The keynote speaker at More Than a Monologue: Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church, sponsored by Fordham, Yale, Fairfield, and Union Theological Seminary, broke new ground by arguing that homosexual relations are both moral and natural.
Defending the morally good quality of homosexual relations by claiming that homosexual couples are “open to the gift of life from God—just in a different way than heterosexual couples,” she effectively equates homosexual persons, in this sense, with pregnant women, postmenopausal women, and infertile men.
Moreover:
The sexual relations that can exist between all couples, regardless of their orientation, provide the physical satisfaction that can sustain any ‘kin-like’ tie and childrearing partnerships.
Before we have time to get bogged down wondering what a kin-like tie is, she continues by saying that homosexual activity is also naturally complimentary—“not as it is with opposite-sex couples’ sexual activity without artificial contraception, but as it is with opposite-sex couples who do practice artificial contraception.” Considering that she is trying to convince “the bishops” who are not open to “the truth of human sexuality,” the keynote may do well to dust off her copy of Humanae Vitae before arguing that homosexual relations are moral and natural because they resemble heterosexual couples’ who use contraception.
Read more over at Mirror of Justice
November 17th, 2011 | 2:27 pm
Does this person have a name?
November 17th, 2011 | 2:59 pm
The quote attributed to Ricky Ricardo is, “Lucy, you’ve got some ‘splainin to do!” And actually, it was never uttered on the show.
Why Fr. Araujo avoids using the name of the keynote speaker, when the conferences were broadly advertised and open to the public, is beyond me, although he has done the same thing in the past when criticizing equally public remarks of others.
November 17th, 2011 | 6:12 pm
Humane Vitae? The fact is that the vast majority of practicing Catholics (and certainly Protestants and Orthodox believers) either disbelieve the notion that contraception in marriage is immoral or simply disregard the church’s teaching is impractical. According to polls, over 70% of Catholics use some form of contraception on a regular basis, and nearly 97% have admitted to its use in the past.
Honestly, what are the realistic options for same-sex oriented people? Celibacy? Given the apparent unwillingness of heterosexuals to even remain married to one person in their life, how realistic do you suppose that expectation is? (Let’s not even bother with the junk science known as “reparative therapy” which has an effective success rate of zero.)
The question is how gay persons can integrate their faith with their orientation: isn’t striving to live a life of monogamy and integrity better than casual promiscuity?
Force a person to choose between companionship and faith, and the former is going to win in most cases, ultimately. So, you can refuse to discuss the topic altogether, or you can help gay men and women find a way of life that doesn’t deny the reality of things but still encourages a greater respect for the virtues that the Christian faith provides.
November 17th, 2011 | 6:23 pm
Why Fr. Araujo avoids using the name of the keynote speaker
Maybe he doesn’t want to be viewed as attacking the individual. Or maybe he does not want to be high on the list of people who are on the internet specifically looking for that person’s name (perhaps for fear of trolling or spam attack).
Maybe he just wants to stay focused on the issue instead of the person?
November 17th, 2011 | 6:32 pm
As long as we have freedom of religion in America, we have to deal with the recognition that Unitarians and humanists believe that all sex they classify as “victimless” is not only okay but healthy and desirable. So everyone else has to learn to live with this belief just the way kosher Jews have to live with people reject the idea of kosher.
The problem with homosexual relations is twofold: first, they are not content with being allowed to believe or do what they want, but want to force everyone to share their belief. This is a zero-sum situation as long as we, too, want to force them to accept our belief. We don’t have to do this. Let them believe what they want, and be content with “Christians believe….” (or “The Dalai Lama says…” if you’re not Christian, or whatever). But we do need to fight their attempts to normalize their belief. They are trying to make it out like their belief are the only acceptable ones and any other set of beliefs is tantamount to belonging to the Klan, and they freely rely on confusing every human being’s right to be who they are (for instance, to “be” black – or to “be” Unitarian) with the right to do what you want, which they claim as a unique right – they’re right, so they can do what they want and if we object we’re bigots; we’re wrong, so we don’t have a right to do what we want.
The second problem is that the actual practice of homosexuality – and/or the desire to destigmatize homosexuality (by any means honest or not), the need to force everyone to accept them as normal – is not harmless. They are using a variety of lies and bully tactics to minimize and deny that any harm is done, and that is itself a problem.
November 17th, 2011 | 8:30 pm
James, the purpose of moral doctrine is to aid in moral improvement, not to make people feel good about themselves. Your argument is a bit like saying that since 97% of people can’t solve advanced calculus problems, we should change calculus to make it easier for them. Like mathematics, Catholic doctrine is based on objective reality (natural law), not on what is popular, pleasurable, or easy. The bishops can’t, in fact, change it if they wanted to. They would only be making themselves into heretics.
It’s supposed to be hard. As Kierkegaard said, “The task must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted.” You say people will leave the Church, and perhaps some will, but I for one prefer a Church with high standards.
November 17th, 2011 | 9:35 pm
The problem with homosexual relations is twofold: first, they are not content with being allowed to believe or do what they want, but want to force everyone to share their belief.
Exactly who is being referred too above and what is it exactly they are trying to force?
Do all homosexuals want to force you to share their beliefs? Have you conducted a census but have neglected to publish your findings?
Or maybe he does not want to be high on the list of people who are on the internet specifically looking for that person’s name (perhaps for fear of trolling or spam attack).
I would bet its more likely just a touch of laziness. Maybe he didn’t get the guys name and didn’t want to bother finding it.
Before we have time to get bogged down wondering what a kin-like tie is..
OK its more interesting to explore this IMO than exploring the meaning of ‘naturally complimentary’. There’s an old argument that sex is for procreation, period. Biology makes a pretty clear case that sex is for recreation with procreation as an added benefit (take your oldest old school married couple with, say 16 kids or more, you will still almost certainly find actual procreative sex acts are only a tiny fraction of the entire set of sexual acts over their married life).
This thesis is even more emphasized to us by observing nature. There are plenty of animals who only have sex for procreation. So clearly we see that nature knows how to design sex for procreation only and decidedly did NOT do that for humans. So it’s quite sensible to conclude sex is mostly for cementing lifelong bonds between humans (most here who are married or in very long term relationships can probably understand, there’s a lot of friction in a relationship and sex does certainly provide, shall we say, some essential lubrication). Hence the speaker’s argument would be that homosexual relationships can be just as much life affirming as any others. While procreating is a very important part of life, a more essential aspect of life is actually living it.
November 17th, 2011 | 11:36 pm
James:
the Church rejects homosexual acts PRECISELY because people need true companionships.
November 17th, 2011 | 11:42 pm
Bontoon:
“So it’s quite sensible to conclude sex is mostly for cementing lifelong bonds between humans.”
In my experience (happily married with children) sex does not cement anything. Our marriage is cemented above all by a shared faith. If sex cemented marriage, all marriages would end within a few years when sexual attraction fades away, as it always does (sometimes very quickly).
November 18th, 2011 | 6:13 am
Carlo,
You’re mixing up the purpose with the thing. Yes sexual attraction and sex often fades over time, although I think its more accurate to say it more ebbs and flows at different rates over time rather than just ‘fades away’.
But the point is its a catalyst to two people being togther through out life.
November 18th, 2011 | 6:38 am
Before we concern ourselves with what “kin-like” relationships are, we should ask whether “physical satisfaction” is really capable, on its own, of sustaining any sort of meaningful relationship. Many Catholics believe true marital relationships can only be sustained by the grace available in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
“Children don’t need a mother and a father. All they need is two people who are physically satisfying to each other.” Great slogan. Wonder why the bishes aren’t convinced.
At least we can all agree there’s no point analyzing the UTS session’s keynote speaker’s theological meditations on frothy mixes, which seems to be how he thinks relationships are cemented together.
November 18th, 2011 | 6:47 am
“There are plenty of animals who only have sex for procreation.”
The word “plenty” leaves a lot of room for argument, but this is not generally true. Most species of higher-functioning animals (mammals, birds, cephalopods) use sex for two things: procreation and asserting dominance. Animals are incapable of transcendent love.
This is one reason homosexuality is so hard to eradicate. It appeals to the pack animal’s instinct to use sex to dominate and oppress smaller, weaker animals. Coaches, priests and politicians seem to be especially susceptible to this instinct.
November 18th, 2011 | 7:37 am
First directive in marriage is to submit unto The Lord ..that helps the couples, to repent , thankfully accept His mercy , in all areas of life that feed the fallen nature of lust , greed, pride etc ;
accepting immoral behaviors as ‘approved ‘ – would fall under a sin against the Holy Spirit !
He , during The Passion , spent a night in a deep , dirty cell /pit , in the company of possibly dirty , wicked sinners – bringing the compassionate love and power of presence of The Holy Spirit , to enable all, who live in such spiritual pits , to be lifted out , to the light and power of grateful, joyful repentance !
There is the epidemic of virulent skin infections (MRSA ) that even afflict children now, caused bu a formerly milder germ – reason given being how the germ became more virulent , from being in the immune compromised systems of AIDs pts – such is the nature of sin , for the whole society !
Hope that the afflicted would meditate on His Passion often ..that His compassionate , Fatherly Love , in The Holy Spirit becomes the King of their hearts – to do away with long ago, hidden grudges , familial spirits of lust , vainglory , all to be cast at His feet !
November 18th, 2011 | 8:32 am
Good grief. Where to begin?
Broke new ground? No this is old ground–cf the Anglican Communion, etc etc. There is, as it were, no new heresy under the sun. It’s very strange, however, since the ground already has been plowed and the answer is definitive (as one commentator accurately said, the bishops couldn’t change the moral law even if they wanted to [which they don't])–strange, I say, that this speaker and her sponsors thought it had any chance of convincing anyone.
Is the moral law “meant to be hard”? I don’t think so–but I grant that it is hard. I think, not because it’s supposed to be but because we make it so. As a teacher of Natural Family Planning these 30 years, I know well that marital chastity is not only feasible but is not as hard as people imagine. When my wife and I were confronted by the truth of Humanae Vitae, we fought the idea for a long time. Once we finally learned NFP, we realized it’s not only feasible to use, but better for our relationship and for our sex life–an experience which turns out to be common. I learned a little about Jesus’ assurance: “My yoke is easy, my burden light.”
Morality by popular poll? Or morality by expectation (you mean you expect celibacy??!!) Doesn’t work.
November 18th, 2011 | 8:54 am
So who was the presenter?
November 18th, 2011 | 9:12 am
“Do all homosexuals want to force you to share their beliefs?”
The truth of the matter is that there is a movement to force belief upon others when a belief is encoded into law. If the state got completely out of the marriage question (which is the only true “secular” position), then every American would be free to believe whatever he/she wants to believe about “marriage”. Religious communities would be completely free to define marriage however they wanted, but in the eyes of the state, each person would be a legal individual. However, this is certainly not what is happening. Instead, the state is encoding a very specific definition of marriage into the public law, and this is effectively “forcing” a belief upon anyone who does not subscribe to that definition. In other words, the state is endorsing, with the force of law, a belief system that is most certainly not “neutral”.
In sum, there are really two options: 1) the state can be completely neutral regarding marriage, thus ending the public institution called “marriage” or 2) the state is, with the force of law, dictating a belief about marriage upon everyone.
November 18th, 2011 | 9:59 am
Do all homosexuals want to force you to share their beliefs? Have you conducted a census but have neglected to publish your findings?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, only one in ten homosexuals want to force all non-gays to share their beliefs (concerning marriage in particular). Are the nine going to do anything to stop the one? .
Forgive me if I am less than confident they would.
November 18th, 2011 | 10:08 am
Bontoon:
“But the point is its a catalyst to two people being together through out life.”
Which is exactly the point that does not match my personal experience at all, as explained in the previous comment. It may START the process in some cases, but it certainly will not carry you throughout life.
November 18th, 2011 | 10:44 am
Mick
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, only one in ten homosexuals want to force all non-gays to share their beliefs (concerning marriage in particular). Are the nine going to do anything to stop the one? .
Like what? What exactly are these one in ten doing to ‘force’ you to believe something you don’t want too? Are they breaking into your house threatening to hit you with cream pies if you don’t believe in what they want you to do? If that’s the case just call the police. Are they proposing some law? Given gays are like 3% of the population 1 in 10 gays is like 0.3%. A pretty far way from 50%+
Carlo
Which is exactly the point that does not match my personal experience at all, as explained in the previous comment. It may START the process in some cases, but it certainly will not carry you throughout life.
A catalyst doesn’t ‘carry’ a reaction, it acclerates and supports it.
November 18th, 2011 | 11:16 am
Boonton wrote: “Like what? What exactly are these one in ten doing to ‘force’ you to believe something you don’t want too? Are they breaking into your house threatening to hit you with cream pies if you don’t believe in what they want you to do? If that’s the case just call the police. Are they proposing some law?”
Yes, that’s exactly what is happening. The state (under tremendous lobbying and political pressure) is dictating to all citizens within a particular jurisdiction that “marriage” is the legal and public union of two consenting adults. Period. We are not “free” to act otherwise, regardless of what our beliefs about marriage are. So, yes, there is an element of force (political force, which leads to the force of law). Anyone who says otherwise is either naive or disingenuous.
November 18th, 2011 | 11:49 am
“Are they breaking into your house threatening to hit you with cream pies if you don’t believe in what they want you to do?”
Speaking of cream pies, I take it you haven’t heard about the Christian baker who might have discrimination charges brought against her because she declined to bake a cake for a lesbian couple.
November 18th, 2011 | 12:05 pm
Given the apparent unwillingness of heterosexuals to even remain married to one person in their life, how realistic do you suppose that expectation is?
Since you are engaging in generalities in your reference to “heterosexuals” and given our libertine culture does that of necessity mean that homosexuals are going to do better? I speak as a heterosexual woman who has been married to the same man for 35 years.
November 18th, 2011 | 12:28 pm
Steve S
Yes, that’s exactly what is happening. The state (under tremendous lobbying and political pressure) is dictating to all citizens within a particular jurisdiction that “marriage” is the legal and public union of two consenting adults. Period. We are not “free” to act otherwise, regardless of what our beliefs about marriage are.
The Catholic Church does not believe a man who marries a woman, then divorces her is then an unmarried man. It believes he may not marry another woman. Yet that very thing is legal in all 50 states of the US. Are you being ‘forced’ to believe in the validity of your neighbor’s marriage simply because the state issues them a marriage license?
It seems your definition of being ‘forced to believe in something’ consists of other people being rude enough to actually exist while holding beliefs you disagree with. By your logic Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, and just about everyone with a religion other than yours is ‘trying to force you’ to violate your beliefs because they are so insistent on occupying the same earth as you. Let me be the first to officially apologize to you for this great injustice and I’ll pledge at the earliest possible opportunity, I’ll support any effort to give you a planet to be alone on.
Brian English
Speaking of cream pies, I take it you haven’t heard about the Christian baker who might have discrimination charges brought against her because she declined to bake a cake for a lesbian couple.
If she declined to bake a cake for a Jewish couple and had a discrimination suit filed against her would that be ‘forcing’ her to become Jewish?
Sorry, I just can’t fine the Nicine Creed that says Christians don’t believe Lesbians can eat cake. Perhaps you’re using an unusual translation?
November 18th, 2011 | 12:32 pm
Blake –
What are you no longer free to do? Walk me through a typical day, what would you like to do that you are no longer able to do?
November 18th, 2011 | 12:34 pm
AM –
The “reason being given” by who? Seriously, where did you hear this, and what evidence do they have for the claim?
November 18th, 2011 | 12:51 pm
Blake –
You never back up that assertion.
Ever.
November 18th, 2011 | 12:53 pm
Boonton,
“Biology makes a pretty clear case that sex is for recreation with procreation as an added benefit”
Here’s where we disagree. No, procreation is indeed one of the goals, bonding is the other, and recreation, (In your context, I presume you really mean ‘pleasure’ by this term,) is neither a goal nor an ‘added’ benefit, but rather the magnet that encourages the two real goals. Indeed recreation – in its classical meaning – is a natural result. We are refreshed, and we are taking part in something that is ultimately, Divinely creative…
“This thesis is even more emphasized to us by observing nature. There are plenty of animals who only have sex for procreation. So clearly we see that nature knows how to design sex for procreation only and decidedly did NOT do that for humans. So it’s quite sensible to conclude sex is mostly for cementing lifelong bonds between humans.”
Okay, well, that’s a lot different from ‘recreation’, but didn’t you just flip your thesis? In any case I think I’m more in agreement with this second phrasing, but how do you jump to ‘mostly’? I think that you are seeing a competition between two goals, where there isn’t one. How about the idea that sex is for both of the things you’ve just stated, 100% of one and 100% of the other, intrinsically linked to each other – so much so that when you remove one, you diminish the other as well, and make the whole experience less than fully human.
“Hence the speaker’s argument would be that homosexual relationships can be just as much life affirming as any others. While procreating is a very important part of life, a more essential aspect of life is actually living it.”
Why the contrast between procreating, and ‘living’ life?
November 18th, 2011 | 1:44 pm
Ray,
Please watch, all the way to the end, and comment.
November 18th, 2011 | 1:55 pm
“If she declined to bake a cake for a Jewish couple and had a discrimination suit filed against her would that be ‘forcing’ her to become Jewish?”
You consider being gay to be the same thing as being Jewish? At least you didn’t go for the most absurd comparison that usually gets thrown around in these discussions.
Beyond that, we are not talking about forcing someone to be gay. We are talking about someone being threatened with the power of the state because they refuse to lend their talents to an event they find morally objectionable. How do you justify that?
November 18th, 2011 | 4:19 pm
Please watch, all the way to the end, and comment.
JDD,
My comment would be that trying to discredit a whole class of people by linking to a Youtube video of a handful of them acting badly is to encourage prejudice.
November 18th, 2011 | 5:53 pm
“My comment would be that trying to discredit a whole class of people by linking to a Youtube video of a handful of them acting badly is to encourage prejudice.”
No, David Nickol, you should know my comments on this board well enough by now to not have knee-jerk reacted in this manner. You also know that in the past on this board I have directly criticised prejudice and over-generalizations on *this very subject.*
In light of that, my link is a response to Mr. Ingles’s challenge above. He is fond of insinuating that homosexual persons have no interest at all in forcing others to not just accept their beliefs, but indeed deny their Christian beliefs. He made a challenge for evidence to back up an assertion by another poster, and I gave him some. It’s no small detail of that video that this woman wasn’t just shouted at, not just argued with, but the literal cross she was carrying was ripped out of her hands, and violently stomped on.
This was hardly one or two ‘bad apples.’ As we rightly express shame for Christian mistreatment of homosexuals, I’d be interested in a stronger condemnation than dismissing this as just a ‘handful acting badly.’
I am not trying to ‘discredit a whole class of people.’ I am discrediting Ray’s statement. For the sake of intellectual integrity, you should be doing the same.
November 18th, 2011 | 6:58 pm
JDD –
I think David covered the ground pretty well. As science-fiction novelist Larry Niven put it, “There is no cause so noble it will not attract some kooks.” For example, I don’t hold all people opposed to homosexuality responsible for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnEb0-pBGNc or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmduhHzD5pI or this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/14/jack-price-gay-beating-da_n_320454.html
Now, Blake claimed “the actual practice of homosexuality – and/or the desire to destigmatize homosexuality” causes harm. He never really specifies, though. Maybe you can explain how “the actual practice of homosexuality – and/or the desire to destigmatize homosexuality” inevitably leads to the sort of behavior in your video or mine. I’m not following.
November 18th, 2011 | 7:13 pm
JDD –
Can you quote some of my words to that effect? I don’t make generalizations like that, precisely because they’re overbroad. I don’t go around saying “Christians are responsible for putting gays to death”. I’d say something like “Some Christian groups in Africa are actively targeting and killing people they believe are homosexual.” And I’d link to examples.
But that wouldn’t condemn all Christians. It wouldn’t even legitimize homosexuality. It would be evidence that some Christian groups in Africa are actively targeting and killing people they believe are homosexual.
Blake’s also never answered my question about “what would you like to do that you are no longer able to do?” Do you care to take a stab at answering it? (Bearing in mind that the Westboro ‘Baptist’ Church gets actual legal protection for their words and deeds…)
November 18th, 2011 | 8:25 pm
Brian
You consider being gay to be the same thing as being Jewish? At least you didn’t go for the most absurd comparison that usually gets thrown around in these discussions.
I’m still not getting you. Are you comparing having to bake a cake for a lesbian customer because you own a bakery the same as being forced to be a lesbian? Again I’m unaware of any Christian denomination that holds it as a belief that lesbians can’t eat cake.
And the comparision is hardly absurd. The only logical way your assertion of “I’m being forced” makes sense is if you believe ‘force’ means you are being asked to live in a world where others don’t live the way you want. As I pointed out, as soon as they announce a one-way suicide trip to Mars, I’ll be happy to nominate you and your problems will be solved.
We are talking about someone being threatened with the power of the state because they refuse to lend their talents to an event they find morally objectionable. How do you justify that?
So again we return to the hypothetical baker who doesn’t want to do a cake for a Jewish event. Maybe she finds Jews morally objectionable. Maybe she feels that the Jewish religion is so wrong, so against God’s will that she should not do anything to help those who practice it even indirectly. So what answer do you have for her? You have none, but I have an answer.
Don’t be a public baker. When you choose to operate a public business because of the potential for so many more customers, you have to operate under public rules which include anti-discrimination laws. A Catholic church that happens to own a hall that it rents out to Catholic weddings and services only may be a religious institution. When it decides to turn it into a public, for profit business renting to anyone whose willing to pay, it’s deciding to be a secular enterprise.
JDD
This was hardly one or two ‘bad apples.’ As we rightly express shame for Christian mistreatment of homosexuals, I’d be interested in a stronger condemnation than dismissing this as just a ‘handful acting badly.’
So a homosexual woman assaulted a Christian protestor? I’m unclear what you’re asking for. Last time I checked there’s a law against assault and battery. File a criminal complaint. If the attacker is tried and convicted they should be punished just as anyone else who assaults another is punished. How again is this ‘forcing’ beliefs on anyone? It looks like a street brawl to me which sometimes happens when you get opposing groups protesting together in the same space.
He is fond of insinuating that homosexual persons have no interest at all in forcing others to not just accept their beliefs, but indeed deny their Christian beliefs.
By this logic I suppose I can quite easily prove Christians are interested in molesting children. All I have to do is provide at least two cases of Christians who have molested children anytime anywhere. Doesn’t really matter that they don’t represent a supermajority, majority, large minority or even a tiny minority. So errr, ya I suppose if you look hard enough you can find a homosexual person who wants the law to force some beliefs on people. But if that’s your contribution to this discussion then you’ve wasted our time with silliness. If there was some law to compensate people like me for that I’d be rich….I’ll take that over a law ‘forcing beliefs’ on anyone any day of the week.
November 18th, 2011 | 8:29 pm
A.M.
There is the epidemic of virulent skin infections (MRSA ) that even afflict children now, caused bu a formerly milder germ – reason given being how the germ became more virulent , from being in the immune compromised systems of AIDs pts
I’m not really that clear why this would cause a virus to become more virulent. If anything it might become less….as it doesn’t need to fight the immune system its life would be a lot cushier. I would suspect a more likely cause for its virulence might be the prolific use of anti-biotics which people get their docs to give them for the slightest cause. Anyway I’ll look forward to any scientific studies you care to link too on the topic.
November 18th, 2011 | 9:08 pm
You consider being gay to be the same thing as being Jewish? At least you didn’t go for the most absurd comparison that usually gets thrown around in these discussions.
Being gay is very much like being Jewish.
Gay is humanist.
A gay person who believes in what the Catholics teach will not “be gay” as defined by the gay rights movement.
A gay person who believes what the Dalai Lama says will not “be gay” as defined by the gay rights movement.
A gay person who believes what Muslims teach will not “be gay” as defined by the gay rights movement.
What is at stake is not the “right” to “be” what you are, but a question that is all about beliefs.
There is only one ‘religion’ that believes what gay rights activists take to be true and self-evident. That ‘religion’ is the collection of beliefs arising out of the Enlightenment (more specifically, arising out of the assumptions of the Enlightenment).
Nobody is “discriminating against gays” except insofar as “gay” equals a set of beliefs about what sorts of behaviors are good or bad, what the purpose and importance of sexuality is, and how much dishonesty can be tolerated in the act of “making” (or stealing) a “family”.
November 18th, 2011 | 9:10 pm
The real point of this keynote appears to be the question of whether the Catholic church ought to abandon Catholic teachings in favor of humanist ones.
November 18th, 2011 | 9:15 pm
That’s interesting, Ray, you left off the third part of Blake’s sentence: “the need to force everyone to accept them as normal – is not harmless.”
Which looks like the video.
You challenged him that that he never backs up that claim, ever. I gave you an example.
November 18th, 2011 | 9:25 pm
Do all homosexuals want to force you to share their beliefs? Have you conducted a census but have neglected to publish your findings?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, only one in ten homosexuals want to force all non-gays to share their beliefs (concerning marriage in particular). Are the nine going to do anything to stop the one? .
Forgive me if I am less than confident they would.
Expecting people to believe that a child “has two daddies” is forcing people to share their beliefs – namely, their belief that being gay exempts them from the normal obligations that come with having a family (to honor and provide for the mother of your child, and to give due care for the child’s needs rather than simply using the child as if it were a possession).
November 18th, 2011 | 9:29 pm
And for the record, as best I understand the case, I side with Alito.
November 19th, 2011 | 1:23 am
“The sexual relations that can exist between all couples, regardless of their orientation, provide the physical satisfaction that can sustain any ‘kin-like’ tie and childrearing partnerships.”
I know what kin-like means. Here’s what we do. One day, on the anniversary of Stonewall, all couples get married, in one big kin-like ceremony, perhaps in Zucchotti Park. Jerry Sandusky is oriented to Freddy Mercury, who is oriented to Elton John, who is oriented to. . .ad infinitum. Everyone’s married, everyone’s kin, everyone’s oriented, everyone’s rearing children. Everyone’s satisfied, perhaps physically.
Furthermore, I do not like the discriminatory language of “couples”, as if we can limit the 94.85702% of Catholics who disagree with their church on this matter and choose to forgoe monogamy for finding more physically satisfying kin and consequent, even simultaneous, multiple complementarities. Biology has made clear we should do this, and the discrimination against multiple kinning or kinshipness or kin-like liking should be put to a halt.
November 19th, 2011 | 7:50 am
JDD
Here’s where we disagree. No, procreation is indeed one of the goals, bonding is the other, and recreation, (In your context, I presume you really mean ‘pleasure’ by this term,) is neither a goal nor an ‘added’ benefit, but rather the magnet that encourages the two real goals. Indeed recreation – in its classical meaning – is a natural result. We are refreshed, and we are taking part in something that is ultimately, Divinely creative…
I think here you are agreeing with me but insisting on using different words because, well, you just can’t simply agree with me. Recreation is a light, fluffly word compared to the more somber phrase “refreshment from taking part in something divinely creative” but they share the same meaning in this context. The creativity of sex is more than just about creating babies, it creates and sustains lifelong bonds and relationships. Of course there are lifelong bonds and relationships that are created without sex too (i.e. friendships) and you can have a relationship that starts out very sexual but becomes much less so as other factors become more important.
In any case I think I’m more in agreement with this second phrasing, but how do you jump to ‘mostly’?
Well we observe that with humans most sex is not for procreation. Even a married couple that has a huge amount of kids (10 to 20 think), even then they are likely to have many, many sex acts that are not for kids.
In fact, unlike many animals humans have little trouble calling upon sex for procreation and in fact have to worry about sex getting them into trouble. Many animals limit sex to only procreation with mating seasons or ‘going in heat’ and then have no interest in sex during non-mating times (or periods where mating would be a problem such as during a famine or illness). This hints that for humans the purpose of sex is only partially procreation.
How about the idea that sex is for both of the things you’ve just stated, 100% of one and 100% of the other, intrinsically linked to each other
This is an old school way of looking at sex which basically says you’re having sex to have kids and if you enjoy that its good. The implication then is if you can’t or shouldn’t have kids, you can’t have sex. You can if sex is about ‘recreation’ and having kids but not if its combined. Let me us an analogy of eggs used to make a cake. If you eat cake you’re going to eat some egg used to make the cake. But like your view above, you can’t decide to eat just eggs as they are found in cake without eating the cake. You can’t take a cake and ‘remove just the egg part’ and eat that. You either eat the cake which contains ‘cake egg’ or you don’t. In contrast imagine a breakfast of eggs and bacon. Leaving aside the question of how much real estate each takes up on the plate, you can eat one, or the other or both or any combination between. If the doctor tells you you can’t eat eggs, you can still eat bacon.
Blake
Expecting people to believe that a child “has two daddies” is forcing people to share their beliefs –
How? Long ago I expected you to provide coherent responses when your assertions were refuted. Instead you just keep repeating them. Clearly expecting someone is not equal to forcing someone.
JDD
That’s interesting, Ray, you left off the third part of Blake’s sentence: “the need to force everyone to accept them as normal – is not harmless.”
Which looks like the video.
Looks like two different groups of protestors getting violent to me. Protests always have an element of ‘street’ in them which always make them “a little dangerous” in that sense. File charges against anyone who gets violent at a protest and then that’s it. If this is your feeble definition of being forced, then the University of Penn. is trying to ‘force’ me to accept child molesting. After all their students recently rioted and did a lot more than just snatch a giant cross from someone, they overturned trucks and destroyed property in support of their coach who failed to stop his child molesting underling. When you tell me the UPenn should be shut down maybe I’ll give you credit for at least holding a consistent, if absurd, definition of ‘forcing’.
Care to revert back to anti-discrimination laws as the source for this fabled charge of “I’m being forced”?
November 19th, 2011 | 9:31 am
JDD –
‘Cause he hasn’t even established that exists. Particularly the ‘force’ part. Cajole, persuade, even harangue – sure. But even allowing ‘same-sex marriage’ isn’t “forc[ing] everyone to accept them as normal”.
You don’t have to take part in a same-sex marriage. You can say anything you like against same-sex marriage to convince people not to enter them, up to and including anything the Westboro Church clowns have said. (Which certainly includes the ability to label them ‘abnormal’ or even ‘pathological’.)
November 19th, 2011 | 12:07 pm
Wait, pregnant women? Persons who engage in a form of sexual activity which cannot conceive a child under any circumstances, are just as open to life as a pregnant woman because she can’t get pregnant again while she’s already pregnant?
Homosexual issues aside, that’s absurdly convoluted.
November 19th, 2011 | 2:46 pm
(JDD) How about the idea that sex is for both of the things you’ve just stated, 100% of one and 100% of the other, intrinsically linked to each other
(JDD) How about the idea that sex is for both of the things you’ve just stated, 100% of one and 100% of the other, intrinsically linked to each other
(Boonton) “This is an old school way of looking at sex which basically says you’re having sex to have kids and if you enjoy that its good.”
How is it that you only extracted a one-way dependency from my above statement?
Can’t for the life of me decipher your eggs and bacon analogy.
November 19th, 2011 | 3:42 pm
@ Ray Ingles and @ Boonton,
There are plenty of articles on internet , about the high incidence of the bacterial disease MRSA and its association with HIV and related risky behaviors ; articles on herd immunity also would support what was brought up .
As to the exact source of the info , it was read few years ago and unsure where .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1959218/posts – this article by Matt Barber on the tactics and pressure used by ‘interested ‘ parties , also relevant, to the topic at hand !
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_mrsa_strain_afflicting_homosexuals_faces_political_correctness_whitewash_group_claims/ – similar view
Thankfully , also some recent reports of decrease in the incidence recently .
This is a very good article on the prevalence and effects of pornography -http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-pornographic-plague- relevance could be , that this plague is also the reason behind the other plagues ; those who look at a women with lust and committing adultery , are they also indirectly , in relationship , to the many others who are doing same , even if in their thought/heart level only , thus creating all the confusion !
May The Blood and Water that gushed forth , from the Heart of Jesus , wash away all such areas in many , to fill them with thirst and power of holiness, in His Spirit !
November 19th, 2011 | 4:12 pm
You don’t have to take part in a same-sex marriage.
Try being a vegetarian in a world where labeling one food as meat-free is a crime, because it makes meat eaters feel like “second class citizens”.
And having gatherings where meat eaters are not accommodated is also a crime, because it makes meat eaters feel “like second class citizens”.
And the children are taught in school that people who don’t approve of eating meat are the moral equivalent of slave owners, Nazis, and klansmen.
How about honesty for a change? You know perfectly well that the whole point of “gay marriage” is about nothing but forcing people to accept homosexuality as “normal”, so what do you hope to accomplish by lying, and in such a way that your lies are obvious to both sides of the debate?
November 19th, 2011 | 4:16 pm
“Biology makes a pretty clear case that sex is for recreation with procreation as an added benefit”
And adrenaline is for the joy of gambling – the fact that it keeps you alive in crisis is just an added benefit.
And food is for gluttony – the fact that it adds nutritive value is just an added benefit.
The real purpose of life is to overindulgence. That’s why it feels so good (ask Jimi Hendrix or Keith Moon – choking to death on your own vomit is the ultimate culmination of a life well lived!) The fact that things that happen to feel good also sometimes confer an evolutionary advantage is obviously just an irrelevant coincidence.
November 19th, 2011 | 4:38 pm
What are you no longer free to do? Walk me through a typical day, what would you like to do that you are no longer able to do?
Enjoy the benefits of an intact, strong, healthy family.
Real marriage = institution that preserves and promotes cohesive family bonds.
Gay marriage = changes the institution of marriage to one that actively undermines and sabotages the very idea of family.
Small rules make a big difference. Changing the bonds that hold a chemical composition together such that strong bonds are replaced with weak bonds changes the composition of that structure. Legalizing gay marriage means changing our understanding of family such that viewing biological ties as the basis of a real family is literally criminalized. But biological ties are strong – especially when combined with the other two ties, law and love. Removing biological ties for a fantasy (“family is whatever we say it is”) is literally changing strong bonds for weak ones.
Gay marriage is not possible without changing the rules of marriage such that marriage is defined only as a celebration of the love between two people – with all definitions involving the support of procreation being not only eradicated, but criminalized.
This is a problem for people who actually rely on the institutional support of marriage – which is to say everyone who has an emotionally and economically healthy family unit.
I want marriage to be an institution that supports the act of procreation. I do not want it to be an institution that actively supports breaking up families and parasitizing them so that affluent men and women can reduce less-affluent people to breeding stock, to be used and discarded.
I do not want the government having the power to determine who is and is not related to each other, without regard to or respect for biology.
I do not want the act of having a child to be reduced to a consumer transaction.
I do not want to be punished for valuing family integrity. Adoption is only appropriate when it’s the best solution to help a child in need. It is not humane when the desires of the people wanting a child are prioritized over the right of the child to have custody decisions based on what is best for him (which suggests that the only time a gay couple should even be considered for adopting a child is when there is no reasonable hope of finding an intact family for that child – but “gay marriage” relies on forcing a child to pretend that being motherless is no big deal, doesn’t it?)
And “adoption” becomes a terrible injustice when it is abused to actually create a situation where a child is motherless or fatherless. If adoption agencies did on a large scale what gays (and some straights) do – buying eggs or sperm, renting wombs, and manufacturing deliberately-orphaned children – it would be pretty shocking, wouldn’t it? So what makes you think it’s any less unethical when a single couple does it, instead of a full scale baby farm? Human beings are not for selling!
And I do not want to be punished for valuing truth. Gay marriage is built out of lies. Children don’t “have two mommies”, and I don’t want to participate in that particularly noxious lie, nor do I want to associate with anyone who does.
It’s child abuse to force a child to pretend that not having a mother or father is not a loss. It is a huge loss. And it’s child abuse to blur the lines between real parents vs. stepparents. Most “second mommies” are in fact stepparents, and are hurting their lover’s child by demanding more than is actually their due.
Gay marriage is unethical. Period. If you are gay, and you want to be an ethical person, then you should not lobby for gay marriage: you should lobby for some arrangement by which gay unions can be supported in the act of coparenting – that is, they should lobby for the creation of a legal arrangement where the benefits of marriage are not inappropriately and dishonestly redistributed, but they should lobby instead for a legal arrangement where the benefits of marriage are appropriately and honestly distributed – that could mean splitting the benefits of marriage, because gay partners might be eligible for partnership-based benefits, but the procreative benefits of marriage should rightfully go only to the gay man or woman’s coparent, and a same-sex partner is not an appropriate coparent, because it necessarily prioritizes the wishes of the adult over the best interests of the child.
What on Earth gives anyone the right to think that because they don’t need or want a man or a woman, that their child can and should be expected to just do without a mom or a dad?
November 19th, 2011 | 4:43 pm
I do not want to be punished for valuing family integrity. Adoption is only appropriate when it’s the best solution to help a child in need.
There should be a paragraph break there, because there are two different concerns.
The first is that gay marriage stigmatizes and even criminalizes the act of valuing the integrity of a family unit. It becomes an evil thing to value the honesty of a family tree, because in order to not feel discriminated against, gay people not only need the right to falsify family tree data – they also need the right to punish anyone who objects.
The second concern is the one about adoption, which is actually a separate concern from the one about family integrity – although it is related, because it is now known that even a lot of adopted kids feel (sometimes very strongly) that they need their genealogical information in order to construct their identity properly.
Constructing an identity matters. It’s cruel to force a child to pretend it doesn’t, in a world where they will be asked to construct family trees as part of learning history. How we relate to each other and to the human race is not trivial or unimportant: it is the very essence of what identity is.
November 19th, 2011 | 6:18 pm
AM –
No, you said MRSA “became more virulent , from being in the immune compromised systems of AIDs pts”. I want something supporting that.
(BTW, I hope this means you’re all for lesbianism! The number of documented cases of female-to-female transmissions of HIV are literally in the single digits.)
November 19th, 2011 | 6:29 pm
Blake –
You got gay-married?
November 19th, 2011 | 9:23 pm
penta
Wait, pregnant women? Persons who engage in a form of sexual activity which cannot conceive a child under any circumstances, are just as open to life as a pregnant woman because she can’t get pregnant again while she’s already pregnant?
Certainly you are aware that this has been a source of trouble in Christian thought since clearly there’s no procreative reason for a man to have sex with a wife who he is sure is pregnant. Historically quite a few well known Christian authorities came down on the side of it was wrong to have sex while pregnancy was known since it supposedly could only be for ‘lustful purposes’.
JDD
Can’t for the life of me decipher your eggs and bacon analogy.
Eggs in a cake, you can’t take the cake apart and eat just the eggs or just the non-egg part. I think this is what you’re saying about sex. It’s for pleasure and procreation therefore trying to have one while excluding the other misses an essential aspect of it. Sex acts then were infertility is certain are out of line, as would be sex acts where there’s no pleasure or enjoyment but only an attempt at procreation. From various Catholic takes I’ve read, the first requirement has been read pretty loosely so even couples that are very old or have medical problems with infertility are allowed to have sex because, I guess, they are ‘open’ to the possibility of procreation through some type of near miracle. But then as pentamom’s example illustrates, you can’t really pull this argument off for pregnant women.
Eggs and bacon on a plate may be in one meal but they are clearly distinct. You can eat one but not the other.
Blake
Try being a vegetarian in a world where labeling one food as meat-free is a crime, because it makes meat eaters feel like “second class citizens”.
There’s no law on the books that says you are not allowed to call someone else’s legal marriage “not a real marriage”. You can, for example, say Newt Gingrich is not really married to his current wife as he is a divorced man and a divorced man may not marry another woman without first getting an annullment. You are likewise free to claim the same sex couple down the street isn’t a ‘real marriage’ just as you may claim Kim Kardashian’s brief marriage wasn’t a real one….despite the existence of a perfectly legal marriage license. Try again to justify your ‘forced’ accusation.
And the children are taught in school that people who don’t approve of eating meat are the moral equivalent of slave owners, Nazis, and klansmen.
Really? Children are taught in school that those who disapprove of gay marriage are just like Nazis. Really?
How about honesty for a change? You know perfectly well that the whole point of “gay marriage” is about nothing but forcing people to accept homosexuality as “normal”, …
If this is so well known, why are you so incapable of explaining what you are talking about? This is why I find arguing with radical relativists like Blake to be so frustrating. To people like Blake, truth about reality doesn’t reside inside reality but only inside his own head. Hence whatever Blake thinks, at the end of the day is simply true because Blake thinks it. Any actual reality from outside Blake’s head is given no bearing in the argument. We are just ‘supposed to know’ Blake is right because…well just because any honest person knows Blake is right.
Walk me through a typical day, what would you like to do that you are no longer able to do?
Enjoy the benefits of an intact, strong, healthy family….
Not at all clear what Blake is trying to articulate in the long winded comment that starts off like this. He is perfectly free to marry a woman. He is perfectly free to marry a woman who hates SSM as much as he does. He is prefectly free to start a family with her and give his children a mommy and daddy. Blake seems to be saying he cannot love his wife as a wife if on the other side of town there’s some same sex couple that calls themselves married.
In other words, Blake has just told us his marriage is a social construct. His marriage (or if he isn’t married any potential marriage he might engage in) doesn’t exist in any objective manner. It’s existence is totally contingent upon the rest of society. If the rest of society says 3% of the population may marry, then poof his ability to be a strong, healthy father and husband disappears. If Blake is so fickle, then maybe he should consider that it may be better for society and any children he might father if he doesn’t marry. What type of man can provide the foundation of a ‘strong and healthy family’ if his ability to do so disappears should he happen to enter a jurisdiction that has SSM? If he flies cross the US in a plane with his wife will his marriage disappear and reappar as he passes over states with SSM and then states without it?
November 19th, 2011 | 11:24 pm
He is perfectly free to marry a woman. He is perfectly free to marry a woman who hates SSM as much as he does. He is prefectly free to start a family with her and give his children a mommy and daddy. Blake seems to be saying he cannot love his wife as a wife if on the other side of town there’s some same sex couple that calls themselves married.
I want to be free from your beliefs.
I want to teach my child that having a family entails obligations, and I don’t want some busybody telling my child that being gay means an automatic an exemption from those obligations – that your future someday co-parent and your future someday child don’t have rights because being gay makes you special.
I don’t care if you want to be gay. I don’t even care if you want your union recognized by law. Just stop trying to force everyone to pretend it’s the same as marriage, because it’s different. Marriage includes a procreative element.
Marriage is an institution that deters exploitation – makes it more difficult for one powerful family member to abuse or exploit the other member(s) of a biological family.
“Gay marriage” changes the rules – not just for gays, but for everyone – to make it easier for powerful family members to exploit and abuse and use the other members of the biological family. (Just because you don’t want to recognize your biological family doesn’t make them any less your family, nor does it make some unrelated people more your real family, because even adoption does not change the fact that family is a word that means, and will continue to mean, biological kinship ties – a fact that will grow more relevant as grown-up adoptees and IVF victims lobby for an end to abusive practices such as anonymous sperm donation and practices that reduce both parent and child to commodities.)
Real civil rights is based on legitimacy. Please explain why being gay “legitimately” entitles one to rearrange family trees in ways that affects entire families. Why are gay people incapable of resolving the conflict between their desires vs. the realities of procreation via honest means – such as coparenting contracts (which some gay couples are already doing)? Why do they have to play out their fantasy at the expense of the child(ren) they claim to “love”?”
How can anyone build a “civil right” out of the “right” to “not live a lie” – then turn around and argue that it’s okay to force a child to pretend to have “two daddies”, and forcing the child to pretend – and affirm publicly – that having no mother is no loss at all?
How can anyone build a “civil right” out of the idea that relationships are precious and valuable, and nobody should be deprived of one – and then turn around and insist that no harm is done by deliberately depriving a child of life’s single most important relationships: a relationship with one’s mother or one’s father?
Why should I take seriously an argument that claims the sexes are interchangeable – having a second father is just as good as having a mother, “as long as they’re loving” – but doesn’t apply that same standard to himself, since of course the sexes are not interchangeable? (Why don’t you just marry a member of the opposite sex, since it “doesn’t matter as long as s/he is loving”?)
Explain to me what legitimate need gay couples have in requiring the procreative benefits of marriage? Why do gays “need” to pass themselves off as a procreative couple, when doing so involves lies so blatant that children need to be taught from birth that there’s no difference between an intact family vs. a family that deliberately excludes mothers or fathers?
You assume the right to claim whatever you want, with the burden on me to prove that whatever you want isn’t yours by right. But it doesn’t work like that: you are the one who wants to change the law, so please explain why it is both necessary and justified. I am willing to grant gays the right to be gay and have their relationship recognized as such. I am willing to grant them the benefits due to life partners (such as the right to visit each other in the hospital). The only thing I am disputing are (1) the procreative benefits and (2) the forced equalization that says a gay union “equals” – is no different from – a procreative union.
By forcing such an equalization you are necessarily removing the ability to define marriage as an institution that supports procreative activity – and perverting marriage into an institution that recognizes parasitic forms of reproductive as being equal to healthy forms of reproduction.
Why is your right to do what you want (when it involves mutilating family trees and the buying and selling of children in direct conflict with what is actually best for the children) more important than my right to value real families (an activity that necessarily excludes viewing real genealogical ties as no better than nonexistent, falsified, “because I say he’s family therefore he is” genealogical ties)?
Finally: why should those of us who don’t have messed-up relationships with our families to be forced to accept the government’s authority to redefine at will who is and is not “related”?
We all experience consequences when family is reduced from a sacred obligation to a mere consumer transaction.
Especially those of us without the money and influence and clout to be on the side that gets to buy and sell, and decide which family members will be recognized vs. which ones will be simply used and discarded like so much rubbish.
How will categorizing parents into worthy and unworthy categories make the world a better place (I mean for anyone other than the selfish pigs who want to rebuild families around their own narcissistic preferences)?
The problem with placing fantasy over reality is that for every person who gets to rearrange everyone else to suit his will, there are usually a whole lot of people who have to endure being rearranged. Gay marriage is bad for the abandoned co-parents (increasingly this means renting and exploiting poor women in third world countries, since there is already a shortage of legally marketable eggs and rental wombs), it’s bad for the children, it’s bad for the community, it’s bad for the extended family – it’s bad for everyone.
It’s not even good for the gays, because they’re building their pseudo-family out of lies, and sooner or later that extremely unhealthy sort of dysfunction is going to bring grief to the whole family unit. It is a paradox: being a selfish parent doesn’t just reduce the quality of the child’s life, it reduces the parent, too – to a small mean shadow of what he would have been, had he been “loving” in reality instead of just using that word as a shield to hide what he really is/was.
November 19th, 2011 | 11:32 pm
Eggs and bacon on a plate may be in one meal but they are clearly distinct. You can eat one but not the other.
And yet if we treated food laws the way gays want to treat sex laws, we would punish – both socially (stigma) and criminally (discrimination laws) anyone who tried to distinguish vegetables* from bacon.
The meat-eaters of the world would be victims every time someone refused to accommodate their preferences – even the act of labeling a food as meat free would be a criminal act, proof that the person doing such labeling is a bad person who just hates meat-eaters and should therefore be punished until they go “into the closet” with their socially unacceptable beliefs.
_____
*vegetables may be classified as “healthier” than meat, or may be classified as “cleaner” or “purer” – both forms of discrimination would be legally punishable and socially stigmatized.
Among the acts that would be criminalized:
- labeling foods as meat-free, as if meatlessness were somehow superior to meat foods
- assembling for the purpose of eating meals without meat
- refusing to serve meat to any guest or diner who requests it
- teaching your child to eschew meat (the public schools would formally teach children that anyone who practices vegetarianism is a bad person – a bigot, practically a Klansman)
You’re welcome to believe that eggs and bacon should be distinct, but you’re overstepping your own “liberty” and trespassing on mine when you start dictating how every single person in America “ought” to feel about what foods to include or avoid – saying “but I don’t care which foods you actually eat, or really enjoy!” means nothing when you’re controlling what foods are and are not available, and regulating who I can eat with and how I can eat.
November 19th, 2011 | 11:34 pm
There’s no law on the books that says you are not allowed to call someone else’s legal marriage “not a real marriage”.
That’s exactly what’s in dispute, isn’t it?
Gays want to make refusing to recognize their marriage be punishable.
Because, of course, the only way you can make something obviously fake be real is by punishing anyone who says it’s not real.
November 19th, 2011 | 11:38 pm
The second problem is that the actual practice of homosexuality – and/or the desire to destigmatize homosexuality (by any means honest or not), the need to force everyone to accept them as normal – is not harmless.
You never back up that assertion.
Ever.
I don’t think I need to.
I think everyone reading this knows perfectly well that gays have already begun punishing those who refuse to play along with the fantasy that their union is “the same as”.
Only an idiot believes a child can “have two mommies”. Obviously the child has a daddy out there somewhere, and obviously the fake mommy won’t let the child ask about the daddy.
Better play along because fake mommies don’t care about how YOU feel. It’s only how THEY feel that counts.
November 20th, 2011 | 6:27 am
Booton
Of course marriage is a “social construct,” or, as I should prefer to say, a civil status.
It is not a mere contract or agreement between two people, which is why it is classified under the law of Persons, not under the law of Obligations.
No mere contract can create rights for and impose obligations on third parties, which marriage does.
That is why the state claims a monopoly over its formation, i.e. mandatory civil marriage. Even in those jurisdictions that allow ministers of religion to officiate at them, they do so as delegates of the state.
November 20th, 2011 | 7:17 am
@Ray Ingles,
Please reread the original post – it does not say that MRSA became more virulent , but that a former milder germ ( staph) became more virulent and ‘reason given’ – can be taken as one’s own reasoning capacity , if that would help to lessen the blindness of anger !
http://www.osb.org/lectio/cassian/inst/inst8.html#8.0 – one on anger , sited by David mills the other day ; this site is hosted by the Benedectines , whose medal has letters on its Cross – ” May the holy Cross be my light , let not the dragon be my guide .”
While perversions of all sorts may be symptomatic of the deeper ills in our culture and all the the blindness of anger and hatreds it brings , encouraging persons to accept same as norms would be demanding the kingship of the dragon , through tactics of increasingly militant intimidations , coersions and worse !
Our calling is to belong to The Kingdom of the one , holy King !
May His peace drive away the darkness !
November 20th, 2011 | 2:59 pm
AM –
Okay, fine. Produce some evidence of that. I.e., some evidence that staph “became more virulent from being in the immune compromised systems of AIDs pts”. Nothing you’ve produced up until now has supported that contention.
November 20th, 2011 | 3:00 pm
Blake –
Punishable how? What will you, Blake be forced to do?
November 20th, 2011 | 7:31 pm
Blake writes:
I want to be free from your beliefs.
TRANSLATION: I want to be free from you. I want to live in a world where people who disagree with me don’t exist and if they do exist you’re ‘forcing’ me. Blake’s cry is nothing more than the will to power.
I don’t care if you want to be gay. I don’t even care if you want your union recognized by law. Just stop trying to force everyone to pretend it’s the same as marriage, because it’s different.
But who is forcing anyone? Seriously we’ve asked this question over and over and Blake refuses to answer. He says he doesn’t care but at the end of the day ‘force’ for him means that gay people exist in the same world he does. At the end of the day, there’s only one direction his thinking leads and it ain’t to a pretty spot.
And yet if we treated food laws the way gays want to treat sex laws, we would punish – both socially (stigma) and criminally (discrimination laws) anyone who tried to distinguish vegetables* from bacon.
Really? What is the punishment for thinking gay sex is wrong? Is it a fine? Is it time in jail? Where is this law, what exactly does it say? Post a link to the text of it NOW!
Michael PS
No mere contract can create rights for and impose obligations on third parties, which marriage does.
Could you clarrify again please what these are? In the past you’ve alleged there are legal obligations to one’s mother-in-law and your mother-in-law is legally obligated to you. While I can accept French law may have such features, I’m unaware of anything in American law like this and despite numerous requests, nothing specific is ever provided.
November 21st, 2011 | 4:25 am
Booton
Damages against a paramour for adultery, the claim for expenses against a co-defender in a divorce action for adultery.
The criminal sanctions against those guilty, art and part, of bigamy, by knowingly going through marriage with a married person.
Reserved shares in the inheritance – siblings cannot contest the legitimacy of a nephew or niece born in marriage, although they can contest a mere acknowledgement
The power to reduce a sale of the matrimonial home, even if the spouse selling is the owner and the limitations on a creditor’s right to enforce a sale for the debts of one of them.
In the law of evidence, the privilege attaching to spousal communications. The inability to compel one spouse to testify against another.
I am sure this list is not comprehensive.
November 21st, 2011 | 6:27 am
Damages against a paramour for adultery, the claim for expenses against a co-defender in a divorce action for adultery.
This seems kind of weak to me. The marriage isn’t creating an obligation on the part of a 3rd party as much as a 3rd party may find himself liable for damages he does by interfering with a marriage.
Reserved shares in the inheritance – siblings cannot contest the legitimacy of a nephew or niece born in marriage, although they can contest a mere acknowledgement
In the US an inheritance is viewed not as something in is entitled too but as something the person passing down the estate is doing. If Donald Trump leaves a niece a chunck of his assets, that’s not something marriage ‘imposes’ on his children, its his liberty to leave his estate as he pleases. In fact he can create the same imposition without marriage. If he leaves half of his estate to the Hair Club Fund that leaves less for his children to divide.
Finally, though, the compelled testimony issue does seem different, but many states in the US are dropping that.
November 21st, 2011 | 8:32 am
Really? What is the punishment for thinking gay sex is wrong? Is it a fine? Is it time in jail? Where is this law, what exactly does it say? Post a link to the text of it NOW!
Settle down. You’re awfully controlling.
I must have misunderstood you somewhere, because I distinctly thought that “ending” (or at least punishing) what gay rights activists call “discrimination” was the whole point of the activity.
Isn’t that why a bed and breakfast owner, photographer, or fertility clinic can be punished for refusing to treat gays as being identical to real families?
Of course gays aren’t – and never can be – real families; they might love each other, but there is no way they can ever honestly acknowledge a person of the same sex as the other parent of their child. Isn’t that the whole point of what you’re trying to change? Peoples’ ability to recognize this simple fact, because you want everyone to pretend that gay-headed social units are in all significant respects identical to families?
These cases have been highly publicized; I don’t need to link to them. Simply explain my error to me: if the goal of punishing businesses, churches, professionals, or individuals for refusing to honor the beliefs gays hold to be true is not related to punishing “discrimination”, then please – what is the goal?
Because usually businesses have the right to refuse to do business with anyone, no reasons given.
The only way a bed and breakfast owner can be faulted for not wanting illicit sex on her premises is if there is a single state-enforced ideologically universal understanding of what sex is and is not illicit. How can you have an ideological universal understanding if you permit tolerance for ideologically inappropriate beliefs?
November 21st, 2011 | 8:39 am
But who is forcing anyone? Seriously we’ve asked this question over and over and Blake refuses to answer.
But I have answered.
What didn’t you understand?
November 21st, 2011 | 8:48 am
While perversions of all sorts may be symptomatic of the deeper ills in our culture and all the the blindness of anger and hatreds it brings , encouraging persons to accept same as norms would be demanding the kingship of the dragon
It’s also child abuse, since the only way these people can be accepted as “the same” is if they are granted the right to force us all to acknowledge a same-sex person as their child’s “other parent”.
Which means the child has to be bullied or manipulated into accepting a man as a substitute for a mother – not in the way an orphan would be (where accidental circumstances have robbed the child of a parent) but with the understanding that the child is to be motherless because the child’s right to a relationship with a mother is not something his supposedly “loving” father wants for him.
It’s interesting that polygamists and gays share this, too, in common (the belief that children can have their parentage simply “reassigned”, as if they were livestock instead of human beings with rights).
November 21st, 2011 | 9:05 am
He says he doesn’t care but at the end of the day ‘force’ for him means that gay people exist in the same world he does.
When did I say I don’t care?
Gays already exist in the same world I do. I don’t mind that. I don’t begrudge you your relationship, or even your right to recognize your relationship.
I am not even crusading against your current “right” (although it is a “right” only in the sense that everything is legal until someone writes a law) to “recognize” your same-sex partner as your child’s “other parent”.
It is only when you start demanding that everyone be required by law to play along with the fantasy that I start objecting.
And really, the burden ought to be on you – the one who wants to change the world – rather than on me: tell me why gays “need” this? Why do they “need” to pretend to be something when they’re not? I thought they were against “living a lie” – but trying to legally force a false equation is a lie. Do gays have any reason at all, except that they can’t stand the thought that people like me are existing, not respecting them, not accommodating them – not believing what they think we all ought to believe?
Tell me why they can’t share the benefits intended for procreation with the one they actually procreate with. Why does the woman have to be hidden, and the mythology that a man can replace this woman, have to be part of building a family? Why can’t gay people accept what’s real instead of trying to force everyone to play along with a grotesque lie?
November 21st, 2011 | 9:38 am
Isn’t that why a bed and breakfast owner, photographer, or fertility clinic can be punished for refusing to treat gays as being identical to real families?
so your beef is not with being forced to have a belief, but with discrimination laws. But discrimination laws say nothing about beliefs. The wedding photographer can photograph some Wiccans doing a wedding and believe that their religion is bunk and will only result in their souls being dammed for eternity. He can likewise believe not only that but that all marriages other than those performed by a properly ordained priest are bad. There is no civil or criminal law regarding this.
But being engaged in commerce does mean you have to abide by the rules and laws of commerce. Say a wedding photographer whose totally agnostic takes a deposit from a Satanist couple. Before the wedding, say he has a religious experience and coverts to a strict form of Christianity. He decides not only would it be wrong for him to photograph the wedding, but it would also be wrong to return the deposit since the Satanist couple would just use the money to hire another photographer which would advance a Satanic ceremony which is an affront to God. The law tells the photographer he has no right to hold the deposit and orders him to release it.
Is the photographer being forced? Yes. Is he being forced to believe Satanism is normal, good, acceptable? No. He is being forced to abide by the rules of commerce that he implicitly agreed too when he entered the world of commerce. The rules benefit him just as much as they do others. Suppose his printer coverted to Satanism and wanted to refuse to give him wedding albums of any Christian themed weddings. The same laws work on his behalf as well.
Now we can argue whether non-discrimination laws should apply to small businesses that are engaged in providing services to religious ceremonies. I’d be sympathetic to an exemption, say, for the Orthodox Jewish photographer who only wants to provide his services for Orthodox Jewish ceremonies, the catering hall owned by a Roman Catholic Church that wants to only rent itself out to proper Catholic weddings etc. But let’s dispense with the false claims of victimization here. It applies in both directions. A gay photographer who does a lot of SSM ceremonies is no less obligated to not discriminate against clients who want to have their wedding in churches that oppose SSM. I wouldn’t say he is being ‘forced’ to endorse the anti-SSM Church’s stance because he must sometimes take clients who attend that church.
The only way a bed and breakfast owner can be faulted for not wanting illicit sex on her premises is if there is a single state-enforced ideologically universal understanding of what sex is and is not illicit.
We been thru this before. Discrimination laws usually exempt businesses owned by a single person or small group of people who have very few employees. Unless your hypothetical bed and breakfast is the size of a Hilton or Marriott, it would probably be free to fly under discrimination laws. so we end up still waiting for you to back up any of your numerous assertions.
November 21st, 2011 | 10:50 am
Blake – “I don’t think I need to [back up the assertion that practicing or normalizing homosexuality does harm].”
I asked you a while ago “How might we cross-check that harm is being done?”
For example, with your perennial bugbear – same-sex parenting – I noted then, “…the fact that having both a mother and a father is a good thing does not automatically mean that having ‘two mommies’ or ‘two daddies’ is a bad thing. The conclusion does not follow – or at the very least, that conclusion must be demonstrated, not assumed.”
And I asked you before, “…to provide evidence that such kids have to ‘pretend’ [that they are happy with their gay parents], but none was forthcoming. It seems the main support for that was your vigorous assertion of it. So, let’s turn it around. What evidence would persuade you that a particular kid wasn’t pretending?”
I’m very curious what your answer might be to this one. Care to take a shot?
I also asked you “What’s the proportion of ‘gay parents’ who labor to sever all ties with the other biological parent? Just a rough estimate would be fine, I know you can’t point to any actual numbers.”
(You know, what I find interesting is that hardly any Christians actually respond to or interact with Blake here. I’m curious – does that mean you all mostly agree, or disagree with him?)
November 21st, 2011 | 11:29 am
And I asked you before, “…to provide evidence that such kids have to ‘pretend’ [that they are happy with their gay parents], but none was forthcoming.
I have already posted many times various things.
Why do you pretend otherwise? Are you arguing in good faith with me?
I hate to indulge you – since I think it’s rude for you to ignore my arguments in favor of just ordering me around: “provide this! provide that!” So I will just say, what have I said that isn’t true? YOU prove that I’ve said something that ISN’T true, if you care so much about outside links.
But I will leave you with a quote , just because there are so many (for anyone who isn’t deliberately ignoring the ever-increasing wealth of evidence):
Abel, G., Becker, J., Cunningham-Rather, J., Mittelman, M, Rouleau, J. (1988) Multiple paraphilic diagnosis among sex offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatric Law. 16:153-168.
Allen, M., Burrell, N. (1996) Comparing the Impact of Homosexual and Heterosexual parents on Children: Meta-Analysis of Existing Research. Journal of Homosexuality. 32, 2:19-33.
Bailey, J., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., Mikasch, S. (1995) Sexual Orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Developmental Psychology. 31, 124.
Belcastro, Philip; Gramlish, Theresa; Nicholson, Thomas; Price, Jimmie; Wilson, Richard (1993) A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Affects of Homosexual Parenting on Children’s Sexual and Social Functioning. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 20(1/2) p.105-122.
Bell, A., Weinberg, M. (1978) Homosexualities: A Study in Diversity Among Men and Women. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Biller, H. (1971) Father, child and Sex Role: Paternal Determinants of Personality Development
Biller, H. (1974) Paternal Deprivation: Family, School, Sexuality and
Biller, H. Society Stature and Stigma, (1987)
Biller, H. (1993) Fathers and Families: Paternal Factors in Child Development. Westport CT: Auburn House.
Brooks, A. (1989) Experts find extramarital affairs have a profound impact on children. New York Times. Mar. 9.
Brown, M. (1994) Whose eyes are these, whose nose? Newsweek. March 7: 12
Caprio, R. (1955) Variation in Sexual Behavior. NY: Citadel.
Caprio, F. (1954) Female Homosexuality: A Psychodynamic Study of Lesbianism. NY: Citadel. p.120, p.307
Doll, L., Joy, D., Batholow, B., Harrison, J., Bolan, G., Douglas, J., Saltzman, L., Moss, P., Delgado, W. (1992) Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and bisexual men. Child Abuse & Neglect. 18: 825 – 864.
Duffy, D., Rusbuilt, C. (1985-86) Satisfaction and commitment in homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexuality. 1:21.
Eisold, B. (1998) Recreating mother: The consolidation of ‘heterosexual’ gender idenfication in the young son of homosexual men. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 63, 3: 433 – 442.
Golombok, S., Spencer, A., Rutter, M.(1983) Children in Lesbian and Single Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 21:554.
Goode, E., Troiden, R., (1980) Correlates and Accompaniments of Promiscuous Sex Among Male Homosexuals. Psychiatry. 43: 51-59
Green, R. (1978) Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents. American Journal of Psychiatry. 135:6.
Green, R. et al. (1986) Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 15: 167.
Hanley, R. (1998) Boy scouts violated bias law, court rules. New York Times. March 3.
Hoeffer, B. (1981) Children’s acquisition of sex-role behavior in lesbian-mother families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 51,3: 536
Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948) Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philidelphia: WB Saunders.
Kirk, M., Madsen, H. (1989) After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s. NY: Doubleday.
Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C., Roy, R. (1981) Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 51, 3: 545.
Kramer, L (1981) Reports from the Holocaust. NY: St. Martin’s Press
Kurdek, L. Schmitt, J. (1986) Relationship quality of partners from heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting, and gay and lesbian relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51: 711.
Lewis, K. (1980) Children of Lesbians: Their Point of View. Social Work. 25: 198.
Miller, B. (1979) Gay Fathers and their Children. Family Coordinator. 28:544.
Miller, J., Mucklow, B., Jacobsen, Bigner, J. (1980) Comparison of Family Relationships: Homosexual versus Heterosexual Women. Psychological Reports. 46:1127-1132
Miller, J., Jacobsen, R., Bigner, J. (1981) the child’s home environment for lesbians vs. heterosexual mothers: A neglected area of research. Journal of Homosexuality. 7,1: 49
Patterson, C., (1992) Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents. Child Development. 63:1025-1042.
Patterson, C. (1994) Children of the lesbian baby boom. (in Green, Herek, G. (1994) Lesbian and Gay Psychology.) 156.
Patterson, C. J. (1995). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children. (In A. R. D’Augelli & C. F. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan (pp. 262-290). New York: Oxford University Press.)
Patterson, C. Redding, R., (1996) Lesbian and Gay Families with children: Implications of Social Science Research for Policy. Journal of Social Issues. 52, 3: 29-50.
Patterson, C. J., & Chan, R. W. (1997). Gay fathers. (In M. E. Lamb (Ed.) The role of the father in child development. Third Edition (pp. 245-260). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)
Pedersen, F. (Ed.) (1980) The father-infant relationship: Observational Studies in the family setting. NY: Praeger.
Puryear, D. (1983) Familial Experiences: A Comparison Between The Children of Lesbian Mothers and the Children of Heterosexual Mothers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley.
Radin, N., Oyserman, D., Benn, R. (1991) Grandfathers, teen mothers, and children under two. In P.K. Smith (Ed.) The psychology of grandparenthood: An international perspective. (pp. 85 – 89) London: Routledge.
Remafedi, G. (1994a) Predictors of unprotected intercourse among gay and bisexual youth: Knowledge, beliefs, and behavior. Pediatrics. 94: 163 – 168.
Remafedi, G. (1994b) Cognitive and behavioral adaptations to HIV/AIDS among gay and bisexual adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health. 15: 142 – 148.
Rees, R. (1979) A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers of Three Measures of Socialization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley.
Roman, M. (1993) Breaking the genetic silence. Lears. Jan.: 37- 38.
Saskvitne, K. (1998) “Recreating mother”: A commentary on the case analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 63, 3: 443 – 446.
Saghir, M., Robins, E. (1973) Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation. Baltimore MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Silverstein, C. (1982) Man to Man: Gay Couples in American NY: Quill
Sullivan, A. (1995) Virtually Normal: An argument about homosexuality. New York: Alfred Knopf
Woodward, P., McAndrew, K., Rotheblum, E., Bond, L, Weinstock, J. (1998) Amicus Brief on Behalf of Vermont Psychiatric Association, Vermont Chapter of National Association of Social Workers, Behavioral Medicine Services of Burlington VT in the case of Baker v VT.
November 21st, 2011 | 11:29 am
I asked you a while ago “How might we cross-check that harm is being done?”
Prove it isn’t.
The burden is on you. You’re the one who wants to take something away from the child, so it’s on you to prove that doing so has no ill consequences.
November 21st, 2011 | 2:14 pm
Blake –
Hmmm. It’s not at all clear that this simply must involve ‘taking something from the child’. (That was one of the points of my asking about the proportion of gay parents who
labor to sever all ties with the other biological parent.)
But okay, fine, let’s say I accept the burden for now. Before I get started… what would you accept as proof? I don’t want to be chasing ever-receding goalposts, so give me a target to shoot for.
November 21st, 2011 | 2:16 pm
Booton
Damages against a paramour for adultery rest on adultery being a delict, that is to say, a legal wrong. In other words, there is an obligation to abstain from intercourse with a married person. To argue that this obligation is not created by marriage is fanciful.
By “reserved share of the inheritance,” I was speaking, of course, of that portion that the deceased is not free to dispose of by will and which the legal heirs take automatically, for example, the childrens’ shares enshrined in the constitution of Louisiana (and copied from the Corpus Juris of Justinian).
The limitation on one spouse’s right to dispose of certain property, such as the matrimonial home, even when he or she is the sole legal owner, can affect even a purchaser in good faith, for the sale will still be set aside. Indeed, anyone dealing with the sole owner of property, as a matter of prudence, will search the Civil Register, which indicates the right arises from the fact of marriage and is one that cannot be created by any mere agreement between two persons not married to each other.
The same reasoning applies to the legal hypothec that may prevail over a creditor’s rights.
November 22nd, 2011 | 7:13 am
Hmmm. It’s not at all clear that this simply must involve ‘taking something from the child’. (That was one of the points of my asking about the proportion of gay parents who
labor to sever all ties with the other biological parent.)
It is a well-established fact that motherlessness and fatherlessness are both associated with grief issues, identity issues, trauma, and a sense of loss that permeates entire lifetimes.
This is true whether the child has lost a parent due to death or due to abandonment.
Adding another female/male adult does not make a fatherless/motherless child stop being motherless, so what do you imagine changes when the second female/male is or becomes sexually active with the first female/male?
And how does that magically makes herhim now an appropriate substitute for a father/mother?
Do you have anything to support the idea that having a mother is somehow not valuable? I would guess most people attach great value to that relationship.
The argument that males and females are, or can be viewed as, interchangeable is not compatible with the argument that gays “need” to be allowed to marry people of a particular sex precisely because males and females are not interchangeable or identical. So what is the basis for your supposition that gender roles are not related to childrearing, and how do you reconcile that with the huge amount of evidence on the well-known and recorded data documenting differences on every level (from biochemical reactions to stimuli up to large-scale institutional differences) between male vs. female parents, as well as between same-sex vs. opposite-sex parent-child relationship dynamics?
November 22nd, 2011 | 8:35 am
“Certainly you are aware that this has been a source of trouble in Christian thought since clearly there’s no procreative reason for a man to have sex with a wife who he is sure is pregnant. Historically quite a few well known Christian authorities came down on the side of it was wrong to have sex while pregnancy was known since it supposedly could only be for ‘lustful purposes’. ”
That’s not quite on point. People can argue all day long about whether a pregnant couple can have sex (though they’d have to believe some fairly odd things about the propriety of married sex in various circumstances in order even to ask the question.) But that still doesn’t create a reality in which a person who never, ever, intends to have procreative sex at any point in his or her life, is as “open to life” in their sexuality or anywhere else, as someone who *is in the process of* bringing new life into the world, as a result of procreative sex. It’s gobbledygook. Unless the mother is on her way to the abortion clinic, she’s not only “open” to life in her sexuality, she’s experienced the full fruition of that openness. The homosexual person is 100% closed to the possibility of generating life.
November 22nd, 2011 | 9:23 am
Blake –
What would you accept as proof?
For example, your quotes are interesting, but so far as I can see almost entirely anecdotal. It’s impossible to tell how widespread the issues are. If we were going to just trade anecdotal evidence, I could point to no less than three couples in our neighborhood who adopted children and are doing very well with it.
So, again, what would you accept as proof?
November 22nd, 2011 | 11:24 am
Blake –
Do you have anything to support the idea that all gay couples sever all ties with the other biological parent? That the child inevitably has ‘lost a parent’?
November 22nd, 2011 | 11:39 am
I put forth that not a single child has ever been denied its biological father or mother by a same sex couple, ever. And I also put forth that Blake is unable to cite any example, real or even hypothetical with the only possible exception being violations of criminal law (such as kidnapping a child).
November 23rd, 2011 | 6:28 am
So, again, what would you accept as proof?
You’re the one who wants to change the world; YOU figure out how to prove your case.
Stop expecting me to do your work for you. Changing the world is hard. It takes a lot of effort to get things right. I’m sick of lefties announcing how the world “ought” to be – then expecting *me* to do the work to make everything right. You want it changed? GET BUSY.
I have my own things to do. If I am going to spend my time thinking about the way gays treat their children, I’d rather spend my time figuring out how to liberate these kids from toxic expectations and pressures – not spend my time figuring out how I’d go about minimizing and justifying dysfunctional demands.
November 23rd, 2011 | 7:00 am
so your beef is not with being forced to have a belief, but with discrimination laws.
My beef is that gay marriage is about forcing people to pretend gay “marriage” is the same as marriage.
It isn’t.
There is a zero sum game here: either biology or the government decides what a “family” is.
If the government decides, then we are irrevocably headed toward a more socialist state, since a strong biological family is simply incompatible with rules that allow individuals to break up and rearrange families any time they feel like it.
As I’ve said before, I don’t begrudge gays the right to have their relationships recognized. I only begrudge them the right to force people to pretend that they are the same as a married couple. They are not the same because they are not procreative and procreative activity is not irrelevant to the definition of marriage.
There is no way for a gay couple to make a family that does not involve hurting, exploiting, and abusing at least one and maybe several members of their family, damaging the integrity and cohesion of the family itself, and damaging the integrity and cohesion of the institutions of family and marriage.
I don’t want to be forced to lie, or to be stripped of my right to recognize honesty and integrity as important values.
I don’t want to be forced to be a party to child abuse.
I don’t want my nation to be a place that openly supports, encourages, and subsidizes the exploitation of egg donors and surrogate wombs, or see my nation become a place where poor people are used and treated as nonhuman supply sources for wealthy parasitic people.
I don’t want my nation to be a place where families – and the institutions that originally supported them – are destabilized. Nor do I want my government to encourage and support this destabilization process.
I don’t want the government to have to take over the essential economic and social functions because families are too broken to care for themselves. I view gay marriage as a direct attack on those families that wish to live by rules that ensure cohesion and stability – rules that would be criminalized if gays get their way. Because gay marriage is ultimately not about “equality” for gays (in fact the gay rights groups find genuine equality abhorrent); “gay rights” is really about being allowed to keep “rights” that are normally accompanied by obligations, but without accepting the corresponding obligations.
You want the “right” to gain subsidies for making a family, but you want your family unit viewed as a commodity you own, rather than a group of people you’re responsible for.
You want the “right” to all the respect and social niceties that come with being part of a community, but without losing your right to directly attack, sabotage, undermine, or just plain refuse to cooperate with the community’s laws, norms, mores, expectations, or what it needs for its continued survival.
You want the “right” to make a family be whatever it is you want a family to be, but without accepting that if family is not about kinship – and not about obligation – and not about honoring and respecting your kinsmen and offspring – if family is nothing but what we used to call “friends” – then there is no reason why the institution of “family” should be privileged at all, let alone subsidized. The tax benefits, the status of “breadwinner” or “caregiver” – those things exist because a procreative couple needs them. Procreative couples need them because men and women can’t split childbearing equally. There’s a delicate balance, and like so much in nature it’s based on what is efficient rather than what is “fair”.
But if the gay marriage model succeeds, family supports will be replaced with the state taking away the things that enable a man to support his wife during childbirth, and replace it with a model that is already being proposed: child care, like school lunches and health care, will be provided by the state. The biological family will be replaced by the government-as-family.
This is what “gay marriage” is really all about – whether it is actually motivated by envy of intact, cohesive families (leading to the covetous ones literally wanting to destroy those families and replace them with government control) or just plain socialist strategizing, the result is the same either way: real families will be replaced by a government that provides (and thus controls) everything from day care to the food we eat.
I don’t like the way America is handling public education, and I am repulsed by what they serve as “school lunches” (which now already includes breakfast and dinner), so I don’t have a whole lot of faith that government-sponsored family life is going to be very pleasant.
November 23rd, 2011 | 7:17 am
I put forth that not a single child has ever been denied its biological father or mother by a same sex couple, ever.
Every child raised with “two mommies” is not only not allowed to have a healthy relationship with a father (any father, let alone its own father) but is also expected to pretend that no loss has occurred.
I would assume they are allowed to search for their genetic information when they are older, but even that is going to be modified by the fact that:
- from before they were even born, it was decided on their behalf how they would feel about being fatherless – and the decision was that they wouldn’t mind.
- from the time they are old enough to be socially aware, they will live within a community that actively pressures its children to repress normal and natural feelings. These pressures are both active and passive.
- Examples of active pressure includes political activism or “religious education” that involves having the children carry signs, write letters, or otherwise make public statements reinforcing the idea that having “two mommies” is “no different from” having an intact family and that furthermore only bad people think that having “two mommies” isn’t as good as having an intact family.
- Examples of passive pressure includes living within a community where toxic messages (for instance, the film Birdcage, where a boy is pressured to lie for his parents, protect them, cater to their infantile emotional neediness, and put up with unwarranted shaming and other direct emotional abuse) is revered rather than condemned.
- Even if the children did manage to stay in touch with the feelings that motherless and fatherless children normally have, they would have to be cautious about voicing such feelings: the “gay community” polarizes the world into those who buy the gay rights line without question, vs. those who are “bad” (literally, “fascists”, etc.) – and the children are given real reason to fear that these bogeymen will do real and horrible things – like put their family into camps – if they “betray” the family/cause by voicing feelings that would vindicate the Bad People.
- Of course, these children would also become Bad People themselves if they themselves rejected the “gay rights” line. Fearing withdrawal of love is a common issue among adopted kids; the children of gays have more reason to fear it than most adopted kids – because the “gay community” does pose a credible threat in this regard.
Of course, every child has the right to a relationship with both their biological parents – all 50 states have confirmed this, and I fully expect that the weird exemption gays are granted will eventually be dealt with (though I am afraid it won’t happen until the children of gays themselves finally get to the point where they can “call out” their abusive parents).
The right to a relationship with both parents is only rightfully severed when doing so is in the child’s best interests – and gays can’t claim that what they are doing is in the child’s best interests; the best they are ever really able to claim is that what they are doing “doesn’t really hurt”, or is better than some fictitious straw-man (as if the only alternative to allowing the gays to engage in behaviors even they know are wrong* would be for the children to be raised under even more overtly abusive conditions, so that gays can make the fallacy-ridden construction “what I am doing is not as harmful as X, so therefore the fact that it is harmful is not really a problem”).
—
* I view the existence of justifications such as “The Kids Are All Right” (what a telling name) as proof that gays know perfectly well they’re taking liberties – that is, doing bad things. We all know the difference between doing what is right vs. explaining how not doing what is right really isn’t hurting anyone (very much).
November 23rd, 2011 | 11:53 am
Blake –
I can’t help but read that as, “I can’t even imagine evidence that could persuade me I was mistaken.”
November 25th, 2011 | 9:19 am
My beef is that gay marriage is about forcing people to pretend gay “marriage” is the same as marriage.
Notice how Blake is constantly asked to explain this, yet he won’t. What could he mean?
Does he mean that by gov’t recognizing SSM he is being ‘forced too’? That is clearly false. The gov’t recognizes Newt Gingrich’s marriage, yet a faithful Catholic who does not believe a man who was previously married can validly marry another woman is not forced to do anything. Likewise a person who doesn’t believe the marriage of Kim Kardashian was a real marriage isn’t put in jail because she had a valid, legal marriage license.
This issue can’t be pushed too much. At the end of the day whenever SSM-opponants are talking about being ‘forced’ they are almost always talking about being deprived of being able to force others. To them force is not about gov’t making them do or believe something they don’t want. To them force is about other people doing and believing things they don’t want them to believe.
Every child raised with “two mommies” is not only not allowed to have a healthy relationship with a father (any father, let alone its own father) but is also expected to pretend that no loss has occurred.
Every? There might not be a single child being raised by two women who, say, are totally honest and say to the child “it’s horrible you father died/took off/won’t visit you/was only interested in donating sperm/etc. but we are doing our best for you”? Blake forgets the assertion he is responding too:
I put forth that not a single child has ever been denied its biological father or mother by a same sex couple, ever.
If a man dies before his child grows up, the child hasn’t been denied a father by a lesbian couple (unless they murdered him, which I’m sure Blake would present evidence of such to the cops if he was aware of such a thing).
If a man tosses some sperm into a fertility clinic in exchange for $20, he is denying his potential child the opportunity to be raised by its biological father.
If a man has a relationship with a woman that then ends, he has a host of legal rights and tools to use to ensure that he remains in the child’s life.
Even if the child ends up with ‘two mommies’, the fact is pretty undeniable its almost impossible for ‘two mommies’ to keep daddy out of the child’s life. While no doubt some child disputed child custody cases turn out really bad, almost all children who don’t have a father in their life are so denied by the choices of the father.
- Examples of passive pressure includes living within a community where toxic messages (for instance, the film Birdcage, where a boy is pressured to lie for his parents, protect them, cater to their infantile emotional neediness, and put up with unwarranted shaming and other direct emotional abuse) is revered rather than condemned.
We’ve spend many posts about The Birdcage on another thread but let’s just note a few points:
1. “Passive pressure” – remember how I said that to people like Blake, at the end of the day ‘force’ means simply that you disagree with him. To people like Blake, there is nothing that gays or anyone actually does to ‘force’ him. To people like Blake, its the existence of other people that is the ‘force issue’.
2. “Toxic messages”….. the boy isn’t pressured to lie by his parents. The parents are pressured to lie by the boy. The parents would have been much more happy to just present themselves as they are and let the girl and her parents make what they will of that. The boy pressures them to all lie (including the biological mom) by giving them a guilt trip that failing to do so will ruin his marriage proposal to his girlfriend.
3. “Denial of parents” – Hmmm, well let’s look at that. The boy’s mother had no interest in a child and opted instead to let her ex and his boyfriend raise him, she found her business career more interesting. So who again is really responsible for the ‘loss’ of a biological mother? If she had opted instead to fight for full custody she probably would have gotten it. If nothing else she would have gotten ample visitation and would have been able to be a larger part of his childhood. How exactly has the boy been denied a biological mother by anyone other than his biological mother?
4. “Infantile” – This is curious. The ‘boy’ Blake refers too is in his mid-20′s, just graduated from a good college and has proposed marriage to his girlfriend. This type of creature is usually called a man and constructing elaborate ruses to hide his background is itself a rather infantile emotional neediness that is being imposed not by the SSM couple but by himself and the girl’s father. Your inability to see the truth in the story illustrates, IMO, a deeper problem you have with honesty. I don’t mean to throw a bomb here but I think at your core you’re a dishonest person and I’m not sure you’re even capable of honestly seeing that in yourself.
* I view the existence of justifications such as “The Kids Are All Right” (what a telling name) as proof that gays know perfectly well they’re taking liberties – that is, doing bad things.
A better movie to analyze since its meant to be more realistic drama about actual children rather than a slapstick comedy about adults. But it also illustrates the problems with your analysis.
In the movie, the child finds the sperm donar who is her biological father (using her 18 yr old sister to request the info from the sperm bank). When they find him, they are impressed by his laid back lifestyle, riding his motorcycle and his casual approach to life. The mothers are reluctant but accept the entry of the father into the family’s life.
The father, though, does not act as one. His interest in the kids wanes as he seizes the opportunity to bed one of the mothers and begin an affair with her. In the process he nearly tears the family apart causing pain for both the women and children but his interests are clearly centered on establishing a relationship with the mother rather than acting as a father to the children. As a result, the entire families reconciles by rejecting him and turning its back on him.
Again we see nothing of what you claim. The mothers do not reject the father, do not deny him to the kids. In fact they both eventually warm to him and work on incorporating him into the family. The reason it fails is not because of the lesbian couple but because of the biological father. He doesn’t recognize the importance of the nearly two decades behind his children being raised and growing up. He seeks to overthrow that stability not for his kids interests but his own interest in having one of the women as his girlfriend. At the end, the other woman is right to tell him that if he wants a family he should start one himself.
To the degree the children suffered for not having a biological father in their life, it was due not to the lesbian couple but due to the biological father who quite literally didn’t care about the consquences of his actions when he was making them and later on put their interests after his sexual and romantic interests after his children find him.
I don’t have any first hand experience with lesbian couples but I do with adoption families and this is a common pattern. Yes kids do often have a great interest in their biological parents. When they find them there’s a flurry of activity and interests but more often than not it’s a ‘flash in the pan’. Over the long run the biological parents who have not raised their kids end up either disappointing the kids or end up removed from their life. At the end its more often than not the parents who raise the kids who are parents for life, biological or not.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact