In America you can have religious liberty or you can have homosexuality be a protected class of “minority”—but you can’t have both. And when they conflict, guess which one will lose out?
The state has declined to renew its foster care and adoption contracts with Catholic Charities across Illinois, possibly ending a historic partnership initiated by the Roman Catholic Church a half-century ago and potentially severing the relationship between nearly 2,000 foster children and their caseworkers.
[. . .]
The three seeking an injunction on Tuesday — Catholic Charities in the dioceses of Springfield, Peoria and Joliet — sued the Illinois attorney general and DCFS last month for enforcing new policies that accommodate civil unions. In the lawsuit, the agencies sought the court’s permission to preserve their current policy of granting licenses to married couples and single, non-cohabiting individuals and referring couples in civil unions to other child welfare agencies.
July 12th, 2011 | 11:52 am
In my opinion, Catholic organizations that receive government funds or that are licensed by the state are deliberately shooting themselves in the foot over these kinds of issues to make political points at the expense of carrying out their missions. I reproduced this comment from Vox Nova about Catholic Charities in Boston once before, but it bears repeating, because it is a perfect example of what’s going on:
As I have argued before, to take the position in advance that it is inconceivable that any same-sex couple will be suitable foster or adoptive parents for any child, under any circumstances, is prejudice. If Kurt is right, and I think he is, all Catholic adoption agencies need to do is give all couples a fair hearing.
The piece by Kyle Cupp that Kurt was commenting on in Vox Nova, “It Ain’t All about Us,” is worth reading as well. Some Catholics and other conservative Christians seem to think the gay-rights movement is all about them. Cupp quotes Mark Shea saying, “The goal of gay marriage, as I have said many times, is to create a legal basis for persecuting and, if possible, legally suppressing the Catholic Church. That’s the goal.” Actually, the goal of gay marriage is to allow those same-sex couples who want to marry to get legally married. That is the goal. It is not about laying the groundwork for outlawing the Catholic Church and putting all Christians in re-education camps.
July 12th, 2011 | 12:05 pm
“to make political points at the expense of carrying out their missions.”
Or maybe, perhaps, just possibly, might it be that you do not understand and/or agree with the missions of these organizations? Even just a teensy-weensy chance? Oh, wait, you did start the sentence with “In my opinion…” so I think we can accept that that teensy-weensy chance is approximately 100%…
July 12th, 2011 | 12:09 pm
[...] “Illinois Severs Foster Care Ties with Catholic Charities”: In America you can have religious liberty or you can have homosexuality be a protected class of “minority”—but you can’t have both. And when they conflict, guess which one will lose out? [...]
July 12th, 2011 | 12:24 pm
David Nickol:
“Actually, the goal of gay marriage is to allow those same-sex couples who want to marry to get legally married. That is the goal. It is not about laying the groundwork for outlawing the Catholic Church and putting all Christians in re-education camps.”
That’s quite naive. As countless examples show the second goal follows naturally from the first, to the extent that the first goal is really a claim that all of us MUST recognize that homosexual relationship are exactly as moral and socially valuable as mother-father-children families. And the modern re-education camps are just called PUBLIC SCHOOLS. I personally pay hefty property taxes to send my children to my town’s public schools, and this year I had the gut-wrenching experience of having yet another gay ideologue coming to the school to brainwash my kids about the two-mommies/two-daddies gospel. Also, in the college campus where I work I had the ADMINISTRATION bombarding the whole faculty with emails pushing us to join a pro-gay-marriage rally on campus. And I can assure that any junior, non-tenured faculty that raised his/her voice questioning the dogma of “marriage equality” would be in very big trouble around here. In what universe do you live?
July 12th, 2011 | 12:27 pm
It sure does seem that if the foster parents licensed by the charities meet the necessary requirements, they should be accepted by the state. The religious charities may have additional requirements on top of those, but so long as the secular requirements are met I admit I have a hard time seeing the problem.
Note that there could still potentially be conflicts. A religion that disallowed medical care for children might well not be accepted by the state, however well-qualified their licensees were in other respects.
July 12th, 2011 | 12:31 pm
Carlo – And I can assure that any junior, non-tenured faculty that raised his/her voice questioning the dogma of “marriage equality” would be in very big trouble around here.
Wait – legal trouble? Or would people just not like what they said, and maybe them because of it?
July 12th, 2011 | 12:48 pm
Ray Ingles:
for now, it would mostly be about promotion and tenure.
But the obvious trend is that since disapproval of homosexuality (or even opposition to gay “marriage”) is now being equated with racism, in the near future it will be ground for the same type of sanctions that would be imposed on anybody who went around campus proclaiming the superiority of the Aryan race.
July 12th, 2011 | 1:01 pm
Ray:
to be fair, I will qualify my previous statement: whether public disapproval of homosexuality would be ground for discrimination in decisions about promotion and tenure would depend very much on the attitudes of individual administrators, and certainly there is no formal policy to this effect.
But no formal policy is needed in order to create an atmosphere of “moral persecution” in which people are afraid to speak their mind because they fear that there may be well be consequences. As you know the best totalitarian regimes are those where the climate of fear and ideological uniformity is so well-established that the secret police has no need whatsoever to send people to the concentrations camps, because everybody is too afraid of what MIGHT happen to them to say anything.
July 12th, 2011 | 1:05 pm
Mr. Nickol –
The Catholic Church teaches that it is in the best interests of a child to grow up in a family founded upon a marriage between a man and a woman with a married couple, and that by definition it is not in their best interests to place them with a couple whose sexual behavior is objectively immoral.
The ideology of laicism is at work here — relegating religious freedom to the church building and the privacy of one’s home, and seeking to “cleanse” the public square of any trace of religion or religiously-motivated conduct.
Your decision to call that “prejudice” has tipped your hand. Only those religious beliefs that pass muster according to the state or the prevailing ideology are worthy of respect. Thank you, Caesar.
July 12th, 2011 | 1:18 pm
Or maybe, perhaps, just possibly, might it be that you do not understand and/or agree with the missions of these organizations? Even just a teensy-weensy chance?
Brian,
I assume that the mission of a Catholic adoption agency is to make the best match they can of potential adoptive parents and children that are up for adoption. If a Catholic adoption agency goes out of business, they can’t carry out that mission. If I am mistaken, and they feel their true mission is to make public statements about same-sex marriage, then they are carrying out their mission by putting themselves out of business.
Doesn’t it go without saying, even if I don’t preface my comments with “in my opinion,” that I am giving my opinion? If you feel you must react to my opinions with sarcasm and hostility, you have a right to your opinions, but I don’t think it moves the discussion forward.
July 12th, 2011 | 1:29 pm
Here’s a quote worth pondering from the Tribune article:
Imagine that. From Illinois’ admission to the Union in 1818 up through a month or so ago, the best care and welfare of children allowed the church to place children with mothers and fathers. And then, in an instant, what was best for children changed completely.
Question for Ziegler: What changed?
Ziegler: The Illinois Civil Unions law is what changed.
Question: But that law redefined marriage. That law didn’t even address children or what’s best for their welfare. What happened that changed the best interests of children?
July 12th, 2011 | 1:46 pm
@ David: “all Catholic adoption agencies need to do is give all couples a fair hearing.”
Why would they waste a same-sex couple’s time when they can’t place children with same-sex couples?
“…to make political points at the expense of carrying out their missions.”
I don’t see how they are merely making political points. The Catholic Church has always taught that marriage is between one man and one woman. How can the Church carry out it’s mission by ignoring its own teachings? Or is the State deciding which teachings are important to the Church’s mission?
July 12th, 2011 | 2:06 pm
Why would they waste a same-sex couple’s time when they can’t place children with same-sex couples?
Brian,
Who says they can’t? Actually, before it became known to “the powers that be,” Catholic Charities of Boston had place children with a small number of same-sex couples. Presumably the people who do the actual work of investigating potential parents and placing children with those they found most suitable felt that there were some cases where same-sex parents were best.
I have used a hypothetical example before, and let me use it again. Suppose there is a lesbian couple both of whom in their professional life care for special needs children. Suppose they are both doctors. Suppose they are willing to adopt a severely disabled child for whom they could provide excellent personal and professional care. Suppose the child is so severely disabled he or she will never even understand what a lesbian is. Suppose they are the only couple willing and able to adopt the child. What, exactly, disqualifies them? As I have said a number of times, to declare that there is no situation imaginable in which a same-sex couple would be the best caregivers for any child at all, no matter what its condition and situation is literally prejudice. It is pre-judging all the possible situations that might arise and saying there is something so wrong with same-sex couples that they can never legitimately care for a child. I don’t see how even the most devout Catholic can rationally maintain that position.
July 12th, 2011 | 2:28 pm
The Catholic Church has always taught that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Tim,
First, apologies to you and Brian for answering you above and addressing the message to Brian.
Many Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage are also frequently heard saying that every child deserves a mother and a father, and yet Catholic Charities in Illinois allows single individuals to adopt children.
July 12th, 2011 | 2:36 pm
@ David: I’m the one who wrote that quote.
“Who says they can’t?”
It seems immoral to me to lie to same-sex couples about your beliefs on marriage, or whether they have a chance at adopting from your agency.
You didn’t answer my question as to how the Church can carry on its mission while ignoring its teachings. Your far fetched hypothetical doesn’t address it.
The Church is also “prejudiced” against co-habitating heterosexual couples, though nobody seems to be worried about that.
The Church is doing a tremendous service by finding families for children. I don’t see why the state needs to refuse funds to the Church’s adoption agency to accommodate a tiny fraction of adults, especially when those adults can go to another adoption agency.
July 12th, 2011 | 2:48 pm
This is more an argument against accepting state funds and licensing. However, it’s going to hurt the state more than CC, mostly because states have been pushing charitable costs to the religious for quite some time as a way to escape budgetary problems.
I don’t think they realize that the CC doesn’t have to provide charitable services at all. They might be taking them for granted a bit too much.
July 12th, 2011 | 2:50 pm
“Many Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage are also frequently heard saying that every child deserves a mother and a father, and yet Catholic Charities in Illinois allows single individuals to adopt children.”
Single people can be Catholic too. I’m entirely sure, but I think the Church’s policy is to place children with parents who affirm Catholic teaching. Obviously, a same-sex couple is denying the Church’s stance on marriage.
It’s funny that you bring that up though. A few years back, the city I live in (Cleveland, Ohio) posted signs throughout the city saying “fathers matter”. I wonder if cities can still do such things because that would be offensive to a lesbian couple.
July 12th, 2011 | 3:09 pm
“A few years back, the city I live in (Cleveland, Ohio) posted signs throughout the city saying “fathers matter”. I wonder if cities can still do such things because that would be offensive to a lesbian couple.”
Tim, are you suggesting that lesbians can’t be fathers? Or that women can’t be fathers? Or that men can’t be lesbians?
How backwards of you, you bigot. Get with the times, man.
July 12th, 2011 | 3:24 pm
You didn’t answer my question as to how the Church can carry on its mission while ignoring its teachings.
Tim,
Exactly what teaching does the Church have to ignore to give same-sex couples a fair hearing, according to Catholic beliefs? I don’t believe it is a matter of Catholic doctrine that same-sex couples may never, under any circumstances, adopt children. I believe my hypothetical example does indeed make a good point. There are conceivable cases in which the parents’ same-sex relationship would be irrelevant to a child’s welfare. I have a developmentally disabled niece now in her early 20s whom I doubt is capable of understanding the concept of homosexuality. What would would have been the harm of her being raised by a lesbian couple? When there is a child in need, and when there are adoptive parents who are willing to take care of it, there has to be a reason to consider them unfit. What would be the reason in my hypothetical example?
I repeat what Kurt said:
I don’t see why the state needs to refuse funds to the Church’s adoption agency to accommodate a tiny fraction of adults, especially when those adults can go to another adoption agency.
What makes you think same-sex couples would try to adopt through Catholic Charities? (I know many people would answer that by saying, “Why, that is what same-sex marriage is all about. Setting up ways to destroy the Church.” That is just not true.) Why do Catholic organizations feel the need to declare in advance that they will discriminate against same-sex couples? Why don’t thy just go about their business, make placements according to their own lights, and deal with any accusations of discrimination as they arise? To the best of my knowledge, I don’t believe anyone trying to adopt has ever brought any action against Catholic Charities for discrimination. As far as I know, there is only one case in the world (in the UK) involving a legal ruling on an actual case, and that is of a Christian couple who were denied the right to be weekend foster parents because of statements they made against homosexuality.
The Church is doing a tremendous service by finding families for children.
It is good work that these people do, but it’s my understanding that most Catholic adoption agencies like those of Catholic Charities make a very small number of placements.
July 12th, 2011 | 3:54 pm
Why not accuse Catholic Charities of hateful bigotry if they don’t approve of adoptions with super-nice adulterous couples, those perhaps with “open” marriages, or those practicing consensual incest, or polygamous groupings? If CC doesn’t recognize these practices in at least some extreme cases they are obviously trying to make political statements rather than putting the best interests of the child first, as David Nichol will explain to us, at great length.
July 12th, 2011 | 4:02 pm
@ David: How can the Church give them a “fair hearing”? The Church won’t place children with same-sex couples for the same reason it won’t place children with co-habitating unmarried couples. Such arrangements are contrary to it’s teachings. What would be the point of a hearing? To just put up a facade in order to get grants or funding from the state?
“…Catholic Charities make a very small number of placements.”
I’m sure it means a lot to those children who do get placed.
July 12th, 2011 | 4:11 pm
The United States needs Catholic Charities more than Catholic Charities needs the United States.
The Church is a global organization. If the US doesn’t want what it has to offer, let it go where its help will be appreciated.
Too bad for the kids, though. It must make gays so proud every time their rights get prioritized over the well-being of children.
July 12th, 2011 | 5:04 pm
as David Nichol will explain to us, at great length
Solomon,
Sorry. As I said in another thread, three posts in First Thoughts about the “homosexual threat” in a row is quite a lot for one person to keep up with. I am done here.
I have participated in many online discussion forums going back to the dawn of the personal computer, even before the general public had Internet access, and I can’t remember one where there was so little diversity of opinion. For a forum that discusses the legal aspects of these issued, I recommend Mirror of Justice, “A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.” The most prominent contributors there tend to be quite conservative Catholic lawyers (e.g., Robert George), but there is actual discussion there.
As is clear to anyone who spends much time here, there are perhaps at most five people writing comments who express dissenting opinions. It can be enjoyable to be in the minority, but it is no longer enjoyable here.
July 12th, 2011 | 5:11 pm
David, I haven’t seen you write this comment for weeks. I wondered what happened to it.
July 12th, 2011 | 5:25 pm
You have to be 18 to get a commercial pilot’s license. But suppose you were on a flight and both pilots had simultaneous stokes. And suppose there was this 15 year old kid on the plane whose dad illegally taught him how to fly. And suppose his background equates to a commercial instructor pilot. And suppose he was the only one on board that could safely fly and land the plane, and so on….
Let me just edit the rest of David’s post slightly:
As I have said a number of times, to declare that there is no situation imaginable in which a underaged pilot would be the best pilot for any flight at all, no matter what its condition and situation is literally prejudice. It is pre-judging all the possible situations that might arise and saying there is something so wrong with underaged commercial pilots that they can never legitimately fly a plane.
And therefore…there should be no age limit for any commercial airline pilots. Good times.
July 12th, 2011 | 9:40 pm
The parties that are losing out aren’t the Church-affiliated adoption agencies, they are the orphans who would be placed by experienced counselors who’s actual concern is the child’s well being and not catering to the ego of a person wanting to place a child in their own unstable home.
See the people who really matter here (to the state and dominant culture) are the adults who would like a little walking and talking pet.
July 12th, 2011 | 10:14 pm
“Many Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage are also frequently heard saying that every child deserves a mother and a father, and yet Catholic Charities in Illinois allows single individuals to adopt children.”
Indeed.
And if gay people adopting children was such a moral problem, one might think that bishops and Catholic Charities personnel might put a lot more effort in encouraging Catholic couples to flood the ranks of prospective adoptive and foster parents.
Studies show that many adopted children thrive in a household with new siblings.
Sadly, many otherwise fine Catholics are most unconvincing in their statements about gay adoption and making parent-less foster children the targets of prejudice.
July 13th, 2011 | 12:56 am
“The United States needs Catholic Charities more than Catholic Charities needs the United States.”
I think this is true spiritually but that is about as far as it goes. The church lives in society and is bound to follow its laws (so says Paul – Romans 13:1 and Peter – 1 Peter 2:13-14). If CC wants to serve orphans and foster kids then it will have to cooperate with US law (and those who enforce it) whether they agree with it or not. The question as I see it is more about whether CC should let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Sometimes God commands us to definitely demand the perfect. Other times it’s not so clear. Personally, I suspect God provides a lot of leeway when it comes to caring for orphans.
I’m not an expert so this is an actual (not rhetorical) question. Does a child with severe attachment disorders owing to lifelong institutionalization fare a better or worse chance of responding to a loving God (through a relationship with God’s Son, Jesus Christ) than a child that developed decent attachment skills by being raised by a loving (though sinful) parent(s)?
July 13th, 2011 | 5:38 am
On the previous thread, I think it became pretty clear that these proclamations were more publicity stunts over SSM than real. We aren’t talking about providing adoption services. Today in Mass. you can walk into Catholic charities as a pregnant woman and ask them to handle giving your baby up for adoption. What is the question here is when the state has children it is seeking to put up for adoption (either because the mother directly gave the child to the state or because the parents are so unfit that their rights have been terminated), it *hires* private agencies to help place the kids.
So here’s my deal. How does a Catholic adoption agency handle a couple one or both of whom have been previously married? They are objectively ‘living in sin’ as an unmarried cohabitating couple in the eyes of the Church. If they are excluded from being allowed to adopt a kid, then fine. On the other hand if not it would appear that we have some ‘picking and choosing’ going on. That’s fine for a private adoption agency, not so fine for one that’s working for the gov’t. If you want to exempt non-Catholics from all taxes, then I’m fine with having a gov’t agency apply Catholic doctrines to its policies.
July 13th, 2011 | 10:40 am
I have written a quick, little dialogue following up on a quote in this article that I posted here.
Let’s be clear on what this debate is about.
July 13th, 2011 | 11:24 am
Boonton:
I tried looking up on CC’s page, but I couldn’t find a unified policy, just a note that it varies from diocese to diocese. If anyone can give more information it might be helpful.
I agree from the other end. I’d prefer them not to receive government money to retain their autonomy. The hirer has full right to set the rules.
David:
I agree it’s getting a bit much. We do have different opinions on a variety of subjects. But this is one that it’s hard to have. I’m not sure you can have a majority of people sympathetic to religion having a place in the public square and be in favor of SSM-mostly because advancing it is going to marginalize the religious beliefs of a lot of people.
Most religious believers who do seem to embrace a secular outlook in general. Religion’s marginalization really doesnt matter for them I think, because secular society already achieves their aims. They wont lose anything.
July 13th, 2011 | 11:55 am
What has changed, surely, is that hitherto, unmarried couples were, perforce, living in unregulated and, therefore, inherently unstable cohabitation; now, those in Civil Unions are living in a stable, legally recognized and regulated union. Accordingly, the law requires such couples to be assessed for fostering and adoption, in the same way and by the same criteria as married couples, whose unions are also regulated by the law.
“No Establishment” must, at the very least, prohibit anyone from taking advantage of their religious beliefs to exempt themselves from the common rules governing the relations between public authorities and private individuals.
July 13th, 2011 | 12:22 pm
Carlo –
Oh, I quite agree. In a recent thread here on First Thoughts, I pointed out recent cases where billboards and bus ads with atheist messages were met with vandalism and violent threats.
What sort of protection do you envision for those who “question[] the dogma of ‘marriage equality’”, and would it apply to atheists as well?
July 13th, 2011 | 12:32 pm
“On the previous thread, I think it became pretty clear that these proclamations were more publicity stunts over SSM than real.”
Right, because Boston is such a hotbed of conservative politics.
“Today in Mass. you can walk into Catholic charities as a pregnant woman and ask them to handle giving your baby up for adoption.”
She could also walk into the executive offices of the Bruins, and ask them to handle her child’s adoption, but unless they have a license, handling the adoption would be illegal in Massachusetts.
“That’s fine for a private adoption agency, not so fine for one that’s working for the gov’t. If you want to exempt non-Catholics from all taxes, then I’m fine with having a gov’t agency apply Catholic doctrines to its policies.”
Catholic Charities is performing a public service. Why shouldn’t they receive public funds for providing that service?
Gay couples have 45 other adoption agencies in Illinois to choose from. What reason, other than anti-Catholic bigotry, can you assert for a gay couple insisting that Catholic Charities in Illinois has to handle their adoption?
“I tried looking up on CC’s page, but I couldn’t find a unified policy, just a note that it varies from diocese to diocese. If anyone can give more information it might be helpful.”
The Archdiocese of Boston cannot handle adoptions. Period. The Diocese of Worcester has managed to continue handling adoptions because it refers gay couples to other agencies and no one has made an issue of it, since taking out Boston was enough of a political statement.
July 13th, 2011 | 12:35 pm
@Michael PS
But the Robyn Ziegler at the Illinois’ AG office didn’t use your reasoning in the article. She said that the AG’s office is proceeding based on what’s best for the interests and the welfare of the children in adoptive services, and in that capacity it will no longer allow the church to continue its adoption services with the state. The church’s policy remains the same as ever.
So the question remains: Why was allowing the the Catholic Church to conduct adoption services through their state contract in the best interests of children yesterday, but not today? How have children’s interest’s changed?
July 13th, 2011 | 1:51 pm
““No Establishment” must, at the very least, prohibit anyone from taking advantage of their religious beliefs to exempt themselves from the common rules governing the relations between public authorities and private individuals.”
No, No Establishment means no official state religion instituted by the federal government, which was later extended to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Anyone who believes that the State of Illinois allowing Catholic Charities to not handle gay adoptions somehow represents an establishment of Catholicism as the official religion of Illinois is a fool.
Anyone who would be offended by the State of Illinois allowing Catholic Charities to not handle gay adoptions because there are 45 other adoption agencies the gay couple could go to, is an anti-Catholic bigot.
July 13th, 2011 | 4:19 pm
Ray:
personally I don’t think that freedom can be preserved by a proliferation of legal “protections” which ultimately must be enforced by the powers that be and will usually be used by one group to abuse another group.
Ultimately the only true protection of freedom is a deep religious sense, i.e. the ability to recognize that the freedom of another human being is sacred because he or she is relationship with the Infinite. To the extent that genuine religiosity declines in a society, freedom is also destined to fade away. What Ambrose said: “Ubi fides ibi libertas.”
July 13th, 2011 | 5:27 pm
Brian English
You are overlooking the fact that, being funded by the state to discharge this particular public task, Catholic Charities is doing so as a public functionary and should be governed in doing so by the rules of the public space, for the children are the public responsibility.
To take an opposite example, an almoner, employed by the state to say mass in a prison or an orphanage is performing a task belonging to the private space and is not concerned by the rules pertaining to functionaries, for there the state is simply guaranteeing the freedom of worship, which itself pertains to the private space.
July 13th, 2011 | 9:33 pm
“The United States needs Catholic Charities more than Catholic Charities needs the United States.”
I think this is true spiritually but that is about as far as it goes. The church lives in society and is bound to follow its laws
The Constitution specifically prohibits forcing a state religion on anyone.
Forcing humanism/Unitarian Universalism on anyone is therefore unconstitutional.
What religion other than humanism/Unitarian Universalism believes that genders are interchangeable, that a marriage can consist of any combination of genders, that humans can build a family out of “parts”?
What religion other than humanism/Unitarian Universalism prioritizes a grown adult’s sexual desires over the well-being of the child, to the point where they force children to pretend that having “two mothers” or “two fathers” is somehow just as good as having a mother and a father?
I don’t believe single parenthood is good, either, and I don’t think single people should adopt. I believe that adoption should be ruled by what’s best for the child, and clearly anyone who isn’t willing to do what is best for the child is not ready to be a parent, and should not be permitted to adopt.
Children don’t stop needing what they need just because their “parents” can’t handle the truth.
July 13th, 2011 | 10:52 pm
Carlo –
I’m a lot more hopeful that respect can be maintained absent “a deep religious sense”. So far as I can tell, I’ve even worked the trick on a semi-regular basis. Certainly many of my friends have.
July 14th, 2011 | 3:17 am
Blake
Approval of adoption by single people is very rare; the only cases I have ever encountered professionally have been adoptions by widowed step-parents (in one case, a divorced former step-parent, where both the natural parents were dead). These have invariably been simple, rather than plenary adoptions, leaving existing family bonds with grandparents and other relatives intact.
In these cases, adoption, rather than guardianship, was chosen as an inheritance tax-planning measure.
I believe that the option should remain available, but be used sparingly.
July 14th, 2011 | 8:27 am
Ray Ingles:
“I’m a lot more hopeful that respect can be maintained absent “a deep religious sense”. So far as I can tell, I’ve even worked the trick on a semi-regular basis. Certainly many of my friends have.”
I think you and your friends are grossly underestimating the long-term cultural and spiritual Christian influences that shaped your thinking on these matters.
July 14th, 2011 | 8:29 am
I believe that the option should remain available, but be used sparingly.
What I want is that the child’s best interest be the primary measure.
That is what I see this entire debate as being about: to redefine the hierarchy of the priorities, so that “gay rights” is first, and comes before the rights and well-being of the child.
I believe the child’s interests should be first.
If no better home is available, then maybe putting a child into a substandard home is justified. But that does not mean the standards should be changed, lowered or degraded so that a motherless home is viewed as being just as good as a home offering both mother and father.
It really bothers me when people justify deliberately depriving a child of something by arguing that there are so many children in the world that don’t have this, that, or the other (a home, parents, food to eat), that these children should be grateful for whatever they’re given, even though it is less than they would “deserve” if we were evaluating the same case in terms of what a child is normally considered entitled to.
If people are so concerned about all the unwanted kids in the world, then that is a separate problem that requires a solution other than simply lowering the standards that are meant to protect children from being placed in homes that do not meet their needs.
July 14th, 2011 | 9:26 am
Carlo –
As I’ve noted before, astronomy grew out of astrology, and chemistry emerged from alchemy. The modern disciplines even still use a lot of the terminology of their progenitors. But you don’t have to be a devotee of alchemy to be a chemist, nor cast horoscopes to be an astronomer.
Even within astronomy, a whole lot of it was developed from a geocentric perspective; surprisingly little of it was invalidated in the move to heliocentrism. A lot of the concepts, measurements, and predictions translate quite well. In the moral sphere, I’m perfectly willing to take from Christianity what wisdom there is in it, without thereby having to grant all its presuppositions.
July 14th, 2011 | 9:45 am
“You are overlooking the fact that, being funded by the state to discharge this particular public task, Catholic Charities is doing so as a public functionary and should be governed in doing so by the rules of the public space, for the children are the public responsibility.”
I am obviously not overlooking that fact, since that is what the entire dispute is about. You have yet to explain how Catholic Charities providing a public service while mainitaining its Catholic identity constitutes the establishment of Catholicism as the official state religion of Illinois.
July 14th, 2011 | 9:50 am
“In the moral sphere, I’m perfectly willing to take from Christianity what wisdom there is in it, without thereby having to grant all its presuppositions.”
If you are going to take a concept like marriage completely out of its religious context, where do you draw the line?
Should two brothers or two sisters, who have lived together their entire lives, be allowed to marry so that they can take advantage of certain alleged legal benefits? If not, why not?
July 14th, 2011 | 11:49 am
Brian English –
Only one, singular, religious context? Which religion?
Depends. I’m on record here as supporting the idea of separating marriage entirely from legal issues, and just doing civil unions. If people want a sacramental marriage – so they are joined in the eyes of God(s) as well as the law – they could go to a church. Indeed, as a practical accommodation, getting married in a church would probably set up a default type of civil union.
So I’d be cool with siblings entering into a partnership to share a residence and raise children or whatever, with mutual legal rights and obligations.
That’s not the same as condoning incest, note. A civil union wouldn’t have a necessary reproductive component, and laws against incest have a pretty solid practical basis as it is, without need for spiritual bulwarks.
July 14th, 2011 | 12:07 pm
Ray Ingles:
good luck with that. There is indeed a notion of “irreversible progress” in the natural sciences, since what is learnt cannot be unlearnt. The situation is much much trickier in moral and philosophical matters, as can be easily discerned from a careful consideration of history.
July 14th, 2011 | 12:24 pm
“Only one, singular, religious context? Which religion?”
Do you know of one that treats homosexual couples as equivalent to heterosexual couples, excepting some Christian and Jewish denominations in the West in the last couple of decades?
“So I’d be cool with siblings entering into a partnership to share a residence and raise children or whatever, with mutual legal rights and obligations.”
As would I. But we are not talking about partnership agreements. We are talking about something having to be called marriage. Why do you think the California Supreme Court imposed gay marriage, even though it acknowledged California’s civil partnership statute provided all of the same rights and benefits as those afforded to married couples? Why do you think Judge Walker, although he acknowledged that finding by the California Supreme Court, still overturned Proposition 8?
July 14th, 2011 | 12:28 pm
“and laws against incest have a pretty solid practical basis as it is, without need for spiritual bulwarks.”
Really? On what practical basis would you prohibit incestuous gay couples? No procreation, so no genetic issues.
July 14th, 2011 | 12:34 pm
Dblade
I’m not sure you can have a majority of people sympathetic to religion having a place in the public square and be in favor of SSM-mostly because advancing it is going to marginalize the religious beliefs of a lot of people.
This is the beauty of the American system. The rules of the gov’t do not have to mirror the rules of your religion. The supermajority of Americans do not favor abolishing divorce…(I’d bet even the majority of American Catholics do not favor that!)…yet despite the fact that all American jurisdictions have divorce law that runs in the totally opposite direction than the Catholic church’s view of divorce, Catholics have never been marginalized because of that. And in cases where Catholics have been marginalized, (such as the anti-Catholicism that plagued Al Smith’s run for President nearly a century ago), the solution is to challenge the marginalization, not try to enshrine theological doctrine as civil law. JFK meet with only a fraction of the anti-Catholicism that Smith meet with….and that didn’t happen because a vast number of states abolished divorce!
Most religious believers who do seem to embrace a secular outlook in general. Religion’s marginalization really doesnt matter for them I think, because secular society already achieves their aims. They wont lose anything.
So basically you’re making an argument against SSM as some sort of affirmative action for ‘marginalized religious’ people? Because, say, abolishing divorce would impact a huge number of secular people you’re just going to toss gays overboard because there’s more of you than them?
Brian
Right, because Boston is such a hotbed of conservative politics.
Non-responsive.
She could also walk into the executive offices of the Bruins, and ask them to handle her child’s adoption, but unless they have a license, handling the adoption would be illegal in Massachusetts.
I called Catholic Charities in Worecester and they said they did adoptions. I cited various reports indicating that CC was still doing adoptions and CC is listed as a licensed adoption agency. Boston CC was never challenged by either the state or gay rights group, they simply announced that the law forced them to adopt to SSM couples (although as David points out well, the pre-SSM law says only that children must be adopted to the best possible home….it doesn’t authorize discrimination against non-married couples). They asked the state to issue an order that exempted them. The governor said he didn’t think he had the authority to issue such an order but would support a law to do so but Boston CC, less than a week later, announced they were out of the *public* adoption business….without even asking or trying to get an exemption despite a friendly gov and even a anti-SSM majority in the legislator…..no we have a prima facia case for both being a publicity stunt.
Catholic Charities is performing a public service. Why shouldn’t they receive public funds for providing that service?
Because they aren’t. Saying, for example, you will only send kids to Muslim families isn’t a public service unless the public consists of nothing but Muslims. Or to use another example, operating a soup kitchen is a public service but announcing all only poor Catholics may eat there is not. It’s fine to have a charity that aids poor Catholics but if tax dollars are going to the enterprise it should serve all the tax payers.
Gay couples have 45 other adoption agencies in Illinois to choose from. What reason, other than anti-Catholic bigotry, can you assert for a gay couple insisting that Catholic Charities in Illinois has to handle their adoption?
Why should a black person sit at the front of the bus? The bus is going to the same destination, what different does it make where anyone sits? Why object to a ‘get in the back’ policy?
But keep in mind no gay couple has objected to Catholic Charities. This is a manufactured stunt to advance not adoption but the anti-SSM debate.
The Archdiocese of Boston cannot handle adoptions. Period. The Diocese of Worcester has managed to continue handling …,
Really? You asserted that no agency could do any type of adoptions in Mass without a license and the license requirements wouldn’t let any agency discriminate against SSM couples. So either you’re wrong or Worcester is not part of Mass. More to the point, this is what the different dioceses are *doing*, not what the state is forcing them to do. Mass’s adoption laws apply equally to Boston and Worecester.
Anyone who believes that the State of Illinois allowing Catholic Charities to not handle gay adoptions somehow represents an establishment of Catholicism as the official religion of Illinois is a fool.
Well it’s not quite the inquisition but you’re not addressing the logical issue of where the line is. Suppose CC opted to not adopt to any divorced couples on the grounds that divorce is against Catholic doctrine? Suppose CC opted to only consider strictly orthodox Catholic parents for adoption? At what point would CC handling the state’s adoptions become an establishment issue?
July 14th, 2011 | 12:53 pm
Really? On what practical basis would you prohibit incestuous gay couples? No procreation, so no genetic issues.
I suggest reviewing my comments at the Race and SSM thread.
A prohibition on incestuous married couples would be subject to minimal scrutiny. Some of the multiple basises for laws against incestuous marriages (even ones where genetic issues aren’t a factor)
1. Disruption of healthy family life between generations (how might a mother respond to raising a daughter if it was legal for her daughter to eventually replace her?)
2. Disruption of raising kids inside the marriage since even potentially opening up such marriages in the future may impact the kids today.
3. Could potentially raise procreational issues as incestous marriages may set up a “I want it too” desire among couples who could produce children and therefore raise genetic concerns.
Remember unlike the stricter scrutinies required for race and gender based laws, most laws only have to pass basic scrutiny which means that they only need show a half-assed relationship to a reasonable state interest. One doesn’t have to prove, for example, that #1 might actually result or that if it did other policies than simply banning incestuous marriages might better address it.
July 14th, 2011 | 1:37 pm
“I suggest reviewing my comments at the Race and SSM thread.”
I would suggest you review my question again. I am asking what “practical” basis there would be for prohibiting homosexual incestuous couples.
July 14th, 2011 | 2:02 pm
“Non-responsive.”
Sarcastic, but not non-responsive You allege Catholic Charities ended its 100 years of handling adoptions as some type of political stunt. What constituency was it playing to?
“no we have a prima facia case for both being a publicity stunt.”
What we have is you ignoring clear evidence that does not support your position. Basically, your argument is that tomorrow Cardinal O’Malley could suddenly announce, “Guys, we have gotten everthing we can out of this publicity stunt, starting tomorrow we are back in the adoption business!” That is absurd.
“So either you’re wrong or Worcester is not part of Mass.”
Or Worcester could be doing exactly what I explained to you it was doing.
“Because they aren’t. Saying, for example, you will only send kids to Muslim families isn’t a public service unless the public consists of nothing but Muslims.”
(1) Do you have any proof Catholic Charities was only providing adoption services to Catholics?
(2) How is finding a home for any child, who would otherwise be a ward of the state, not a public service?
“Why should a black person sit at the front of the bus? The bus is going to the same destination, what different does it make where anyone sits? Why object to a ‘get in the back’ policy?”
Ah, the old sexuality equals race ploy. I am still waiting for you and Nickol to go to the black churces in Baltimore and California that lead the charge against SSM and explain to them your theory on this. I am sure it will be an enlightening discussion.
“But keep in mind no gay couple has objected to Catholic Charities. This is a manufactured stunt to advance not adoption but the anti-SSM debate.”
The State of Illinois is refusing to renew its contracts with Catholic Charities if they refuse to place children with gay or co-habitating couples. Do you even bother to read the articles before commenting on them?
“Well it’s not quite the inquisition but you’re not addressing the logical issue of where the line is.”
Come on. We draw lines all the time in the law. The question is, does this constitute the establishment of Catholicism as the official religion of the State of Illinois?
July 14th, 2011 | 2:48 pm
Brian English –
I don’t follow. Are you suggesting that they aren’t religions, or they are religions but don’t count? If the latter, why not?
In large part, because it’s become an all-or-nothing battle, since opponents of same-sex marriage demanded the legal equivalent of a fight to the death. “Defense of marriage” amendments in Michigan and Virginia flatly ban civil unions, not just ‘gay marriage’.
There’s also the historical evidence of ‘separate but equal’ not working out so equal in practice. (Another reason why I’d figure it best to cede the term ‘marriage’ to those who really covet it, and have the law worry about the secular components via civil unions.)
July 14th, 2011 | 2:49 pm
Carlo – Actually, I kinda think history supports my optimism pretty well.
July 14th, 2011 | 2:52 pm
I would suggest you review my question again. I am asking what “practical” basis there would be for prohibiting homosexual incestuous couples.
I gave you three. Granted they apply against heterosexual incestuous couples as well as homosexual ones….don’t I get points for being extra ‘practical’?
You allege Catholic Charities ended its 100 years of handling adoptions as some type of political stunt. What constituency was it playing to?
People like you, trying to put forth an argument by the fallacy of the false choice (i.e. if you have SSM you must deny Catholic Charities the ability to do adoptions therefore you should reject SSM). A logical fallacy but a valid rhetorical tactic.
Basically, your argument is that tomorrow Cardinal O’Malley could suddenly announce, “Guys, we have gotten everthing we can out of this publicity stunt, starting tomorrow we are back in the adoption business!” That is absurd.
I’m unclear why you think he couldn’t do that tomorrow? It seems his neighboring diocese never even bothered to get out of the adoption business.
Come on. We draw lines all the time in the law. The question is, does this constitute the establishment of Catholicism as the official religion of the State of Illinois?
Then answer the question…by your reading of the establishment clause could CC opt to only deal with Catholic couples seeking to adopt? Would it make a difference if they were the only vendor handling public adoption contracts? Or one of a hundred vendors? I would be more sympathetic to a religious exemption in the latter case rather than the former…
July 14th, 2011 | 3:02 pm
Brian English –
In addition to the points Boonton mentioned, one problem with adult incest is that it raises the problem of abusively ‘grooming’ children to give consent later.
In principle, it’s possible that some particular adult incestuous relationship wouldn’t necessarily be harmful. In the same way, there may well be some ten-year-olds out there who would be perfectly safe drivers.
However, a blanket ban is far easier to administer, acts to prevent substantial harm, and does little harm to those subject to the ban. (Ten-year-olds grow up, and the pool of potential nonrelative romantic partners is substantially larger than the pool of relatives.)
All that, and God says you shouldn’t do it! (Anymore.)
July 14th, 2011 | 4:04 pm
“I gave you three.”
July 14th, 2011 | 4:15 pm
“I gave you three.”
How do your three appy to a homosexual incestuous couple (say two brothers or two sisters)?
“People like you, trying to put forth an argument by the fallacy of the false choice”
And what would CCB have to gain from that?
“I’m unclear why you think he couldn’t do that tomorrow?”
So you believe he could do that. Which leads us back to the question of why he doesn’t.
“by your reading of the establishment clause could CC opt to only deal with Catholic couples seeking to adopt?”
I know the more fantastic a hypothetical is, the more you like it, but I choose to deal with reality. The facts in Illinois are what they are. Do you think allowing Catholic Charities to continue providing adoption and foster care services in Illinois constitutes an establishment of religion? Yes or no?
July 14th, 2011 | 4:27 pm
“In addition to the points Boonton mentioned, one problem with adult incest is that it raises the problem of abusively ‘grooming’ children to give consent later.”
As I raised with Boonton, what about brother-brother or sister-sister couples? They see their gay friends getting married in the aftermath of the glorious victory in NY, so they want to be part of that. If they want to get married in NY, what reason can you give for denying them their hearts’ desire?
July 14th, 2011 | 4:35 pm
“In large part, because it’s become an all-or-nothing battle, since opponents of same-sex marriage demanded the legal equivalent of a fight to the death. “Defense of marriage” amendments in Michigan and Virginia flatly ban civil unions, not just ‘gay marriage’.”
Nonsense. In California and NY there were civil union statutes, and NJ has one that is now being challenged in Court. You now have opposition to civil unions because everybody realizes they are really just a stepping stone to gay marriage.
“There’s also the historical evidence of ‘separate but equal’ not working out so equal in practice.”
Another one with the sexuality=race equivalence. Why do you think all those black churches in California and Maryland don’t see this issue as clearly as Nickol, Boonton and you do?
July 14th, 2011 | 8:36 pm
Brian
How do your three appy to a homosexual incestuous couple (say two brothers or two sisters)?
#2 and #3 were both direct dangers of having incestuous marriages between siblings (same or different gender). #1 is indirectly since if you are going to allow adult siblings to marry each other why wouldn’t you allow an adult to marry their own parent (assuming the parent’s original marriage has ended by divorce or widowhood)? #1 also would apply if you just wanted to limit the discussion to sibling incest since the raising of children today could be disrupted if the parent knew he or she could ‘groom’ them to marry each other when they become adults.
Again is there proof any of this would happen? No but it seems like a reasonable danger and a legtit. state interest in preventing so standard scrutiny would apply and the prohibition passes it.
And what would CCB have to gain from that?
A last ditch effort to win the debate over SSM by using everything but the kitchen sink.
So you believe he could do that. Which leads us back to the question of why he doesn’t.
Why he doesn’t what? Come out and say something like “Look, we milked this publicity stunt for as much as we can get out of it, since we can’t get anymore we’re just going to go back to doing public adoptions because we kinda bent the truth about being ‘banned’ by the state….”? I very rarely ever hear public figures ever say things like that. I guess you must think that’s because public figures rarely distort the truth and never engage in publicity stunts. Last I recall CC of Boston was quoted as doing something like 40 adoptions per year out of maybe two or three thousand total adoptions in Mass per year. I think its much more likely that the adoption business was never all that big to begin with for CCB and there’s still some rhetorical milk left in the publicity cow.
The facts in Illinois are what they are. Do you think allowing Catholic Charities to continue providing adoption and foster care services in Illinois constitutes an establishment of religion?
I think it should be consistent. If a public adoption agency is allowed to use any type of discrimination (say by adopting only to Catholic families) on the grounds that there’s a diversity of public adoption agencies then no I don’t think it is. If the rule is that they can’t….that a public agency can’t exclude itself to just one religion or demographic group, then I think the rule should apply here as well.
Ray
There’s also the historical evidence of ‘separate but equal’ not working out so equal in practice. (Another reason why I’d figure it best to cede the term ‘marriage’ to those who really covet it, and have the law worry about the secular components via civil unions.)
It took a while to understand but Michael PS has raised a legitimate alternative path where France basically created a serious civil union while leaving marriage as a type of ‘classic’ institution. The result, for now, appears to be a relative consensus in France against SSM and you can’t say that is becuase France is very anti-gay as a country.
But here in the US I think we’re a bit less cooporative when it comes to our legal system and in many ways the anti-SSM side has ushered in SSM by making it, as you say, an all or nothing fight.
The other problem with civil unions is that you end up with a never ending set of inequalities. If you set up civil unions, straight couples invariably use them. So yes same sex couples have one option, but straight couples have two. Add ‘domestic partnerships’ and now you have 3 options for straights, 2 for gays….. And this IMO is where the real radical change in marriage is creeping in. The radical change isn’t SSM but creating a zoo of ‘marriage flavors’ moving marriage from an all or nothing affair to something like the ‘premium cable channel’ package. I don’t know if this is all bad, I’m sure there are some pros but IMO that’s a radical change that most so-called ‘defenders of traditional marriage’ are nearly totally blind too.
Brian
Nonsense. In California and NY there were civil union statutes, and NJ has one that is now being challenged in Court. You now have opposition to civil unions because everybody realizes they are really just a stepping stone to gay marriage.
Are gay rights advocates any less gay in France? Where marriage defenders have gotten their way, civil unions are almost always targetted whenever they get a chance to write the law. It’s quite reasonable for SSM advocates to conclude that civil unions are too easily turned into a ghetto by ‘traditional marriage defenders’ who will always try to neuter civil unions. Most anti-SSM advocates make it more than clear that they not only oppose SSM but anything that acknowledges the things gay couples care about. Ray’s point remains, anti-SSM have ironically helped SSM by making it clear that their agenda is not just defense but offense.
Another one with the sexuality=race equivalence. Why do you think all those black churches in California and Maryland don’t see this issue as clearly as Nickol, Boonton and you do?
I don’t tell churches what to do. In fact, I have stated here that I see the theological arguments against SSM as being stronger than the arguments against civil SSM. I’m unclear why I’m expected to agree with something just because it has ‘black’ as an adjective attached to it. Did you agree with black churches who overwhelmingly favored not only Obama over McCain but Kerry & Gore over Bush II and Clinton over Bush I?
July 14th, 2011 | 9:02 pm
Ray Ingles:
oh, please. How can anybody take that kind of thing seriously. As a mathematician I was amused by the way Pinker carefully chooses his time scales in such a way that the “decades scale” starts in 1950, so that the whole period 1900-1950 is conveniently “filtered out” of his analysis!
And his scale of centuries only shows evidence of decline in violence in, guess what, Western Christendom! Ha, ha, ha.
July 15th, 2011 | 1:30 am
Brian,
“Ah, the old sexuality equals race ploy. I am still waiting for you and Nickol to go to the black churces in Baltimore and California that lead the charge against SSM and explain to them your theory on this. I am sure it will be an enlightening discussion.”
You’re right that any black church opposed to gay marriage will object to any comparison of civil rights for blacks to civil rights for gays. But I’m not sure why the opposition of most black churches counts. There are, after all, black churches that support gay marriage and that believe that gay rights are comparable to civil rights.
The linked article is by Reverends Dennis and Christine Wiley, pastors of a black church in DC in one of the areas with the highest percentage of black residents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121802049.html
July 15th, 2011 | 6:52 am
You’re right that any black church opposed to gay marriage will object to any comparison of civil rights for blacks to civil rights for gays. But I’m not sure why the opposition of most black churches counts.
Because they are the ones who suffered and fought and proved their case.
And you’re the one piggybacking off of their suffering and their work.
They have a right to feel that you shouldn’t do that. You are not black and gays have never suffered what blacks suffered here, so what gives you the right to use their pain in order to avoid making your own arguments and proving your own case?
Especially since you rely on false analogies and other cheap linguistic tricks (for example, confusing active vs. passive states of being). By comparing their real suffering to trivial complaints, you trivialize them and their history.
Comparing what gays suffer now to what blacks suffered prior to the civil rights movement is trivializing and insulting.
(For instance, nobody is taking fire hoses to gay people, even though the gay communities have done far, far, far more to go out of their way to be provoking and deliberately obnoxious.)
July 15th, 2011 | 6:55 am
In addition to the points Boonton mentioned, one problem with adult incest is that it raises the problem of abusively ‘grooming’ children to give consent later.
Yes, but gays have already established that sexual identity rights trump children’s rights.
So that’s not a problem.
Children exist primarily to suit the pleasure of their parents. Just look at all the gay people who “need” kids – and that’s far more important than whether those kids “need” real parents.
July 15th, 2011 | 7:16 am
“Again is there proof any of this would happen? No but it seems like a reasonable danger and a legtit. state interest in preventing so standard scrutiny would apply and the prohibition passes it.”
Besides your speculation, do you have any studies or research to support your incestaphobia?
And I am not asking you about the constitutional level of scrutiny for anti-incest laws. You and your pals are the ones who claim marriage should be expanded to include two people who love each other, regardless of gender. How do you justify limitations on your free-form concept?
“A last ditch effort to win the debate over SSM by using everything but the kitchen sink.”
And they are still at it seven years later. That Cardinal O’Malley is tenacious.
“I think its much more likely that the adoption business was never all that big to begin with for CCB and there’s still some rhetorical milk left in the publicity cow.”
The adoption business wasn’t a large enough part of the Archdiocese of Boston business empire, so Cardinal O’Malley figured he could dump it and get some free publicity as a bonus? Do you even have enough self-awareness to be ashamed of yourself?
“The result, for now, appears to be a relative consensus in France against SSM and you can’t say that is becuase France is very anti-gay as a country.”
So opposition to SSM in France is not anti-gay, but in the U.S. it is? Got it.
“Are gay rights advocates any less gay in France?”
I really can’t speak to the gayness of SSM advocates in France, but they are certainly less successful. Michael PS can correct me on the dates, but I believe the most recent overwhelming rejection of SSM was only a few years ago. It is not that SSM supporters have stopped trying in France, it is that the arguments SSM supporters spout in this country
have been identified in France as the unmitigated nonsense that they actually are.
“Ray’s point remains, anti-SSM have ironically helped SSM by making it clear that their agenda is not just defense but offense.”
Hilarious. And you see no evidence that civil unions are just actually a stepping stone to gay marriage? That SSM advocates will always claim civil unions are not good enough? Can you identify any states where that has not happened?
“I don’t tell churches what to do.”
Thank God.
” I’m unclear why I’m expected to agree with something just because it has ‘black’ as an adjective attached to it.”
I’m not asking you to agree with them. I am asking you, Nickol and Ingles to impart your wisdom to them. Explain to them how not recognizing gay marriage is the same thing as not letting black people vote, or marry anyone of the opposite sex they want, or sit at the front of the bus, or sit at a lunch counter. I think that type of instruction would be most beneficial to all concerned, and I bet you would get a most enthusiastic reaction.
July 15th, 2011 | 7:39 am
Perhaps the opponents of same-sex marriage who are, oddly, arguing so vehemently in favor of incestuous marriage, could explain their understanding of what makes something immoral.
My understanding of the Christian tradition is that things are not immoral merely because “God says” they are immoral, but rather that “God says” things are immoral because they are immoral. For example, God did not arbitrarily say sexual intercourse inside of marriage was good and rape was bad. If that were the case, God could have said sexual intercourse inside of marriage was bad and rape was good. That is, there is a reason why one thing is good and another evil, and it is the nature of God’s creation that what’s good and evil can be known by reason, without divine revelation. (For Catholics, and many others, this is known as natural law.)
The opponents of same-sex marriage seem to me to be arguing that there is no reason why incest is wrong. Every time someone puts forth a reason why incest is wrong (e.g., negative impact on relationships within families), the reason is dismissed.
So I would like to hear from the opponents of same-sex marriage why they believe incest is wrong and why they believe incestuous marriage should not be legalized.
By the way, one of the towering figures in the Old Testament, Abraham, was married to his half sister, Sarah. That is incest. Abraham also had another wife/concubine, Hagar. That is polygamy.
July 15th, 2011 | 8:52 am
Carlo –
As a mathematician, you’re unfamiliar with the practice of throwing away extreme outliers? I also draw your attention to this quote: “If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million.”
Not easy to find murder records in many other places. And it’s worth noting that, while the murder rate in England is one-fortieth what it was in the 1300′s, not many people argue modern England is forty times as religious now. Usually the opposite, in fact…
July 15th, 2011 | 9:06 am
Brian English –
As Boonton pointed out, the opposition to civil unions has been part and parcel of ‘marriage defense’ from early days.
I’ll be happy to answer your question about specific churches once you answer my question about specific churches. To wit, you asked for examples of a church that “treats homosexual couples as equivalent to heterosexual couples excepting some Christian and Jewish denominations in the West in the last couple of decades”, and I asked you, “Are you suggesting that they aren’t religions, or they are religions but don’t count? If the latter, why not?”
July 15th, 2011 | 9:10 am
Brian English –
As Boonton noted, two of his points apply to those relationships as well. Besides which, you’re asking someone who’s in favor of treating gay and straight couples the same way… why they want to treat gay and straight couples the same way?
July 15th, 2011 | 10:11 am
Ray Ingles:
oh, I see, the great wars of the 20th were a statistical fluctuation!
As hard as Pinker can try, this kind of hand-waving arguments does not convince me that there is an “arrow of time” in history pointing towards greater civilization, independently of cultural factors such as, for instance, the major religions. In fact, I regards this idea to be itself of a religious nature (faith in “progress”).
July 15th, 2011 | 10:57 am
So I would like to hear from the opponents of same-sex marriage why they believe incest is wrong and why they believe incestuous marriage should not be legalized.
Incestuous marriage is wrong because the state should not give its blessing to any union that is incapable of producing a healthy family.
Gay marriage cannot produce a healthy family, because it relies on parasitism as a reproductive strategy. Incestuous couples rely on inbreeding as a reproductive strategy. Both strategies are unhealthy for both the family unit and the child of the union, and therefore neither type of union should qualify for state benefits.
July 15th, 2011 | 11:44 am
“There are, after all, black churches that support gay marriage and that believe that gay rights are comparable to civil rights.”
How widespread do you think that view is? And beyond that point, are you denying that black churches were very visible in support of Proposition 8, and especially in the fight against SSM in Maryland?
July 15th, 2011 | 12:01 pm
“As Boonton pointed out, the opposition to civil unions has been part and parcel of ‘marriage defense’ from early days.”
We are not talking about marriage defense. We are talking about jurisdictions that have adopted civil unions only to have gay rights activists declare they are not good enough. Boonton’s claim that gay marriage was forced upon jurisdictions because some marriage defenders also opposed civil unions is unadulterated nonsense. Civil unions were already adopted in those jurisdictions, but the push for gay marriage continued.
“I’ll be happy to answer your question about specific churches once you answer my question about specific churches.”
You won’t be happy to answer my question, and I am sure I will never get a straight answer from you. In any event, since you mised the point I was making by mentioning those other churches, I will try to approach it another way — can you identify any religion or culture, prior to 20 years ago, where marriages between two men or two women was treated the same way as a marriage between a man and a woman?
July 15th, 2011 | 12:04 pm
Because they are the ones who suffered and fought and proved their case.
And you’re the one piggybacking off of their suffering and their work.
There’s two questions at play. The first is whether civil SSM is something that should be done. If it is, it should be done and that’s it. The second question is whether not doing SSM is as unjust as the wrongs of racism. That second question is certainly something black churches would have an opinion about but it’s not a question that changes the issue. It’s like getting into a debate about whether the Holocaust was worse than slavery. It doesn’t change the fact that both were wrong and while it may be a valid question to debate philosophically in terms of public debate it seems to have little value other than setting people against each other.
Comparing what gays suffer now to what blacks suffered prior to the civil rights movement is trivializing and insulting.
I think it is revealing that at least some of the arguments used against SSM mirror almost exactly the arguments used to defend interracial marriage bans and in general a lot of anti-gay rhetoric mirrors the anti-semitic and racist rhetoric of the past. That raises the legitimate concern that its wrong. Whether its more wrong than slavery or genocide or Jim Crow, again, is an issue that I think is probably best left untouched.
Blake
Yes, but gays have already established that sexual identity rights trump children’s rights.
False. Your argument has been refuted, you refuse to respond to the flaws in your reasoning and the mistakes you make in your assertions of facts.
Gay marriage cannot produce a healthy family, because it relies on parasitism as a reproductive strategy.
This too has been refuted. It is impossible for any gay couple to deny a straight child their mother and father. By definition parasitism means feeding off another’s work. Yet no gay family can do this as whether or not the law has SSM there is ample protections and resources that prevent any same sex couple from taking a biological set of parents from a child.
I notice the slight of hand here as well. Family does not equal children. If it did then a family would cease to exist once all children became adults. Likewise we would object to calling a married couple a family if they did not have kids.
Brian
Besides your speculation, do you have any studies or research to support your incestaphobia?
Nope, I’m sure there’s some research out there but I don’t need any studies or absolute proof. Family relations is not a category that’s subject to strict or elevated scrutiny. Again I reference you to my discussion of strict scrutiny on the Race thread.
The adoption business wasn’t a large enough part of the Archdiocese of Boston business empire, so Cardinal O’Malley figured he could dump it and get some free publicity as a bonus? Do you even have enough self-awareness to be ashamed of yourself?
I know its shocking to you to hear the suggestion that just maybe a public figure is grandstanding. I mean whoever heard of such a thing! I myself am shocked by your assertion that we’d know if a public figure was grandstanding because he’d tell us he was doing so.
So opposition to SSM in France is not anti-gay, but in the U.S. it is? Got it.
More like anti-SSM forces in France have had more success by being a bit less anti-gay about it.
And you see no evidence that civil unions are just actually a stepping stone to gay marriage? That SSM advocates will always claim civil unions are not good enough? Can you identify any states where that has not happened?
IMO civil unions suffer from the ‘marriage-lite’ problem. But French PACs seem a bit different than just civil unions in the US (which seem to be just marriage by another name). We can let Michael PS speak to the details more if he wishes as I don’t read French and have little time to study the nuances of French law. France does seem to illustrate that its possible to ‘square the circle’ and give gay unions a real solution while not adopting SSM. Maybe its just temporary but then even if that’s so anti-SSM forces in France would still be more successful than people like you in the US. Maybe its time to be open to learning a lesson rather than pretending you have all the answers.
I’m not asking you to agree with them. I am asking you, Nickol and Ingles to impart your wisdom to them. Explain to them how not recognizing gay marriage is the same thing as not letting black people vote, or marry anyone of the opposite sex they want, or sit at the front of the bus, or sit at a lunch counter.
If they want ‘my wisdom’ they can read my comments just as you can read them. The black community and churches are, I’m sure, aware of the Internet and is fully capable of using it to read and respond to things they wish to speak about.
July 15th, 2011 | 12:06 pm
“Perhaps the opponents of same-sex marriage who are, oddly, arguing so vehemently in favor of incestuous marriage, could explain their understanding of what makes something immoral.”
Priceless.
“The opponents of same-sex marriage seem to me to be arguing that there is no reason why incest is wrong. Every time someone puts forth a reason why incest is wrong (e.g., negative impact on relationships within families), the reason is dismissed.”
Kind of the way you and your pals dismiss all the reasons offered for why SSM is wrong? As I indicate above, if you reduce marriage to nothing but two people who love one another, regardless of gender, how do you place any limit on that free-form concept?
July 15th, 2011 | 12:06 pm
Incestuous marriage is wrong because the state should not give its blessing to any union that is incapable of producing a healthy family.
Blake,
You only answered half the question. I want to know why opponents of same-sex marriage consider incest to be morally wrong. Boonton and Ray Ingles have been arguing why incest itself is wrong, and the opponents of same-sex marriage have not been buying their arguments. So the question I am most interested in is, Why is incest morally wrong?
Of course, as always, your criterion for the state giving its blessing to those who want to marry would exclude couples of childbearing age who are for some reason infertile, and women who are postmenopausal. Also, those who got married without any intention of having children would be using marriage laws to their advantage for reasons other than those for which the laws exist. And, as always, your take on same-sex marriage also condemns infertile heterosexual married couples who adopt.
July 15th, 2011 | 12:12 pm
“Besides which, you’re asking someone who’s in favor of treating gay and straight couples the same way… why they want to treat gay and straight couples the same way?”
No, I am asking him how, once he discards the universal tradition that only men and women can get married, he can put any limits on who can get married.
July 15th, 2011 | 12:14 pm
Carlo –
They certainly were unusual. And even were they characteristic, as Pinker notes they were far less damaging to civilians on a proportionate basis than previous wars.
It’s not that simple. The ‘natural sciences’ may display ‘irreversible progress’, but engineering doesn’t – certainly not in the same way. Engineering uses science, but people built perfectly good brick walls without knowing how mortar works.
Engineering advances as much by experiment and heuristics and rules of thumb as by measured knowledge. Historical contingency comes into play as well; when and how we developed rockets, for example, was somewhat improbable.
“Civilization” can be looked at as the process of figuring out better ways to live together – kind of a different take on ‘social engineering’. Like more technological pursuits, it displays historical contingency and path dependence… and yet we can identify some real, positive innovations. The antislavery movement (which hardly consisted solely of the religious or religious justifications); the movement for full social and political equality of women; the concept of ‘lawful treatment of war prisoners’.
It’s not ‘irreversible’; engineering techniques can be lost (e.g. Damascus steel), yet there is, I think, a trendline visible in the data we have.
July 15th, 2011 | 12:50 pm
Brian
No, I am asking him how, once he discards the universal tradition that only men and women can get married, he can put any limits on who can get married.
Logical fallacies: Reasoning by analogy, slipperly slope.
You’re basically implying that SSM is so over the top that if you have SSM you might as well have no rules at all. I think you’re view is upside down. I would consider incestuous marriage to be so wrong that if you did have that you wouldn’t be able to have any rules.
But I think your question has an easier answer. I think there’s quite a few anti-SSM that simply don’t work against SSM but would work against incest marriage. I think Blake’s ‘child abuse’ arguments work against incestuous marriage. No I don’t have ‘studies of incestuous marriages’….but hey Blake’s argument isn’t based on ‘studies’ but on a Robin Williams film!
July 15th, 2011 | 2:13 pm
“I know its shocking to you to hear the suggestion that just maybe a public figure is grandstanding. I mean whoever heard of such a thing! I myself am shocked by your assertion that we’d know if a public figure was grandstanding because he’d tell us he was doing so.”
You are claiming that Cardinal O’Malley put an end to a century of adoptions services through CCB, and has continued that ban for seven years, in order to make some type of political statement at the expense of innocent children. In the absence of any proof, making such an assertion is reprehensible. Perhaps if you posted under your full name you wouldn’t feel so privileged to make defamatory remarks?
“More like anti-SSM forces in France have had more success by being a bit less anti-gay about it.”
Anything to support that claim?
“Maybe its just temporary but then even if that’s so anti-SSM forces in France would still be more successful than people like you in the US. Maybe its time to be open to learning a lesson rather than pretending you have all the answers.”
I’ll try one more time. Even with the French PACs, which you find so admirable, SSM advocates in France pushed for SSM. Fortunately, the French appear to be less susceptible to this nonsense, and soundly rejected SSM (now that I think of it, actually within the last year). The same thing is happening in this country in states that have adopted civil unions. Your continued assertion that gay rights advocates have been forced to seek SSM because the mean pro-marriage people won’t give them civil unions is delusional.
“If they want ‘my wisdom’ they can read my comments just as you can read them.”
Okay, I’ll ask you the direct question: Are the ministers of black churches who lead the fight against SSM homophobic bigots?
July 15th, 2011 | 2:26 pm
“You’re basically implying that SSM is so over the top that if you have SSM you might as well have no rules at all. I think you’re view is upside down. I would consider incestuous marriage to be so wrong that if you did have that you wouldn’t be able to have any rules.”
Really? I have asked you and your friends several times for cultures or religions where gay couples were treated the same way heterosexual couples were, and you have come up with nothing.
On the other hand, off the top of my head, I can think of one culture that approved of incestuous relationships within its ruling class: the Ptolemaic Dynasty in Egypt, of which Cleopatra was a member (and I believe this was a carryover from Egyptian tradition).
Furthermore, polygamy has been common historically, and even today, in certain parts of the world, in contrast to your non-existent married gay couples.
So, from a historical perspective, it is your view that is upside down.
July 15th, 2011 | 3:12 pm
Really? I have asked you and your friends several times for cultures or religions where gay couples were treated the same way heterosexual couples were, and you have come up with nothing.
Brian English,
There is a major problem with asking for examples of cultures that treated “gay couples” the same as straight couples, and that is that it is anachronistic to look for “gay” couples in history. There is a cultural element to the existence of “gay” people that is really quite new. This is not to say that a homosexual orientation did not exist in history. But I would argue that “gay people” did not exist. In order for “gay people” to exist as an identifiable group, they have to understand themselves, know that other people like them exist, and identify with those other people. Homosexual behavior existed in the past, and in some cases was not merely tolerated, but celebrated (the Greeks), but can you identify any “gay people” among the ancient Greeks?
I have conversed with many gay men who didn’t realize they were gay until after they got married. It is somewhat of a mystery to me how this can happen, but it is reasonably common. I know this happens to women, too. They marry and later realize they are lesbians. If that can happen in this day and age, think how difficult it must have been in the past for people to identify their own sexual feelings as unique, find others who felt the same way, and think of themselves as a distinct group.
It really just won’t do to make the argument that previous societies didn’t have gay marriage, because previous societies didn’t have gay people.
July 15th, 2011 | 3:51 pm
No, I am asking him how, once he discards the universal tradition that only men and women can get married, he can put any limits on who can get married.
Logical fallacies: Reasoning by analogy, slipperly slope.
It’s not a logical fallacy.
If you establish the precedent that sexual identity is a “right”, then it’s not a “slippery slope” to ask why it wouldn’t be a right for everyone.
Why should we assume gays are unique or special? Why wouldn’t everyone with a sexual perversion be entitled to have their unique identity recognized, affirmed publicly, and supported/subsidized?
July 15th, 2011 | 4:24 pm
Why wouldn’t everyone with a sexual perversion be entitled to have their unique identity recognized, affirmed publicly, and supported/subsidized?
Blake,
The issue is that only the opponents of same-sex marriage are arguing for the rights of “perverts” to get married! I don’t know of anyone, straight or gay—aside from the folks who argue against same-sex marriage—who is arguing for the right for brothers to marry sisters, uncles to marry nephews, adults to marry children, living people to marry dead people, or humans to marry dogs. It’s only you opponents of same-sex marriage who can’t seem to come up with any reasons the government should not legalize such things! If you keep it up, you may begin to convince people.
July 15th, 2011 | 4:51 pm
“There is a cultural element to the existence of “gay” people that is really quite new.”
How new?
“Homosexual behavior existed in the past, and in some cases was not merely tolerated, but celebrated (the Greeks), but can you identify any “gay people” among the ancient Greeks?”
The ancient Greeks did not “celebrate” homosexual behavior. The relationship between teenagers and some older men that you see referred to was never supposed to involve sexual penetration.
July 15th, 2011 | 6:16 pm
Ray:
your comparison with engineering is very telling. The great anti-revolutionary writer of the XIX century, Donoso Cortes, used to say that the great fallacy of liberalism is to think that all problems are ultimately technical problems, and you seem to agree: ultimately peaceful coexistence is a matter of learning how to do it, regress is possible but we are making steady progress.
Well, I beg to disagree. I think that some problem are irreducibly moral problems, and that it is perfectly possibly to go in a bad direction. And, to go back to the initial discussion, that if the impulse given to the West by Christianity over the last thousand fades away, moral regress will be fast and drastic. Which is my interpretation of the history of Europe in the XX century.
July 15th, 2011 | 7:06 pm
How new?
I’d say the nineteenth century in the English-speaking world and Europe. Maybe a little earlier.
The ancient Greeks did not “celebrate” homosexual behavior. The relationship between teenagers and some older men that you see referred to was never supposed to involve sexual penetration.
Certainly the Greeks celebrated the love of older men for young men, and while they did not practice anal intercourse (or so it is claimed), they did at least engage in nonpenetrative sex. Are you using the Bill Clinton definition of “sexual relations”?
July 16th, 2011 | 12:12 am
Brian
You are claiming that Cardinal O’Malley put an end to a century of adoptions services through CCB, and has continued that ban for seven years, in order to make some type of political statement at the expense of innocent children.
Indeed you’re right. The state of Mass. takes the 40 or so children that CCB adopted out per year and shoots them into the Atlantic Ocean. Or maybe Worecester CC is simply picking up the work.
In the absence of any proof, making such an assertion is reprehensible. Perhaps if you posted under your full name you wouldn’t feel so privileged to make defamatory remarks?
My email address is provided whenever I make a comment as is yours. Absence of proof? I provided plenty of proof, you were the one who asserted that not only had Catholic Charities been banned from doing public adoptions but were banned from the entire state of Mass.
Even with the French PACs, which you find so admirable, SSM advocates in France pushed for SSM.
Never said they were admirable, IMO they are a bit of a more radical change to marriage by creating a type of ‘marriage-lite’.
Okay, I’ll ask you the direct question: Are the ministers of black churches who lead the fight against SSM homophobic bigots?
Beats me, I don’t keep a list of ministers of black churches so I have no idea. Are you asking me if simply being opposed to SSM makes you a homophobic bigot? I’d say no, but there are homophobic bigots fighting against SSM. But I think its fair to judge each person as an individual. If you want to talk about a specific black minister please provide his name and a link to where I can read his arguments and I’ll get back to you.
On the other hand, off the top of my head, I can think of one culture that approved of incestuous relationships within its ruling class: the Ptolemaic Dynasty in Egypt, of which Cleopatra was a member (and I believe this was a carryover from Egyptian tradition).
I believe the Roman’s established a rule prohibiting passing down titles and property to children in Egypt so the elites responded by ‘marrying’ their children since the law did not prohibit a spouse from inheriting their spouse’s estate so I suspect what you may be citing were only legal fictions in order to game Roman law, but I could be wrong.
Regardless:
1. Since no one has argued for SSM on the grounds that any particular ancient or obscure culture ever had it, I’m not sure why you think historical examples of incest marriages establish anything?
2. You may be overblowing marriage as practised in an ancient culture with the exceptions that made the history book. The Egyptian pharoahs were considered living gods and, of course, lead very complex lives as both political and theocratic leaders. One shouldn’t extrapolate their lives as what the ‘typical’ ancient Egyptian thought of marriage just like the marriages of old European aristorcats that were made as part of complex political diplomacy shouldn’t be taken as typical of what marriage was for the ‘normal’ European living hundreds of years ago.
Furthermore, polygamy has been common historically, and even today, in certain parts of the world, in contrast to your non-existent married gay couples.
You have the beginnings of an argument for polygamy….which is an argument that has nothing to do with SSM. Your argument seems to consist of “there have been times and places where we know there’s been polygamy”. Which is fine….except that there’s been a lot of times and a lot of places in human history. That something may have existed at one time and one place doesn’t tell us much of anything….other than maybe that the universe won’t blow up if such a thing happened to exist ever.
The ancient Greeks did not “celebrate” homosexual behavior. The relationship between teenagers and some older men that you see referred to was never supposed to involve sexual penetration.
And we know this how again? Time machine in your basement?
Blake
Why should we assume gays are unique or special? Why wouldn’t everyone with a sexual perversion be entitled to have their unique identity recognized, affirmed publicly, and supported/subsidized?
You’re right, no one is assuming that gays must be unique. But at the same time it doesn’t follow that gays aren’t unique. It doesn’t follow that just because you invite the gay guy to the party you must invite everyone. The polygamist has to do a bit more than simply say “well I get my way because the gay got his” as does the wannabe incest marriage maker. Unless your argument is really that gays are so evil, so horrible that to give them anything forever forfeits one’s right to make any judgements about anything else ever again. Which is, at least, a somewhat logical argument. It’s basically like “If you love Hitler, you can’t really gripe about Pat Buchannan being anti-semitic!” Do you want to make that argument? If so do you have something better to support it than Nathan Lane’s performance in The Bird Cage?
July 16th, 2011 | 7:13 am
“I’d say the nineteenth century in the English-speaking world and Europe. Maybe a little earlier.”
And with all the cultural upheavals since that time, prior to 20 years ago, no one pursued the idea that gays should be able to get married.
“Certainly the Greeks celebrated the love of older men for young men, and while they did not practice anal intercourse (or so it is claimed), they did at least engage in nonpenetrative sex. Are you using the Bill Clinton definition of “sexual relations”?”
This being a family website, I don’t want to get too graphic regarding the one sexual act that was tolerated, but it was not one of those engaged in by Clinton with Lewinsky. But you are missing the point. Even in ancient Greece, no one thought men should be able to marry other men.
July 16th, 2011 | 7:53 am
“Indeed you’re right.”
Right about what? That you are defaming Cardinal O’Malley without a shred of evidence to support your accusation?
“My email address is provided whenever I make a comment as is yours.”
So what? If you are willing to make defamatory accusations you should be man enough to sign your name to them.
“Absence of proof? I provided plenty of proof,”
You have not provided any proof to support your accusation against Cardinal O’Malley. You keep insisting that CCB is free to go back to adoption services, but simply chooses not to in order to make a political statement. Prove it.
“Beats me, I don’t keep a list of ministers of black churches so I have no idea.”
Typical.
“but I could be wrong.”
You are wrong. Ptolemy, the founder of the dynasty, was one of Alexander the Great’s generals. The Romans didn’t show up for almost another 300 years.
“Since no one has argued for SSM on the grounds that any particular ancient or obscure culture ever had it, I’m not sure why you think historical examples of incest marriages establish anything?”
It establishes that even in cultures that allowed forms of marriage that we now rightfully condemn, no one was silly enough to suggest that people of the same sex should be able to get married.
“You may be overblowing marriage as practised in an ancient culture with the exceptions that made the history book.”
The point is not that everyone in Ptolemaic Egypt believed in incestuous marriage. My point is that even in a culture where the ruling class accepted incestuous marriage, no one ever suggested that gay marriage was acceptable.
“You have the beginnings of an argument for polygamy….which is an argument that has nothing to do with SSM.”
But it does. Polygamy still involves a man marrying a woman. The man has marriage ceremonies with several different women over time, but it is still one man marrying one woman. You and other SSM supporters are proposing a radical redefinition, basically saying “white is black”, “black is white”, “up is down”, “in is out”.
“And we know this how again? Time machine in your basement?”
Ah, this explains everything. You see, there are these things called “books”, and when we read them, we can learn all kinds of things about other peoples and cultures, even if they lived a really, really long time ago. You should try them some time.
“Which is fine….except that there’s been a lot of times and a lot of places in human history.”
And in none of them was gay marriage considered acceptable.
July 16th, 2011 | 9:04 am
If so do you have something better to support it than Nathan Lane’s performance in The Bird Cage?
LOL that really bugged you, didn’t it?
I know you won’t believe me, but I don’t believe all gays are evil. I don’t even believe most gays are evil. It is not their homosexual orientation that separates them from me.
I am not asking them to refrain from gay sex. I am not asking them to stop seeking recognition for themselves or for their partnerships. I am not asking them to change their religious beliefs.
It just happens that there is a boundary in dispute – they want to redefine marriage and family so that they can participate in an institution on their own terms, and I believe that “their own terms” is inherently incompatible with the institution.
There’s no reason to resort to ad hom attacks. I am not your enemy, I don’t hate you, and I’m not out to get you.
I just don’t want to lie for you.
July 16th, 2011 | 9:45 am
Blake,
Most black churches oppose gay marriage, but some black churches support it. The latter don’t seem to find the analogy to slavery offensive. Rather than argue by analogy, I think it is less confusing to argue the case on its merits. But if someone is going to use the analogy, then there several good arguments against it. The idea that most black churches are offended is not a good argument.
If you’re going to claim that I “rely on false analogies and other cheap linguistic tricks,” then you should provide some evidence, clarify what you meant to say, or apologize.
—
Brian,
“How widespread do you think that view is? And beyond that point, are you denying that black churches were very visible in support of Proposition 8, and especially in the fight against SSM in Maryland?”
I think it is a minority view among black churches. I’m not denying that black churches were visible in their support, but I also don’t think that the analogy was the chief reason they took to the streets. They reject gay marriage primarily because they believe it is unbiblical. That belief is the source of why they find the analogy to black civil rights is offensive.
Likewise, those black churches that do support gay marriage support it because of their belief in the bible. Their acceptance of the analogy follows that belief.
“Really? I have asked you and your friends several times for cultures or religions where gay couples were treated the same way heterosexual couples were, and you have come up with nothing”
I gave you three examples on another thread. You made some good qualifications to the ancient Roman example, but the point still stood. You never addressed the Chinese and American Indian examples.
July 17th, 2011 | 10:41 am
Brian
You have not provided any proof to support your accusation against Cardinal O’Malley. You keep insisting that CCB is free to go back to adoption services, but simply chooses not to in order to make a political statement. Prove it.
I suppose your right. I neglected other possible explanations. Perhapse Worecester is not subject to Mass. laws. Perhaps Catholic Charities of Worecester have been given a special exemption by the Pope to ignore Catholic doctrine and this has not been noticed by the media and others. Perhaps Cardinal O’Malley is getting legal advice from people who don’t know what they are talking about.
What we do know, though, is that your assertion that CC has been driven from the Mass. adoption business by the state is clearly false.
You are wrong. Ptolemy, the founder of the dynasty, was one of Alexander the Great’s generals. The Romans didn’t show up for almost another 300 years.
You appear to be right about ancient Egypt. I do recall hearing the story of father’s marrying their daughters to dodge a Roman ban on passing down estates.
It establishes that even in cultures that allowed forms of marriage that we now rightfully condemn, no one was silly enough to suggest that people of the same sex should be able to get married.
Again your standards seem to be upside down. I think most people would consider sibling marriage or incenst marriage to be much more disturbing and disruptive to family life than SSM. Your perspective here seems to be that it’s better to have incest marriage if you can keep your society solidly against SSM.
Ah, this explains everything. You see, there are these things called “books”, and when we read them, we can learn all kinds of things about other peoples and cultures, even if they lived a really, really long time ago. You should try them some time.
Books are not time machines, they are written by people who either have ways of knowing specific facts or are simply speculating. Making a bold statement like the relationships celebrated where older men embraced younger teens did not involve any sexual activities is a pretty bold statement. The lack of a historical record is not a record of non-existence. References to sexual relationships might have been lost (as has many sources of the ancient world). Sexual relationships of this sort might have been thought of as a subject that shouldn’t be discussed in writing. Or such such sexual relationships might have been seen as so unexceptional as to be unworthy of talking about.
Blake
LOL that really bugged you, didn’t it?
It is interesting that while its feels silly to base a discussion on a work of fiction that wasn’t even written by a gay person and isn’t even about SSM to try to analyze SSM…yet it does provide an entertaining story and a common reference point for both of us. It also reveals your errors in reasoning. YOu find Nathan Lane to be an abusive character therefore you conclude that SSM is about abusing children. Yet even limiting ourselves to the film we see your error of sterotyping. Robin Williams is also a gay parent, yet his behavior is ‘less gay’ than Lane.
Moving away from the movies, we can nail down your error in more compact format.
You provide examples of gay parenting you think is abusive to kids. Solution: address such incidents of parenting.
You imply that examples of bad gay parenting (i.e. denying children a ‘right to mourn’ the loss of a biological parent) implies that all gay parents do this. This is the classical sterotype fallacy….i.e. this black guy robbed a store, therefore all black guys rob stores!
Even if we ignore your reasoning, though, you have only made a case against SS parenting, not SSM. Plenty of people are married who can’t or shouldn’t be parents. Likewise its quite possible for SSM to be legal but not SS parenting. In fact, the very examples you cite often are cases of SSP which happened outside of SSM (i.e. Jenkings, The Bird Cage, etc). We also know that the cities with the highest portion of SSP among same sex couples are, ironically, not in SSM jurisdictions!
I just don’t want to lie for you.
I don’t want you to lie for me, in fact, you’d do well to lie less….regardless of who you think you’re doing it for.
There’s no reason to resort to ad hom attacks. I am not your enemy, I don’t hate you, and I’m not out to get you.
I’ve made no ad hom. attacks on you.
July 18th, 2011 | 10:05 am
“You made some good qualifications to the ancient Roman example, but the point still stood.”
I don’t see how the point still stood; Juvenal’s mocking description of some type of SSM ceremony is hardly proof that Roman society accepted such couples as the equivalent of heterosexual married couples.
“You never addressed the Chinese and American Indian examples.”
I would need to see your evidence. I have never seen another SSM supporter claim that the Chineses or American Indians treated homosexual couples the same way they treated heterosexual couples. I suspect what you are talking about is a misinterpretation of things like “blood-brother” rituals.
July 18th, 2011 | 10:36 am
“I suppose your right. I neglected other possible explanations.”
Still no proof? That’s what I figured.
“What we do know, though, is that your assertion that CC has been driven from the Mass. adoption business by the state is clearly false.”
CC OF BOSTON has been driven out of the adoption business. That is clearly true, and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Your obsession with CC of Worcester is just evidence that you don’t understand the issues.
“Your perspective here seems to be that it’s better to have incest marriage if you can keep your society solidly against SSM.”
My “perspective” has nothing to do with it. It is simply a matter of historical record that even societies that accepted versions of marriage that we regard as abnormal never went to the extreme of considering homosexual couples to be capable of being married the same way heterosexual couples were.
“Making a bold statement like the relationships celebrated where older men embraced younger teens did not involve any sexual activities is a pretty bold statement.”
And in any event, was not the statement I made.
“References to sexual relationships might have been lost (as has many sources of the ancient world).”
But we do have a great deal of material on sexual relationships — none of them regard homosexual couples as being the equivalent of heterosexual couples.
“Sexual relationships of this sort might have been thought of as a subject that shouldn’t be discussed in writing.”
Which would itself be evidence that such relationships were not approved of.
” Or such such sexual relationships might have been seen as so unexceptional as to be unworthy of talking about.”
Pursuant to this historical analysis approach, we are free to assert the Ancient Greeks had cell phones, since their prevalence in the society made them so unexceptional that they were unworthy of talking about.
July 18th, 2011 | 1:29 pm
Brian English –
Actually, there were plenty of same-sex unions in China with similar legal status, among other cultures. See the Ming dynasty.
But even then, let’s grant arguendo that same-sex marriage is a completely new innovation. Does that alone make it wrong?
July 18th, 2011 | 1:46 pm
Brian
I don’t see how the point still stood; Juvenal’s mocking description …
You seem to want things both ways here. I’m unaware of any SSM advocate who has made a serious case for SSM based on historical precedent. At best they may cite Roman and other ancient societies to disprove the notion that SSM is something totally new under the sun…but few people I know would be brave enough to make a case based on the premise “If the Ancient Egyptians/Romans/Greeks did it, then it must be ok”.
But I don’t think you realize how much you would stand things on their head. If the Egyptians had incest marriage, if various other cultures did other radical things like polygamy, child brides, forced marriages, rape etc. then that hardly seems to make a case against SSM IMO. If some culture where marrying your sister was not only accepted but expected opted not to recognize SSM…that doesn’t speak to me with very much moral authority. In fact, the fact that SSM had nothing to do with a culture that praised incest marriage and believed their leaders were living gods is a point in its favor if anything in my book.
CC OF BOSTON has been driven out of the adoption business. That is clearly true, and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Your obsession with CC of Worcester is just evidence that you don’t understand the issues.
Again please show me how where Mass. adoption law has a seperate set of rules for Worcester.
July 18th, 2011 | 2:52 pm
“Actually, there were plenty of same-sex unions in China with similar legal status, among other cultures. See the Ming dynasty.”
I have to see some evidence for this. The mutliculturists and gay rights advocates would get a two-fer if this was accurate.
“But even then, let’s grant arguendo that same-sex marriage is a completely new innovation. Does that alone make it wrong?”
What it does is:
(1) Refute the widespread assertion that condemnation of homosexual acts was something created by those evil monotheists; and
(2) give those who condemn opposition to SSM as being mindless bigotry reason to pause before casting that aspersion (although it obviously fails in that task).
July 18th, 2011 | 2:55 pm
“You seem to want things both ways here.”
See my reponse to Ingles.
“Again please show me how where Mass. adoption law has a seperate set of rules for Worcester.”
It doesn’t. More evidence you don’t understand the issue.
July 18th, 2011 | 3:29 pm
(1) Refute the widespread assertion that condemnation of homosexual acts was something created by those evil monotheists; and
Granted, bigotry happens even in non-monotheist humans.
(2) give those who condemn opposition to SSM as being mindless bigotry reason to pause before casting that aspersion (although it obviously fails in that task).
Errr, I’m sorry, how does proving a humorist in ancient Rome disapproved of SSM demonstrate that people like Brian English or Blake are not mindless? Few serious supporters of SSM assert that every single person opposed to SSM is motivated only by mindless bigotry. And perhaps the pot should stop calling the kettle black here…..we have not a word about Blake judging all SSM by a single fictional movie!
It doesn’t. More evidence you don’t understand the issue.
Indeed I don’t. You allege that Mass adopted some law that prohibits adoption agencies from operating unless they consider SS couples seeking to adopt kids. You cannot cite any such law, though, and we see non-Boston based Catholic Charities doing adoptions which means either the law doesn’t say what you allege (in which case Boston CC was not driven out), or non-Boston based CC is simply defying the law (which is odd since you’d think an adoption agency would have an on-staff lawyer who’d be aware of such things) or non-Boston based CC is defying the Vatican (which again you’d think someone would bother to notice).
July 18th, 2011 | 4:39 pm
“Granted, bigotry happens even in non-monotheist humans.”
So now everyone who has ever disapproved of SSM is a bigot?
“Errr, I’m sorry, how does proving a humorist in ancient Rome disapproved of SSM demonstrate that people like Brian English or Blake are not mindless?”
You are not even trying anymore.
“Indeed I don’t.”
I am glad we settled that.
July 19th, 2011 | 1:47 am
David Nickol- if you don’t agree with the Church’s position that kids do best with their mother and father, so be it. If you think, however, that holding such a belief is grounds for the agency to lose its adoption license, we are very far apart, indeed. It would be exceedingly easy for the Illinois legislature to amend the law to provide a clear statutory exemption. If they cannot stomach letting Catholic charities continue to exist as it always has, then we have no choice but to shut our doors.
July 19th, 2011 | 3:55 pm
So now everyone who has ever disapproved of SSM is a bigot?
Odd that you’d think that when I stated point blank in the very same comment that few SSM supporters seriously assert that every single person who opposes SSM is a bigot. On the flip side, though, the fact that there are non-bigots who oppose SSM doesn’t magically immunize all who oppose SSM from legitimate charges of bigotry.
David Nickol- if you don’t agree with the Church’s position that kids do best with their mother and father, so be it.
If the kids would do best with their father and mother then why would you be running them through an adoption agency?
July 21st, 2011 | 8:29 am
Boonton- ‘very few SSM supporters claim that all opponents are bigots’? Are you sure about that? Have you seen the footage of Tim Gill claiming that the GOP is ‘controlled by bigots’ because of its support of ordinary marriage? I’d have a more difficult time finding left-wing people who do not regard opponents of SSM as bigots.
If somebody’s parents are dead, or nowhere to be found, etc., it makes sense for another couple to adopt them. The Church’s position is that there are certain things only a mom can do, and certain things only a dad can do.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact