitical” or are some granted by the state to serve particular public purposes? How plastic or flexible is the definition of marriage, and hence the right to it?
May 14th, 2011 | 8:32 pm
[...] Bad Career Move, Defending Marriage: Peter Vidmar – Joseph Knippenberg, First Things [...]
May 14th, 2011 | 10:49 pm
I’ll leave the Mormon apologetics to the Mormons, thank you very much.
Joe Knippenberg:
Of course, the basic question—which you have chosen to evade—has nothing to do with Mormon apologetics. It’s this: When can you claim you should not be subjected to social criticism, pressure, and perhaps even ostracism because you’re taking a position based on God’s will (or traditional morality), and when is claiming to be in conformity with God’s will (or traditional morality) not a sufficient justification?
May 15th, 2011 | 12:55 am
Of course, the basic question—which you have chosen to evade—has nothing to do with Mormon apologetics. It’s this: When can you claim you should not be subjected to social criticism, pressure, and perhaps even ostracism because you’re taking a position based on God’s will (or traditional morality), and when is claiming to be in conformity with God’s will (or traditional morality) not a sufficient justification?
Seems to me it’s the Left peddling in “our morality is THE one true unquestionable universal morality, no discussion allowed“.
That’s the tactic, isn’t it? To respond to weaknesses in the “gay marriage” argument by simply “framing” it as beyond question – by building taboos that shall not be violated.
And attending a political rally = breaking the taboo.
Voting the wrong way = breaking the taboo.
The Left has taken its monopoly on truth to the point where people can be punished for wanting the right to participate in a democracy. The Left has taken the position that questioning or debate is not acceptable: either you embrace the moral truth or else. Or else you are a “fascist”, the new word that means infidel or heretic, and should be at the very least ostracized, blacklisted, ghettoized. Or worse.
May 15th, 2011 | 1:21 am
I find Carls question interesting.
Carl asked David Nichol May 13@ 8:47:
” I don’t suppose you could grace this discussion with a description of the standard that allows you to determine such things as Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Truth and Falsehood. Your ability and willingness to judge us as wrong implies – in fact demands – that you have such a standard. So what would it be? By what authority does it bind the conscience?”
David Nickol,
Perhaps you’d like to answer this question…you know…the one you’ve chosen to evade.
May 15th, 2011 | 1:27 am
David Nickol,
“I would, of course, caution against making the assumption that because a person is anti gay marriage, he or she is anti-gay. But more often than not, it is probably true.”
This erroneous assumption you caution against is precisely what is taking place with Vidmar. Because he supported the traditional understanding of marriage he was labeled a “disgrace” and pressured to step down, as if he had said “gays should not have any political rights.” It is clear he was not advocating this because in California homosexuals already have the same rights and responsibilities as married people for the purposes of state law. There was no reason for anyone to believe he was “anti-gay” as you describe, which is opposition to homosexual rights, because all state rights were already granted to homosexuals through domestic partnerships. Until the anti-religious and traditional sexual ethics movement begins to stop assuming all people opposed to the act of homosexuality and homosexual marriage are “anti-gay” the opponents in this debate will continue to talk past one another perpetuating misunderstanding and injustice.
Given the fact that all we know about Vidmar’s opposition to homosexuals from his actions is the same as what we know about President Obama’s opposition to homosexuals, why was Vidmar held to a different standard? Why was it assumed he was “anti-gay?” as you described it. I find it dubious that his critics even cared if he was “anti-gay” or not. And the assumption that most all people who oppose homosexual marriage are “anti-gay” unless demonstrated otherwise is dangerous and from my experience largely untrue. It is true that those who are opponents to gay marriage and homosexuality need to do a better job of demonstrating charity toward homosexuals and reaching out to advance understading, but this kind of generalization, especially when validated by someone as reasonable as you, can only serve to suppress the truth by equating opposition to homosexuals and homosexual marriage to “anti-gay” bigotry. It appears that this is what happened to Vidmar. The only fact that Vidmar’s critics took action against was that he opposed proposition 8. As a result, that equated to “anti-gay” and he must be rediculed and made an example of to intimidate and silence anyone else who may want to express their public opinion in opposition. Shame on them.
May 15th, 2011 | 2:20 am
“In this country you can pretty much say what you want and the government cannot do much about it. Your fellow citizens, however, can do quite a bit to voice their displeasure at your message–and it is their right to do so”
It’s good to see that someone isn’t whining and understands the difference between free speech and shaming. Not that the whiners have bothered to respond to such plain common sense.
“Were not Mormons entitled to their racial beliefs prior to 1978? Who was the NAACP or Stanford University to tell Mormons that their divinely revealed truths were unacceptable? If public opinion about a church or its members should not be influenced by their views on gay rights, why should it be different when it comes to civil rights for blacks?”
Ouch. Good question. In for the score. Will Team Straight-Guys-Only put a good defense, or will they walk over to another court and pretend the game was over there?
“The Left is supposed to be far more educated & intelligent than us knuckle-dragging opiate addicts on the Right”
Agreed.
“The one institution in the history of Western Civilization that can be counted on for its consistency is the Catholic Church”
No, thanks. I’ve played this game before. I point out a change, and you say, no, the principle stayed the same. Then I point out that people were still punished, and you say, well, there’s the church and then there’s the church. It’s a fool-proof system, except when you’re arguing with a fool.
“Your excellent criticism inspires such varied and passionate reactions, and that is a testament to the insuperable confusions people import to the subject rather than an answer to what you have specifically advocated”
This is exactly what Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s friends tell him.
“And since they have made the very notion of respecting our position unfathomable, much less demonstrable, expect all cross-party discussions about this issue to be inert until the fruit of their self-destructive behavior comes to harvest”
Let’s see. The last un-“like-minded” post you read was by Nickol, who has been unfailingly polite and reasoned, demonstrating great respect for your position. And to him you said exactly nothing. Maybe the questions he’s asking are just too hard.
“And nobody is discriminating against gays based on who they are”
Oo. I have an answer to my question. The first one to answer Nickol is Blake. Does he mount a defense? Nope. He jumps to another court, proving once again that the best way to answer a tough question is to pretend the guy was asking a different question.
“Nice try, but the attempt at deceit is noted. How about an honest argument?”
And then he plays the deceit card. Classic. “I would’ve answered your question, but then I figured it was so good, it must be a trap.” Nickol gives you good, fair, and balanced responses, and the best you can manage is an insult. Very classy.
“I’ll leave the Mormon apologetics to the Mormons, thank you very much”
Yow. I didn’t see that coming. Even the Man changes courts. He can’t handle the tough question. I guess this is why the ivory tower gets such a bad name.
Nickol wins.
May 15th, 2011 | 2:30 am
“Of course, the basic question—which you have chosen to evade—has nothing to do with Mormon apologetics.”
Now, that’s real class. After five people put their fingers in their ears and two pretend he was talking about something else, Nickol politely puts the question back. Do we have a man here or only, you know, one of those men who aren’t really manly. You know…well, I shouldn’t say because, you know, I could lose my job if you used that insult word that we all used on the playground before the fascists took over and started controlling our minds.
May 15th, 2011 | 6:36 am
David,
Criticize away. Use arguments all you want. Vidmar’s opinions are well within the American mainstream, and ought in no way to be disqualifying for any position of authority. Had a former athlete of similar stature, who happened to be as active on the other side of the issue, been appointed to the position, I would have regarded that as utterly irrelevant to his role as chef de mission.
What I object to, in other words, is the thuggish attempt to push folks like Vidmar out of positions for which they are eminently qualified and which have nothing to do with the issue of same-sex marriage.
May 15th, 2011 | 12:23 pm
Per:
“‘Were not Mormons entitled to their racial beliefs prior to 1978? Who was the NAACP or Stanford University to tell Mormons that their divinely revealed truths were unacceptable? If public opinion about a church or its members should not be influenced by their views on gay rights, why should it be different when it comes to civil rights for blacks?’
“Ouch. Good question. In for the score. Will Team Straight-Guys-Only put a good defense, or will they walk over to another court and pretend the game was over there?”
Putting aside “entitled to their racial beliefs” for the moment, lets unpack this shall we? The Mormon Church barred African Americans or anyone with a trace of African American blood in them from the priesthood, entrance to Temple as well as a few other real restrictions on purely racial grounds. That certainly fits the textbook definition of racism.
Today in American every homosexual is allowed to marry.
This is why the civil rights = gay rights comparison is flawed — in other words apples to oranges. More importantly, most African Americans understand this is a flawed comparison and why Prop 8 went on to receive 70% of the African American vote. Interestingly from a cultural viewpoint, many Californian African American churches and the Mormon church found themselves on same side of this issue along with other Churches.
Per: “entitled to their racial beliefs” and “Who was the NAACP or Stanford University to tell Mormons that their divinely revealed truths were unacceptable?”
Let’s unpack this some more. Was the Mormon Church “entitled to its racial beliefs”?
Since I’m a knuckle-dragging opiate addict, I need to start at the basics. Basics like the widely accepted definition of entitled:
1. To give a name or title to.
2. To furnish with a right or claim to something:
Looks like definition No.2 fits the bill here.
Let’s look at what went down with Standford and BYU in 1969 -Salt Lake Tribune:
“STANFORD, CALIF. (UPI) — Stanford University announced Wednesday it will schedule no new athletic or other competitions with Brigham Young University because of alleged racial discrimination by the Mormon Church .[...]
“President Kenneth Pitzer said Stanford . . . will not schedule any further meetings, including debates and other non-athletic competition.
“It is the policy of Stanford University not to schedule events with institutions which practice discrimination on a basis of race or national origin, or which are affiliated with or sponsored by institutions which do so,” he said.
“‘Top officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which sponsors BYU, have told Stanford University officials that the church currently has policies stating that no Negro of African lineage may have the right of priesthood’”
And:
“On November 14, 1969, the Tribune reported that William Wyman, special assistant to President Kenneth Pitzer, stated that if Brigham Young wants to play Stanford teams in the future the Mormon Church will have to ‘reinterpret God’s word and establish doctrines compatible with Stanford’s policy’.”
If you read carefully back in 1969 Stanford never said BYU wasn’t “entitled” to their racial policies. They just said if you want to play ball with us, literally, you are going to have to change your thinking.
And it wasn’t just Stanford who did this. Other schools and the NAACP got involved. Over time outside pressure grew and Lo! in 1978 the Mormon Church did “re-interpret” their racial policies.
Now here’s the rub for the Gay Movement – the reason the Mormon Church could “re-interpret” and bring it in line with the majority thinking of the country is because it had no biblical foundation.
So if we revisit the definition of “entitled” :
“To furnish with a right or claim to something.”
Using the Bible to support the Mormon Church’s racial policy can’t be done. So the answer is no, the Mormon Church was not “entitled” to its racial policy. Happily for the Mormon Church and its adherents, its leaders realized this and dropped it -bringing its beliefs more in line with traditional Christianity. Then in the land of Stanford U. some 30 years later we have more cultural evidence of this – the Mormon Church joined all the other Christian Churches who have not “re-interpreted” their biblical teachings to include active homosexual activity as part of the Christian lifestyle got together to support Prop 8. So many kudos go out to Standford, the NAACP and whoever else who played a role in stopping the Mormon Church’s indefensible policy of institutional racism. They yielded great fruit.
Per:
“’The Left is supposed to be far more educated & intelligent than us knuckle-dragging opiate addicts on the Right’”
“Agreed.
“’The one institution in the history of Western Civilization that can be counted on for its consistency is the Catholic Church.’
“No, thanks. I’ve played this game before. I point out a change, and you say, no, the principle stayed the same.Then I point out that people were still punished, and you say, well, there’s the church and then there’s the church. It’s a fool-proof system, except when you’re arguing with a fool.”
It’s not a game which is most unfortunate for Team Straight-Guys-Only because with the answer you just gave, you lost.
May 15th, 2011 | 2:20 pm
Joe Knippenberg, NPR4U, Blake,
It should be made crystal clear that Peter Vidmar resigned. He was not pushed out by the people who selected him. In fact, he was not pushed out at all. He chose to resign. The USOC accepted his resignation, but they were prepared to stand by him. USOC CEP Scott Blackmun had made a statement about Vidmar’s suitability for chef de mission: “Peter is a tireless advocate for sport in this country and someone who has inspired many with his successes in the world of sport. That is why we chose him as our chef for the London Games. We respect Peter’s right to religious freedom, and we understand and respect he fact that many Americans do not share his views.”
You might at least raise the questions as to whether swift resignations when these kinds of controversies arise don’t make it more difficult for those in the future to hold on to positions when negative publicity arise.
May 15th, 2011 | 2:43 pm
The one institution in the history of Western Civilization that can be counted on for its consistency is the Catholic Church.
So with that as a fact, please demonstrate when the Catholic Church has changed its mind on a moral good.
Mrs. Jackson,
Suggested reading: A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by John T Noonan, Jr. The back cover says:
I would have to say that within my own lifetime, the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Jews has changed dramatically. To summarize very crudely and briefly, when I received my Catholic education (1950s and early 1960s), Christianity was considered to have supplanted Judaism. With the founding of Christianity, Judaism became a “false religion.” The Christian mission was to convert the Jews. Now, the idea that God does not break covenants and did not break the covenant he made with the Jews. Judaism is still the appropriate religion of those born into it, and Christians are not to attempt to convert Jews.
May 15th, 2011 | 2:50 pm
“I don’t suppose you could grace this discussion with a description of the standard that allows you to determine such things as Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Truth and Falsehood. et relativism cetera.”
I recommend that you start here:
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html
and work your way up.
Regarding marriage, the following exchange is useful:
The Athenian. What will be our first law? Will not the the order of nature, begin by making regulations for states about births?
Cleanthes. He will.
Ath. In all states the birth of children goes back to the connection of marriage?
Cle. Very true.
Ath. And, according to the true order, the laws relating to marriage should be those which are first determined in every state?
Cle. Quite so.
But it should be noted that in the West, the State did not take over the control of marriage until the mid-late 19th cent., starting with Austria in 1868. The “compelling state interest” for this intrusion into that most private of familial activity was that the production of bastards [strict legal sense] was a burden on the public purse. Outside of this compelling interest, the State really has no business in the bedroom.
+ + +
“stop pretending that the Church has never changed its mind about what are and are not moral goods. …. (asked to name some) … No, thanks. I’ve played this game before. I point out a change, and you say, no, the principle stayed the same.”
IOW, I could present lots of examples, but people keep shooting down my misperceptions.
May 15th, 2011 | 3:03 pm
Perhaps you’d like to answer this question…you know…the one you’ve chosen to evade.
“Lady Gaga”:
Let me first say that I understand that anonymity may, in rare instances, be necessary for those in certain positions (for example, those employed by or belonging to certain organizations who are expressing purely private opinions and do not want to be seen as representing the their company or the organization they belong to), in general, I don’t understand why so many people elect to remain anonymous. And I truly don’t understand why you would call yourself “Lady Gaga” when she is an outspoken advocate for the gay community.
To answer the question, the primary issue I am interested in exploring here is not whether opponents of same-sex marriage are right or wrong, but rather how do the people who oppose same-sex marriage, civil unions, homosexuality, and so on, purport to know with absolute certainty that they are right and those who disagree with them are liars, “miscreants,” and so on.
It seems to me that when looking at issues where theological and scriptural arguments in the past have been thoroughly abandoned today by all virtually all Christians, I would like to know how Christians today can be so absolutely certain of a given position that they look with scorn and contempt upon those who disagree with them. Maybe, just maybe, might opponents to same-sex unions of all kinds some day be looked on as being as mistaken as are Christians of the past who tortured and killed heretics, fought Catholic-Protestant wars, justified slavery by quoting the Bible, persecuted the Jews, condemned lending money for interest, and denounced freedom of conscience?
May 15th, 2011 | 3:44 pm
What I object to, in other words, is the thuggish attempt to push folks like Vidmar out of positions for which they are eminently qualified and which have nothing to do with the issue of same-sex marriage.
Joe Knippenberg:
And the question you choose to evade is the following: When does a purely personal stand, or a publicly stated stand, or (let me add one that has not come up yet) a private remark, legitimately call into question a person’s suitability for a given position.
Those of us who are old enough to recall the Nixon and Ford administrations remember Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz being forced to resign after telling an extraordinarily crude joke, in private, about black people. Does telling a racist joke make someone a racist? I used to have Jewish friend who found anti-Semitic jokes hilarious and told them all the time. He was not anti-Semitic. Can a person hold racist views in private and still be a good Secretary of Agriculture? Butz had been in office six years when he was forced to resign. Could he not have been judged on his public record rather than one private remark? Still, I would argue that what he had said in private was so crude, and so objectionable and insulting to black people, that his resignation was appropriate.
As I have said, I think Vidmar may have gotten a raw deal here, although as I have also pointed out, he resigned. I personally would have taken him at his word:
That would have put the matter to rest for me. However, I am not saying that those advocates of same-sex marriage who felt his public support of Proposition 8 disqualified him from an official position in the Olympics were wrong. They had a perfect right to make their case. Some people believe passionately that opposition to same-sex marriage is odious discrimination. We live in a democracy, and now slightly over 50% of the population supports same-sex marriage. There have been polls that indicate a vote on Proposition 8 in California would now go the other way. This issue is not as clear-cut as you would like to make it. Sometimes a person’s personal or religious beliefs, especially if publicly espoused, do make a difference to whether they are seen to be fit for a particular role or job.
Question: When do attempts to argue someone is unqualified for a public role become “thuggish”?
There were some harsh statements from a few individuals about Vidmar, but once again, he did resign.
May 15th, 2011 | 3:49 pm
Senator McCarthy was head of the committee that wished to ferret our Communists, who by definition were out to overthrow the United States. One who is normal enough and outspoken enough to support a normal institution such as Marriage is not a danger to the United States.
The victim at hand is one more individual who has been set upon legally by a group of mentally ill individuals who refuse to believe that they are not normal. Such symptomology is also found in schizophrenia.
Those addicted to homosexual behavior have used hard-won civil rights thinking to gain their foot in the door of our culture. Our hearts and minds are not won; however, the hearts and minds can be attacked by means of the law, and are so attacked.
No class of individuals, as these perverts claim to be a class, have resorted to similar legal methods. Such methods are not in to gain equality but to silence those who state the truth.
May 15th, 2011 | 4:39 pm
I believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is not the same thing as regarding homosexuality as immoral. And I believe that one can regard homosexuality as immoral without necessarily drawing any political consequences from that fact. One’s positions on marriage and homosexuality are separable. And the political consequences one draws from whatever one’s positions happen to be are also separable from those positions. So I reject your claim that to oppose same-sex marriage is to be anti-gay.
I think Vidmar’s opposition to same-sex marriage ought to have been regarded by all concerned as utterly irrelevant to his qualification to serve as chef de mission.
I agree that hating homosexuals is reprehensible, and ought to disqualify a person froma position of public trust, but opposing same-sex marriage is far from identical to hating homosexuals. There is no evidence that Vidmar is a hater.
I don’t know if these statements will placate Mr. Nickol, but having satisfied him to the extent that I can, let me remind him that I had some questions for him as well, to which I’ll add one more.
He has repeatedly cited recent polling data regarding a shift in public opinion regarding same-sex marriage. Of course, a lot depends upon how the question is posed, but I’m certianly preapred to believe that some polls show such a shift. I doubt, however, that the shift is large enough to make opposition to same-sex marriage a position outside the mainstream and far beyond the pale, which is the way proponents of same-sex marriage would like us to regard it.
What’s more, I doubt that Mr. Nickol regards public opinion as dispositive on any genuinely moral question or on any serious question of rights. Or does he really believe that our rights depend upon the affirmations of an evanescent majority?
Again, what kind of right is the right to marriage? Where does it come from? And if it is a purely positive right, why is there any relevant difference between marriage and civil unions?
May 15th, 2011 | 5:21 pm
Some might wish to make the case that sexual orientation is not innate or immutable and is a matter of what people do rather than what they are. I disagree, but I would like to point out that the EEOC protects people from discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, and age. Note that religion is not a matter of “who you are” but rather a matter of “what you do.” About half of all Americans have changed their religious affiliation at least once in their lives. I think it is fair to say that religion is a matter of identity not because people can’t change their religion, but because people don’t choose their religion in the same way they choose the area in which they life, their jobs, their hobbies, and so on. It would take a great deal of explaining to say exactly what I mean, but in some ways, people don’t choose their religion; their religion chooses them. No one wakes up one morning and says, “I’ve been a Catholic for five years now. It’s time for a change. I am going to be Methodist for a few years.” Religion is recognized an “immutable” characteristic under the law not because it cannot (like race) be changed, but because it is an integral part of a person’s identity. The same, I would argue, is true of sexual orientation. I think it is safe to say that 50% of Americans don’t change their sexual orientation at least once in their lifetime. I personally would say sexual orientation is a matter of “who you are” and not just of “what you do.” But for those who take the opposite position, I wonder why they don’t argue that it is fair to discriminate based on religion, since religion is something you do and something people can and do change. But I don’t think anyone here (especially those arguing against same-sex marriage) would claim that religion should be taken out of the listing “race, color, religion, national origin, gender, and age” because it is too unlike the others.
May 15th, 2011 | 6:10 pm
I think it is high time the US Olympic Committee provide a list of acceptable opinions, memberships, and associations. It should also list unacceptable points of view and attitudes. Anyone wishing to work for the USOC must prove they have never thought bad thoughts. They must then take a loyalty oath.
The USOC is an organization of utmost seriousness and importance to our nation. We must ensure that the likes of Peter Vidmar, what with his conventional opinions on marriage, will not undermine the success of our athletes. We must win. We must.
May 15th, 2011 | 6:14 pm
Why is the default position pro-same-sex marriage, as this case illustrates? At bottom, it’s because the proponents of SSM appeal often and effectively to pity. The same-sex couples who aren’t allowed to be maried are to be pitied, and opponents of SSM are to be condemned. But the appeal to pity, when used in the form of an argument, is an argumentum ad misericordiam–a fallacy.
If supporters of SSM can’t be believed in simple matters of logic, why should anyone believe them in more complicated matters of lifestyle? Time to change the parameters of the debate, don’t you think?
May 15th, 2011 | 6:44 pm
David,
Answer the question!!!
May 15th, 2011 | 6:56 pm
So I reject your claim that to oppose same-sex marriage is to be anti-gay.
Joe Knippenberg,
I take this to be directed at me, and I would point out that you are rejecting a claim that I did not make. See my message of May 14th, 2011 | 12:04 pm to NPR4U:
A good test would be to see how many opponents of same-sex marriage writing in this thread distance themselves from Fr. William E. Bauer TFSC PhD and his message of May 15th, 2011 | 3:49 pm.
May 15th, 2011 | 7:23 pm
I don’t know if these statements will placate Mr. Nickol, but having satisfied him to the extent that I can, let me remind him that I had some questions for him as well, to which I’ll add one more.
Joe Knippenberg,
I have no significant problem with anything you say in your message above prior to that paragraph. As I said, I was satisfied with Vidmar’s statement, which I quoted in my message of May 15th, 2011 | 3:44 pm. As to the points you make and the questions you raise following that paragraph, I would point out that I have not been arguing that same-sex marriage is a right. I am not sure I have anything significant to say. I have looked over everything I have written so far, and these are the points I have made, any of which I would be happy to give further justification for:
!. This is not an example of McCarthyism.
2. Vidmar received support from the USOC but chose to resign.
3. It is not reasonable to argue that fairness and equity require people with all views (say, white supremacists or anti-Semites) be embraced, even if those views are held on religious grounds.
4. Public pressure and even legal pressure on a religious organization is sometimes justifiable (e.g., the pressure on Mormons to end racial discrimination).
5. Just because a person opposes same-sex marriage does not mean he or she is anti-gay. However, it usually does.
6. Theological and scriptural arguments (against the Jews, in favor of slavery) have seemed very convincing in one era and have been repudiated later as reprehensible.
7. The Catholic Church has changed moral teachings over time.
8. It is not unreasonable or inconsistent to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
My point in quoting polling data was not that opposition to same-sex marriage is beyond the pale. It is that it is an issue on which the country is divided. It is a hot-button issue for many, not unlike abortion. The New York Times has a good article on the matter of athletes taking positions on hot-button issues.
May 15th, 2011 | 7:32 pm
Per:
Mrs. Jackson,
“Suggested reading: A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by John T Noonan, Jr. The back cover says:
Using concrete examples, John T. Noonan, Jr., demonstrates that the moral teaching of the Catholic Church has changed and continues to change without abandoning its foundational commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Specifically, Noonan looks at the profound changes that have occurred over the centuries in Catholic moral teaching on freedom of conscience, lending for profit, and slavery. He also offers a close examination of the change now in progress concerning divorce. . . .”
Suggested reading:
“All in all, [John T.] Noonan has written a stimulating book dealing with questions of great importance. He shows himself to be knowledgeable about the history of the four problems here treated. He brings to bear many of the skills of a historian, a civil lawyer, a canon lawyer, and to some degree those of a theologian. Anyone who wishes to question Noonan’s conclusions must at least take account of the facts he has unearthed. He renders no small service in presenting the most powerful objections against continuity that can be raised.
“The reader should be warned, however, that Noonan manipulates the evidence to make it seem to favor his own preconceived conclusions. For some reason, he is intent on finding discontinuity—but he fails to establish that the Church has reversed her teaching in any of the four areas he examines.” – Avery Cardinal Dulles SJ
Rest here :
Development or Reversal?
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/development-or-reversal-37
Per:
“The Christian mission was to convert the Jews. Now, the idea that God does not break covenants and did not break the covenant he made with the Jews. Judaism is still the appropriate religion of those born into it, and Christians are not to attempt to convert Jews.”
Suggested reading : All of St. Paul.
May 15th, 2011 | 8:16 pm
8. It is not unreasonable or inconsistent to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
It is the definition of “discrimination” that is at issue here.
Nobody is suggesting that anyone should “discriminate” against people based on sexual orientation.
What is at issue is whether homosexuals need to be accommodated.
Since what they want is in fact contrary to both what is true and does in fact violate other peoples’ rights, I think it’s pretty clear that their requests for accommodation are “unreasonable” according to current definitions of what constitutes reasonable vs. unreasonable accommodations.
Specifically: to change the definition of “marriage” so that gay people can present their lovers as “kin” – and further perpetrate the set of narratives that collectively constitute the myth that a child “can have two mothers” – is an unreasonable accommodation, not only because it unreasonably violates other peoples’ rights (and destroys the ability of one of our core institutions to function properly), but also because it is not necessary: there is no reason why a gay person needs to lie about kinship in order to live a successful life.
This is why the definition of marriage is so important: because the definition gays rely on is a definition that relies on prohibiting one of the currently understood functions of marriage – making it a crime to understand marriage to be procreative in nature.
(May I ask again why the Supreme Court decision Baker v. Nelson is not being taken as precedent on this question?)
May 15th, 2011 | 8:18 pm
Answer the question!!!
Mark,
What is it?
May 15th, 2011 | 8:25 pm
I still find Carls question interesting.
Carl asked David Nichol May 13@ 8:47:
” I don’t suppose you could grace this discussion with a description of the standard that allows you to determine such things as Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Truth and Falsehood. Your ability and willingness to judge us as wrong implies – in fact demands – that you have such a standard. So what would it be? By what authority does it bind the conscience?”
Alas, David Nickol you still are evading this question. It’s a pretty simple one.
May 15th, 2011 | 8:33 pm
I think it is safe to say that 50% of Americans don’t change their sexual orientation at least once in their lifetime. I personally would say sexual orientation is a matter of “who you are” and not just of “what you do.”
The question is not whether you should or should not be gay.
The question is how a person with homosexual desires should act.
A person who desires incest does not choose to do so, yet that does not give them a “right” to marry their sister.
A person who desires a corpse does not choose to do so, yet that does not give them a “right” to force us to pretend that the dead person in their living room is “their wife”.
Note that not all gay people share the humanist/Unitarian Universalist set of beliefs that constitute the “Gay Marriage” debate; although the gay community misleadingly pretends to represent “all” gay persons, there are in fact gay persons who choose other sets of behaviors, other sets of beliefs, and have no interest in
- forcing Christians to change their beliefs to Unitarian Universalist beliefs
- forcing a humanist understanding of family and sex on the state
- forcing everyone to play along with the myth that their “child has two daddies” (note that even adopted children have a right to grieve their losses; the “two daddies” myth needs to be recognized as both parentification and child abuse).
Gay marriage is only a more compelling right than religious freedom if being gay is an immutable trait. Therefore, discrimination based on targeting and identifying people with the immutable trait “homosexual tendencies” is the same as racial discrimination. What gays are asking for is entirely different: they want the right to see their faith-based beliefs on the nature of sex made into required beliefs, preferencing the humanist/Unitarian Universalist beliefs about what sex (and family) is, is for, and “means”, over every other religion’s beliefs.
Because gay marriage overemphasizes the importance of one’s so-called “sexual identity” (at the expense of other, more important societal values, such as the well-being and rights of children), and therefore it cannot “live and let live”, because not only is it is not compatible with a culture that honors virtues such as chastity, it’s not even compatible with honest discussion (say, about what a parent owes a child, or what a family really is, or whether sex is in fact more important than treating people well or having an intact, stable family).
May 15th, 2011 | 8:34 pm
I doubt that Mr. Nickol regards public opinion as dispositive on any genuinely moral question or on any serious question of rights.
Did he, when public opinion was not in favor of gay marriage?
May 15th, 2011 | 9:35 pm
David Nickol,
You are correct in calling our attention to the fact that Vidmar resigned. The USOC did not, at least as far as we know, force him out.
It was very selfless and charitable of him not to persist as the Chief of Mission as he did not want his team’s performance to be overshadowed by the emerging vilification of his presence. However, he also has a family to consider. Due to his Olympic success he is now a motivational speaker and a prolonged campaign in the cross-hairs of the homosexual movement where it would be attempted to falsely marginalize and stigmatize him as a bigot – akin to a white supremacist – could severly damage his legacy and current livelihood. Given those circumstances, only a selfish man without regard for both the young olympians who had trained their entire lives for this moment and his own families future would have remained. So did he resign? Yes. Was he forced out? I think so, given that his other option was to risk unrestrained hostility taking everyone else down with him.
The fundamental problem, as emphasized in other posts, is equating opposition to same-sex marriage as an unjustified, unreasonable discrimination of the same type as racism. The question underlying disagreement is whether homosexual marriage is the same as or equal to heterosexual marriage. Justice is to treat like things alike, not unlike things alike. If these two unions are the same then it would be unjust to discriminate between them. If they are not, then it is justified to discriminate between them by treating them differently and accordingly.
I think they are clearly different. Heterosexual unions generally produces children and sociological studies show children are generaly better in every way when raised by both biological parents. Regeneration and raising up that generation are necessary to both preserve the human race and develop responsible citizens. Committed heterosexual relationships are the best way to do that – but clearly not the only way. Thus, the state has a strong interest to both promote and hold up committed heterosexual unions as an ideal model, distinct and separate from all others.
I think the United States would be well advised to look at the PACS developed in France for all legal unions outside of marriage, including those who do not want to be labeled, “married.” The European Court of Human Rights has even ruled UNANIMOUSLY – last year I believe it was – that same-sex marriage is not a universal human right.
If you think the reasoning above, France’s solution and the European Court of Human Rights are all unreasonable and just acting out of “irrational animus,” equivilent to bigotry, then I am lost for words. I must be insane – suspended from reality.
What is so frustrating is that all of this is perfectly reasonable, but instead of that recognition it is all categorically dismissed as purely religious, derived purely from revelation and therefore irrational which amounts to bigotry. And bigotry is used as a synonym for racism and to be called a racist is anathema to public life. Just because a position is supported by religion does not make it irrational. If so, opposition to murder would be irrational, which everyone agrees is not.
There will never be any justice or progress in this debate until these distortions and erroneous assumptions cease.
May 15th, 2011 | 10:12 pm
“A good test would be to see how many opponents of same-sex marriage writing in this thread distance themselves from Fr. William E. Bauer TFSC PhD and his message of May 15th, 2011 | 3:49 pm.”
OK, that’s easy enough. I oppose same-sex marriage. I think the term is an oxymoron. I distance myself from the remarks of Fr. William E. Bauer: I do not think gay people are mentally ill perverts. I am not an anti-gay bigot. Nor is anyone that I associate with who also opposes same-sex marriage. Maybe you need to get out and mingle with “our type” a little more. We are not as simplistic, stupid or unsophisticated as you seem to think.
I do agree with Fr. Bauer, though, in his assertion that Peter Vidmar does not present a danger to the United States. He also should have been able to do whatever mammoth task the USOC was planning to put on his shoulders, no matter what he thinks of marriage.
I’ll bet you and your friends who support same-sex marriage are not ALL a bunch of anti-Christian bigots either, are you?
May 15th, 2011 | 10:42 pm
@Carl
@Lady Gaga
” I don’t suppose you could grace this discussion with a description of the standard that allows you to determine such things as Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Truth and Falsehood. Your ability and willingness to judge us as wrong implies – in fact demands – that you have such a standard. So what would it be? By what authority does it bind the conscience?”
I don’t know what your standard of marriage is, but I hope it isn’t the Bible, unless you do the classic cherry-picking:
1) The Old Testament is filled with polygamy. Show me where Joseph is condemned by Yahweh for having multiple wives.
2) Deuteronomy states that if a man died without having children, his brother should marry the wife.
3) According to Genesis, all people are descended from Adam, and there were no humans before him. Thus the earliest humans were to marry their brothers and sisters.
4) Deuteronomy says a man who rapes a woman must marry her.
5) In the Bible, a man can marry a prisoner of war, even as she is in sorrow over her presumably dead family. Nowhere is her consent mentioned. (Deuteronomy 21)
May 15th, 2011 | 11:04 pm
Maybe you need to get out and mingle with “our type” a little more.
Bay,
Maybe you are correct! I am basing my statements not on experiences with people I deal with personally, but on experiences with people who argue these issues in forums like this. If a significant number of others distance themselves from Fr. Bauer’s remarks, perhaps I will be forced to change my opinions of even the latter group.
May 15th, 2011 | 11:16 pm
Lady Gaga (not!),
I don’t understand why you believe it is a simple question to answer regarding how one judges good/evil, right/wrong, truth/falsehood. I am not even sure how to begin. Perhaps you could give your own answer and that will give me some clue as how such a question should be dealt with.
May 15th, 2011 | 11:18 pm
@NPR4U
“sociological studies show children are generally better in every way when raised by both biological parents”
1) I would *love* to see a source for that, but I won’t hold my breath. That’s a “fact” that you have imagined, or more likely, been told from birth. It isn’t real or backed up by anything. And when you fail to find a study for this in any respected journal, you will assume it some liberal conspiracy, probably put on by the same guys who forged Obama’s birth certificate.
2) If in the event this were true, why should this be the basis of whose allowed to get married? Could 2 heterosexual people who can’t have children be allowed to get married? After all, they could only adopt, and according to you, kids raised by both biological parents are better in every way.
May 15th, 2011 | 11:37 pm
I think the United States would be well advised to look at the PACS developed in France for all legal unions outside of marriage, including those who do not want to be labeled, “married.”
NPR4U,
You raise many interesting topics, and I only wish I had more time to comment. I would just like to note (as I have before) that 18 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit not only same-sex marriage, but any legal same-sex unions. Even if the federal government could institute something like PACS (which I don’t think is possible), it would conflict with those state laws.
I wonder if France did not actually make a mistake in creating PACS. Large numbers of heterosexual couples are getting PACSed in France instead of getting married—something that was not anticipated. From the standpoint of protecting and promoting marriage, might it not have been better to allow gays—a small minority of the population—to get married rather than to create a new institution that would result in large numbers of heterosexual couples who might otherwise have married traditionally opt for “marriage lite” (PACS)? If more and more heterosexual couples in France decline to choose traditional marriage, it appears to me that creating PACS helped undermine marriage, not promote and preserve it.
May 16th, 2011 | 12:14 am
It is a complete loss of perspective to believe that what you do with your private parts is as important to who you are, your ‘identity’, as whether you believe in god or not.
May 16th, 2011 | 2:30 am
I don’t think it’s mccarthyism, but I think more and more that dialogue is becoming impossible. Maybe the next century will be the age where nationalism dies but ideology or belief defines who we are as people.
May 16th, 2011 | 6:18 am
It is a complete loss of perspective to believe that what you do with your private parts is as important to who you are, your ‘identity’, as whether you believe in god or not.
Mike,
Sexual orientation is not “what you do with your private parts.” That’s sexual behavior.
Belief in God is no guarantee of anything. Among the first in the Gospels to recognize who Jesus was were the evil spirits he cast out as well as Satan himself.
May 16th, 2011 | 6:20 am
Ye Olde Statistician
On a point of information, mandatory civil marriage was first introduced, not by Austria in 1868, but by France in 1791. The Revolution’s conversion of 10 million peasants from tenants at will into heritable proprietors was one of the principle reasons. The other was the rejection of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over questions of civil status; hence the law forbidding the performance of a religious marriage ceremony for couples not already legally (civilly) married, now Code Pénal Art 433-21. Were the State to recognize competing forms of marriage alongside its own, in what sense would the Republic be one and indivisible?
NPR4U
You are right in saying that in Shalk and Kopf v Austria, the ECHR unanimously upheld the right of a state to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, although three of the judges dissented on other grounds.
Similarly, the two highest French courts, the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Council upheld the decisions of the court of first instance (TGI) and of the Court of Appeal in rejecting a constitutional right to SSM on equality grounds – French courts do not publish dissenting judgments. In this, they were following a virtual consensus of the jurists. Indeed, I do know of a single jurist, who does not believe the question falls within the legislature’s “margin of appreciation.”
David Nickol
It is difficult to assess the impact of PACS on the French marriage rate: to what extent do opposite-sex couples use them instead of marriage and to what extent do they use them, instead of unregulated cohabitation, which had been increasing very rapidly in the preceding two decades.
Personally, I believe they have facilitated a principled defence of traditional marriage and the closely connected questions of adoption and assisted reproduction, by focusing attention on what is distinctive about marriage; in other words, (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation.
I deplore both the matter and manner of Fr Bauer’s contribution and I trust that nothing I have said on this topic would lead anyone to suspect otherwise.
May 16th, 2011 | 10:23 am
If a significant number of others distance themselves from Fr. Bauer’s remarks, perhaps I will be forced to change my opinions of even the latter group.
Sounds like a plausible scenario: the USOC approached a potential donor who, in reply to a donation request, said something along the lines of: “If you distance yourself from Peter Vidmar and his reprehensible actions we’ll consider your request.”
Shunning works.
May 16th, 2011 | 10:57 am
Two votes against classifying gay people as mentally ill perverts seeking to silence those who tell the truth, and now one in favor.
May 16th, 2011 | 11:46 am
“IOW, I could present lots of examples, but people keep shooting down my misperceptions”
Nope. Wrong again. I don’t choose to answer questions directly because you First Thingers refuse to engage in reasoned dialogue. Look at Nickol. He’s the only one in this conversation who carefully responds to what people are saying without questioning their motives or honesty. And he answers every point no matter how ludicrous. He even answers the points where his argument is weakest. And he honestly admits when his knowledge is incomplete or his evidence is disputable.
Meanwhile, Knippenberg continues to dodge the tough questions Nickol raises about the Mormon example. Even Mistress Jackson answered that question, though I doubt she’ll acknowledge that she only did so because I goaded her. And that’s part of my point: that you all need to be goaded into being reasonable. You don’t seem to think that there actually are reasonable disagreements. And then you’re surprised when you’re described as judgmental, smug, and bigoted.
May 16th, 2011 | 12:01 pm
“On a point of information, mandatory civil marriage was first introduced, not by Austria in 1868, but by France in 1791.”
Ah, yes. I had forgotten the Terror. All part of the movement toward the omnicompetent, totalizing State. “Everything within the state; nothing outside the state; nothing against the state,” as Benito Mussolini was wont to say.
+ + +
The term “pervert” has been so degraded in public discourse that we can no longer use it in its original sense; viz., “to turn someone aside from a right belief to a false or erroneous one.” From the Latin (via Old French) pervertere: “to turn about (i.e. the wrong way) As an adjective, the Latinate began to replace the English “froward” since the 14th cent. Its life as a noun began in the 1660s, and meant “one who has forsaken a doctrine or system regarded as true; an apostate.” In religion, Anglicans had been perverted from the Catholic Church, and Presbyterians had been perverted from the Anglican Church.
Notice that it is not to have an appetite, nor even to succumb to those appetites that makes one an apostate/pervertus. Rather it is the willful advocacy of that appetite as a good that is regarded as misdirecting (perverting) the will. For example, not everyone who hungers is a glutton, nor everyone who eats, even one who eats unhealthy foods (or too much of an otherwise healthy one). But one who regards his gluttony as a positive good to be pursued has perverted his appetite for food. We grasp the moral dimension of this when we say that “too much chocolate is bad for you” or (less probably) “eating grass is bad for you.” Or for that matter, inducing vomiting after eating, etc.
It was not until 1897 that the pseudoscience of psychiatry began to use the term to describe a “turning away” (per-versus) specifically of the natural sexual appetite. Havelock Ellis, it sez here. It was removed from the list of disorders after a series of intrusive demonstrations at psychiatric meetings. After that, it became a “lifestyle choice” for a while; then a “genetic condition.”
May 16th, 2011 | 12:01 pm
Per:
“Two votes against classifying gay people as mentally ill perverts seeking to silence those who tell the truth, and now one in favor.”
That is a disgusting remark. I have been on this thread arguing with you since Friday. So have many others – including the man who authored this post. You are the one who came as close as you could “not necessarily” to calling us the moral equivalent of racists and proponents of slavery. You are the one who said the Catholic Church instructed you that Judaism is an inferior Faith. If any Catholic priest or nun taught you that then they weren’t teaching you Catholicism. You also said we shouldn’t try to convert Jews. By saying that you denied Jesus’ entire ministry, his death and resurrection and by extension –all of Christianity Your latest comment on the bible demonstrates if your previous remarks already hadn’t – that if you were -as you claim -educated by the Catholic Church, you must have been asleep the entire time:
“Belief in God is no guarantee of anything. Among the first in the Gospels to recognize who Jesus was were the evil spirits he cast out as well as Satan himself.”
Among the first to recognize who Jesus was were the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, St. John the Baptist who leaped for joy in his mother’s womb when Mary came to their home when she was about 4 months pregnant, St. John the Baptist’s mother; St. Elizabeth, the 3 shepherds in the field, the 3 Wise Men who took another route home, Simeon (sp?) in the temple when Jesus was all of 6 weeks old and so on…
As for Father Bauer, he didn’t show up here until yesterday. Only one person has come close to making the kind of comments he has (mentally ill perverts) and that would be you.
Unlike Father Bauer, you have made them repeatedly.
May 16th, 2011 | 12:31 pm
On the “classifying people as mentally ill” thing, it bears noting that in a sense, we are ALL mentally ill in one way or another. The illness is called “sin”. There is great wisdom in the Church’s teaching on the reality of Original Sin. Psychological diagnosis usually deals with something that has become extreme enough to be outside the ability of the individual to manage on their own.
As far as a *clinical* diagnosis of mental illness is concerned, I’d not be in favor of imposing that on homosexuals, but it is no less a sin to act on the inclination.
@ Jeremy, you might want to study your Bible more closely, because several of your claims are dead wrong.
1) “The Old Testament is filled with polygamy. Show me where Joseph is condemned by Yahweh for having multiple wives.”
From the beginning of Genesis, the negative results of polygamy are made clear. Abraham’s acts with Hagar cause great harm in his marriage and the tribe. Jacob’s marriage to Rachel and Leah takes place only under duress, and also results in problems for the family and tribe. And David & Solomon ARE condemned explicitly by God for practicing polygamy (1 Kings 11:4-6;2 Samuel 12: 9-12). Deuteronomy 17 16-17 says, “Neither shall (the king) multiply wives for himself…”
Finally, from the beginning of the Bible (Adam and Eve) and throughout it, monogamous marriages are held up as models. So it’s pretty clear you are wrong.
2) Deuteronomy states that if a man died without having children, his brother should marry the wife.
Only if he was not already married or without sons. Keep in mind the brutal conditions of the day–a woman without children had no standing in most Middle Eastern communities to possess property with which to support herself. That part of the Law has more to do with the obligation of the community to care for “the widow and the orphan” than it does with male domination.
3) According to Genesis, all people are descended from Adam, and there were no humans before him. Thus the earliest humans were to marry their brothers and sisters.
Firstly, there is much symbolism in Genesis. It was not written as a scientific or literal treatise. Secondly, scientific evidence (mitochondrial DNA, which comes only from the mother) does seem to indicate that perhaps every living human being does have one common female ancestor (called by the scientists “Mitochondrial Eve”). Just saying…
4) Deuteronomy says a man who rapes a woman must marry her.
I’m assuming you are talking about Deuteronomy 22: 28-29. And you’re distorting Scripture and quite wrong. Refer to the following link for a detailed description of why you’re yet again wrong: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm
Again, the spirit of the law is that the man must pay for what he’s done and is responsible for taking care or making reparations for his crime. Notice also that passage falls within the section labeled “CRIMES against Marriage”, so don’t even try to twist this into some sort of Biblical approval for rape.
5) In the Bible, a man can marry a prisoner of war, even as she is in sorrow over her presumably dead family. Nowhere is her consent mentioned. (Deuteronomy 21)
Again wrong. He must allow her to “mourn her father and mother for a full month”. Her consent IS mentioned (“if later you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, IF SHE WISHES IT; but you shall NOT sell or enslave her…”
As one who has a Master’s degree in Theology and who teaches Scripture, I’m endlessly amused by the people who level scorn against the minority of Christians who interpret the Bible literally, and then go on to display their Biblical ignorance and hypocrisy by doing the exact same thing. You want to know what the Bible says, you first have to study the ancient cultures, languages, and symbols within which it was written.
May 16th, 2011 | 12:32 pm
Ye Olde Statistician
You appear to have forgotten, not only the Terror, but the armies of Napoléon that gave a code of laws to a continent and restored the concept of citizenship to civilization. Easily overlooked.
May 16th, 2011 | 12:38 pm
“I think it is high time the US Olympic Committee provide a list of acceptable opinions, memberships, and associations. It should also list unacceptable points of view and attitudes. Anyone wishing to work for the USOC must prove they have never thought bad thoughts. They must then take a loyalty oath”
Yes, by golly, and let’s do the same thing for NPR so that both Juan Williams and Ronald Schiller can get their jobs back.
Or maybe we can just acknowledge that pressure on public figures is the way we stage political protest these days.
May 16th, 2011 | 12:42 pm
David Nickol, you’re being coy! Surely, it can’t be that you aren’t “even sure how to begin.”
Here’s the question again:
Carl asked David Nichol May 13@ 8:47:
” I don’t suppose you could grace this discussion with a description of the standard that allows you to determine such things as Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Truth and Falsehood. Your ability and willingness to judge us as wrong implies – in fact demands – that you have such a standard. So what would it be? By what authority does it bind the conscience?”
It’s fascinating that someone so committed to ferreting out falsehood and error is so unwilling to share his methodology so that others may benefit from it. And it can’t be that you’re evading the question! A simple answer would be helpful. Example: I am a Bible believing fundamentalist Christian fundamentalist, or I am an Anarchist, or a Stoic, or a Nihilist, etc.
May 16th, 2011 | 1:50 pm
NPR4U (5/15 @ 9:35pm) is right on. But what explains the “unrestrained hostility” that NPR4U refers to?
Maybe we should ask ourselves about that by comparing same-sex marriage to abortion, where the hostility to “traditionalists” has never been quite so unrestrained (perhaps because none can deny that abortion kills a human individual, and killing without just cause is considered unacceptable even in “polite” society). It turns out that as bad as Roe v. Wade was, a Supreme Court decision mandating SSM would be worse–jurisprudentially worse, though perhaps not morally. Why is that?
Well, a very minor role is played in the abortion context by the argumentum ad misericordiam (the argument from pity)—think “coat hangers,” and the conclusion we are supposed to draw (abortion should be legal!). Pro-choicers have other—non-fallacious—arguments, and so they don’t rely heavily on the argumentum ad misericordiam. They have the right-to-privacy argument, the bodily-autonomy argument, the social-equality argument (“if men could get pregnant . . .”), and arguments about the moral status of the fetus.
Say whatever you like about these arguments, at least they are not veritable in-your-face fallacies. (The “barefoot and pregnant” rhetoric was not serious, and didn’t amount to an argument.)
SSM proponents, in contrast, rely heavily, and even overwhelmingly, on the argumentum ad misericordiam. This alone suggests that a Supreme Court decision mandating SSM would be worse than Roe v. Wade, as bad as the latter was. Basically, proponents of SSM are playing a shell game without a pea. The corollary of the pity we are supposed to feel for thwarted and unfulfilled same-sex couples is condemnation of the “bigots” and “haters” who want to keep same-sex couples in a pitiable (non-marriageable) legal and social condition.
Unfortunately for the same-sex marriagers, the whole basis for charges of bigotry and discrimination is a little thing called a fallacy. Once the defenders of traditional marriage see this, they won’t be so inclined buckle under to emotional pressure whenever some fallacy-flaunting pseudo-sensible person irrationally calls them a bigot.
It also must be noted that he fallacy in question bears on the “harm” argument for SSM. Since the argument for SSM is based largely on that fallacy, we can ignore claims to the effect that there is a liberty to do X as long as no one is harmed by anyone’s doing X. That is, we can ignore such claims if the harm is identifiable solely in terms of a logical fallacy. However psychologically persuasive the appeal to pity may be, it does not constitute a valid argument or the giving of reasons for any action or belief. Incidentally, that’s why it is pointless, if not mendacious, to say–as a way of shaming opponents of SSM—“What’s the harm to heterosexual couples if homosexual couples can get married?”
Recall the fable of the Emperor without clothes. Opponents of same-sex marriage are like the little boy in the fable—and, oh my, how they are derided by the sophisticates who anxiously guard the Emperor’s dignity.
May 16th, 2011 | 1:55 pm
You are the one who said the Catholic Church instructed you that Judaism is an inferior Faith. If any Catholic priest or nun taught you that then they weren’t teaching you Catholicism.
Mrs. Jackson:
OLD THINKING
From Wikipedia: “Baltimore Catechism:
Various editions of the Baltimore Catechism were the de facto standard Catholic school text in America from 1885 to the late 1960s.”
From the Baltimore Catechism:
Thomas Aquinas on the Jews: “[A]s the laws say, the Jews by reason of their fault are sentenced to perpetual servitude and thus the lords of the lands in which they dwell may take things from them as though they were their own . . . .”
NEW THINKING
From Nostra Aetate
May 16th, 2011 | 1:55 pm
“As for Father Bauer, he didn’t show up here until yesterday. Only one person has come close to making the kind of comments he has (mentally ill perverts) and that would be you”
After Bauer made his disgusting comments, four people posted without challenging Bauer, including Knippenberg. Then Nickol challenged you all to take a stand. Five more people posted without saying a word about Bauer, including you, Mistress Jackson. Should we suppose that only some things outrage you?
By the way, you’re reading into Nickol’s comments things that are not there. It’s easier for you to argue with him every time you distort what he is saying.
May 16th, 2011 | 2:19 pm
Sexual orientation is about what you do with your private parts. You are not standing up for the dignity of the individual as you believe. You have mistaken a predilection for sodomy, a selfish, sterile habit, for something noble. When you get to heaven, be sure to tell them that at least you stood up for the dignity of anal sex.
May 16th, 2011 | 2:27 pm
“Maybe we should ask ourselves about that by comparing same-sex marriage to abortion, where the hostility to “traditionalists” has never been quite so unrestrained”
Yes, the unrestrained hostility to traditionalists is demonstrated in the torching of the crisis centers set up across the street from abortion clinics and in the murders of the directors of those crisis centers.
The unrestrained hostility to traditionalists is also seen in the rate of suicides of teens who have been teased for being Christian.
May 16th, 2011 | 2:56 pm
Lady Gaga,
I was born and raised a Catholic, attending Catholic elementary school and an all-boys’ high school run by the Christian Brothers. I went to Ohio State University, graduated, and moved to New York. I remain in close touch with Catholic though through my reading and also through participating on the America Magazine, Commonweal, and Mirror of Justice blogs, where I write too much but also learn a lot. I no longer claim to be a Catholic, although I suppose some might consider me one, but I do still consider myself a Christian. I find the Bible important and fascinating, but I am about as far removed from being a fundamentalist as it is possible to be and approach the Bible from a very liberal, historical-critical viewpoint. I am currently very much intrigued by writers who examine how our minds tend to distort evidence to support what we already believed and boost our egos. Some books on the topic are How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer, Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error by Kathryn Schulz, and A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives by Cordelia Fine. However, I do place a certain emphasis on “gut feelings.” I think many moral judgments we make are made instantly on an instinctive level based largely on empathy, with reasons coming later. But of course there is a great danger in relying on feelings alone. I do, though, like to think of Huck Finn and his determination to do what is right even though he has been convinced it is wrong (that is, treating the slave Jim as a human being with a right to dignity and freedom) and that he will go through with it even though he will wind up in the “bad place.” He follows his heart when he “knows” he is wrong, and that is why we admire him. I would apply that to the Phoenix abortion case (if you are familiar with that) where a woman was going to die if she did not obtain an abortion, resulting of course, in the death of the baby too. The position of the local bishop was that it was impermissible to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother, because “evil may not be done that good may come of it.” My reaction was that it is better to save one life than to let two people die. (Actually, the case was much more complicated than that, since there are various rationales within Catholic thought that would have permitted the abortion as being indirect and permissible, but the local bishop disagreed.)
Your turn now.
May 16th, 2011 | 3:05 pm
Sexual orientation is about what you do with your private parts.
Mike,
Would this not mean, then, that those who adhere to traditional Christian morality do not have a sexual orientation until they get married, and those who become priests, brothers, or nuns never have a sexual orientation at all? If heterosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex before they actually engage in sex with them, why would they engage in sex with them at all?
May 16th, 2011 | 3:11 pm
@Artaban
I suppose you find my interpretation of these texts much too literal. So one must have more of a knowledge of Biblical symbolism, ancient Hebrew, ancient Jewish culture, and understand that often the text is only pointing to the “spirit of the law”.. My question is, what do you do with a liberal Christian who does the same sort of interpretation gymnastics when you cite to him Leviticus 18:22 on homosexuality?
May 16th, 2011 | 3:19 pm
@mike
“Sexual orientation is about what you do with your private parts.”
Mike, I want you to imagine you had little or no sexual interest in women, but that your desire was always secretly for men. But because you believed that homosexual behavior was a sin, you never had sexual contact with another man. Nevertheless, it was a constant temptation for you to avoid being sexually intimate with a man. Let’s say you even married a woman. If all this were true, are you saying that you wouldn’t consider yourself gay?
May 16th, 2011 | 3:23 pm
David Nikol:
First, let’s revisit what you wrote:
“I would have to say that within my own lifetime, the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Jews has changed dramatically. To summarize very crudely and briefly, when I received my Catholic education (1950s and early 1960s), Christianity was considered to have supplanted Judaism. With the founding of Christianity, Judaism became a “false religion.” The Christian mission was to convert the Jews. Now, the idea that God does not break covenants and did not break the covenant he made with the Jews. Judaism is still the appropriate religion of those born into it, and Christians are not to attempt to convert Jews.”
The Baltimore Catechism does not instruct Judaism is a “false religion”. I repeat if any nun or priest taught you Judaism is a false religion, you were not being taught Catholicism.
As far as the Old and New Covenants go and whether or not Catholics do/should evangelize to Jews, the answer is what it has been since the day on the road to Damascus when Jesus knocked Saul off his horse -yes :
“The Second Vatican Council taught with great emphasis that there is one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ. All salvation comes through Christ, and there is no salvation in any other name. In Christ, the incarnate Son of God, revelation reaches its unsurpassable fullness. Everyone is in principle required to believe in Christ as the way, the truth, and the life, and in the Church he has established as an instrument for the salvation of all. Anyone who, being aware of this, refuses to enter the Church or remain in her cannot be saved. On the other hand, persons who “through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them” may attain to everlasting salvation in some manner known to God.
“Christ gave the apostles, and through them the Church, the solemn commission to preach the saving truth of the gospel even to the ends of the earth: “The obligation of spreading the faith is imposed on every disciple of Christ, according to his ability,” as Lumen Gentium puts it. The Church “prays and labors in order that the entire world may become the People of God, the Body of the Lord, and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and that in Christ, the Head of all, there may be rendered to the Creator and Author of the Universe all honor and glory.”
“In seeking to spread the faith, Christians should remember that faith is by its very nature a free response to the word of God. Moral or physical coercion must therefore be avoided. While teaching this, the council regretfully admits that at certain times and places the faith has been propagated in ways that were not in accord with—or were even opposed to—the spirit of the gospel.
“Christian revelation did not come into the world without a long preparation, beginning with our first parents, Adam and Eve. Through Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, God taught Israel “to acknowledge him as the one living and true God, provident Father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by him,” as the council’s dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, Dei Verbum, declares. God “entered into a covenant with Abraham (cf. Gen 15:18) and, through Moses, with the people of Israel.” “The principal purpose to which the plan of the Old Covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming both of Christ, the universal Redeemer, and of the messianic kingdom.” One and the same God is the inspirer and author of both the Old and the New Testaments. He “wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and that the Old be made manifest by the New.”
“The people of the new covenant have a special spiritual bond with Abraham’s stock, the council’s Nostra Aetate insists. The Church gratefully recalls that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people of Israel. She is aware that, even though Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, and the Jews in large numbers have failed to accept the gospel, still, according to Paul, the Jews still remain most dear to God because of their fathers.
“The Second Vatican Council, while providing a solid and traditional framework for discussing Jewish-Christian relations, did not attempt to settle all questions. In particular, it left open the question whether the Old Covenant remains in force today. Are there two covenants, one for Jews and one for Christians? If so, are the two related as phases of a single developing covenant, a single saving plan of God? May Jews who embrace Christianity continue to adhere to Jewish covenantal practices?
“In the half-century since Vatican II major contributions to Catholic covenant theology have been made by Pope John Paul II, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Walter Cardinal Kasper, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Pontifical Biblical Commission. With these contributions, together with some less authoritative writings, we may find a path through the thickets of controversy.
“A place to start is the term ‘Old Covenant,’ which is sometimes criticized on the ground that the adjective “old” suggests the idea of being antiquated, even obsolete. Perhaps because I am no longer young, I find it difficult to share this criticism. When people speak of the ‘old country,’ for example, they do not imply that the old no longer exists or is close to dissolution. In any case the term ‘Old Covenant’ is solidly in place. It appears in writings of Paul and in much official teaching, including the documents of Vatican II. Some writers, following the Letter to the Hebrews, may prefer to speak of the ‘first’ or ‘prior’ covenant. All of these terms, considered in themselves, leave open the question whether or not the earlier covenant is still in force.
[gigantic snip but well worth reading]
“Some Christians, in their eagerness to reject a crude supersessionism, give independent validity to the Old Covenant. They depict the Old and New Covenants as two ‘separate but equal’ parallel paths to salvation, the one intended for Jews, the other for gentiles. The commentator Roy H. Schoeman correctly remarks this thesis ‘has been presented as though it were the only logical alternative to supersessionism, despite the fact that it is utterly irreconcilable with both the core beliefs of Christianity and with the words of Jesus himself in the New Testament.’ Joseph Fitzmyer, in his scholarly commentary on Romans, likewise opposes the theory of two separate ways of salvation: ‘It is difficult to see how Paul would envisage two different kinds of salvation, one brought about by God apart from Christ for Jews, and one by Christ for Gentiles and believing Jews. That would seem to militate against his whole thesis of justification and salvation by grace for all who believe in the gospel of Christ Jesus (1:16). For Paul the only basis for membership in the new people of God is faith in Christ Jesus.’
“It is unthinkable that in these chapters of Romans Paul would be proposing salvation for Jews apart from Christ. He spent much of his ministry seeking to evangelize his fellow Jews. In the very passage in which he speaks of God’s abiding love for Israel, he confesses his great sorrow and anguish at Israel’s unbelief. He would be ready, he says, to be accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of his brethren, his kinsmen by race, who have not accepted Jesus as Messiah.
“The Catholic Church clearly teaches that no one will be condemned for unbelief, or for incomplete belief, without having sinned against the light. Those who with good will follow the movements of God’s grace in their own lives are on the road to salvation. They are not required to profess belief in Christ unless or until they are in a position to recognize him as Messiah and Lord. The fact that Jews and Christians have honest differences about this point is a powerful incentive for dialogue between them.
“John Paul II was not content to let Judaism and Christianity go their separate ways. Speaking at Mainz in 1980, he called for ongoing dialogue ‘between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant.’ He expressed hope for an eventual reconciliation in the fullness of truth. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope (1994) he wrote of Judaism: ‘This extraordinary people continues to bear signs of its divine election. . . . The insights which inspired the Declaration Nostra Aetate are finding concrete expression in various ways. Thus the two great moments of divine election—the Old and New Covenants—are drawing closer together. . . . The time when the people of the Old Covenant will be able to see themselves as part of the New is, naturally, a question left to the Holy Spirit. We, as human beings, try only not to put obstacles in the way.’
“The last word should perhaps be left to Pope Benedict XVI. In a set of interviews from the late 1990s, published under the title God and the World, he recognizes that there is ‘an enormous variety of theories’ about the extent to which Judaism remains a valid way of life since the coming of Christ. As Christians, he says, we are convinced that the Old Testament is directed toward Christ, and that Christianity, instead of being a new religion, is simply the Old Testament read anew in Christ. We can be certain that Israel has a special place in God’s plans and a special mission to accomplish today. The Jews ‘still stand within the faithful covenant of God,’ and, we believe, ‘they will in the end be together with us in Christ.’ ‘We are waiting for the moment when Israel, too, will say Yes to Christ,’ but until that moment comes all of us, Jews and Christians, ‘stand within the patience of God,’ of whose faithfulness we can rest assured.
“Believing that the Son of God has lived among us, Christians will wish to make him known, loved, praised, confessed, and obeyed by as many people as possible. They will want the whole world to profit from Christ’s teaching and to enjoy the fullness of sacramental life. But they will also strive to be patient in awaiting the appointed time. All of us, Jews and Christians alike, depend on God’s patience as we strive to be faithful to the covenant and enter into its deepest meaning.”
-Avery Cardinal Dulles
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel—42
May 16th, 2011 | 3:45 pm
David Nikol :
You wrote :
“Belief in God is no guarantee of anything.”
Do you really mean this?
May 16th, 2011 | 3:53 pm
To show that the ideas referred to by Mrs Jackson are by no means novelties, Pascal, hardly a theological liberal and writing in the 17th century says:
“The Jewish religion is wholly divine in its authority, its duration, its perpetuity, its morality, its doctrine, and its effects” – So much for it being considered a false religion
And again
“To show that the true Jews and the true Christians have but the same religion.- The religion of the Jews seemed to consist essentially in the fatherhood of Abraham, in circumcision, in sacrifices, in ceremonies, in the Ark, in the temple, in Jerusalem, and, finally, in the law, and in the covenant with Moses. I say that it consisted in none of those things, but only in the love of God, and that God disregarded all the other things [et que Dieu réprouvait toutes les autres choses].” (My translations)
May 16th, 2011 | 3:55 pm
What a disgrace. If you cannot win with the people, you pressure the elites.
May 16th, 2011 | 4:24 pm
Mrs. Jackson,
First, there is no need to reproduce extremely lengthy passages. A link is just fine.
Second, if you don’t feel that false means “not true,” we can say that the Baltimore Catechism said that “the Jewish religion, which, up to the death of Christ, had been the true religion, ceased at that time to be the true religion.”
Third, Avery Dulles was (and remains after his death) a very major figure in Catholic thought, but it is well known that he had different opinions regarding Nostra Aetate from other theologians. Quoting him does not prove your contentions. It only demonstrates what Avery Dulles thought. This is, in fact, pointed out in the article to which I linked.
I absolutely do mean “Belief in God is no guarantee of anything.” By this I mean that believing in God doesn’t automatically make anyone a good person. Acording the Christian tradition, Satan didn’t merely believe in God, he knew God “face to face” and chose to rebel against him. Nowhere in Catholicism does it say merely believing in God results in a person’s salvation. Do you really believe, for example, that all the priests involved in the abuse of children are atheists and bluffed their ways through the seminary? It is a very fundamental Catholic belief that a person can believe in God and rebel against him. Do you actually doubt this?
May 16th, 2011 | 4:54 pm
@Mrs. Jackson
“Belief in God is no guarantee of anything.” “Do you really mean this?”
Did the author of James really mean it?
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” James 2:19
May 16th, 2011 | 5:23 pm
Mrs. Jackson and Michael PS,
We’re wandering far off the topic, but from the Vatican web site:
It is simply a matter of fact, universally acknowledged, that there was a dramatic shift in the attitude of the Catholic Church toward the Jews at the time of Vatican II and Nostra Aetate. And during the Papacy of John Paul II, with his apology for past anti-Semitism, the shift continued.
May 16th, 2011 | 5:57 pm
As far as reproducing lengthly passages -it is done to demonstrate to others your very real misconceptions of God, the Bible and the Catholic Church as well as try to open your own mind, maybe even cause you hesitation the next time you try to liken pro-traditional marriage people to racists and proponents of slavery.
“Second, if you don’t feel that false means ‘not true,’ we can say that the Baltimore Catechism said that ‘the Jewish religion, which, up to the death of Christ, had been the true religion, ceased at that time to be the true religion.”
You are the one who said the Catholic Church taught you that Judaism is a false religion. That is not Catholic teaching -that is also not the teaching of the Baltimore Catechism as much as you insist it is. The term “true religion” has -theologically speaking- a different meaning all together from “false religion”.
As for Avery Cardinal Dulles and his piece – it is not what just he thought as he quoted several other people and writings to make his argument. As far as his differing from his fellow bishops -that was no slight differing and his fellow bishops listened to him and amended their thinking :
“Almost ten years ago, the late Cardinal Avery Dulles was critical of a joint statement from the National Council of Synagogues and the Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference to the effect that ‘targeting Jews for conversion to Christianity’ is ‘no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.’”
“Dulles replied that the church cannot curtail the scope of the gospel without betraying itself: ‘Once we grant that there are some persons for whom it is not important to acknowledge Christ, to be baptized and to receive the sacraments, we raise questions about our own religious life,’ he wrote.
“Subsequently, the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine issued a clarification in 2009 that most experts regarded as largely upholding the position taken by Dulles. Its conclusion was, ‘The fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all God’s promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ.’”
May 16th, 2011 | 6:08 pm
Per:
“I absolutely do mean ‘Belief in God is no guarantee of anything.’ By this I mean that believing in God doesn’t automatically make anyone a good person.”
You’ve reached gobbly-gook stage.
You make a full encompassing statement -belief in God is no guarantee of anything. Anything you said. Then when questioned about it you say you absolutely believe this. Then and only then give it a qualification –it doesn’t make anyone a good person.
This is why we can see you’ve reached gobbly gook stage– earlier in this thread in response to Lady Gaga you wrote:
“I don’t understand why you believe it is a simple question to answer regarding how one judges good/evil, right/wrong, truth/falsehood. I am not even sure how to begin.”
You have now told us you don’t even know how to begin to judge what good is yet you know belief in God is no guarantee of being a good person.
May 16th, 2011 | 8:26 pm
That was nice use of ellipses on the Aquinas quote. Do you know the full context of what he was writing, and to whom, and why? Or were you only proof-texting?
Hint: it was a private letter to Margaret Countess Flanders who wanted to know what she was legally allowed to take and Aquinas advised her that secular law and custom allowed…. As it says here:
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/ori.html
May 16th, 2011 | 9:29 pm
Jeremy:
1.)
http://in.somnia.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/marriage_brief3_annotated.pdf
One does not have to look very hard to find a report supporting the argument that **generally** speaking, or as this report puts it, “on average” – not in every circumstance – children raised by both biological parents do better. It is more likely these children will be healthier physically, emotionally, behaviorally, psychologically, financially, intellectually, socially ect.
This was written because:
“Over the past 20 years, a body of research has developed on how changes in patterns
of family structure affect children. Most
researchers now agree that together these
studies support the notion that, on
average, children do best when raised by
their two married, biological parents
who have low-conflict relationships”
Furthermore, it has this to say specifically about same-sex couple families:
“Children of gay or lesbian parents do not look different from their counterparts raised in heterosexual divorced families regarding school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, or difficulties finding employment. However, as previously indicated, children of divorce are at higher risk for many of these problems than children of married parents.” (married here is referring to families with both biological parents)
This wasn’t even the body of research I was thinking of when I made my post regarding outcomes for children in families where children are raised by both biological parents. I just googled it and it was one of the first to show up on the search engine.
Of course there are questions of to what degree and how significant is the difference. Some of that is addressed in this brief. But the point I was making is that there **is** a difference and sociological data supports this claim. It’s about probabilities, not that every child produced in a heterosexual committed union is better than any child living with a single parent, homosexual parents, or step-parents, but that they are more likely, on average, to have better outcomes.
And before you begin trying to undermine the source, the board of directors for CLASP is very diverse across the political specturm. In fact, the Executive Vice President for the Center for Americans for Progress – a liberal think tank in D.C. – is on the board. As I understand it, their primary purpose is to improve outcomes for poverty sticken communities.
2.)
The combination of the fact that our society is propagated by heterosexual unions and the strong evidence indicating children raised by both biological parents who have low-conflict relationships, on average, do better, leads one to reasonably conclude that maybe heterosexual unions are different than homosexual unions, friendships, legal guardianships, business partnerships, single parent families etc. This difference being, they produce life necessary to continue the population and, **on average**, produce better results for children. As a result, the government has a strong interest to hold this type of relationship up as a special and distinct model (to promote it and recognize it) necessary to propagate its people and with the best probability of producing healthy, responsible and contributing citizens.
Don’t confuse this with an argument to prohibit homosexuals from adopting. I don’t think it makes that case. The point is that there is a difference between the two unions, the difference is rational, reasonable and not purely religious and the government has an interest in recognizing and promoting that difference. The fact that it is so special and unique is the reason it is regulated and promoted in a way other human relationships are not. Not to say other relationships are not beneficial – to say that would be to argue that friendship is not beneficial – but to say heterosexual unions are valuable in a way that is different from all other relationships.
Now, the point you raise about sterile couples, couples who do not want to have children and older couples, “past their prime” we might say, is the obvious challenge at first glance. I think there are a couple of responses. First, those who “can’t” or have trouble with getting pregnant. These couples still want to have children and it’s not beyond reason to recognize that they may one day suddenly become pregnant. It happens all the time. This reasoning also applies to older couples. They serve as an example and model for younger generations to look toward and aspire to.
Now, regarding the couple that does not want to have children: they may change their mind. This happens all the time. And even if they don’t change their mind, there is no way to determine if they will and it is not feasible to expect the government to be able to regulate whether someone will change their mind or accidentally get pregnant and go through with the pregnancy.
Perhaps you will still reject these arguments. That’s fine. But you cannot call them irrational, hatefilled or bigoted. And this is where reasoned debate commences. Hopefully this country will get there. But I’m beginning to become pessimistic barring some miraculous turn of events in which David Nickol’s respectful and reasoned approach becomes popular.
May 16th, 2011 | 9:53 pm
@NPR4U
“sociological studies show children are generally better in every way when raised by both biological parents”
1) I would *love* to see a source for that, but I won’t hold my breath. That’s a “fact” that you have imagined, or more likely, been told from birth. It isn’t real or backed up by anything. And when you fail to find a study for this in any respected journal, you will assume it some liberal conspiracy, probably put on by the same guys who forged Obama’s birth certificate.
Are you seriously arguing that a person has no reason to value having a relationship with one’s real (biological) parents? Even adoptive parents are warned not to have such unrealistic and insensitive expectations toward their adopted child’s losses.
And are you seriously arguing that a person has no reason to value having both a mother-relationship and a father-relationship? That the sexes are interchangeable, there’s no difference between a man and a woman? As if a teenaged boy would or should be just as comfortable talking to a lesbian stepmother about his awakening sexuality as if that lesbian stepmother were a real father? Seriously?
And are you seriously arguing that there’s no difference between the adopted kid whose adoptive parents can say truthfully, “Your mother gave you to us because she loved you enough to want you to have a good life” – vs. the sleazy way so many gay couples purchase and arrange body parts and rented women to manufacture their new child? Do you seriously believe a child doesn’t realize there’s a difference between the adoptive parents who are honestly willing and able to do what is right by their child (and played no part in making him an orphan to begin with), vs. the way gay parents treat their kids, and pressure them to conform to a political agenda? (You know, there are gay men and women who love their children enough that they would never put their “sexual identity” before their child’s best interest…)
2) If in the event this were true, why should this be the basis of whose allowed to get married? Could 2 heterosexual people who can’t have children be allowed to get married? After all, they could only adopt, and according to you, kids raised by both biological parents are better in every way.
The childless heterosexuals who marry are eligible for benefits that they do not claim.
That is drastically different from trying to claim benefits that one is not eligible for.
Marriage includes procreative benefits. Granting procreative couples to gays would be like endorsing adultery and fraud as acceptable means of reproduction.
May 16th, 2011 | 9:58 pm
But the point I was making is that there **is** a difference and sociological data supports this claim. It’s about probabilities, not that every child produced in a heterosexual committed union is better than any child living with a single parent, homosexual parents, or step-parents, but that they are more likely, on average, to have better outcomes.
I believe the term you need here is “all things equal”.
If you hold all other variables constant, children are better-off with their own parents than they are with any other arrangement (including adoption, but adoption continues to be justified because adopted kids are better off than kids who are raised by mothers who are not prepared for and/or do not want the role of motherhood).
However what is more important is that adopted kids, IVF kids, and other “arranged family” children have overwhelmingly shown that having their original biological identity is something they VALUE. Custody decisions are supposed to be decided on the basis of what is best for the child – not the person who wants to have the child. Taking away something of value from the child so that the parent’s desires are preferenced is not only a violation of the child’s rights, it’s also a violation of one of the most basic of human rights: the right to not be exploited. There is a huge difference between legitimate custody decisions (which are by definition based on what is best for the child) vs. custody decisions which sacrifice the child’s well-being to prioritize the desires of the person who wants a child – which is not a legitimate custody decision, but does in fact qualify as trafficking.
May 16th, 2011 | 10:17 pm
David Nickol,
I’m happy to see a fellow Ohioan representing the Great State of Ohio with honesty and civility. It’s too bad the Buckeye’s aren’t up to par in this regard. I was born and raised in Dayton, Ohio. Although, similar to our divergent political conclusions, you left for New York and I left for Texas. You were raised Catholic and seem to be finding less and less in common with the Catholic Church and I was raised Brethren (similar to anabaptist) finding more and more in common with the Catholic Church (Not Catholic, but sympathetic). I have a “gut feeling” that we may even be of two separate generations, but I’m still trying to come up with my reasons for why.
Anyways, I digress. To responsd to your comment on PACS not working in America: perhaps. But it appears to be a compromise that can be looked to as a model to assist in developing a solution capable of reflecting qualities unique to America while also addressing its distinctive challenges. It’s also an example of a “civil union” type instituion that appears to be embraced by the citizens of France, perhaps too much, and not derided as a bigoted solution because it is not “equal.” Perhaps America’s obsession with equality, even where it doesn’t exist, renders this solution much more difficult to agree to in the States, but perhaps not.
I certainly agree that homosexual couples, among other things, should not be barred from seeing each other in hospitals and should be permited to have access to each others health insurace (and almost everyone I know opposed to homosexual marriage would agree), but that should also be open to other non-marital relationships as well and could operate as a contractual agreement. If these are the problems to which homosexuals demand solutions and assert descrimination, I think a workable solution is very possible. But, if they are demanding everyone to regard or be forced to regard their sexual activities as equal to the heterosexual type and to be approved as good, then I do not believe there will ever be a sufficient solution short of state descrimination against the religious beliefs and conscience of many of its citizens. Unfortunately, I have a sneeking suspicion the latter goal is pursued.
May 16th, 2011 | 10:24 pm
*** By honest, I mean sincere – not an endorsement of any claims David Nickol makes against the Catholic Church. I haven’t even read those.
May 16th, 2011 | 11:28 pm
David Nickol,
I have just a moment before I go on stage, but I’d like to thank you for responding!
Hey, I am sentimental, too!
It appears you’re all your moral pronouncements are mostly based on sentiment, which is common for a liberal Protestant such as yourself.
So we have lot in common! (Just not the protestant part) But you’ve just got to accept that others just don’t feel the same way as you do sometimes. I know that stinks. But that way, you can stop wasting time trying to change other peoples feelings. Go have a beer and watch some Tv. You’ll feel better!!
Kisses
May 16th, 2011 | 11:58 pm
@Blake
“But the point I was making is that there **is** a difference and sociological data supports this claim.”
Please, show me this sociological data! I would love to see it. In my last post, I simply asked for one scientific source on this, and you responded with an anti-gay rant. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable in my request. If gay parents are as bad as you claim, you ought to be able to find one valid study confirming it. Again, same question, can you give me a link to one valid study? The gay conspiracy is indeed vast if they control all these scientific journals.
May 17th, 2011 | 3:04 am
Jeremy
You might wish to consider the following excerpt from the evidence of Pierre Lévy-Soussan, a leading psychiatrist and psychoanalyst and an adviser to the French government on adoption, given to the Pércresse commission:
“It is in the child’s best interests to join a nuclear family that is already socially accepted so that he or she does not have to take on the additional task, following a history of abandonment, of adapting to a family that is, for whatever reason, ‘non-standard’.” He believes that in order to be successful, adoption must lead to a psychological filiation that “allows for a nexus of the three elements that are basic to any society: the biological, the social and the subjective dimensions specific to human beings. The psychological strength of this construction exceeds the purely biological connection of filiation and provides it with security. The security and ‘truth’ of this filiation are based on childbirth, on a potential or actual procreative relationship between a man and a woman, allowing the fictional filiation through the encounter with the other sex, alive and of the same generation. The fictional filiation can then be experienced as true, consistent and reasonable.”The difference in sex between the two members of the parental couple thus seems to him indispensable if the adoption “graft” is to take.”
Janice Peyré expresses similar views:
“adolescents or adults who have been adopted express genuine reservations. They attest to a
private feeling of being different when they grew up – a feeling accompanied by a very deeply experienced desire for normalcy. In their view, having homosexual parents would simply add to the sense of difference and the
curiosity that adoption already engenders. In certain cases and in certain communities, it might even lead to rejection.”
Both point to the paucity of evidence, refusing to equate the case of a child brought up by a natural parent and that parent’s same-sex partner, with children adopted by an unrelated same-sex couple. Professor Lévy-Soussan could identify no clinical case-studies in the voluminous psychoanalytical literature.
May 17th, 2011 | 9:39 am
Jeremy, I never said that ALL of the Bible is symbolic. There are portions that can and should be read literally. Leviticus 18:22 is one of those passages (that can be read literally). I’ve never run across anything to suggest it was written symbolically or could be taken in another way.
What you will then doubtless ask is this–how do we understand passages in the Bible that seem to contradict each other, and stray into the realm of paradox? For instance, the passage in the Law that calls for the stoning of lazy and chronically disobedient children.
Studying the culture of the time, one would realize that sloth (laziness) was considered a deadly sin because there wasn’t an abundance of food or food preservation techniques. If a kid refused to work but kept eating, he could be starving other family members to death. The conditions of that time period couldn’t allow such incredible immorality, hence the possibility of the death sentence (if other interventions failed).
Understanding the conditions of the time, so different from those of modern America, allows one to see that really, what may seem ridiculous in the Bible made perfect sense/necessity at that time. If God is, as Catholics claim, a being who wants his children to use the gift of reason and develop into mature beings, why are we surprised His book FORCES us to think critically? If He wanted robots, He certainly could have made us without free will or critical thinking abilities. By all appearances, that’s what some people seem to prefer they were.
But in Frank Herbert’s words, “the sleepers must awaken”. So we must take the seemingly contradictory commands and set them within a hierarchy of truth and morality. Some commands stand above others, and trump them. Take the Old Testament texts and compare them to the Gospel of Christ.
Christ said quite explicitly that God made man and woman for each other in marriage, not man for man or woman for woman. So while homosexuality is an abomination (a word that refers to a violation of God’s intended order), Christ also told us to love our neighbor and pray for those who do wrong. So we pray for those who struggle with sin (homosexual or otherwise), without excusing that sin, and love the sinner.
May 17th, 2011 | 9:46 am
@Jeremy, you also need to be careful not to confuse “interpretation gymnastics” and actual archeological evidence. I base my interpretation (as the Church does) with independent scientific/archeological/anthropological/linguistic FACTS that are actually verifiable. Much/most of that can be verified by comparison with non-religious sources.
Big difference between that kind of interpretation and mere opinion.