Friday, July 26, 2013

Quick Takes: Vindication, and other cool stuff.

I can't believe it! My Quick Takes are on time!



1) Is it wrong to be a tad happy for vindication? A few months back I wrote a post for Catholic Exchange called, Three Things People Don't Know About Same-Sex Marriage, the last item being:

3. Those who decry the slippery slope argument often confirm the slippery slope.

In the over 500 comments that followed, some chided me for this assertion (including our own Miss Gwen, whom I miss on this blog!); however, I recently came across an interesting couple of articles by gay "marriage" proponent Professor Kent Greenfield of Boston College Law School. Just a few months before the Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA, Mr. Greenfield mocked the many friend-of-the-Court legal briefs opposing gay "marriage", including the idea that gay "marriage" would lead to a slippery slope:
Then there’s the fixation on how a ruling in favor of gay marriage will start the nation down a slippery slope toward polygamy and incest. Adam and Steve today; tomorrow Adam, Steve, with Cain and Abel along for the ride as well. But no one seems to notice that the slippery slope worries are as great with heterosexual marriage as same-sex marriage. The slope between gay marriage and polygamous or incestuous gay marriage is no steeper and no slicker than between heterosexual marriage and polygamous or incestuous heterosexual marriage. 
So how would this “slippery slope” danger play out? Is the worry that recognizing marriage equality for gays and lesbians will drive straight men into the arms of their sisters? Well, now you’ve lost me.
The guy just can't see it, apparently! Then four months later, just after the gay "marriage" rulings, our good professor has suddenly, inexplicably reversed himself:
It’s been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something. You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.
I feel like I could have written his next paragraph, after having so many debates about this very issue (my words in blue):
In private conversations with leaders in the [gay] marriage movement [with me, the conversations have been online and public], I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. [Oh my gosh, we hear that all the time on the Bubble: "I don't see people clamoring for incest!" as if they forget that until recently no one was clamoring for gay "marriage" either.] The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, “don’t quote me on that.” [Similar to what I assert in the CE article: 'The same people who mock me for bringing up the “slippery slope” will ultimately admit that “it doesn’t matter” and they “don’t care” if polygamy is legalized or if two sisters marry or if Aunt Frannie wants to marry her dog. And it’s clear that they aren’t kidding. They really don’t care.'] The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Maybe soon the professor will admit that these guys and these guys are queueing up for some recognition as well and might just well have a legal case! Welcome to progressive Utopia.


2) I like this, as it explains the state's three options regarding any activity.

Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry)




3) And from Fr. Barron: Why the Church sometimes has to be a fighting Church:



Clarity. Logic. Ahhhh!


4) So, I've been reading through the Pope's first encyclical, Lumen Fidei (The Light of Faith), and this paragraph struck me as reflective of the conversations we have here on this blog! Don't you think so, too? 
25. Today more than ever, we need to be reminded of this bond between faith and truth, given the crisis of truth in our age. In contemporary culture, we often tend to consider the only real truth to be that of technology: truth is what we succeed in building and measuring by our scientific know-how, truth is what works and what makes life easier and more comfortable. Nowadays this appears as the only truth that is certain, the only truth that can be shared, the only truth that can serve as a basis for discussion or for common undertakings. 
Yet at the other end of the scale we are willing to allow for subjective truths of the individual, which consist in fidelity to his or her deepest convictions, yet these are truths valid only for that individual and not capable of being proposed to others in an effort to serve the common good. But Truth itself, the truth which would comprehensively explain our life as individuals and in society, is regarded with suspicion. Surely this kind of truth — we hear it said — is what was claimed by the great totalitarian movements of the last century, a truth that imposed its own world view in order to crush the actual lives of individuals. 
In the end, what we are left with is relativism, in which the question of universal truth — and ultimately this means the question of God — is no longer relevant. It would be logical, from this point of view, to attempt to sever the bond between religion and truth, because it seems to lie at the root of fanaticism, which proves oppressive for anyone who does not share the same beliefs. In this regard, though, we can speak of a massive amnesia in our contemporary world. The question of truth is really a question of memory, deep memory, for it deals with something prior to ourselves and can succeed in uniting us in a way that transcends our petty and limited individual consciousness. It is a question about the origin of all that is, in whose light we can glimpse the goal and thus the meaning of our common path.
Isn't that beautiful? Identify the problem, and ultimately give hope (which in turn reminds me of this great post from Dr. Stacy). 


5) So excited to report on the Nigerian pro-life conference that we have promoted and supported here in the Bubble! Uju's summary of those amazing days is on the COLAfrica blog, and if you watch the following video, you will see Uju and Nicole (at the 0:27 mark) on the day they attended a five-hour, joy-filled, life-filled mass, which included Confirmations for the children in white!



From the article:
As we got the privilege of spending time with the amazing people of Enugu and Owerri, we found them to be warm, kind, resilient and yes, pro-life to the core. It was as if every single encounter we had was a balm to the soul and a shot in the arm at the same time.  
But one of the highest points of our journey happened on a bright Sunday morning when our gracious Host, Archbishop Anthony Obinna, of Owerri Archdiocese, took us to Mass (worship) with him to a rural Catholic parish in a small village called Orodo. 
To get to Orodo, we journeyed an hour on the dirt-road, passing by small scenic villages, catching a glimpse of rural Africa and seeing the glorious beauty of nature in the African landscape. But the summit of our experience was in meeting the people of Orodo and experiencing first-hand their vibrant faith and their inexplicable joy.  
The men, women and children we met at this local Catholic parish did not have much in terms of material wealth but they had more zest and grace than anyone you'll ever know. And they welcomed us with the warmth and cheer of real family. 
Their faith and fervour were palpable. Their zeal and passion for God was abundantly obvious. Their music was as melodious as any grand choir in any part of the world. The Mass, which lasted for all of 5 hours, was a profound faith experience that will remain emblazoned in our hearts for years and years to come.  
And as the Catholic way of worship is universal, we prayed, we sang, we danced and we listened to the Liturgy along side everyone else. Yes, we sat, stood and knelt with everyone else! So we got to see what we already knew in our hearts - that the Church is a family with one worship and one love for God. In America, Africa, Europe or anywhere else, the worship is the same, from Orodo to Ottawa the Liturgy is the same - pristine and life-giving.  
And we counted it a real blessing for us to experience this in the midst of pure joy and in the embrace of true catholic family that transcends race and nation! 
I cannot say it enough: Uju and Nicole are warrior heroes in this battle for life and love around the globe, and I feel privileged to occupy the same planet as they do. To think it's only been one year since the Blessed Mother inspired Uju to write her open letter to Melinda Gates. Thank you again to all of you who helped with financial assistance and so many prayers. I cannot wait to see what the future holds for this apostolate!



6) Rejoicing with all our readers in the UK on the birth of the new little prince, George Alexander Louis! What joy to celebrate new life on a global scale and to remember that every human life, whether king or peasant, is unrepeatable and of infinite value. I particularly love this picture, as I am old enough to remember when George's father was born:



And readers in the UK should consider attending the following conference on September 27 & 28, hosted by the Anscombe Bioethics Centre:


If you can't attend, please get the word out, and pray for its success!


7) Speaking of unrepeatable, invaluable lives, meet Grant! This little guy was doing well in his baby house when this photo was taken, but since then he has been transferred to an adult mental institution where things are very bad. No child should be in a place like that.

Click my photo for more details!

Please, someone, go get him out. He is eight years old and may not have much time left to be saved. Pray for Grant and all those children with him in that very horrible place. Where there is life, there is hope! 


+++++++


Have a great weekend everyone, and thanks to Jen for hosting!





122 comments:

  1. Regarding the slippery slope of gay marriage, I personally observe a general vibe of apathy from liberals due to a consensus that since Objective Truth is in question, any objective meaning in marriage is uncertain. Frankly, they don't care. Because my truth is my truth and don't put your truth on me. So marriage is what you make it. In this type of progressive state, there will be nothing short of chaos. Hang on. It's about to get real bumpy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know this is a really trivial thing to pick out of your very thoughtful post, but I didn't realize Kate's polka dots echoed Diana's leaving-the-hospital outfit (I know.. I'm behind on my royal news). I must be emotional today because I'm finding that super sweet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't realize that either!!

      Delete
    2. I noticed that too and wondered if it was on purpose. Very sweet!

      Delete
  3. Love the video (I wish there was a font for sarcasm)


    Can one define natural marriage? Can one define natural?

    "the law already treats everyone equally. EVERY CITIZEN can marry someone of the opposite sex"

    Yes and with gay marriage the equality continues, as everyone can marry someone of either sex.

    And the video itself just shows your arguments, really says nothing new or offers any real evidence against gay marriage. Unless I of course missed it. Did I miss it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Short answer: Yes, alan, I think you missed it.

    Alan, let me ask you: What are the natural boundaries for sex? Are there any?

    And how can equality "continue"? Things are either equal or they are not. But I will say that we have not reached marriage "equality" at all if it means that all people get to marry whatever or whomever they want (the lady who married the 600-year-old bridge made some headlines this week). What a mockery of marriage. When everything is marriage, nothing is marriage. And again, it's always the children who will suffer from the adults' selfish wants and social experimentation.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meaning, you are not really for marriage "equality" as long as some people cannot marry whatever or whomever they please. Maybe you are a bigot, if you don't let everyone marry at will? ;)

      Delete
  5. I'm Catholic and faithful to the Church's Teaching but I don't like the first video you post. It seems that the only purpose of marriage is reproduction. Yes it's biology, but it's also biology that you can get pregnant without being married or be married and suffer infertility. Marriage is more than that, it's a lifetime COMMITMENT between two people that are open to the gift of life. I am not a supporter of gay marriage (intended as ideological battle on the concept of marriage or homo couples getting pompous weddings) but I think that is fair to legally recognize civil unions (hetero or homo) so that the spouse could get benefits like health insurance, visitation rights etc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Silvana, I think you miss the point. The video was not a treatise on the full meaning and depth of marriage. It was about why the state is involved at all. The only reason is because of children that naturally (almost always) come from the union of man and woman. The state has no other reason to be involved in anyone's romantic life. To have the state "confirm" one's romances or give benefits because people are "in love" is just creepy. The state traditionally has no interest in marriage outside of the understanding that those unions are what raise and stabilize the next generation of citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think it has nothing to do with romance, the state just recognizes life commitment and partnership between two consenting adults and codifies rights/duties connected with it. If the state has interest in marriage, because is a union stabilizing and raising the next generation of citizen then, why the same state supports divorce?

    ReplyDelete
  8. But again, it's only because of the children who naturally result from the union of man and woman. And hopefully, a state would not "support" divorce. If it does, then that is wrong as well. We Catholics (and most people looking back at the damage!) are against no-fault divorce. It's a scourge on society. Very harmful to children.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The gay marriage issues came up at work today!

    The states involved in this issue do not recognize gay marriage and have constitutional amendments defining marriage. A transfer of property occurred between the "mom-in-law" and the "son-in-law." In order for us to do what we needed to do with the property the transfer had to occur between people related by marriage.

    I took the issue to management and watched their heads explode. Ugh.

    I suspect it was deliberate. The gift and the transaction they were trying to complete was structured in such a way to "force" the "related by marriage" issue. It could have easily been avoided and would have saved some business people from taking Tums to figure out which bear they wanted to fight. The state agency which oversees their business or the PR nightmare if they cause a stir with the gays.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think it's helpful to look at marriage from the societal point of view, instead of always from the point of view of the individual or couple. Sort of a top-down view, rather than limiting ourselves only to the bottom-up view. Also I think it can be a way to make people who are very sensitized to what they feel is injustice to homosexuals to feel less indignant if we say it this way:

    Heterosexuals actually need marriage in ways that same-sex couples do not, and it is all based on the procreative principle of the man-woman relationship. If you look at sexual union as a pleasure vehicle only, then the procreative attribute of man-woman union could be seen as a sort of handicap, one same-sex partners never have to worry about since they will never accidentally conceive a child together since it's impossible. Also, for opposite-sex couples it is important to preserve customs surrounding marriage which are not really codified in law, but that we get from tradition and that are there because of the procreative nature of the man-woman bond, such as the somewhat neglected but still important exhortation to wait for sex until marriage, as well as the presumption of monogamy within marriage. Both of these customs prevent children from being conceived in situations where both of their parents may not be available or interested in caring for them. I have already seen a gay activist and a liberal writer on yahoo news suggesting we should relax our cultural custom on exclusivity, basically trade in monogamy for "monogamish" (occasional "cheating" if both partners agree it's ok). This makes sense in a way for homosexual partnerships, where the purpose of the relationship is the happiness and fulfillment of the partners, but it would be disastrous if this idea takes hold amongst heterosexuals because it would make families and father-child relationships even more problematic.

    That might be a way to help people see one way in which same-sex partnerships really are a different KIND of relationship, and that husband-wife unions really do need to have at least their own name and structure because they really are different than other kinds of relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good morning Leila,

    well, I guess congratulations are in order-congrats on your feelings of vindication. I know it's been a rough year for you, what with Obama's re-election and now the recent court rulings on DOMA.

    As for the Professor and his article, I remain unconvinced of his argument. I don't think it's a slippery slope from here to legalizing hordes of polygamy groups. Where were they before DOMA?

    And if DOMA was still in place, and "traditional" marriage was recognized as only one man and one woman, well why not keep going with that idea and make it illegal for women to own property? Or for interracial couples to marry? Why didn't the pendulum swing the other way? Isn't it just as logical for a definition to influence legislation that is more restrictive?

    In the meantime, two dear lesbian friends of mine are welcoming their first child this fall (a girl!!). They went to the east coast this summer and got married and I for one, could not be happier.

    cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  12. Alan64, it's good to see you here! I think we should be "allowed" to post videos of an opposing viewpoint to the one in this post (gag).

    ReplyDelete
  13. >"And if DOMA was still in place, and "traditional" marriage was recognized as only one man and one woman, well why not keep going with that idea and make it illegal for women to own property? Or for interracial couples to marry?"

    Because society has long since settled those questions and arrived at a virtually unanimous consensus. And actually the Catholic Church led the way. We were right on those issues, and we're right on this one too.

    >"In the meantime, two deal lesbian friends of mine are welcoming their first child this fall (a girl!!). They went to the east coast this summer and got married and I for one, could not be happier."

    Who is the father?

    ReplyDelete
  14. And if DOMA was still in place, and "traditional" marriage was recognized as only one man and one woman, well why not keep going with that idea and make it illegal for women to own property? Or for interracial couples to marry?

    Completely irrelevant comparisons.
    1) What does natural marriage have to do with property? No one wants to skid backwards.
    2) The inter-racial side has nothing to do with gender. It'd be like saying, "How can we let tall and short people marry?" If you're comparing the orientation of gays to physical traits (aka, skin color) then we should also not let dark haired marry light haired people. Physical traits have nothing to do with the topic.

    And you don't see the girl being born as being robbed of a father, but you rejoice in her lack?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Realife98105, until you provide scholarly citations from several peer reviewed sources, I can't take your claim seriously that the Catholic Church "led the way"

    Who is the father you ask? Do you mean the sperm donor? That would be an African-American, medium build, 30s, educated.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nubby, you are missing the point of my argument. It's not irrelevant. You and Leila constantly argue that it's completely "logical" for polygamy to be legalized now that gay marriage is gaining ground. But in light of that, it's also perfectly logical to move in another direction too. Why not go back to viewing marriage as a transaction in which women become the property of their husbands?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I can also tell you Nubby that my friend's baby will have two grandfathers, uncles, aunts, many cousins, and honorary uncles and aunties (like myself). One of the moms is Catholic, but unfortunately after she and her wife got married, the family has basically told them they do not support the marriage, they will continue to treat my friend's wife as a "special friend" and they expect that in the future they will not want to attend family events and they are okay with spending less and less time with my friends and eventually not having them as part of the family. A bit cruel, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am not missing your point at all.
    You made incorrect comparisons. That's just analytic thinking.

    As to your "why not go backwards", the burning question is: why would we? Who is asking for that? No one.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Why do you rejoice that a daughter quite possibly won't know her father as anything more than a sperm giver? You don't find that purposefully designed void an absolute violation of the child's right to know the father?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I can also tell you Nubby that my friend's baby will have two grandfathers, uncles, aunts, many cousins, and honorary uncles and aunties (like myself).

    You really wanna play the "cruel" comparison game, Gwen?
    How cruel is it that all these relationships listed above don't include her father?
    How baseline cruel is that?

    ReplyDelete
  21. You are still missing the point Nubby-this is why I usually refrain from discussion with you (not to mention your insulting tone, as always).

    You tell me Nubby, is it worth it to push away a devoted, loving daughter, and a relationship with a granddaughter in order to get to Heaven? Is that what your God demands?

    This daughter is going to have two well educated, loving, generous parents. I don't see anything wrong with that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You are still missing the point Nubby-this is why I usually refrain from discussion with you (not to mention your insulting tone, as always).

    I haven't missed a single point, Gwen. Neither have I insulted you. Further, my tone is calm on this side of the screen, not sure what you're hearing. Maybe you're letting your emotions get away from you.

    You tell me Nubby, is it worth it to push away a devoted, loving daughter, and a relationship with a granddaughter in order to get to Heaven? Is that what your God demands?

    You're asking me to assign motives to a family relationship/decision? You want me to speak for the dynamics of their relationship? I won't do that. I will say, as far as what "God demands" he demands love and not endorsing sin. How that family chooses (accurately or inaccurately) to live that out is their deal.


    This daughter is going to have two well educated, loving, generous parents. I don't see anything wrong with that.

    Here you admit it, that's clear now. You, the "history teacher", sees nothing wrong with an American child being stripped of her natural (an unalienable, they are listed as such)right to know her father. Do you teach about rights, Gwen?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nubby,

    You did miss the point and I don't think you understand my argument. That's ok. We're going to disagree on this issue and I'm not trying to change your mind.

    I never said you insulted me-I said you always have an insulting tone. I'm not being emotional-maybe you aren't picking up what I'm putting down on this side of the screen?

    Also, I'm not a History teacher. And why is that in quotes? Are you trying to demean my education? Nor do I teach "rights" (whatever rights would those be? you don't specify).

    My friend's daughter is in no way being "stripped" of any rights whatsoever. If you choose to see it that way, that's your problem.

    Folks, I have a dinner party to get ready for so my commenting here is going to be limited from here on out.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  24. My friend's daughter is in no way being "stripped" of any rights whatsoever. If you choose to see it that way, that's your problem.

    False. An outright lie.
    She is being stripped of the right to a natural family. To a mother. To a father. In union. In a family circle. The way in which society has always upheld it and endorsed it, and, spiritually, the way God designed it.

    You see her void as something to be celebrated. Will you judge her pain, when the day comes when she starts to voice her feelings on missing her father?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Miss G - The Catholic Church was against racism before the Democratic party that's for sure. I don't need a peer-reviewed source, just a PC and google to know that. Give it a try! :) Interested in truth? The truth is out there...

    ReplyDelete
  26. >"Who is the father you ask? Do you mean the sperm donor? That would be an African-American, medium build, 30s, educated."

    No I mean the father. Thanks for caring. As a child of an acrimonious divorce, I can tell you that when parents put their wants ahead of their child's needs, nobody really wins. It's a sad situation that is being perpetuated by a sort of voluntary ignorance of a child's rights and needs. Let God be your judge, but I warn you you and your dear lesbian friends will answer for what you are doing. God bless her family for refusing to be manipulated into approving of this gross injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Fr. James Coyle was killed by the KKK for performing interracial marriages. And it's also historical fact that the Church performed interracial marriage ceremonies in states where interracial marriage was illegal. At the time Loving v. Virginia was decided by the Supreme Court, the USCCB (or rather, the equivalent organization, can't remember off the top of my head) issued a statement applauding the decision.

    So, not quite sure where you're getting the idea that the Catholic Church has ever condemned interracial marriage, Miss Gwen. Do you have any sources (peer-reviewed or otherwise) that can prove the contrary?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Also, Miss Gwen, you've dodged the question about your reaction to this poor little girl if someday she laments her lack of a father. Will you tell her sit down and shut up?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Gwen! First, my apologies for being absent for a bit. My husband and I were able to take a quick getaway for our 23rd anniversary! The other commenters did a really great job responding to what you wrote, so I will concentrate just on a couple of things.

    First, please don't misunderstand… there is no "celebration" or congratulations in order for my "vindication". It just means that we continue down the death spiral, with a lot of suffering ahead as the culture unravels and the children become even bigger victims. Yes, it's been rough to watch, but since I'm a Catholic before I am an American, it's not ultimately a problem for me or for the Church. It's a problem for American culture, and it's a problem, again, for the children who will suffer for the selfishness of the adults around them, who want what they want, not matter the consequences to others. Christ promised that we "would have trouble in this world" but not to worry, as he has "overcome the world". In the end and for eternity, all will be well, it's just that a lot of innocent people will have to suffer between now and then. It's nothing we are not aware of.

    How tragic that the little girl (wait, she is still unborn, so she is worthless and not a real person according to you, right?) has had her rights denied her, and was manufactured to be fatherless from the beginning. I really do respectfully request that you read the link JoAnna provided just above, and if you could respond as if you were talking directly to those children, what would you say to them? I am not being snarky…. my heart is aching and I want to know how someone on your side of things would respond directly to the suffering that occurs in these children's lives.

    I ask you, in humility, to read the testimony of Alana, who spoke before the California legislature, and tell me how you would respond to her? Do you feel compassion for her?

    http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2013/06/07/infertility-coverage-part-2/

    I hope I am wrong, but seems as if you base most of your principles and beliefs on the wants of the adults, and the children just have to come along for the ride. Do you think that children have rights? I understand that you believe that the unborn child has no right to anything, including the right to her own life, so I am guessing that children in your mind are there to fulfill the wants and whims of adults, as commodities to be manufactured or disposed of at will? I pray this is not the case, but could you give me the principle that underlies your thinking?

    Finally, praise God for the loving strength of the family who will not approve the immoral actions of the daughter they love. As a parent myself, I know that their hearts must be shattered into a million pieces for the choices that their daughter is making, not only harming her own self, and her own soul, but now bringing a child into the situation. May God comfort the family and keep them strong, and may their daughter come back to the Faith one day (as many do, even if it takes a lifetime).

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hey Leila,
    I salute you for raising difficult questions.
    Being an occasional reader on contentious issues, I very much believe that people need a significant other in order to idealize and confirm the values they stand for. Were there nobody with different claims to certain meanings - "pervert", "unnatural", "marriage" - most people would find it difficult to have their identity confirmed. One should keep in mind the mechanisms and thinking patterns both sides have in common, even if it meant going out of your way. At times I miss the lack of deliberation in discussions like this, as it would help to try to figure out how much those sets of values and norms set both sides apart. I should think they would discover to have much in common, a.e. homosexual parents and Catholics being neither egotistical nor bigots. The Mantle Project is doing a pretty good job on this imho.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi, A.! Thanks! I'm not quite sure what you mean, though? What is the goal that we should be shooting for?

    ReplyDelete
  32. "I think we should be "allowed" to post videos of an opposing viewpoint to the one in this post (gag)."

    Sorry, Gwen, but what was factually or logically gag-worthy about that video? What is the government's role with regard to human behaviors, in your opinion?

    And, reallife, your comment at 11:34pm is very insightful, thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Here is one of my problems with your argument. At heart, it is not against gay marriage. It is about children born outside of sacramental (or even just heterosexual) marriage. The reality is, gay and lesbian people will (and do) have children regardless of whether gay marriage is legal. As will single women who use sperm banks, and a whole host of other people. Your whole argument about caring about children seems to presuppose that without gay marriage there will be no children raised by gay couples. I DO believe in children's rights and if you care about the children, you will support their rights and interests once they are born. And IMO, even as someone who has chosen a VERY different path than gay people, the interests of those children are furthered by legitimizing the relationship of the two people who are raising them (and by allowing them things like health insurance, etc.)

    Think of the laws against "illegitimate" children (such as no inheritance rights) that existed for centuries across most cultures, and that were only overturned in the US fairly recently. People argued the laws were there for children and to encourage legitimacy (birth w/in wedlock) and children having both parents. But the reality is, kids are not always born into ideal situations, and we need to face that reality. No actual children were helped by the laws that discriminated against illegitimate children. I feel here there is some intellectual dishonesty in stating you are against gay marriage because of the children, because the children will be born anyway! I can honestly tell you, that living in the Bay Area, knowing plenty of children with gay parents (actually knowing, not just reading their comments to an article), I don't think ANY of the children would think you have their best interests at heart by opposing gay marriage -- even the children who wish they didn't have, say, a donor bio dad, or whatever. And statistically, MOST of the donor sperm children are born to heterosexual couples anyway, where the man is infertile. I'm a woman married to a man, we have children only from this union, I do not use birth control or ART, but I cannot see anything pro-child about your argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should add -- that you will, of course, support their rights not just once they are born, but once they are conceived, no matter what the circumstances of conception. THAT is pro-child, and pro-life.

      Delete
  34. I love the Marriage = Biology video. I echo your sentiments, "Clarity. Logic. Ahhhh!"

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jessica D., a couple of things. First, I never said that the only reason I am against gay "marriage" is because of the children. Even if no children were born to gay couples (and come to think of it, no children can ever be born to gay couples, because nature won't allow it), I would still be against it. First, because gay "marriage" cannot actually exist. It's an ontological impossibility, as I've said a hundred times. Gay people cannot consummate a marriage. Mutual masturbation and sodomy have never, ever been the "union" called marriage. If you could define marriage (as you see it), it would be helpful, because we are talking about two different things.

    I think the most important thing you've said is this: "But the reality is, kids are not always born into ideal situations, and we need to face that reality." You are absolutely right! And the difference between you and the Church is that you want to celebrate and support and codify the non-ideal situation (even when it's pre-planned by the adults!), and the Church wants to mitigate it and hold up the ideal, as the ideal is not only best for children, it's also best for the common good, for all of society, and certainly for the individual souls involved (souls that will have a destiny long after this world is gone).

    As for your comments about children and the Bay Area, did you read the entire testimony of Alana from CA? She was raised in San Fran. She was raised in a "tolerant" way, just as you probably desire for all. And yet she still says what she does. Please, read it if you haven't. Her arguments are unassailable, and she can speak with moral authority, having been there, and living it out.

    As for ART, the Church has been entirely consistent and has opposed ART for heterosexuals as well. All of the Church's predictions and wisdom on the matter have been borne out. I love Fulton Sheen on this and never tire of repeating:


    Where is that authority except in the Church of the Risen Christ which in each new generation is condemned by the world and then rises to a new and glorious Easter? At least a thousand times the bells have tolled in history for the death of the Church, but the execution never took place; the coffin is ordered by the corpse never appears; the mourners assist at her burial but she sings a requiem over her mourners; still doomed to death, but fated not to die, she survives a thousand crucifixions and a thousand deaths, and alone has survived the crash of all civilizations, because not involved in their ruin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just in case you didn't see the link, here is Alana's testimony before the CA legislature. What a brave woman:

      http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2013/06/07/infertility-coverage-part-2/

      Delete
  36. "...support their rights not just once they are born, but once they are conceived, no matter what the circumstances of conception. THAT is pro-child, and pro-life."

    There is one entity that supports all the rights of children from the moment of conception, and even before conception: The Catholic Church. Here it is:

    A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception." CCC #2378

    Anything else is treating children like commodities, like chattel. Shame on us.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jessica D., before I run downstairs to watch a movie with the fam, just one more question: Can you show me any evidence of the Church not supporting the rights of children (and could you identify those natural and human rights) from conception onward? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  38. I see a difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage. Civil marriage has LONG supported things that are not supported sacramentally (not just by Catholics but by other faiths). I am not proposing ANY kind of shift in sacramental marriage. But I disagree with you (and the Church, I am sorry to say) in terms of their opposition to same-sex civil marriage.

    Re Alana, you are missing the point. My point was, the children are here regardless of whether gay civil marriage is legalized! Also, I do know an adult donor kid (from heterosexual couples) who has had a lot of heartache re his conception. But you or anyone else who is against ART would not be helping this person AT ALL by calling him a manufactured commodity or chattel. You can disagree vehemently with his parents but it is not pro-life and pro-child to make these statements. The children are blessed children of God no matter how they were conceived. And that's what I mean. And again, you are missing the point that any other kind of conception is treating children like chattel or commodities. How is it good for children for you or anyone else to say that? You think all children born using ART are chattels and commodities? That is not pro-life and pro-child! As I said, I did not and would not use ART.

    I am not seeking to change your or anyone else's minds about gay civil marriage. What I am saying is that I personally truly believe that the argument saying it is about the children (and again, being in the Bay Area, that is what our Archbishop has focused on) is intellectually dishonest because the children will be conceived and born anyway. I truly believe people of faith concerned about sacramental marriage should focus on sacramental marriage, not civil marriage between two consenting adults, and that is my respectful opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In terms of the Church not supporting the rights of children, I am not making the argument that the Church doesn't, not at all. I am also not saying that it is the only reason against gay marriage (but it has been the focus of this thread). I am saying this particular argument against gay civil marriage (it is bad for children) rings false and is intellectually dishonest to ME because the children will be born anyway. Just as the argument that laws regarding illegitimacy were about children rings false -- no illegitimate child was helped by those laws, and I'd venture no child actually born to a gay person was actually helped by laws against gay marriage. And, as I said, most children born via ART, donor egg, donor sperm, are born to heterosexual couples. I know that the Church is against ART under all circumstances, but the focus on making gay civil marriage illegal -- as opposed to focusing, say, on making ART illegal. FWIW, there are also plenty of gay couples raising children who were born in a heterosexual marriage.

      Delete
  39. Hi, Ms. Gwen!

    Wow, I can't get past this! "Who is the father you ask? Do you mean the sperm donor? That would be an African-American, medium build, 30s, educated."

    Is that the answer you would give this little girl when she asks who and where her dad is? How incredibly sad for this child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Manda, I agree it is terribly sad and extremely cold. I am still not over the story Miss Gwen told us about her goddaughter, whom she had happily offered to pay to abort (her friend ultimately chose to take Gwen's money to buy shoes instead of abort her child, and Gwen got to be the girl's goddaughter). I don't get how people can treat or think of children in such ways. It is heartbreaking.

      Delete
  40. Jessica D., the fact that gay "marriage" is now about to be entrenched in the culture means that ART will be further entrenched and, for all intents and purposes, impossible to prohibit. You don't see how this all facilitates each other? If gays have a "right" to marry, then they have a "right" to children. And the only way they can get children is by denying them a mother or a father, and by treating them as chattel! That does not mean they are chattel, it means they are being treated as such. I do not in any way believe that the children of ART are chattel. That comes dangerously close to putting words in my mouth. I believe what my Church believes: That all children, no matter how sinfully, horribly or carelessly they were conceived, manufactured or manipulated into existence, are precious and dignified children of God, with rights that cannot be abridged.

    Interestingly, the comments and private emails I have gotten from these children (who are fully aware of the selfish way they were made and conceived) have been to thank me. So, they understand what I mean, even if you don't.

    Let me ask you a question. Think of children of rape. I believe that children of rape are fully dignified, fully human, equal to you and to me and to every other human being on this planet, with the same rights, made in the image of God. I also think that rape is one of the gravest most depraved and evil acts that one human can commit against another human. Do you think that it hurts children of rape for me to say that? To say that rape is evil and should never be supported, lauded, encouraged or enshrined into our land as a positive good? Or do you think children of rape would agree that rape is a very bad thing, and yet still they are good and have full dignity? I am sure that no child of rape wants us to be out there saying that rape is fabulous, just so that they can feel good about themselves. Do you see my point? We can say both things are true at the same time:

    1) There are many wrong, horrible and disordered ways of bringing children into existence.
    2) All children, no matter how they are brought into existence (good or bad) are made in the image and likeness of God and have full human dignity and rights.

    The kids of ART don't need us to lie in order to make them "feel good". They are often the ones suffering because everyone is pretending that the way they were made is a good thing. And if you read this…

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2013/06/should-children-sit-down-and-shut-up.html

    … you will see that they are trying to tell people to STOP saying how great it is, and to please, listen to their pain and their stories. Why won't you hear them? Why won't you join their side? Or are you going to be like the others and tell them to sit down and shut up? I really want to know what you would say to Kaitlin or Kathy, Monsieur Bunel, Professor Lopez, the children who write at anonymousus.org, or the people who have emailed me. Please, tell me what you would say to them. Not to me, to them.



    ReplyDelete
  41. I have not told ANY child to sit down and shut up. And I'm sure you realize the rape analogy -- a non-consensual crime of violence -- is not an apt one. Leila, I'm sure you know, because I've seen other posters link them on your blog, that there are lots of adult children of gay people who say different things about the way they were raised -- those comments you posted are not universal, and I think the fact that you only know (or at least you only talk about) children of gay parents through email or comments, and not in real life, that your viewpoint is limited. And I don't think you want to know -- we all have a tendency towards selection bias, and selectively collecting data. So of course, you believe all the anecdotes that support your position, and find ways to dismiss anecdotes that don't. Anecdotes can be brought on both sides. What would you say to a child or adult who said "legal gay marriage made my life much better because it meant the two people that raised me were legally bound." What would you say to that same person who said "the hardest part of being raised in a gay family was people telling me it was wrong that the two people who raised me loved each other." You would probably say "I am sorry for your pain, I believe you are as valuable and important as any child, but I must follow my personal beliefs and the teachings of my Church." You wouldn't tell them to sit down and shut up.

    And what would I say to the children who have said that being brought up in gay families was terribly damaging for them? I would say that I was very sorry that their upbringing brought them pain, and tell them that they were as valuable and important as any child. And if they felt they needed to advocate against gay marriage as a result of their upbringing, then of course that was their right. But that wouldn't change my opinion about the fallacy of this particular argument against gay marriage -- it doesn't hold water to me at all. And honestly -- I wish it was different, but I just don't see any care about children driving this.

    As I said - I see a difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jessica- so what do you think is driving it? If not care for children?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Kat, I think animus towards homosexuality is driving it. Certainly, the position of the Catholic Church on the morality of homosexual acts is clear, and based on that position, the Church would never support gay marriage (and let me reiterate once again, I am NOT talking about sacramental marriage here, and I am not advocating/supporting any change to sacramental marriage). I think if there was, for example, no way gay people could have children (say, adoption was fully banned, there was no such thing as ART) there would still be the same opposition to gay marriage. I'm an attorney, and I've read most of the transcripts in the Prop 8 case, and I think the argument re children was in large part a legal strategy. What the proponents of Prop 8 had to show as a matter of constitutional law was that there was a rational basis for the state to not allow two same-sex people to marry. "It's against my religion" is not a rational basis. However, the state does have a rational & legitimate interest in the upbringing of children, and that became the centerpiece of the argument as the case progressed. And there were many, many studies about the impact of gay parenting presented from both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jessica, so you are going with the Justice Kennedy stance, i.e., that anyone who is opposed to gay "marriage" is really just a bigot trying to bring harm and animus to homosexuals, correct?

    And you are a Catholic, correct?

    I honestly am trying to understand Catholics who profess a faith, but reject it at the same time. What is your stance on the Christian virtue of chastity in general? And, as an attorney, how do you see the "right" to gays marrying not followed by the "right" for gays to have/raise children (which will never come from their own relationship)? Wouldn't that latter "right" follow the "former"? And how would that square with this (or do you reject the following):

    A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception." CCC #2378

    ReplyDelete
  45. Kat, I think animus towards homosexuality is driving it.

    To me, this says it all. Catholics are bigots. Catholics are mean and nasty and have hatred in their hearts. End of discussion.

    I've heard it a thousand times, and I've learned that at this point, there is no way to have a reasonable discussion. We hate, they love, end of story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait, I am going to take a step back and assume that I misunderstood. Jessica didn't say animus towards homosexuals, she said animus towards homosexuality, and there is a difference. Jessica, I'll let you clarify. If you meant that we have an animus towards sin, you would be right, of course, but I would also say that it's not the reason that gay "marriage" cannot be legitimate. The reason is because its an ontological impossibility.

      Delete
  46. Leila, I think you are really misunderstanding me. I didn't use the words hate, bigotry, or nastiness, and I don't believe this. "Animus" here means "against" -- and that is the truth! It is a moral objection rooted in beliefs about chastity. The Catholic Church IS against homosexual acts -- that is a factual statement. I specifically didn't say the Church was against homosexual PEOPLE. And I also think it is a fact that regardless of whether gay people could have children, the Church would be against gay marriage. Do you not agree? Perhaps I should have said "moral objection to homosexuality?"

    In terms of how Catholics can not support everything -- well, I guess it is just not so easy for some of us. I personally believe in and practice chastity. But I don't feel the need to convince the state to enshrine legally my beliefs.

    Re CCC #2378, I personally accept it. As a lawyer, however, I know this statement about rights is not about legally enforceable rights. So the "right" talked about there is different than "rights" talked about in cases. So I child conceived via IVF, for example, wouldn't have any legal rights to sue even though their "right" under CCC #2378 would have been violated. I suppose the only way to make that into a legally enforceable right would be to outlaw ART entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Jessica, our last two comments passed in the mail so to speak, so thanks for clarifying!

    As for the faith not being so easy for us, Christ never said that following him (obedience to death) would be easy. What do you think your faith and your God requires of you? It can't be comfort and worldly acceptance, can it?

    ReplyDelete
  48. You are right that children cannot sue for their natural rights (how would a child who is aborted sue for his lost right to life, for example), but that does not release the adults in the world from responsibility to assure (to the best of our ability!) that those natural rights are supported and encouraged both morally and legally speaking. That is our obligation to God and to the common good (and to the children), isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  49. No, I don't think it's comfort and worldly acceptance. But I also think there are many issues we are called to address, and in terms of my worldly advocacy, I focus on other issues -- issues Pope Francis has brought to the forefront (such as poverty). I do know and understand the concept of obedience, and I am PERSONALLY obedient in terms of chastity but on this issue I do not believe my personal obedience need translate into political advocacy, especially since I (as you can see from my comments here) have strong disagreements with some of the arguments against gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  50. But again, Catholic to Catholic, I am asking you what God expects of you. The Church that Christ founded to teach in His name (and which He still heads) says that this issue is a non-negotiable. When speaking on this, the pope did not mean privately, he meant in the public square. Here is an exact quote from a 2006 speech to European politicians, by Pope Benedict XVI:

    As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

    -- Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
    -- Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
    -- The protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.


    So the Church is saying that your commitment to the common good on this issue really does need to translate to the political realm. I say this because I honestly have this maternal concern about souls who don't understand the import of what we do and advocate in this world. Maybe it's because I have so many kids, but I really do say the same things to them. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is where you will dwell for eternity. Our salvation (and the salvation of others whom we touch) is the only thing that matters in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jessica D,

    "And I also think it is a fact that regardless of whether gay people could have children, the Church would be against gay marriage."...

    Huh? This is a non-starter. Gay people CAN'T have children naturally, which is the very REASON gays have never been the ones to marry throughout human history.

    Also, when we enter into the Sacrament of Marriage in the Church and we say our vows before God and everyone, we openly agree to enter into the LIFE-GIVING UNION each time we CONSUMMATE our marriage. This is IMPOSSIBLE for gays. It's incompatible, period.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Well then, congratulations on your 23rd anniversary Leila. I hope the getaway brought you and your husband some relaxation and good conversation.

    It looks like a number of clarifications are in order:

    #1) It is absolutely none of my business to initiate my friend's daughter in a conversation about donor sperm. I will leave discussions about that to her parents.

    #2) I am not baptized-so there's no way I can be anyone's god-mother. If you are so horrified and traumatized by my answers why did you specifically ask me to come here and comment???

    #3) "(wait, she is still unborn, so she is worthless and not a real person according to you, right?)" Are you serious?? This comment is all sorts of disgusting. I can't believe you would stoop so low as to suggest that I don't rejoice in my friends pregnancies, welcome the arrival of new children or share their sorrow and grief when miscarriage occurs.

    #4) JoAnna, do you need glasses? I don't think you're picking up what I'm putting down. No, I have never heard of the Catholic Church being the one and only leader of racial equality-perhaps I've missed that piece of history because I'm NOT CATHOLIC? Just a thought. So why would I just take something as fact that you and your ilk spout out about? You certainly never consider any articles I post as having any validity. Also, read carefully I never dodged any question regarding future conversations with my friend's daughter (see comment about preparing for a party). See #1 above.

    #5) to all of you who claim my friend's parents are doing the right thing, etc., etc. I find that incredibly sad and horrific. My friend has been a loving and devoted daughter, sister and aunt. She was born lesbian and she has managed to earn advanced degrees, obtain a great job, buy a house and be in a committed relationship almost 10 years now. There's no reason to remove her from the family circle. There is no justification for her parents behavior. none.

    Lastly, I don't think I want to stick around for anymore conversation here. I'm outraged by #3 in my list above. That's just foul play. Reallife-no worries, I don't believe in an afterlife and if there is one, I sure don't want to be in the same place with you. Oh, and Nubby, making cheap digs like "liar! liar!" doesn't make for effective discussion-are you 3 or 35?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Oh, and Nubby, making cheap digs like "liar! liar!" doesn't make for effective discussion-are you 3 or 35?

    I'm closer to 35.
    I never called you a liar. I refuted your comment by calling it false, which it is.

    Can we cancel out your emotionalism for once on this blog, Gwen?

    1) What do you logically think a Catholic family should do? You're asking the family to endorse your lesbian friend's active sinful lifestyle? No one's calling her a loser or discrediting her academic or professional accomplishments, Gwen. You're missing the spiritual point.

    Why should her parents be bullied into backing down from their beliefs? I'm sure they can find a way for peace, because that is what following Christ is partly supposed to bring. Peace. And Healing. And a Cross. So, realize you're only getting your friend's perspective, not her parents'. Cut the parents some slack, they are suffering, too, right?

    2) Will you acknowledge that the girl born to the lesbian parents will feel a real pain, a real loss? Should we celebrate when families are intentionally broken, whether by design from conception or when a divorce happens? Should we celebrate that the adults got their own "happiness"? Do the children not matter, Gwen?

    ReplyDelete
  54. "(wait, she is still unborn, so she is worthless and not a real person according to you, right?)" Are you serious?? This comment is all sorts of disgusting. I can't believe you would stoop so low as to suggest that I don't rejoice in my friends pregnancies, welcome the arrival of new children or share their sorrow and grief when miscarriage occurs.

    Simple question: Is human life (unborn or born) valuable, worthy, and dignified, or not?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Miss Gwen, thank you for the responses, and in all honestly and sincerity, I wish and pray that you would stop flying off the handle whenever your are challenged, or whenever we use your own previously stated principles or life experiences to question you. I wish you would stick around and actually finish a conversation instead of coming in and then instantly getting "offended" and leaving in a huff whenever we say anything that you don't like (instead of clarifying what we don't understand).

    Please, I beg you, stick around. I have told you many times that I would be happy to take you to coffee if you were ever in Phoenix, and that none of this is personal…. it's about what you believe, it's about ideas, it's about principles and where those principles logically conclude. Fight me on the plane of ideas, but please, stop leaving in a big emotional, self-righteous display. Please?

    Okay, as to #1…. agreed. You don't need to have any discussion with the little girl about her parentage or means of conception. But can we please be honest and drop the advocacy for a minute? How sad, theoretically, to explain to a little child that she has no father except an anonymous man who masturbated into a cup for pay (again, can we PLEASE be honest), and that the adults purposely designed her to be fatherless. Sorry, but that is sad and no amount of spin can change it. Unless you think fathers really, truly are meaningless? Try telling that to this woman: http://www.today.com/news/dying-father-has-last-first-dance-daughter-6C10703525 I mean, we all get that there is something special about a girl and her daddy. No mommy could fill that role in her life. We know this, primordially.

    As to #2), I thought you said you were the godmother to the little girl you had paid to abort? Please help me remember. I could have sworn that was what you said (and yes, it seemed odd, since you are not a Christian).

    As to #3) I never said you didn't rejoice when people were happy to be pregnant, or sorrowful with them when they were sorrowful over a miscarriage. I don't know if you saw Melissa Harris-Perry's statement from the previous post, but I assume that is the same position you hold? That what the feelings of the pregnant woman are are what determines how we feel about the child she carries? So, if she feels it's a child, it's a child, but if she feels it's garbage, it's garbage. Otherwise, I can't make sense of your pro-"choice" stance? Help me understand. Nubby asked it well: Is human life (unborn or born) valuable, worthy, and dignified, or not? Please, help me know what your principle is here. What are the unborn worth? Do they have human dignity?

    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  56. Continued…

    As to #4) I think JoAnna provided factual info. I often take the factual info from the "other side". I use Guttmacher, Slate, HuffPo, the NYTimes often. When they are right and have the facts, I acknowledge that. What is inaccurate about what JoAnna said?

    As to #5) I am not sure we can know if she was "born a lesbian" (how would one know that?). I know pleny of LUG types, and also women who were abused by men who sought solace in women -- not that they were lesbians innately. Second, I thought you said that they would still consider the lesbian partner as a "special friend" of their daughter? Sounds like they are being very kind. Besides, you are not being compassionate to the family. The family sees that their beloved daughter is in grave sin that could jeopardize her soul and the soul of her partner, then they bring in an innocent child (in a gravely sinful way) to be living in that environment and to be purposely created without a father (designed for a loss from the get-go), and raise her to be separated not only from a father, but from God as well. She has left the Faith, and in their minds, she has left Truth, Goodness and Beauty and God Himself. They believe she is acting against her own human dignity. Can you not on some level appreciate that they are in agony, shattered? God bless them for handling themselves with such grace and still loving their daughter. I pray that they will stay in the life of their granddaughter, so that she will not be isolated from practicing Catholics, from a path to grace and truth. God works in mysterious ways, but for you to judge that poor family for standing with integrity and not compromising their deepest held beliefs is just a lack of compassion and understanding.

    You have no idea how much parents suffer and bleed inside when their children have gone astray.

    ReplyDelete
  57. PS: Thank you for your good wishes on our anniversary! We have had a lovely weekend so far. :)

    ReplyDelete
  58. Jessica- Thank you for your answer. You make an interesting point and at least I understand where you are coming from.

    I really think children are the heart of the matter on both sides. I don't think gay marriage would have the push or the drive it does if gay couples could not adopt or otherwise "create" their children. History backs me up on this- the push for gay marriage didn't start until these were options.

    As for the distinction between civil and sacramental marriage. I really understand what you are saying because I've made the same argument in the past. But the question really is as Catholics- is there a distinction?

    Catholics believe God has set out the natural laws and these are Truth. Marriage is defined by the a Almighty. We can't redefine what marriage is anymore than we change what love is. If you call love a different name or you decide to call hate love......does it really change what love is? or are we just playing word games?

    So how can Catholics support a law that codifies something we believe is a lie. How can we support a law that validates and holds as good something that is disordered? Something that is a sin against God--- and will lead others to call that sin "good"?

    At the end of the day any social contract requires a group of people to accept certain concepts as a given. For the first 200 years of our history we were able to be the "Land of the free" without having to be the "Land of Moral Relativism." It seems like overnight that has changed.

    How can we consider ourselves Catholics and support that change?

    We are Catholics 100% of the time. That doesn't change when we go to work or go to the voting booth. At the end of the day does the US Constitution and the current Supreme Court's interpretation of that document trump our God?

    Can we really lead two lives? A public one that supports all manner of sin and a private one that personally believes such things are wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sorry for the typos- using a friend's phone

      Delete
  59. Hi all. In a previous comment (far, far above - and I didn't even read all comments yet) I tried to point out rather cryptically that I believe people hold something all the more dear if they feel it is threatened, as is currently the case with marriage, something I learned as I try to figure out each blogger's agenda beforehand, as there always is one. I came to appreciate just how diverse viewpoints can be - the worst thing somebody who aspires to participate in public discourse nowadays could be accused of is ignorance! Kent Greenfields points are valid, and it's good they get mentioned. However:
    You could also argue marriage could be further "improved" by excluding unpromising couples, be they heterosexual or catholic, beforehand.
    My mother, for example, gave birth to my older sister at the age of 18 because she wanted to escape her family in which she'd ended up as a surrogate mother for her four younger siblings at the age of 10 because her mother just didn't have any interest in her children. Her own daughter (my half-sister) later got a severe psychotic disorder; she never knew her father, as her parents (my mother and her father) divorced three years after her birth (it was a marriage forced by my grandparents anyway). My father adopted her five years later.
    I guess what I'm trying to say here is that although my family had quite a few problems most of my life (suicide attempts, poverty and such), I consider the hardship to be a privilege at the same time, because I now believe in my mother and my family more than ever. Why could it not be of benefit for a child of gay parents to be able to differentiate between the ability and the gender of its parents, just as I learned early the equality between "normal" and "disabled" people? My life would certainly have been easier would my mother have chosen to study instead of escaping into motherhood. But I would have missed out of on things about myself.
    I would like to think gay marriage should not be reduced to an amoral trigger that leads to polygamy, which is still common between heterosexual couples in other fairly religious contries today. My family turned an essential weakness into strength; this could happen in any family that is first deemed "dysfunctional". Family may be far more than marriage, and this may just be the reason why I find it far more important to check on my family and my sister far more often than, say, my friend.
    Sorry for the wall of text! I really hope something of it made sense to some who took the time to read it!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Now the comment looks even bigger than before; my apologies! Next time I'll try and make it short ...

    ReplyDelete
  61. A. I think you are saying that since many people overcome hardship and sin, and since the human spirit is resilient (and from a religious perspective, God brings good out of evil), that it would be okay to set up a child from conception to be a victim of sin and deliberate adversity. But of course, that would in itself be a sin, to willfully make a child's life dysfunctional or painful from the beginning, in order to build future character.

    Putting aside gay "marriage", what other (rights-depriving) situation would you argue that we should put a child into from the beginning, in the hopes that he would one day overcome it? I can't think of any. And in the case of gay "marriage", we not only want to tolerate or allow it, we want to say that it's fabulous! Not only fabulous, but some have argued that it's better in general for a child to be raised by gay parents then his mom and dad!

    God can bring good out of evil (and theologically, all sin is called "moral evil", so don't be upset by the word), but woe to any person who would deliberately sin against a child or put a child in a morally evil situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *than his mom and dad

      And remember, the emphasis here is on the willfulness, the planning, the intent to put a child in a sinful, dysfunctional situation, or deprive him of his most basic natural and human rights.

      Delete
  62. There are all sorts of interesting cheap tricks used here to
    "debate" (and that's using the word very liberally) people of opposing opinions.

    #1 tactic is to dehumanize as much as possible the opposition by reifying the argument in loaded, terms: "(wait, she is still unborn, so she is worthless and not a real person according to you, right?)"

    #2 tactic is to feign surprise when a reaction to #1 is achieved, to paraphrase, "gosh darnit, you're so emotional when you're challenged!"

    #3 tactic is to deny, deny, deny. Example 1: "I never said you didn't rejoice when people were happy to be pregnant, or sorrowful with them when they were sorrowful over a miscarriage." In fact, you said I consider human fetuses "worthless." Example 2: "I never called you a liar. I refuted your comment by calling it false, which it is." In fact, you said, "False. An outright lie." in response to my comment, "My friend's daughter is in no way being "stripped" of any rights whatsoever. If you choose to see it that way, that's your problem." You called my statement a lie which effectively means you called me a liar. Own your own actions.

    So you'll excuse me if I take some time responding to your questions. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are other aspects of my life that take priority to having "conversations" here.


    ReplyDelete
  63. Nubby's queries:

    1) What do you logically think a Catholic family should do?

    -Love their daughter, love their granddaughter, love their daughter's wife

    Why should her parents be bullied into backing down from their beliefs?

    -I'll follow your lead: False. Outright Lie! No one ever bullied the parents.

    2) Will you acknowledge that the girl born to the lesbian parents will feel a real pain, a real loss? Should we celebrate when families are intentionally broken, whether by design from conception or when a divorce happens?

    -The baby is in utero. As far as I know, she is developing internal organs and kicking her mom so it's really jumping the gun to start trying to read into feelings that aren't there.

    -This family is not broken. That's your judgment.

    "Simple question: Is human life (unborn or born) valuable, worthy, and dignified, or not?"

    I prefer the phrase, 'life is precious.'

    ReplyDelete
  64. Responses to Leila's questions.

    1) Do people really want details on their conceptions? My father once pointed out the cottage where he and my mother were living the summer I was conceived. I felt no need to further press him, "so, what did you have for dinner the night you had sex with mom and conceived me?" or "what sex positions did you engage in?" or "how many rounds of love making happened?" I mean, really. I have no idea what future conversations will occur with my friends and their daughter but I'm sure they will convey how much they wanted her, how much they love each other and how happy they are that she made them a family.

    2) I am not a god-mother. I was asked to be one but that was not possible. I'm an auntie.

    3) I'm pro-choice.

    4) Never said JoAnna wasn't presenting what she thinks is fact, I asked for back-up and denied that her claim is some sort of universal fact.

    5) My friend is lesbian. She was born lesbian. She identifies as lesbian. She grew up to be a happy, well adjusted lesbian. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "I'm pro-choice"

    What does that mean? How does it answer my specific questions? You speak specifically of a "baby" developing in the womb. Is it a baby? Is she only a baby because she is wanted? Are allowed to kill babies if we don't like them or if we decide they are not babies (or we feel they are not)?

    Is it too much to have you get a tad more specific?

    And, I think that "mom and dad getting frisky in their marriage" or "mom and dad making love on their wedding night and conceiving me" or something to that effect is not the sort of thing that makes people form anonymous support groups like this one: anonymousus.org

    So, I ask again: What rights do children have? Did you read Alana's testimony (raised very "tolerantly" and with much love)?

    Here are couple of her comments:

    "The facts of my conception are that my father was paid to abandon me. There is no dignity in that. I suffered from debilitating identity issues, mistrust of the opposite sex, hatred and condemnation of the opposite sex, feelings of objectification- like I only exist as a play-toy for others, and feeling like a science experiment."

    "If people can take away something so precious as a mother or father and make us feel like we should be grateful for the loss, what else can people take away from us?"

    This is a vast social experiment on children. How do you respond when the children say things like Alana is saying? Do you tell them to be grateful and be quiet? That they were loved and that is more than enough? I thought liberals wanted to hear the "lived experiences" of others, but in this case, I don't see it. What are the rights of children?

    And back to pro-"choice": In your mind, what is the worth of an unborn child? Is her life inviolable, or can she be taken out with the trash? Honest question. I am begging you to be very specific. Is a child's worth and life and value based on what the adults around her feel about her?

    Thanks, Gwen. Take your time. We all understand what it means to be busy. I am part of a family of ten, and we are all together in this house this summer. It's crazy here, too.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Back from a little jaunt with the kidlings, and I kept thinking about the sentence: "I am pro-choice." But it's a euphemism. Everyone is pro-choice. I am pro-choice when it comes to just about anything that is not immoral or illegal. I make choices every day and so does everyone. We all make choices. I chose to give my child a quick bath tonight instead of a long one. I made a choice to eat leftovers. I am going to choose tonight whether or not to go to sleep early or stay up late and write. But when you say, "I am pro-choice", I want you to get more specific. What "choice" are you talking about? I would say that any choice which involves a strong person killing a weaker person (esp. breaking the mother/child bond) is not a morally permissible choice. Unless killing innocents can be morally good (and I don't live in that universe). So, you call her a baby, but you are happy to pay to kill the baby if it's not wanted (the one who is now born and whom you love). Do feelings determine wether or not someone else is human? Or whether we can kill that person? Are you in agreement with Melissa Harris-Perry? (I think you must secretly think her an embarrassment to your side, because you are intelligent to see that what she is saying is nonsensical; I wish you would say it publicly.)

    I just don't get the "pro-choice" thing as an answer to whether or not unborn children (babies as you call them) are worthy and valuable vs. pieces of trash to be taken out with the rest of the medical waste.

    ReplyDelete
  67. What do you logically think a Catholic family should do? - I asked

    -Love their daughter, love their granddaughter, love their daughter's wife - You say


    Back from hockey practice and I'm tired, so here goes nothing.

    Love or endorse? Your idea of love is endorsement of feelings. Catholic love is anything but. It's sacrificial, a taming of the flesh and of passions for a higher purpose. What's striking about this "love" talk and "happiness" talk is that you are talking a completely base level of happiness. It's completely foreign to someone who knows Jesus Christ and follows him. You must at least understand this basic idea from all the months you've been reading Leila's blog. Therefore, one would hope you'd be able to grant some grace to the parents' predicament. Do you think they're really thrilled about having to distance themselves from their daughter? Do you think they're celebrating this brokenness? Oh, come to think of it, should they be?

    Why should her parents be bullied into backing down from their beliefs?

    -I'll follow your lead: False. Outright Lie! No one ever bullied the parents.


    Call it manipulation, call it demanding validation for life choices, call it emotional crippling. Does your friend honestly not see her parents' side to this?

    Will you acknowledge that the girl born to the lesbian parents will feel a real pain, a real loss? Should we celebrate when families are intentionally broken, whether by design from conception or when a divorce happens? I ask.

    -The baby is in utero. As far as I know, she is developing internal organs and kicking her mom so it's really jumping the gun to start trying to read into feelings that aren't there.

    -This family is not broken. That's your judgment. You say.


    Gee, what's your best guess, Gwen? Speculate. Do you know how it feels to lose a parent? I do. It will come up at some point for this girl, and it will hurt. So, since you won't answer this question. I'll answer it for you. Yes, she will feel pain, real loss, amid confused feelings and possibly some resentment.

    The family is broken from the get-go with no thought to the child's right to know her father, to contact her father, to be loved and taught and protected by her father, as no woman will ever be able to give her. And you celebrate this robbery.

    "Simple question: Is human life (unborn or born) valuable, worthy, and dignified, or not?" I say.

    I prefer the phrase, 'life is precious.' You say.


    Based on what? Is life only precious once it's birthed into the world? How about once it's aged to 80 yrs? What are your parameters? Why is it precious outside of the womb but not inside the womb?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Haven't we been over this before? I mean, it comes as no surprise that I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc.

    Quite simply, I believe every woman has a right to reproductive healthcare, abortion included. She has the right to decide whether or not to become a parent and whether she makes that decision through abstinence, contraception, adoption or abortion, is her decision.

    I can respect Alana's group, but I know that doesn't represent the entire community. I know several married and single parents who chose the IVF route to conceive children. I know some lesbian couples who have adopted and some who have chosen IVF. I think you are imposing feelings on children that simply aren't there. I will try to check back with you in a decade and let you know what's going on with my friend's daughter.

    What does the term "pro-life" really mean anyways? It seems to only apply to certain circumstances: developing fetuses, sex and euthanasia. And why do you choose to demonize your opponents as members of a made up group, the "culture of death"? A term no one else recognizes.

    As for my friend's family and that situation: maybe you can explain how and why getting to Heaven should be determined by treating a lesbian daughter with respect and love or telling her "you don't want/expect her and her family to be involved in family events anymore"

    Calling other peoples' families broken sounds really outrageously contemptuous-why stigmatize other people who live differently?

    onwards with the day

    ReplyDelete
  69. Okay, Gwen, I get it. You are not going to answer the specific questions I asked. I have tried, and you simply will not do it. Maybe next time.

    I will keep trying.

    Have a good day!

    ReplyDelete
  70. She has the right to decide whether or not to become a parent and whether she makes that decision through abstinence, contraception, adoption or abortion, is her decision.

    So, on one hand, you say, "life is precious". On the other hand, we've got this above.
    Concluding confusion: Is life precious enough to be protected at all stages? Where is the logic in this stance?
    What's your measuring stick? Do feelings determine when life is precious and even which life is precious?

    As for my friend's family and that situation: maybe you can explain how and why getting to Heaven should be determined by treating a lesbian daughter with respect and love or telling her "you don't want/expect her and her family to be involved in family events anymore"

    Gwen, are you comprehending (honestly) the Catholic understanding of love? Honest inquiry.

    If you get that Christian love is all about denying ourselves (selfish motives) and avoiding sin, while joyfully striving for love that is higher, then you can see plain as day, where the parents are coming from.

    They are in a great deal of pain to separate from their daughter, correct? Ask your friend. I bet she gets that much.

    You see it as your friend being slighted by her immovable parents.
    The parents see it as a true wound to the soul of their daughter, the lesbian lover, and now, the undeniable chaos that will surround the child being brought into this design.
    It's not pandering or patronizing love, Gwen. It's a love that wants to serve, but serve rightly, even if that includes pain for a time, a cross to deal with.

    I'm sure they do not hate their daughter. But what their daughter should not expect is for them to full endorse what she must know goes against the very fabric of who they are in Christ.

    Calling other peoples' families broken sounds really outrageously contemptuous-why stigmatize other people who live differently?

    Outrageously contemptuous to call a family broken? Then you would have to apply that same logic to the child's defense. You hold her right to relate to her father in contempt because of the way you're shouting down the truth that she is being willfully withheld from knowing him.

    ReplyDelete
  71. What in the world have I not been specific about?

    "This is a vast social experiment on children."
    -that's your opinion, not mine.

    "How do you respond when the children say things like Alana is saying? Do you tell them to be grateful and be quiet?"
    -the people posting on Alana's site are entitled to their opinions too. I'm not telling them to be quiet.

    -"What are the rights of children?" You tell me-what are the rights of children? I have yet to meet a child in person raised by gay/lesbian parents who felt slighted, unloved, wronged or from a broken family.

    "And back to pro-"choice": In your mind, what is the worth of an unborn child?"
    -I'm not applying value to a developing fetus.

    Why do you think women have abortions?

    "Honest question. I am begging you to be very specific. Is a child's worth and life and value based on what the adults around her feel about her?"

    -a fetus is different from a child. Back to my question, why do you think women have abortions?

    We aren't going to agree on this and I won't pander to your mis-construing or re-arranging my words. For instance, I never argued that someone can be "taken out as trash."

    Nubby:
    I find it ironic that so often on here people get upset that secular culture is changing definitions-i.e., "gay marriage" but the reality is, the Catholic Church has a dictionary of terms all its own. So what else is re-defined by the Catholic Church? I'm curious about creating a list here:

    Love
    Anthropology
    Marriage
    Dignity


    As for my friend-the falling out with the family seems to have occurred directly after the announcement they had gotten hitched on the east coast. Before that, they seemed somewhat genuinely happy about the pregnancy. My friend has no pretensions about them changing their faith. She doesn't consider herself Catholic anymore.

    Why doesn't my friend deserve the "dignity" of a committed, sexual relationship? a family of her own? recognition for being born lesbian?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Why doesn't my friend deserve the "dignity" of a committed, sexual relationship? a family of her own? recognition for being born lesbian?

    A) Who's withholding her dignity? That's a God-given dignity you speak of, no person can give that to her. That's unalienable, so to speak. People don't give other people value (ironically, after RvW they do!), it's inherent because it transcends what people/humans are even capable of giving. Her parents don't "give it" to her, as much as they uphold it and respect it.

    B) Who's withholding her from having a family of her own? Quite the opposite is being played out, right, Gwen? Ironically, it is she who is getting a family of her own , but her own daughter doesn't get a choice in her family, now, does she? Where's daddy? She gets a family of her own, if she feels led to do that, but what she shouldn't expect, again, is for others to leap with excitement at her life choices. It's immoral in the eyes of her family and of God.

    C) Who's denying that she feels she was born gay? And what does it matter to her should anyone even "recognize" that? What shape would that take? Celebrate with a cake? Sing a song about it? I'm seriously asking. What's the criterion?
    Even better, why the need for recognition? Does everyone need outside validation for life choices, career paths, relationships, etc?

    Doesn't that strike you as a tad insecure, as well? I was a minority in the workplace when I worked outside the home (female:male), should I have demanded recognition for that?

    D) The bit about re-defining and defining terms is incoherent. The Catholic Church is not in the business of redefining terms for public agenda purposes. That's what the culture does because it has a bridge in the swamps it wants to sell you.

    Here's your link to find the meanings in several contexts. The search results for "love" alone yielded 4,780 results in various contexts, which you would want and need to fully understand an those words appropriately:

    http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

    ReplyDelete
  73. "This is a vast social experiment on children."
    -that's your opinion, not mine.


    Wait. One of the main criticisms of Regnerus' study was that there is not a big enough sample of homosexual "married" couples raising children to adulthood to know anything yet. So, what gives? Is this something new we are imposing on children that has never been tried on such a societal scale before, or is this not?

    -the people posting on Alana's site are entitled to their opinions too. I'm not telling them to be quiet.

    But she is saying this has to stop. She is saying that children are harmed. I gave you two statements that she gave in her testimony. Could you address those specifically, as if you were talking to her?

    You tell me-what are the rights of children?

    Here are the rights of children:

    A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."

    Now, what do you think are the rights of children?

    I have yet to meet a child in person raised by gay/lesbian parents who felt slighted, unloved, wronged or from a broken family.

    But again, that's the thing. Kids just don't go around saying things against the people they love. That is why their support groups are largely anonymous. Why would the kids tell their primordial angst to you, if they have it? It's something most of them cannot even speak about. It's a very painful thing and the emotions conflict on a scale we cannot imagine. Again I ask, why are their support groups for these adult children, but no support groups for "I was conceived and raised by my mom and dad"?

    -I'm not applying value to a developing fetus.

    Then why did you call your friend's unborn baby a baby? Is she a baby? Is she kicking inside "her mom" as you say? Help me understand how you can say that and also say she has no value.

    Women have abortions for an incredible range of reason, from coercion (very common) to financial worries, to a desire not to have their studies interrupted, to feelings of total desperation, etc. None of those reasons cannot be addressed and the life of the child spared (refer any of them to me or Nubby or JoAnna or anyone here and we will get them exactly the help and care and support they need, wherever they are), and none of those reasons can ever justify the killing of an innocent human being.

    For instance, I never argued that someone can be "taken out as trash."

    Are you lobbying, then, for proper burial of children after they are aborted? So, they can be killed as if they are worthless, but you want them to be buried like humans? Or, are you okay with the remains of the fetuses being taken out with the medical waste? Please be specific.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And just to be clear, my quote regarding the rights of children is from the Catechism.

      Delete
  74. Why doesn't my friend deserve the "dignity" of a committed, sexual relationship?

    It's not a matter of her not receiving dignity, it's that there is a context to everything. Getting what we want isn't the highest form of happiness. But to try to explain that to someone who doesn't either want to hear it, or cannot apprehend it at the present, won't make for tight conversation, right?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Why doesn't my friend deserve the "dignity" of a committed, sexual relationship? a family of her own? recognition for being born lesbian?
    Is it just me or does anyone else find this series of questions odd?

    Your friend doesn't deserve dignity. She HAS dignity. She was conceived into existence dignity and worth in all. What she doesn't deserve, and none of us do, is a committed, sexual relationship, a family of her own, or recognition (i.e. embracing of) her sexual orientation as if it is somehow different from her as a human being. Recognition of her dignity and worth as a human being she does most definitely deserve. Everything else you mentioned are not guaranteed rights. A right is something that necessarily MUST be recognized equally in everyone across the board regardless of sex, race, or age at all times. Unless you're going to tell me that my 2 1/2 mth old newborn has the right to a committed sexual relationship or that he can confirm his sexual orientation status despite the fact that he is unaware that there such things as boys and girls, penises and vaginas and he deserves that recognition... then I think I have answered those questions.

    Hopefully it made some sense.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Nubby, if heterosexual people throw weddings, wedding showers, engagement photo sessions, engagement parties, baby showers, etc. why would you think LGBTQ people wouldn't also want to have celebratory moments in their lives surrounded by family and friends?

    I don't see any acknowledgment of inherent human dignity when LBGTQ people are told that their sexual behavior is a sin and disordered, they may never have a (same sex) relationship worthy of recognition and they are never to be parents.

    "The Catholic Church is not in the business of redefining terms for public agenda purposes."
    -An outright lie! Catholic apologetics has its own recent understanding of what anthropology is and it has nothing to do with the discipline or science of anthropology.

    Leila, I won't accept the Regenerus "study" as any kind of authoritative source for talking about LGBTQ families.

    "I'm not applying value to a developing fetus.

    "Then why did you call your friend's unborn baby a baby? Is she a baby? Is she kicking inside "her mom" as you say? Help me understand how you can say that and also say she has no value."

    -Because as human beings, we tend to ascribe meaning and value to our lives-even to biological processes that occur. My friend's unborn baby is a loved and expected baby-there is already meaning attached to her. That is not to say that women who have abortions don't have attachments to their babies or have emotions or find meaning in their situation either. But if a woman if deciding on abortion, she is making some difficult decisions and applying value laden terms to her situation-putting words in her mouth before she does, isn't helpful in my opinion.

    The idea of women being coerced into having abortions in this country is, as far as I know, a great big misconception that anti-choice people use all the time to garner support for their cause.

    As for the rights of a child, interesting that no where did you write, a child has a right to a biological male and female parent. As for the allusions to children as gifts, gifts can appear in all sorts of situations. IVF doesn't always work-maybe it's a gift that it did in this situation and my friend has had a smooth pregnancy?

    "Your friend doesn't deserve dignity. She HAS dignity. She was conceived into existence dignity and worth in all."

    -But you won't recognize her dignity as an active, sexual being or a parent. You take for granted that heteronormativity of your community that showers praise and recognition on you for being a straight, married person.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Leila it's funny you critiquing Gwen for not directly answering questions.
    Go back to my post and see what question you neglected to directly answer.

    No you chose to ask a different question (a common technique by you) and then focus on equality.

    So you asked "what are the natural boundries of sex?" My answer would be I have no idea what the question means. For you, and I think I have this right, sex can only happen when the penis climaxes in the vagina. That, and that alone is sex. Am I right on your thoughts? All the other stuff you may or may not do leading up to said climax (and for fairness lets assume that sex only requires the climax of the penis as we all not it is not always mutual) is not sex, but rather mutual masterbation. Or are we saying that the only natural form of sex is penis insertion into vagina and all others are not allowed? Sorry trying to ask an honest question with out being graphic.

    As for the equality portion, I am merely pointing out that the video claims we all have currently the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. And if gay marriage is legal we all now have the right to marry someone of the same sex. So really that is a non argument. I am saying nothing about polygamy or your right to marry a building (I will ask did they obtain a civil marriage license before the marriage? How'd the building sign it?)

    So read what I wrote. I am merely pointing out the flaw (which you will not see) that of course we all currently have equality in marriage rights.

    Gwen, as usual you are spot on. I love that you are the one being called emotional and they are logical. That makes no sense to me.

    Jessica D, you rock. Thank you for your explanation. You get your point across so much better than I think I do.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Nubby, if heterosexual people throw weddings, wedding showers, engagement photo sessions, engagement parties, baby showers, etc. why would you think LGBTQ people wouldn't also want to have celebratory moments in their lives surrounded by family and friends?

    They can do those things. That has nothing to do with demanding respect for and endorsement of it. It has nothing to do with the example of your friend's parents needing to accept it as nominal. The crux of the issue is that your friend desires her life choices to be validated by people who have no moral (or even social) responsibility to validate such choices, correct? In fact, it's the direct opposite: they have a moral responsibility not to accept or validate those choices, as Catholics.

    You see their conundrum? This point has been made several times. It's not a "feel good" choice to distance ourselves from sin or from those we care about who want us to validate their sin. It's painful and it in no way indicates a lack of love or caring. It's rather the full-on opposite.

    I don't see any acknowledgment of inherent human dignity when LBGTQ people are told that their sexual behavior is a sin and disordered, they may never have a (same sex) relationship worthy of recognition and they are never to be parents.

    Gwen. Inherent human dignity is there. Her parents are not destroying her life, her reputation, or detracting from the fact that she is an adult human with dignity. Correct? They are upholding her dignity by the very act of withdrawing from her at this time . You can't or won't see it. It's an impasse. We've talked to this already. They upheld her dignity by not aborting her, for heaven's sake, quite the irony.

    What we haven't talked to is your idea of 'life being precious' but somehow contingent upon desire. How can it be precious one moment and not worthy of life the next? When is it worthy? Upon desire only?
    Or is there an inherent dignity already present that deserves respect and protection, the moment that genetic code is in place and starts to metabolize? Why would the degree of preciousness change?
    Based on what, for you?

    "The Catholic Church is not in the business of redefining terms for public agenda purposes."
    -An outright lie! Catholic apologetics has its own recent understanding of what anthropology is and it has nothing to do with the discipline or science of anthropology.


    So, your implication is that... the Church is some evil empire that strives to deceive the masses regarding anthropology? The Church has a negative agenda about the very souls it cares about regarding anything to do with the discipline or science of anthropology? Why this rabbit trail of discussion? Can we stick on point? Abortion parameters being #1.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "Again I ask, why are their support groups for these adult children, but no support groups for "I was conceived and raised by my mom and dad"? "

    Are you stating that no child raised by a mother and a father has ever complained about their upbringing?

    When one points out the many children championing gay marriage who were raised by two same sex parents you claim it's because of the amazing human spirit that can get through all adversity (ok I am phrasing in my own words, but I think it is a fair representation) but give their parents no acknowledgement. That is kind of short sighted.

    But rest assured there are many many many people raised by heterosexuals that will indeed have angst about it. Just because a penis and vagina raise a child does not mean they are doing it right.

    As for "pro choice" its simply that. Many of us believe that a woman has the right to choose for herself. It has nothing to do with the worth of the baby (embryo, fetus or whatever term you want to use). It does not make us advocates for abortion. It merely means that we understand that a woman, and that woman alone should make her decisions.
    Argue that all you want.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Because as human beings, we tend to ascribe meaning and value to our lives-even to biological processes that occur .

    I don't ascribe meaning to a metabolizing cell, beyond what it truly is, Gwen. That process just is what it is. That cell has a full genetic code, it is, and will be, human- no other species- from the start. It is what biology says it is. I don't need to ascribe meaning or value to a scientific fact, in this capacity.

    The argument is not that there is meaning or value ascribed to the process- that's just plain biology. It's that meaning or value (or lack of value) is ascribed by people who want to use feelings as parameters. The process is happening, the cell is dividing, no matter what a person thinks or says. It's biology unfolding the way it should.

    As a non believer, why are you not upholding science, or dignifying biology?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Are you stating that no child raised by a mother and a father has ever complained about their upbringing?

    Alan, you didn't understand what I said. Let me try it this way. Let's say all things are equal (kid was raised in love, no serious physical abuse). We don't see any anonymous support groups springing up for kids who were conceived and raised by their parents, but we do see them by kids who were artificially conceived and/or brought up by gay people, purposely made to be motherless or fatherless.

    Just this very morning a (liberal) friend of mine, who is conflicted on the gay "marriage" issue (she has attended a gay "wedding" and lives in Seattle with her atheist husband was trying to show me that it might be okay for gays to marry and raise kids, despite the obstacles. And yet, she curiously put this sentence in:

    I was a "teacher" in a preschool yrs back (b/c it was a co-op and all parents had to work there) and one little boy told me that he did not have a dad. He said it out of the blue to me..(he has two moms)..as if to confide in me. It was a hard moment and I was surprised and I know what the kid meant.

    Yes, even she knew what the little kid meant. And it was a hard moment. How terribly sad. A heartbreak, really. Even he, at a young age, was naming his loss. One day, he will understand that that loss was planned for him from the get-go.

    As for abortion being a "choice" in the way you describe: Do you also understand the women who kill their children after birth at some point? It doesn't mean you advocate it, it just means you understand that a woman might make that choice, and it has nothing to do with the worth of the baby. Would you agree with that? If not, what is the difference, except the location of the baby?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Leila, I won't accept the Regenerus "study" as any kind of authoritative source for talking about LGBTQ families.

    Gwen, understood. And the reason most people give for rejecting it (well, those who are not cursing him and being vitriolic) is that there are not enough examples of stable "married" gay couples raising kids to understand outcomes yet. No?

    My friend's unborn baby is a loved and expected baby-there is already meaning attached to her.

    Does that baby only have "meaning" because someone else "attached" it to her? What if she were the exact same child she is right now, but no one wanted or loved her? Would she have any inherent meaning or worth or value? Or could she be killed and taken out with the medical waste? I really hope you will answer: Is a child only worth something when someone wants the child?

    As for coercion, I guess you have not sat with women who weep over how they were pressured (usually by a mother or a boyfriend) to abort. Will you listen to those women's voices? I've known women destroyed by their coerced abortions. And one who expected to get "counseling" (like she saw in the movie "If These Walls Could Talk"), but only got pressure from the people there, including the abortionist who convinced her she should abort as she had a yeast infection. She was destroyed at having given in to the pressure at a vulnerable time and could not forgive herself for killing her child. I have always wanted to tell Gina's story (heartbreak) but haven't had the fortitude yet.

    I know a therapist who works for Rachel's Vineyard and those retreats. I wish you could understand the coercion that does go on. I don't expect you to read or accept this, but for others reading, please look at the coercion that is involved in the abortion industry:

    http://www.theunchoice.com/coerced.htm

    Even if not every abortion is coerced, many, many are.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Leila,
    "Yes, even she knew what the little kid meant"

    Umm huh? What did the little kid mean? How do you and she assume he was mentioning it as a sense of loss or missing something. Perhaps it was meant as a statement of fact? Did you, or even she, consider that?

    The difference is the location of the baby. And the fact that the baby has been born. To some it's all the difference in the world. The embryo cannot survive without the mother. A baby which has been born cannot.

    I believe you and I have had the war discussion and you were on the side if the war were justified, or we were protecting ourselves then it's ok. Am I incorrect about this? If I'am correct then you are rationalizing killing. What's the difference? Innocence? In war the innocent also die.

    Do you have any interest in scrolling up and answering the first question I asked? If you don't well then there is no need for your further critiquing of Gwen for not answering your questions (and from what I see she has and continues to answer them)

    ReplyDelete
  84. Alan, sorry, if I missed a question it might be because I do not get your comments in my email inbox for some reason.

    Yes, sexual union is when a man and a woman come together in natural intercourse. Yes. Anything else (sodomy, oral sex to climax, rubbing up against each other, foreplay, etc.) is not sexual union. It's sodomy or mutual masturbation.

    As for equality, then basically, if we make it legal for all people to marry objects, or children, or multiple persons, then we also are all "equal" under the law, and we would have marriage equality (for real this time), correct?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Well, thank God they only want tolerance, and not forced acceptance and loss of religious liberty for the rest of us:

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/

    Yes, I am being very sarcastic.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Your friend doesn't deserve dignity. She HAS dignity. She was conceived into existence dignity and worth in all."

    -But you won't recognize her dignity as an active, sexual being or a parent. You take for granted that heteronormativity of your community that showers praise and recognition on you for being a straight, married person.


    I'm not even sure how to address this, because it is beyond a ridiculous idea. I don't recognize anyone's dignity outside of them simply being a human in existence. Nobody should. To apply dignity to a specific attribute (out of many I might add) is to quantify dignity (or create caste system out of dignity). As if someone can have more dignity than another because they attributes or characteristics. I'm sorry but the dignity of a person isn't based on a popularity contest. If that's what the LGBTQ community is retaliating against, then it's no wonder why there is such a massive chasm of space between us.

    Being married, being a parent, these are not some sort of high praise rewards for "having the right kind of dignity" or "having more dignity than others." These are services and sacrifices that some people, certain people are supposed to fulfill. Specific people able to contribute specific services to a community. It has nothing to do with the dignity of a human being.

    If the LGBTQ community is wanting advocating same-sex marriage, and wanting children/to be parents in a legal way, because their looking for the State to demand people recognize their dignity, their completely and utterly missing the point. We already recognize their dignity. We just know that their inherent dignity and worth has nothing to do with who their attracted to, or whether or not their parents. In fact their inherent dignity has nothing to do with whether or not they sin or choose to sin.

    Rather we will continue to point out their sinful behavior not because we don't recognize their dignity, but because WE DO RECOGNIZE their dignity, and sinning (whether they believe they're sinning or not) is not how one should recognize their own beautiful dignity.

    I hope that makes sense, I'm writing in a flurry as I'm trying desperately to get my children on board with cleaning the house and getting out of "survival mode" and into "maintenance mode". Wish me luck!

    ReplyDelete
  87. Bethany, that was beautifully stated, and crystal clear. If Gwen or alan do not understand it, then it is because we are operating in such vastly different paradigms. Sometimes, a paradigm shift is the "aha" moment where the lightbulb goes on (we have all experienced it), and I pray that your comments are that "aha" moment for our friends on the other side -- if not to join us, at least to get clarity about how we perceive human dignity.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Leila,
    The question is still there, all you have to do is scroll up. Its funny you have replied to the other aspects of the post, just not the original question.

    So again you wanted to know what sexual boundries were, but as we view things entirely differently it's simply an unanswerable questions. You seem to be denying that oral, anal, foreplay and such are sexual acts. To me they are.

    Look at the video. I'm not sure what you are missing. The video states we all have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex as equality in marriage?
    I say if gays are allowed to marry then we still all have equality to marry someone of the opposite sex. So the argument that we all currently have equal rights to marry is a silly one when made by you.

    I am not speaking to the marrying of children (which I'll point out that in previous conversations you have said your church is ok with 14 year old girls marrying) and we all know that one cannot marry an inanimate object as a large part of marriage is entering into it willingly. Is it not?
    As for polygamy, I have said before that is there fight. Not mine. But if you are going to continue to state that currently we all have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex I will point out that gay marriage doesn't change the equality of it.

    As for Bethany, umm yeah crystal clear.
    When have I mentioned dignity?
    But we've discussed sin before haven't we? And how I don't believe in your sins, so that again is a non argument.
    I don't believe homosexual actions area sin. You do. So you think I don't deserve the right to be married to my husband because it is a sin. Not because I lack dignity. But simply because you view it as a sin.

    So when are you and all your little friends going to have your "aha" moment and open YOUR eyes?

    ReplyDelete
  89. and I think you are confusing dignity with acceptance, and acceptance with legal recognition.

    We are looking for legal recognition, as it includes legal benefits. As I think the only homosexual commenting here I am more uniquely qualified to speak to what we are really seeking. We don't care about getting married in your church. We don't care if we have your acceptance. We don't care if you think we have dignity or not. We just want you to stay out of our lives and whom we legally, civilly marry. I'm not saying we don't care to be ugly, but just to evidence that we are tired of being told how we are to live our lives. You bemoan when you think we are doing that to you (just look at all the comments about us "affecting your lively hood) and then turn around and think it's ok to tell us what we can and cannot do.

    Is that truly so hard to understand?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Alan that part was in response to Miss Gwen and her friend, not you.

    So you think I don't deserve the right to be married to my husband because it is a sin. Not because I lack dignity. But simply because you view it as a sin.

    No, Alan, you misunderstand. I don't think you don't deserve the right to be married because homosexual acts are sinful. I don't think there is a "right to be married." Period. And I don't believe the State has a vested interest in recognizing, via legal benefits, any and all relationships because the parties involved "love each other."
    While the parties involved may desire marriage and seek out because they "love each other", I don't believe (in fact I'm pretty darn sure) the State issues those licenses (the recognition you seek) because the parties "love each other". And I don't believe the State should.

    I believe that the State has a vested interest in recognizing specific types of service. And the service that a marriage involving 1 man and 1 woman provide is that is the most stable, efficient, cost-effective means of securing the well-being of the next generation of laborers and tax-payers.

    In fact that is what the State is recognizing when it issues a marriage license, It's not recognizing the relationship, per se, it's recognizing the service that that relationship provides in its mere potential to reproduce.

    THAT is why I am for traditional marriage and against same sex-marriage as a civil entity. As loving and as wonderful as your relationship with your man may be, Alan, I don't see it offering a service that the State would or should have a vested interest in recognizing any more than I see the relationship between college roommates or siblings offering a service that should be recognized by the State in the same way.

    If you can tell me what service your relationship provides that the State should have a vested interest in and tell me how that service compares to producing the next generation of laborers and tax-payers (in the most cost-effective, efficient, stable means) and why your service should then receive the exact same benefits for a completely different service THEN we would have a jumping off point for furthering our discussion.

    Hope that makes sense.




    ReplyDelete
  91. Bethany,
    Leila stated that your response should be crystal clear to Gwen and me. I was merely responding to Leila that I have mentioned nothing about dignity. So perhaps you should point out to Leila that your response was too Gwen and not me.

    I'd like to point out the most important words in your whole response though "I believe". I have no doubt you do. But does that mean what you believe is correct? No.

    Many have said that the government is vested in stable relationships. Many have mentioned that marriage binds people. Heck even the video says it "civilizes men". And you are missing the point that a great many gay marriages include "the next generation of laborers and tax-payers."

    So if government has a vested interest in promoting stable relationships for the greater good of society, and a vested interest in "the next generation of laborers and tax-payers" then the government has a vested interest in making gay marriages legal.

    And the "services" we offer as a married couple are no different than the services you offer.

    Bethany let me ask why you got married? Was it just because you loved your husband or was it something deeper?

    Why do you suppose I got married? It appears that you, Leila and all the rest seem to think I got married simply because I was in love. And yes that was part of it, which I think you will have to admit that was part of why you got married. I mean I don't assume you married someone you didn't love, or did you? The simple fact is there is so much more than just love that me and the hubby share. Like you prpbably have,we have days where it's all roses and days where it's all thorns. Days where we want to throw it in. But let me tell you my husband flew half way around the country to be with me when my best friend of 36 years died. That to me is what our marriage is all about. If you don't see that my relationship is different than that of college roommates or siblings then I will simply tell you that your mind, heart and eyes simply aren't open.

    I hope this makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  92. To answer your question, I got married to my husband, because I did and do love him, and yes it was something deeper. It's called a vocation, called by God. Even if you (royal) don't believe in God, He still calls you to particular vocations.

    And I understand what your saying about your relationship.
    I get it, you have many of the same of feelings and behave much in the same way that my husband and I would. And while I believe that that relationship could and should exist in much the same way without having engage in sexual relations, none of that is relevant when discussing civil marriage. In other words, whether I believe you're committing a sin by engaging in homosexual acts is irrelevant to the civil marriage discussion.

    WHY I got married - the reasons behind I or behind anyone else getting married - have absolutely nothing to do with the reasons WHY the government grants certain relationships marriage licenses.
    The fact that not a single question on the application for a marriage licenses asks about whether or not the parties involved love each other.

    And yes, my sister would fly around the world to be with me if a long-held friend passed away.

    But I didn't say that your relationship (in practice) is the same as college roommates or siblings. I said that the service your relationship provides to the State is no different than the service college roommates or siblings might offer.

    And yes, while the State does have a vested interest in the next generation of tax payers, and while yes there are gay couples who are bringing up a handful of that next generation, you conveniently left out the most cost-effective, most efficient, part. Because for the State money is important.

    There are legal benefits that are awarded to parents regardless of their marital status. These are the benefits that are provided due to the State's vested interest in the next generation of tax-payers. But they ALSO have a vested interest in promoting those relationships (1 man/ 1 woman marriage) in which there is the potential for producing that next generation of laborers and tax-payers in the MOST STABLE, MOST EFFICIENT, MOST COST-EFFECTIVE way.

    And the "services" we offer as a married couple are no different than the services you offer.

    No, this is simply untrue. My husband and I can make a baby and then raise that baby, in the most natural, stable, cost-effective, efficient means. (No IVF, no surrogacy, no donor situations, no test tubes, no nothing - and no I have nothing against the children that are a result from any of these situations, but the fact of the matter is all of this makes the process of creating children - what is supposed to be a natural and biological process - expensive, time-consuming, and potentially problematic in a bioethical way) You and your man cannot. THAT is the service we provide. So no you don't provide the same service we do. I'm sorry, but physically, biologically you can't, as in are not able to, do not have the ability to.

    So again I ask, what is the service, since you physically, biologically are unable to create that next generation in the most efficient and cost-effective way, that your relationship provides the State that is unique to your relationship as opposed to other relationships, and do you believe that the State should award the same legal benefits for it even though it is completely different from the service we provide?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Thank you, Bethany! I just read this brilliant (and so sad) piece by Alan Newman, the donor-conceived child who is exposing the problems therein. This is just a bombshell piece:

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/08/10511/

    And if anyone has the time for it, Princeton Prof. Robert George gave a speech this week to the YAF conference (my nephew is attending!) and he explains why the "economic" side of things is tied so closely to the necessity of traditional marriage and families:

    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/36603963

    He uses no religious arguments. He is brilliant, and we ignore these truths at our peril.

    ReplyDelete
  94. So Bethany, the only service you offer that I do cannot is creating a child biologically?

    So what about those who are heterosexual but cannot create a baby biologically?

    If I follow your wisdom of "in the most efficient and cost-effective way" then they too should not be allowed to get married? How will you argue that? When you got your license did you sign on the line where you were both able to have babies? Or were going to?

    So again I will tell you the service I offer that the government is and should be interested in is a stable relationship. Stable relationships make a more stable society.
    The service that my gay friends with families serve is bringing in the next generation of tax payers and workers. Not sure what that financial cost matters.

    And for the record, the difference is only the biological creation of children (which fyi to the best of my knowledge I can create a baby biologically just like you can, heck in the exact same way should I choose) and you'll say that is a big difference, but I'll point out again and again and again that if you are telling me the government can deny me a marriage license due to that then the fact remains that no couples incapable of having biological children should be given a government license (ie old folks getting married and those that are infertile)

    Make sense? I mean do you understand. Not agree with, but simply understand.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Alan:

    How would that play out? Modern medicine as amazing as it is----can't explain everything. All you have to do is spend some time around women with fertility issues and find out that doctors get things wrong all the time. Infertile women conceive all the time. Women conceive late in life all the time.

    Other women- can't conceive at all and the doctors can't explain it.

    The couple's fertility is never a black and white issue. Advancements in medicine mean new treatments come out every decade if not every year.

    I'm not just talking about "fertility treatments" but just general health. We know more about conceiving a healthy child today than my mother knew back in the 60's. We have a much better understanding of the roles hormones play in our lives. Fertility just isn't as cut and dry as your argument makes it out to be. That's why every Catholic you make this argument to talks to you about how the marriage has to be "ordered to creating life" and "open to life"

    And the government as a matter of public policy is not going to get into the business of deciding who is or who is not fertile.

    But do you seriously not see the different between a government refusing to say a male/female couple is infertile (because even doctors can't be 100% accurate) and the government saying a male/male couple will never conceive and therefore does not need the rights/protections we give couples who can?

    ReplyDelete
  96. "You take for granted that heteronormativity of your community that showers praise and recognition on you for being a straight, married person."

    This has me laughing for 10 minutes.

    Leila, I regret to inform you I must take back my "Happy Anniversary" wishes I sent you. In my intellectually lazy way, I did not clearly think through my actions.

    You see by wishing you a "Happy Anniversary" I contributed to creating the "heteronomaritivity" (Did I spell that right? The spell check didn't recognize the word anymore than I did.) of our community. Apparently the "heeronomaritivity" makes some people in our community feel outcasted and unloved.

    I'm not entirely sure why this is the case. But clearly if I cannot extend "Happy Anniversary" wishes to everyone I should just keep my "praise and recognition" to myself so that we can all have happy, normal, inclusive lives.

    On another note. I would like to extend an generic Happy Birthday to everyone......(WAIT- C-Section babies!) ummm..... oh forget it. No one have a good day- it is too much work.

    :-) I kid, I kid. But seriously, when I pouted because my brother got "praise and recognition" he rightly deserved my parents lovingly told me to stop acting like a brat.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Gwen- Please take my comment as it was intended. Just as some good nature teasing.

    I grew up with lots of brothers and we teased each other all the time to help make our points and make sure none of us were taking ourselves too seriously. It isn't intended to be mean.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Alan - I understand what you're saying. I also realize, that you are either misunderstanding me.

    So what about those who are heterosexual but cannot create a baby biologically?

    If I follow your wisdom of "in the most efficient and cost-effective way" then they too should not be allowed to get married? How will you argue that? When you got your license did you sign on the line where you were both able to have babies? Or were going to?


    As has been stated time and time again, the basic requirement for human reproduction is male/female, not male/male or female/female. In reality, that's all you need.

    No I didn't sign on a line saying we were going to have babies, but we did sign on a line where one of the questions asked if we were related within a certain degree of separation. Tell me, do you know why they ask this? 'Cause I do. I've quoted this line many times from Eddie Izzard, "First rule of genetics, spread the genes apart!" The application doesn't ask, because it doesn't have to, simply being male and female biological concedes the most basic requirement for reproduction. It is assumed by the application, which is why they ask about degrees of relation.

    And while I grant you the idea that the State has a vested interest in stable relationships. How does the stability of your (same-sex) relationship differ from the stability of other relationships so that it would deserve recognition and legal benefits and does that difference make your stability unique enough to warrant recognition and legal benefits? In fact, I would probably argue that the State doesn't so much have a vested interest in stable relationships but in stabilizing ALL relationships.

    Now what I think is interesting is that you said this,
    (which fyi to the best of my knowledge I can create a baby biologically just like you can, heck in the exact same way should I choose

    Exactly, Alan. You can. That's what makes it equal.

    Thanks, Kat, exactly!

    ReplyDelete
  99. Kat
    "But do you seriously not see the different between a government refusing to say a male/female couple is infertile (because even doctors can't be 100% accurate) and the government saying a male/male couple will never conceive and therefore does not need the rights/protections we give couples who can?"

    Of course there is a difference. There is a difference between men and women, yet do we all have to follow the same laws?

    But the rights/protections should be granted to all married couples.

    Yes some people thought to be infertile are not, and occasionally an older couple will get pregnant, although that is not the majority. And what of people who don't want children? They are still legally allowed to wed.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Bethany I am not misunderstanding you at all.

    Yes I understand why those related cannot marry. Not the same thing at all.

    And you think you got your "gotcha"moment because I can procreate biologically. But even if I did it would be raised by me and my husband, so the government still needs to protect that.

    And no Bethany that is not what makes it equal. What you continue to miss is if gay marriage is legal you can now marry a female. Thats what makes gay marriage equal and your so called natural marriage not.

    Off on vacation now so no more time to debate.

    ReplyDelete
  101. sorry in my rush to go on vacation I misspoke.

    What I should have said is that gay marriage and natural marriage are equal in their equality. They both allow the same privileges to all of us. Thus equal.

    So hopefully this clarification will stop you all from jumping on my faux pas that your natural marriage does not offer equality.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I want to back up for a moment. I have a bad tendency to read a statement here, a statement there, and work off solely of those. So even though I read everything else, it doesn't always register in my head.

    Alan, you said that your man flew half way around the country to be with you when your friend of 36 years passed away. First of all, I don't know how recently this happened, but I offer you my condolences, and whether you believe in God or not, I will pray for you and your friend.

    Second, I'm astonished (completely serious) at having had a best friend for that long. Considering that I don't even turn 35 until October, and because my family moved around a lot when I was young, the best friend I've known the longest who is still my best friend is my husband (going on 17 years, 13 married). I can only imagine you were really close.

    You described what your man did for you (flying back and all) as what marriage is all about. But let me ask you this, if, God forbid, it had been your man who had passed away, would your best friend of 36 years flown half around the country to be with you? If you were as close as I extrapolate that you were, I reckon to bet they would have.

    So then why do you see such a difference between the relationships (the relationship between you and your best friend of 36 years, and the relationship between you and your man), I asked myself as I was putting my toddler down to sleep this evening.

    It's because you feel differently toward your man than you did toward your best friend. I acknowledge that, and if it didn't seem like it before, I am acknowledging this now.

    The way you feel toward your man, you believe (and in many ways probably is) similar if not the same as I feel toward my man. I get it.
    While I may see homosexual acts as sinful, I will never, ever take away from the feelings that you have for anyone.

    The problem is, you seem to think that the recognition and legal benefits, my husband and I receive from the State are because of the feelings we have for each other. Since you two have the same feelings, why shouldn't you receive that recognition and those benefits too?

    Except that the State isn't recognizing our feelings, the legal benefits aren't awarded because of our feelings. For the State, our feelings have nothing to do with it.

    What I should have said is that gay marriage and natural marriage are equal in their equality. They both allow the same privileges to all of us. Thus equal.

    Equal in their equality? That makes no sense. I'm wondering if you mean equal in their dignity. And yet they're not equal in the reasons why the State is granting those privileges. The State is granting those privileges to all 1man/1woman marriages because within that relationship there lies the inherent potential ability to create children (whether they want to or not). That potential ability is what is being recognized and given benefits.




    ReplyDelete
  103. I'm sorry that Miss Gwen has not come back to respond and continue the discussion.

    But I came back here after seeing this posted on facebook:

    "Someone I know was forced to have an abortion when she was a teenager. It happened in 1990 in Phoenix, AZ.

    She doesn't remember the name of the abortion clinic and would find healing and closure by finding it. The abortion clinic may have shut down by now, but we are trying to get a list of all abortion clinics that were operating in Phoenix in 1990.

    Does anyone know how to get that information?"


    I was reminded of Gwen's statement that coercion into abortion "is a great misconception" (women and girls are not coerced, according to Gwen). I hope the woman searching for the clinic in which her child was killed can find the healing she seeks after all these years.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Continuing on with the question of coercion, I read this today, from someone on my blog roll. I don't know her, but I know many like her. I've talked to them. They seem to spring up everywhere. It is such a tragedy.

    http://postabortionwalk.blogspot.com/2013/08/26-years.html

    I wish Miss Gwen would read it and open her heart just a bit to really hear what her fellow woman is saying. No one talks like this about an appendectomy. Why is this different? Why do women fall into depression and suicidal ideation, even years after their abortions? I wish Miss Gwen and others who advocate abortion as good for women would stop and talk to post-abortive women who are never the same. And who were coerced. Here is the blogger's subhead, under the haunting photo of the bridge to the city:

    At the tender age of 17, I walked across this bridge, alone, into Downtown Pittsburgh, with $300 in my pocket that my mother had given me to get an abortion. I went into the Fulton Building (in the picture) and did what I was told to do. I didn't have a choice - if I did, I wouldn't have chosen abortion.

    Coercion, whether subtle or overt (or even violent) is part and parcel of most abortions.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Bethany,
    Thank you for the condolences. Yes it was just five months ago. I am about to turn 49 this month, and I met her when I was 12.

    And yes she would have flown half way around the world for me. Does that make our relationship equal to marriage? I understand the differences in relationships.

    "The problem is, you seem to think that the recognition and legal benefits, my husband and I receive from the State are because of the feelings we have for each other. "

    Actually this is not true at all. Yes modern day marriages begin with feelings. I don't think anyone can deny this. I have asked many times if you loved your spouse when you got married, and the answer I always get is yes.

    A marriage is so much more than just feelings. It's two people building a life together. Creating a family (and yes a family can be created without children) together. It's about thinking of the other before thinking of yourself. There's so much more to it. But all you see is that I think it is all about the feelings. That makes me sad that you so cannot see what I am saying here.

    As for equality, what I said makes perfect sense. The video claims that we all currently have marriage equality, and I state that gay marriage doesn't change that. You can now marry another women. Thats equal.

    And please understand, regardless of how you feel about it, gay marriages can create families. The government does not, should not, differentiate between families who have biological children or adopted children. It does not, nor should not differentiate between families who have biological children or children through IVF, donors or any other ways that children can be created.

    The government does not ask if you plan to have children. But you are making civil marriage only about he ability to naturally procreate, and that is not what marriage is all about.

    Not sure if you will read this as it is many days later, but I hope you do.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Welcome back from vacation, Alan. We go on one next week (if you count going to my MIL's a vacation.) I appreciate you writing back, and I think may see where we are talking past each other at.

    First of all, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I may make a supposition; if I were to ask you, WHY you marriage equality, as you define it, my guess is your answer could be reduced down (think reducing fractions, not reducing as in making small or light of) to marriage equality as you define it (men can marry men or women, and women can marry men or women - which is really anybody can marry anybody) is fair. Would that be a correct supposition?

    The rest of my discussion depends upon whether my supposition is correct or whether you correct my supposition. So I hope you'll respond.

    However, I would like to address this:
    But you are making civil marriage only about he ability to naturally procreate, and that is not what marriage is all about.
    I realize that marriage is not solely about the inherent natural potential ability to procreate, but the civil recognition and legal benefits of marriage is only about the inherent natural potential ability to procreate.

    Essentially, while marriage is not only about the potential ability to naturally procreate, you can't and don't have a marriage without it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That should read "WHY you want marriage equality,"

      Delete
  107. Bethany, Thanks, vacation was fun.
    I don't count going to MIL's as vacation unless she lives on the beach. I get to forgo my annual pilgrimage to the Inlaws this year for plethora of reasons. Not complaining, I love them, love seeing them but just too much drama to go down south.

    Now I'm not sure what you are saying with your in your supposition.

    I don't think "anybody can marry anybody". I don't agree with polygamy if this is where this discussion is going (and it has oh so many times) because I think marriage is a commitment to ONE person. That is, to me, the stable relationship that the government needs to protect.

    I don't think you should be able to a sibling or close relation as those relationships are different than those intended for married couple.

    I don't think you should be able to marry a minor. Although Leila doesn't seem to respond when I ask this, but she once told me that her church said a girl could marry at 14, a boy at 16. Is this true of the catholic church?

    I'm not talking about marriage equality here. The video stated that we all have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. So we already have equality in marriage. I am merely stating that allowing everyone the capability of marrying someone of the opposite sex that definition of equality does not change. I think this is where we are talking past each other.

    So if your supposition is that I think anyone should be able to marry anyone then no that is not correct.
    Did I answer that the way you intended?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Now for this:

    "However, I would like to address this:
    But you are making civil marriage only about he ability to naturally procreate, and that is not what marriage is all about.

    I realize that marriage is not solely about the inherent natural potential ability to procreate, but the civil recognition and legal benefits of marriage is only about the inherent natural potential ability to procreate."

    Not true. I believe you started this line of discussion with the government has the duty to protect the next generation (I am paraphrasing so forgive me)? Well that next generation can, and indeed is, being raised by homosexual couples. Those children, those families deserve the protection of marriage as well. I think I stated before that the government has no business in how the children are created, nor should they have any say in it.

    "Essentially, while marriage is not only about the potential ability to naturally procreate, you can't and don't have a marriage without it."

    Well now this simply is not true. I do have it. I can show you my license if you would like. You can sit there and say I don't, that it isn't ontologically possible, and I will tell you it is possible.

    I wonder what would make your marriage so much different that mine if you didn't, it you couldn't, if you didn't want to have children?

    And please dig deeper than a penis and a vagina (we can use your terms if you find my medical terms crass, however what I write is the difference in our marriages.)

    The ability or desire to procreate is not a prerequisite to marriage.

    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!