Tuesday, July 13, 2010

A liberal responds, and a dialogue is born.

Maybe, after all this time, I have a taker? A nice liberal named Sophie responded to my  "While we're at it..." post (and I'm hoping she's also read the post entitled, "Why I can't talk to liberals, even though I've tried"). I appreciate her outreach, and I want to address her points. Her words are in italics.
Before I express my opinion on your post, I would first like to congratulate you: Congratulations! Although I blatantly disagreed with what you had to say, your argument was so well written that I couldn't help but appreciate your polite but firm position.
Thanks, Sophie! I like you already. ;) 
However, I would like to prove you wrong on two counts:
Firstly, on your idea about the "manipulation of language" on both the words "Marriage" and "Gay". According to the dictionary, the word marriage has several definitions, none of which directly pertain to a man and a woman. These definitions are as follows:
"The state, condition or relationship of being married; wedlock.
The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities
A relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other, in the manner of a husband and wife."
You will note the last definition says in the MANNER OF, not ONLY PERTAINING TO. 
This is interesting, Sophie. First, I was not directly discussing dictionary definitions, as those can change even year to year (especially in these politically correct days!). What I said was: "marriage" has always been known as one thing (male/female).  In other words, there was never a time in history when "marriage" was commonly understood to mean two men exchanging vows and having sex (or two women, or even a human and an animal). It has always been understood to mean man/woman (until this very recent push). Do you disagree?


But since you brought up dictionary definitions, let's talk about it. I don't know the issue date of your dictionary, but even an old dictionary never needed to specify that "marriage" was specifically man/woman, because, again, it was understood to be just that. And as far as the term "in the manner of" ... let's take your implication to its logical conclusion: Two brothers could "pledge themselves to each other, in the manner of a husband and a wife." Would you call that "marriage"? If not, why not? It fits your interpretation of the dictionary definition, right?
Now for the word, "Gay." It isn't like someone just up and decided, "Hmm, today I think I'll change the definition of the word 'Gay.'" It happened over a period of many many years. As all the Literary Professors I have ever been taught by have reminded me, "If you can't roll with the evolution of language, stop using it." One must learn to adapt to the new definitions of words. 
I guess I would like to know what your understanding of "many many years" is? I do know that my husband has a relative who was named "Gay" in the 1950s. By the time she was a young adult in the 1970s, she had taken the drastic step to change her name. Is such an abrupt and dramatic re-definition really an "evolution" of language? Also, we all have certainly "adapted" to the unfortunate new definition of "gay" here in America, as evidenced by the fact that no one in his right mind would name a child "Gay" anymore, and yet it was once a lovely name. 
Also, if anyone is giggling at the word "gay" in Christmas Carols, they are most likely about five years old.
You are right on this. I went back and looked at my wording. I should have used the word "children" instead of "young people," even though I thought that was implied.  (*Update: I'm rethinking my answer here. I have a five year old son, and he wouldn't giggle because he has no idea what the word "gay" means. As it should be. Hopefully there aren't many circles of five-year-olds who would giggle, since they should be clueless about homosexuality at their age. And if you think older kids and teens don't laugh at the word "gay" in Christmas carols, then I'm thinking you don't know many people that age? So, I stand by my original term, "young people.")
Secondly, I would like to point out that though you say you "simply don't understand," I think it goes deeper than that. It looks like you are discouraging Homosexual marriage because you dislike the idea of it, not just because of the so-called abuse of literary devices.
You are absolutely right that I believe homosexual activity to be immoral, just as I consider pre-marital sex to be immoral, and adultery, etc., etc. It's no secret to anyone reading that I am a devout Catholic who believes what the Church teaches. But I am also a lover of distinctions. True, I don't believe in homosexual activity, but I also don't believe in manipulation of language to further a political agenda. In this case, I was discussing my objection to redefining the word "marriage" to describe homosexual unions. It would be another subject entirely to discuss why I believe that homosexual activity itself is wrong. It's easy for all of us to go off on tangents, so I try to commit to one subject at a time.
I have thoroughly enjoyed posting this to you. I do hope I can continue to keep up a friendly debate with you over this, as I have several good points on the subject.
Thanks, Sophie, I would love to hear them! And maybe you could answer a question for me that Gwen (a previous liberal commenter) would or could not:  


Do you believe it is okay to change the meanings of words in order to advance a political agenda? 


Blessings to you! 


54 comments:

  1. I love a good debate, and what great strength of character you both have. If only all people could handle differences of opinion as maturely (is that a work? lol) and intelligently as you two have and hopefully continue to do, this world could be quite a different place :) Of course I totally agree with you Leila, but I do applaud Sophie's calm and distinct matter of disagreeing without the way some others who comment are prone to do!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Looks like a good debate! (I'm really just commenting so I can sign up for follow-up comments to be emailed to me!) :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. This will be very interesting! :) Keep this dialog going! :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is great stuff!!!! I can't believe how non-emotional it is! hahahaha :) Coming from Ms. Emotional! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Control language control society." Forgot now who said it but learned it at UC Berkeley, where I got a deree in liberalism. I can rattle off liberal ideas in a blink of an eye. So, if you ever want to practice or have a liberal debate just ask me. Oh, they Gay thing is based on the belief that: it is biological, homosexuality, read, Dr. Diamond's Sex and the Brain. Therefore, why would we discriminate about an intrinsic part of a person that they have no control over, i.e., like race or gender. They believe that marriage as it is defined by conservatives it based on a patriarchial world view that promotes domination, suppression, racism, imperialism, sexism, and a fear of diversity.

    Hope this helps. I was an A+ student at the most liberal universitiy in the U.S. and actually believed and lived this stuff before a miracle of conversion. So ask away, I wrote a million essays defending/promoting the liberal mind set.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just signing up! :) I love a good debate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Signing up. Looking for to the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great discussion! I'm so glad to see that there are people out there who can respond respectfully and coherenly, even if I don't agree with their opinions. Welcome Sophie!

    ReplyDelete
  9. JoAnn, you were a "Berzerkley" grad? I love it!! Hey, you need to write your faith story for us! And, you would love my friend Kim's conversion story (check my sidebar under "pages"), from radical feminist to Catholic.

    I love that you are a resource! I will not forget that! :)
    Can't wait to hear about your conversion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Very interesting. You might be interested in a book I mentioned in my last post-
    http://www.amazon.com/Dehumanizing-Vulnerable-When-Games-Lives/dp/0919225195

    ReplyDelete
  11. Very interesting. You might be interested in a book I mentioned in my last post-
    http://www.amazon.com/Dehumanizing-Vulnerable-When-Games-Lives/dp/0919225195

    ReplyDelete
  12. hmm...must have forgotten to click email... I wondered why noone had commented all morning! :)

    Looking forward to your response, Sophie! Glad you're here!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Love this. My internet has been down for a few days and already you're stirring it up ;) Oh and you were in California and you didn't look me up? That's cold L.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sophie, bless your non-defensive, non-argumentative heart!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mom, I think this passage from the ancient Greek historian, Thucydides relates to what you are saying about the changes of the meanings of words. It's a little long but I think it's valuable:


    And people altered, at their pleasure, the customary significance of words to suit their deeds: irrational daring came to be considered the "manly courage of one loyal to his party"; prudent delay was thought a fair-seeming cowardice; a moderate attitude was deemed a mere shield for lack of virility, and a reasoned understanding with regard to all sides of an issue meant that one was indolent and of no use for anything. Rash enthusiasm for one's cause was deemed the part of a true man; to attempt to employ reason in plotting a safe course of action, a specious excuse for desertion. (5) One who displayed violent anger was "eternally faithful," whereas any who spoke against such a person was viewed with suspicion. One who laid a scheme and was successful was "wise," while anyone who suspected and ferreted out such a plot beforehand was considered still cleverer. Any who planned beforehand in order that no such measures should be necessary was a "subverter of the party" and was accused of being intimidated by the opposition. In general, the one who beat another at performing some act of villainy beforehand was praised, as was one who urged another on to such a deed which the latter, originally, had no intention of performing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. wow, I am loving this, I am a terrible debater (sp?) so it's great to hear how you would respond to these questions that are thrown out at us so often. Thanks :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Still haven't heard from Sophie, yet, but I am happy to engage her whenever she comes back! Meanwhile, I think I will be moving on to a new post soon... get ready for another Doctrinal Quiz Show!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I would like to respond as well, but my comment is too long (it's over the 4,096 character limit). Could I email it to you? You can then post as you see fit.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Christa, sure! Click my name on this comment, and you can get to my email from my profile.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes, Christa, I'm sure an email would be fine but if it is not worth posting, I doubt it will get posted.

    Your later stuff hasn't been very mature or worth a debate.

    ReplyDelete
  21. For those following this dialogue, I have posted an update to one of my answers:

    Also, if anyone is giggling at the word "gay" in Christmas Carols, they are most likely about five years old.

    You are right on this. I went back and looked at my wording. I should have used the word "children" instead of "young people," even though I thought that was implied. (*Update: I'm rethinking my answer here. I have a five year old son, and he wouldn't giggle because he has no idea what the word "gay" means. As it should be. Hopefully there aren't many circles of five-year-olds who would giggle, since they should be clueless about homosexuality at their age. And if you think older kids and teens don't laugh at the word "gay" in Christmas carols, then I'm thinking you don't know many people that age? So, I stand by my original term, "young people.")

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hello again! I am sorry to say there will be a short delay before I respond to your post, as I am very busy. But not to fear--I FULLY intend to return and pick up this debate right where it left off!
    I just wanted to thank everyone for welcoming me so eagerly to this blogs community, even when I feel I am playing Devil's Advocate in this particular case.
    I would like to set one thing straight, however: I am a Christian, although I am not Catholic.
    I would also like to draw attention to what Alliemich said in one of the comments, "Of course I totally agree with you Leila, but I do applaud Sophie's calm and distinct matter of disagreeing without the way some others who comment are prone to do!" And when Sew commented, "I can't believe how non-emotional it is!"
    I am very sorry to say that my temper is wild and often gets away from me, encouraging me to say things I will regret later. I am also sorry to say that the whole reason I commented on your post in the first place was because I was so angry about what you had to say! I do apologize if I seemed rude at all. I was just seized with a sudden need to respond as the opposition. I have always felt strongly about this issue.
    I know you don't want to get distracted from the point of the debate, and I fully understand if you choose not to answer this question for any reason, but just as you do not quite understand the logic of the liberal mind, I do not quite understand what reason anyone could have for believing homosexuality to be immoral. Would you mind explaining this to me? I am simply curious. And if there is anything in the logic of liberals that you do not understand, I will be happy to explain my understanding of it.
    I would also like to point out that although I believe in the liberal mindset, I do not consider myself a political person. I do not particularly follow politics, and am sometimes confused at how complex politicians can manage to make things.
    I will be commenting again soon, and thank you for welcoming me to your corner of the internet!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sophie, take your time...I promise I like to go slowly, because this whole blog thing can be addicting! :)

    And if you have a temper that you try to keep in check, well, you are in good company here. I have the same problem, ha ha!

    As far as why homosexuality is immoral... that is a whole other topic, for sure. I can give you the very, very, very short answer: Sex was designed by God for the procreation of children and the loving bonding of spouses (after marriage). So, sex is both "procreative" and "unitive". One cannot separate those two aspects of the marital act without a whole host of problems coming up. There is a LOT, LOT, LOT more to it than that, but that is the most basic answer.

    The technical, natural law answer is that we must always ask: "What is the nature of a thing?" Then, we must use that thing according to its nature. Anything else is disorder. For example, a clock does not make a good coffee pot, because it was designed to be used as a clock. And, specific body parts were designed for certain things, and not for others. I won't go into specifics. But we always must consider why a thing exists and what its nature is.


    http://couragerc.net/PIPElevenChurchTeachings.html

    The above link might be helpful to you, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In response to the definition of marriage as always having been between a man and a woman: In both ancient roman and in First nation societies same-sex marriage was practised and accepted.
    Also, in response to: "Sex was designed by God for the procreation of children..." does this mean infertile couples shouldn't have sex? And on the "certain body parts are designed for some things..." If you want to procreate through sex, there's pretty much one way to do it. If you and your consenting partner want to have sex, however, there are many, many different ways. I can go into more detail on this (my mother teaches sex ed), but I' d rather not, as you have implied you wouldn't like this, and I respect your wishes.
    One last point: if your opposition to gay marriage is on religious grounds, and you wish to have laws that legalize it repealed/prevent the formation of these laws: you can't, legally, do that. It is prohibited by the first amendment, which (I'm paraphrasing here using Justice Hugo Black's reading, which by all accounts is very strict and literal) prohibits the formation of laws solely based on religion. The constitution also states that you can practice your religion freely: what this comes down to is that you can believe gay marriage is wrong, but you cannot make a law that prohibits gay marriage if you do not have a non-religion based argument.
    Also (wow, this is getting long), if you believe same-sex intercourse is wrong, and prohibited by god: why do animals do it?
    Thank you be being calm and rational in your debate.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Master,"

    Quickly: On your first point, I am not a historian, but I have read enough to know that your point can and has been refuted.

    As to your next point, do you actually want to deny that sex is "designed" for procreation? How do you think babies are made? ;)

    Infertile people of childbearing age have unhealthy parts or functioning, because fertility = health. It's like if I said that God designed legs for walking and you said, "Really? What about people who are paralyzed?" Well, I would say, still, that legs were designed for walking. Wouldn't you agree? Legs were designed for walking, even if they don't work.

    Infertile people can still physically have sex, and they should. No one has ever argued that they shouldn't. That is their right as married people. Sex is good and bonds the couple in love (remember the second aspect of sex is "unitive"). In fact, we Catholics believe sex is so good that it has been elevated to the level of a sacrament. :) If you are truly interested in delving more into this subject, I suggest a reading of JPII's Theology of the Body, as presented by Christopher West.

    As for your next point... I go back to natural law. I will get explicit now:

    If you think that a human penis was *designed* to go into another man's rectum, and that semen was *designed* to go swimming up the pooper, and if you think that is healthy behavior, then I want to see the biology book you have been reading. ;)

    Again, "what is the nature of a thing"? Then, we use things according to their nature.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Now, as to the legal aspect: There are plenty of secular arguments which can be made in favor of keeping marriage male/female. That's a whole other discussion.

    As for animals: Animals do a lot of things according to their instinct, including occasionally eating their young, etc. Dogs can often be seen humping the leg of a human visitor. Do you suggest that human males should go around doing the same when they feel like it? I know some who would. ;)

    We Christians believe that animals are incapable of using reason. They do not have intellect and will. Humans do. We can reason, and we can control our own actions. Now, you may not think that animals and humans are fundamentally different, but again, that is a whole other subject.

    ReplyDelete
  27. PS: Sorry if I have offended anyone with my language, but sometimes it's necessary to just say it like it is.

    ReplyDelete
  28. PS: I want to make it VERY clear that having homosexual inclinations is NOT a sin. Every human being has disorder in one way or another, after all. The sin comes in the decision to engage in homosexual behavior. Homosexual acts are sinful.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm confused. Can someone please explain to me when animals and humans were on the same "level".

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sew, I think that was when God was taken out of the equation. To many atheists, agnostics and secular humanists, people and animals are basically the same. A pig is a dog is a boy. (Although it seems as though many liberals today see animals as more valuable than humans.)

    ReplyDelete
  31. For those interested, more with "Master" is on the comments at:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-i-cant-talk-to-liberals-even-though.html

    ReplyDelete
  32. TM:

    I'm opposed to murder on religious grounds. Is it protected by the First Amendment?

    ReplyDelete
  33. To all liberal or liberal-leaning posters: the suggestion that you research Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II is a terrific one. IMHO, it is his single greatest legacy.


    But I'd like to also push the gay marriage debate into another direction. Forget just incest (for which there are biological justifications for its prohibition) but what about polygamy?

    Why stop at one? More is better, yes? Who is to tell someone not only which sex they must love, but how many, too?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ken, great question. I hope TM will answer.

    But I want to throw in one thing about incest among consenting adults: Why not? After all, if it's homosexual incest (sister marrying sister, brother marrying brother) then there is no biological objection. Also, couldn't a sister and brother get themselves sterilized and then get married? Why would any liberal or atheist have a problem with it? I would like to know. No one has answered that for me yet.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Leila,

    First Nation and Indigenous societies in North America did indeed have different culturally recognized gender categories (i.e., people born with female reproductive parts who performed male roles, vice versa, and people born androgynous). In many Native soveriegn nations, these people who didn't self-identify as either male/female and weren't culturally recognized as strictly "male" or "female" were highly respected and recognized as an important part of society, as people who were talented intellectually, artistically and athlectically. Genocide and colonialism not only wreaked havoc on the survivial of Native peoples, it also reconstructed societal "norms" associated with gender identity. These ideologies about gender identification as either male or female were imposed via colonial regimes such as boarding schools, evangelization, and tribal governments. This is not to say that there are no Native North Americans today who oppose same-sex marriage-there are many. However, historically, some tribes (not all) did openly recognize and appreciate different gender roles and same-sex relationships.

    TM-thanks for your comments. They've been most refreshing to read.

    cheers,
    gwen

    ReplyDelete
  36. Genocide and colonialism not only wreaked havoc on the survivial of Native peoples, it also reconstructed societal "norms" associated with gender identity. These ideologies about gender identification as either male or female were imposed via colonial regimes such as boarding schools, evangelization, and tribal governments.

    Gwen, you've got to be kidding, right? Native peoples didn't know the difference between boys and girls (hermaphrodites notwithstanding)? The biology of male/female is simply a "reconstructed societal 'norm'"? Gwen, do you even believe this stuff? Seriously?

    As for TM, Sew stumbled on a lovely youtube video of a monkey raping a frog. Since animals rape each other, TM, are you okay with rape? "Refreshing" indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This really just leaves me dumbfounded by putting animals on the same level as humans....I really want this answered by a liberal. This video is not for the faint of heart.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVE60zwXx1k&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
  38. Gwen, did you by any chance get your degree in Diversity Studies/Women's Studies/Anthropology/Sociology or the like? Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Gwen, didn't "First Nation and Indigenous societies in North America" also perform human sacrifice and eat people's hearts or something? But all cultures are created equally, right? (Except for Western Civ, which is the fount of all evil and patriarchy, right?)

    You need to read my friend Kim's conversion story, from radical feminist to Catholic. It's on my sidebar under "pages" and she addresses your mindset.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sorry, Gwen, I just can't leave this alone. Are you actually saying, essentially, that "colonialism" and Christian boarding schools are what "conditioned" the Natives to see themselves as actual men and women?

    Um, you mean they didn't make that determination by noticing the PENIS or VAGINA? Hello?

    But I forgot... to the enlightened ones like yourself, biology is merely a "construct" of a "patriarchal" society of oppressors. Biology is of no consequence to libs on the abortion debate, either, as evidenced by Christa's offerings.

    So much for the "superstitions" of Christians vs. the "science and reason" of secular humanists.

    (Do you have children, Gwen? Are they boys or girls? Or, will you let them determine that for themselves? I'm dead serious. I'd like to know.)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Leila,

    Wow, I don't even know where to begin but your eagerness to pile on the assumptions, cultural bias and your own witless statements astounds me.

    I think there are many profound and wonderful aspects of Western Civilization.

    I never said Indigenous peoples can't see a difference in physical attributes amongst people.

    Yeah, I have a background in every discipline you listed. and then some.

    Your comment about human sacrifice and eating hearts shows great ignorance and hatred on your part. I can't help but wonder if this is a cheap shot to make my blood boil/insult my background.

    I'll try to keep quiet from now on (it's hard).

    gwen

    ReplyDelete
  42. Gwen, are you saying there was no human sacrifice in the ancient indigenous cultures you reference?

    Please answer.

    Your educational background does not surprise me.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Gwen, please don't keep quiet. Engage the discussion. I offered no "hate" to anyone. I stated what I believe to be a fact about human sacrifice in the civilizations you speak of. Do you refute it? Don't tell me I am a hateful liar and not follow-up. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sorry, my grammar's gone bad as my company's arrival gets closer and I haven't done anything to get ready... Sorry! :) I hope to be back later.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I'll give you this, Gwen, I don't know about the "eating" of human hearts, but they were extracted, no? Regardless, I think human sacrifice is yucky and perhaps even....wrong? Just my humble opinion though.

    But I did take us off topic and I apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Gwen, another thought.... Except for the question about your educational background and some other vague comments, I don't think you have ever directly answered even one of the questions posed to you, past or present.

    Why?

    If you ask me a direct question, I will answer you.

    ReplyDelete
  47. No, no I don't think I will engage. It was a mistake for me to post earlier and I am not going to continue with this. At first it was very interesting to read and learn a perspective on the world I am not familiar with and is so very different than my own. Faith and religion can be such beautiful things!

    I have tried to answer your questions but like many conservatives I've known and listened to in the past, you refuse to respect answers that are not simply "yes" or "no"-answers to issues, I might add, that are complicated and deserve more than "yes" or "no" answers.

    I'm not getting into the topic of human sacrifice and organ eating with you. If you wish to believe I think it's a great idea, so be it.

    Lastly, as you asked for an answer to the query "do I have kids?": I do not have children. I tried to share some knowledge with you and it's taken a complete 180 degree turn, from gender roles and different cultures to human sacrifice.

    Think what you want about my background and education, my ideas and my politics. I came here to read and discuss topics of national importance, not to become mired in a defense of my personal life or the choices I made.

    Respectfully staying away,
    gwen

    ReplyDelete
  48. Gwen, I really don't think that Leila was trying to insult you with her comment about human sacrifice.
    No one here is trying to insult you. However, the fact is that there is a simple truth at the root of the most complicated situations.
    Sometimes this truth can be difficult for our fallen human nature to accept, but things are always better when they are done God's way.
    For example, when a woman is facing a difficult situation with an unplanned pregnancy, a Christian/Catholic response would be to show her that she is already a mother and offer her the support she needs to choose life for her baby. If she chooses to keep her baby, then it is the compassionate thing to help her get on her feet with a job and a place to live, and if she chooses to give her baby up for adoption, it is best to support her emotionally as she prepares to make a decision for the benefit of her child.
    If she does have the abortion, then the compassionate action is to give her the counseling she needs to overcome the guilt and depression that so many women face (abortion does hurt women!), and she can find forgiveness and peace in the sacrament of reconciliation.
    The liberal mindset on this seems to be that the compassionate response to the unplanned pregnancy is to let the woman choose to abort her child so that she can get out of the difficult situation because nothing should stand in the way of a woman living her life the way she chooses... not even the gift of a child or according the world, the burden of a child... What I find interesting is that the baby is completely forgotten in all of this. Where is the compassion for the child?
    I know that this is off topic, but I just wanted to point out the difference between the two mindsets. I have heard so many liberal minds discussing feelings and sob stories that attempt to blur the lines between right and wrong. But the simple fact is that blurry or not, the line is still there! Truth does exist!

    ReplyDelete
  49. p.s. I didn't connect my thoughts very well in my previous comment.

    I was trying to say that the simple truth in the unplanned pregnancy situation is that this is a baby who deserves a chance at life. Plain and simple, but this is forgotten out of "compassion" for the woman.
    It seems to me that on most issues, liberals and conservatives have very different definitions of what it means to be compassionate.

    haha so insert this into the middle of my post above, and it might be a little more coherant.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Gwen, you have completely misunderstood my points, and for that I must apologize, for I must not have been clear.

    It doesn't matter to me a bit whether or not you have children. I asked because I wanted to know if you personally would have your children "choose" their own "gender identity." Perhaps you would, but perhaps not. I just wanted to gauge how much you actually believe, personally, that gender roles are fluid (and if you think that is a good thing for children and societies).

    My questioning your educational degree should not make you defensive at all. I made an educated guess based on what you wrote. Why would you be upset that I surmised your field of study? That means you learned it well, right?

    If you asked me if I had an English degree, it wouldn't bother me at all, and I would tell you "yes."

    As for human sacrifice. I in NO WAY was implying that you condone human sacrifice. I thought that was a given, that none of us is for human sacrifice?
    My point was that if those cultures really did have gender-bending norms AND ritual human sacrifice, then they were seriously messed up, not wonderful societies as you have implied. Now, I could be wrong on which civilization you were referring to? If so, I apologize to that ancient group for offending them. I said the heart-eating thing off the cuff, so forgive me for that lapse.

    (BTW, concerning the use of "gender" instead of "sex": the way that the word "gender" has been co-opted, distorted, and politicized by GLBT activists is troubling, but that is a whole other issue....)

    I am not sure you find Catholicism and Christianity a "beautiful thing." New Age, post-Christian liberal feminists tend to despise the Catholic Church in all its hierarchical, patriarchal glory. Which religions do you find beautiful? Please read the story found here. You will identify with some of it:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/p/from-gender-feminism-to-catholicism-by.html

    I know you want me to dive into the complexities of the liberal worldview, which is fluid and changing and relative and situational, etc., but I am a believer in truth. I actually believe there is an objective truth and it can be found and known.

    When I ask ask simple yes or no questions, it simply serves to move us along in the conversation at a systematic and understandable pace. It is not a game of gotcha, it is a case of "please let me understand you." I don't understand liberalspeak, it is true. So, you should have pity on me and help me understand, rather than run away at the first hint of discomfort. You don't need to be so thin-skinned.

    Bottom line, can you answer the question I posed to TM? Can two brothers or two sisters get married? No one will answer. Please?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Bottom line, can you answer the question I posed to TM? Can two brothers or two sisters get married? No one will answer. Please?

    -Well, marriage between brothers and/or sisters would be legally considered incest in many states, though the laws against incest do vary from state to state so....in a state where it was a legal loophole-yes, it could feasibly happen I suppose.

    This will probably rattle your cage, but incest is defined differently throughout the world. In some cultures marrying cross cousins is considered appropriate. In the past, brother/sister marriages have been glorified (Indigenous Hawaii royalty, Peru, Eygpt).

    I must be really dense because I am always "missing the point." I'm sure I've done so again, but in a futile attempt to "answer your question", do I condone brother/sister marriages?: sure. If two siblings really, really want to get married and enjoy a happy relationship-then go right ahead. Do I think this is in imminent danger of actually happening? Heck no. And my work on projects involving victims of incest (where sexual activity is not mutually desired) suggests that there is always a level of abuse, power anger, and frequently substance abuse involved with incest cases.

    Ok, I really don't want to be caught up in this anymore.

    gwen

    ReplyDelete
  52. Gwen, I can't thank you enough. That is all I wanted... a straight answer.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!