The movement advancing same-sex marriage has of late been preoccupied with preeminence more than debate, better thriving in the echo chambers of Ivy League classrooms and judges’ chambers than the dialectic of town halls. But a culture of self-congratulation is hardly the context for honing the art of persuasion. What passes for an argument these days–at least in the mind of newspaper editors–is truly astounding.
Today’s Star Tribune published this letter to the editor from Minneapolis resident Robert Alberti :
The lowest temperature this year was minus 22 in January, while on Tuesday, the high was 103 — a range of 125 degrees. We Minnesotans take that incredible diversity in stride like few other places in the world.
Can’t the state that tolerates these temperature differences also embrace a wide range of marriage types? Passing a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to heterosexual unions would be like passing an amendment restricting the weather to 68 degrees and sunny.
Both amendments would be futile and would undermine what makes Minnesota one of the most special places on Earth: our diversity in all things.
(Via: Mark Shea)
June 9th, 2011 | 3:33 pm
Well, I am still waiting for a decent argument against SSM.
June 9th, 2011 | 3:52 pm
If only the worst arguments were to be considered, the case against same-sex marriage would fare no better:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/06/from_the_department_of_bad_ana.php
June 9th, 2011 | 5:35 pm
Sergio Méndez wrote …Well, I am still waiting for a decent argument against SSM. Such a statement does not reflect the quality of the argument considered, but rather the presuppositions by which that argument will be evaluated. So the obvious rejoinder is “According to what standard?” The answer will reveal the presuppositions by which the argument judged.
There are in fact plenty of good arguments against SSM. None of them presume the primacy of human autonomy, however. None of them presume authentic consent to be the determining factor in sexual morality. Instead they presume the existence of objective boundaries to human behavior. There is little wonder why the modern western world has so much trouble accepting these arguments. They conflict with key presuppositions of modern western thought. The conflict over SSM is presuppositional in nature.
carl
June 9th, 2011 | 6:02 pm
A proper analogy that would better capture the nature of the misunderstanding would be if Minnesota declared that the day’s temperature could be reported in grams as well as degrees.
The argument against calling same-sex relationships “marriage” is the same as against calling civilians “veterans.”
June 9th, 2011 | 6:31 pm
@carl
“There are in fact plenty of good arguments against SSM”
“God said it. I believe it. That settles it” is not going to cut it.
June 9th, 2011 | 6:32 pm
I am still waiting for a good argument in favor of SSM.
I have no problem with granting them the rights they need – if they want to be recognized as a couple, that’s okay by me – but I do have a problem with granting gays the procreative benefits of marriage.
For example: the presumption of paternity.
Or another example: the whole breadwinner-caregiver-head of household thing.
I tell you what, Sergio, I’ll show you my argument against same-sex marriage, if you’ll show me first why gays think they need a right to procreative benefits.
Just why should gays have the right to share the procreative benefits we grant to couples with someone other than the person they’re actually intending to procreate with?
June 9th, 2011 | 6:41 pm
“Passing a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to heterosexual unions would be like passing an amendment restricting the weather to 68 degrees and sunny.”
I wonder if this is a satire on some of the dumb naturalistic arguments AGAINST same sex marriage.
June 9th, 2011 | 8:24 pm
Jeremy
“God said it. I believe it. That settles it” is not going to cut it.
That is the beginning of my argument, and not the sum total of it. Even so, the mere fact that you do not recognize an authority does not objectively de-legitimize the authority. You can still be subject to an authority whether you recognize it or not. A man in Montana may declare his 40 acres a sovereign state and refuse to pay his taxes. He finds out soon enough that he doesn’t have the power to enforce his will. So in fact the argument does ‘cut it’ whether you accept it or not. It may not convince you, but that is not relevant to its validity.
And that is actual endgame of this argument. I do not accept your authorities anymore than you accept mine. There is no reconciling the mutually-exclusive authorities in play, and eventually the two sides will simply give up trying to argue across presuppositions. They will give up on argument, and appeal to power. They will seek to impose their authority in the full knowledge that the other side won’t like it or accept it. At which point they will employ the power of the state to compel obedience. There are competing visions of the Good, but only one can become the basis for Law.
carl
June 9th, 2011 | 8:57 pm
This made me laugh. Thanks, Kevin :)
June 9th, 2011 | 9:05 pm
I’ve done my share of defending SSM, but I have to say, the weather/diversity argument may be the worst I’ve ever encountered. I personally am just going to laugh at it and save the serious arguments for another time, especially because I’d rather have it perpetually 68 degrees and sunny rather than put up with Minnesota weather.
June 9th, 2011 | 9:13 pm
Oops. I didn’t see Carl’s 8:24 post when I posted my previous comment. I really didn’t think that that was what Carl had in mind in his original post. Gotta remember to hit “Refresh” more often.
Not my night. Maybe the Mavericks will fare better….
June 9th, 2011 | 9:32 pm
“Culture of self-congratulation” is an excellent phrase. Do you suppose Robert Alberti tolerated the temperature differences by celebrating each degree of negative 22 as his digits started to freeze or do you suppose he kept himself in a comfort zone, facilitated by central heating, of 55-68 degrees?
I hope he did not seek secondary cooling during those 103 degree days as that would betray a biological intolerance of temperature diversity; an “ick” response, as it were, to heat.
June 9th, 2011 | 10:29 pm
I wonder if this is a satire on some of the dumb naturalistic arguments AGAINST same sex marriage.
Nothing dumb about pointing out that forcing people to pretend that gay men can be a “married couple” is like forcing people to pretend that the weather is always 68 degrees outside.
In both cases, it might look like Utopia on paper, but the reality is more like something out of Kafka.
June 9th, 2011 | 11:55 pm
Jerry Beckett
You were correct. I wasn’t thinking along that line of argumentation. I was actually referring to the idea that legitimizing homosexuality undermines the concept of structural defect in a sexual relationship by giving primacy to consent. But ultimately my opinion derives from Scripture and the authority contained therein. I didn’t think I could let Jeremy’s challenge go unanswered.
Anyways, I see the Mavericks won tonight. So things must be looking up for you. :) Must be the Cowboys rubbing off on them.
carl
June 10th, 2011 | 12:54 am
We should not be forced to accept homosexuals and the like which I feel is being forced upon us by the media with such programs as Glee etc which I dont watch but its even worse in movies and the goal is to desensitize us and get us used to seeing this behaviour which I beleive is wrong.
Same sex marriage and allowing Homosexuals to adopt is just wrong the the people have already voted this down but the homosexuals wont listen and dont accept that the majority has spoken but instead of accepting the fact that the majority do not agree they continue to bash the same thing until it is accepted.
It is not normal and never will be.
thank you
June 10th, 2011 | 2:07 am
Fijit, homosexuals are allowed to adopt in Minnesota, and are allowed to in most all states, so we don’t have to await for people to accept it because apparently they already have.
June 10th, 2011 | 8:24 am
carl –
They’ll force you to marry another person of your gender?
June 10th, 2011 | 9:15 am
Carl illustrates what will be a tremendous problem for us all. We simply don’t agree on fundamentals any more, and all that is left is the exercise of power.
SSM advocates have no real argument to convince a religious objector to it. They can’t appeal to his basis of authority because it rejects it completely. There are arguments for tolerance that can be made from the text while not affirming the behavior, but the main argument is going to boil down to “Your religion is wrong in this, and needs to change.”
That will be accomplished by the naked exercise of social and political power. Either the religion is forced to change (chances are destroying it, as this is not something it can survive) or it will become marginalized. My guess is the latter.
I worry what happens if people realize this.
June 10th, 2011 | 9:22 am
“They’ll force you to marry another person of your gender?”
That’s still my question. Because all the fuss seems to rise to that level of the equation. Objection to someone else getting married, living together, making a partnership? Practically the entire family disapproved of my sister’s second marriage. We didn’t lobby the state legislature. We helped pick up the pieces after ten months.
“Just why should gays have the right to share the procreative benefits we grant to couples with someone other than the person they’re actually intending to procreate with?”
Still don’t see what the fixation on procreation is. But I’ll tell you what: give SSA couples the same legal benefits a septagenarian heterosexual couple gets when they marry, and maybe FT can address a real sexual issue, like beer commercials or a real couples-issue, like communication.
Still waiting on the link between what impact that same-sex couple down the street or around the corner has on my marriage. When I consider the blessings of my own wife, I feel disinclined to deny similar to others. One sign of a strong, healthy marriage is generosity to others. Fussing about someone else’s tax break or hospital visitation seems scroogey to me.
June 10th, 2011 | 10:56 am
[...] Both amendments would be futile and would undermine what makes Minnesota one of the most special places on Earth: our diversity in all things. –Robert Alberti in the Star Tribune [...]
June 10th, 2011 | 11:07 am
“Objection to someone else getting married, living together, making a partnership?”
Those are three distinctly different things. One may object to only one or all three or but two of the three for very different reasons.
“But I’ll tell you what: give SSA couples the same legal benefits a septagenarian [sic] heterosexual couple gets when they marry”
Be careful what you wish for. No one likes to pay higher taxes.
June 10th, 2011 | 11:37 am
Dblade –
That’s okay. Religious objectors don’t have to marry someone of their own gender. Or officiate such a marriage.
There are arguments for tolerance that can be made from the text while not affirming the behavior, but the main argument is going to boil down to “Your religion is wrong in this, and needs to change.”
I rather think it’s more, ‘and ought to change.’ Being in the KKK – or more to the point, Phelps’ Westboro church – isn’t illegal. It just has social consequences. And hey, that’s all right anyway – Matthew 5:10 and all.
I’m actually not too thrilled about the cases of adoption agencies closing/being forced to close over the issue. On the other hand, see Michigan and Virgina for cases of going too far the other way – the ‘defense of marriage’ amendments in those states forbids civil unions as well.
June 10th, 2011 | 11:41 am
@Todd
“Because all the fuss seems to rise to that level of the equation. Objection to someone else getting married, living together, making a partnership? Practically the entire family disapproved of my sister’s second marriage.”
Well, I disagree with your summation of all the fuss. A little more on that below. Sorry to hear of the rough family situation – but this example has nothing to do with the *nature* of marriage.
“Still don’t see what the fixation on procreation is.”
A response to that can be found in testimony recently given to the Minnesota Senate and House found here:
http://thecatholicspirit.com/featured/redefining-marriage-will-redefine-parenthood-marriage-expert-says/
with the full transcript here:
http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/02/dr-morses-testimony-to-mn-senate-judiciary/
“Still waiting on the link between what impact that same-sex couple down the street or around the corner has on my marriage.”
That’s actually *not* the primary concern of resisting this redefinition – although it’s often assumed and worded that way. In other words, the effect on your marriage or any particular other marriage is not, as I understand it, the primary concern voiced by objectors to this redefinition. The primary arguments concern the effect on society as a whole – men, women and children. If gender isn’t important or even relevant in attraction – nor is procreation a ‘big deal’ – then what exactly is the point of gender again?
“Fussing about someone else’s tax break or hospital visitation seems scroogey to me.”
Having to figure out tax codes, and the difficulties of sorting out hospital visitation privileges are examples of the *resulting* paradoxes caused by redefinition. Those on the side of rejecting such a redefinition aren’t looking for more complexity. And causing hurt is not on our agenda either.
June 10th, 2011 | 11:46 am
Entire transcript of testimony to Minnesota House and Senate here:
http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/02/dr-morses-testimony-to-mn-senate-judiciary/
I think these arguments are important enough that it’s worth passing on these excerpts:
“Marriage is adult society’s institutional structure for protecting the legitimate interests of children. Without this public purpose, we would not need marriage as a distinct social institution.”
“Same sex marriage redefines parenthood, as a side effect of redefining marriage. Up until now, marriage has made legal parenthood track biological parenthood, with adoption for exceptional situations. The legal presumption of paternity means that children born to a married woman are presumed to be the children of her husband. With this legal rule, and the social practice of sexual exclusivity, marriage attaches children to their biological parents.”
“Same sex couples of course, do not procreate together. So called Marriage Equality requires a dubious move from “presumption of paternity” to the gender neutral “presumption of parentage.” This sleight of hand transforms the legal understanding of parenthood. The same sex partner of a biological parent is never the other biological parent.”
June 10th, 2011 | 11:52 am
As a side note – it seems to me that a major point of the original post was to point out the level of argument in defense of this view considered worth printing by a major city newspaper – in what is acknowledged to be a hub of homosexual culture in this country.
June 10th, 2011 | 12:09 pm
Also of interest is the fact that most people who are in favor of normalizing homosexuality and legalizing SSM are also quite cozy about adultery. And that includes being in favor of bisexuals being married to a heterosexual partner and having bisexual affairs on the side.
SSM proponents may not publicly admit this, but they never speak out against it – a glaring clue to what they really think. Silence consents and all that.
And the majority of SSM proponents are in favor of pornography and prostitution.
Ah, the American circus to normalize homosexuality continues with all its clowns.
June 10th, 2011 | 1:32 pm
Also of interest is the fact that most people who are in favor of normalizing homosexuality and legalizing SSM are also quite cozy about adultery.
Is not the whole point of SSM to normalize and legitimize adultery as a reproductive strategy?
It’s not like gays intend to accept that they are sterile couples, and remain monogamous. Same sex marriage is about the right to create a family unit in “creative” ways – that is, in ways that are based on feeding their own needs by taking from others basic rights and protections and access to relationships.
Their relationship with each other is important; their child’s relationship with a mother or father is without value and can be stolen without guilt. Their desire to be part of a family unit is important; their child’s desire to be connected with his own real family is not. In fact, they argue that, unlike adopted children, the children of gays don’t even have such feelings or needs. And the children are pressured from birth to testify to this “truth” – this political agenda.
June 10th, 2011 | 1:36 pm
They will give up on argument, and appeal to power. They will seek to impose their authority in the full knowledge that the other side won’t like it or accept it.
They’ll force you to marry another person of your gender?
Lol, why do you keep going with this silly straw man even when you know perfectly well that is not what people are afraid of?
Oh, wait – I forgot – you don’t have any honest arguments, you have to rely on misrepresenting the other side’s arguments, don’t you?
June 10th, 2011 | 2:14 pm
“adoption for exceptional situations”
tsk tsk. 130,000 kids without parents and no wonder it hardly changes. Nobody wants to take a need, a societal responsibility seriously.
“Also of interest is the fact that most people who are in favor of normalizing homosexuality and legalizing SSM are also quite cozy about adultery. And that includes being in favor of bisexuals being married to a heterosexual partner and having bisexual affairs on the side.”
Prove it.
I find it more interesting that conservatives and opponents of same-sex unions are no more moral than their ideological opponents. How many such high profile folks have themselves been caught in adultery (even same-sex adultery).
Playing the we’re-more-moral card is pretty laughable.
“Lol, why do you keep going with this silly straw man even when you know perfectly well that is not what people are afraid of?”
Because you argue like you’re afraid of it.
June 10th, 2011 | 2:22 pm
@Alessandra
“…most people who are in favor of normalizing homosexuality and legalizing SSM are also quite cozy about adultery… includes… having bisexual affairs on the side.
And the majority of SSM proponents are in favor of pornography and prostitution….”
This seems wildly speculative – and I frankly doubt it. I’m not in favor of redefining marriage, but I’m not in favor of broad assertions like this either. Words like “most”… “the majority”… From where are you drawings these conclusions? Can you back up these assertations with any sources at all?
June 10th, 2011 | 3:04 pm
As a side note – it seems to me that a major point of the original post was to point out the level of argument in defense of this view considered worth printing by a major city newspaper – in what is acknowledged to be a hub of homosexual culture in this country.
JDD,
If you take a look at the letter as it appeared in the paper, the reason to feature it was clearly the current heat wave, not the brilliance of the argument in favor of same-sex marriage.
June 10th, 2011 | 3:35 pm
@ David Nickol
“If you take a look at the letter as it appeared in the paper, the reason to feature it was clearly the current heat wave, not the brilliance of the argument in favor of same-sex marriage.”
On my third and minor point you respond!
No, the occasion of the heat wave was the vehicle that the author used to advance a philosophy he obviously supports. The editors of the opinion page decided to publish it even though you and I, (presumably, based on your earlier comment,) agree it makes no sense whatsoever.
I don’t think you really need to go to bat for this paper. Come on, and call a spade a spade! Are you saying that if First Things, for example, published a ridiculous argument against homosexual unions, using, say, the Mavs win as an analogy – you’d look upon it as clearly a benign sports commentary?
June 10th, 2011 | 4:14 pm
Ray Ingles wrote:
I rather think it’s more, ‘and ought to change.’
And by what authority do you declare we ‘ought’ to change? You must have some authority somewhere – besides yourself, I mean.
Being in the KKK – or more to the point, Phelps’ Westboro church – isn’t illegal. It just has social consequences.
Well doesn’t that serve to clarify the nature of the discussion. Isn’t it nice to know that those of us who hold to traditional forms of sexual morality are best characterized by Fred Phelps? Of course, it’s one thing to so label an insignificant portion of your population. It’s entirely another to so label a huge portion of your population. Especially when that portion is standing on an irrevocable authority that will not be moved. Certainly not by Ray Ingles and his disembodied ‘oughts.’
That last point cannot be over-emphasized. This situation is not analogous to racial prejudice. This issue deals with moral behavior, and moral behavior is never justified solely on the basis of genetics. Men are expected to rise above their genetic construction and act in accordance with Right. “My genes made me do it” is never a valid defense. Here we are not even dealing with a behavior of purely genetic origin. Instead we confront a desire of mixed origin, and the question under contest is “What justifies the desires of the homosexual such that he may act on them?” The homosexual apologist refuses to even address that question. He says “My desires are my own, and I have the right to act on them by virtue of my human autonomy. It is none of your business.” Which is why I made reference in my first post to the primacy of consent and autonomy as the root of the conflict. Those are the principles which the homosexual apologist seeks to establish, and those are the principles I wish to see cast down.
Homosexuality deals with the fixed nature of the Created Order and the place of human sexuality within that order. It deals with fundamentals of moral behavior that we cannot alter simply because you want us to do so. There is no way for us to justify homosexuality from Scripture. You are effectively demanding we repudiate the central authority of the Christian faith, and that isn’t going to happen. You aren’t going to change opinions. Now, if there were only 80 of us in a church in Kansas, it wouldn’t matter. Unfortunately, there are considerably more than 80 of us.
carl
June 10th, 2011 | 4:47 pm
I don’t think you really need to go to bat for this paper. Come on, and call a spade a spade!
JDD,
It is a silly argument, and I certainly would not have published it were I the editor. But it seems to me what you and others are trying to do is take the weakest argument ever made, and say it is indicative of the quality of argument for those who favor same-sex marriage. It was, after all, presented here as the worst argument. Even if Minneapolis is a sort of “gay capital,” not every letter to the editor of the local paper is indicative of the intellectual quality of the gay people in the city. To quote Ray Ingles, “If only the worst arguments were to be considered, the case against same-sex marriage would fare no better.”
I have been thinking to myself if there is some way to press the reset button and start discussion of this issue on First Things all over. I would love to see a discussion like this take place with a neutral moderator who would point out logical flaws, personal impressions reported as facts, and so on, so that both sides would be forced to be on their best behavior.
I thought Dblade made an interesting statement when he said, “We simply don’t agree on fundamentals any more, and all that is left is the exercise of power.” I think there is a fair amount of truth to the first clause, but I disagree with the second. It would be interesting to talk about fundamentals. If he believes that not everyone believes in traditional Bible-based morality, he is of course right. But I really don’t think debate about what should be made law should be based on what conservative Christians claim “the Bible says” about homosexuality. Robert George and others have tried to get away from citing religious arguments against same-sex marriage and abortion in favor of rational arguments they believe everyone can accept (see What Is Marriage? Debate here on things rarely begins at such a level or even pays attention to the really intellectual attempts to debate these issues. I wonder how many people besides me have even read the essay, which many consider the best defense of traditional marriage available. (I don’t agree with George, but he is a force to be reckoned with.)
I was extremely pleased to see your message to Alessandra, because usually opposing sides in these kinds of debates let anything from someone on their own side pass without comment, and it just lowers the quality of the whole discussion.
Are you saying that if First Things, for example, published a ridiculous argument against homosexual unions, using, say, the Mavs win as an analogy – you’d look upon it as clearly a benign sports commentary?
On June 2, Joe Carter posted a piece titled ACLU Wants Prisoners to Have Porn, saying, “Every once in awhile the ACLU defends actual civil liberties and makes me think that maybe they aren’t so bad after all. But it doesn’t take long before they go and do something to remind me why the organization is deserving of contempt.” The title remains, even though the story was false. There is an update, but no retraction. I do not think First Things always meets the highest standards, although it is rare it prints something as weak as the Star Tribune letter, which, by the way, was only a letter to the editor, even if it was featured as the letter of the day. But occasionally my reaction to a piece in First Things is, “Oh, come on!”
June 10th, 2011 | 5:43 pm
This situation is not analogous to racial prejudice. This issue deals with moral behavior, and moral behavior is never justified solely on the basis of genetics.
But that’s the whole point.
To expand the right to “be what you are” with the right to therefore “do what you are”.
June 10th, 2011 | 5:51 pm
homosexuals are allowed to adopt in Minnesota
Only because the question of what, if any, rights children are entitled to is a question that has so far been ignored.
What gays are doing is in violation of the “child’s best interest” standard. Whenever an “adoption” is ruled by anything other than the child’s best interests -or, more specifically, whenever an “adoption” prioritizes the interests of those who want or need a child over the well-being of the child being adopted – the adoption is not a legitimate adoption, because adoption itself is legitimized by the “best interests” standard.
Every human being has a right to have guardians making major life decisions on their behalf based on their own best interests.
Failure to do this constitutes exploitation, and possibly trafficking. There simply is no right to buy a child. Gay adoption is based on the following equation:
“Significant, societally valued relationships are important; to be deprived of equal access to important relationships is a violation of one’s rights – except for children, who are known to survive perfectly well without having a mother-relationship whether that relationship is valued or not” (notice the changing standard, from “valued” to “can survive without”)
“The sexes are not interchangeable; I cannot be expected to be happy married to a member of the opposite sex, because asking me to pretend that the only difference between the sexes is minor and physical constitutes ‘living a lie’. But men and women are interchangeable enough that you can swap mothers and fathers around -just because sex is important for me does not mean it matters whether my son is forced to learn about masculine sexuality from a woman vs. a man.”
It’s hypocritical.
It is only tolerated because so far the rights of kids are largely ignored.
It’s a loophole: the laws that protect the rights of children (existing laws that protect against exactly this sort of boundary violation!) are only state laws, when they need to be made federal laws – so that we can recognize what gays are doing for what it is: child abuse.
June 10th, 2011 | 6:02 pm
Blake –
Well, Carl’s talking specifically about people “imposing their authority” and ‘compelling obedience’. So I’m wondering what, precisely, people will be compelled to do or say. Elaboration would be most helpful.
Carl –
Funny you should ask.
But I meant “ought” in the sense of suasion, not legal force. For example:
Read carefully. I didn’t say that. Even if I had, my point would stand. Phelps and his ilk are not suffering any legal consequences from the “power of the state”. Indeed, thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision, they’re benefiting from the protection of the state in forcefully expressing their views, however repugnant people find both the views and their choice of venue.
In specifics, now, what “obedience” is being ‘compelled’ of the Westboro church, or the KKK? What specific “obedience” do you fear yourself being ‘compelled’ to perform? The obedience of not forcing others to obey your moral code?
June 10th, 2011 | 10:11 pm
David,
I’d love to press the reset button. It’s a great fantasy. But surely we have enough intelligent people with college degrees and long reading and skeptical, inquisitive minds and a love of logic and reasoning to moderate our own discussion. For some reason, it’s not happening here. Why?
As you point out, it’s cheering that JDD is willing to call out Alessandra for her “wild speculations” and “broad assertions.” I’d like to see more of that happen. Why doesn’t it?
Like you, I was also intrigued and dismayed by Dblade’s statement that because we don’t agree on fundamentals, we are destined to the raw exercise of power. One thing I think is happening is that different kinds of fundamentals are being conflated because conservatives are not willing to challenge each other and likewise.
Some of the people defending traditional marriage on First Things think gays can become straight, others think not. Some believe that civil unions should not be allowed, others think civil unions should be allowed but need to be less than marriage, and still others believe that civil unions should differ only in name from marriage.
I think I’ve heard all five of these responses on these comment threads, but they are not fleshed out, and people don’t argue with each other over them. Instead, they form a united front against the liberals arguing for gay marriage. One result is that the range of fundamentals held by conservatives is left unexamined. Interestingly, there are long, heated exchanges among conservatives on First Things about fundamentals on other issues, especially on their allegiance to the Reformed, Roman, or Orthodox sects, but social issues are a lot harder for them to admit to disagreement on.
June 10th, 2011 | 11:06 pm
@Todd
I find it more interesting that … opponents of same-sex unions are no more moral than their ideological opponents.
YOS
Ach! The good ol’ tu quoque! However, we will pause and take note that no one ever demanded marriage equivalence =before= marriage was gutted of its central significance by easy divorce and relaxed mores. IOW, people want marriage equivalence only insofar as it is no longer marriage.
Hence, Erika LaBrie has married the Eiffel Tower (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/love-objects/article1259075/), Chen Wei-yih has married herself (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/22/us-taiwan-wedding-odd-idUSTRE69L3H720101022), and Joseph Guiso married Honey, his Labrador retriever (http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/12/01/man-marrys-dog-city-first-toowoomba/)
In the Sixties, we called this the “emptying out” of bourgeois institutions by “walking through.” Once it has been emptied out, we may play among the ruins and if anyone objects, those like Todd can point to the ruins as a justification.
June 11th, 2011 | 5:47 am
Like you, I was also intrigued and dismayed by Dblade’s statement that because we don’t agree on fundamentals, we are destined to the raw exercise of power. One thing I think is happening is that different kinds of fundamentals are being conflated because conservatives are not willing to challenge each other and likewise.
Speaking of challenging each other, do you have that answer for me, as to why gays need and deserve the procreative benefits of marriage?
Still waiting for that answer. You got one?
Because as far as I am concerned, the burden of proof ought to start with those who want change explaining why that change is necessary and desirable.
Assuming that we want to find a solution for gay people so that they can be “recognized”, why is forcing people to “recognize” them as something they aren’t better than, say, granting them the right to split the benefits of marriage – the life-partner benefits shared with their partner, while the procreative benefits split with the person they procreate with?
Why do gays need the right to pass themselves off as their child “having two daddies”? What’s wrong with honesty?
June 11th, 2011 | 5:50 am
Interestingly, there are long, heated exchanges among conservatives on First Things about fundamentals on other issues, especially on their allegiance to the Reformed, Roman, or Orthodox sects, but social issues are a lot harder for them to admit to disagreement on.
Some truths are self-evident.
That you should honor and respect the mother of your child – enough to marry her, provide for her, and encourage your child’s relationship with her – is better than to use and discard the woman you make a baby with, as if she were rubbish.
Ditto in reverse honoring your child’s father. He’s your child’s father – and your child does know the difference, and understands perfectly well that “has two mommies” is code for “what mommy wants is what matters – do without and suck it up!” (Funny sort of “love”, that…)
That it is immoral to prioritize your crotch above your child is just obvious.
Still waiting for someone to explain why that’s not just “DUH!”
June 11th, 2011 | 5:57 am
On the subject of adoption, it is, perhaps, worth noting that, in the case of joint adoption, the Hague Convention on International Adoption limits adoption to married, opposite-sex couples. This is reflected in the domestic law or administrative practice of a number of countries that permit SSM. In the Netherlands, for example, same-sex married couples can only adopt a Dutch citizen.
More generally, I would suggest that it is unrealistic to isolate the question of SSM from that of adoption and assisted reproduction. Procreation may not be the primary purpose of Civil Marriage, but filiation certainly is; otherwise the provisions facilitating marriage in extremis are unintelligible, for no one expects a death-bed marriage to produce children. Indeed, some European codes, the French, for one (CC Art 171), permit posthumous marriage, where consent has been clearly expressed, but the formalities remain incomplete. As the surviving spouse in a posthumous marriage acquires no succession rights, its only legal function is filiation.
June 11th, 2011 | 5:59 am
Well, Carl’s talking specifically about people “imposing their authority” and ‘compelling obedience’.
Yes, I do not want to be forced to play along with the fantasy that a “child has two mommies”.
It’s a lie. You don’t have a right to force me to lie for you, just so that you can play out a dysfunctional fantasy.
Be as gay as you want. I don’t care who or what you sleep with. But if you want me to recognize your relationship as being the same as a marriage, then you need to answer my questions: IS your relationship the same as a marriage?
Because it sure looks to me like there are significant differences between a real marriage vs. what you want.
I’ll grant – just for the sake of argument – that you have some “right” to have your relationship recognized. I don’t believe you have any more “right” than an incestuous couple has, or a man whose “significant other” is a corpse – but hey, I’m good with live and let live, and if you want to take a blow-up doll for your life partner, that’s your business.
But you want to redefine what a family is, and you want to punish those who don’t play along. You are the one imposing your values: you want to make it a thought-crime to recognize the ties of kinship as being more “real”, more durable, more binding, and – yes – sacred.
You don’t like us believing that because gays don’t want to do right by their family. They want to take a crayola to their family tree, taking what rightfully belongs to their baby-mama, their baby-daddy, their child, their child’s grandparents – why should I be compelled to play along with that?
What makes your values more important than mine, that you not only have the right to force me to “live and let live”, but you actually have the right to force me to GIVE UP my beliefs, and adopt yours?
Gay marriage is built on lies. What gives you the right to force me to lie? Your child does not have “two daddies” – your child has a mother that you just don’t feel like honoring. Let your kid have his relationship with his mother.
June 11th, 2011 | 6:13 am
Alessandra: “Also of interest is the fact that most people who are in favor of normalizing homosexuality and legalizing SSM are also quite cozy about adultery. And that includes being in favor of bisexuals being married to a heterosexual partner and having bisexual affairs on the side.”
Todd: Prove it.
Disprove it.
June 11th, 2011 | 6:46 am
@Alessandra: “…most people who are in favor of normalizing homosexuality and legalizing SSM are also quite cozy about adultery… includes… having bisexual affairs on the side. … And the majority of SSM proponents are in favor of pornography and prostitution….”
JDD: This seems wildly speculative – and I frankly doubt it.
Why? What data do you have about people who are in favor SSM that contradicts this? I frankly doubt you have any data at all.
JDD: Can you back up these assertions* with any sources at all?
Can you back any of your assertions that what I remarked isn’t so?
June 11th, 2011 | 10:52 am
“Todd can point to the ruins as a justification.”
Out of context, The Olde. It was someone else who suggested that one side was more moral than the other.
The thing about people marrying themselves, a building, or a dog, is that none of these compare in any way to two people of the same sex seeking certain legal protections and privileges. Example: I still get to visit my dog at the vet.
I can understand that same-sex unions seem strange to sheltered heterosexual persons. But there is no tyranny in them. They don’t want to marry you. Or me. Or anyone other than a person they love and who loves them back.
And of course the decades prior to the 60′s were so terrific: lynching, white sheet mob rule, the closeting of spousal and child abuse, electroshock therapy, the Holocaust, the hiring of thugs to break up strikes, the exploitation of child labor. The edifice of modern moralism sure has a solid foundation, and darn those hippies for their marijuana smoke getting in your eyes.
June 11th, 2011 | 12:44 pm
We might be getting somewhere, now, Blake.
Wait, maybe we’re not. What exactly do you have to give up about your beliefs? Apparently you don’t actually expect to be forced to marry someone of your gender. So… what?
I don’t see anything about legalizing SSM that forces you to do or believe or pretend anything. If a lesbian couple brings their kids to the park, you can loudly ask them, “Who is their real father?” You can declare, “I don’t care what anybody says, you’re not married in my eyes, or the eyes of God.” You can very pointedly snub them, tell your kids to stay away from their kids, etc. Heck, if one of the lesbians dies, you can go to their funeral and let everyone know – loudly – that the lady was a sinner and destined for hell.
What precisely and specifically do you anticipate being forbidden to do, or say? Come on, you’ve got to have something in mind, right?
June 11th, 2011 | 1:25 pm
Todd: I can understand that same-sex unions seem strange to sheltered heterosexual persons. But there is no tyranny in them. They don’t want to marry you. Or me. Or anyone other than a person they love and who loves them back.
The tyranny is absolute. It starts with freedom of speech and reaches far beyond with the most sacred freedom, that of conscience.
Gay “rights” advocates don’t just want legal equality. They want to brand anyone who disagrees with them, on marriage or anything else, as the equivalent of a modern-day segregationist.
If you think homosexuality is immoral or changeable, they want to send you to be reeducated (real case in the US), take away your license to practice counseling (real case in the US), or kick your evangelical student group off campus (real case).
If you object to facilitating same-sex weddings or placing adoptees with same-sex couples, they’ll slap you with a fine for discrimination, take away your nonprofit status (real case), or force you to choose between your job and your conscience (real case).
If you so much as disagree with them, they call you a bigot and a hater, in most liberal environments anyways (3 million cases in the media and on the Internet).
June 11th, 2011 | 2:04 pm
Wait, maybe we’re not. What exactly do you have to give up about your beliefs?
Maybe you should have read what I’ve already written more carefully, because I’m pretty sure I already gave at least two or three beliefs that I hold to be dear –
- the belief that the bonds of family are sacred, to be broken or rearranged only at need (not greed);
- the belief that families are based on kinship, not “choice”
- the belief that it’s morally wrong to try to pick and choose which family obligations you feel like honoring
Those aren’t insignificant beliefs. They’re beliefs that are directly tied to having strong, enduring, drama-free families, where all family members are treated well (as opposed to gays being treated well, while other family members are “rearranged” like so much furniture – or even thrown out of their own family tree altogether)
Look: the Supreme Court established in Nelson vs. Baker that it’s not discrimination against gays to bar them from marriage.
So do you, or do you not, have a good explanation of why gays need, deserve, and/or are entitled to the right to force the rest of us to pretend their relationship is the same as a marriage (which is a kinship relationship), when it isn’t?
June 11th, 2011 | 2:06 pm
“Disprove it.”
Bob Dole, Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, David Vitter, John McCain, Mark Foley, Deal Hudson, Randy Hopper, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Rudy Giuliani, Henry Hyde, Bob Barr, Paul Stanley, Larry Craig, Jim Bakker, Bob Bauer, John Ensign, Ted Haggard, and the list goes deeper if we got into state or loval politics.
Granted, liberals have no better track record, but if your argument is that same-sex union advocates have adultery on their side, I’m afraid you’re going to have to indict the whole idelogical spectrum. But thanks: your argument certainly matches the worst the pro-SSU side can come up with. Now can we get back to a real discussion? My computer is feeling slimy just by typing all those names.
June 11th, 2011 | 3:21 pm
Blake,
“Speaking of challenging each other, do you have that answer for me, as to why gays need and deserve the procreative benefits of marriage? Still waiting for that answer. You got one?”
I asked you months ago to list what you take to be the “procreative benefits of marriage,” and you never answered. Without knowing what exactly you mean, I can’t reply.
I asked you months ago whether you are against all types of civil union for gays or whether you support some types, and you never answered.
You don’t like to answer direct questions or provide direct answers. You prefer to be combative rather than inquisitive.
Ray will wait in vain for you to answer his very simple question.
As I said before, you like to throw bombs. You don’t actually respond to what people are actually saying.
Since you took my quotation out of context and ran the other way with it, perhaps you could point out a time on this thread when you disagreed with something a fellow defender of traditional marriage said.
June 11th, 2011 | 3:39 pm
Todd, I’m not really on board with Alessandra’s insistence on proving a negative, but a list of high-profile cases is “anecdotal evidence” dressed up in its party clothes. If you think responding to a “prove a negative” challenge is worth doing, statistics might work better.
June 11th, 2011 | 3:43 pm
Alessandra,
“If you think homosexuality is immoral or changeable, they want to send you to be reeducated (real case in the US), take away your license to practice counseling (real case in the US), or kick your evangelical student group off campus (real case)”
My point will probably be lost on you, but there’s a difference between arguing that instituting gay marriage is tyrannical and arguing that states that have instituted gay marriage are doing a bad job of negotiating the church/state issues that follow from gay marriage.
It’s the inability to make these kinds of distinctions and it’s the use of alarmist rhetoric that give rise to the speculation that bigotry is being expressed.
June 11th, 2011 | 4:16 pm
Granted, liberals have no better track record, but if your argument is that same-sex union advocates have adultery on their side
But same sex marriage would be legitimizing adultery as a valid and appropriate means of reproduction.
It is the difference between a guy punching his girlfriend (and rightfully being condemned for it) vs. passing a law saying that men have the right to beat their women.
June 11th, 2011 | 4:49 pm
Alessandra,
Please cite your “real cases.”
June 11th, 2011 | 5:24 pm
Look: the Supreme Court established in Nelson vs. Baker that it’s not discrimination against gays to bar them from marriage.
Blake,
First, it was Baker v. Nelson, not Nelson v. Baker. Second, the case was decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. Third, the US Supreme Court dismissed an appeal, giving the Minnesota Supreme Court decision some value as precedent, but it is only a precedent in a case where precisely the same arguments are made as in Baker v. Nelson.
Consequently, it is incorrect to say that the Supreme Court established it is not discrimination against gays to bar them from marriage.
Also, it seems to me that states have the authority to extend marriage to same-sex couples even if it is not the case that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is discriminatory against gays. Making a case that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory would be necessary to win the right to same-sex marriage through the courts, but it would not be necessary for state legislatures to conclude that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory in order them to pass bills legalizing same sex marriage (as in Vermont).
June 11th, 2011 | 5:43 pm
Blake,
None of your arguments seem to be against same-sex marriage. They all seem to be against adoption by couples in a same-sex marriage. (Actually, it is very difficult not to read your arguments against same-sex marriage simply as arguments against adoption.
to the right to force the rest of us to pretend
No law can force you to pretend anything. Anti-discrimination laws are to regulate the way you behave, not the way you think. If you think the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, the pope is the anti-Christ, and Catholics are the spawn of the devil, no law is forcing you to pretend otherwise. However, if you refuse to rent a hotel room to a Catholic, or fires an employee because he or she is Catholic, or refuse to serve Catholics at your restaurant, you will be violating anti-discriminaton laws. You can think anything you like about Catholics, but you can’t discriminate against them because they are Catholics.
People keep saying that sexual orientation is not like race, because it is not the orientation of gay people that is objectionable, but rather their behavior. And yet we prohibit discrimination based on religion, which is not an “immutable characteristic” (in the sense a layman would understand it). We also in some cases prohibit discrimination based on marital status and political affiliation, both of which are in no way analogous to race.
June 11th, 2011 | 6:08 pm
Blake –
So, uh… keep the bonds of your blood-relative family and follow all the obligations thereof. How are you being prevented from doing that?
June 11th, 2011 | 7:10 pm
The thing about people marrying themselves, a building, or a dog, is that none of these compare in any way to two people of the same sex seeking certain legal protections and privileges
When the guy marrying the dog wants to force us all to recognize that he and his dog are “the parents” of his child, are you going to be okay with playing along?
After all, if gays have a right to have their “sexual identity” affirmed, why doesn’t everyone?
June 11th, 2011 | 8:39 pm
It’s time to explain the mystery of Blake. You see, he doesn’t actually believe his arguments. To be clear, he believes in his conclusions: he thinks homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage is a travesty, but he doesn’t believe in all the arguments he makes about the rights of children, which is why he can’t answer any tough questions about his views of adoption, surrogacy, or couples that have children from previous straight marriages.
The first time I heard Blake’s name was in a post some months ago where he explained that the way to win arguments with liberals was to frame your argument in terms of rights. His logic was that liberals are suckers for rights arguments, but now he’s caught in the contradictions that arise when you make arguments based on premises you don’t believe. What’s left to him is a series of logical evasions and belligerent attitudinizing. He would have been better off explaining precisely where he’s coming from.
June 11th, 2011 | 9:29 pm
@Blake
“But if you want me to recognize your relationship as being the same as a marriage, then you need to answer my questions: IS your relationship the same as a marriage?”
To do that, we need to know how exactly you define a marriage, and upon what do you base this definition?
June 11th, 2011 | 11:22 pm
I suspect what Blake is trying to say is that being considered or called a bigot when you don’t think of yourself as one is “tyranny”.
June 12th, 2011 | 6:12 am
Michael
Four points:
1) The current international convention prohibits international adoptions by same-sex couples, a rule that is respected in those jurisdictions that allow SSM. Does not this international consensus merit very careful consideration about the desirability of same-sex adoption?
2) The laws of many countries prohibit assisted reproduction, except to treat a pathological condition. Should this be modified to allow same-sex couples to use the technique for conceptions of convenience?
3) Again, the laws of many countries refuse to recognize surrogacy agreements, on the grounds that only things in commerce may be the subject of an agreement. Some actually penalise them. Again, how will SSM affect this?
More generally, at present most jurists agree with Jean Carbonnier’s dictum that “the heartof marriage is not the couple; it is the presumption of paternity.” How is this view of marriage compatible with SSM? If it is not, it is difficult to argue that SSM will not involve a radical change in the meaning of marriage itself. Belgium and the Netherlands both exclude the presumtion, in the case of same-sex couples – Does not this create two different marriage régimes, even if both go by the same name?
June 12th, 2011 | 7:34 am
Michael PS – You know, I’ve asked a couple times but I don’t think I’ve gotten an answer. What’s the purpose of “presumption of paternity” when, thanks to modern DNA tests, we have determination of paternity?
June 12th, 2011 | 2:56 pm
Ray Ingles
Because, in most cases, the presumption renders paternity incontestable. The assumption is that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity will coincide; when they do not, the law, in most cases, favours the legal and social elements of an acquired status over the biological – “La possession vaut titre,” as we say, “possession is as good as title.”
So, in questions of inheritance, or claims for maintenance between ascendants and descendants, say, between a grandparent and a grandchild, the law will not allow the question of paternity to be raised and the results of a DNA test are simply irrelevant. Any other rule would risk endless disruptions to the peace of families and to the orderly transmission of property
June 12th, 2011 | 6:59 pm
Michael PS,
How important is the presumption of paternity in the United States, where 40% of children are born out of wedlock? Also As Ray Ingles points out, nowadays we have DNA testing which can prove paternity. Presumption of paternity dates back centuries, and was no doubt important for a very long time when paternity could not be proven. Now that it can be proven, presumption of paternity results in demonstrable injustices. Fathers can be denied any parental rights to be involved with children they can prove they are the father of. And other fathers are held legally responsible for children that are not biologically their own. When you couldn’t know, it made sense to presume. When you can know, there are many possible negative consequences of presuming.
Also, as far as I can tell in the United States, presumption of paternity is a matter of state law and not automatically the result of marriage in and of itself. In the United States, each state can set its own paternity laws and in fact in some states genetic testing does override the presumption of paternity. From my hasty and incomplete research into the matter, it appears that there were always grounds on which presumed paternity could be challenged. For example, if it could be proven that the husband and wife were physically separated (say, the husband was at sea, or in another country) for a long enough period prior to the birth of the child, the father could then assert the child was not his.
June 12th, 2011 | 7:44 pm
pentamom
June 11th, 2011 | 3:39 pm
Todd, I’m not really on board with Alessandra’s insistence on proving a negative, but a list of high-profile cases is “anecdotal evidence” dressed up in its party clothes. If you think responding to a “prove a negative” challenge is worth doing, statistics might work better.
======
statistics – is one type of data.
What exactly is the basis for the claims that what I have observed is not right? Or do the people saying I am wrong have no basis in reality for their claim? They have nothing to support it?
So typical.
June 12th, 2011 | 7:46 pm
I do hope Blake will be consistent and weigh in here on how horrific it is that if a wife has an affair and conceives a child by a man who is not her husband, because of the presumption of paternity, the husband can be forced to pretend that the child is his. Also, the biological father, who can prove paternity by DNA testing, can be forced to pretend the child is not his. The child can be denied any contact with its biological father, and of course it is the right of a child to know its biological father. In this case, the law rips the child from its biological father’s arms and forces it to be raised by a “father” who has no biological connection to it.
June 12th, 2011 | 7:47 pm
Blake
June 11th, 2011 | 4:16 pm
But same sex marriage would be legitimizing adultery as a valid and appropriate means of reproduction.
It is the difference between a guy punching his girlfriend (and rightfully being condemned for it) vs. passing a law saying that men have the right to beat their women.
======
Perfectly stated as it concerns the issue of “legitimizing adultery as a valid and appropriate means of reproduction.”
I was, however, referring to SSM supporters’ views on adultery in general, not only for SSM, not only concerning their own personal lives, but in general.
June 12th, 2011 | 8:07 pm
Michael
June 11th, 2011 | 3:43 pm
Alessandra,
“If you think homosexuality is immoral or changeable, they want to send you to be reeducated (real case in the US), take away your license to practice counseling (real case in the US), or kick your evangelical student group off campus (real case)”
My point will probably be lost on you, but there’s a difference between arguing that instituting gay marriage is tyrannical and arguing that states that have instituted gay marriage are doing a bad job of negotiating the church/state issues that follow from gay marriage.
======
None of these issues *follow* from the legalization of homosexual “marriage.”
They are all a consequence of the disingenuous, heavy-handed normalization of homosexuality currently taking place in the US.
The normalization of homosexuality must be shoved down everyone’s throats by perverting the law and trampling on our most fundamental rights.
There is nothing “alarmist” at being indignant at the fact that upstanding people are being treated as criminals because they refuse to submit to an ignorant, harmful, dishonest ideology concerning human sexuality.
June 12th, 2011 | 8:19 pm
David Nickol
June 11th, 2011 | 4:49 pm
Alessandra,
Please cite your “real cases.”
======
Which political organization trying to shove SSM down society’s throat has taken a similar stand against pornography, prostitution, and adultery, and which has, in addition, spent millions of dollars to do away with these destructive sexuality practices?
Please cite any such organization if you can. While you are it, you can cite all the total organizations and groups that are on the other side, who either promote, endorse, support or silently consent to prostitution, pornography, and adultery, so that we can make a nice little comparison of how many we have representing the garbage of sexuality views characteristic of your SSM side.
June 12th, 2011 | 11:55 pm
David,
“I do hope Blake will be consistent and weigh in here on how horrific it is that if a wife has an affair and conceives a child by a man who is not her husband, because of the presumption of paternity, the husband can be forced to pretend that the child is his”, etc.
Ouch. That was excellent!
—
Alessandra,
“None of these issues *follow* from the legalization of homosexual “marriage.”
You’re right. I wrote too hastily.
Allow me to amend in this way:
“If you think homosexuality is immoral or changeable, they want to send you to be reeducated (real case in the US)”
I have no idea what real case you could possibly have in mind, but since you won’t provide one, I’ll spend the rest of the night looking for one. Pentamom has agreed to help me.
“take away your license to practice counseling (real case in the US)”
I’m happy to hear that whoever licenses counselors has some standards.
“kick your evangelical student group off campus (real case)”
Now, that’s a mistake. I believe that evangelical groups have the right to preach on campus whatever they believe so that no one might get a more favorable impression. And I can be assured that you will let my Gay Allies group form on the campus of your local religious college or high school.
“There is nothing “alarmist” at being indignant at the fact that upstanding people are being treated as criminals because they refuse to submit to an ignorant, harmful, dishonest ideology concerning human sexuality”
You’re absolutely right to be alarmed. A growing number of people have good friends, aunts, cousins, grandmothers, and former priests who are out, and they think think the anti-gay crowd is just a little unhinged. A little too Fred Phelps. By the way, I think Westboro is scheduled on the next Jerry Springer right after the Klan.
And I apologize for the dated references.
June 13th, 2011 | 2:39 am
“If you think homosexuality is immoral or changeable, they want to send you to be reeducated (real case in the US)”
I have no idea what real case you could possibly have in mind, but since you won’t provide one, I’ll spend the rest of the night looking for one. Pentamom has agreed to help me.
======
Read up on all the cases of Christian social work students who were attacked for having a wholesome sexuality view that does not normalize homosexuality.
At least one was told she must submit to being “re-educated” or be expelled, because her religion and her freedom of conscience were not to be tolerated by the dogmas currently imposed in public schools: homosexuality is a “born that way” condition, there are no issues with homosexuality, and homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.
Anyone who believes otherwise must be now branded a criminal, even though these three dogmas are all irrational and unfounded.
At the same time, these liberal Schools of Social Work, for which every tax payer has contribute money to, have no problem with social workers who promote pornography, prostitution, adultery, or SSM, nor with social workers who will deny others their most fundamental right to religion.
First liberals were aggressively intolerant of other views, then they became heavy-handed, and now we have entered the “coming down with the boot” phase.
And you are surprised people are indignant.
June 13th, 2011 | 3:01 am
David Nichol
Filiation is a civil status. It would be intolerable if, every time a person asserted a claim, based on that status, he or she could be put to proof, either of his own paternity, or that of someone through whom he or she derived title. Likewise, third parties, such as a person dealing with an heir should be entitled to rely on the Civil Register, in which a person’s status is made public and patent. I find it hard to credit that any jurisdiction compels an heir to prove his title in separate actions against every debtor of the estate or every purchaser of assets from it.
Should a child, who has been brought up by his father be allowed, in later life, to contest a claim for financial support by that father, or his paternal grandfather, even if it can be shown that he is not his biological child? Should siblings be allowed to contest each other’s paternity in an inheritance claim?
If an adoption order is to be conclusive evidence of status (as it is), why not a birth certificate, showing the mother and her husband, demonstrated by their marriage certificate?
Marriage is the simplest method of establishing the link between generations of a family and between collaterals, too.
June 13th, 2011 | 5:43 am
Read up on all the cases of Christian social work students who were attacked for having a wholesome sexuality view that does not normalize homosexuality.
Alessandra,
Cite some cases. I can find one—the case of Emily Brooker at Missouri State University.
Anyone who believes otherwise must be now branded a criminal, even though these three dogmas are all irrational and unfounded.
Emily Brooker was not “branded a criminal,” and while she may have been mistreated, she won a lawsuit against the university.
Don’t expect people to hunt for evidence to support your position when you don’t bother to cite it yourself. I am certainly not going to do it again. If you have a case to make, make it yourself.
June 13th, 2011 | 5:46 am
You’re absolutely right to be alarmed. A growing number of people have good friends, aunts, cousins, grandmothers, and former priests who are out, and they think think the anti-gay crowd is just a little unhinged. A little too Fred Phelps. By the way, I think Westboro is scheduled on the next Jerry Springer right after the Klan.
===========
It’s interesting they should brand anyone who disagrees with them as “unhinged,” even when the people disagreeing with them are wonderful people, all around. An irrational and bigoted attitude, if you ask me.
I am sure these same people you mention don’t think the people in their families or elsewhere who promote or condone pornography, promiscuity, prostitution, etc. are a little “unhinged.” But that’s the usual profile for people who normalize homosexuality. And that’s how the liberal smear label game goes.
Furthermore, American culture is about keeping an emotional comfort level intact at the expense of complete denial of everything that is amiss in the personal sphere. So, are people who have a relative with a homosexual problem interested in knowing why this person developed a homosexual psychology in the first place? Not in the least. Ignorance is bliss and ignorance in this case fundamentally also serves another very important purpose: to drive away any uncomfortable queries into family dynamics that may have contributed to this result. These people would much rather spend their time watching Jerry Springer or Sex in the City or porn and drinking a beer.
This is one of the reasons why homosexuality is being normalized in society. It is part of an absolute need to normalize and glorify a much larger ensemble of harmful liberal dogmas and attitudes about sexuality as the norm and the “healthy, acceptable” standard in society.
A large majority of Americans would much rather beat their chests and say there is nothing wrong with (liberal) sexuality in America, rather than to face the fact that the country is rife with dysfunctional, irresponsible, and violent issues related to sexuality. Who wins? So far the people doing the cover-up of all these issues win, and the truth is largely buried, trampled under the heels of your boots as you walk past on your Proud of What Parades.
And while homosexuals like yourself love to attack Phelps (whom I find amusing, BTW), it is clear you will stand in silent collusion with each and every violent homosexual in society. Check out the stats at http://www.gmdvp.org/.
For all the Americans who are trying to normalize homosexuality by legal force, a homosexual that rapes or bashes the brain of their partner is called neither “unhinged” nor a “hater.” For them, it’s the people who point out how irrational liberals are concerning sexuality who must be branded “haters.”
The objective of the smear label game, of course, is to smother debate and dissent on the topic of homosexuality and a host of other obligatorily related issues. It is impossible to frame homosexuality separate from and outside a much larger ensemble of views and attitudes about sexuality and personal relationships.
And so the circus of American modern sexuality continues.
Michael, you mustn’t let the awareness surface in your mind that smearing people as criminals because they refuse to lie about the causes and the nature of homosexuality is the hallmark of a shoddy parody of democracy. Keep up the great job of your complete denial.
Rest assured that if your current smear campaigns are not completely effective in silencing people who point out flaws in your sexuality ideology, liberals will soon threaten these dissenters with jail. For people who cannot win an argument on the basis of knowledge, there is always a sledge hammer.
Don’t worry, your absolute ignorance about the psychological and sociological causes of homosexuality will prevail in society as you hail victory and “progress.”
But as it always happens in human history, people who must use force to smother knowledge will come to lose and to be exposed for what they are.
For the time being, another day, another circus act from homosexual activists concerning marriage or anything else.
June 13th, 2011 | 6:04 am
Marriage is the simplest method of establishing the link between generations of a family and between collaterals, too.
Michael PS,
It seems to me there is a difference between presumption of paternity and state assigned paternity. When it comes to something critical, such as inheritance or payment of child support, it is one thing to presume paternity. It is another thing to ignore incontrovertible DNA evidence that the presumption is wrong should someone introduce it.
June 13th, 2011 | 6:59 am
Amazing!
The most ridiculous analogy seems to get the most comments.
Gather ambiguous words like “diversity” and then go on to make an analogy with the continuous temperature scale.
Strange that the people making these sort of arguments stress how different they are (when they are not), yet they want to be treated “equally”.
June 13th, 2011 | 9:08 am
Michael PS, David has summarized the point beautifully – now that we have DNA tests, presumption can stand for most of the purposes it has in the past. But in contested cases, or in possible situations that haven’t obtained before, like SSM, we have access to an exceedingly reliable tool. (Not perfect; figuring out which of two identical twins is the father of a child can’t be resolved by current DNA tests, for example.)
June 13th, 2011 | 10:19 am
The most ridiculous analogy seems to get the most comments.
Little Man,
Nobody has defended the analogy. However, it is interesting that when the topic is same-sex marriage, there are almost always a large number of comments. Compare this to a recent post on cohabitation (concubinage), which has generated little discussion, yet the number of heterosexual couples cohabiting and/or conceiving children out of wedlock far exceeds the number of gay people in the population. If we look at actual threats to marriage, the family, and child welfare, the major ones are given little attention (divorce, cohabitation, out-of-wedlock births, women bearing children by more than one man), but any mention of same-sex marriage is a major cause for alarm.
June 13th, 2011 | 1:22 pm
Marriage is the simplest method of establishing the link between generations of a family and between collaterals, too.
Marriage also does far more than simply establish paternity.
It is an institution that serves important functions in terms of pressuring and guiding families to do right by each other.
Which is why the “gay community” wants to destroy it – these people don’t really care about being married, they just don’t like the idea of family obligations, because they want to take without giving back, they want to change the rules so that they can have what they want, and who cares about their baby-mama, or baby-daddy, or even their child?
Everything exists in relation to THEM. Examine the actual arguments they put forth and it can be seen: all arguments revolve around how THEY feel and what THEY want and what THEY think they are entitled to; all arguments that touch on what other people feel and want and are entitled to (and need, the argument that gays can’t make) must be “disappeared”, subject changed, ignore that post, make that person go away.
June 13th, 2011 | 1:31 pm
“Still waiting on the link between what impact that same-sex couple down the street or around the corner has on my marriage.”
Impact on my marriage:
- removes the societal norm that adultery is bad; replaces it with the understanding that adultery is a normal part of married life.
- removes the understanding that obligations are a part of married life; replaces it with the understanding that obligations are always optional, that whether there is a link between what one is expected to give vs. what one is entitled to take is merely a “personal choice” -
But note that integrity in marriage is a public good. Either we all benefit from an institution with norms, or we don’t. If those norms are not common, but are personal “choices”, then they are not norms.
I want the option of being able to enter into a contract with the norms, expectations, and legal requirements of a traditional marriage. If you want some other sort of arrangement, you are welcome to create such an arrangement – there is no need to destroy marriage.
What you really want to do is render my marriage contract unenforceable. But I want my marriage contract to be enforceable. I do not want adultery to be a “personal choice”; I am willing to give up my right to commit adultery in exchange for my partner being expected to do the same, and I want the social stigma that comes from breaking that contract.
Now please explain to me why you need to take away that social stigma. If you do not want to adhere to the terms of a marriage, then make up your own contract – do not demand some right to redefine what a marriage is, and force that new definition onto MY marriage.
Impact on my family:
- removes the idea that biology is the basis of who is and is not related to me. Replaces it with the idea that kinship is a “choice” – that my grandchild is not my grandchild if the grandchild’s lesbian mother does not like my son.
- replaces strong, enduring, healthy rules with toxic, dysfunctional, drama-generating rules.
- comes into the public schools and government laws to teach my children that I am a bad person for not having secular humanist/Unitarian Universalist religious beliefs.
- Requires me by law to pretend to hold beliefs that are contrary to my religion.
- prevents me from teaching my child that for a man to force his child to pretend he’s “got two daddies” is child abuse. How can I teach my child to behave, and treat his own someday-wife or husband, when I am myself being forced to be an accessory to abuse?
I could actually go on. The list goes on and on. Same-sex marriage is based on violating boundaries.
June 13th, 2011 | 1:58 pm
Alessandra,
“liberals will soon threaten these dissenters with jail.”
Who told you about our super secret plot to round up all the conservatives and put them in jail?
“while homosexuals like yourself love to attack Phelps”
First Things ran a couple of columns attacking Phelps. Do you think they’re homosexuals, too?
(Shh. Don’t tell my wife I’m homosexual. Like you, she thinks everyone is bisexual.)
” it is clear you will stand in silent collusion with each and every violent homosexual in society.”
Hey, I didn’t say anything in my Catholic high school when kids went out Friday nights to Montrose to beat up gays, why should I say anything now?
June 13th, 2011 | 2:10 pm
David Nichol & Ray Ingles
Paternity has, not only a biological, but a social and legal aspect. When a person has enjoyed a status, as a child of the family, “ongoing, peaceable, public and unequivocal,” [« continue, paisible, publique et non équivoque »]it is clearly right that his or her status should become incontestable. General insecurity is too high a price to pay for remedying occasional errors.
Suppose the case of a man, who has brought up his wife’s child, believing it to be his own; is it right that the child should be able to refuse to maintain that man in his old age, on the grounds that they are not biologically related? Should the court allow him to lead a proof?
June 13th, 2011 | 3:11 pm
“liberals will soon threaten these dissenters with jail.”
Who told you about our super secret plot to round up all the conservatives and put them in jail?
It stopped being “super secret” when you guys started pressing charges against people.
June 13th, 2011 | 3:17 pm
Hey, I didn’t say anything in my Catholic high school when kids went out Friday nights to Montrose to beat up gays, why should I say anything now?
How many Catholic kids beat up gays? How did you know? Did you see them? Or are you just making up stuff to justify perpetrating hate against gays?
I hear all this stuff about how gays are supposedly getting beaten up every day. I don’t believe it. I think the idea that gays are specially targeted just because they’re gay is a lie, perpetrated for the express purpose of spreading hate against groups that supposedly go around hurting homosexuals.
So how many gays were actually beaten to the point of serious injury by Catholics? Pick a year – any year. Put up the statistics. I want to see them.
June 13th, 2011 | 3:18 pm
Excuse me, I meant hate against Catholics, not hate against gays.
Although slander against Catholics does make *all* gays look bad.
June 13th, 2011 | 3:22 pm
Compare this to a recent post on cohabitation (concubinage), which has generated little discussion, yet the number of heterosexual couples cohabiting and/or conceiving children out of wedlock far exceeds the number of gay people in the population.
But so few people are arguing that this is somehow a good thing.
At least, not now that the evidence is so overwhelmingly demonstrating the real harm done to children.
Someday, when the evidence is in, we will feel just the same about the act of forcing a child to pretend that having a “second daddy” is somehow just as good as having a real relationship with his real mother. It won’t be controversial; it won’t generate comments. All but a few fringe diehards will recognize that of course mothers and fathers are not “the same”, nor are they interchangeable, and of course adoption should be reserved only for situations where it is genuinely necessary – as measured by the child’s needs, not the parent’s.
June 13th, 2011 | 3:48 pm
[...] The Worst Argument for SSM? – First Things Blog last week highlighted what it labeled as perhaps the worst argument for same-sex marriage: climate change. [...]
June 13th, 2011 | 8:31 pm
Michael PS –
No matter what the truth is?
June 13th, 2011 | 8:59 pm
Blake,
“How many Catholic kids beat up gays? How did you know? Did you see them? Or are you just making up stuff to justify perpetrating hate against Catholics? So how many gays were actually beaten to the point of serious injury by Catholics? Pick a year – any year. Put up the statistics. I want to see them.”
Year: 1979
How many Catholics: Twelve.
How many gays: Maybe six from the conversations I heard.
Serious injury: None. I don’t think. Let’s only count things like broken bones or death. By that measure, even segregation looks good.
Did you see them: No. I avoided those guys. I didn’t think they were good Christians. I’m sure I was wrong.
How did you know: Morning morning brag fests. Right after the number of girls they scored on. Can’t say either number was accurate.
Are you just making up stuff to justify perpetrating hate against Catholics: I’m definitely making this stuff up. We liberal/Unitarian/what’s the other word you use all the time?, we lie all the time. That’s what you tell us, right?
I’m sure all the boys in your school were perfect angels.
June 13th, 2011 | 9:15 pm
Blake –
Social stigma may be legally mandated now? Which article of the Constitution is that in?
June 14th, 2011 | 4:12 am
Ray Ingles
No question of “truth” arises. The law belongs to the realm of practice, not speculation; findings of fact are a mere prelude to decision-making.
Just as, in the case of plenary adoption, the law treats the child (for some purposes) as if he or she were the natural child of the adopter and not the child of his or her natural parents, the law does the same in the case of an acquired status. An « acte de notoriété » confirming an acquired status is not an untrue finding of fact; it is a true finding of fact, on the basis of which the child is treated, for legal purposes, as if he or she were the child of a particular person. In such a case, the court refuses to investigate the question of biological paternity at all.
The whole purpose of marriage is to ensure that, as far as possible, the legal, social and biological aspects of paternity coincide. When they do not, why should the biological reality be preferred to the social reality?
June 14th, 2011 | 12:17 pm
Michael PS,
Ultimately, the biological reality undergirds the social reality. This is a metaphysical truth, a la Aristotle and Aquinas. That does not mean social realities are reducible to biological reality.
I’ve been thinking about the pervasive slogan “marriage equality”–it seems to be more in the news lately, maybe in anticipation of Gay Pride Day later this month (in which the media have a partisan interest). Marriage equality is on a collision course with marriage reality.
Marriage reality is the sense of things, pervasive for a hundred generations, in which procreation is understood as being built into the idea of marriage, and opposite-sex couples alone are considered to have a capacity to procreate (in the case of the sterile and aged, an ideal or optimum-functioning capacity).
How did common sense become controversial while a bizarre social construct–”marriage equality”–became the (supposed) new norm? Doesn’t “marriage equality” in the SSM context imply what is plainly false? Since opposite-sex and same-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to the procreative nature of marriage, how can marriage equality apply to homosexual couples?
The answer: Only by a suspension of reality, and by a credulity (belief in social construction all the way down) bordering on insanity. It’s a choice between reality and unreality, but anyone who thinks it’s an obvious choice underestimates the power of liberal ideology and its free-floating abstractions. It’s the power of bamboozlement. Unfortunately, all too many people today are easily bamboozled.
June 14th, 2011 | 2:27 pm
Ken Zaretzke,
“Only by a suspension of reality, and by a credulity (belief in social construction all the way down) bordering on insanity.”
I just gave up on you. You’re no different from the Blakes and Allesandras.
The list of intelligent conservatives on this site just went down from three to two.
June 14th, 2011 | 3:34 pm
Blake –
I want the social stigma that comes from breaking that contract.
Social stigma may be legally mandated now? Which article of the Constitution is that in?
Social stigma will be legally mandated when laws are passed forcing us to pretend that gays can be “married”.
Obviously, gays do not intend to honor what marriage is – marriage is monogamous, while gays rely on adultery as their primary form of reproduction. But they will pass laws prohibiting us from pointing out that gays are behaving badly.
It will be defined as a “thought crime”, punishable by law, to believe that adultery is incompatible with marriage.
It will be defined as a “thought crime”, punishable by law, to believe that a man ought to honor and respect his baby’s mama, instead of degrading and exploiting her, and reducing her to mere “gestational carrier”.
It will be defined as a “thought crime”, punishable by law, to believe (or teach your children!) that a healthy family is one where the parents put the needs of the children before their own desires.
And so on.
June 14th, 2011 | 4:26 pm
@Michael: So, you’re just asserting – and I’m just supposed to take it as true – that Catholics beat up on gays, because you knew some kids you identify as Catholics whom you claim beat up some kids.
SO, in other words, it is true that Catholics beat up gay kids, about like it is true that gay men violate minors in public bathrooms – that is, it is true in specific instances (because gay men did in fact violate minors in a particular public bathroom in Balboa Park, San Diego, in 1987), and from that we can make statements about the entire group.
Is that what you’re saying? That a single instance of a thing is adequate information to extrapolate useful statements about the group as a whole?
That this is a fallacy should be obvious. That is why I asked for statistics – how many Catholics in a given year beat up gays, as measured by hospital statistics? If you don’t have anything to put up, I will consider your failure to do so tantamount to an admission that you in fact don’t have any such statistics, because you were just slandering an entire group out of pure malice and hate.
June 14th, 2011 | 5:12 pm
Michael,
I don’t fault you with the latter (credulity bordering on insanity) but only with the former.
In one of your early comments, you said you weren’t interested in philosophy. This might be what really separates us. I think the debate about SSM suffers from a deficit of conceptual coherence–on both sides, but especially on the pro-SSM side. The pro-SSMers seem hellbent on making a straw man out of the procreation-marriage nexus and gleefully knocking it down. I’m not impressed.
June 14th, 2011 | 5:22 pm
“I’m just supposed to take it as true – that Catholics beat up on gays”
I said that boys at my Catholic high school beat up gays. At least of those boys was Protestant.
Neither you nor Alessandra deserves a serious response.
June 14th, 2011 | 7:10 pm
Michael, I am not particularly impressed by your serious responses….but if you ever do think up a rebuttal, I’ll be here, and I’ll listen to it. Hope you get over that thing about hating Catholics though, most of the Catholics I know are good people.
June 15th, 2011 | 1:39 am
David Nickol
June 13th, 2011 | 5:43 am
Read up on all the cases of Christian social work students who were attacked for having a wholesome sexuality view that does not normalize homosexuality.
Alessandra,
Cite some cases. I can find one—the case of Emily Brooker at Missouri State University.
Anyone who believes otherwise must be now branded a criminal, even though these three dogmas are all irrational and unfounded.
Emily Brooker was not “branded a criminal,” and while she may have been mistreated, she won a lawsuit against the university.
Don’t expect people to hunt for evidence to support your position when you don’t bother to cite it yourself. I am certainly not going to do it again. If you have a case to make, make it yourself.
======
Well, is that a declaration of the size of you ignorance or what?
News flash: I am also not responsible for you having some serious mental impairment for performing simple searches on the Internet. A simple search on Google is not exactly a “hunt for information” if you ask me.
Expelled out of school for thought crime:
Real case – Jennifer Keeton:
http://chronicle.com/article/Augusta-State-U-Is-Accused-of/123650/
http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/08/25/augusta-state-university-and-american-counseling-association-only-immoral-beliefs-allowed-otherwise-you-are-expelled/
http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/07/24/grad-student-accused-and-condemned-on-thougt-crime-the-issue-homosexuality-thought-crime-of-course/
I think it is interesting that they didn’t recommend she attend a counseling section for people with a homosexual problem who do not want to have a homosexual problem, and are looking for a therapist to help them; nor homosexuals who infect others with AIDS by their irresponsible, promiscuous behavior; nor the significant number of homosexuals who sexually harass or engage in domestic violence; nor the ones who abuse adolescents; nor the ones who exploit prostitution; nor the ones who produce pornography, as a few examples.
Then there is also Julea Ward:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/
more similar examples:
Philip Lardner (UK):
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/10/former-tory-candidate-warned-by-employer-over-anti-gay-comments/
Dr Sheila Matthews (UK)
http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/11/15/doctor-driven-out-of-her-job-because-of-her-healthy-sexuality-views-on-homosexuality-and-adoption/
Here’s one more case:
In the case below in the US, it was a raging queen that demanded that Michael Campion lose his job.
A psychologist who screened potential Minneapolis police officers will receive a $210,000 settlement from the city over his firing, which stemmed from his affiliation with the Illinois Family Institute and his support for treating the problem of homosexuality.
Why was he fired?
Although never admitted to be more than just a coincidence, Former City Council Member Scott Benson, who has a homosexual problem and is a lawyer, sent a note to then-interim Police Chief Tim Dolan and asked, “How did Dr. Michael Campion, who was a board member of the Illinois Family Institute (a notoriously discriminatory anti-gay group) become the psychologist for the Minneapolis Police Dept. for screening new hires etc?”
Then Campion was fired.
Should I also post about the couple in the UK who was denied foster parent status and declared unfit for parenting because they were a healthy, wonderful Christian family who does not promote homosexuality, (pornography, and prostitution)? Treated as criminals.
We also need to add that this British couple has been married for 39 years and they had successfully fostered 15 children in the past. How many people do you personally know that match this record?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/attorney-tells-uk-christian-foster-parents-that-appeal-is-futile-49363/
However…
Flaming Gay-Married White Liberal Rapes Adopted 5 Year Old Black Boy
http://www.belch.com/blog/2009/06/29/flaming-gay-married-white-liberal-rapes-adopted-5-year-old-black-boy/
“Meet Gay Associate Director of Duke University’s Global Health Policy, Frank Lombard. He and his gay partner, who live in a wealthy hippie commune in Durham, North Carolina, decided to adopt black children because, as liberals and queers, that’s what they think society should allow them to do.
But there was a catch- Lombard was a child predator who only wanted the children so he could film himself having sex with them and sell their “sweet black asses” for sex to other perverts on the internet. As for Lombard’s gay husband/clueless lifepartner who supposedly knew nothing about Lombard anally raping their child? Who knows what he is up to now- probably doing research on gay divorce.”
In the chat transcript (by undercover police), “F.L.” is asked how he got access to a child so young. “Adopted,” he replied, and said that the process was “not so hard … esp (sic) for a black boy.”
In the chat, “F.L.” told Palchak that abusing the child was “easier when he was too young to know what was happening and when he couldn’t talk …He had a little too much Benadryl. Was knocked out.”
………………………
And then there’s this detail- what’s the homosexual’s monster job?
In the Duke University’s Global *Health Policy* dept.
Maybe, before police caught him, he used to work under the man who posts as “Michael” here?
You know, they both love to keep silent about every crime ever perpetrated by a homosexual or bisexual… birds of a feather, etc.
June 15th, 2011 | 2:07 am
Michael- to Blake
June 14th, 2011 | 5:22 pm
Neither you nor Alessandra deserves a serious response.
==========
Well, the poster here who has displayed one of the most shoddy, unethical ensemble of attitudes about sexuality is talking about seriousness…
Like Blake, I’ll be waiting for a serious post from you… if you can ever manage to post one. But we know you never will. A morally bankrupt ideology is like that.
Next excuse…
June 15th, 2011 | 3:24 am
Ken Zaretzke wrote
“Ultimately, the biological reality undergirds the social reality”
Indeed, which is why the leading psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, Pierre Lévy-Soussan, had this to say of adoption: 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.
That is why talk of “marriage equality” is plainly nonsense. In fact, your argument against it echoes that approved by the French Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Council in the Bègles case: its “specific and non-discriminatory character was the result of the fact that nature had limited potential fertility to couples of different sexes… Clearly, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile were consequently not concerned by the institution of marriage. This was differential legal treatment because their situation was not analogous”
June 15th, 2011 | 9:25 am
Blake –
I can’t properly express how much I crave some specifics from you on what you’ll have to pretend. Oh, wait, you finally provided some!
Given the example of Phelps and the Westboro loonies being specifically protected in their endeavors to loudly protest any and all homosexuality – even at the funerals of unrelated people – I must confess I fail to see the slightest evidence for this. (BTW, I think that case was correctly decided, for what it’s worth.)
I’m sure you believe it passionately, but do you have anything more substantial than a gut feeling (or more communicable than a personal divine revelation?) to support the above contentions?
How will these ‘thought crimes’ be implemented, for example? What will you have to do or say to be in violation? Will these be civil or criminal infractions? Darn it, I guess I still need some specifics after all.
June 15th, 2011 | 9:46 am
Michael PS –
But, er, facts sure as hell ought to impact on the practice of law. See, oh to take a random example, the notion above of legally prescribing the weather.
Would you be okay with DNA tests done at birth, so the father could contest or accept paternity then?
Um, okay. Bully for him. It was once obvious that we shouldn’t allow a woman to develop her intellect too much either, because that would impair the development of her uterus.
What evidence does Pierre Lévy-Soussan advance in support of this claim?
June 15th, 2011 | 12:29 pm
Michael PS,
Thanks for pointing that out. It’s an affirmation of how the “deep structure” of law and society is usually better grounded than the ideologies flying over society’s head.
June 15th, 2011 | 3:14 pm
Ray Ingles
Such a system, universally introduced, would be extremely cumbersome and expensive.
“The identification of a person owing to his genetic prints may only be searched for within the framework of inquiries or investigations pending judicial proceedings or for medical purposes or in the interest of scientific research.
In civil matters, that identification may be sought only in implementation of proof proceedings directed by the court seized of an action aiming either at establishing or at contesting a parental bond, or for getting or discontinuing subsidies. The consent of the person must be obtained previously and expressly. Save an express consent given by the person during his lifetime, no identification owing to genetic prints may be effected after his death”
And, ” Only persons whom have been authorized in such a way as prescribed by a decree in Conseil d’Etat are entitled to undertake identifications owing to genetic prints. In the framework of judicial proceedings, those persons must besides be registered in a list of judicial experts.”
But, providing these requirements were met, then, no.
Professor Pierre Lévy-Soussan, who is a government advisor on mental health matters, has based his opinions on clinical case-studies carried out by psychoanalysts over the last century and the theories elaborated on the basis of them. He was himself a student and colleague of Jacques Lacan.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact