The opinion piece below is copied from Right Wisconsin, a conservative online news blog. The author is Rick Esenberg, a Marquette University law professor and conservative.
________________________________________________ I know this will be tough medicine for many conservatives, but it needs to be said: Republicans need to let it go when it comes to the gay marriage issue. Our current position is a loser politically, an embarrassment socially, and a raving hypocrisy morally.
Let me explain:
It is a loser politically. I hate to break it to you folks, but this issue is lost. The tide of history has turned, courts are overturning gay marriage bans left and right Poll after poll shows that voters’ attitudes on this issue have changed. The Wisconsin constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man woman agreement would almost surely fail today. For Republicans to dig in on this issue is an exercise in self-destructive futility. It is the political equivalent of fortifying the Maginot Line rather that acknowledging that the technology of the war we are waging has fundamentally changed and rendered our formerly impregnable bulwark obsolete. In its day, gay marriage was a potent wedge issue that worked well to the advantage of the GOP. Today that political calculus has flipped. Whether we agree with it or not and whether we like it or not, voter attitudes have changed profoundly with regard to homosexuality. That is true across all sectors but it especially true among our young people. Acceptance, tolerance, accommodation…whatever you want to call it is the norm among our under 30 set when it comes to homosexual individuals. Homosexuality inspires neither fear nor loathing in this generation. A Republican Party that clings doggedly to an old anti-gay orthodoxy on the issue most certainly inspires both to this growing demographic. That is a political risk that cannot be ignored.
It is an embarrassment socially. When the GOP claims that opposition to gay marriage is a way to defend and affirm the importance of marriage in our society, it embarrasses itself. How is anyone expected to believe that Republicans actually oppose gay marriage because we have such a high regard for traditional marriage as a building block of society? Really? Would that be the party of the once divorced Ronald Reagan or the twice divorced Newt Gingrich? Or maybe the party of Mark Sanford "hiking the Appalachian trail" with his Argentinian mistress? Marriage may indeed be the foundation of a civil society, but the GOP is hardly a credible messenger for that message. No matter what anyone thinks of gay marriage, it is hard to imagine that gay unions will do a worse job in terms of fidelity and stability than our heterosexual marriages have done of late. The institution of marriage has been cheapened almost beyond recognition in today’s society. It has been more a disposable ticket to a preferred tax status than a lifelong commitment to love, honor, and cherish. In an era of no fault divorce, where nearly all marriages are treated as marriages of convenience – when they are no longer convenient we dissolve them – arguing that gay marriage will somehow weaken the institution is absurd to the point of farce.
Finally, it is morally hypocritical. Being anti-homosexual in the name of Judeo-Christian morality or "traditional family values" is the ultimate example of obsessing over the speck in your brother’s eye while ignoring the beam in your own eye.
Some people may want to argue over the "sinfulness" of homosexuality based on the Judeo-Christian tradition and scriptures. But it impossible to argue where those same traditions and scriptures stand on the sinfulness of heterosexual sex outside of the bounds of marriage. For every Biblical proof text you want to assert in opposition to homosexuality, I will give you 20 in clear unequivocal opposition to adultery or fornication.
Yet, here we are living comfortably in a sex-drenched culture where it is nearly impossible at any hour of the day or night to turn on the TV, listen to the radio, or go to the movies without being slapped in the face with unapologetic extramarital sex. Heterosexual sex before marriage is hailed as a rite of passage. Adulterous affairs within heterosexual marriages are portrayed as spicy adventures in true love. Casual heterosexual sex with multiple partners is celebrated and laughed at throughout our pop culture. And yet somehow we want to argue that homosexuality is a sanctionable threat to our society’s moral fiber?
Do not think for a minute that I am preaching an amoral anything goes relativism. I am merely pointing out that if anyone in the GOP really wants to create a more "moral" society they’d better pack a lunch because there is a lot of immorality out there – sexual and otherwise – to deal with before we go singling out homosexuals. In fact, I’m reasonably confident most gay couples would be willing to take the gamble if you told them, "Once we clean up society’s act values-wise on greed, adultery, hate, jealousy, and lying, we’re going to politely ask you to cease and desist with the gay marriage thing, OK?"
Simply put: the gay marriage issue is not a hill worth dying on for the GOP – and make no mistake we will die on it if we choose to make our fight on this ground. Like it or not, the times and attitudes have changed. From a political standpoint the GOP is on the losing side of this argument and continuing to cling to our current position threatens to drag down our ability to win on other critically important issues.
It’s time to let it go.
|
158 comments:
Agreed. Very cogent piece, Haz.
No, a bad idea is a bad idea.
Conservative law professor is an oxymoron.
I think the professor's broader point is that it's time for the Republican party and the social conservatives to get a divorce.
I hate to break it to you folks, but this issue is lost. The tide of history has turned, courts are overturning gay marriage bans left and right Poll after poll shows that voters’ attitudes on this issue have changed.
If the tide is turning, then why do the courts have to strike down laws limiting or banning same sex marriage that have been voted in BY the voters. If the tide had truly turned, then the ballot measures would have been resoundingly defeated.
It is a loser politically. … courts are overturning gay marriage bans left and right
Evidence of a politically unpopular position: Democratically enacted laws (including plebiscites) are overturned by a handful of unelected judges.
... it is hard to imagine that gay unions will do a worse job in terms of fidelity and stability than our heterosexual marriages have done of late.
This appears to be what law profs consider "data".
I'm not bothered by gayness. But I am bothered by lameness.
As kids we would play the game of diving off the boat and swimming down to pick up the anchor. We felt so strong at first, then so weak trying to both tread water and throw the anchor into the boat. We always had to let it go. Didn't want to drown after all.
From a political standpoint, how can one disagree with this pragmatic position? I can't. And even though I am a practicing, sinful Catholic, I actually don't give a rip if gays 'marry'. We are all civilly married in the hetero world in tandem with our sacramental marriage. So civil away. And religious/sacrament away IF the faith allows/accepts that. But I am fully aware of a potential longterm fallout from this position - namely that my Catholic faith could be accosted and my Church forced to comply (see Denver bakery). THAT pisses me off just like the ACA does. Live and let live works both ways, but both sides want to stake out a hill and die on it.
I think the professor's broader point is that it's time for the Republican party and the social conservatives to get a divorce.
Yeah, that's Crack Emcee's position, too. Let's see how the Republican Party does when it pisses off its most loyal voters in return for ... what?
While I'm no fan of social conservatism as the driving force of government (it tends to ignore the things that government actually can and should do in favor of things the government can only do poorly), removing them from the Republican Party is the one sure way to make certain that the Republican Party becomes a non-entity, politically.
It's impossible to take someone pushing this point of view seriously in terms of electoral politics.
Like I said, conservative law professor is an oxymoron.
The resistance to gay marriage certainly turns off a lot of people, but so does giving in on issues. Which one costs you more votes is debatable. Since judges can't overturn which candidate voters elect based on "fairness", I think the argument he makes about it costing elections is not born out. The tide is mostly turning only on the decision of liberal judges to reverse the voters decisions.
In the long run, I do believe opposing gay marriage is a loser, but probably not quite yet. Personally, I don't oppose gay marriage so much as the fanatics pushing it. I like to push back against that stuff just because I hate bullies. Even though I fully support gay unions, I will vote against gay marriage if it's being carried in a basket of bullying and facism. Bullying is the loser position on gay marriage right now.
@Meade - I put up this topic for several reasons. One reason was to engage others in conversation.
Another reason was to test whether you are a man of your word. You aren't.
Remember back when you promised that you'd not return here if we would just stop talking about you and your wife? this post mentions neither of you, directly or indirectly.
I have deleted your comment. thank you for showing your true character.
Regards,
Haz.
Bagoh: "Personally, I don't oppose gay marriage so much as the fanatics pushing it. I like to push back against that stuff just because I hate bullies. Even though I fully support gay unions, I will vote
against gay marriage if it's being
carried in a basket of bullying and
facism. Bullying is the loser position
On gay marriage right now."
This.
Nicely stated, Bagoh.
Michael,
Did you ever get a chance to follow up on whether you had the email notification for that comment at issue?
I saw Lem's post, and it seemed to make clear that he was the one who removed them altogether.
"The core issue in all this is metaphysical. If you're thorough materialists, like i Althousi, then none of it matters. If you understand we are created beings, and that our souls are not a mere side effect of physical complexity, then you must understand the essentially mystical nature of the union of man and woman. The creation of new life is a genuine act of God. It is a prideful illusion to think it is in our hands. Marriage between a man and a woman is about procreation and family. It has its practical side, including the legal niceties of property that lawyers feed on, but in its essence, it is about this mystical union of man and woman to create new life through God's agency."
--TTBurnett
In short, marriage is sacred. Why should conservatives, if they agree with the above statement, as I do, "Let [opposition to] gay marriage go?" Why should conservatives stop opposing gay marriage, which is both a travesty of and an attack on marriage? Do you stop defending the sacred because you'll be scorned by the connected for doing so? Because if you do, if you go with the flow, even if you do it to avoid making waves, you betray the sacred. And then where are you? You are a man unmoored.
I thought they already did.
I've known gays that live as married people my whole life. Have wedding ceremonies although I've never been to one, have cakes made with two grooms on top, buy houses together, adopt a child, enjoy two incomes, the whole deal, by simply ignoring government. And largely ignoring religion too.
Conversely I've known gays who used laws as written to their advantage. In one case by adoption to assure division of assets in case of death. In another case male/female gays to take advantage of marriage law somehow, I never was clear on how, something to do with home ownership, taxes, and again adoption. I never delved far into the details. From what I understand that one was recently dissolved for some reason, they told me but I forgot, but the relationship between them stayed the same. Incidentally, those two lesbians, the one legally married to a guy I know, (how clever! how transgressive) have the best refrigerator I ever saw. Completely packed, and I mean PACKED all with fresh wonderful things to much. Much of it straight out of their garden. I toured their garden and their refrigerator. You could reach in blindfolded, grab anything, and it would be delicious and ready to go and delicious.
Incidentally, incidentally, in both cases of adoption the child is a different race. The first, one of the cutest little boy I ever saw running all over the place, a different house from their own pwning the whole party . He was the hit of the party. In the second case a girl about 12 when I met her. She made a birthday cake for the dude, which I thought was really sweet. She was so happy with her cake. And it was good too. Another guest encountered a piece of egg shell in his piece of cake and complained to me. I go, "Dude, the little girl made the cake." Thinking that would make the guy go, "Aw bless" but no, he sticks with being miffed, "Well she should know better than that!" And I'm all, "Dude, she's 12!" But he didn't budge. He returned, "Well, she should still KNOW BETTER !!!" Daaaamn. What a hardass.
The thing is, I was thinking, why does government even get involved? I can see why Christianity is involved, and other religions." I can see why people would want their union sanctioned by some force larger than themselves, something societal. To have backing. To impart importance and solemnity to the occasion, to have ritual, to get a big princess dress. And I can see why government would be involved to guarantee contract. But that is all. Neither one, religion nor government makes a union more real if love is the thing doing the uniting. Neither one imparts real validity y no es sabio ni sensato tampoco. It doesn't make sense. I'm not feeling it.
Marriage is a state of mind. Not a contract. That is something else.
I'm convinced government backs marriages to induce, to coerce, two different species to stick it out for the purpose of generating new citizens. Beyond that, nil.
To gays, you already have what you want. It's all there. You did what you wanted already this whole time. You used the system to your unique advantage all the way through.
Here is the thing: looking to government for your personal validity has at its core the relationship between citizen and government completely wrong. It has the relationship reversed. Government gets its validity from you, not the other way around where your validity is confirmed by government. Government gloms onto your preexisting validity. Government reflects you, not you reflect it. You do not need a contract with government for your validity. Rather, government needs a contract for its validity from you. This is your way of having government reflect your preexisting validity.
It's like asking your dog if it is okay for you to be married. Please give us a contract, pet dog. Government is your dog.
Is this your way of kicking your dog into shape? Are you kicking my dog? You are demanding what you already have. You wear me right the fuck out with your constant nagging. I want a divorce.
Deep thinking political and legal analysis of things readily handled on one's own are boring as shit to me. They remind me of my perverse little sister. Making huge national fusses about them drives me off.
And finally, like immigration, it is not shown how and why wide open borders are good for our country. It is possible that it is good for our country in some way, but that is not shown in the discussions. Showing why the U.S. should be the sole country with completely open borders has not been honestly openly discussed. Likewise it is not shown why -- now, hold on because having tried so hard to avoid this degree of direct honest discussion you will not like it -- it is not shown how government sanctioning relationships that are based cock sucking and butt fucking is good for our country. Call it love, it is first and foremost love for that. In both cases immigration, gay marriage, show how those things are good for our country and we're good. If lesbians cheer, howl, with long-withheld satisfaction for finally attaining government as substitution for legitimate traditional natural husbands, then show how that is good for our country. But in all cases you haven't.
It very well may be these things strengthen our country and bring an enhanced future, but they have not been shown. They have not been honestly discussed.
Dalrymple, again:
"I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."
Conservatives must let everything go.
There is no hill left to die on. It's been leveled.
Our current position has been a winner when voters decided, but a loser judicially, an embarrassment Hollywoodly, and a raving bully, at least as portrayed on the news on the nightly news.
So I fully accept that we no longer live in a Democratic Republic. My vote means nothing. I am a milch cow, and should shut up and salute, or something.
All I have left is my own soul, and I will not repeat your lies, Mr. Esenberg.
You just go along and open those borders, and let boys be girls, and let layabouts take free money from the stupid milch cows, and force people to say what they do not believe else lose their jobs.
I'm sure your plan will turn out great. I mean, that's worked many times before, right?
I agree the GOP is on the losing side of this argument but not necessarily on the issue.
Basically, the social conservatives got blindsided by the way the issue has been framed over the last 10 years or so. No one was talking about gay marriage last century, now it's an absolute civil rights issue, and framed in the precise ways that even conservatives frame and deal with marriage.
What it depended on was the shallowness of the conservative (especially religious) position that had for so long maintained moral dominance in terms of framing the issue that if pushed it couldn't actually deal with a change in the approach that denied such moral dominance.
It's essentially the position of a social religion that lost its cultural power.
Even the various churches really couldn't stand strong. Every affair, every abusive marriage, every case of sexual abuse, etc. and so on diminished the church's voice, especially when the church would defend and justify its own. It became a very relativistic issue even in the church, so why care what the church says about any issue.
Instead of ceding the moral ground, as was done in the past, it has been framed as an issue of freedom of expression. I like women, another guy likes men. People can do what and who they want.
Framed this way there's no winning, because it has become an issue of being a supporter or being a bigot, hating someone for who they are.
Christian, at least, teaching says that sexuality is not who we are, that we must not define ourselves or others through that lens. But for far too long the Church, and society, has defined people as their sins. And when people reject the idea that such identity is sin, then the identity demands equal acceptance as such.
What is at issue is the underlying question of what makes us human, how sexuality fits into that, where meaning and value is found in ourselves and others.
If we learn how to talk better about those questions, at some point we can talk about gay marriage again in the context of all those other topics of mis-aligned sexuality.
So, back to the basics. Stop throwing ourselves at a hill that has been lost.
Seriously, does anyone really believe we have anything but a fascist ruling class?
It's all fake. Bullshit on stilts.
Pretend elections.
The only remaining option is to stop voting. It's an illegitimate government. All they have left is force. They lack the will of the people, that much is clear; they do whatever the fuck they want, no matter what.
And now they are literally shipping in new voters to replace me.
So fuck that.
I'll find ways to reduce my economic footprint and taxes, protect my family, and the rest can have their bacchanal. Until the money runs out, as it always does. Just ask Mother Russia.
This is of a piece with the general lawlessness of the US, especially the Feds (IRS, FBI, SCOTUS-tax-not-a-penalty, etc.)
My question is, if laws do not matter to the Feds, why should I follow them?
And do you think I am the only one to ask?
Do they really think the middle class will be so stupid as to follow all the myriad rules while no one else does so?
Are they so foolish?
Yes.
This is the small type of "conservative" who tells us to abandon "Pro-life" or "anti-abortion" or Immigration or voter id. There is a name for this type of conservative Republican.
It is called Democrat.
I have supported gay marriage (if it passed democratically) not as a civil right (it is not, it is something new) but as something a society could recognize or not. I would vote for it.
I am very much opposed to judge imposed same sex marriage.
What I do not like is making up the complete fiction that 19th century equal protection clauses to justify same sex marriage. If that was the case, why did we need an amendment to give women the vote (shouldn't that have been as equal protection too)? The danger is obvious: So why not polygamous marriage? Why not justify anything where equality of position is used to frame it?
As for Prop 8, they make it like those evil Mormons in California were denying gays their civil rights. Really? California had a civil union system in place that mirrored marriage in all rights (other than name). And what stopped Prop 8 proponents from bringing a new inititive/referendum to reverse Prop 8? If history was on their side (and I agree public opinion definitely shifted in favor of gay marriage) why not defeat Prop 8 that way?
Which just goes to show many people don't trust Democracy.
You talk about a hill to die on.
The hill you die on is your religion. When they come into your church and force you to give sacraments in direct violation of your church's doctrine...that is a hill to die on.
That is where we are right now.
Trooper York said...
This is the small type of "conservative" who tells us to abandon "Pro-life" or "anti-abortion" or Immigration or voter id. There is a name for this type of conservative Republican.
It is called Democrat.
Troop, that is why they call you a H8er! You are just too damn blunt!
I'm not that excited about the Republican Party.
So how this affects the Party is of little concern to me.
You have to stand up for something. Stand for something that people can understand.
If the law goes against you then stand up for what is right. It is the same thing as abortion. In every respect.
The courts overturned the abortion laws. Not the legislature. Just the same way they did same sex marriage.
First they set up abortions but said it didn't affect you. Especially if you were a man. So you should just turn a blind eye to it. Let it go. None of your business. Your religious objections were your own private business. You weren't supposed to push you beliefs on other people and they wouldn't push them on you. I mean the government can't force you to get an abortion.
But now they move is on for the government to force you to provide health insurance that provides abortion. To make you pay for an abortion. Even if it violates every one of your principles and beliefs. You have give up your morality for theirs. They will force you. If you don't comply they will destroy you. With fines or taxes or soon enough prisons.
You are no longer allowed your own religious beliefs. You have to bake that cake.
Or suffer the consequences.
So tell me again why you should surrender to that?
Eric the Fruit Bat said...
I think the professor's broader point is that it's time for the Republican party and the social conservatives to get a divorce.
So he's not a Conservative, he's a Libertarian.
Or a Whig.
Like Troop, I am concerned about the upcoming attack on the Church.
"That is where we are right now."
That's silliness to say that. And an insult to the martyrs of the church, of which you are very far from being both in action and behavior.
The early Christians, who knew what persecution was really like, lived and thrived in a significantly more challenging culture than we do. They lived and they died for the sake of the gospel, not playing games with condemning others while excusing themselves simply because they were presumably aligned with the right side.
The early church lived, and thrived, in a context where the goal wasn't to convince society to act in a way the Church approved of. They lived and thrived in a context where those in the church saw the only hope for transformation was Christ, and the preaching of the Gospel in word and deed.
They died rather than worship the emperor. Our society, and far too many in the churches, wants to worship at the altar of both church and culture. Now we see what happens when people stop caring about our moral posturing when it's not accompanied by deeper thought and consistent action.
They'll start caring what we say about marriage when we start living like we believe it ourselves.
The gay activists will not allow and cannot abide a single place for dissenters to continue to live and practice in the traditional way.
That tells you everything about their real nature.
I know the attack is coming. I am just concerned that our leaders are not strong enough to stand up to it.
Will the fight? Or do their palaces and jewels and positions mean more than the Word of God?
I am reminded of a line from Godfather 3:
"Our true enemy has not yet shown his face."
Or, to state it differently, the real nature of this question, and why it matters, has not yet become clear.
Set aside the "long term" consequences of this; the relatively near-term consequences are far from clear.
Some of what I foresee I'd rather not detail, because they involve some of the ugly things advocates of "same sex marriage" are likely to do, and I'd rather not give them ideas. But I foresee a metastasis of the ugliness directed at the founder of Mozilla after it is mingled with the treatment of Donald Sterling. And the association isn't absurd, because the advocates of "same sex marriage" themselves equate being against their pet cause, and being a racist. So think that through.
Meanwhile, there are unforeseen legal consequences. As I've mentioned, the substitute definition of marriage is incoherent. It is unstable -- particularly as a result of judicial action, rather than legal enactment.
Once marriage is no longer seen to have any necessary relationship to procreation and child-rearing, what is the compelling state interest in prohibiting either incest or polygamy?
What about the "right" of a bisexual to have two spouses, to meet different needs?
Meanwhile, the larger project of a radical redefinition of human identity, involving the destruction of the inherent, irreducible complementarity of man (male-and-female) is only just beginning. The next frontier is "trans rights."
Do you and I have a "right" to hold that sex is a natural quality in a human being, that cannot be annihilated or altered? Or, is it something that the individual can choose?
The implications of this are huge. Do you wish to marry someone (actually) of the opposite sex? Do you have the right to insist that said person is, as a matter of nature, the sex s/he presents him/herself to be?
I would never claim to be a martyr. I fail miserably. When I was called on to stand up for my religion I backed down for the sake of money. I regret that everyday and pray for forgiveness.
I was called to do this and I feel short. I did not put my faith above my financial well being. I spoke to my priest and he told me not to be so hard on myself. But I know I made a big mistake.
I don't want to do that again. I hope others will be better than me.
To amplify what ricpic quoted from me above: That quote was a quick, short version of some of the Catholic reasoning on the subject. To Catholics, Marriage is one of the Sacraments. These are defined as, "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us." And, as I said, it has its mystical component, based on transcendent metaphysics.
As a Catholic, I think it's good that the secular government generally has been aligned with Christian teachings and morality, which, in most cases are pretty universal and the common possession of most ethical traditions. What may be thought of as the vaguely Protestant "civic religion" of the United States generally coincided with common Judeo-Christian values and practices, including marriage as it has been traditionally defined. This situation has changed with stunning speed, and the fact is, the secular government is now neutral, at best, and growing rapidly hostile to Catholic (and other traditionally religious) teachings and practices. Society at large is moving quickly in the same direction.
Given this, I agree with the premise of the article: Trying to enforce any morality other than what's on the current secular plate is a completely losing proposition. My own personal view is that, for the sake of fairness in the secular arena, ALL domestic partnerships, including current secular "marriages," ought to be classified as some sort of domestic partnership, with all the legal status and benefits of former "marriage." This should be the practical, secular, legal groundwork for ALL domestic partners who desire it. It is thus completely fair, neutral, and bereft of the loaded term, "marriage." Marriage (or "matrimony," as some would have it) would then be the provenance of religion. Gays, who so desired, could be married in any number of religious traditions that find no objection, while traditionally religious or philosophically conservative folk could equally be married under their traditions.
All this seems sensible and fair to me. I'm afraid, however, it is also too late to try to reserve the term "marriage" for religious and traditionally-minded people. The only thing we need concern ourselves with at this point is that the now-aggressively secular and materialist state does not attempt to invade the sanctuary and dictate the terms of our theology. One advantage of the Catholic Church is that it has had long experience of this in Europe, and has otherwise managed to survive with its teachings intact for the better part of 2,000 years. It's a novelty in America, but if we made it through the French Revolution, we'll make it through this.
By the way, while this has obvious implications for religious freedom, this is not essentially a question of religion. I know people think it is, but sorry, it's not.
If you say it is, then tell me: what religion gave us the notion that there are men, and there are women?
See, I thought that was a matter of science, not religion.
I think Tim is right. The church will weather the storm. It always does. I have faith that it will.
It is just the damage that will be done is incalculable. So many resources that should be put to help the sick and the needy will be consumed in the fight to let people worship as they please.
Who thought that nuns would have to go to court to not be forced to offer birth control and abortions?
BTW, I say things like "transcendent metaphysics" instead of "belief in God" to make Christian reasoning more palatable to the skeptical but philosophically-minded.
So, while I readily understand political operatives wanting to throw in the towel, it remains to be seen whether that's a good idea.
First, because sound politics is based on sound principles.
Second, the worm may turn more than once. I can remember when this exact same advice was given on prolife issues. It was and remains very poor advice.
Father: It used to be that, with the most rare exceptions of Nature, being a "man" or a "woman" was a manifest fact of physical existence. Science has burrowed into biochemistry and given us the genetic basis of the sexes, but I always it was a mistake to confuse the effect (physical differences) with the ultimate cause (God's Creation). The materialist problem is to get stuck at an intermediate point (the scientific discovery of evolution and biochemistry), unwilling to acknowledge the ultimate Cause.
I think the problem is we have is that we've learned to play God. That that will come a-cropper is obvious to anybody who thinks about it for more than 30 seconds. The materialist attention span seems to be stuck at about 27.
Trooper York said...
I think Tim is right. The church will weather the storm. It always does. I have faith that it will.
If it survived Nero, it will survive Dan Savage and the Choom Gang.
Seriously, does anyone really believe we have anything but a fascist ruling class?
It's all fake. Bullshit on stilts.
Pretend elections.
The only remaining option is to stop voting.
Many do, but I don't. Slowly it is dawning on more people. We'll see.
Revolutions almost always come from the middle or upper classes, and all successful ones do. Until enough of the middle class realizes they're being played by both parties, nothing will change.
Which just goes to show many people don't trust Democracy.
You shouldn't trust democracy. It's just a semantic twist away from mob rule. It's why we had a federated constitutional republic. Unfortunately that doesn't really matter any more.
Forgive my slightly mangled comment above. Difficult stuff causes my grammar to go to pieces.
I think Father's point is well-taken, but hard. We ought not roll over and play dead and hope to be left alone otherwise. This is ultimately immoral. But it is really, really, hard, given where things have gone with the speed and vehemence they have.
TTBurnett:
In this whole debate -- not just this thread, but pretty much everything I say about this, anywhere -- I almost never cite any religious text or source.
That's part of why the opposition to redefining marriage is losing: because imposing a religious view on people is a harder sell.
While obviously there is a religious dimension to marriage, that's an add-on; and there are consequences to this whole debate for religious freedom.
But what marriage is? That is not a religious question, but a question of reason, based on how one chooses to approach the hard facts of human nature.
Lawyer Rick appears to have evolved.
Possibly it's just a Cheap Trick.
You have to realize that we are fighting a rearguard action. The very most we can protect is the right to practice our religion in our churches and hospitals and charities.
We might have lost the hospitals and charities already. We only have the churches left to us.
We can not put our faith in politicians or academics like this professor of even people of faith like PaddyO who so cavalierly dismiss what is so apparent before our very eyes.
Catholic Charities had to close because they could not in good conscience turn over children to gay couples and Catholic hospitals will be forced to close or sell out to secular corporations because they will be forced to permit abortions on their premises even onto the ninth month. These things have already happened. Worse things are on the horizon.
If you think that is a fantasy then you have not been paying attention.
I agree it's a hard sell in religious terms, Father. When talking with non-Catholic friends, I try to make the same points philosophically and avoid theology.
But then we get to the num of "human nature," and because the modern view seems to be that it is infinitely plastic, I have no idea how to make an argument about that without reference to some philosophical or religious fixed point. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
That's "nub" of human nature. Typos a-plenty chez TT tonight.
I think it should be noted that the author of the piece is not a conservative conservative, more a libertarian: "A former moderate-to-conservative Democrat, Esenberg says he is 'on the libertarian side of conservatism'."
I can see a government under the likes of Barack Obama mandating abortions much as China does. I can see a government under the likes of Barack Obama controlling the churches and what a priest or minister or rabbi can say or preach much like they do in China.
We never thought all of our conversations and emails and texts could be subject to government interceptions and abuse but that has happened before our very eyes. In the name of national security. Who is to say where they will go in the name of national security. Or Climate Change. Or whatever fashionable politically correct hobbyhorse they might be riding this week.
TT:
I agree with your analysis 100% -- people indeed do think human nature is endlessly "plastic." You didn't make this point, but -- I think it's related to the appeal of "choice." Wasn't that the nub of Kennedy's argument in that infamous ruling, where he talked about defining ones own existence?
So how do we respond?
Well, two ways.
First, by appealing to other values that are at stake, and which people care about. So, for example, how this may affect other people's freedoms and choices, such as religious freedom. In my comments above, I raised the question of whether the assertion of "trans" rights will impinge on a person's ability to marry the sex of ones choice. Seems surreal, but...that's our world now.
There are other values that can be appealed to as well, but you get the idea.
The second avenue is to return to reality. Because, sooner or later, reality asserts itself, good and hard.
If we're right that the reality of human sexual complementarity is something irreducible -- i.e., without terrible consequences -- then at some point, those consequences began to manifest themselves. In fact, they already have. They will continue to do so.
But in the meantime, there may be a great deal of harm before it sorts out.
Freedom and democracy do not always go together. I have lived in two countries that switched back and forth between dictatorship and democracy frequently--Thailand and The Philippines. The people almost always had more walking-around freedom under a military dictator. As long as you did not oppose the dictator, he left you alone. In a democracy, they would vote away their rights to score freebees and screw their adversaries. Then the cycle would start over.
Lydia:
Thanks for noting that.
The definition of "conservative" has suffered as much violence as the definition of a martini, and marriage. Anything goes.
Pogo said ...
It's all fake. Bullshit on stilts.
Pretend elections ... It's an illegitimate government. All they have left is force.
Trooper York said...
You talk about a hill to die on ... The hill you die on is your religion. When they come into your church and force you to give sacraments in direct violation of your church's doctrine...that is a hill to die on.
I hoped than in my old age I would not be roused to be martyr-like. That was the 1960's and 70's, all behind me.
Yet, today I am again driven to resist and to literally fight, if necessary, facing those men and women in uniform I was bred to respect, that I served with, that I loved in every way possible...if they are sent out against me now.
My best friend escaped a Communist country with his life on the line. When we talk of all this he sighs and stops talking...he knows where it is all going, sooner or later, it will be in the streets. Again.
I cannot believe we are that foolish. Yet we are. Our leadership does not believe that angry men can come for them, but they will.
I watched a nation collapse once in my lifetime, and still maintain connections with refugees from there...who to this day would die on that hill all over again, and many of their brethren did, if they had only the chance. One, a former Major, recently wrote to me that he hoped the Chinese conquer his old homeland if only to kill the leadership that ruined his life....almost 40 years later the ember of hate burns, and justifiably so.
Anyone who thinks a similar hate cannot fester in this country is in denial. It is already starting. And it is NOT among the presumptive bureaucrats.
I want to be wrong. I want to be very wrong.
I believe our true enemy has shown his face.
I'm happy to be reminded of the word, "complimentarity."
I immediately tend to take off into mystical realms, connected as they may be to the reality of our physical existence. But the essential and irreduciable complimentarity of the sexes is a better starting point, and one worth thinking about well before moving to loftier heights.
Trooper: Embrace philosophy and eschew personality.
TT:
I wouldn't normally be this pedantic, but in this case, it's important to get the word right.
Complementarity -- note spelling. It's a distinct word from "compliment."
Good advice Tim but very hard to put into practice. You are a lot better at it then I am.
I am trying to learn from the example that you and Father Fox set.
I feel like I'm in a "Groundhog Day" moment...
...looking to government for your personal validity has at its core the relationship between citizen and government completely wrong...Government gets its validity from you, not the other way around...
That's very, very well said, Chip.
Do these rulings mean that opposition to gay marriage is a "lost cause?" I think only time will tell. Segregation was a lost cause not even a decade after Brown vs Board. Opposition to abortion is if anything stronger today than it was before Roe vs Wade.
Thank you Father! I saw and understand the word, but I seem to be mired in typo trouble tonight. I'm heading off to a nice dinner shortly, so maybe with my blood sugar restored, the little gray cells will mend their bad habits ;-)
Didn't read it. Don't have to.
Because this one thing is True.
"Conservatives" will not be allowed to let anything go. It's too useful a political tool. "We" are not allowed to get over racism for the same reason. There may not be a single actual racist alive and it won't matter, because the hammer is too useful a political tool. The Tea Party, which has done a *fine* job moving away from the icky "social con" issues to concentrate on fiscal issues, as all the concern trolls demanded "we" do... is tarred as having unsavory social con elements... because it is too useful a political tool.
After all... how can you be a fiscal conservative if you don't believe in paying for anything and everything related to women's reproduction (or lack thereof.)
Huh?
How can you?
Obviously you're not a fiscal conservative, a small government sort, or libertarian... if you don't immediately agree that government should pay, or force you to pay, for everything on a feminist "funds for my uterus" wish list, you social con hater, you.
Also... racism.
Because why the h*ll not.
Oh dear gawd, Meade... are you LONELY?
WTF.
Synova, he'll always have his dogs. And his rakes.
Mumpsimus:
The contrast to issues of race -- i.e., segregation -- is so noteworthy. Sadly, with the state of reason so degraded, many folks think this comparison helps in the effort to annihilate sexual complementarity, but it's just the opposite.
In the case of segregation, Jim Crow, and anti-miscegenation laws, the whole notion of "race" on which it all rested was totally a construct. Even the supporters of racial superiority knew it.
The same sort of construct is now maintained by those who favor race-preferences, affirmative action, reparations, and who take the "critical studies" approach; and the construct is just as indefensible as before.
Moreover, anti-miscegenation laws didn't deny that two people of different races could enter into a true marriage; that's why they opposed interracial marriages: because they resulted in mixed-race offspring, and that was the issue.
About what Fr. Fox and TTBurnett said re talking about same-sex marriage from a religious point of view being a non-winner, and that we should make the same points "philosophically and avoid theology" and that we should appeal "to other values that are at stake'.
The problem I see with that is that it's only religious people/groups who are making the argument that marriage should not be redefined. And it's darned near impossible for most folks to separate the argument from the argument maker. Plus, the opposition would work very hard to blur any distinction between the two.
So I guess what I’m saying is: damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
Let's not have this thread degenerate the way others have?
You see it is hard to not make it personal. Because the adversary and his Minions always make it personal. Every. Single. Time.
You can not find refuge in your church and temple or bakery from them.
Much less a blog thread.
So it is hard to not make it personal. Especially when a man of the cloth is repeatedly insulted and called a liar.
Trooper -- thanks, but...it's all been said. Let's not go there.
Let's keep this discussion on something edifying. Please?
As you wish Father.
But I think you have to adjust down to three All Fathers and three Hail Mary's. Call Father Chris on the special Vatican hotline that connects all the Catholic Churches so he will cut me a break this week. Thanks.
Meade's comments have been removed.
This thread has been an excellent discussion of an important issue - several issues, actually. With only one exception, it has been open and respectful. That's how it will continue.
I appreciate the comments that were made in good faith (pun intended).
Trooper:
I'm not saying the religious arguments about marriage have no merit. But -- speaking as a Catholic -- if I argue marriage is essentially a religious reality, I'm contradicting not only Catholic teaching, but empirical fact.
Marriage wasn't invented by any church or religious leader. Moses didn't invent it. Nor did Buddha or Confucius or Abraham or anyone one might cite.
Whatever created human nature -- God or a non-divine cause -- created the conditions for marriage, and human beings acted on their nature to effect it.
That's not just how the Catholic Church understands marriage in the basic sense (pre-sacrament), it's an accurate historical account.
@Pres Mom Jeans - regarding your question, you'll need to provide a way for me to contact you off-blog. Thanks.
"I like to push back against that stuff just because I hate bullies. Even though I fully support gay unions, I will vote against gay marriage if it's being carried in a basket of bullying and facism. Bullying is the loser position on gay marriage right now."
Yes, so much.
Anytime anyone is tempted to excuse abuse, attempts to control speech, attempts to economically punish or exclude... any time the excuse is "But they're BAD"... they've ideologically aligned themselves with every oppressive political progrom or religious inquisition in History.
But... but... they're BAAAAAAADDDDD.
So what? The bullying is the same. The desire (and I think this is truly VILE) to prohibit the "bad" person from participation in the economy... is the same.
Oh, and while I'm at it... the *internals* of a gay couple deciding (as they most certainly did decide) to be *sses and rub the "bad" Christian's face in their marriage... is *internally and emotionally* precisely the same as if a couple of *sses in hoods showed up to abuse a black baker. The human impulse is identical.
Perfectly identical.
These, are the ideological partners in this "punish the people who are BAD" movement currently manifesting among people who so obscenely use the term "liberal" to describe their outlook.
If "bad" people don't deserve to be protected, their bad ideas and all... McCarthy is owed a HUGE apology.
Father I am only really talking about marriage in a sacramental way. As a sacrament. Not as a government, financial or social construct. That ship has sailed.
My fear is that the Church will be forced to perform the sacrament of marriage to people who are not qualified in the doctrine and teachings of our faith. Much as bakeries are being compelled to bake, photographers to photograph and venues to rent to the latest politically correct fad. Even religious people tell us not to worry. That can never happen here.
I don't believe them. It can happen here. It is on the way.
So it is hard to not make it personal. Especially when a man of the cloth is repeatedly insulted and called a liar.
Yes. It is hard not to take things personally and the desire to retaliate is strong. However, if Father Fox can take the high road and keep his comments on a philosophical level, so should we.
Let's just ignore the little guy masturbating and drooling over in his corner. Shall we?
To get back to the program:
Conservatives" will not be allowed to let anything go. It's too useful a political tool
This is a good point. If "conservatives" gave in on gay marriage, they would still not be allowed to do so and will be called homophobes and racists anyway.
The other issue I have with this is the general lumping together of belief systems as all being labeled "conservative". There is such a wide range of beliefs that to claim all as one is ridiculous, disingenuous and of course convenient for propaganda purposes.
Lest there be confusion: of course I believe God created the Cosmos.
My point in referencing a "non-divine cause," if it's not obvious, is that you can change out the terms ("God" "non divine cause") and get the same answer.
Now, where this gets tricky is if someone says, OK, but if there's no God, why can't humanity re-engineer itself radically? As in re-engineering marriage, family, and fundamental sexual complementarity.
And the answer is, it may be we "can" -- are able to -- but the consequences may be rather destructive.
Setting off a chain-reaction with little ole atoms, what difference will that make? BOOM!
Father Fox, thank you for your insights. (And you, too, Chip and TTB.) You've given me much to think on and ponder. I am so weary of all the ugliness that this topic brings out in people. I tend to get flip about a response because - bigot! Sigh. This has been an enlightening thread - it has managed to not devolve.
I sort of went off sideways there.
Staying with the subject of "conservatives" giving up that nasty "social con" stuff...
What I said about that is, I think, about all there is to say about it.
Republicans could run a gay latina abortion doctor for office and they'd still get accused of homophobia, racism, and war-on-women.
Make that a gay latina abortion doctor *wiccan* in a group marriage...
There is no enough.
This, that I've said, is True.
Synova said...
Republicans could run a gay latina abortion doctor for office and they'd still get accused of homophobia, racism, and war-on-women.
I think they already have a couple of times.
Being a conservative is like being a Yankee fan. You get a lot of hate but you still have to stand up for your team. And your beliefs. And your principles.
Just like everybody knows who is a "True Yankee" then everybody knows who is a "True Conservative."
This professor is not even close. He is Rich McKinney.
Trooper said...You are no longer allowed your own religious beliefs. You have to bake that cake. Or suffer the consequences.
First they came for the bakers..."The New York Times reports on the trend of religious groups, usually evangelicals, losing their college affiliation for refusing to sign the loyalty oath masquerading as an 'anti-discrimination' agreement." ...
“At most universities that have begun requiring religious groups to sign nondiscrimination policies, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic and mainline Protestant groups have agreed, saying they do not discriminate and do not anticipate that the new policies will cause problems.”...
But evangelicals haven't knuckled under, so...:
"The evangelical groups say they, too, welcome anyone to participate in their activities, including gay men and lesbians, as well as nonbelievers, seekers and adherents of other faiths. But they insist that, in choosing leaders, who often oversee Bible study and prayer services, it is only reasonable that they be allowed to require some basic Christian faith — in most cases, an explicit agreement that Jesus was divine and rose from the dead, and often an implicit expectation that unmarried student leaders, gay or straight, will abstain from sex.
'It would compromise our ability to be who we are as Christians if we can’t hold our leaders to some sort of doctrinal standard,' said Zackary Suhr, 23, who has just graduated from Bowdoin, where he was a leader of the Bowdoin Christian Fellowship."...
"The consequences for evangelical groups that refuse to agree to the nondiscrimination policies, and therefore lose their official standing, vary by campus. The students can still meet informally on campus, but in most cases their groups lose access to student activity fee money as well as first claim to low-cost or free university spaces for meetings and worship; they also lose access to standard on-campus recruiting tools, such as activities fairs and bulletin boards, and may lose the right to use the universities’ names."
First they came for the bakers..
That would be a great topic for a comment thread.
That's the real issue, isn't it?
There is a couple whose name I dare not speak that specialize in that tactic.
First, I remove my "TILT" remark...as no longer required.
Lydia ...and I required to consider the pseudo-Rev. Terry Jones
and his followers as "Christian?"
He does not live here, but comes from Florida now and then, he is ignorant of what we are here, and tries hard to foment strife. He is a phone buddy of Generals Petraeus and Dempsey, not to mention SEc Def Gates in his time.
He is coming again this Saturday (14 June) to be a jerk again...and must now "protest" Sharia, which does not exist here, on a public median strip on a roadway....because he and his kind have suppressed again the Arab Festival (not Muslim festival) by the over reaching evangelization, such as parading with a pigs head on a pole. He's not a Christian he is a Obama shit-bot.
If I wish he'd be beaten to bloody pulp on Ford Road, next Saturday, is that too much?
Hello Dear Secret Service and FBI...I know you just loved my last comment. I am still at the same address I was the last time you got your panties in a knot. I'll have coffee ready.
Ari, are you involved in beta testing their sarc-detection software?
Lydia:
Re: evangelicals.
What I'll say now may be provocative, but I hope we can handle this. I aim to be respectful of everyone's beliefs...
But Evangelicals are in a tough spot, because they have, by and large, accepted contraception as a morally neutral thing.
This leave the defense of marriage-as-heterosexual on thin ice. Because it concedes what the other side is arguing: there is no essential relationship between marriage and procreation.
While vast numbers of Catholics have done the same thing, the Church has stood firm on the doctrine, and slowly, the Church is reasserting herself on this point. More will come for a variety of reasons. I don't believe the Catholic Church will ever change her teaching on this subject. It's probably infallible, but that's not my call.
But my beloved Evangelicals have long since conceded this point. However, if you poke around, you'll find Evangelicals who have come around to the Catholic position. Unfortunately for their "camp," a lot of them end up becoming Catholic!
I think the acceptance of easy divorce has also wrecked the ability to withstand redefining marriage, fwiw.
What's left, after all this is some dressed up version of, "gay sex is icky." Which is not a strong enough argument.
Forgive me, but this is where the hand of providence shows itself, at work in the Catholic Church. Only the Catholic understanding hangs together: marriage intrinsically includes the end of procreation, and chastity has far broader implications than no adultery, no sodomy and no fornication.
No one has wanted to say these things for some time, but now that the rot is so far advanced, it becomes necessary.
Sorry, "end of procreation" is kind of insider talk. I mean, the purpose or intention, not "end" as in, no more of!
This leave the defense of marriage-as-heterosexual on thin ice. Because it concedes what the other side is arguing: there is no essential relationship between marriage and procreation.
I don't see how you can argue that procreation is the (sole?) justification for marriage when the Catholic church sanctifies the marriage of post-menopausal women or infertile couples.
IMO a persuasive argument against same-sex marriage has to be made in terms of some definable interest of the society as a whole. Arguments based on conception (as opposed to child-raising) are no more persuasive to me, at least, than are bald assertions of the "oppression" that has derived from millennia of unavailability of same-sex marriage.
Chip S ... I only wish. It would be so much fun. Or may be I am and just don't know it. I do have a federal, as in DoD, reputation as a dick head. :-))
I salute Captains and Colonels, but I ignore most Generals if I can...there are exceptions in the flag ranks who are very good men. I hope they can survive this administration.
I can see a government under the likes of Barack Obama mandating abortions much as China does.
I can't.
People who can might want to ask themselves if all those who don't are really delusional. It's actually possible for religious people to be incorrect about something, God forbid. I would hope that a religious person could recognize their own fallibility, actually. And not just physically. Nor just intellectually. But if morally, then why not theologically?
The gov't won't come into churches. As a pro-woman's rights person, I think a strong case can be made that it was an over-reach regarding hospitals… the charities thing I'm less aware of. But once tanks come rolling through the streets then we can make comparisons to the leaders of Tienenman Square. We have not got to that point, as much as anyone wants to compare Obama to the guy in charge of what went down at Kent State.
I think religious leaders speaking of a desire to "imposing a religious view" might want to not only re-think their words, but the motivation in their mind that would impel them to even speak in such a way.
Much has been made here about an appeal to philosophy, I guess even science. Less of an appeal has been made to straight-up empiricism. If you don't know a homosexual person very well, and what they go through, or what their thoughts of marriage are and why, maybe you might want to ask them. If you don't know a transexual person very well, or what they go through, or what their thoughts are on how they're treated or why, perhaps speak to one. Or listen to one. Read about the experiences of others.
Or simply state the the experiences of others don't matter as much as a rationalized prescription for them, and then wonder whence the backlash. Well, the backlash is because some citizens actually want to understand what particular groups of people in our country go through before we pass judgment on what should be expected of them.
Empiricism is the answer. Gather facts before philosophizing. Get the facts from as close to the "source" as possible: In this case, the people upon whose rights certain others would presume to speak, without even making the basic effort to understand what those people go through and the impact of those judgments on their rights first.
Is that really too much to ask?
Is it any more than you'd ask if you were in such a situation?
Come on.
There are people involved here. Not just ideas. Let's stop pretending and speaking like they don't exist.
I said:
This leave the defense of marriage-as-heterosexual on thin ice. Because it concedes what the other side is arguing: there is no essential relationship between marriage and procreation.
Chip S replied:
I don't see how you can argue that procreation is the (sole?) justification for marriage when the Catholic church sanctifies the marriage of post-menopausal women or infertile couples.
IMO a persuasive argument against same-sex marriage has to be made in terms of some definable interest of the society as a whole. Arguments based on conception (as opposed to child-raising) are no more persuasive to me, at least, than are bald assertions of the "oppression" that has derived from millennia of unavailability of same-sex marriage.
Well, I may fail to persuade you, but let me try for a bit?
First, Catholics don't hold that procreation is the "sole" end or purpose of marriage, but it is intrinsically part of it.
So to your question: how can the Church sanction a marriage when one, or both, are infertile?
The answer is this. The point never was that marriage has to be successful in procreation, only that the "end" cannot be excluded. To exclude it sporadically is, per Catholic teaching, gravely immoral. To exclude the very intention -- i.e., to enter into marriage with a definite rejection of procreation as a part of marriage -- renders that marriage invalid as a sacrament.
And the reason is because at some point, the thing one or both of the couple are aiming to do, ceases to be marriage. For the same reason, a rejection of the "end" of permanence would also render a marriage invalid. I.e., "we'll give it a trial, then see what happens."
Even if you don't see the procreation part, surely you can see the common sense of this? At some point, something ceases to be essentially what marriage is and becomes something that has only a resemblance.
But back to the procreative part. The sterility of one doesn't change the fact that both can have an openness to transmitting life. It doesn't prevent them from seeking that end.
Does this help?
Father Fox makes a very good point, perhaps inadvertently. Marriage, or even mere domestic cohabitation involves procreation, and sincere love, just not always by the individuals at hand.
Children are what will save us from ourselves. You can reach out and touch kids and I've never seen a parent yet who'd object if you do so in kindness.
I attend a children's' Mass as I've said before. Because I am like a child in faith. I feel closer and happier with children nearby than at any other time, even if they are not my procreation...which I also have...and she is a delight. One of these days I will have to learn Mexican Spanish, to be at one with the congregation I've joined...and why not, I learned Korean and Hangul long ago...even some pig-din Vietnamese....enough to say hello and good-bye at least.
Otherwise I am left with the real me, with my real history, and that is sad or evil or both. The children lift me up...and God willing they will save us all. A young man, a fantastic kid, all of 11, named Diego, took my hand recently and shook it hard...saying he was glad I was there. No one else could have made so much a difference to me than little Diego...a bigger man than I.
Ritmo said..thee gov't won't come into churches. As a pro-woman's rights person, I think a strong case can be made that it was an over-reach regarding hospitals… the charities thing I'm less aware of. But once tanks come rolling through the streets then we can make comparisons to the leaders of Tiananmen Square"
Did you ever think that the government would go into a bakery and tell them what cakes to bake? Did you ever think the government would use the IRS to attack political opponents? Did you think the government would try to force nuns and religious orders to provide birth control and abortion services? When the government will copy every email and phone call?
What makes you think they will stop at the church door. They will not.
The time to step up is not when the tanks are already rolling. Then it is too late.
Wake up and smell the wedding cake. It is burning.
Yes, it's a helpful answer, Fr. Fox. Similar to TTBurnett's answer to my same question a while ago.
What wasn't clear to me then, or now, is whether the Church's position is that conception is still possible after menopause.
Also, what about in vitro fertilization? Can a married Catholic couple use that method? If the man is infertile, what's the Church's position on donated sperm? If that's ok, then it seems to apply to lesbian couples, but I'm guessing it's not approved.
I'm asking in order to know, not to pick a fight.
I undertstand the Jews more every day, why they stayed separate from each maddening ruler swaying to and fro.
And they stayed firm, loyal.
Now we are in a neo-pagan era, and the liberal clerisy demands we all pray to their gods.
It has progressed to the point that I do not see any advantage to voting. Aside from Rand and Cruz, they're all variants of the same process.
The "openness" of the infertile or post-menopausal to procreation seems to be allowed a different medical standard of impossibility than does that of the homosexual.
I'm sure homosexuals would be "open" to procreating, but the doctor's advice on whether or not they can sounds like it's being taken more persuasively than the doctor's advice on whether infertile and post-menopausal women can.
That sounds discriminatory.
The basic fact here is that as long as anyone wants to understand and deal with the society's standard for marriage, they should understand that the standard is a romantic one.
So if you understand and don't fear romance, you will have a sound mind for appreciating society's understanding of marriage.
Including gay marriage.
Those who don't, won't.
The time to step up is not when the tanks are already rolling. Then it is too late.
Some of us know this, others think we're silly. As I've said earlier, I am so sorry this has to happen again, in the twilight of my life, but it does. It will. And I will be there.
It is not my Muslim neighbors who will bring this down on us, I know them too well. They are more like me than anyone in Washington DC. It will be, as always, our brethren in
Washington who come to crush us.
Can you buy some plastique at your local ACE hardware? Too bad. You'll need it sooner than later. When those tanks or MRAPS roll down your street.
Ask Cliven Bundy.
AW...just Fuck it.
That's all.
It is a joke.
Nothing more.
Did you ever think that the government would go into a bakery and tell them what cakes to bake?
They didn't. They told them to whom they couldn't deny their manufacture and sale.
Did you ever think the government would use the IRS to attack political opponents?
The IRS did this itself. And last I heard, it was a conservative who did the latest bit of it.
The IRS has always been used to go after people, even politically. If people get a good tax attorney, they only fear Nixon overcoming that.
Did you think the government would try to force nuns and religious orders to provide birth control and abortion services?
I think this is trickier, but you have a better point.
But the point would be countered by asking whether these are religious people or health care providers. Which capacity are they functioning in?
I know you will say it's unfair to choose, and prefer to say "both", but then it will be pointed out that as long as you want to do any health care, you must be educated enough in it to know that oral contraceptives are as necessary for many women's health as blood pressure pills are for many old people's health and only fear of and ignorance of a woman's body could prevent an otherwise educated person in 2014 America from understanding that.
When the government will copy every email and phone call?
I knew it was doing this since 60 Minutes reported on it in 1999. Echelon's been around a while.
What makes you think they will stop at the church door. They will not.
Because churches are boring places? Lol. Seriously, there's nothing going on there that the government needs. You're aggrandizing the grandeur of a nice building with fancy services. Name one thing currently occurring as a matter of normal Catholic church services that it was forced to do it over the two millennia during which it's been interacting with all these governments. Name one thing.
The time to step up is not when the tanks are already rolling. Then it is too late.
Well, I guess you didn't think it was in 1970. Things go back and forth.
Wake up and smell the wedding cake. It is burning.
Smells good to me. Gays and their marriages don't bother me. People needing governments to validate their theology I feel bad for, though.
Pogo, funny analogy but Jews don't even seek converts, let alone ask governments to validate their standards for the 98% of the country not sharing their beliefs.
Come on. This stuff is just hard to believe. I want to appreciate the discussion more, and find the soft tone of most of it beautiful beyond belief. But the logic's been made empty of crucial facts.
Facts are beautiful.
We don't need the government to validate the theology. You are twisting that. We need them to keep their hands off. They will not. They will come into the churches just as they have come into the bakery and the catering hall. Political correctness will rule all things. Property rights are to be violated. The rights of free association are to be violated. The right to free speech is tossed aside so you can be fired for not toing the line.
The freedom of religion is the next thing on their checklist. It is only a matter of time.
the standard is a romantic one
This is simply false.
Siblings are not allowed to marry, no matter how in love they may be. At the moment, threesomes are similarly barred from marrying, despite their sexual attraction.
Clearly, if there's a standard, then it's a utilitarian one. Ritmo the Utilitarian ought to appreciate that.
There is no standard now. They are making it up as they go along.
They threw the standard that was in place for thousands of years out the window.
Logically anything goes. If love is the sole determining factor than you can marry your car. Or your sister. Or your dog. Or three other people. Or your leather jacket.
There is no limit. There is no standard.
Interesting manifesto, Troop - but I'm afraid I'm going to have to appreciate it simply as such. At least for now.
When the things you predict occur, then I will join you. Until then, I apologize for not being fearful enough. Vigilance is good. So is keeping powder dry.
What I find troubling is that in changing the criteria for marriage (i.e. addition same sex) what criteria is in place. Aside from prohibition against father/daughter, brother/sister (offspring problems) or age of consent, what defines marriage?
"the standard is a romantic one"
This is simply false.
Here we go!
Siblings are not allowed to marry, no matter how in love they may be. At the moment, threesomes are similarly barred from marrying, despite their sexual attraction.
You might notice that I never said that anyone who describes their situation in the terms "romantic" is granted certain rights or grouped in with Hugh Grant movies and the wedding dress fantasy. But maybe ecological fallacies are just too tempting to you today.
Seriously, I half expect you to write an article in this same vein explaining "How vegetarianism was good for Hitler". Lol.
Clearly, if there's a standard, then it's a utilitarian one. Ritmo the Utilitarian ought to appreciate that.
Utilitarian on the use of government power, not when to determine the need for applying it. I don't agree that the polyamorous and incestuous (who are anyway usually coerced in some sense - not many instances of this conforming to "romance" in the sense that normal people - I guess not you - would understand it) have rights that equal what heterosexual or homosexuals have.
The whole tactic of throwing that out there seems to have been a particularly discredited red herring, anyway. I'm surprised you didn't throw bestiality out there, too. What happened, Rick Santorum couldn't be reached for approval, first? You actually allowed for the idea that animals might not know "romance"?
Come on, Chip. Be less desperate. Find me 3 out of 10 Americans who don't define marriage as a romantic phenomenon, and then you'll have not only a point to make to me, but to every little girl watching Disney movies and Cinderella. And the boys who grow up to validate those dreams.
And the queens.
Be realistic.
You might notice that I never said that anyone who describes their situation in the terms "romantic" is granted certain rights…
Why yes, you did. When you wrote the standard is a romantic one. Not "a" standard, or "a common motivation," but the standard.
So don't bother offering me logic lessons.
And don't pull the shtick you've denied pulling, in which you ascribe views to me that I've never stated. If you would actually read what I write, instead of building straw men all the time, you'd notice that I haven't ever taken a pro or anti same-sex marriage stance. What I have done is to challenge arguments I find unpersuasive. The reason is that I'm genuinely undecided, and would like to hear the best arguments from each side.
So far, I haven't heard much that pushes me in either direction. So on the basis of the precautionary principle--which I believe you find persuasive in matters of carbon-emission policy--my default position is not to favor changing a tradition that's been in force forever.
Father, while Evangelicals reserve "sacrament" for communion and baptism (or even have a looser sort of don't really have the concept of sacrament at all, some of them) I think that you might be confusing two more or less separate schools of thought and theology.
Churches that consider themselves "evangelical" tend to run two ways when it comes to marriage and kids... one tends to small families and an easy acceptance of divorce... the other tends to large families and a heavy emphasis on the permanence of marriage. The later also tends to restrict women from being ordained (though no one would doubt their power within the church) and teach that hell exists.
Utilitarian on the use of government power, not when to determine the need for applying it.
Try as I might, I can't make any sense of this sentence. How would any rational person decide on the use of government power independently from determining the need for it?
"The basic fact here is that as long as anyone wants to understand and deal with the society's standard for marriage, they should understand that the standard is a romantic one.
So if you understand and don't fear romance, you will have a sound mind for appreciating society's understanding of marriage."
While I agree entirely that "society's understanding" of marriage is romance... this isn't a justification, it's the *problem*.
This is also "society's" understanding of marriage... and romance.
A fellow posted elsewhere and I'm going from memory but the facts are this:
-- Husband of a lady at work who's been cheating on him with a co-worker just found out, probably the last one on the planet to know about it, called saying he had a gun and threatened to kill the guy. Now we're on lock-down. D*mn, I hate Mondays. --
This is what "romance" gets you. When romance is the basis of your marriage and you find yourself feeling romantic about someone you're not married to... there is NO moral reason not to go with that "romance". Yes, society DOES sanction this. Absolutely it does.
And using "romance" as an excuse, which you certainly did, is not a way to recommend gay marriage to people who are resisting, or trying to resist, the idea of marriage as a fundamentally selfish institution.
It's about as useful and persuasive an argument as deciding that the best wedding present to yourselves EVAH is to go Christian-baiting. Because cake!
How would any rational person decide on the use of government power independently from determining the need for it?
By distinguishing between the importance of doing something and having the right to do it - something you should recognize that even some liberals are capable of and occasionally take seriously.
You don't seem yourself today. Isn't that a point that you would generally find more intuitively agreeable?
I should note that while romantic love is the overwhelming reason for pursuing marriage in America and the West, it's not the only one. Procreation probably is a close (or distant) second.
And then you have people who just want child support.
Oh well.
But still, empiric reality, more or less. The romance industries well outsell the procreation industries. Wedding designers, film producers, song-writers. Nothing is more celebrated (rightly so).
When the chart-topping songs are overwhelmingly about childbirth instead of about the love between a couple or the love desired by one person in a potential couple, then maybe one of you can let me know.
If procreation really was the reason for marriage, I don't see why "Til death do us part" would remain in the ceremony. It would change to "18 years after our last child do us part."
And I can't see why, based on what I've read here, that religious organizations wouldn't endorse such a change.
Does anyone have the over-under on whether Harlequin Co. would be more profitable if it (and Joan Collins) changed genres to appeal instead to the lamaze crowd?
The "tide of history" argument is the same as the "science is settled" argument. A partisan's braying that the debate is over. Fortunately, one guy does not determine what is "history" nor what is "science." This guy's so busy being holier and more intellectual and more moral than thou that he doesn't notice how he fails on all fronts. His morality argument misstates the religious objections to gay marriage (apparently interchangeable with "homosexuality"), and utterly fails to acknowledge the secular objection that gay marriage is just a trumped up political issue. His social embarrassment argument is that marriage is so degraded as a social institution that we might as well let gays in. That's insulting! I would be socially embarrassed to hang with this troglodyte. The argument that it's a political loser presumes that only Republicans and conservatives (terms used interchangeably in the article) oppose gay marriage when clearly the Dems only jumped on this issue for political gain and "evolved" as necessary to exploit the issue. Obama made robo-calls FOR the gay marriage ban in California while he was campaigning in 2008. Oh yes he did. The "anti-gay orthodoxy" exists throughout the political spectrum. George Bush proposed a very reasonable compromise that would have given gay and lesbian couples the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples but that just could not happen during a Republican presidency so gay and lesbian couples had to languish through an additional decade of anguish so Dems could exploit the issue properly - for their own political and financial benefit.
I doubt that American attitudes toward homosexuality have changed that much at all in the past 30 years. I also assume that when some crusader starts yapping about "fear" and "loathing" among human beings, he's just projecting his own insecurities. Chris Matthews, and the rest of the MSM, I'm looking at you. To the extent public attitutes toward homosexuality have changed it may have been for the worse in the face of the manipulative tactics (oversaturation in the media, the show trial in San Francisco, the Hate Campaign, and now the people who feel the need and are empowered to bother bakers and write incredibly shallow, transparently self-celebrating stupid political advice columns).
That being said, it's kryptonite. Let it lie there for a while until everyone stops weeping for joy and starts getting divorced. Say it's a states' rights issue and focus on the economy and foreign policy.
If love is the sole determining factor than you can marry your car. Or your sister. Or your dog. Or three other people. Or your leather jacket.
I would think that I would love each of these things in different ways but perhaps I'm unusual that way. ;-)
Chip, I deleted my 8:34 because I now see your main objection was my accidental omission of a qualifier when it came to words like "standard".
But I did notice that you accused me of putting words in your mouth.
But there is a problem with that characterization.
You were, after all, responding to the points I made to others in the first place. And I cannot vouch for your agreement or disagreement with the views you felt a need to defend - even if the purpose was just to take a swipe at my response to them.
Gay marriage is a ludicrous contradiction of terms.
And, if you aren't watching the basketball game now, you're obviously a homo.
Chip S said:
What wasn't clear to me then, or now, is whether the Church's position is that conception is still possible after menopause.
Hi, sorry, back from dinner.
To answer: the Church leaves the "possible" to science. Our concern is not that people *have* to make a baby, but to be in cooperation with the design.
Also, what about in vitro fertilization? Can a married Catholic couple use that method? If the man is infertile, what's the Church's position on donated sperm? If that's ok, then it seems to apply to lesbian couples, but I'm guessing it's not approved.
I'm asking in order to know, not to pick a fight.
No problem.
The answer is no to conception outside the conjugal act.
Did you ever hear of Humanae Vitae? That was the letter written by Pope Paul VI, in 1968, that caused such an uproar, because so many people thought, after Vatican II, the Church would chart a new course on sexual morality. They were so mad when that didn't happen!
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI laid it out rather nicely: God's design/nature's design is that the marital embrace is both "unifying" and "generative" -- and it is unnatural and destructive to try to separate them.
So it's a bad idea to have the "unitive" part while excluding the procreative: that's what contraception/sterilization does. But it's equally wrong to have the procreative part without the unitive: that's what in vitro does.
Both are wrong.
Pope Paul VI made several predictions of the problems that would ensue. His predictions are remarkably prescient.
ST:
Watching Reds v. Dodgers. Does that pass muster?
You're good, padre!
Was someone saying in this thread, or another, that it'll never happen that the gov't would force churches to perform same-sex "marriages"?
It's happened, apparently, in Denmark:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
The article leave some unanswered questions, I admit.
Father, I think perhaps that only pertains to the state church in Denmark, which is Lutheran, I think.
Lydia:
I think you're right. Still...
What I saw claimed it was all churches and specifically that it was not limited to the "state" church... which they've got.
It would make more sense if it was talking about the state church though.
Yeah, Fr. Fox, I was going to add a "still..." as well. Bad times ahead, I fear.
On the Vatican Radio website: Catholic Church not affected by new same-sex marriage law in Denmark:
"Denmark's Parliament last week voted by a large margin to force churches belonging to the state Lutheran Church to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies inside their sanctuaries. The law goes into effect June 15.
Under the legislation, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but they cannot forbid the ceremony from taking place in their church building.
'For the moment we [the Catholic Church] are not worried,' said Niels Messerschmidt, the Information Officer for the Catholic Diocese of Copenhagen."
"by a large margin" and "for the moment" -- worrisome words
What makes you think they will stop at the church door. They will not.
I believe this is true, for any Church, Mosque, Temple, or or Catholic edifice, my choice personally.
Faith is not to be tolerated by our governance leadership! I live among Muslims, and not one of them, not a single one, is a Jihadi.
But I will have to tolerate idiots like the pseudo-Reverend Terry Jones this coming weekend. Hopefully he will punk out as he did a couple years ago when three black Baptist ladies ran him off the street.
Or he has another accidental discharge, like last year, of his pistol that hits his foot...oh, yes, please make my day! :-)
I will defend the church door to the last gasp I can muster. And I am a pagan.
"...couple years ago when three black Baptist ladies ran him off the street."
:-)
...negligent discharge... there ain't no such thing as "accidental" (or so I'm told.)
In any case, pray for the best. Black Baptist church ladies or shooting his foot, or maybe something even better.
I will say, though, and this is probably a less uplifting thought... Phelps is dead... this probably means there is an opening for the post of national "christian" douche-bag.
Synova said...
In any case, pray for the best. Black Baptist church ladies or shooting his foot, or maybe something even better.
We can hope. Meantime, he has yet to apply for a permit so I expect an issue over that, when he tries to usurp public property with his "rally".
I'd be delighted for him to be stomped to the ground by either black guys, who dislike his cracker ass, or Arabs who dislike his attitude per se.
I will be there. So there's always that ...
So it's a bad idea to have the "unitive" part while excluding the procreative: that's what contraception/sterilization does. But it's equally wrong to have the procreative part without the unitive: that's what in vitro does.
Both are wrong.
No they're not.
To answer: the Church leaves the "possible" to science. Our concern is not that people *have* to make a baby, but to be in cooperation with the design.
The "design" requires a placenta, made by hormones (unavailable past menopause) and not in production for at least a few weeks out of each cycle.
Is sex forbidden for those timeframes of the cycle? The Jews forbade it.
Do you know anything about women or the female body?
It's happened, apparently, in Denmark:
The article leave some unanswered questions, I admit.
You mean, like the fact that U.S. law and Danish law are totally different? Yeah, what a huge unanswered question, that. For a while, I thought the U.S. constitution applied just to Singapore, Japan, and Amsterdam. Never knew the U.S. constitution in Denmark had been so abused like this before. We'll keep our U.S. federal courts in Copenhagen on the watch.
Holy jurisdictional quandary, Batman!
The thing is certain Supreme Court Justices are very impressed by European Law and cite it in their opinions.
But more that that it is proof that a government will "go there." It will happen here. The government will force the Church to provide it's sacrament to same sex couples or lose something. Or be fined out of existence. It is coming.
The thing my pastor is waiting for is this:
A same sex couple comes tot he church and requests that he marry them, as he is licensed by the state (or is it the county? I'm not certain) to perform marriages.
He declines because Catholic. They then file suit demanding that he, as a licensee marry them. He again declines. They then bring suit and a court finds cause to require that anyone holding a license to perform marriages not discriminate on the basis of gender.
He is asked again to perform a same sex wedding and he declines. He could: go to jail, lose his license and the ability to perform Catholic weddings, or cause his church to lose its tax exempt status.
No easy way here.
Post a Comment