You’re Not My Mommy
Townhall.com | Matt Barber | August 2, 2007
Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (Mark 10: 6-8, NKJV)
Virginia resident Lisa Miller – now a born-again Christian – and her beautiful five-year-old daughter Isabella find themselves immersed in a nightmarish custody battle. But this battle is unlike most others. The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger. She’s lesbian Janet Jenkins, a woman with whom Lisa had at one time been homosexually involved.
By her own account, emotional problems brought on by a series of events — including abandonment by her father, abuse by her mentally ill mother and a decade long struggle with alcoholism now overcome — eventually led Lisa Miller into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, Lisa began a homosexual relationship with Jenkins after coming out of a legitimate marriage that ended in divorce.
In 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual “civil unions,” Miller and Jenkins made a weekend trek from Virginia to Vermont to enter into such a “union.” They then headed back to Virginia where they lived together.
In 2001, Lisa was artificially inseminated after the two decided to raise a child in an unnatural, deliberately fatherless home environment as self-deluded “wife” and “wife” — mother and “mother.”
In August of 2002, Miller and little Isabella, now just a few months old, moved to Vermont with Jenkins. However, things were unstable, and according to Lisa Miller, Jenkins was physically and emotionally abusive. “It was a troubled relationship from the beginning,” Lisa told World Magazine in a recent interview. “The relationship did not improve, as Jenkins — working as a nightshift security guard — grew increasingly bitter and controlling,” reported World.
About a year later, when Isabella was less than a year and a half old, Lisa ended her lesbian relationship, took her daughter back home to Virginia and filed for dissolution of her homosexual “civil union” back in Vermont.
And that’s when the nightmare really began.
Although Jenkins had no parental connection to Isabella (she was neither an adoptive parent, nor biologically related) she filed papers in Vermont in 2003 to try to take Isabella from her mother. Even though the child was conceived, born and living in Virginia, the Vermont court nonetheless held that it had jurisdiction. The legal battle has continued since that time, and incredibly, the court recently ruled that Jenkins possessed parental rights over Lisa’s daughter. It granted Jenkins regular and very liberal visitation. Isabella is now required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger (Jenkins) who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her “momma.”
Rena M. Lindevaldsen, who is an attorney with Liberty Counsel and is representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, explains, “After Lisa ended her relationship with Janet, when Isabella was only 17 months old, Lisa became a born-again Christian. For the past three years, she has attempted to raise her child according to Biblical principles. According to recent filings by Janet, however, Janet believes that Lisa’s religious beliefs render Lisa incapable of properly parenting Isabella. As the fit, biological parent of Isabella, it is Lisa, not Janet, who has the fundamental right to decide how to raise her child and with whom she visits. Shockingly, when the Vermont courts declared Janet, a woman who is still actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle, to be Isabella’s parent and set a liberal schedule for visitation between Janet and five-year-old Isabella, the court did not even address Lisa’s fundamental parental rights.”
. . . more
336 comments | 
| 
|
Jacobse | Family, Gay marriage |
Philip Sherrard, Human Image: World Image. The death and resurrection of sacred cosmology.
The willful rejection of the sacred and our participation in it is the root of all of the disorders we discuss here, especially recently. How we perceive ourselves determines how we perceive and act in the world. The actions of Ms. Jenkins are the actions of an evolved ape, but they are not human.
Why does it not surprise me that this article leaves out some important facts, including:
a) Janet traveled from Vermont to Virginia (a 600+-mile trip each way) to visit Isabella, and Lisa refused to allow her to see the girl
b) Janet was paying child support from October, 2003, one month after the couple’s separation
It seems gays cannot win: no matter what they do, they are “evolved apes” and “not human”, even when they attempt to honor their commitments.
James, the very idea that homosexuality can be normative, that the choice to pursue sexual gratification in a way the denies one’s own ontology and one’s own anatomy is equivalent to hetrosexuality is a result of the idea that we are evolved apes. Ms. Jenkins is caught in the consequences of a blasphemous idea.
The point which you miss entirely, or choose to ignore, is that such actions regardless of the “facts” or the circumstances are not in the best interests of the child. I would make the same general argument if it were a dispute involving a surrogate mother who was not homosexual.
The idea that we have a “right” to procreate outside of marriage or a “right” to a child inside marriage comes from the same general philosphoical orientation–an orientation that denies the sacred and idolizes the physical, it is a secularized version of pagan fertility cults.
When we immerse ourselves in such a belief and orientation, none of us “win”.
The entire circumstances the led up to the conception birth of the poor child were sinful, but there is this young girl who needs as stable and nurturing and environment as possible. Just because her mother is now a “born again Christian” (whatever that means) does not mean she gets a free pass, but I would assume that Lisa has at least begun to take some responsibility for her sinfulness.
The action of the courts in Vermont shows once again that the judges there are more interested in promoting non-traditional families and sexual behavior at the expense of children.
Jim and others will likely put my ideas into the category of anti-homosexuality and reinterate their stupid claim that Christians define themselves by what we are against.
Here is what I am for: A life affirming union between a man and a woman consecrated to God for the fructification of the earth first in family and children, secondarily as a foundation for service to others. For legal and social purposes, the state should also recognize these unions. Both the Church and the state have an significant interest in supporting and nurturing such unions. In the event that the partners to the marriage will not fulfill their obligations as partners, they are acting in a sinful manner. The Church should help with the healing of that sin. If, however, dissolution of the union is necessary and there are children, the welfare of the children should be primary. As it stands now, the children always suffer, always because they are divided. Way too much emphasis on “parental rights” exists.
There is no other union than marriage that can provide the same opportunities and benefits and in fact, the formation of such alternative unions is sinful and produces negative consequences for all involved (see the story and many others like it){fornication is almost as destructive as homosexuality}. For the state to involve itself in such destructive alternatives to family is not a neutral act, it is an act that is profoundly at odds with the state’s own self-interest, the ability to formulate and inforce coherent law and the integrity of the culture.
All law is discriminatory in that it prohibts, discourages, or promotes certain types of behavior. To attempt to eliminate all forms of “discrimination” and equalize all forms of behavior as valid is the road to anarchy.
Michael writes: “Here is what I am for: A life affirming union between a man and a woman consecrated to God for the fructification of the earth first in family and children, secondarily as a foundation for service to others.”
Certainly, this is a nice ideal, but any person can physically procreate and produce a child. Mere biological capacity alone does not indicate an ability or capacity to raise one, however, nor does it imply a desire to bear the responsibilities in raising one. Go check out your local adoption agency websites, and you will be amazed by the number of children who have been abandoned by their biological parents because they proved to be a “burden”.
So here we have a woman who has shown an interest in being involved in a child’s life both financially and emotionally that is not even biologically hers, and she is painted here as an insensitive, depraved beast. Am I missing something? Do you really suppose someone would willingly choose to fork over their money and drive several hundred miles simply out of an interest in promoting an ideology? Certainly, the best interests of the child should be taken into consideration, but are there any indications or even accusations of abuse on the part of Janet? Is there any indication that Janet would prove to be a harmful influence on the girl, aside from the fact that she happens to be female?
My point is that there’s half a story being reported here, and I would expect more from those who purport to be the gatekeepers of “truth”.
James, you are going to have to forgive me. I find your reply intentionally dishonest, willfully ignorant or constructed with malice.
You cavalierly dismiss my statement of what I am for with a non sequitur about the difficulty of meeting standards as a parent. DUH! If your “witty riposte” illustrates anything, it illustrates the substance of my argument that not everyone should be a parent. The only thing I can think of is the specious “wanted child” argument that is always trotted out to support abortion.
I did not say Ms. Jenkins is a “depraved beast” I simply said her actions to intentionally conceive a child in a dysfunctional situation with the idea that it is “normal and healthy” stem from a philosophy that denies genuine humanity (hence the existence of a “depraved beast” is impossible) and looks at all of us as “evolved apes”. Under the doctrine of evolution we can be nothing more than that. Moral choice is simply deciding what is best for us under the circumstances and, in fact, is not really choice at all, but part of some sort of mechanistic determinism or another. Since she really has no choice, her actions ought to be legally enshrined as a “right”. Since the prevailing cosmology and ontology posits no transcendent reality, it is only to be expected that personal selfishness will guide our actions. And, you know, that’s OK James, ‘cause that’s just the way you are.
You ask: “Do you really suppose someone would willingly choose to fork over their money and drive several hundred miles simply out of an interest in promoting an ideology?” YES!!!!
People make heroic sacrifices for causes all the time James especially ideological ones. Ever hear of suicide bombers? She is making the sacrifice for herself and her identity as a lesbian, not for the good of others. If she really had the child in mind, she would absent herself from the situation. Of course, she could give out of a sense of charity if she wanted to. She has no duty here; she has no “rights” parental or otherwise. The child’s mother could accept her help and her visitation if she wanted to, but is under no obligation to do so.
Ms. Jenkins is not the child’s parent and is not related in anyway. Her wishes and desires are not germane.
BTW the logical fallacy in the stupid, sophomoric and idiotic statement that Christians define ourselves by what we are against is that any statement of what is wrong implies a statement of what is right. The reverse is true. The fact that the “against-is-all” is a straw is clearly revealed in your blatant disregard of the content of my statement. You just don’t care what the Christian approach is, you just want us to stop interfering with the fun and games of our hedonistic culture by questioning the validity of the philosophy and calling your attention to the inconvenient existence of sin AND to the obverse of sin, virtue.
Perhaps another analogy would be a man who meets and then marries a pregnant woman. In such a case, he has no biological connection to the child, just a legal/contractual agreement.
Would you make the same general argument if such a man sought custody rights, if his wife decided to leave him after he’d helped to raise the child for a year and a half?
Michael writes: “You cavalierly dismiss my statement of what I am for with a non sequitur about the difficulty of meeting standards as a parent.”
I’m not dismissing it. Again, it’s a nice idea, but it’s not always a viable option. In such instances, what would you advise? Should a single mother have her biological children removed and placed in a two-parent household? Must the parents be Orthodox, or can they be Jewish or Buddhist?
What I’m saying is I’m not sure how you expect the law to accommodate the Orthodox ideology when it comes to custody and marital issues. Can you further explain?
Reading Phil’s and James’ responses, it will be clear to any responsible parent that both men have no experience raising children.
James and Phil, here is the “real world” all over this country the legal system is stacked against the children. The courts protect molesters; abusers; drug addicts; all kind of debased people who should not be in the lives of children. A lot of mothers invite these creeps into the home. Children suffer because of the declining view of marriage and family.
Phil, the man in your example has no legal or moral right to be considered a parent unless there was a formal adoption.
James, the apathy toward children you exhibit with your massive shrug about the nature of family says it all. You just don’t care. All that seems to matter to you is legalism
Michael writes: “BTW the logical fallacy in the stupid, sophomoric and idiotic statement that Christians define ourselves by what we are against is that any statement of what is wrong implies a statement of what is right.”
Actually, I think I made a statement very much like that on a different thread. What I was talking about was how non-Christians perceive Christianity when looking at it from the outside. Granted that every negative statement also implies a positive, negative comments comments tend to be much more specific, positive comments much more general. It is the specific that gets noticed.
For example, if a Christian says that he opposes homosexuality, that also implies that he supports heterosexuality. But it it’s not clear what “supporting heterosexuality” actually entails, whereas opposing homosexuality often means specific opposition to hate crime laws, gay marriage and civil unions, gays in the military, gay adoption, and so on.
More importantly, I don’t think that non-Christians are attracted to Christianity by whatever moral positions Christians stake out. They are more interested in what kind of people Christians are. I can’t tell you how many sad stories I’ve heard from Christians who got a divorce, who were basically abandoned by their Christians “friends.” In fact, it is a common experience that when the divorce happened, it’s non-Christian family, friends, and coworkers who stepped in to help. I know of several divorced Christians who ended up rejecting Christianity after being rejected by their Christian friends.
So these various standards are fine, but they also imply a rejection of people who don’t meet the standards. When I started to have doubts about fundamentalism, my fundamentalist “friends” fled from me at light speed. People I had known for years disposed of me faster than used Kleenex. One day you have friends, and the next day you’re a leper with open sores and none dare approach. The speed of the transformation is remarkable.
When you go thorough something like that, it gives you a different perspective on things. I’m not gay, but I understand what it’s like to be rejected by religious folk for simply being who you are.
Concerning this particular thread, remember that the articles posted here are very carefully selected so as to communicate a particular point of view. In this venue we’re never going to hear about the lesbian couple with a child who do just fine, whose child does just fine. Whatever the disagreements here, I think we can all agree that that will never happen. So I’m not sure what we’re supposed to take away from this article. When a heterosexual marriage crashes and burns and children are involved, is that an argument against heterosexual marriage?
Fr. Hans writes: “Reading Phil’s and James’ responses, it will be clear to any responsible parent that both men have no experience raising children.”
Well I do. I ended up being the stepfather of a 13 year old girl, just at the age when she’s figured out that adults are irrelevant. There were stormy times, but at the end of the day everything came out all right.
For a while we also took care of the daughter of a good Christian family. At age 16 her parents threw her out of the house because she started smoking. You know, she didn’t meet the standards. So she ended up living with the “heathen.” I talked to her parents and tried to negotiate a return — perhaps she could smoke outside, etc. Well, they almost threw me out of the house. How dare I suggest such a thing, and so on. Eventually the girls went to live with some friends, dropped out of school, got tattoos, got pregnant, the whole package.
A couple of years later I saw the girl’s father at the grocery store. He immediately began to rip into me — “I never would have let my daughter talk to me the way your stepdaughter talked to you,” and various other criticisms concerning my lack of parenting skills. I decided not to twist the knife, but what I wanted to say was “Your daughter dropped out of school. Your daughter has tattoos. Your daughter had a child out of wedlock. My stepdaughter is in college. So you know where you can put your lecture.”
So I said nothing. And hopefully the guy took comfort in the fact that he defended his values and his standards — even if it meant disposing of his daughter. An unusual case, but instructive nonetheless.
I must say i have to agree with Both James K. and Jim Holman. I come from a single Parent family. My mother raised both me and my sister, and we seldom saw our father, and this may sound sinful in christian eyes, but my Father is an Alcholic who is so full of hate it could feed Hell. In Most christians eyes however both me and my sister would be bad, because we were not raised in a traditional family, but on the contrary both me and my sister are both Quite successful and caring, Despite being raised by our mother who worked two jobs to provide to us.
I think the idea of a traditional family is great, but in the real world as James K. had spoke of their is: Rape, Abuse, Drugs , amongst other horrid things all of which is commited by a two parent (mother and Father) family. I’m pretty sure its fair to say that any possible family scenario will have its ups and downs, and we really cannot discriminate against any particular method, especially if we are not all knowing (lets not play god here people).
I will pray for Michael B. in hopes that he will not be so narrow minded and not treat homosexuals as Destructive people i have Lesbian friends and they are both caring and supportive in Causes for children and Cancer, and i think that anyone who could say they are destructive people are Closer to Satan than Courtney Love.
Instead of spreading Hate, Fear, and Animosity why not Treat everyone with fairness, and let God decide their fate.
Sorry Michael B and Jacobse but you both are spreading Fear and Hate i Hope God isn’t angry about that, because in the end everyone will have to answer to god, so with that known how about focus more on what you as an individual are doing and not what everyone else in the world is doing
Jim says:
For example, if a Christian says that he opposes homosexuality, that also implies that he supports heterosexuality. But it it’s not clear what “supporting heterosexuality” actually entails, whereas opposing homosexuality often means specific opposition to hate crime laws, gay marriage and civil unions, gays in the military, gay adoption, and so on.
It is very clear – it’s just that you try to deconstruct it, push it into your materialistic, androgynous view of man, sexuality, and how that sexuality relates to God.
Let’s reduce it to one sentence:
Marriage, a Holy Sacrament, is between a man and a women. You disagree on ontological grounds, but can’t talk about it because you don’t understand the ground of your own thinking. You don’t even admit the “Holy”.
Would you make the same general argument if such a man sought custody rights, if his wife decided to leave him after he’d helped to raise the child for a year and a half?
Speaking for myself, I would not. Since this is a dispute between a man and a women, he has real standing, unlike the homosexual women…
James says:
I’m just not sure what is being proposed here, if anything’s being proposed at all.
It’s real easy: The homosexual women has no standing Christianly speaking, to be the girls mother. Thus, she should have no legal standing in a rightly ordered society.
I also don’t appreciate the insinuation that I am callous in regard to the welfare of children
I would say the opposite: you (rhetorically at least) seem so concerned about them you would through out reality (the reality that marriage is between a man and a women) in an effort to “help” orphans, and the like. This of course would be a step back, not forward in any effort to aid orphans…
Actually, in many states, there’s a presumption of paternity when a child is born to the wife of a married man. If the man raises the child (or does not contest the child’s paternity), the man can be found responsible for child support. This can still be the case when the man knows full well he is not the child’s biological father.
Strike the “legal”. The state is so anxious to assign someone the task of child support that they’ll gladly pick anyone out of the hat–just like James. Here in Kansas (ahh that “bastion” of conservatism? and family values) it is difficult to sever the parental rights of someone who has committed verified sexual molestation and physical abuse against his own children. The only reason: as long as there are legal parental rights, the state can force child support and doesn’t have to pay as much welfare. In the process the state is more than willing to allow unsupervised “parental” visits and will penalize the custodial parent for refusing to allow them. Of course, they do a horrible job with the enforcement of child support. They are much more efficient at enforcing the specious parental rights of the abuser.
There is no protection for children in the legal system unless you have money and influence. It is dehumanized and dehumanizing. The extension of “parental” rights to homosexuals is just another example of the distortion in a society that has lost touch with its own humanity***. The libertine sexual license that is so popular further degrades us all–exactly what to expect from evolved apes. So the sexual and physical abuse of women and children rises to ever higher and more disgusting levels and we are inundated with every type of perversion each and everyone claiming normality. Those who attempt even weakly to point out the consequences of such activity are labeled judgmental, hypocrites, dreamers, lunatic, irrelevant, not living in the “real world”.
***note to James: All sin dehumanizes; the societal acceptance of sin furthers the dehumanization. I am not saying that homosexuals are “in human beasts”. Homosexuality is a sin which along with fornication and adultery our culture now largely accepts. There is so much acceptance that when I describe the marriage and family which should be normative (not exceptional) you can shrug and say with a condescending yawn “That’s nice, but that’s not the real world”.
Note 11. James writes:
Not callous James but “inexperienced.”
Children are devalued in our culture and bear the scars of adult immaturity all across the board. Now they become fodder in a larger social experiment of homosexual marriage. And, like single motherhood, it will take a generation before we discover the common wisdom was right: kids do a heck of a lot better in two parent (heterosexual) families.
No doubt more pathology will be uncovered a generation down the road when the children raised by homosexuals come of age. Homosexual couplings are notoriously unstable (partner on partner abuse rates are higher than heterosexual married couples). None of this bodes well for children.
Where I see your inexperience is in the notion that children are interchangeable items in what ever relationship masquerades as a stable heterosexual marriage.
Note 17–
You see it as a foregone conclusion that children growing up in households headed by gay couples will be “worse off” than their counterparts who are raised by straight couples.
If it turns out that the evidence (a generation down the road) does not support this theory of yours, will you change your viewpoint about the appropriateness of gay parenting? (That is, will you look at the results and say, gosh, I called it a “social experiment” and it looked like the social experiment worked!)?
I’m curious, because it seems like your objections are spiritual and ideological, but then you talk about possible real-world effects. For me, if I propose a theory about something that will happen in the future, and then that something doesn’t happen, it forces me to re-examine my underlying beliefs.
Are you suggesting that your underlying beliefs could be re-examined, or is your reference to future real-world effects just a red herring?
Note 18:
To answer for myself (and not Fr. Jacobse):
Your not going to like it: Yes and no.
Yes, if what it means to be “worse off” was not itself in dispute. In other words, what it means to be “human”, Christianly speaking, means that one’s upbringing can not really be separated in such a neat fashion. In other words, to say a homosexual parent, who is not a hypocrite but really believes his homosexuality is “ok”, does not have a real and lasting negative witness on the child does not follow.
Still, the question is really mute because when you go from an advanced understanding of any subject (in this case the Christian understanding of man and his relationships) to an inferior one (in this case, the utilitarian view of man and his relationships) bad stuff always happens. We see this in our daily lives, in our society, through out human history.
Your “experiment” has already been tried (again, and again, and again), it’s results are already known…
Note 18. No data is in yet, so we have to rely on the data obtained by other social engineering experiments as well as our common sense.
There is no question that single motherhood has exacted a huge toll on the stability of children. I remember all the arguments and most of them are similar to the ones heard about homosexual coupling today.
As for common sense, homosexual relationships are notoriously unstable and highly promiscuous, more so than heterosexual unmarried couples. I don’t see why we should subject children to even more instability.
Lesbian relationships are more stable than male homosexual relationships (the nature of a lesbian relationship is different simply because women are different than men), but even in the cases where some stability is evident (and there are some), a boy still suffers the deficit of an absent father. In many cases he will not even know who is father is, not a good thing at all.
As for males, I just don’t trust it. I know men. I am male. I am also a father. I can tell that being a father without the benefit of a mother must be tough duty. I don’t think homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals are up to the task, certainly not enough to experiment with children.
Christopher,
It sounds like you’re phrasing a truism: children raised by homosexual couples will be “worse off” in the future because “to-have-been-raised-by-a-homosexual-couple” is one factor that determines whether a child is worse off. I can’t tell yet if Fr. Jacobse would agree with that, but it does call into question any language that it is a social “experiment” or statements that “no data is in yet.”
Jacobse,
You write:
Data show that African-American relationships in the United States are more unstable than white relationships. Would you agree that it’s also wrong to subject children to African-American relationships?
I would like to point out a good argument about what Jacobse said in regards to Homosexuals being notoriously promiscious and Unstable.
“As for common sense, homosexual relationships are notoriously unstable and highly promiscuous, more so than heterosexual unmarried couples. I don’t see why we should subject children to even more instability”.
Does anyone truly know why Homosexual Males are as promiscious as they are? Any good common sense would say that they act out in this way because they do not believe in themselves and what cards they were dealt, and lasty abandoned by most (not by the real God though), so they seek comfort at such a desperate rate it leads to promiscious tendency (this is a fallacy of man in general not homosexual men). One thing that has been witnessed first hand is when a Homosexual couple or single Homosexual is given a child it normalizes this tendency for “to much sexual Gratification”. We all know that heterosexual men think about sleeping around and would if women were so quick to give it up, but women do not give in as easily as men.
That is the true issue with homosexuality in Men is that they are not willing to except what God has given them, so they screw up and become Whores and obtain diseases because of it. A good Religious person can see past someones sexual orientation and try to be a good person and help that person deal with things, so that they may come to grips with the not so usual card they were given.
This whole blog has been about nothing but taking away from people, and in this world as bad as it is now that is all we as people are doing is taking away from things instead of giving, so if anyone is to blame for everything that could be wrong in this world is ourselves for spreading intolerance and Hatred, instead of excepting that things are not always going to play out like one hopes (Idealism is for selfish fools) reality is whats happening, and the reality in this world is that the Homosexual population (including the Married Closet Cases) is rising, and why do you that think that may be i doubt its Satan doing anything Satan doesnt need to do anything we do it to ourselves.
As Humans we are: Self Loathing, Self Hating, Jaded, Full of Fear, Full of Anger, Full of selfishness, lacking in knowledge and Wisdom, Easily manipulated by comforting thoughts, and decietful.
This may sound very bad, but in light of all of this we as Humans have th power to make change, not make these awful hateful blogs about lesbian disputes i think and most should agree that this lesbian parental issue will play out like it should as long as everyone keeps their greasy noses out of it.
In summary this entire blog is ridicoulous, and shows the very things i speak of in regards to how humans act.
Lets do a blog about about the poor kids who starve everyday and die that is truly tragic, not some dumb lesbians who are fighting over a healthy living child
Peace, Love, and Hope
Note 21. Phil writes:
Black homosexuals? Yes. Black heterosexuals? No. I would advocate strengthening marriage and family just as I do for white heterosexuals.
Note 22. Brent writes:
So what is the argument here? Give homosexuals children to make them less promiscuous?
I Am Merely stating that the whole argument against homosexuals is based off of Beliefs and not all facts, and i dont think everyone is being fair by making assumptions that all Homosexuals are destructive or cause problems. As far as problems are concerned yes Homosexuals have certain unlikeable tendency, but going by the history of the US we might as well enslave homosexuals for some many years and call them Faggots and Dyke Daddies, and then eventually let them go free and then have segregation against Homosexuals, and then finally leading up to how the US now Treats african-Americans as minorities.
Their are few options, because Homosexuality is never going to go away its been around for many many many years, so instead of bitching about it on these blogs acting like a Aggravated cyst why not correct problem in a more positive way.
Marriage is declining for many reasons and not all of them are because of the growing rate of homosexuality
Let me point out some reasons why marriage and childhood is declining:
1. Cost of living is becoming more and more unfeasible for families
2. When Men and Women get married, Women have the upper hand of taking half or more of the Males asset making the male fearful of losing everything by getting married.
3. People are pressured into Marriage (like the old days with the Shotgun Marriages)
4. Men/women get married trying to Deny their Homosexual feelings, thus to only find out years down the road they cannot deny such feelings.
Their are many other reasons why Marriage is becoming more and more how should i say Crappy.
It used to be back in the older days that african americans weren’t allowed to get married it was the sanctity between a white male and a white female, and it wasnt til the 70′s (i could off by so many years) that people from other countries werent allowed to marry to a US citizen, so given that trend of what is the sanctity of marriage is utter Racist Crap.
Let us all not forget what the U.S. has down with its laws over the years they constantly change (indecisive people making laws).
If Homosexuals get married then they get married big deal, i mean if they can married then that proves that heterosexual couples should be able to keep their marriages going strong.
Lastly let us not forget that marriage is a legal thing not a religious thing were Adam & Eve Married i dont think so they were together, but not legally married, so does that make them Destructive immorale people, because they had kids out of wedlock.
If two people love each other than thats between those two people and should stay out of prying eyes, and if problems arise out of their love let them deal with it.
No offense to anyone, but most peoples responses to this Blog prove that People are all about other peoples business, and are not paying attention to their ownselves.
I hope one day people can wake up and realize that their is much more going on in this world then homosexuals getting married. Their are people in countries so hungry right now that they couldnt procreate or get married if they wanted to, so does that make them destructive.
I Implore that people see reasoning to things and quit trying to prevent the inevitable changes in society, and just try to be good people and help those who need help, not judge them and hurt them.
Are we can all be like Hitler and wipe out any race of people who are deemed destructive to the normal, because he was such a great leader all.
Someone make a better blog than this lesbian dispute it lacks any true validation for being something to bitch about
Fr. Hans writes: “No data is in yet, so we have to rely on the data obtained by other social engineering experiments as well as our common sense.”
In fact a number of research studies have been done, although more need to be done. So I don’t know where you’re getting “no data.” While there are not as many research studies as we would like, the studies that have been done show that children do well in households with homosexual couples. There are no significant differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples with respect to quality of parenting, emotional attachments, school success, behavioral problems, and so on. Studies also show that children reared in two-parent homes with either heterosexual or homosexual parents do better than children in single-parent homes. Again, more research needs to be done, but this is what we have so far.
Fr. Hans: “There is no question that single motherhood has exacted a huge toll on the stability of children. I remember all the arguments and most of them are similar to the ones heard about homosexual coupling today.”
Again, studies looking at children reared by couples of either orientation and by single parents have already been done. The outcomes tend to be worse in single parent homes. The two-parent home offers several advantages over the single parent home, including the possibility of two incomes and thus more financial stability and options, shared parenting responsibilities, two people spending time with the child rather than one person, the possibility of one adult staying home with the children, and so on.
Fr. Hans: “As for common sense, homosexual relationships are notoriously unstable and highly promiscuous, more so than heterosexual unmarried couples. I don’t see why we should subject children to even more instability.”
As far as I know, this instability, inasmuch as it exists, has not shown up in any research studies as far as having a detrimental effect on the children. Homosexual couples tend to be more open to adopting older or disabled children. For many of those children, the other option would be life in foster homes.
Fr. Hans: “As for males, I just don’t trust it. I know men. I am male. I am also a father. I can tell that being a father without the benefit of a mother must be tough duty. I don’t think homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals are up to the task, certainly not enough to experiment with children.”
A report by the American Academy of Pediatrics reports the following data from the year 2000 census:
Given the studies that have been done and the number of same-sex couples rearing children, at this point we are somewhat past the “experiment” stage. If you’re concerned about children, the place to focus that concern is on single-parent families, whether the parent is homosexual or heterosexual.
But really, all of this talk about “data” and “research” is irrelevant, isn’t it? In other words, if there were 10, 100, 1,000, or 10,000 studies showing that children do just as well in homes with same-sex couples as they do in homes with heterosexual couples, I don’t think it would change your opinion one bit. Is that correct?
Bravo Jim Holman you were able to place some stuff in the blog that i was trying to get at but failed to do so.
The Bottom line is that even with the facts showing that Homosexual’s can do just as a good of a job if not better still wont matter, because people are afraid of anything that is different so they bad mouth it, and try to make it look bad.
Like i mentioned previously Go back into the 50′ or 60′s and see how easily it would have been for a african american person to adopt someone……..Eaxactly so given the trend it is safe to say that it is a matter of belief that Homosexuals cannot succeed in raising a child no actual proof exist that they cannot do so.
Do we live in a fictional world or factual world
Fact or Fiction
Truth or Lies
Realization or Denial
I am defending Homosexuals because i know that they are good people and they deserve a chance in this world, and god would not want me to hate someone or make them look bad, Satan would want that ;0)
Speak the truth or don’t speak at all should be the morale of any type of political or religious discussion.
note 27:
I said earlier:
Yes, if what it means to be “worse off” was not itself in dispute.
Jim is an explicit anti-Christian. Folks like him are not going to admit measures into their “studies” that would allow a Christian sense (or really, any other religious/world view that does not buy into later modern neo-pagan materialism) of what it means to be “well”. When you define the terms of the debate, then of course you get to pose questions like:
But really, all of this talk about “data” and “research” is irrelevant, isn’t it? In other words, if there were 10, 100, 1,000, or 10,000 studies showing that children do just as well in homes with same-sex couples as they do in homes with heterosexual couples, I don’t think it would change your opinion one bit. Is that correct?
You can accuse Christians of stubbornness when you stubbornly cling to your own notions (in this case, nihilistic materialism) of what it means to be human and how to measure human flourishing. Then you can sit back, and say things like:
because people are afraid of anything that is different so they bad mouth it, and try to make it look bad.
Instead of really trying to understand what it is Christianity is saying about what it means to be man, and what it means to “be well”…
Your new here Brent M. Jim has been posting his neo-pagan world view here for years, and refuses to even admit another philosophy, which is why I argue he is a Troll. I hope you don’t fall into the same trap. Instead of asserting that Christians act out of fear, why not try to understand how we understand what it is Christianity is saying about man and God? If we understand man to be something other than what the Jim’s of this world say he is, then it follows that we understand what it means to be “well” in a different light. Now I ask you, what IS the Christian view of man? Do you have an idea of what that is?
Brent, unless you are reading a different blog, there is nothing here that is hateful in anyway to homosexuals unless you consider the identification of homosexuality as a sin to be hateful.
It is a sin similar to adultery and fornication in the sense that it involves a disordered sexual desire. As a besetting sin for many it is difficult to address, but the Church teaches us that all sin should be recognized as such and confessed so that healing may take place. How is that hateful?
The only “bitching” that has gone on here is the contention that exists between those who feel that homosexuality including homosexual unions are normal and should be recognized as such by everyone else. There are many reasons why the Church refuses to agree which have been outlined on other threads.
IMO it is irresponsible to allow children to be raised by anyone who is living with an obvious sexual disordering including adultery, fornication, porn addiction, homosexuality. Unfortunately, as the standards of society are continually eroded it becomes increasingly difficult to find good homes for children as many of the disrupted homes involve not only the sexual license so prevalent in our time, but physical abuse and/or drug usage (including alcohol). So what standard does one use in order to evaluate the ability of a homosexual couple to sucessfully raise children? That is the first question to be asked.
Unless a culture has a hierarchy of values with regard to behavior, it falls apart. Those who resist traditional Christian teaching are attempting to breakdown a hierarchy of values with regard to sexual behavior that has been trans-cultural for thousands of years and is not specifically Christian, i.e., homosexual behavior in not a benefit to society and should not be considered part of the norm. We used to feel the same way about adultery, fornication and pornography. The cultural approach to each of these has been sigificantly altered in my lifetime with bad results for us all. As it stands now, there is very little cultural disapproval for any type of sexual behavior.
While there are all sorts of hateful behaviors that can come from any cultural prohibition, the hierarchy of values is not hateful in and of itself. From a Christian standpoint, regarding others with hate for their sins is a sin in itself of equal or greater magnitude.
In one of the other theads on homosexuality an Orthodox gentleman who happens to have a besetting homosexual desire made the comment (I paraphase) that the Church’s direction for him (and others) was celibacy and that was not hard to bear.
The whole Christian approach to desires and passions no matter what kind is ascesis-self-control through prayer, fasting, almsgiving and repentance. We are directed by the Church to such a way of living for our own growth and transfiguration so that the divine image within us may be resurrected and we may become truly human.
If you see hate for homosexuals here, you are seeing a figment of your own imagination.
For Michael B and Christopher,
I see what you are getting at, but the huge fallacy to that is……. that you are speaking in idealistic terms and with no means of Compromise i mean sure it would be great that every family Household be perfect and every person is heterosexual. In our world as i speak their all kinds of broken homes and homosexuals, however their is always light within dark, instead of wanting things to be like it was in the Dark Ages, why not realize that compromise is going to have to be made for example:
Heterosexual couples who have a kid and give them up have already started the whole mess, and then the kid floats around in foster homes that are wrose than anything, and right now the only people wanting to adopt is lesbians and Gay Men, so with that in mind it is the lesser of the two evils Foster Homes are worse than any gay persons house could ever be (have you ever seen a gay persons house it is usually very well kept, and clean, and positive). Im sorry but They have proven that kids raised by gay parents do not neccesarily turn out to be gay themselves, so you can just rip that page out of the distorted bible.
Religion today has became nothing but this idealistic view of everything, and the inability to love and compromise…. Take the Muslims for example look what they do to people that dont follow their religion absolutely brutal and barbaric, and if religion keeps going like it is we are all going to end up being Muslim extremist, and i for one don’t want that hence why i say this focus on homosexuality and adoption is redicolous.
Everyone is always looking to blame someone or something, rather then just take into consideration that some things are just going to happen kind of like a grand design ;0).
Right now i think any good christian should be focusing on this war, and all those soldiers who are risking their lifes, and all of those starving children who are dying at ages 6 and below, that is the true sadness… The thought of kids never getting to even see age 12 is absolutely sad so sad, that lesbians adopting seems like only a blip on the radar of whats wrong in this world.
Cant everyone focus on whats really going wrong, and quit scapegoating homosexuals as being green acid spitting demons from hell, so that we may fix this world.
that you are speaking in idealistic terms and with no means of Compromise
This “Comprimise”, as you put it. What is the ground of it? If I am following you, you go on to explain by say:
however their is always light within dark, instead of wanting things to be like it was in the Dark Ages, why not realize that compromise is going to have to be made for example:
&
right now the only people wanting to adopt is lesbians and Gay Men
&
Im sorry but They have proven that kids raised by gay parents do not neccesarily turn out to be gay themselves, so you can just rip that page out of the distorted bible.
&
Religion today has became nothing but this idealistic view of everything, and the inability to love and compromise
So, this Compromise (perhaps you did not mean to capitalize it but it does fit). How is this itself not “idealistic”? What I mean by that, is that such a Compromise assumes the world is a certain way (“light and dark”, as you put it), that certain things are “good” and others are “bad”, and based on these premises it goes on to a conclusion – in this case, that adoption by one or more homosexualist is “good”.
Christianity, however, assumes different things about the world. It also admits good and evil, light and dark, but yet it reaches a different conclusion. Why do you think that is?
What i mean by compromise is rather than take away from something apply a better idea or something that both parties can win from win-win situation not a win-lose situation.
To compromise with this Particular blog you would need to truly put yourself in the womans shoes: You brought a kid into the world with another female not neccessarily by your seed, but by your will (they both decided to do it), and now the other one wants to take the child away that you have grown a parental bond to regardless of wether it is biologically yours. Eventually this woman might have to come to grips and let the child go, but that isnt an easy task when you love someone.
Now that you have been in her shoes wouldn’t you think well i dont think she has any grounds for parental rights, but on the contrary she loves the child and by her will and the other ladies egg and some mans sperm brought the baby into the world, so i need to understand that it wont be an easy thing for her to just give up on this at least yet.
Compromise is not always as it seems Comprimising is the ability to understand a situation in its entirety and then try to come up with a win-win solution with the least amount of taking away from something. Naturally it can be harder to compromise, but the rewards are greater if one does so.
I can’t speak directly for Jacobse or Christopher, but I think are indications in this thread that there is actually no data that would be relevant.
To Jacobse, the same type of data leads to wildly different conclusions:
Why are the stability rates for one class of couple the basis for condemnation (or prevention) of their attempts to raise a family, while for another class of couple the same data–a statistical likelihood, nothing more–is reason to advocate strenghtening their relationships?
It’s because the “data” was always a red herring; it had nothing to do with the choice to advocate or not advocate a political viewpoint. It was simply presented as if it mattered.
Then, Christopher responds to a yes-or-no question (Essentially: if there were 10,000 studies, would that change your opinion?) with a statement that is neither yes nor no:
“Materialism” encompasses the very notion that an idea can be proven or disproven with objective data.
I’m not saying that your viewpoints are wrong, Christopher and Jacobse. (I may believe it, but it’s not an argument I’m putting forth in this thread, because we’ve already discussed it.) What I am curious about is: why do you pretend? Why bring up ideas like evidence, studies, data, predictions, etc., when none of these materialistic concepts amount to a hill of beens in terms of the way you form your views and forward your arguments.
Christopher writes: “You can accuse Christians of stubbornness when you stubbornly cling to your own notions (in this case, nihilistic materialism) of what it means to be human and how to measure human flourishing.”
First, you may recall that Fr. Hans raised the issue of data and research, not I.
Second, I’m sure you are aware that studies in this area typically look at outcomes such as school performance, behavior problems, emotional attachments, and so on. It’s not that I’m stubbornly attached to these things, but rather that this is what studies look look at. If there’s a different outcome you want to look at, great, get some grant money and go do the research.
Third, the main issue I wanted to address is whether research studies and data even have any meaning at all for the home team. Because if they don’t, then the whole data issue is bogus. To call for more data only makes sense if more data might affect one’s beliefs.
Christopher: “Jim has been posting his neo-pagan world view here for years, and refuses to even admit another philosophy, which is why I argue he is a Troll.”
“Troll” in this instance denotes someone who didn’t attack anyone and posted on-topic to an issue raised by the list owner. I’ll take that as a compliment. Thanks. My neo-pagan worldview consists of basing my beliefs, as much as is possible and reasonable, on facts and evidence. Dangerous things, those facts. So Brent, consider yourself warned. Some day I’ll come at you with a fact, and you’ll never see it coming.
Brent says:
“or something that both parties can win from win-win situation not a win-lose situation.”
A child, in a non-family (i.e. a homosexualist couple) is a lose situation, no matter how you slice it. Yes, one can think of a worse situation (say, an physically abusive family, or a Nazi concentration camp), but that is still a lose situation. To put it another way, if I understand you correctly, you are wanting to call a win-lose a win-win. A family is a very important thing. Christianly, a homosexualist “couple” is not a family. Thus you are not helping orphans by putting them in a non-family. Now you can say “but but but”, say that foster families are worse. They can be, but I personally know several foster families who are perfectly normal, loving families. Instead of “fixing” the situation by introducing non-family homosexualist “family”, why not fix the foster care system.
In other words, because you have a problem, you don’t fix it by introducing another problem. This is not necessarily a “Christian” observation of course.
Eventually this woman might have to come to grips and let the child go, but that isn’t an easy task when you love someone.
Yes, this would be very difficult. Especially since the quality of her love, while imperfect, still contains some of the Divine in it. However, I would hope I would crave still further for the Divine, and come to see my “love” was imperfect. Humanly, this would be impossible. But with God, all things are possible.
Now that you have been in her shoes wouldn’t you think well i dont think she has any grounds for parental rights, but on the contrary she loves the child and by her will and the other ladies egg and some mans sperm brought the baby into the world, so i need to understand that it wont be an easy thing for her to just give up on this at least yet.
This does not really work as a thought experiment, because not everyone’s “shoes” are equal. Her worldview is right, or Christians are right. Both can not be right.
Compromise is not always as it seems Comprimising is the ability to understand a situation in its entirety and then try to come up with a win-win solution with the least amount of taking away from something. Naturally it can be harder to compromise, but the rewards are greater if one does so.
I agree on win-win. I don’t think a compromise is a win-win. a compromise is a win-lose that one has renamed win-win. It is better to go for win-win than a compromise, as a compromise is really a win-lose
Phil says:
“Materialism” encompasses the very notion that an idea can be proven or disproven with objective data.
No, Materialism ecompasses the very notion that an material “facts” can be proven or disproven with other material data. As you say, it explicitly ignores/discounts the moral. So how can it measure a moral quality, such as the proposition:
It also explicitly ignores/discounts the personal, such as the proposition:
You pose an excellent question:
why do you pretend? Why bring up ideas like evidence, studies, data, predictions, etc., when none of these materialistic concepts amount to a hill of beens in terms of the way you form your views and forward your arguments.
It’s not “pretending” at all, it’s admitting that there is more to life, the universe, and everything, than has ever been dreamt of by materialistic philosophy. I can “study” morals, I can “study” man, and his God.
It’s just another way of saying we won’t agree on a methodology. Mine is just as “scientific” as yours, you would simply define the real (personhood, morals, etc.) away, and claim “science” for yourself. I look at history, I look as studies of single parents, I look at reality, and I see the moral mess of the social experimentation of the last 40 years or so….
But that’s the issue, isn’t it? There is no materialist way to measure a moral quality. But there is also no non-materialist way to measure it.
Measurement itself is materialist.
Phil says:
Measurement itself is materialist.
Not at all. For example, I Love my wife, very very much. That is a measurement – just not an materialist one.
Note 33. Phil writes:
Nice try Phil but of course you are saying our viewpoints are wrong. Why try to argue that data doesn’t matter otherwise?
Look, it took a generation before the effects of single parenthood became fully known. All the political arguments, all the projections of the little data collected, all the moralizing justifying the devolution of the traditional family were shown to be wrong. Well, know we know.
When you throw in homosexuality, particularly the homosexual cultural agenda, who knows what the result will be? Sure, some homosexuals can probably do an adequate job, but again, this is hardly a reason to launch a social experiment that will affect thousands of children over the long run.
And let’s also be honest about the point that much of what drives this push for gay adoption is the same that drives the push for homosexual marriage: the normalization of homosexual behavior. But many people don’t like the idea of gay marriage even though they hold a let and let live attitudes to homosexuals. I’m fine with that. I am not fine with overthrowing cultural traditions that have guided society for thousands of years.
And no, homosexual marriage or parenting is not a “civil rights” issue. (Blacks take great offense at the coopting of the civil rights movement by homosexuals, as I am sure you know.) Rather, it is about the proper order of society. That’s why, as I said, the rest of society who really have no interest in your lifestyles won’t extend the definition of marriage to cover same-sex relationships.
Yes, heterosexuals are largely to blame for this cultural confusion. They dropped the ball. Their failure is not a good enough reason however, to redefine homosexual unions as a marriage, or family. It will only lead to even more brokenness, particularly when you consider the inherent instability of homosexual relationships to begin with. Unlike Brent, I don’t believe the antidote to the homosexual promiscuity problem is to let them be parents. It does not work with heterosexuals, why would it work with homosexuals?
Phil and Brent,
At least in one sense, Christianity is more materialist than the ideological view of love that Brent is proposing. For example, our basic anatomy is itself a clue as to what love is, and how it manifests itself materially. I can not truly “love” a man, because I am a man, and our anatomy is for a women, not a man. Any idea of spousal love that is separated from our material anatomy is an idealism…
Note 39. Yes. Further, homosexual coupling is closed to new life. Male on male and female on female coupling cannot not naturally create new life.
Let’s move from the general abstractions to the specific. I was reading about a couple (Kevin Williams and Tim Eustace) who had been together for 10 years or so. Kevin is a psychotherapist, and Tim is a chiropractor. Says Mr. Williams: “I’m tired of gays using their homosexuality as an excuse for not settling down, being responsible, moving in their careers and committing themselves to a relationship, family and their community”. So, in a sense, he shares some of our conservative posters’ views on responsibility and commitment, and he rejects the idea that being gay must consist of a flighty, pleasure-seeking existence. Both are apparently successful.
Though both are white, they decided to care for two African-American children, both HIV-positive. The foster father of the elder boy (who was 9 at the time) wanted the boy out of the house as soon as he found out the boy had the HIV virus. The two men were willing to handle the expense and difficulty in dealing with raising the two boys.
In this situation, we have children with a life-threatening medical condition whose needs can perhaps be met (and certainly sympathized with) to a greater extent than even many heterosexual families. The men have the financial means and the willingness to deal with an otherwise very difficult situation. What would you propose here? There’s an issue of time here when dealing with such diseases. How many prospective parents are willing to take two boys who are HIV+, do you suppose? I’m going to guess not many. It’s almost as if it’s preferable to see them uncared for than cared for in a “less than ideal” situation. Or am I reading this wrong?
James says:
What would you propose here?
I would propose they donate time, though they would have to be supervised so as to minimize the effect of their overt homosexualist actions and words. They would be allowed to donate all the $cash$ for medical care they wish. They would NOT be allowed to “adopt”, as only a family can “adopt”.
In other words, you would have us over look the moral problematic here because of the difficulty of this situation. It’s easy to sit back and claim ”
Christians would rather they be uncared for”.
If these men’s love is genuine, let them “care” for the boys in a manner that does not push the homesexualist activist agenda…
I’m happy to say your viewpoints are wrong, don’t misinterpret me. (Insert grin here.) I just don’t think that either of us wants to argue about whether your viewpoints are wrong.
What I’m simply pointing out is that, while you pretend that evidence matters, you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that any contrary evidence could possibly matter.
Imagine a casual observer, reading this discussion. When you say, “No data is in yet,” a reasonable inference is that, once the data is in, we’ll be better informed and more able to form an opinion. But that inference would be wrong, because what you really mean is, “No data is in yet, but when the data comes in, it won’t matter, because there is no conceivable data on God’s earth that could provide evidence that gay couples are fit to be parents.”
You’re not lying, per se. You’re just being intellectually dishonest.
If I’m wrong, please correct me. Explain what hypothetical data might establish that gay couples are fit to be parents. I certainly won’t misinterpret is a wholesale endorsement of gay parenthood.
Christopher, you write
Perhaps I should clarify: when I used the word “pretending,” I certainly did not mean to suggest that your religious beliefs, and your transcendent beliefs about the universe, are insincere. The pretending occurs when someone (like Jacobse) assumes a pose as if material evidence would matter to him, when in fact, it would not.
For example, I don’t argue about social issues using quotations from Jesus Christ. You’ve probably met people who do; even gay activists like to quote the bible. It’s a big book, and it’s been the subject of millions of interpretations, and I’m sure I could argue until I’m blue in the face about the “correct” interpretation of the life and words of Jesus. But, I don’t accept the divinity of Jesus. So if I used his words to argue with you about social issues, I would just be posturing: Jesus’ words didn’t really form my beliefs. In the same way, Jacobse is pretending when he suggests that “evidence” is at all relevant to his discussion of gay parenting.
Note 44. Phil writes:
Phil, what you tend to do in debates with broad cultural themes like homosexual marriage is to highlight one aspect and reduce the debate to it.
Look, no one is arguing that you won’t find a homosexual couple adequately raising a child here and there. However, the notion that undermining the traditional family even more (or in your case implicitly arguing that homosexual marriage replicates traditional heterosexual marriage) won’t effect children in the long run flies in the face of our experience with single mothers as well as common sense, especially when the inherent instability of homosexual relationships are taken into account.
Your rationale for the cultural legitimacy of homosexual marriage, as I have pointed out before, would not preclude any group from claiming this ostensible “right” for their cause. If homosexual marriage is a right, why isn’t polygamy, or adult-child marriages? The truth is that you are not arguing for a right as much as a radical social reorganization, and reducing the argument to whether or not I would accept arbitrary data doesn’t change this fact.
No, I am expressing a healthy skepticism not only because the data is preliminary, but also because we’ve tried the social experiments you champion before with dismal results.
Also, given that homosexual relationships are inherently unstable, homosexual promiscuity is a huge problem, homosexual abuse rates are higher than heterosexual rates, etc., I don’t see your rush for moral and cultural parity between heterosexual and homosexual marriage as a wise course. Don’t we have enough problems with the heterosexual breakdown of marriage? Why add to it even more? And why subject children to social experimentation?
Note 42. James writes:
No, you are reading this right. I think the two men are doing the right thing. It’s an exception I can live with.
What social experiments have I championed?
Jacobse, what you tend to do in debates is ignore what the other person has actually said and instead focus on broad cultural themes that have nothing to do with the specific argument being made.
It’s not that I don’t think the point-counterpoint of “Gay marriages are really not that bad for society” vs. “Gay marriages are terrible for society” isn’t an argument worth having, it’s just that we’ve argued it before. I read this board, and I enjoy reading the discussions that other people have even if I don’t participate in them, and I try to only make a post when there’s something interesting or novel that I’d like to discuss. In this case, I am fascinated by your pretense that “evidence,” “data,” or predictions of future consequences are at all germane to your arguments about same-sex parenting.
Certainly, you believe that the evidence supports your views. But what I (correctly?) suggest, is that no possible evidence could come into existence that would affect your views. Jim has posted about this, and I’ve asked you directly.
I already know your views on same-sex parenting. You’ve written about them extensively. What I don’t know, is what your response is to this statement:
There are more “broad cultural themes” here than just same-sex parenting. The issue of whether it is necessary for people of faith, whose views are shaped by earnest, Scriptural faith or “revealed truth,” must pretend that they give weight to materialist things like evidence in the cultural debate, when in fact they do not, is also an important issue. Must Catholics, for example, lie if they want to debate social issues? Must people of the Orthodox faith pretend that they give credence to academic studies?
Inherently unstable? You extrapolate from demographic data that a higher rate of breakups is inherent to homosexual relationships? Yet presented with identical data about black couples, you’d surely not argue that black couples are inherently unstable.
You’re talking about a statistic–”rates.” Why? The statistic is wholly irrelevant to your views. If the statistic were different, it would have no effect on your opinion. You’re only pretending that the statistic matters. It’s a red herring in this debate.
…and it’s unsupported. Can you point to an academic study which concluded that homosexual partners are more abused that heterosexual partners? (I think the study you’re thinking of presented the statistic that homosexual persons are more likely to be abused by a partner than by a heterosexual stranger.)
The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs has indicated that studies show that abuse rates are likely comparable between homosexual and heterosexual couples. (The link is below, if you’re really interested. I’d be curious to read other research studies about the subject.)
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/glbtdv/glbtdv.html#id2316896
Note 47. Phil writes:
Homosexual marriage.
Yes, of course. When you champion a radical restructuring of marriage to include homosexuals, polygamists, adult and children (which your rationale cannot prohibit), then specific arguments must be read in the larger context you propose. If I didn’t approach the larger question, my critique of your method (conflate the entire argument to one or two points) would hold no validity. This should be self-evident.
How can you make this assertion absent long term data? All we have are assumptions, much of it grounded in experience and common sense. Your assumption is that I will ignore the data. My assumption is that the data will conform to long term experience, i.e.: redefining family will have seriously negative effects on children.
Note however, that you attack me, and not the idea. Note too that you are afraid to make the assertion that homosexual parenting will be beneficial to children. Why? One reason is that no long term data exists. The second is that it will introduce all sorts of broader (and salient) cultural points into the discussion — something you have not yet shown you are equipped to address.
Yes, I do indeed argue that part of the black community is inherently unstable, and much of that instability is caused by the breakdown of moral values that actually define the homosexual community. Let me draw it a bit more clearly so you can understand. One of the main reasons for a black underclass is the breakdown of the family.
You are arguing that because we see breakdown in the black families, my argument that homosexual relationships are inherently unstable holds no moral force. (Note that you don’t challenge my assertion that homosexual relationships are unstable.). The difference however is this: I argue for a return to traditional morality, that is, the rebuilding of traditional (heterosexual) families, while you argue that the traditional definition of marriage should be discarded. Why discarded? Again, because the rational you provide cannot be limited to homosexuals alone.
Phil, you are a homosexual activist. Fine. But let’s not pretend that you have the interests of children at heart here. Give me a homosexual who is honest about the rampant promiscuity and inherent instability of homosexual relationships (like the example that James provided above) over one who uses children to advance the homosexual cultural agenda. I can deal with someone who is honest, whether or not he is homosexual does not matter.
Christopher writes: “No, Materialism ecompasses the very notion that an material “facts” can be proven or disproven with other material data. As you say, it explicitly ignores/discounts the moral.”
That simply isn’t true. Research can look at various features of morality including honesty, altruistic behavior, and so on. What research can’t do is to measure “morality” or “goodness” as abstract categories. It can look at specific behaviors that fall into these categories.
Studies of same-sex and heterosexual parenting do in fact look at a number of factors of both parents and children that have long-term moral and social implications — discipline, depression, school performance, behavioral problems, parenting stress, ability to nurture, time spent with children, and so on. These are not trivial things that can be dismissed as “materialism.”
Christopher: “It’s not “pretending” at all, it’s admitting that there is more to life, the universe, and everything, than has ever been dreamt of by materialistic philosophy. I can “study” morals, I can “study” man, and his God.” It’s just another way of saying we won’t agree on a methodology.
Mine is just as “scientific” as yours . . . ”
Give me a break. Your own personal study and your personal opinions are not science in any sense of the word. You simply want to appropriate the word “science” so as to legitimize your own opinions and thus be able to dismiss actual science.
Christopher: “, . . you would simply define the real (personhood, morals, etc.) away, and claim “science” for yourself.”
Look, why not just be honest and say that you have no use for science, since you obviously don’t. You simply don’t care what research has to say about how children do in same-sex parenting. Since that’s your position, as Phil said in a different context, “own it.” Embrace it.
Christopher: “I look at history, I look as studies of single parents . . . ”
Drawing conclusions about same-sex parenting on the basis of studies of single parents is like drawing conclusions about drinking coffee on the basis of studies on cigarette smoking. We already know from the research that those situations are very different from each other.
Christopher: “I look at reality, and I see the moral mess of the social experimentation of the last 40 years or so….”
We do social experiments all the time, and always have and always will. Child labor law was a social experiment. Laws against child abuse were a social experiment. Radio was a social experiment. Television was a social experiment. Widespread literacy was a social experiment. Just because something is a social experiment doesn’t mean that it’s bad. In modern times we can actually study the effects of new policies and practices. And when the research shows that something is good or bad, I really don’t give a whit if some version of a Christopher claims the opposite based on his own personal opinion, even if he calls it “research” and “methodology.”
Phil, has it somehow escaped your notice that all people select the data for debates that is most congenial to their position? You ramble on and on as if only religious people do it. The “fact” of the matter is that non-religious people do it as well, you do it, all of God’s children do it. It is a far different thing when one is debating and attempting to convince than it is learning and studying.
You routinely ignore evidence that is at odds with your position.
In any case the myth of objectivity and neutral facts is one of the greater myths from which empiricists suffer. Data is always selected and interpreted to fit the pre-conceived bias of the person doing the collecting. A person’s mind is changed only when the weight of the evidence overwhelms the bias. If the bias is quite strong, nothing will overwhelm it.
My core bias is that the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, fully man and fully God actually occured. I came to that knowing from an instruction my mother gave me that God is real and I needed to find Him. That was the sum total of my direct religious instruction as a child. My brother was told essentially the same thing. As it happened, God found us first and He brought us to the Orthodox Church.
Since the Incarnation is my bias, I always return to it and it is the organizing principal of my thought. Real communication does not even begin until folks can recognize each other’s core bias. I’m not sure what your’s is, Phil, I just have this sneaky feeling it is not the Incarnation.
Every single coherent thread of thought in the history of man begins with Assume A. The collection, selection, and valuation of evidence begins from that point.
What many here refuse to accept is that the differences between us are quite basic. Since it is more fun to engage in “factual” arguments simple questions like, “What is the nature of man?” go unanswered.
The fundamental reality is that facts, in and of themselves, are meaningless. As the lead character on CSI frequently remarks, “Facts without context are useless.”
Fr. Hans writes: “How can you make this assertion absent long term data? All we have are assumptions, much of it grounded in experience and common sense.”
We have research data going back at least as far as the 80s, in addition to the many more recent studies.
Question: if the “long term data” — however you define that — were to show that children reared by same-sex couples did just as well as children reared by heterosexual couples, would you then not be opposed to same-sex parenting? This is a simple question that should be easy to answer.
Fr. Hans: “Your assumption is that I will ignore the data.”
If the data support the other side of the issue, will you? I don’t know if you will. That’s why Phil and I keep asking. Again, this should be a simple question.
Fr. Hans: “My assumption is that the data will conform to long term experience, i.e.: redefining family will have seriously negative effects on children.”
Why haven’t we seen that yet? There are adults walking around today who were reared by same-sex couples. Studies show that their mental health, their likelihood of being homosexual or heterosexual, their educational attainments, their emotional health, etc., is no different from people who grew up with heterosexual parents.
This Is for christopher on #43
Christopher you busted yourself out with the term “supervised”
You are making an assumption that those gay men would try and push their beliefs on to those two boys. Even if gay people are being altruistic in adopting, then so what we as humans are naturally altruistic nobody does anything without something in return and thats fine, but the fact that you say they should be supervised shows that you want to control the situation. What if the government told you they wanted to supervise your family, because they feel that your means of parenting are incorrect wouldnt that just totally feel awful.
I think those two gay men are being very thoughtful, and honestly if i was them and being treated like most gay people are i would say “Piss on this world it has done nothing but hurt me and cast me aside”, but you know what despite all the hate that has been passed towards them they still try to be good faithful people in this world, and help others, and you want to superivse them i think that is awful that you would even consider that.
I do support idealism about love, but at least that idealism includes everyone and doesnt take away from anyone, except those who wish to destroy and hurt people you know: Rapist, Murderers, Warlords, people who torture others for personal gain, etc.
People express that gay people cannot possibly love, but if you make that comment then at some point you would had to have been or are still A homosexual, otherwise you lack the knowledge to say they do not love. Don’t answer peoples hearts for them you should answer your own, and let others do the same.
I admit that everyone on this blog has good points and everyone on here has a good amount of intelligence, however their is a lacking of compassion and understanding that some scenarios are going to differ than the normal ones, and in the end things will come out alright as it is willed by the all powerful god (this means that you are not god so quit acting you are god)
This whole blog is almost 50/50 opposition and that is how this country tends to be, and i doubt it will ever change. Half of us think that homosexuals should be given adoption rights provided they pass the normal adoption screening (can provide a home, No Drugs, obviously if the person has a record of Rape then no way, etc.), and then the others want to keep adoption only if its a male and female residence, regardless if their is a lack of adoption and kids are being tossed around like dirty gym shorts in foster homes.
Can’t we all agree that these poor adopted kids are already partially screwed up, and as long as they get a chance to have home to eat and a school to go to, and become who they are to become not what some Homosexuals or Heterosexuals want them to be.
This whole blog was to focus on the childs sake with these two lesbians, but we are so wrapped in other stuff, that the child doesnt even exist anymore (this is typical in most religious arguments they always float away from the real issue).
this who thing has been a big False Dilemma
an adopted kids has few choices:
A. Stay In Foster Care
B. If lucky be adopted by a traditional family that wants one because they cannot produce one of their own.
C. Be adopted by a homosexual couple who cannot have kids and wants the same opportunity as traditional families to provide and give a poor abandoned child hope.
D. Argue about what the child should have and meanwhile the child rots in a foster care scenario
Can’t every agree that both B & C are better than A & D, so this where compromising comes into play their are not enough traditional families to adopt the kids, so now that the government has given gay people some rights to adopt they are eager to mimic traditional families and provide pretty much the same setup as a traditional (except with more freedom to become ones own).
Lets all argue til hell freezes over meanwhile the kids suffer for own inability to work together as humans not social and culture standardization of whats right and wrong, because in the end their is no right and wrong with this type of stuff, otherwise it would have been solved by now.
Note 52:
You are making an assumption that those gay men would try and push their beliefs on to those two boys.
Of course they would. They, by the very act of asking for an “adoption”, are “pushing their beliefs” about what it means to be a family, what it means to raise children, etc. They are “homosexualists”, or “homosexual activists”.
In other words, taking something we talked about on the other thread, they are not hypocrites. They are principled homosexualists, in that they believe not only is their nothing wrong with homosexual acts, lifestyle, behavior, but that the rest of society ought to implicitly recognize this – that we ought to call them a “family” and that they should be allowed the normal fruits of a family (in this case through adoption because they of course can not produce a child on their own).
but the fact that you say they should be supervised shows that you want to control the situation.
Of course – I don’t want their philosophy recognized, as I believe it to be a moral degradation (i.e. not “loving”). I don’t want their philosophy taught to children.
What if the government told you they wanted to supervise your family, because they feel that your means of parenting are incorrect wouldnt that just totally feel awful.
Implicit in your question is the idea that two homosexualist together constitute a “family”. They do not. The government, society, does recognize my family already (a union between a man and a women). It also “supervises” it at a minimal level, as I have to treat my children a certain way (provide for their health and education, not leave them in the car on a summer day, etc.).
Can’t every agree that both B & C are better than A & D
No. In my parish, there are two families who are foster families. These families are great families – better than a two homosexualist activists “adopting”. I know the foster system needs work, but two wrongs don’t make a right…
Note 51. Jim asks:
Of course, just as I hope you would. But let’s be clear here. Data is manipulatable and thus has to be examined and verified closely. For example, you are already appealing to data to justify homosexual marriage (and by extension the redefinition of family and parenthood) in exactly the same way that single motherhood was defended. Remember Murphy Brown? That wasn’t that long ago and Dan Quayle was excoriated from the comments. Turns out he was right.
Further, let’s also be clear that the reason the question is posed is not in service to science, but polemics. Both you and Phil have an aversion to discussion the moral and cultural dimensions of this debate preferring instead anecdotes and recourse to dubious notions of legal rights. You don’t seem to have any answers for the social destructiveness of other cultural experimentation.
Well Jacobse social destructiveness is occuring with or without Homosexuals. The biggest issue with the downward slope of everything is the fact that their are more than 16 religions and they are all competing with each other its like businesses, but only these businesses play on faith (Most humans weakness).
I think the whole homosexual thing is a diversion away from the real problem at hand. I am 22 year old Male and in my short years i see this world falling apart quicker than lindsay Lohan, and i can tell you from experience and wherever the truth lies is that Homosexuality is but a small cause of the whole crumbling apple cobbler.
We all want to correct this world, but in order to do so we all must look at the big picture.
The muslims are a perfect example of what will happen with organized religion if people don’t open their eyes. Say a christian girl slept and wanted to marry a Catholic male do you know what would happen to her if it was a muslim setup?? She would be stoned to death, so im sorry if i have trouble believing that people of the same sex wanted to love each other & do their private business behind closed doors, and at least be acknowledged equal rights would be the cause of all the worlds problems (Shrugs).
Maybe i am not looking at the big picture, but i really think alot of us have our priorities mixed up here.
Morality is different with each person, so i struggle to bring morality into certains things, because i don’t think its immorale for gay people to have rights, but others do, and some people think that killing someone is okay, whereas others don’t, which leads me to believe that morality is a individual thing and it differs with everybody, so its hard to make a collective decision based on morality. I look at the intention of the person, and most gay peoples intention from what i have gathered is to not be outcasted by the world by means of trying to fit in with everyone else in fact try to be like everyone else, but if they cannot do that they are going to continue to be the way they are (Promiscious, discrete sex, drug use, depression, the whole sorts) these are signs of someone who struggles with things, so they resort to pleasures that are dangerous.
I don’t expect any of you to agree with me, but i hope that you see that i am not defending any particular person, but rather making this “chessboard” fair without any missing pieces, so that we can all collectively make an assumption what is the right step.
“You don’t seem to have any answers for the social destructiveness of other cultural experimentation.”
I take issue with the level of overgeneralizations about large movements within the culture. Take for instance the issue of women in the workforce which was, to some degree, a “cultural experiment” in the sense that at one point, it was not the norm. In some cases, it works well. In other cases it doesn’t. Factors such as the age of the children, the amount of work and the type of work involved all come into play. Perhaps you can argue that society would be better off had women just consented to never work at all (or perhaps never been permitted?), but I’m uncertain that is the case and there’s not much that can be done about it now, anyhow. The change is here to stay.
However, what this has not signified is a continuing downward spiral that many probably suggested would occur once women became more visible in the workforce. Families have adjusted to allow for both parents to share the amount and kind of responsibilities, companies have expanded their maternity policies (sometimes even extending it to the husband), etc. Additionally, while women keeping jobs may have reduced the necessity of women finding a spouse earlier in life, it has not radically reduced the incidence of marriage altogether. There are many women who marry now for reasons having nothing to do with financial dependence. This is not a bad thing.
Certainly, we need to be attentive to the negative effects that may arise from subtle shifts within the culture and do what we can to alleviate them, but it seems we’re saying that nothing should ever change.
Jacobse,
It seems prudent to clarify a few things. You write:
…when I asked what social experiments I had championed. So, when you wrote
What you really meant was “we’ve tried homosexual marriage before with dismal results?” That seems an odd statement for you to make; perhaps you misspoke?
When you write
…I think I’ve been very explicit in providing a rationale for same-sex marriage that does not include polygamists, adult/child relationships, etc. It’s in previous threads on Orthodoxy Today, and I can give you a link if you need it. But what I really expect you’re doing here is what I’ve accused you of in my most recent post–ignoring what I have actually said and instead focusing on broad cultural themes that have nothing to do with the specific argument being made.
You’re parroting right-wing talking points here, and while you may feel that other same-sex marriage proponents provide a rationale for SSM that may lead to pedophile marriages, it’s categorically untrue that I have.
Again, my reason for wanting to avoid debating SSM is not that I don’t think it’s valuable; there’s just something else I think is valuable to discuss right now. If you don’t want to talk about it, say so, but don’t create straw men so that you can pretend you’re responding to me.
I will restate my thesis:
Whether same-sex parenting has any validity or not, the style of argument that you have employed earlier in this thread is deceitful.
As you can see, I’m not conflating the argument to one or two points; I’m arguing about something else entirely.
Perhaps this explains why we’re experiencing confusion in this discussion. I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking your methodology. I don’t assume that you will ignore the data; I assume that you have already determined that the data will be irrelevant if it doesn’t support the position that you already believe. It’s not quite the same thing.
For analogy, if I made some weak Scripture-based argument along the lines of “Christ said to love your neighbor as yourself, and therefore you should not do XXXX,” you might respond with a carefully-chosen quotation from Christ. And that would be an exercise in futility, because I never really believed that Christ’s words provided evidence for my belief. I’d just be playing with you, pretending that I believed the Scriptural evidence that I was presenting.
I’m honest and up-front about this: as a non-Christian, there isn’t a quotation from Christ that will change my mind about a social issue. Here’s what I propose about your argument style: As a devout, non-materialist Orthodox Christian, there isn’t a shred of evidence that will change your mind about this particular social issue.
If that were not the case, then you would be able to present a hypothetical example of evidence that might change your mind. Remember, I’m not talking about same-sex marriage here, I’m talking about argumentation and methodology. If you think of a hypothetical example, it wouldn’t disprove all of your points about SSM, it would be hypothetical. I submit that the reason that you refuse to do this is because you perceive that it would be tacit acknowledgment that you’ve been deceitful all along.
I can conceive hypothetical data/evidence that would cause me to rethink my views on same-sex marriage. (Sure, I think it unlikely that the examples I come up with would ever happen, but if they did, I’d be forced to rethink my views.) I cannot conceive hypothetical Scriptural quotations that would cause me to rethink my views on same-sex marriage. I have already determined that they have zero relevance to my understanding of this issue, just as I’m suggesting you’ve already determined that all empirical data has zero relevance to the issue. I’m being upfront about it; you’re just insisting on arguing about something else instead of admitting point-blank whether my suggestion is true or not.
You also write
I didn’t challenge it because challenging your assertion would lead you to, yet again, discussing something other than the point I’ve been trying to make. My point is that if homosexual relationships were not unstable, that would be irrelevant to you. As such, it’s a red herring in this debate. If my point is wrong, then say so, and provide some examples (even if they’re hypothetical.)
this is for christopher on #53,
Im sorry to say but by the words you use i don’t think you get out much and see this world as it is. You say their loving is moral degradation not loving, but how can you make such an assumption are you a mind reader, because if you are you really ought to get award for that.
I could care less about your love for your wife, and i dont question wether or not you have cheated on your wife, because you dont really love her, so therefore you do not have the power to assumes peoples feelings for one another i mean if they both sane parties both love each other then it must be real enough. Are people who suffer from dementia or alzheimers disease do they not love? since they cannot remember that they loved someone doesn’t mean they are incapable.
You have very imperialistic views Christopher by that i mean you think you know what people ought to want or feel, however since you are no god by any means i think you are talking out of muddy water.
Its too bad you don’t wake up one day and realize that you are in love with another male, and then stuck in that morale perdicament as to wether or not what you feel is real or not, and then have someone tell you what you should feel (Manipulation).
If someone were to tell me that they love someone of the same sex i may not agree with that, but at doesnt mean i know whether they are sincere in their feelings.
I hope nobody is buying christophers way of handling things, because handling things well would be to help someone out i mean maybe its a phase maybe, but your not going fix that by trying to force them.
Remember when i mentioned Hitlers name …. Yes Adolf Hitler he was imperialistic by means that he convinced the germans that they hated the Jews, and as a result more than 6 million deaths, and his ultimate goal was to control the whole world with the perfect race of people.
these are extremes yes i agree, however extremes gotta start somewhere…
Oh for those who don’t know what imperialism means it is derived from the latin term Imperio totalus it means to control/Manipulate totally. Imerpialism today means something a bit different but ultimately it means to control.
Michael, you write
I’m aware that in debate, most people present evidence that they believe supports their views.
What I’m criticizing in this thread is the act of presenting evidence as if it supports your views when in fact it was entirely irrelevant to your views. It’s not quite the same thing.
I agree that lots of people do it. For example, lots of atheists will happily debate about small biblical details when the truth is, not a word of the bible makes any difference to them. They pretend that there is “evidence” in the bible that contradicts the creation story, or the Resurrection, when in fact, they’ve already ruled out biblical evidence entirely as a valid category of data. They’re posturing so they can get a rise out of the faithful.
There’s a difference between ignoring evidence and discounting evidence that one believes is invalid.
Here’s a hypothetical example:
Let’s say I am a college admissions officer, and I interview two students, one of whom (Student A) I find charming and one of whom (Student B) is a social misfit. If I say on Tuesday that I’m going to accept Student A because of her high SAT scores, and reject Student B because hers are low, then I’m presenting empirical evidence as if it mattered.
If, the next day, one of my colleagues shows me the two students’ SAT scores, and Student A’s are abysmal while Student B’s are stellar, then I must either change my decision about who to accept into the college, or admit that I was lying when I said the SAT scores were the reason for my decision. The point at which I was lying was on Tuesday, before the new data even presented itself, and if it turned out that the test scores were indeed as I had predicted, it doesn’t change the fact that my statement was a lie: I was pretending that I believed the decision should be based on a factor that I, in truth, believed was wholly irrelevant.
Here’s a non-hypothetical example:
Jacobse says that homosexual couples are especially prone to breaking up and more prone to domestic abuse than straight couples. He cites this as evidence that children should not be placed in gay homes. I suggest that if, tomorrow, ten thousand studies conclude that gay couples are not more unstable than straight couples, and another ten thousand studies show that gay couples have identical domestic abuse rates to heterosexuals, Jacobse will not say “meal culpa” and change his mind based on the new evidence.
Thus, even if no new studies come out, even if the evidence doesn’t change, Jacobse is still being deceitful by pretending that the evidence matters today, when he (and probably everyone who has ever debated an important social issue with him) knows that no contradictory evidence would matter tomorrow.
Here’s a non-hypothetical example:
I believe that kids raised by committed gay couples probably have pretty decent childhoods and grow up to be stable members of society at a rate similar to kids raised by committed heterosexual couples. If valid studies came out tomorrow that indicated that kids raised by gay couples had astronomically higher suicide rates than other kids, I’d genuinely question my position.
Sure, I’d question the methodology of the study, I’d want to find out what research biases there were, I’d look to experts I trust to help me analyze the data. All of that is normal human behavior. But empirical evidence has an influence on me, which is why I occasionally use it to support my arguments. I don’t use it to lie or pretend.
Note 58:
You say their loving is moral degradation not loving, but how can you make such an assumption are you a mind reader, because if you are you really ought to get award for that.
Because love, or charity, is more than a subjective feeling. Love is objective, while it has subjective components.
When I was a teenager, I “loved” a girl – or so I thought. Turns out I simply had a strong emotional and sexual attraction. It was not love at all. Today, I love my wife. The strong emotional and sexual attraction is a part of this, but this love is many other things besides that.
These homosexualists, they might really believe they “love” these children, and in certain subjective, and even material senses they do. However, the real harm caused by their objective ordering of the moral/sexual lives points in the opposite direction.
I do not believe it is in anyone’s interest to redefine family in this way.
Its too bad you don’t wake up one day and realize that you are in love with another male, and then stuck in that morale perdicament as to wether or not what you feel is real or not, and then have someone tell you what you should feel (Manipulation).
Today, someone cut me off in traffic. I was angry, quite angry. I “felt” very strongly about it, that I should ram this person off the road, and if that did not kill them, pull them out of the car and choke the life out of them (I am a competitive Jiu-Jitsu player and really could carry this out if I allowed myself
.
Clearly, morality, living in a society, is something more than a “feeling”. These homosexulists, they are capable of real love (as anyone is, as we are all made in His Image and Likeness). This love however will have an objective component. One of the fruits of this love however, will NOT be redefining the family, or “adopting” (thus implicitly redefining the family) because that is not love – that is acting on strong emotions. An emotion, and feeling, Eros, it is not it’s own justification.
Imerpialism today means something a bit different but ultimately it means to control.
All societies “control”, in that they encourage some types of behavior, and discourage others. Lawless societies are the last place anyone wants to be. All societies have a “transcendent source” or inspiration for which they label some things “bad”, and thus set up controls.
Our society has a long history of recognizing family as one thing, and not another. Christianity, from the very beginning, did NOT recognize the homosexual behavior that was rampant, and even encouraged, in the ancient world. This is not a new debate.
Christianly speaking, two homosexualists is not a “family”. Indeed, most cultures throughout time have come to this conclusion, even while some indulged in it. I see no reason to redefine “love”, and “family”, to include strong homosexual feelings.
Finally, have you ever read Scott Peck’s “The Road Less Traveled”?? Let me suggest it to you – he takes on the question of “love”, and what it means directly…
Note 57. Phil writes:
No. I meant what I said. Single parenthood was touted with the same arguments you use to defend homosexual marriage. The results are dismal. Frankly, the assertion that homosexuals can replicate a healthy marriage shared between a man and a woman can only come from someone who 1) is not married, and 2) has no children. Does that describe you?
No you haven’t. The only reason you provide to justify two person homosexual marriage is that since marriage is defined as only two people, we will keep it to two homosexuals. The problem is that you are appealing to a moral tradition that at the same time disallows the moral legitimacy of homosexual relations. Your appeal, IOW, is not valid.
Further, your rationale for the moral sanction of homosexual marriage is based on a legal argument. Again, the problem here is that your rational can just as easily justify polgamy, adult-child marriage, brother-sister marrage, the whole nine yards. You have never resolved this in an satisfactory way.
Let me make it crystal clear. You cannot invoke the authority of the same moral tradition you otherwise dismiss. You don’t get to pick and choose.
Phil, please. Marriage and family are related. This is self-evident. It is also true of the activist homosexual cultural agenda. We should not close our eyes to the obvious.
Drop the pretense Phil. You believe homosexual relationships are moral. I don’t. I don’t believe you will ever marshall the data to prove homosexual relationships are stable because homosexuality is essentially an internal instability.
You sense this which is why you are trying to cast the argument into personal terms. In fact, you already know that my point about the inherent instability of homosexual relationships is correct. You also know that homosexual promiscuity is a huge problem. It’s the sting that is driving the personal attack.
Be that as it may, I am not willing (as are most Americans) to let homosexual activists such as yourself launch social experiments in order to try and normalize homosexual behavior. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but it is clear you are committed to the agenda and won’t be detered. So be it.
“I don’t believe you will ever marshall the data” may be a true statement, but it’s misleading. You refuse to even acknowledge that hypothetical data could come into existence that would prove homosexual relationships are stable. So “marshalling the data” is irrelevant to your actual point.
I’m not asking you to say it’s likely. I’m just asking you to acknowledge that either A) hypothetical future data, that you don’t actually believe will ever happen, COULD provide support for homosexual marriage or B) Your beliefs about homosexual marriage cannot change due to statistics, data, studies, etc., because they were never dependent on them in the first place.
Which is it? A or B?
I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking your position. Why are you trying to draw me into a debate about culture and same-sex marriage and parenting when you’re not really debating–you’re pretending that evidence is important in shaping views on the subject.
“I don’t believe you will ever marshall the data” may be a true statement, but it’s misleading. You’ve been refusing to even acknowledge that hypothetical data could come into existence that would prove homosexual relationships are stable. So “marshalling the data” is irrelevant to your actual point.
I’m not asking you to say it’s likely. I’m just asking you to acknowledge that either A) hypothetical future data, that you don’t actually believe will ever happen, COULD provide support for homosexual marriage or B) Your beliefs about homosexual marriage cannot change due to statistics, data, studies, etc., because they were never dependent on them in the first place.
Which is it? A or B?
I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking your position. Why are you trying to draw me into a debate about culture and same-sex marriage and parenting when you’re not really debating–you’re only pretending that evidence is important in shaping views on the subject.
Phil, to expand a little on Fr. Han’s thought. IMO to really support the homosexual agenda of normality requires one to believe that human beings are defined by their sexual desires. These desires are obviously polymorphous. Unless you take the ridiculous position that ONLY homosexual conduct between to consenting adults is moral, there is no ground for disallowing any type of sexual behavior.
I made the comment in another thead several weeks ago that it was obvious that you had no understanding of what moral are. Let me expand on that a little: morals are not a simply a list of actions or principals that allow folks to interact with less harm to each other, adjustable as required by whim and fancy. Morals are statements of anthropological and cosmological principal that describe the best way to behave within a certain cosmology and anthropology. When Christianity declares homosexuality is a sin, it does so on a the foundation of a particular understanding of our nature as human beings that links us to God and to a specific place in the spiritual/phenomenal creation. Homosexuality violates the Christian understanding of how we are created to be and what we are called to do. Every sin has the same general effect and each sin damages our communion with God (some more than others). It is not just that hetrosexuality is “good” and homosexuality is “bad”. The Orthodox understanding of human sexuality in general is far deeper than that and presents us with a challenging vision that is at odds with the way our culture looks at sex period even within marriage.
As Fr. Hans points out folks like you want to have your cake and eat it too by riding on the coat-tails of Christian anthropology in legalistic fashion where it is amenable to your own desires while rejecting the entire substance of Christian morality.
One of the primary reasons I frequent this place is in the hope that I can gain some understanding of how best to address our culture and the diverse people in it from a traditional Christian perspective. Frequently those who do not share that perspective have their hackles go up immediately and come charging in with defensive guns blazing. In part because I simply don’t do a very good job.
One last thought: IMO it is impossible to be non-Christian because you are a human being and Christ took on human nature when He Incarnated. Whether you like it or not, recognize it or not, His call to the very heart of your being is there because of His Incarnaton. Because we have free will, we can act in un-Christian ways and think un-Christian thoughts, even ignore His call altogether if we work really hard, but there is no human being who is outside of Christ (non-Christian).
Note 63. Phil writes:
Did you miss note 54?
Fr. Hans: “Your assumption is that I will ignore the data.”
Jim Homan: “If the data support the other side of the issue, will you?”
Fr. Hans: “Of course, just as I hope you would.”
…I guess I’m scratching my head here.
But if your “Of course” really meant, “No, I would not ignore the data,” can you provide a hypothetical example of data that would cause you to change your mind? I’d gladly do the same (and have, see previous posts.)
What’s unclear? Of course means yes.
Michael writes: “One of the primary reasons I frequent this place is in the hope that I can gain some understanding of how best to address our culture and the diverse people in it from a traditional Christian perspective.”
As an “outsider” let me give you my take on things. The Orthodox view of sex and relationships and the morality thereof makes perfect sense to me within the context of Orthodoxy. In other words, if an Orthodox Christian refrains from certain practices because he believes them to be immoral, more power to him. If a potential convert to Orthodoxy, homosexual or heterosexual, wishes to take upon himself the various moral and other disciplines of the church, I have no issue with that.
The problem is when you try to take that understanding out into the larger world, that simply does not have the “deeper understanding and vision” that exists within the Orthodox church. That doesn’t mean that Orthodox believers can’t “preach” their moral vision to others. It just means that the preaching happens by example, and the focus is on the vision, not the sin.
This is an example of what I meant earlier by Christians being perceived as negative rather than positive. It’s one thing to say “I oppose homosexuality, homosexual relations are immoral, homosexual relationships are unstable,” and so on. It’s quite another thing to say “we have a profound vision of morality rooted in a two thousand year old tradition, in which sex, love, and humanity are understood in the total context of creation and the mystery of divine love. Let us explore this tradition together, and perhaps you also will come to understand the beauty and power of a life in Christ.”
The book of Proverbs says that “where there is no vision, the people perish.” The vision is primary. If people grasp the vision, you won’t have to preach against homosexuality. If they don’t have the vision, preaching against homosexuality, however well-intentioned, just comes across as mean-spirited. It just depends on what battle you want to fight: the battle against homosexuality, or the battle for the soul.
I’m not Orthodox, but I’ve read books on Orthodoxy, and I have to tell you that there are things within Orthodoxy that are very beautiful and compelling. That’s your citadel, the base of your power. But when Orthodox folks try to make philosophical and social arguments against this or that immoral thing, in effect they leave the citadel and end up throwing rocks at people. The goal should be to bring people into the citadel, not to yell at them for how they live their lives outside of the citadel. In my humble opinion.
Note 67–
I think I see the problem.
I interpreted that exchange as, you saying Jim thinks you’d ignore the data, and then Jim asking, if the data support the other side of the issue, will you? As in, will you ignore the data?
So I read your of course as “Of course. Yes, I will ignore the data.”
…from your response, it seems like you meant to say, “Of course I will support the other side of the issue.”
But that’s great! I’m impressed. You’re saying if data support gay parenting, then so will you. If real data showed me that gay parenting was inherently harmful to kids, my views might change too.
Now, we might differ on how to analyze data. For example, can we both admit that studies that show the ill effects of single motherhood and single fatherhood on children are not really valid in predicting the effects of gay parenting? For gosh sakes, we’re talking about double motherhood. So, while I might suggest that double motherhood might be comparable to heterosexual parenting (perhaps with a few unexpected benefits), you are free to argue that there isn’t enough data about double motherhood, or that the data is incomplete, or that you find the existing data unpersuasive. All of those might be reasonable positions to take. But suggesting that statistics about single motherhood can simply be applied to double motherhood is unreasonable.
Lots of studies have shown that obese parents are more likely to have obese children. Additionally, obesity is a leading cause of health problems in this country, up to and including early death. If we’re talking about “social experiments,” that is a social experiment that failed. The data is overwhelming: obese people are hugely more likely (no pun intended) to have obese children, and obesity has terrible health effects. So, given the conclusive data in this area of family populations, would I be justified in attempting to render obese-marriages illegal?
I’d be making exactly the same argument that you do when you say that gay marriage is bad for children. The only difference is that my point would be supported by reams of unquestioned research, while the research to support your point is still a little shady. My proposal need not be as extreme as yours: I could just propose that state governments require obese persons to lose weight before marrying.
Now, since I’m making exactly the same argument that you do, would you agree with such a proposal? Why or why not?
Wow i must say that this whole blog is being drawn out, and thank god that todays youths do not have the patience to go the distance like this.
This is a silly debate that will never end, and i think we all should pull away from the computers and go outside and enjoy Nature, and not worry about this whole thing its ridicoulous.
We can all argue about who is right and wrong til we are blue in the face, and in the end it still won’t solve anything except how much time one can waste of their precious life sitting around arguing about things that are going to happen regardless.
Their was something on tv last night about the human rights campaign, and you know what its growing stronger and stronger despite what heavily religious people have to say, because todays youths are caring less and caring less about religion, because religion itself has became so obscured from its original intent that most youth find it unappealing.
Yes i may sound a like a hippie, but at least hippies know how to forgive and learn, and not want to snap someones neck, because they were cut off by some jujitsu christan warrior that snaps infidels necks.
Im laughing right now because people my age and below think this whole thing is hilarious, and a crock of crap “look at those poor old people trying too desperately to cling on to old ways” that is what most of youngs ones are saying, and guess what we will eventually take over once all the older people pass away.
This is like the movie village of the damned, minus the fact that us youngins aren’t possessed by Satan, but possessed by a refresh view on religion, not this baudy old stuff that reeks of mustiness.
I’ve Shown this blog to some people and we all have some good laughs at how old fashion alot of you guys on here are.
So you all know we will be taking over soon, and paying your social security, so you oughta be a little more understanding of how the younger are going to run things :0)
Phil writes:
Phil, you try so hard to portray homosexuality as merely a personality quirk, no different than left-handedness, or in this case obesity.
I’ve told you before that you tend to reduce questions that have all sorts of cultural ramifications to one or two points as if all the ramifications should be reduced to those one or two points. Here you argue about the responsible use of data to argue -what? — since no long term data about homosexual “families” exist, we should launch the experiment until data comes in?
Well, sorry, but again an absence of data is not a sufficient reason to overhaul marriage and family. The reason there is no data is because society (most human societies, BTW) has always deemed homosexual coupling as disordered thereby precluding the establishment of a homosexual “family”. These decisions are made by looking at broader questions about the nature of homosexuality, the nature of family, what is best for raising children, — in short the larger cultural questions that you want reduced to points about absence of data, left-handedness, obesity, or others that continuously skirt the larger questions.
Frankly, I don’t believe many homosexuals want to set up house anyway. I don’t think many want to get “married”. This notion of the domestication of the homosexual has never been part of homosexual theory until the last twenty years or so. I think it’s primarilly polemical. I think the nature of the lifestyle largely precludes it.
But what’s the problem? Homosexuality is biologically closed to new life, so just live that way. No one is stopping you. But don’t ask for an overhaul of cultural mores just because it is.
Brent, my 20 year old son would agree with you on one point: the endless debate on unsolvable issues. He has no patience with that either. Some of it is just plain arrogance and stubborness but not all. A lot of it is practice and a desire to communicate what we find valuable.
My son would emphatically disagree with you about faith however for the simple reason that he has experienced too much of its reality. He knows Jesus Christ is real. He has an experiential understanding of a lot of the theology of the Church that I still stuggle with. For him the Church is the foundation for what he wants to do and how he wants to grow as a man. Believe me, if he had not had the experience, he certainly would not take my word for it. He challenges me all the time and I am better for it.
Just some points to think about:
1. Ideas have consequences because people act on ideas, we don’t just think about them.
2. Many people come to the Church only after experiencing pain and suffering in their lives. In recent years there have been a significant number of young punkers and street youths who have come to the Church because they see and experience the hardness of worldly life which you, apparently have not yet(thank God). They want something better, they want to be healed.
3. Life in the Orthodox Church is about union with Christ, that is it. In the 2000 year tradition of the Church much has been discovered about the actions and attitudes necessary to grow in that union, to be healed of the pain and scars which we carry because of our lack of unity.
4. If you are like most people at age 20 you are largely oriented outward, there is so much to do, to discover, to experience “out there”. That’s great, but there is likely to be a question that comes up frequently unanswerable by what is “out there”. Who am I really? My Christian journey began when I was 20 because I was asking that question.
5. Morality, if it has not degenerated into legalistic moralism, is founded upon a realization of what is best in human beings. Morals are a standard by which we and others may judge the quality of our life. Since human nature does not change, real morals should not either. Just because something is old, does not make it “old fashioned”. The morality taught be the Church (and hopefully demonstrated by those in the Church) if founded upon the way God fashions us.
6. Often our personal desires are not in accord with the way God fashioned us. Following those desires is therefore self-destructive (sinful).
So I wish you well on your journey through life; may it be fruitful and fulfilling for you.
Oh, BTW, homosexuality is a painful burden. I have known a number of homosexuals over the years and seen the pain. Most of the pain is not the result of societal rejection. Societal acceptance will not lessen that pain and for some it may even deepen it. We are more than our genitals and our desires.
Morals are a standard by which we and others may judge the quality of OUR life.
Brent, I would add to what Michael has said in his post, that Orthodox Christians look to the measuring rod of Christian morals to gauge how “real” they are as human creatures. It is believed and taught in the Church that humanity “fell” into a condition that is lower than the beasts. Christian moral standards are reflective of OC belief that human creatures are made in “the image and likeness of God”. Respecting OC morality means realizing that giving in to bodily desires (“passions”) is to live like beasts that relate to the world “sensually”. When humans act like sensual beasts, they are worse off than beasts, because as humans they have forsaken their calling, their inheritance, traded it for say … a car, clothing, fame, fortune, etc. OCs believe humanity is capable of more than sensual existence and are not truly happy unless such is being achieved.
Failing to value and work at becoming dispassionate, choosing instead to live sensually by the dictates of one’s own passions, might be said to be a case of “mistaken identity”, that is why it is referred to as forsaking Truth for a lie. Identity for Orthodox Christians is with the Divine Image & Likeness that is illustrated by the God-man Jesus the Messiah, in whom humanity is rejoined with Divinity.
Recently, I taught in public ed for 2.5 years and it was quite the experience. American teens are driven by passions. I used a wooden Pinocchio figure to try to communicate to them about asceticism, something which I doubt few if any have every heard growing up in this culture. I’m not sure they have even heard the real story of Pinnochio, only the Disney version. Pinnochio doesn’t tell the whole story of Orthodox Christianity, but you can see it below the surface. Pinnochio desperately wants to become a “real” human (boy), but he is constantly being tempted and falling in with the undisciplined crowd that lives sensually, only for fun, always running after pleasure (hedonism) and away from pain (the discipline of school studies, obeying parents, becoming dispassionate, etc.)
Carlos Collodi wrote Pinnochio before Italy became a nation at a time when it was ruled by a foreign power, the Hapsburgs. He knew that if Italy was to stand any chance for sovereignty, the younger generations would have to develop discipline or they would always be ruled by something foreign to themselves, in the form of their passions or another nation. The only real form of government is self-government. The fact that we are not all capable of it internally is the reason that we must subject ourselves to it externally.
I capitalized OUR in quoting Michael, to stress that this is the belief of the Church. To belong to the ecclesia (literally “assembly; Church) is to join oneself to humanity that is being empowered by God through Christ to “real”-ize the potential for which humanity was created. The Church does not view humanity as individuals but as one “body”, the understanding of which may be as simple as realizing that none of us got here except through the body of someone else who came here the same way before us. We are much more connected than our culture gives credit, or that we may “sensually” be able to experience because to one degree or another we each have some of the “lie” still living in us (often seen as the way we pontificate, or forcefully “declare” our views to one another).
The meaning and purpose of temporal life for Orthodox Christians may best be explained as the “time” given each of us human creatures by our Creator that we need for the pilgrimage back to our Real home where we live in the presence of God. The focus of which is repentance, one’s own more so than anyone else’s. It is said that no one can save another until they first save themselves. Morality is not a “thing” that is applied externally but something that is the manifestation of each human creatures “being” (ontology). Morality is the product (the cart). The horse is one’s relationship with their Creator.
Trust that the motives here are “good”. That said, I will agree with you that the approach and form of the medium may not be the best, especially for conveying the message in a clear and nonconfrontational way. There are many things you’ve said with which I concur, particularly wasting time in blogs which tend to be more of a “sport” than conducive to helping anyone “see” the others point of view. As if language alone is not abstract enough, now we can further abstract our interactions with others by way of the computer screen. I hope that no one will come away from here thinking Orthodoxy to be some abstract, mechanistic, quantitive “thing”, for nothing could be further from the Truth. Orthodox Christianity, which encompasses but is not defined by “morality” is qualitative and experiential, not quantitative and abstract.
Note 70:
Yes i may sound a like a hippie, but at least hippies know how to forgive and learn, and not want to snap someones neck, because they were cut off by some jujitsu christan warrior that snaps infidels necks.
LOL! Funny rhetoric, but you know what I was talking about. You have all sorts of “feelings” everyday, even anger. Hippies were angry about many, many things, because they are human. If you can’t admit your feelings, even “ugly” ones like anger, jealousy, lust – then you are not being honest.
As far as the “old vs. young” think, Plato complained about the same thing! It’s an aspect of society, so sorry, young people turn into old people who have children, get real jobs and real responsibility for others, and find out that these “debates” are quite relevant. You will to…;)
Not exactly. I’m glad that you appear to concede that it’s ridiculous to apply data from studies about single mothers to gay couples, though.
But here are a few true statements from which I’ll draw some conclusions:
1. You, like many SSM opponents, purport to care about “the children” and what potential effect their parents’ relationship will have on them.
2. As a protection to these children, your view is that SSM should be completely illegal.
3. When presented with evidence about other children, such as the children of obese parents, who we already know face serious risks, you don’t propose the same protections.
4. All of the children in these examples are hypothetical; we haven’t been talking about your kids or my kids or a particular child down the block.
5. Since we’ve been talking about hypothetical kids (or future kids), they’re all equal. It’s not like there’s some special child who deserves more protection than others.
So, when presented with exactly the type of data that you say we don’t have about gay parenting, you make a completely different choice in terms of how to solve it. I suggest that the reason for this is because your views are illogical and irrational. You are singling out gay people for second-class status, but you’re only claiming that the needs of children are your reason. You might believe that they are, but then you propose different solutions for the at-risk children of obese people, or for the at-risk children of minorities.
It’s interesting that you criticize me when I compare homosexuality to a changeable personality trait, because you whine just as loud when I compare it to race.
Here’s the truth:
Every couple is an “experiment.” Every single person who raises a child is entering uncertain territory, even if it’s their eighteenth baby. The number of factors that affect that raising of a child are countless.
Children raised in the country experience better air quality than children raised in the city.
Children raised in Vermont will get better public education than kids raised in Mississippi.
Children raised in Muslim families will be exposed to different ideas about God than kids raised Orthodox Christian.
…and so on. Every child has a unique upbringing. You select “gay parents” as a factor that deserves special treatment from the state. I suggest that this selection is, from a social, scientific, and political perspective, arbitrary.
I illustrated that your selection is arbitrary by presenting other categories of couples who present a known risk to their children, and you confirmed my belief by failing to advocate the same government “protections” for their children.
This debate is not about you personally, Jacobse. What matters in the greater scheme of things is that your arguments don’t hold water outside of the Orthodox Christian context.
Phil says:
“I’m glad that you appear to concede that it’s ridiculous to apply data from studies about single mothers to gay couples, though.”
Why would it be “ridiculous”? If “changing” the family one way leads to poor results, if follows that changing it another way would do the same thing. People, children, are not “datum points”. The family as traditionally defined is the organic result of nature, nature’s God, and societies long and hard fought experience. The norm is the norm for good reasons. I know this fly’s in the face of liberalism, which is always trying to deconstruct the norm, but it is true. The family as traditionally constituted is such for many reasons, but one is that is simply works the best. Study after study (and common experience) has shown the benefits of intact, mother and father families. It is a truism that two homosexuality are not true “fathers” or “mothers” – even by their own definitions. This “experiment” is not worth
it…
children of obese parents, who we already know face serious risks, you don’t propose the same protections.
Of course not – fat people are not moral threats to their children, at least not because they are fat.
You are singling out gay people for second-class status, but you’re only claiming that the needs of children are your reason.
Only in your worldview. Family is not a “right”, it is not “free”. It is something that is a responsibility, has rules, and expectations of following these rules. A homosexualist is, by definition, not following those rules. Two men, two women, can not be a family. This does not cause “second class status” any more than my lack talent causes me to not be able to compete with Tiger Woods. I am not “second-class” because I am not in the PGA. This follows even IF homosexuals are such by “fate”, “genes”, whatever.
Every couple is an “experiment.”
Not true. Society knows, by long hard organic knowledge, that family is one thing and not another, that a man and a women is a family, not an “experiment”.
You select “gay parents” as a factor that deserves special treatment from the state. I suggest that this selection is, from a social, scientific, and political perspective, arbitrary.
Not true. Society has come to the knowledge of “family” through the centuries. Your definition of “social” is very very truncated. Your definition of “scientific” is arbitrary, because people are not datum points – they are moral beings, thus the moral HAS to be brought into the equation. Politics flows from the culture, which flows from humanity, and humanity is a religious, moral “phenomenon” first.
What matters in the greater scheme of things is that your arguments don’t hold water outside of the Orthodox Christian context.
Modern amoral, materialistic, nihilistic thought does not hold water outside it’s own context. It posits man as amoral, relative, material pain vs. pleasure machine. Your arguments don’t measure up to what man is, as most any philosophy known to man understands (vast majority of them recognize the moral element in mankind). This is why Fr. Jacobse arguments make sense to most folks, even if they are not Orthodox, or even Christian…
Note 75. Phil writes:
Phil, I must admit you try valiantly to posit homosexuality on the same moral plane as heterosexuality. And by moral here I don’t mean moralistic, I mean the foundational values that shape and direct culture.
Look, your grand design to normalize homosexuality by redefining and reshaping such long-term and enduring structures like a two-parent heterosexual family requires more thought and deliberation than debates about the application of data, the relegation of a defense of the traditional structures to a religious bias, whatever.
The fact is that the traditional family holds water in many places outside of Orthodox Christianity as well. Even some secularists resist the homosexual acculturation, although I agree with your implied premise that secularists abandon the tradition much more readily (they are driven more by utopian dreams than an understanding of history). But it isn’t even limited to Christians. What about Jews? What about Muslims? What about most cultures of the world?
And if you don’t like religion, look at nature. Homosexual relations preclude the creation of family. Why pretend otherwise? Men were not made for men, women were not made for women. Now if you want to have sexual relations with another man, well, that is your decision. But don’t bring children into it in order to pretend it’s really a family. It isn’t and everyone knows it except for yourself and a few others. That’s why initiatives to legalize homosexual marriage fail whenever the issue is given to voters.
You are confused. You argue morality to limit marriage to two people, but then trash it when you reach the barrier against homosexuality. Then you switch into a discourse about civil rights while ignoring the point that your reasoning could apply to any new social arrangement and not just homosexuals. You don’t really want homosexual marriage as much as you want the abolishment of the traditional marriage structure.
Two thoughts:
Obese parents present a physical threat to their children. This is illustrated statistically: the children of obese parents are significantly more likely to be obese, and to die young.
I understand that you don’t view moral and physical threats in the same way, but the discussion about was about “data” and “evidence,” and physical harms are easy to quantify.
The first and most important guardians of a child’s morals are her parents, as Jacobse has argued in other threads. The government shouldn’t be interfering with the moral upbringing of children.
(Incidentally, why is it that only when it comes to gay parents do conservatives pretend that adoptive parents aren’t real parents?)
This is a right-wing talking point. (Of course, that doesn’t automatically make it false.) But it’s misleading. No one is suggesting reshaping two-parent families. In fact, I wholeheartedly support two-parent, heterosexual families. Some of my best friends… (Insert grin here.)
But seriously– what do you actually believe is going to happen to two-parent families when SSM is legal? What has happened to two-parent families in Massachusetts? Did the heterosexual marriage rate go down? Did cannibalism go up? What are you talking about?
You’re right, of course, Jacobse. Gay people are a small minority, and we’re only just beginning to understand them. All kinds of cultural institutions have ignored the rights of minorities throughout history.
Actually, I think some men were made for men, just as some women were made for women. Answer honestly: do you really want your daughter to marry a gay man?
When did I argue morality to limit marriage to two people? You’ve always criticized me for being legalistic, not moralistic. I argue that the practical benefits of marriage are largely nullified in a multiple-person marriage, and that since it’s not a right that is granted to any person in the land, there’s no discrimination issue.
That’s another right-wing talking point. Allowing gays to marry won’t abolish traditional marriage structure any more than allowing blacks to use white folks’ bathrooms “abolished traditional restroom structure.”
Note 79. Phil writes:
Phil, this gets tiresome. Your model of a two person homosexual “marriage” is drawn from a two person heterosexual marriage. Where else can it possibly come from? But the two person heterosexual model draws from a moral vision of the human being. Absent a sophisticated and developed moral vision, the natural path would be polygamy.
So, regardless of what you argue, the fact is that you ride on the coattails of that moral understanding. You get off the boat when that same tradition prohibits homosexuality and switch into a discourse on rights (homosexuals are the new minority — you know the drill) using talking points that every other group that wants to sanction different sexual arrangements always employ.
For example:
There is the civil rights appeal. (Blacks cringe at your usurpation of the terms and concepts, BTW.) And note the conflation (you use this a lot) between between blacks using bathrooms and homosexuals replicating traditional marriage, as if a real relationship exists between the two.
I could substitute all your arguments with the term “polygamist” and it would read exactly the same way. You say that you don’t support polygamy, but your personal views here are largely irrelevant. Didn’t you argue upstream that a benefit of gay marriage is that a child gets two mothers? Well, why not three of four? Why not nine or ten?
What about nature? Does it make any impact on you that homosexuality is biological closed to any natural creation of family?
Sure, it makes exactly the same impact on me as the fact that infertile couples are closed to any natural creation of family. If I was picking folks to put on a spaceship to populate Mars, I’d probably pick the heterosexuals over the gay couples or the infertile couples. Beyond that, I honestly don’t think other people’s gender is my business unless they choose to share it with me.
If you’re going to marry someone, Jacobse, I sense that it would be very important to you whether that person has a penis. If they refuse to tell you, take my advice: don’t marry that person! You shouldn’t marry someone who isn’t comfortable confiding in you.
Now, if we lived on the same street–imagine how awesome trick-or-treating would be on that street!–and a couple moved into the house between us, it would not matter one whit to me if neither member of that couple had a penis. And why should it matter to you?
You claim that your reasons have something to do with natural creation of a family. But that’s not true. You apply a different standard to infertile couples than you do to gay couples.
You claim that your reasons have something to do with an increased statistical likelihood that children will be harmed. But that’s not true. You apply a different standard to obese couples than you do to gay couples.
You claim that your reasons have something to do with the inevitability of polygamy. But that’s not true, either. You don’t oppose just polygamy, you oppose both gay marriage and polygamy.
Actually, I think the urge to pair off is pretty natural. It’s not that human beings don’t crave sex–we do–but we also seem to be very jealous creatures. So finding a person you want to spend your life with is pretty human. Sure, some people might find more than one person, and that group might decide that they want to spend their lives together. I think they should be allowed to.
Maybe you find it odd that I don’t make an argument against polygamy on moral grounds? I don’t really care about polygamy. I happen to think that the reasons to avoid creating a new institution for multiple-partner marriage are practical, not moral. (This is not the same as saying that I think it’s moral. But [whether or not it is moral] is not something I consider a valid reason not to do it. [The fact that it is wholly impractical] does seem to me to be a valid reason.) But if people choose to live in the same house and make love in interesting combinations, that’s not something I concern myself with, unless they ask for my opinion.
But your argument here is ridiculous, Jacobse. We live in the 21st century, in the United States of America. You’re arguing that anyone who wants to change a law, ever, must start from scratch. If I want to lower the speed limit, I must envision a time before cars. It’s silly.
I think I missed your response to my question “But seriously– what do you actually believe is going to happen to two-parent families when SSM is legal?” If you answer with specific examples, I’ll be impressed.
Phil, here is an article you need to read.
Camille Pegalia I’ll take religion over gay culture
Wow, from a self-described atheist lesbian I found this part particularly striking:
(emphasis mine).
Pegalia exemplifies something increasingly difficult (almost impossible actually) to find: an honest liberal, one who does not yield to the pressure to walk lockstep with the activists. You don’t hear that monotone drone, that demand for blind conformity that runs through so much leftist thought like background static on the car radio.
Compare her thinking to Phil’s inability to incorporate any distinctions that challenge his homosexual parity agenda. Phil unfortunately represents the leftist mainstream, as witnessed by the Democrat candidates dutiful obeisance to homosexual activism this week. No one on the left dares challenge it. Its become a litmus test of personal virtue.
This drone of the same specious arguments repeated over and over again, aided and abetted by pygmy politicians and others, is starting to wear thin. I think you are going to see the culture pushing back.
note 85:
I think you are going to see the culture pushing back.
It already has. The MSM has not really realized it yet (though I think their executives are beginning to get it) but people are starting to crave sources in the culture that do not follow the party line on these issues. The “alternative” media is successful in part due to this.
On my way home from work, I sometimes switch back and forth between the local AM talk station (solidly libertarian, with a bit conservativism mixed in) and NPR. NPR is the old action line, AM the new alternative media. I here about all the standard liberal “news” on NPR. They even droned on and on about some Catholic priest in Italy who said something not very nice about Jews. I thought to myself “Now this is LIBERAL news”. The AM station however was talking about things that mattered to almost everyone: Local schools, immigration, local anti-smoking efforts, even health care. It was in a solidly libertarian way (for example, I support the anti-smoking efforts), but at least it was real issues that effect real people, in a way the liberals have lost.
The culture saw through the efforts of the senate to label people “bigots” who don’t support open immigration. They have solidly rejected “gay marriage” despite efforts to label them.
I am still not convinced our culture is truly reversing it’s “death spiral”. I think the long term trend is still downward. However, it’s nice to see these signs of pushback.
Note 83: I appreciate Camille’s insights, and they are often accurate. I think she neglects to acknowledge that what she defines as a “gay male” problem is in reality a male problem. Were women to acquiesce to men’s propositions more frequently, I think we’d see statistics that are a bit closer between the two worlds.
Jacobse,
I think Paglia hits the nail on the head when she writes
If you’ll wholeheartedly endorse that statement, I’ll happily concede that many gay men lead hedonistic lives, filled with ramptant drug use and anonymous sex, and that they–and their communities–would be better off if they remained clear-thinking and committed to a single partner. In fact, I’ll concede that regardless of your reaction, because both statements are true.
However, I’ll say, and perhaps you’ll agree, that Paglia’s ridicule of the physical appearances of both Gary Bauer and Barney Frank is repugnant. It’s evidence of a peculiar brand of pseudo-intellectual immaturity.
Well, there you go. You continue, basically explaining that “boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina.” We’ve established that the deciding factor in determining which couples you view as valid vs. invalid is not semen, nor is it the fertility of the couple. If I pressed you, and I said, “So, it’s really about the penis? There’s something magical about the penis so that there can’t be two in a relationship?” You’d probably reply that it’s not about the penis, don’t be silly. If I said, “So, the testicles? The testosterone? Etc.” You’d deny that any of those things was the magical factor. Instead, you refer to something indefinable: the mystical complementarity of man and woman. But the maleness and femaleness that you refer to is not defined by any attribute, or by any combination of attributes. It just is. And yet you essentially sigh and act as if I’m being difficult when I suggest that the “bright line” you draw between straight couples and gay couples is entirely arbitrary.
It’s clear that you envision policy decisions taking place in a grand cultural narrative. It’s not dissimilar from the way some pundits viewed the Duke rape case as a “story,” and a story with grand, mythic elements, at that. They viewed the LaCrosse players as spoiled, rich, amoral white boys, and the accuser as a “symbol” of oppressed black femininity. As facts came in, however, it became clear that stories and myths don’t always correspond to reality in the ways that we expect them to.
You view large social issues as a story, too–one with heroes and villains. You exhibit this with a tendency to paint large, diverse groups of people with the same brush. For example, earlier this thread, you implied that black people think the same, and that parents think the same.
Both of those statements imply homogeneity of belief, but they’re evidence of the thinking that went into your “Cultural Narrative: Gay Marriage Story.” Certainly, many blacks do not resent civil rights analogies that are made by gay supporters. Many of the African-Americans I’ve spoken to see a reflection of the civil rights movement in the struggle of a group that is seeking equality (and yes, respect), denied them not because of the color of their skin, but because of who they love. Notice I didn’t say “all blacks believe…”? That would be a falsehood. What’s true is that not all black people think the same way.
Your second statement there is even stranger. You’re suggesting that a married person with kids could not agree with me–when I say that, on average, committed gay couples probably make fine parents. I don’t think you’re intentionally lying, I just think that exaggeration is the result when you view all married heterosexuals with children as the heroes in a simple story of good and evil. Clearly, many married parents wholeheartedly support gay marriage and gay parenting.
Finally, your argument falls apart when you’re asked to list specific examples of what you think will happen to two-parent families when SSM is legal. None of your examples is specific to two-parent families (that’s the structure you’re claiming is being dismantled.) Further, your examples are what a debater might call non-unique. None of them require SSM to be legalized for them to happen anyway. Further, none of them is actually a direct effect of SSM. Each is a part of your “cultural narrative.”
The first example you list deals with curriculum. I agree that in the future, ways to protect yourself during anal sex will probably be taught in sex education classes. I think that as young as “third grade” is a stretch, and I’m not sure whether you’re exaggerating or not. I went to a public school in a small Midwestern town in the 1980s. We learned about safe anal sex (as well as oral and vaginal) in the eighth grade. To my knowledge, there wasn’t a single homosexual activist among the school board or the administrators.
Your second example is scary. I think everyone should know all the risks associated with all sex. Who will do this suppressing? Certainly, I agree that fisting (one of the topics of the link you posted) is probably a dangerous thing to do. I’ve never met someone who was into fisting. I’m all for gay rights, and I’m absolutely against suppressing information about the dangers of fisting, if it makes a difference.
On the other hand, I think a lot of right-wing propaganda exaggerates both the prevalence and the general “acceptedness” of extreme sex acts. Would you agree?
Finally, I’m not really sure what “assault” means in the context of the Boy Scouts. I’m sure they’ll continue to be criticized (as any massive organization is– do we say that Congress is being “assaulted” by every newspaper in the country, almost every day?) But the Boy Scouts went to the Supreme Court to argue that they are a private religious organization. That they are now being treated exactly like a private religious organization is hardly assault. And again, that has no direct connection to SSM.
Missourian writes: “As much as they deny it, children’s interests don’t mean much to them if those interests restrict the freedom of adults to engage in any type of activity that they choose at will”
Why is everything all-or-nothing? You act as if I’ve suggested that we should hand out children to serial rapists and psychopaths. I’m simply asserting that in some situations, children could fare better with two same-gendered parents than in the alternative (whatever that may be). You seem to forget that most child abuse occurs in home of the biological parents, and most children currently up for adoption were abandoned by their biological parents.
I doubt it will be of much interest to you, but the APA has done a number of studies and found that:
” In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both lesbian mothers and gay fathers described themselves as heterosexual.”
“Fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no support from the results of existing research.”
Now, if you can provide studies that reflect the contrary, I’d be more than willing to read them.
Missourian writes: “First, there is exists a strong challenge to the very notion of a longitudinal study using real life human children. In other words, it will be a generation before we have extensive longitudinal studies (although shorter term studies do not support same-sex parents in the manner asserted here).”
The studies that do exist are sufficient to the extent that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Psychological Association all agree that there are no significant differences between children reared by same-sex and heterosexual parents. Rather than relying on a single study, they have looked at the total body of research going back from the late 70s to today. What they have found is that the vast majority of research all converges on the same conclusion. Relying on many studies is one way of controlling for the effect of different samples, sample sizes, and methodologies.
Missourian: “Negative results will have virtually ruined the lives of millions of children before we have the answer. This would not be considered acceptable if a medicine were being tested, the FDA would not approve such a form of testing.”
Well, these tragic results haven’t shown up yet in 30 years of studies.
Missourian: “I have to agree with several commenters here that both JamesK and Jim Holman have a very detached and therefore truly uncaring attitude about children’s welfare. As much as they deny it, children’s interests don’t mean much to them if those interests restrict the freedom of adults to engage in any type of activity that they choose at will.”
Oh really? How many stepchildren have you brought up? I have one under my belt, a college graduate by the way, currently working as an editor for Yahoo. How many of other’s people’s children have you taken care of for months after their families had financial difficulties or lost their apartments? I have three. How many children were you in loco parentis for after their parents abandoned them? I have one. (Currently a Captain in the U.S. Army.) How many young people from other countries have you hosted while they were here studying in the U.S.? I have seven. How many Spanish-speaking young people have you tutored in English? I have around 30. That makes around 42 children or young people in whose lives I have been actively involved. Gives a whole new meaning to “detached and uncaring.” Care to revise your statement at this point? And feel free to share your experiences in this regard.
I think Missourian may have misspoke. The two people mentioned who show little or no understanding of children were Phil and James, not Jim and James.
Thanks, I stand corrected
Note 93, two of the organizations named have been politicized
The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers have strong political agendas. They are in fact leaders of the social revolution. No so long ago the APA considered homosexual conduct to be a psychological disease or defect. Psychology as a whole has questionable scientific bona fides outside of Skinnerian behaviorial studies. Many of the ideas of the original founders of psychology are now only considered to be of historical value. I remember when many of the APA leaders, such as Albert Maslow, endorsed recreational drug usage as a route to psychological growth. No one has inventoried the damage done by them to millions of young people from my generation. All of that has gone down the memory hole along with the Vietnamese slaughter after the collapse of South Vietnam.
The National Association of Social Workers is one of the largest concentrations of culturally leftist social engineers in the country.
If you cared about children you wouldn’t be so ready to normalize the idea that either a mother or a father is dispensable. Any good done to individual children has to be offset by the massive damage being done to generations of people right now.
Note 96: So you’re going to discredit the entire APA because of some loopy ideas held by Maslow? If that’s the case, then we need to write off all Christian Baptists because of this.
Why don’t you approach the studies that were done along with their methods and conclusions instead of making random assertions that have no relevance to anything?
Further, as to my own experience with children (which you’re making many assumptions about, by the way), how does that have any relevance to my referencing conclusions made by professionals? After all, your lack of experience in the military hasn’t kept you from making statements about proper military strategies in other threads has it?
Note 92, JamesK, you don’t understand what it means to make policy and you posit a false choice
JamesK, I have been around the block with you on this point many, many times and I don’t see any signs of progress. You basically don’t understand what it means to make policy for an entire country and an entire culture.
You think that if you can find one situation in which the activity prohibited by a policy produces better results than one endorsed by the policy that the policy is therefore shown to be defective, not so, that is now how law or policy works.
Let’s take one example. The law prohibits running a red light. However, it isn’t hard to find an example in which it would be beneficial to run a red light, for example, a driver could be rushing to a hospital with a critically ill patient. The mere fact that one can imagine a case in which violating the law is better than not violating the law does not decide the virtue of the policy.
Policies or laws are intended to cover everyone in a particular situation. It is called “equal rights under the law.” This means that the same rule apply for everybody. A law is a statement of a moral and cultural consensus. If properly developed a law has the moral standing of a joint decision made in a democratic manner.
The proper analysis is whether, given all possible circumstances, the good produced by the law strongly outweighs any bad.
Going back to your example, you claim that there may be circumstances in which a child is better off with a same-sex couple than with an abusive married couple. There are three fallacies with this approach. First, you compare a “worst-case” heterosexual example with a “best-case” homosexual example. In doing so, you ignore the fact that no child should be placed with any couple which is abusive to him and that the child should be removed and placed in foster care or a group home. Second, you posit that living with a same-sex couple is harmless unless that same-sex couple is actively abusing the child. The harm of placement with the same-sex couple is that the child is exposed to psychological sickness and he is deprived of either the love of a mother or a father. This always occurs in same-sex couples without fail.
Lastly, you ignore the fact that society can, if it is motivated, provide a safe and healthful group home for children Such group homes have existed for centuries and have produced happy and productive people. As I asked earlier, have you ever heard of Boy’s Town?
No, sorry JamesK, the mere fact that you shrug off the vital role that a father plays and the vital role that a mother plays and that you are willing to lightly abandon the principle that a child needs a mother and a father is proof of a lack of concern for children.
How casually you dispense with 8,000 years of recorded human culture from every part of the globe for the sake of a trendy social fad. There are fundamental reasons that virtually every successful culture on the face of the planet has outlawed homosexual conduct or relegated it to a secondary status.
If sterility and narcissism are endorsed and “celebrated” by society that society has embraced death. Spain and Germany have birthrates among native Europeans that, if left unchanged, will result in the virtual dissappearance of indigenous Spaniards and Germans within a century.
Actions have consequences and the consequence of embracing and normalizing homosexual conduct if the death of the culture. Homosexual rights activists are simply opening the door to dominance by cultures that promote fertility and child birth. You can’t prevail if your culture is dying.
Note 96, Yup, Maslow, Jung and Freud for starters
Maslow was a lion of the APA. He has much to account for.
A society gets what it rewards- the “War on Children”
For centuries, Anglo-American law rewarded those who married and committed themselves to a life-long partnership and raised the next generation of children to become good citizens.
Now, we have undercut that reward system. It could be called a “war on children.”
Marriage can be ended for trivial reasons regardless of the effect on children.
Adults can bring children into the world without the care of a second parent
with little or no negative consequences for the adult.
Homosexual conduct seeks normalization and legitimization and is doing
a good job of winning that battle, trivializing the sacred roles of father
and mother
American Law Institute legal scholars are now developing the underpinnings of an assault on monogamy and campaing to legitimize polyamory which would in practice means polygamy. Besides its devastating effects on women, polygamy tends to distort the father-child relationship into one of competition between the children of various mothers in the polygamous family.
A society gets what it rewards. Muslim birth rates are high, indigenous European birthrates are low. As they say, do the math.
Longitudinal studies prove that easy divorce was disastrous for children
Divorce has always been available under Anglo-American law but one party had to advance a good reason: adultery, abandonment, physical cruelty. “No-fault divorce” means that you may leave a marriage without proving a good reason. Anyone can leave at any time regardless of the consequences to the children and even if the reason is simple boredom.
Many people resisted this change and rightly so. Feminists treated “no-fault” as if it were a boon to women, how sad. Well we have “no-fault” now and there seems to be little chance that things will change. People used to argue that it was better for children to live in a “peaceful” single-parent home than to continue in a strife filled home with two unhappy parents. Longitudinal studies have now shown that to be untrue. But, no one is reading the longitudinal study and nothing will change because children have no political clout and very few people are looking out for them.
For additional data, look at the black family, a total social disaster that no program of social welfare can fix because no one can stop out-of-wedlock births under current law and there is no social sanction for such behavior.
So it will be with same-sex “marriage.”
Note 98: Just so I understand what you’re saying, would you suggest that the law deny single parents the ability to adopt so long as they are single and only grant them benefits if and when they decide to marry?
I don’t deny that group homes can be temporarily beneficial for children who would otherwise be living in abusive situations, but would you insist they remain in a group home (where numerous children are cared for by one or more people of one or more genders who may or may not have any relation to each other) as opposed to being placed with any single-parent or same-sex household? (I’m not sure how living in a communal-like setting is preferable to living in a home, so I’ll have to read up on this.) If so, would you also prefer that the children remain in a group home as opposed to being adopted by two men or two women who are cohabitating in a non-romantic relationship (such as father/son or mother/daughter)?
This is an oft-repeated fallacy. By this logic, every couple choosing to raise a child is depriving them of something or someone. Perhaps Jim is an excellent father. A couple choosing to have a child without Jim is depriving that child of Jim (especially if they live too far away for him to help out.) Perhaps Jacobse is a wonderful father. Anyone choosing to have a child without him is depriving that child of Jacobse. They are, by your logic, normalizing the idea that Jacobse is dispensable.
Ridiculous? Yes, but no more ridiculous than the statement you made. Every family is different. If a couple chooses to have one child, they aren’t “depriving the child of siblings.” If two little people have a child, they aren’t normalizing the idea that tall parents are dispensable.
Unless you’re kidnapping kids, you’re not making the statement that a parent is dispensable. A lesbian couple who adopt a child are providing that child with two mothers. They aren’t depriving the child of a father any more than they are depriving the child of Jacobse, or Jim.
Now, you can make an assertion that fathers are important. Lots of people do. But when a couple adopts a child whose father isn’t caring for her, they’re not depriving her of a father.
How, specifically, will this damage occur? Will the children grow up and be cannibals? That would be pretty horrible. Or is there some other specific example of what you think will happen to these people when they grow up.
Uh, Missourian? You don’t think same-sex couples should adopt children, because that dispenses with a mother or a father, but you think that a perfectly reasonable solution is to raise kids in group homes where they have neither a mother nor a father? You would deprive children of both a mother, a father, and a family to protect them from committed same-sex couples?
That seems a little extreme. Is that the position of other Orthodox or conservative thinkers on this board? That orphanages are the solution to “depriving children of a father?”
It really doesn’t seem like you have the interests of children in mind, Missourian.
Missourian writes: “The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers have strong political agendas.”
But their positions on this issue are informed by literally decades of studies. Perhaps on this issue they are politicized AND right.
Missourian: “If you cared about children you wouldn’t be so ready to normalize the idea that either a mother or a father is dispensable. Any good done to individual children has to be offset by the massive damage being done to generations of people right now.”
Your arguments work just as well again parenting by single people. In fact, they work better, because the research shows that children in two-parent families, same-sex or heterosexual, tend to do better than children in single-parent families.
But I don’t see anyone here going to the barricades over banning adoption by single people. Or imagine the following situation: a married couple with a child is divorced, the mother receiving custody of the child. Six months later dad remarries. Should the father automatically be granted custody of the child merely in virtue of the fact that the child would then be in a two-parent family?
In this issue I only ask that all these situations be decided on a case by case basis. You look at the mental and physical history of the people involved. You look at employment and finances. You look at the general situation at home, and all other relevant circumstances. My only argument is that homosexuality should not automatically be a disqualifying factor.
I think Fr. Hans even largely agrees with me here. In post 42 JamesK gave an excellent example of a gay couple wanting to adopt a child that would be better cared for by them than by others. Fr. Hans responded: “I think the two men are doing the right thing. It’s an exception I can live with.”
The only difference is that I don’t see it as an “exception.” I see it as a process in which the potential adoptive parents and their home situation is thoroughly evaluated. If the home of a same-sex couple — or any other home — is not a good environment for a child, then by all means they should not be allowed to adopt. Period. But if it’s a good situation, and the child is likely to do well there, then I don’t see a problem.
I don’t think I’m an ideologue or a fanatic on this issue. I just want to have individual cases evaluated on their own merits.
Note 89. Phil’s missive had a paragraph I need to quote completely:
Not only do you not understand children, you don’t understand women either. You try valiantly however to conflate the distinction between male and female although cleary this is more troublesome because the biological disimilarity can’t be erased by sophistry alone.
No Phil, the biological disimilarity creates a complementarity that any kind of homosexual relationship cannot replicate. This is self-evident, and you admit as much by trying to reduce the plumbing to nothing of consequence. I suppose if you think that a relationship is primarily sexual (heterosexual or homosexual), then sexual pleasure is the only function of the disimilarities. You say as much when you charge me with presenting marriage as “something undefinable…the mystical complementarity of man and woman.”
So I am right. Your are not really arguing for gay “marriage”, you are arguing for the the moral sanction of homosexual coupling. In your view, marriage is nothing more then a sexual relationship between heterosexuals, and since homosexuals pair up, this can constitute a marriage as well.
Do you know why so many people reject gay marriage Phil, even people who will let you live in any homosexual arrangement you want? Deep down they know what you have revealed here: homosexuality is primarily about sex. Despite the examples of a committed relationship here and there (although most, as you know, are not monogamous), most homosexuals practice unrestrained licentiousness. You know it, I know it. And this unpleasant little fact, as angry as it might make you, is what people think about when they get a voice in whether or not the legal definition of marriage should include homosexual coupling.
I know how you will respond. Instead of addressing the licentiousness, you will retort that heterosexuals behave the same way. (I know this because you approach all troublesome distinctions by trying to negate them through conflation.) Nevertheless, to a certain extend I agree with you. The cultural legitimizing of heterosexual promiscuity opened the door to your effort to sanction homosexual coupling. It started in the fifties with a cultural nod toward adultery. The winking at adultery was a common narrative subtext in the movies of that era. That tells us adultery was already widespread — at least among the cultural gatekeepers. It blew apart in the sixties with the sexual revolution when fornication was touted as free love. Now homosexuality is dominant. (Next, btw, will be bestiality.)
Yes, I do frame these questions in a larger cultural narrative. So do you for the simple reason that moral principles can’t stand naked in the public square. Your narrative is victimization, and you co-opt the language of the civil rights narrative to grant your points cultural legitimacy. I notice above the narrative has shifted. Now you identify with the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players. Like the Black leadership, I can’t see these guys (solidly heterosexual) going along with your appropriation of their story.
Moreover, these cultural elements don’t deserve the dismissive sneer you give them. In fact, you borrow liberally from the cultural tradition whenever it suits you. It’s the gound of your polemical argument that homosexual coupling replicates traditional heterosexual marriage. In real life of course, the abolition of traditional marriage won’t result in a transormation of homosexual liscentiousness. Most homosexuals could care less about pairing off for any extended period of time, or raising children for that matter. The likely result is that heterosexual committments will be undermined even further (portending even more danger for children) for the simple reason that homosexuals will still remain about 2% of the population.
Like I said upstream, homosexual marriage is not your goal. The moral sanction of homosexual behavior is. That’s the same reason homosexual activists press so hard to get into public schools. Ostensibly it is about sex education. In reality it is about lifting the moral onus against homosexual behavior.
I could go on about another topic but it might really send you into orbit. I believe the relentless push for normalization has more to do with the insecurity and — dare I say it? — internal self-loathing that heterosexuals see in many homosexuals rather any structural discrimination against homosexuals in the larger culture. This isn’t a personal attack Phil (although I would not be surprised if it were taken that way), but you need to know that although most heterosexuals are fine with a live and let live attitude, they also see a shared pathology of sorts; one that sometimes evokes a sense of compassion but also informs the rejection of the unqualifed endorsement that you seek of the homosexual lifestyle. This factor is something most heterosexuals keep to themselves.
Note 105–
A quick response. I’m not sure if you misunderstood me intentionally or unintentionally. I don’t think that relationships are just about penises, or testicles, or testosterone, etc. The hypothetical question, “So, is it about the penis, Jacobse?” (had I phrased it that way) would have been an effort to elucidate your view, not my own.
…and you responded as I predicted, with no apparent sense of irony. While pretending to find fault with what I said, you make it clear that you agree with me: the problem you have with same-sex couples has nothing to do with any single attribute, or any group of attributes. It’s the problem with being an intellectual religious conservative on this issue while trying to justify your stance. Someone less intellectual than you might simply agree: “yes! what i care about is penises, and couples that don’t have them are wrong! Couples that have too many of them are wrong!”
You know, as well as I, how ridiculous that would sound if you said it. But the one who is focused on sex here is you. I’ll happily admit that a man is more than his penis, or his hairy chest, or his lack of functioning mammary glands. A woman is more than her ovaries, or her breasts, etc. But when it comes to two people, in a couple, you draw a line between some couples and others. This line is not drawn based on any single attribute. It’s not based on any two attributes. It’s not based on any combination of attributes. It’s based on something that, you say, just is. It is, in your words, self-evident, which is apparently code for “no one ever needs to explain it or put it in words.”
I understand that, as a man of faith, your religions are beyond rationality. Your reasons have nothing to do with any identifiable attribute. Your reasons just are. So why rationalize? Why pretend that your beliefs are based on anything other than your strong, chosen faith?
Note 104, I do object to single parent adoption
Yes, Jim, I do object to single parent adoption. We have alternatives to that.
First, we can return to the time when real families were honored and supported by society above other types of bonding or sexual activity.
We could support adoption by married couples with tax benefits or other financial assistance so that more married couples could adopt. We could also improve the condition of group homes for children, which can do very, very well. See Boy’s Town. Group homes can provide guidance from both male and female counselors.
Science is slowly fighting back against the false equivalence between males and females. Beyond reproductive functions, males and females have differing psychologies and differing skills and aptitudes. Shssssh, musn’t mention that research.
Single example. Everyone who looks at the data which has been collected for decades, knows that men outnumber women in the high reaches of mathematical ability. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t some women with high levels of mathematical ability BUT that no matter what we do 75% of the top mathematicians will always be men. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t encourage women to study math, I think women should be doubly encouraged to study math because it trains the mind in logic if nothing else.
Studies have also shown that women’s brains react more intensively to the sound of a baby crying than do men’s. Funny, maybe men and women are complimentary creatures who work together well as a unit, a pair. What a bizarre idea.
Homosexual conduct is the culture of narcissim, infertility and death. It denies the most basic and fundamental fact of our natures, our division into male and female. The laws of nature don’t need to be enforced, they always hold true. Those societies that support and reward fertility will grow and those who celebrate narcissistic sexual behavior will slowly die. As noted, several indigenous European populations are dropping below replacement rate and they won’t be with us very long. Get ready for sharia.
Note 106: At least you’re consistent, Missourian. I respect that.
Note 104: ” Despite the examples of a committed relationship here and there (although most, as you know, are not monogamous), most homosexuals practice unrestrained licentiousness.”
Having many friends in the gay community due to my involvement in the arts, I can say that the statement is not quite accurate, although there is that element within the community. I would say “unrestrained” is really more applicable towards those who frequent sex clubs and the like (although such behavior is not completely unknown in the heterosexual community either). Most gay men seem to desire long-term, monogamous commitments, and when they are actually dating, they do desire to be faithful, and they make respectable efforts in being so. I do see a trend towards monogamy more in the “white collar” gay community (usually slightly older and more established in their careers) than in those who are into the club scene, where drugs and casual sex are an admitted difficulty that need to be dealt with.
I’m no ideologue. I don’t think that allowing any gay couple off the street to adopt is advisable without verifying their stability and capabilities. I don’t see the objection, however, to looking at each person/couple on their own merits. As with anything in life, I think this is the just and fair way of dealing with things. We must judge people on their particular virtues and merits, not on the qualities of any social class they happen to belong to.
Missourian, read the article you linked to. Not a good cultural prognosis.
JamesK, deconstructing Note 108
Point One: “verifying their stability”.
Does this mean that you concede that at least some kind of stability is a good thing for children?
Point Two: “looking at each person/couple on their own merits”
This just leads to another question. What are “the merits?” Who decides what is desirable in a parenting person/couple? If just some single individual decides “on the merits” what guidelines do they apply? Shouldn’t the guidelines be determined in a democratic manner, that is, established by legislature.
Don’t you understand that your “solution” is no solution at all?
Point Three: homosexuals as a “social class”
You do realize that this comment implies that you have bought the entire homosexual political/social/moral agenda hook, line and sinker. How trusting of you. How readily you are willing to change something which has been a constant in virtuallye very society known to humankind. How nice that you are grown up and won’t be thrown around from one household to another willy nillly
Note 108, JamesK, Redux, Please respond to the questions posed here?
I think that we can conclude from Note 108 that you, JamesK, think that some kind of stability is good for children.
Please tell me how these developments, things which have transpired in a short time (less than 50 years) support the stability that children benefit from?
Availability for divorce for trivial or no reason at all? Help or hurt kids?
Lifelong, “for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health” committment by parents?
Help or hurt kids?
A pattern of serial liasons centered on the gratification of the adults, whether married or not, between adults with children
Help or hurt kids?
Co-habitation by adults? Help or hurt kids?
Growing up without a father? Help or hurt kids?
Growing up with out a mother? Help or hurt kids?
Growing up with both parents who provided examples of co-operation and daily selfless love between parents? Help or hurt kids?
Last question, are there any circumstances under which the freedom of adults should be restricted for the benefit of children?
If so, please identify them.
Thanks, JamesK.
The force and depth of the yearning for a parent.
A child’s love many times is stronger than parental abuse.
I have personally been involved in the investigation of dozens of child abuse cases. I have seen small children who have been physically abused forgive their own parents and re-assert a desire to live with their parents. I have seen those small children report that “Mommy is sick and I want her to get well so that I can live with her.” This is the strength of the love of a child for his real mother or real father.
It is this fundamental human need to be connected with one’s own real mother and real father that JamesK and Jim Holman trivialize and shrug off.
Adopted children often move heaven and earth to find their real mother or father.
Once again, even adopted children who had successful upbringings with loving adoptive parents seek out their real parents.
Test tube babies look for siblings and link with them
60 Minutes did a special on the half-siblings fathered by sperm donors who sought each other out and formed a bond. The fact that they shared a parent was important to them. The fact that they there biologically related was important to them. They all reported that they believed they had a special relationship which each other and that this special relationship sprang up almost immediately upon meeting each other for the first time.
Is there any human tie stronger than parent-child? What is the saying? Blood is thicker than water? Who is foolish enough to believe that human nature can be changed? What a price we will pay for this.
So, Missourian, in your opinion, what should gay couples do? Clearly, you disapprove. Do you think that lesbians couples ought to leave their partners so as not to be narcissistic? Do you think that gay men should marry straight women? What’s your answer to this “culture of narcissism, infertility and death?”
Note 133, What should gay couples do?
Spiritual answer. Gay couples should do what we all should do, seek Christ. Ask forgiveness for their sins and ask Christ to order their lives aright. We all should do this daily. I am as much as sinner as anyone and that statement is not merely a pious cliche. I am not qualified to give spiritual advice to anyone so this is as much as I can say.
Political answer. Society can take at least three positions regarding homosexual conduct. First, it can outlaw homosexual conduct and punish it with criminal sanctions. Second, it can refrain from making homosexual conduct between adults a criminal matter while at the same time declining to normalize and legitimize the behavior in its civil laws and social mores. Lastly, it can normalize and actively support homosexual behavior on the same level that it previously supported real marriage.
I have supported the de-criminalization of homosexual conduct between adults. I oppose the official recognition, support, normalization or legitimization of homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct is either a birth defect or a psychological disorder. We don’t celebrate cleft-palates or normalize bi-polar disorders.
There are many reasons for society to refuse to normalize and endorse homosexual conduct. Stanley Kurtz has written extensively on the long-term impact of the legitimization of homosexual conduct. Entire indigenous European populations are shrinking into non-existence. Spaniards and Russians may be extinct in 80 years. I am not aware of any major culture that truly normalized homosexual conduct and gave it the same status as marriage. Society should support people who are willing to make a life-long committment to real marriage. Real married couples may either have children and/or they may provide a home for orphaned children and/or they may simply provide a good example of life-time love for the rest of us. These pairings serve society in the short and long run and should be favored and encouraged by the state.
Yes, I am aware that you are about to pipe up with praise of the life-long pairings between people who engage in homosexual conduct. There aren’t many of them in the world of male homosexuals, although the current political push involves emphasizing long-term pairs. The data doesn’t back it up. These pairings don’t serve society and while I have no interest in breaking up co-habiting people that engage in homosexual conduct, I am not going to honor it.
As to narcissism, what don’t you understand? Narcissim is the love of the self above all others. Attachment to one’s one sex seems to me to be a form of arrested development, a form of narcissim. Men and women are different and complimentary. Love between men and women requires them to reach across a divide and find ways in which they compliment each other. When they pair-bond they complete themselves and create something new and better than the sum of the individuals. Males and females are complimentary. See Gray’s Anatomy for a refresher.
There are many ways in which human beings are capable of gratifying themselves sexually and only one–real marriage– is worthy of societies active support.
I think it was Mother Theresa who said that it was moral poverty for someone to have to kill a child in order to live the life they wanted. I think it is moral poverty for same-sex couples to have to deny a child his or her right to a mother or a father just to pretend to be “normal” parents. They aren’t normal parents, they aren’t “husbands” and or “wives.” The use of the terms “husband” , “wife”, or “parent” with respect to same-sex couples is nonsense and a violation of the intellectual integrity of the English language.
I am sure that I will have the usual blather rain down on me but.. so be it.
Note 114, for “Russians” read “Germans and Italians”
Sorry about the blooper.
Missourian writes: “Homosexual conduct is the culture of narcissim, infertility and death.”
I think the problem here is that you and the home team are running out of terms to describe non-Christians, or their ideas or behaviors. Other than “infertility,” people here describe non-Christians as narcissists and as members of the culture of death. So I think the homosexuals are in good company.
What is your cure for homosexuality? “Gay couples should do what we all should do, seek Christ.” But that’s your cure for everyone. Christians should seek Christ. Muslims should seek Christ. Non-Christians should seek Christ.
Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is legal, and you say that homosexual sex should be legal as well.
In other words, it becomes difficult to know what actually is the difference between homosexuals and others. You say that homosexuality is either a birth defect or a psychological problem. Here again, homosexuals are in good company.
You say that homosexuals are part of the culture of infertility. Here again, they are in good company, since something like 10 percent of heterosexual couples are infertile — who are then described as “narcissists” if they try to fix that by going to the local IVF clinic.
Concerning infertility, the Apostle Paul recommended that the unmarried remain unmarried, granting marriage on the grounds that it helps people to “avoid fornication.” You say that “When they pair-bond they complete themselves and create something new and better than the sum of the individuals.” But this was not the Apostle Paul’s view at all. Of course we know how many Christians take the Apostle up on his offer of celibacy, which is almost none. Human nature being what it is we would also expect the same response from homosexuals.
You write “Entire indigenous European populations are shrinking into non-existence.” But that’s irrelevant. You’ve just described homosexuals as part of the culture of infertility. Your “cure” for that is that they should remain unmarried, celibate, and infertile. So in some mystical way, when homosexuals stop having sex that’s going to provide an incentive for heterosexual couples to have more children? When Bruce and Tom down the street stop sleeping together, that somehow gives me more children? How does that work? When Bruce and Tom sleep together, the stork gets confused and can’t find my house?
Note 106. Phil writes:
No, I draw a line between heterosexual, monogamous, marriage and all other kinds of relationships. Call any other kind of relationship anything you want, just don’t call it marriage.
To Michael B. and Paradosis,
I agree with what you are saying, however i can’t seem to figure out how a person who is a true homosexual can help it. I know plenty of Homosexuals, because they are more common in my age group (they come out sooner), and its not that they chose to be this way, and they fight and fight it, and it just seems to stick as if by some higher power.
I wish the roads could be paved in gold and the people taste like shortcakes, so lets face it homosexuals are not choosing this gift/omen/Curse it is being handed to them by something else, and they are trying to work with what they got, and as time goes by they are trying to fit in and become exactly what we want them to be (believe this or not), but it just can’t happen. Their is no true evidence of a converted Gay person sure they may seem like they are but they are just masking inside, and they will eventuall cheat on their spouse and leave the family in ruin.
For the sake of procreation i can say we have enough people in this world its actually becoming a problem, so i look at it as some form of population control, because their are to many babies and enough people to care for them.
People in the millenial generation think more like me, and its not that we dont care its that we realize that their are some things you just cannot change no matter what try: Fear, Torture, Mental Abuse, Concentration camps, and after all that oppression people would still come out gay, even though they might have been tortured, which leads me and most people my age to think “damn they really are gay, and not mislead by their parents or anything, but truly gay”.
Older people are stubborn, and they cant handle change, but that kind of attitude is why us younger people take over, and most of us eventually become stubborn as we get older. Their is this saying in a very good song that i like that states “forget what we’re told, before we get to old” which seems to interpret forget what others tell you what you are, because the higher power has given you the seeds to what you are, and only you can plant them.
their are many bad things in this world, and one of them is the inability to learn and grow.
I know who i am, and i know what i have been meant to do, but most people in this world are a bunch of empty heartless people running around in circles trying desperately to find their purpose to life, because they only did what they told, not what they were meant to do.
Yes this sounds like philosphy but think about for a bit, and please dont say you were meant to kill all the gays or jews or whatever, because i know that is a fabrication of Hate disguised by what i am saying as far as purpose goes.
Peace everyone i hope everyone has loved ones, and people to care for, because in the end its your compassion and love for others that cuts through all darkness.
Noe 120, Brent B, how do you know what you are “meant to do”
There are many things that inborn in humans: greed, envy, anger, do we just give in to these because we were “born with them?”
Are you willing to celebrate club-feet and cleft-palates? After all people are “born with them.”
Every homosexual act is a choice. We can act on our urges or we can surmount them and overcome them.
Some people are attracted to children, some people want to have sex with animals. Should we change the laws so that these people don’t need to control their urges?
You are speaking from the vantage point of a corrupted culture that rejects the concept that humans should rise above mere urges, passions and impulses. Essentially you are dismantling civilization and are working towards anarchy where the strong directly oppresses the weak or a totalitarian system of governance. I can see how totaliarian systems get a grip on an entire population.
To Missourian:
No you are missunderstaninding me and i didnt make myself clear so i do apologize.
If somebody likes children that is them, however the child they like generally doesn’t like it, therefore it is harmful by all means.
Greed and all those previously can be generally overcome, however Homosexuality has been proven to stick, and yes it has some bad things to it: Drugs and lotsa of sleazy sexual acts, however like i mentioned most homosexuals are trying to get away from those bad things and try become the best person they can be, so i have to give them credit for that and most people should.
Example take a 26 year old Homosexual Male, and send him to that saved camp where they mentally torture the person until they say they are straight and act upon it. To all those he is cured, but truly he is not people distilled fear into him to try and convert him, and a few years down the road he will be right back where he was, but worse.
Torture them, Murder them, and do whatever you want it will not change it, unless someone plays god and alters peoples mind (that is dark day when that happens).
Like michael B. said they are in pain most Homosexuals, so why would anyone chose that, unless they are Masochistic (in the human world Saddism is a more Common practice).
We have the ability to fix cleft lips and other disfigurements, however we cant fix homosexuality especially if we use fear and hatred to try and cure it.
Alot of people are missing the big picture, and are unwilling to except that they are here to stay, so why not try to make the best of it.
People in the bible days had to make the best of things, so why is it so hard for people to do that today everyone wants the world according to them
Everyone wants the world and wants it to spin on their Axis
Perfect example Of Greed and Manipulation
Their are things and people in this world i do not like, but how dare i play god and try to decide that they don’t belong.
Anybody else want the world according to them good luck, because its not your world, and the world is what you make of it, not how you try to change it.
So who wants to argue that they are god and they know whats best for this world LOL anybody?????
Note 122, Brent M, response
So I take it that you don’t object to pedophilia if the child agrees to participate? Are you sure?
Brent B, you have adopted an unproven underlying assumption; that is, that homosexuality is a “given” about which nothing can be done.
First, every sexual act is a choice. Anyone can decline to participate in a sexual act. Married people may experience an attraction to someone not their spouse but choose to decline to commit adultery.
Single people can experience sexual attraction to others but also can wait until they find their proper married partner. Going without sex is not a death sentence. Many people do for good reason. It is only this society, today, that preaches the life without immediate sexual gratification is intolerable.
Second, until the 1960′s the American Psychological Association defined homosexual conduct as a mental disorder. There is substantial researh connecting certain childhood conditions with homosexual conduct. There is no scientific consensus on whether there is really something called a “sexual orientation.” Propaganda has hamstrung science in this field.
Third, I don’t think there is any particular evidence that most homosexuals are “trying to get away” from a decadent lifestyle. There are some homosexual activists who openly advocate the abandonment of life-long marriage as the ideal for humans. They make no bones about it.
I don’t know what country you live in but anyone who sent someone to a camp where they were mistreated could be arrested in the United States. I don’t know anyone who is advocating “re-education camps.” Please send me to some documentation of this because we need to report it to law enforcement.
You should note that the express teaching of Islam is that homosexual conduct is punishable by the death penalty. This is not the teaching of Christianity. All religions are not alike and it would behoove you to learn to distinguish between them.
Homosexuals enjoy almost total freedom in the United States. Many “churches” have become leaders in the fight for normalization of homosexual conduct. Homosexuality is welcomed and celebrated at most colleges. Homosexuals are elected to local and national government. The incidence of anti-gay violence is rare and greatly exaggerated for political effect. No one declines to prosecute anyone who is accused of violence against gays.
.
It isn’t necessary to have a “cure” for homosexual in order to argue that society should not normalize and honor homosexual conduct. We don’t have a cure for cancer but we don’t celebrate cancer.
The “fear and hatred” nonsense is propaganda. It is churches which call themselves Christian which have lead the pro-gay political agenda in the United States. The governments of the individual states were in the process of de-criminalizes homosexual conduct during the 1990′s. It is possible to de-criminalize homosexual conduct and still not honor and celebrate it. Make no mistake, gay activists are working to include pro-gay teachings in the very youngest of children in public schools.
History shows that people have engaged in homosexual conduct throughout the centuries. I don’t expect it to go away. The question is whether socity should “celebrate” and “normalize” homosexual conduct. Please read Stanley Kurtz on the breakdown of the family in Europe and the dropping birth rates. Public policies have consequences and the normalization of homomsexual conduct has hurt the societies of Wester Europe. Spaniards and Germans may be virtually extinct in 80 years.
We are members of a democracy and we have the right and the duty to shape the nature of our society. Until the 1960′s we had a coherent and cohesive culture, since that time there has occurred a virtual attack on all standards of good conduct concerning marriage, the family and sexual morality. Look at the changes:
Marriage has been trivailized with easy divorce
Cohabitation has been normalized
Serial marriages have been normalized.
Same-sex conduct is close to being fully normalized.
More and more children live in unstable homes. The rates of venereal disease and illegitimacy have sky-rocketed. There are consequences to social policies concerning the home and the family. Previous social policies favored family integrity and the preservation of a stable home for children. Those policies have nearly been thrown away entirely.
Study Britain and read Peter Hitchens book “The Abolition of Britain” to see what has happened to a society which prior to WWII had a very strong and cohesive social order, strong families, low illegitimacy rates, low crime rates and one of the highest levels of literacy in the history of the world. All of that has been dismantled by a Labor government bent on tearing the traditional family to shreds.
You reap what you sow. Britain has very high rates of crime, juvenile delinquency and alcoholism. Few British children grow up with their own parents, this is what it leads to.
We all have the right and the duty to care about what kind of country we live in. The legitimization of homosexual conduct is one more nail in the social coffin. It also will open the door to a social revolution in the other direction. As chaos mounts, sharia will step in to offer “order.”
You can be as cavalier and casual as you want Brent but these changes will affect you. You will have to live in a world where most people are not raised in any kind of stable environment and crime and social disorder will affect you.
Gay activists are working in Canada to deny Christians who believe that gay conduct is immoral the right to religious freedom. A Christian printer who declined to accept a job printing up leaflets promoting “gay pride” was fined and prosecuted. Firefighters have been compelled to attend “gay pride” events against their will.
Why do you think that gay activists won’t and don’t use the power of the state to get their way over others?
Missourian,
When I asked what gay couples should do, you didn’t really answer the question. I mean, you said they should “seek Christ,” but a lot of them do that already. And seeking Christ is just an internal thing (something you do in your heart, spirit, or mind) unless it leads to some real-world choices that you don’t specify.
Realize what you’re critiquing gay couples for causing:
What’s going to stop the shrinking population? Should gay men leave their boyfriends and marry women? How else are they going to repopulate the country?
And while you’re at it, answer this: would you really want your daughter marrying a gay man? A man so noble that he is willing to overlook his sexual attraction to men so that he can “avoid narcissism” and help repopulate America?
Why do people choose to be poly-amorous – a growing movement in the U.S. of people who have multiple long-term partners, even while married?
Why do people choose to be into S&M, particularly as “bottoms” who get bound, gagged, and beaten?
Why would anyone “choose” that?
Why do some women repeatedly choose to be with violent men who beat them?
Why do some people choose to have other dangerous personality flaws that result in all kinds of harm to themselves and others?
A cleft palate is medical condition, not a choice. It requires care.
The above list are all behaviors. A clinical pathology may contribute, or even lie at the root, of them for some people. If so, then proper treatment is in order.
Much homosexual behavior is the result of compulsions caused by various traumas (distant father, controlling/abusive mother, etc.) It may also be socially reinforced or suggested (many feminists encourage lesbian identity in young women for political reasons).
However, to somehow state that homosexual ‘identity’ is as fixed and indelible as a cleft palate is simply daft. It is put to shame by the many people who have dealt with it and other compulsive behavior and have overcome it.
People do strange and awful things for a variety of reasons. Homosexuality is one of those things. It has a lot of causes, and people have to overcome the compulsion on their own. Just like the S&M devotees or anyone else in a twisted, demented lifestyle.
Telling them, however, that their perversion is ‘normal’ is absolutely not going to help the situation.
Note 124, Redux, once again for Phil
Your question is disingenious, Phil, but I will treat it seriously.
Again, I noted that I am not a spiritual counselor so the most detailed advice that I can give is that all persons should seek Christ. Christ is the answer to everything. We need to confess our sins, join with Christ and allow Him to change us.
I would recommend that any inquiring person who has engaged in homosexual conduct seek a qualified and mature spiritual counselor. True faith does result in changes in one’s life, positive changes. The changes brought about by the Christian faith have been amply documented over many centuries. Many people have been freed from addictions, depression and other harmful pursuits. There are no limits to Christ.
This is, of course, a disingenious response. It isn’t really serious. I divided my answer into two segments: spiritual (which was my best response on a person-to-person level) and political (the true debate is about public policy)
So let us turn to public policy. Starting from the beginning. Historians and psychologists have documented that human beings have invented literally hundreds of ways to gratify themselves sexually. Some of these ways involve a loving and mature relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Some of these ways involve members of the same sex, or children, or material objects or animals.
Society has an interest in socializing the next generation. We will either properly socialize the upcoming generation or we will be at the mercy of a near criminal class of human beings. Virtually every society known to historians on every continent has PRIVILEGED marriage. Marriage was an is a legal and social institution supported and favored by the state. Here was the trade-off, the state would sanction and support adults who took on the life-long committment to care for each other and to raise children. Prior to the 1960′s it was not considered acceptable to be voluntarily childless. Raising children and contributing directly to the continuation of the species and the future of society was considered a joyful duty.
All other forms of sexuality were either directly penalized or at least not honored and favored by the state. Essentially raising children is hard work and it involves a lot of personal sacrifice on the part of the adults but it has to be done if society is to go forward.
After the 1960′s the social committment to this nearly universal and ancient paradign started to break down. First the committment to life-long marriage was broken with the onset of “no-fault” divorce. Then the reservation of sex to married life was broken and non-marital heterosexual sex was normalized and legitimized. Later co-habitation without marriage was normalized and the stigma removed. Now the forces in favor of the normalization of gay sex are working hard and making great gains.
This section is about public policy. It is about divorce and family law, about taxes, insurance, inheritance and adoption and child custody. These are the issues that go to the heart of any society.
When society legitimizes and rewards sexual activity outside of marriage the incentives to do the hard work of raising children are removed and fewer people undertake the hard work involved.It is a matter of formulating a public policy that explicitly gives privilege to marriaged couples and to parents
If you want to look at the consequences of nearly total family breakdown look at the Black family. Most Black children are illegimate and marriage is not considered a necessary prerequisite to having children. Crime rates for Blacks are 10 times that for any other ethnic group and juvenile deliquency and poor performance in school is very severe, both absolutely and in comparison to other groups.
Gay marriage is a delusion. Same-sex couple are not married. A man is not a “husband” or a “wife” to another man. A woman is not a “husband” or a “wife” to another woman. Every set of same-sex couples that adopt a child do so for selfish reasons, not in the best interest of the child. Every child consigned to a “gay” household loses the benefit of a mother or a father.
If there are not enough married couples to adopt then the state should provide large financial incentive and assistance to married couples wishing to adopt to allow them to do so. If there are still not enough married couples wishing to adopt, then the state should build group homes like Boy’s Town in which boys and girls are mentored by both adult men and adult females.
First, you presuppose an unproven assumption. You posit the existence of a “gay man.” There are no clear scientific studies that establish that a so-called “gay orientation” exists. It can be shown using the logic of Mendellian laws of inheritance and Darwinian natural selection that Nature would select aware from a trait which is naturally infertile. In other words, any gay gene would be bred out of the population in a few generations.
Until the 1960′s and the take over of a political group, the APA classified homosexual conduct as a personality disorder and research existed which traced this disorder to certain childhood traumas and situations. This research has been discontinued and suppressed for political reasons.
Note 126, Evolution shows that a “gay gene” is impossible, it would be extinguished within a few generations.
If there existed some kind of “gay gene” which produced a “gay orientation” in a adult human being, it would, by Darwin’s logic be existinquished within a few generations.
If anyone here is familiar with Mendal’s law, it isn’t too hard to demonstrate
that any such “gay gene” would have to be recessive and that it would either be suppressed by the expression of a dominant gene OR in those cases where two recessive “gay genes” appeared in the same individual, the natural sterility of that individual would prevent the gene from being passed on.
The possibility of rape of a gay women doesn’t solve the evolutionary problem because the child of such a union would only carry one recessive “gay gene” which would be suppressed by the dominant
“straight gene.”
It really isn’t too hard to demonstrate mathematically and logically, that a “gay orientation” couldn’t survive in nature for very long.
A “gay orientaion” is a psychological disorder arising from some childhood problem no doubt OR it represent the perverse side of human nature that seeks out the bizarre and unusual for thrills and kicks. It isn’t a product of any evolutionary process, that is for sure.
Plenty of prisoners participate in homosexual conduct when that is the only form of sexual release availble to them, then they return to heterosexual conduct upon release. It really isn’t that big of a deal. The human mind can take perverse turns and pursue all sorts of harmful activities for kicks and entertainment. Look at dog fighting for instance.
#124
Thank you CFLconservative for that well-written, cogent dose of common sense.
This should be readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of life experience and a little perspicacity.
The gigantic secret that is kept under lock and key throughout these debates is the fact that of all the persons who report homosexual experience, roughly half find a way to quit it one way or another and move on to stable heterosexual relationships. You don’t hear much from them since they are largely embarassed by their history and don’t want to humiliate their spouse. The only ones who go public are those for whom a strong born-again episode coincided with their change of behavior. These folks are usually not terribly articulate and are readily pilloried by the MSM.
It is interesting that the psychologist who was first associated with the Am Psychology Assoc and the “mainstreaming” of homosexual behavior has now come to the conclusion that people can be successfully treated and change their behavior. He is no longer a popular guy in some circles.
Questions for you Phil
Why should society support your particular form of sexual gratification?
It isn’t about love because a person can find plenty of love without sex if he or she is willing to love others in turn.
What is so important about your propensity to gratify yourself with another man?
If we honor your propensity to gratify yourself with another man, why not pedophiles? Why not bestiality? Why not polygamy?
Why should we honor it with legal recognition, tax benefits and the like?
Why should we accept the idea that a mother or father is dispensable
when the experience of the Black family in America shows that the
absence of a father in a family is a catastrophe?
You have the burden of proof, not us. No society in the history of the world has honored homosexual conduct, nearly every society has actively suppressed it as a decadant narcissistic habit with no redeeming social value.
Angelina Jolie states she has given up gay sex for Brad
News flash.
. Guess that this lesbian wasn’t the “genetic” variety. Hmm, it might be a choice. Seems that Anne Heche has changed teams several times, none of them under duress.
Sorry about the descent into tabloid journalism, but, I think this is relevant to the debate.
Brent, first of all, just because the Church teaches that some act or other is a sin does not mean that a sinner should be tortured.
The fall of man directly efffected the physical world, sin became part of our bodies
Each person has their own set of besetting sins that are life long struggles
The healing of the Church is living the repentant life which involves not only the individual struggle but with a spiritual father and worshipping together with others.
What the sin is is not all that important, the struggle is. Besetting sins are rarely fully overcome in this life because they are tied to our bodies.
As the Orthodox gentleman who is addressing his homosexual ideation told us, the Church directs him and others like him to celibacy in addition to prayer. The Church also directs widows and widowers to celibacy, service and repentance. In fact there is never a time for sexual license according to the Church even in marriage.
The world gives far too much importance to the gratification of sexual desire. The root cause of the disordered approach to human sexuality is worshiping the created thing rather than the creator–pride, selfishness, self-absorbtion and the gratification of the senses are the result.
The only appropriate place to express sexuality is within marriage.
Missourian states: “It isn’t about love because a person can find plenty of love without sex if he or she is willing to love others in turn.”
Certainly. St. Paul held the state of celibacy as a higher calling than marriage. Since that’s the case, why don’t heterosexuals pick this option more frequently do you think? If love can be found that easily in these sorts of situations, why do you suppose that of the 76.9 million Roman Catholics in the United States, only 46,000 choose to take vows of celibacy (which is around 1/10 of 1% of the male Roman Catholic population — or 1/1000)?
(This is assuming that those vows are actually kept, btw.)
On the one hand, you talk about the greatness of marriage and how life is difficult in old age without a spouse while on the other, you insist that it’s ever so easy to live as a single, celibate person for the duration of one’s life.
Which is it? Personally, I don’t think carnal attractions are to be equated with love (a mistake often made), but it does seem that few can do without the closeness, exclusivity and bonding that can only be found in a romantic pairing. This is just my observation, however.
James K says:
why do you suppose that of the 76.9 million Roman Catholics in the United States, only 46,000 choose to take vows of celibacy (which is around 1/10 of 1% of the male Roman Catholic population — or 1/1000)?
Because the Catholics gave in to the culture, the spirit of the times, especially during the sixties. They used to have many many more in orders. Two of my wife’s great aunts are nuns.
Shoot, the Catholics “fast” for 1 hour before communion…1 hour, and they have the boldness to call it a “fast”. And some Orthodox think we need to “reconcile” with this “church”…;)
James says:
why don’t heterosexuals pick this option more frequently do you think?
Because we live in a de-Christianized society, one where a sort of neo-paganism is firmly rooted…
Christopher, does the Orthodox Church not make celibacy among its clergy an option? Do you suppose that the Orthodox Church would have as many men among its clergy if celibacy was the only option and if not, would you insist that it’s because the Orthodox have “given in to the spirit of the age”?
I’m not sure how you can critique Roman Catholics for not adhering to a level of conduct you do not expect from within your own church. This is not consistent.
(If I’m wrong about this policy, please feel free to state as such.)
note 135: Your wrong
If not the “spirit of the age”, whats the reason?
Before you answer, don’t tell me the usual modern story about how we are not above our lusts – that IS the spirit of the age…
Christopher, according to Rev. Stephanopoulos , “Orthodox priests are often married men, although they must wed before ordination”.
I’m not sure what the “right” answer is here. Are you saying that all married Orthodox priests are married because of some personal weakness? Your post was a bit muddy – you might wish to clarify since it seems to be a bit of a personal attack on much of the Orthodox clergy who, according to Church doctrine (and Scripture, for that matter), have no reason to be ashamed of their married state.
Missourian,
Anne Heche doesn’t count she is a mess and only did that as a publicity stunt, and Angelina Jolie well i dunno whats wrong with her.
I was hoping you would have chose better candidates than Anne Heche and Angelina Jolie (keep in my mind they are both actresses)
And who is to say Anne Heche isnt still a lesbian, but she is suppressing it, and eventually she will end up in someones backyard naked screaming at the top of her lungs.
I know a perfect cure for Sexual desires its called the ole chopping board, but what men would do that ;0), so to be quite blunt and to reality very few men resist the urge, so lets talk shop, and say its ideal to only have sexual relations in a marriage, but that isnt going to happen, so lets look at another alternative.
Oh to Christopher:
Paganism is a very old religion, and their is no such thing as Neo-Paganism its a false term used for anyone who goes against a particular religion (a below the belt punch).
Our society isnt de-Christianized its a bloody melting Pot, so its got a little bit of everything including Satanist (poor goats :0( ), so try rephrasing that term into something a little more factual, so that we stay consistent to the overall goal here which is to argue until we all agree to disagree.
Hi Tom.
The gigantic secret that is kept under lock and key throughout these debates is the fact that of all the persons who report homosexual experience, roughly half find a way to quit it one way or another and move on to stable heterosexual relationships.
Now that we’re moving into a scientific debate, where do you get this stat?
It’s probably obvious, but in post #139, the middle sentence is a quote. I meant to put it in “block quotes.”
note 137:
What? You mentioned Roman Catholic’s. When did I talk about Orthodox clergy?
Plenty of resources about Orthodoxy on this site though if your interested…
note 138:
their is no such thing as Neo-Paganism its a false term used for anyone who goes against a particular religion
Neo-paganism is a perfectly servicable term, and goes along way in describing what so many in our culture are becoming. Your definition of it is classicaly liberal, and so may be termed “neo-pagan”…;)
Note 126–
While it’s refreshing to read an Orthodox Christian who isn’t afraid to wholeheartedly endorse the notion of Darwinian evolution, your science and logic are still a little off.
First, of course, it’s important to understand that it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that either there is a “gay gene” or that “homosexual people” do not exist. It’s true that we understand little about the science of–what’s a term I can use that you won’t find loaded? “sexual preference?”–or love.
Sexual preference may be the result of a number of factors. These factors may be biological but not genetic. The factors might be genetic. And yes, some factors may be environmental.
An easy comparison is handedness. In discussing handedness we can avoid political and religious rhetoric and simply look at science. I think we can agree that handedness is a “preference,” for one hand over the other. If handedness were just arbitrary, you’d expect humans to be right- and left- handed at approximately the same rates. But somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 to 95% of humans are right-handed. Clearly, there’s more than random chance at work. And there’s more than culture at work, since some human populations favored right handedness even before they traveled the seas to meet each other.
If we move from discussing handedness to sexual orientation, suddenly the discussion is _fraught_ with religious and political implications. (Jacobse will often criticize me for comparing the two, because left-handedness doesn’t have the same “moral consequences” as homosexuality.)
Whatever the actual, specific causes of either handedness or sexual orientation, it’s clear that there are at least some genetic factors at play. Recent research has shown, for example, the following correlations:
Gay men and straight women have an increased number of fingerprint ridges on the left hand.
Gay men are more than three times as likely as straight men to have counterclockwise hair whorls.
On hearing tests, the frequencies lesbians are capable of hearing tend to match the hearing of men, not straight women.
Recent research indicates that a male’s chances of being gay increase with each male child who occupied your mothers womb before you.
When presented with such research, Missourian, several responses are available to you. You can ignore it, and keep insisting that homosexuals don’t exist, and that gay people are exactly like straight people. You can attack the research and the researchers. and make the huge assumption that every single study that has ever been conducted about correlations between sexual orientation and physical characteristics was flawed in a different way. Or you could issue a quick mea culpa and acknowledge that, indeed, while we may not fully understand the science of human sexual orientation, it is premature to make sweeping generalizations such as “It isn’t a product of any evolutionary process, that is for sure.”
There are all kinds of interesting possibilities besides a simple “gay gene.” For example, if a child’s sexual orientation is influenced or determined in utero, it could be that some women carry genes that cause them to make their babies gay under certain circumstances. Or, there could be multiple genes that determine our sexuality, only causing homosexuality in certain combinations.
Finally, Missourian, it’s worth noting that the vast, vast majority of all human beings believe that their own sexual orientation is innate.
If you’re interested, here are some links to studies about the correlations between expressed sexual orientation and uncontrollable physical/genetic factors:
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html
note 143:
Not meaning to sound flippant, but after I read your post I thought “so”
sex, sexual behavior is innately moral, as anyone who has been in a relationship understands. It’s part of our relating to each other, and whether that relation is “good” or “bad”. You keep going around the same circle, but most folks, or to put it has you would “vast majority of all human beings” do not discount the moral factor.
Instead of using handedness, try anger. Would you say anger is an “innate” human trait/behavior, with biological, genetic, and cultural factors. Of course. Does that make it “ok” to express it as I see fit? Of course not.
sexual deviancy will not be accepted because it is innately “wrong”. the vast majority of all human beings have understood this, thus the reason why most philosophies, religions, and cultures have rejected it through time.
Wake me up when you find the “anger gene” and argue that anger is then merely a “personal preference”…;)
Note 143, Phil, you are scientifically confused
Note 126–
I am always free to use the logic of my debating opponent. He cannot object to it.
If you remember from previous posts, I stated that my opinion was that
homosexual conduct resulted from either a) a birth defect or b) psychological disorder or c) moral disorder.
I chose to discuss the impossibility of the existence of a “gay gene” because it is something which is relevant to the discussion. No modern biologist will posit that there exists a “gay gene” since it runs totally counter to the Darwinian posture of modern biology.
There is research among aninals, sheep to be exact, which shows that if certain chemicals which are normally produced by a pregnant ewe is absent during gestation any ram produced by that pregnancy will not mount females.
Since rams are bred mainly to mount ewes such rams have little economic value. Researchers found that supplementing the nutrition of pregnant ewes
virtually eliminated the instance of non-mounting rams. This is consistent with my previous statements that homosexual conduct might be a birth defect. However, it is a defect and it should not be celebrated or honored.
I already covered this in previous posts. I consider homosexual conduct to be the caused by a) birth defect or b) psychological disorder or c) moral disorder.
Actually you don’t know what you are talking about. Handedness is a great deal more than a “preference.” It is hard-wired into our neural channels.
The comparison is not apt. Handedness plays a very different role in human life. Left-handedness is not likely to have a major impact on the ability of the human to survive and procreate. Homosexual conduct does a a major impact on the propensity of humans to procreate until just very recently with the legitimization of artificial means of reproduction.
Yes, imagine that. What a good deal of the debate about homosexual conduct is about is whether society can establish and support any kind of moral standards when it comes to sexual conduct. The normalization of homosexual conduct and its legitimization through law would go a very long way to the total destruction of all moral order in sexual relations. All the way through your comments there is a condescending tone regarding the fact that there are people, secular and religious, who don’t take sexual conduct causually and think that the rules surrounding sexual conduct are important.
We all know that the sector of the male population that engages in homosexual conduct is promiscuous beyond the average for heterosexual conduct. Promiscuity is a hallmark of the bathhouse culture. Supporting the normalization of homosexual conduct is just another way to support the abolition of any moral guidelines when it comes to sex.
You don’t know what you are talking about. You are not a scientist, and you haven’t had a decent scientific education. As I said and as you have ignored because you really don’t understand science or biology, homosexual conduct is caused by a) birth defect or b) psychological disorder or c) moral disorder.
What you have shown are correlations. These correlations due not prove or disprove causation. They are merely correlations. A birth defect can correlate with other phenomenon. For example, the mental defect which is the hallmark of Down’s syndrome correlates with a relatively harmless defect in the structure of the eye.
Again, you have no ability to understand or interpret scientific studies, as is apparent by your comments. They are scientifically illiterate.
You haven’t made a scientific case for anything. The mere existence of a correlation between one thing and another does not prove causation. I can made a valid scientific case that there is no such thing as a “gay gene” for the obvious reason that Nature does not select for sterility. The condescending tone is amusing since anyone with training in science can deduce that you have have had none or that you slept through class.
In the first case, the disfunction in utero would be classified as a birth defect. This is a possibility that I have acknowledged from the beginning. Again, we do not celebrate cleft-palates, club-feet or missing digits resulting from birth defects. We correc them if we can.
As to the idea that homosexual conduct could be caused by multiple genes the same Mendellian argument applies You don’t understand even the most basic ideas of genetics and you have displayed that repeatedly. Same argument applies whether the hypothesis is single gene or multiple. Nature does not select for sterility. You can’t get past that fact.
Again, even if the desire for homosexual conduct were caused soley by a birth defect, it wouldn’t make the conduct desirable or moral.
Well, the vast majority of child abusers think that the minimum age of consent for sexual activity should be lowered or abolished. Check into the Man Boy Love Association. The vast majority of Muslims think that God has authorized them to beat their wives. The vast majority of Nazis thought that they were doing the world a service when they killed Jews.
Again, a correlation is not causation AND a correlation is totally compatible with the concept that homosexual conduct is a birth defect. Repeat after me NATURE DOES NOT SELECT FOR STERILITY.
Note 138, Brent,
Missourian,
Well, Brent, I disagree. Part of the national debate centers on the scientific question of whether homosexual conduct is the result of genetics. Is a person “born gay” and therefore unable to change the “fact” that they are attracted to their own sex?
If we find people who participated in homosexual conduct who later, without coercion, marries someone of the opposite sex and voluntarily has a child,
then we have found at least ONE PERSON for whom homosexual conduct was a choice.
Anne Heche and Angelina Jolie are perfectly legitimate examples even though they do not seem to be very pleasant people to me. I would call them narcissists of the highest order.
As to whether Anne Heche is suppressing her “lesbianism” that begs the question. She voluntarily joined a man in marriage. As did Angelina Jolie.
There is simply no evidence that either set of behaviors was coerced or even influenced by anything except the personal caprice of Anne and Angelina.
There are simply too many documented examples of poeple who chose at different times of their lives to have sex with women and then later to have sex with man ( or vice versa). Homosexual conduct in most prisons in situational, the innates will tell you that.
Brent you have to decide the type of issue you are talking about. First, do you even think it is worth the time to posit an overarching set of principles that should guide human conduct. I don’t mean this disrespectfully but your sole guiding principle seems to be expediency. If all sanctions are lifted human conduct will descend to very low and barbaric levels.
By the way, murder is illegal and has been for millenia in the West, we still haven’t stopped all murders. Would you suggest that we “give in to reality” and legitimize murders because after all we can’t stop all of them.
Frankly, I don’t see much in your discussion except a willingness to abandon any attempt at buildling a moral society. I don’t see any recognition of the cost that society pays when moral rules concerning sex are abandoned.
Remember that the Black family wasn’t destroyed by slavery, it survived slavery quite well. It was destroyed by the welfare state.
Very few Black children grow up with a father and the result is catastrophic.
Try reading some essays by Bill Cosby, he’ll explain it quite well. This is first and foremost a moral issue. The rules against out-of-wedlock motherhood have been abandoned by modern American Black culture and the result is
apparnet for all.
Hi Christopher,
Re: your comment of “So?” I was responding to Missourian’s suggestion that there’s no such thing as a “gay man.” There are, in fact, a lot of biological traits that gay people seem to possess in strikingly greater numbers than straight people, and no one chooses the pattern of their hair whorls, or the length of their fingers, or the frequencies that they can hear. So, despite what Missourian said, the evidence points to some kinds of genetic factors playing a part in whether a person will be attracted to members of the same sex.
You’re welcome to call it a “choice” when someone decides to engage in a sex act, but it’s a little ridiculous in this day and age to insist that no one is gay, or that there aren’t homosexuals.
In terms of anger, sure– that’s a human emotion, and it probably is affected by genetics, biology, and culture. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some people who are autistic, does it?
Phil, answer honestly. Are you homosexual? Do you have sexual relations with men? This is not a rhetorical trick.
Note 145:
So, despite what Missourian said, the evidence points to some kinds of genetic factors playing a part in whether a person will be attracted to members of the same sex.
I also lean toward more that it’s culturally ‘created’, however I do grant there could be a genetic/biological factor. On a purely personal level, I can’t say I get it in the least. Lust is something I understand all too well, but not same sex attraction? I look at a hairy ape of a man, and there is not one little tiny bit of the end of my finger nail that thinks ‘attractive’ thoughts
Still we (being persons, not determined genetic machines) determine our moral response to all life ‘circumstances’. Autism, birth defect, whatever, we can have a courageous, loving response, or wallow in self pity and loathing. Same for sexual deviancy. It’s a moral challenge, not a genetic one. Just as I choose my response to my sexual ‘fate’ in life, all others do as well…
To Christopher and CFLConservative,
Im not a Liberal nor a Conservative, and the term Neo-Paganism is poor excuse of a term created for the use of scapegoating.
Lets all put blame on Paganism for the way people are, and not because of the lack of proper organized religion, and the constant blame game.
Everyone always wants to blame on someone or something rather than take responsibility.
Their is no such thing as a liberal or a conservative, because if you do a full side by side comparison they add up in the end as far as their thought processes, but you know its easier to create groups of people, because that is human nature ;0) .
Reading all of these blogs shows that you guys have alot of knowledge, but really lacking in plain old common sense, and whats really going on out there.
Like i stated in a previous blog it doesnt matter how hard you try its not going to go away, and obviously their some form of reasoning behind that sort of like an intentional Anomaly, so like it or not everyone is going to have learn to deal with it, and try to make the best of it.
We made the best of black people a long time ago in case some of you had forgotten if it were that era right now we would talking about black people, not homosexuals. With that trend in mind i can tell all of you “liberals” and “conservatives” that you are going to have to cope, because they havent been able to stop same sex relations yet, and i dont they will anytime, soon so live and let live.
Oh and for CFLconservative in regards to all those examples:
You cannot say that those mentioned things result in homosexuality, because if that were the case the gay popluation would be so much higher than it is now, unless it secretly is.
My approach to homosexuality is like my approach to any other group of people. i may not care for their style and ways, but they may also not care about my way of things, so does that both mean we are in the wrong, because if we are gauging whats right and wrong based on the bible, then women should be in the kitchen, and are nothing more than box to pop babies out and cook and clean. Do most of you agree with that, because if you dont you have already Frayed away the bible, and also does anyone eat any form of shellfish??
The bible was a mere guide, and gods intent was to help us start law, which did not include homosexuality and many other laws, so therefore what we are gauging our beliefs on is what our parents taught us, not what is really right from wrong, because in all actuality we do not really know what is right or wrong, but rather we us common sense.
Common sense says that it of course is not right to go and stab someone to death for the heck of it, or dont run over a baby, or don’t hurt others for no reason. Common sense is a guide for you to do the right thing, not worry about others and what they are doing.
Has any gay male/Female every came up to you out of nowhere and tried to have sex with you i doubt that, and the only thing they are forcing upon us is that we play fair, and let them be, just like we let black people be (they are not slaves anymore).
I can go on and on about this, but most of you on here continue to say the same thing: Its destructive to Traditional marriage, or its not meant to be (Male anatomy must always collide with Female anatomy), but on the contrary the way i see it if gay people can get married and keep a semi stable relationship then for us who aren’t gay we should be able to do it as well (possible correction to the falling of marriage).
I do not condone any type of actin that is intentionally harmful to anyone, however their are things that we do that may harm others unintentionally, but that is the human way (we are destructive in nature).
Look at this way you can waste you time and effort to try and stop homosexuality, and it will not do you any good look at fred phelps and his website godhatesfags.com he is a prime example of how far you can easily go by holding hatred and fear in you, and i know all of you on here are intelligent and nice enough to not agree with Fred Phelps and his insane saddistic methods.
Continue supporting traditional Marriage, but dont support it by ragging on homosexuals as bad examples, because you are only creative a negative stance for the support of traditional marriage.
I.E.
“Support traditional Marriage to show those Homosexuals how wrong they are”
Is that what traditional marriage is all about?
I thought it was about love and procreating (procreating isnt always neccessary and not feasible for some $$$wise)
note 148:
Brent, I will just address the points you make about terms. “Conservative”, “Liberal”, “Neo-Pagan”, and other terms are useful words that have real meaning and content. People are not merely their philosophy, true, but their philosophy is an important aspect of their life.
When discussing ideas, these terms are relevant and practical. For example, your thoughts about the place of the bible, “common sense”, etc. all reveal a certain philosophy. We can even put a name to this philosophy…;)
Michael writes: “The world gives far too much importance to the gratification of sexual desire. The root cause of the disordered approach to human sexuality is worshiping the created thing rather than the creator–pride, selfishness, self-absorbtion and the gratification of the senses are the result.”
To the extent that too much importance is given to the gratification of sexual desire, that probably is due to the fact that we are hard-wired for it, even including large doses of hormones, basically self-manufactured drugs, that increase sexual desire.
I mean, if our brains and hormones were such that we all had a monumental interest in riding skateboards, would you talk about how the “world” gives too much importance to skateboard riding?
One thing I’ve never understood is, if too much importance is placed on the gratification of sexual desire, why does the Orthodox church permit remarriage? Why not just say “sorry, you’ve had your sexual experience, and now it’s time for the celibate life.” They don’t say that because most people would not be able to live like that. Another solution would be to permit marriage, but only to someone whom you did not find at all attractive. In that way sex would be a kind of unpleasant chore engaged in only for the purpose of procreation, and sexual gratification would minimal. Again, most people couldn’t live like that.
What you have to offer homosexuals is a life of prayer and celibacy, even as you and the vast majority of your co-religionists do not exercise that option yourselves. Why not? Doesn’t prayer and celibacy work for heterosexuals too?
One is reminded of the passage in the gospels concerning the scribes and pharisees: “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” Orthodox Christians insist that homosexuals bear the very thing that they themselves cannot bear. My guess is that this fact is not lost on gays and lesbians when Orthodox folks show up telling them how they ought to live. Were I a gay man I would simply reply “if it’s such a great thing, you and a significant percentage of your buddies go do it and then I’ll consider it.”
Im sure you can Chris :0) i wonder if its something i have been called before,a nd its usually i am a weak person who allows things to happen, and doesnt fight for anything, however you would be surprised.
I generally defend those who have been scapegoated by the world, and in my views we all contribute to the “cauldron of the end” by that i mean we all equally do are part to both destroy the world and create this world almost at the same time, so it is my expression that we are all to blame for everything and anything, but we all still try to keep this world afloat, so in escence we all should pat ourselves on the backs for a job well done, and also forgive ourselves for what we have done to destroy things.
See the pattern we are always taking and giving, and this is a created pattern by something obviously, so no matter what religion to worship we can all be in accordance on that matter.
I am defending Homosexuals and taking away from those who don’t, and those who are defending heterosexuals are taking away from those who don’t, so in all of this madness we come out the same.
In this view i say we are all wasting our time with this, since nobody will come to any understanding churches will always fight new things, and the younger generations will always push for new things.
Patterns are so much fun wouldn’t anyone agree i mean it shows that their is some great mechanism involved here, for those who want their proof of a higher existence.
you know jim holman makes a good point there,
Why should some be sex free and others not?
that to me seems very biased, but oh wait i guess alot of people tend to be biased, so what am i saying LOL duh.
It is as funny as when alot of heterosexuals may say that lesbians are okay, but gay men are not (mainly because alot of guys have fantasies of more than one women giving them sexual gratification).
If homosexuals are so looked down upon, then why aren’t men who sleep with multiple partners without commitment, and men who sleep with women and get them pregnant and then ditch, oh well mainly because deep down inside most men are hardwired to “plant the seed and leave”.
This is why i strengthen my stance on the term “Scapegoat” for all of those who do not know what that term means look it up.
The whole maritual thing is falling apart, and everyone is looking for the easiest target to blame, and low and behold its the homosexuals they get just as much blame as the jewish community (another scapegoat from history).
And as far as science goes according to phil earlier has been given credit that their are some differences in Gay males and Gay women, so as to argue that maybe genetically gay men are only 1/3rd male instead of 50/50 because we all know men are half women xy chromosone.
But all of this will never matter, because to most Eyes its still a choice to be gay, so all of those homosexuals prefer the masochistic lifestyle of ridicule and lack of rights. Do most of you know that in most states someone can be fired for being homosexual, whether they show it or not, and they could be doing a wonderful job at their job, but that is a none-protected thing.
So you can see a homosexual has no support from Work, most families, religion, and many other things, so yet you still say they choose this route my god why would anyone chose this?
Phil, why risk the welfare of even one child for the sake of your sex thrills?
As a “children’s rights” advocate, I challenge and fully oppose your efforts to obtain benefits and privileges in society because of your disfunctional sexual proclivities and to have society pay for them with the lives of children.
Whom do you think you are?
Society has a right to put children, it future first. The sexual proclivities of what you call “gay people” (note to Anne Heche you are violating the party line) is their problem.
Every society in the history of the world has supported and rewarded those who devote themselves to the life-long task of raising the next generation. History and all formal research show that children do best with both a mother and a father.
You can allow gays to adopt and fully support children’s rights. Every same-sex couple deprives a child of a mother or a father OR the guidance of an adult female and an adult male in an appropriate group or foster home. Get a pet.
This is the burden, Phil. In all of my conversations with gays, I have always found that there is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that gays are not willing to sacrifce— the wellbeing of children, the national defense of this country– for the sake of their sexual pleasure. This, I think, is the true disorder of homosexuality—the absolute elevation of a sexual buzz above everything else in the world.
note 153:
by that i mean we all equally do are part to both destroy the world and create this world almost at the same time,
Again, interesting philosophy – probably has a name
However, that is not Christianity. Christianly speaking, we are not all “equal”, in the sense that we do not all “equally” contribute to the “destruction of the world”. Christ told us that we will be judged – separated out. Just look out your window. Some folks are more destructive to themselves and others, some less so. Some appear to not be destructive at all. We generally term these people “Saints” and paint pretty pictures of them to hang in our Churches…;)
Note 153, Brent at least you have clarified your worldview
Well, Brent, essentially nothing really matters to you, actions have no consequences and no one will be held accountable for anything.
Why bother to discuss anything then?
Why do you bother to discuss things with other people since you have no principles?
Phil, why risk the welfare of even one child for the sake of your sex thrills?
Missourian, are you acknowledging, then, that homosexuals might exist? Let’s hear it.
(And the answer to the question is, I really don’t think that having same-sex parents who have sexual relations has significantly more of an impact on the children being raised than having mixed-sex parents who have sexual relations. Orthodox Christians (and many other Christians) are obsessed with sex. Note how many times sex and sex acts have been brought up by the Orthodox on this board. Jacobse even asked me directly if I have sexual relations with men, without explaining why he wants to know. It appears to consume the thoughts of conservatives.)
Christopher, the name of the the philosophy described by “by that i mean we all equally do are part to both destroy the world and create this world almost at the same time,” is nilhism particularly the Nietzchean variety.
Note 159. Phil writes:
I am beginning to wonder if you are homosexual, that’s why I ask. The “sexual relations with men” explanation was just to clear the air about what the term means, and also to show no rhetorical trick was involved (which could be easily construed by such a direct question).
So, are you?
Note #158-Missourian. Brent must be in love with nothingness. It can be powerfully seductive to those who have no foundation in love or meaning or perhaps he has been reading to much Robert Heinlein. Brent’s post sounds like something right out of “Stranger in a Stange Land” from the 1960′s Heinlein’s peon to “free love” and polymorphous perversity as the way to save the world. So much for Brent’s younger generation being so new and creative.
Note 154. Brent writes:
People don’t “choose” same sex desire. They choose what they do with it. Sexual desire is largely innate and naturally (according to nature) directed towards the opposite sex. That’s what the biology reveals, what the moral code of the world’s civilizations (even non Christian) overwhelmingly affirm, etc. etc., — everything we have been talking about here. When sexual attraction occurs toward the same sex, we look for reasons.
What are some of those reasons? If you really are interested in knowing, check out this website and read through the articles: NARTH.
Note 162. Too harsh Michael. Brent is young and just starting to figure things out. Need to cut him a little more slack. Yes, a lot of his answers are boilerplate activist responses, and yes, he has bought into the homosexual as victim self-identity narrative, but there is some genuineness in his responses.
Missourian,
I do have principles, however i see the whole world as it is, and i can tell you stabbing at the gay society will not correct this world by far. You can go ahead and humor yourself, but their will come day if you are still alive that you will find that your fight to “Save traditional Marriage” was for nothing.
Lets say for instance that all gay people just disspeared into nothingness, what do you think will change?
Im sorry if i see the big picture here, and its not gay people that are destroying this world its all of us.
We consume to much (Food, Earth elements, etc.)
We lust for things (Sex, Religious Comfort, food, money, etc.)
We all Hate (Gays, Muslims, Retarded people, Etc.)
We all are self loathing, and selfishly hating people for no reasons
We can all sit around and point the blame at gay people for things, and not take responsibility.
The gay population continues to increase, so obviously your battles are being lost, so maybe its time to try a different better aproach.
I stand for trying better options and thinking outside the Box (in this case outside the book).
The gay people that Do Convert do it purely out of fear, not because they are truly fixed, hence why most those men that are hooking up with other men in the parks are middle aged married men what can you argue to that???
Don’t criticize me and say i have no morales i have plenty i just want everyone is this world to have a chance and everyone to be in accordance, and yes this naturally nieve, but eh never said i was perfect.
Their are bad things that people do that i would never condone, but i dont play sides i am not biased i think everyone should be accountable for themselfs, and not place the blame on a minority group of people sort of like the gay society.
Most gay people commit alot of sexual acts, because they have low self esteem and their morales are low, because they have people telling them they are going to burn in hell, and that they are destroying the world, and treat them like a disease, so gee i wonder why one would have such a low self esteem that they have little to no morales.
Shame on people for not taking responsibility for their own mistakes and tossing it off on minorities, because it is it so easy to do.
We all have done and are doing things wrong, so quit with the virginal goodie two shoes act, and take responsibility for you own personal failures and lack of commitment, because it is mans nature to cheat and leave the women that is truly hardwired, so don’t fault gay men strictly on it being they are the only ones with sex on the brain, because its men in general.
yes michael it may appear so because of my youth, but like i stated you are all intelligent people, however your guys/girls views come from a different generation, and i am accounting for all perspectives, and collectively i am trying to make it clear that poking at this whole gay issue is not going to fix things, but just make it worse.
Everyone must seek other areas as well in order to find the real solutions to problems not focus all on one subject.
Sorry Michael i have not seen that movie, so i cannot relate to it, and no i do not have a gender crisis, but if even if i did that would be my demons to fight not yours.
Your not getting frustrated are you?
I can see how this whole thing is frustrating, because no true right or wrong way to handle, which is yet why i say we all need to look at the whole picture here, and marriage will be the least of our worries when the world gets blown up.
I am worried about the middle east that scares me not two men getting married all this fighting for morales will mean nothing when we are incinerated by a nuclear War.
So yeah i am sorry if i am Nieve and Young, but at least i am paying attention to the loaded pistols here.
Note 165, Brent, “seeing the whole world as it is” Older people have seen more of it than younger people.
Brent, there exists a great deal of literature on the topic of society’s approach to homosexual conduct. You make no reference to any of it.
I have made reference to it.
If you talk to an anthropologist, you will learn that the first thing that an anthropologist studies about a society, nation or tribe is the family structure. How does the society define family, what are the rights and duties of family members and related issues.
Societies have always defined themselves through and by the rules that they make for family life. There are reasons for rules, Brent, it isn’t just a conspiracy by one faction to make life miserable for others.
It is typical of young people to see the rule advocated by older people as simply instances of “killing joy.” I did when I was young. As I got older, lived more and observed more, I began to see the reasons for rules. When you are 7 years old you sure don’t like your mother or father taking you to get your immunization shots or your dentist appoinment.
Prior to 1960, America had a unified and coherent and agreed upon set of moral rules concerning marriage and family. Not everybody lived up to them but nearly everybody agreed with them. First, people were expected to marry and to have children. It was the norm. It was recognized that raising children was a “joyful duty.” We have to produce the next generation because the older generations are dying off. If we stop reproducing society dies. We also have to train and socialize children to be honest, productive citizens.
Let us review the trends of the last 60 years.
First, marriage was trivialized by easy divorce and we were told by the Left
“Don’t worry it won’t hurt children.” It did.
Second, sex outside of marriage was normalized and we were told by the Left
“Don’t worry it won’t hurt children. It did
Third, co-habilitation with marriage was normalized and we were told by the
Left “Dont worry it won’t hurt children.” It did.
Well, we now have 60 years of social experimentation and the results are coming in for review. Stanley Kurtz has reviewed those results. Theodore Dalrymple has reviewed the results in the U.K.? They are not good.
The approach the society takes to homosexual conduct is part and parcel of the approach it takes to sex and marriage and the family. These are important topics which have a huge impact on all of us in a very immediate sense.
Why don’t you go and do some serious reading on these topics and come back after that.
Gee. I don’t recall either cheating on my wife, or leaving her and the kids for that matter.
Might have happened in a trance-like state?
Men can and do fail. The Orthodox Church takes a realistic view of that failure. A monk, when asked what they do at a monastery, replied, “We fall down and get up.”
Just because men and women fail doesn’t mean you throw in the towel and accept that fact. The world can be better. We can be better.
You list out a lot of failings like over eating, etc. It isn’t as if the Church says, “Go for it!” in regards to gluttony or heterosexual extra-marital relationships. All of those things are condemned. In fact, the Orthodox Church is the only place that really keeps a balanced view of the situation.
The Protestant Fundies really do get totally fixated on sexual sins, and miss out on all the other ways in which people cut themselves off from God. The Orthodox Church takes a holistic view of sin and the nature of man’s separation from God.
That holistic view includes condemning a lot of things that you said should be condemned in your various posts. The purpose of the Gospel is to overcome and redeem man by transforming the fallen nature of man into the glorified world of the future.
Homosexual lusts are part of the fallen nature of man. They are contrary to God’s design and are rebellious, just as men who run around ‘planting the seed and leaving’ are rebelling against God’s plan.
I do not believer that the number of homosexual men is increasing. The number is no greater now than in the past. However, I do believe that the number of women experimenting with lesbian relationships is in deed increasing, as it is not only socially acceptable in certain circumstances but also highly encouraged. Just check out the commercials for ‘Girls Gone Wild’ videos and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
In the end, of course, the Church as a whole is not poking just at this gay issue. It may be that which is bothering you, but the Church is busy with a whole range of issues that encompass a lot more than just this.
Fr. Hans, & Brent Re #162: I was just remembering myself at 20 when Heinlein’s book was all the rage and how attractive it all seemed and how seductive the abyss of nothingness seemed to me. How old fashioned and hide-bound my elders seemed especially when it came to sexual mores.
By the grace of God, I did not dive into that abyss but I came very close. So if I offended, please forgive, but also know that that path is only self-destructive, despite the lure. It will always be heavy on my heart that I participated in the hedonism of the time and longed for every greater participation. I, unfortunately, helped pave the way for Brent’s confusion.
I am sad, Brent that you seem more willing to duplicate my folly than to avoid it.
What I see in many of these posts is a lack of any sense of the nuance and range of ideas and behaviors in humanity. One is apparently either way on one side of the fence or the other; they are either totally self-sacrificing or they embrace nihilism and “the abyss”. Is this really your experience of what people think and do in day-to-day life?
Folks, people can have contrary ideas (“worldviews”, as you call them) and not engage in utter depravity every second of every day and have some respect for self-restraint and self-sacrifice. Pat Tillman who served his country bravely and died was evidently an atheist. There are gay men and women who attempt to live monogamously and who don’t seek out anonymous sex. Yet it seems there is no room in your heads to allow for the existence of such people. Why is that? Perhaps it’s a necessary way of validating your own beliefs to believe that those who think and believe differently are “utterly corrupt”? It ain’t so. Reality doesn’t seem to hold much weight here, does it?
I recall as a “fundie Catholic” what the “outsiders” looked like: let me tell you, it was quite something to float above everyone else with their petty thoughts and banal souls – trapped in their darkness. What I came to realize that these ideas I had of them had little or no basis in reality. I didn’t even know them – yet I somehow had this extraordinary ability to determine that they were “in the dark”. This was my own projection and presumption. I see a little of that here at times.
Michael, very sorry for your loss, and best wishes in your current life. Had I known of your personal situation I certainly wouldn’t have used the example of remarriage. Certainly in any discussion group consideration for other participants has to take precedence over the discussion. Apologies if I caused any additional hurt.
In your post you used an interesting phrase: “accommodation to human weakness.” I certainly have known some very strange homosexuals, but I have known many more who are really “just folks.” Just people trying to get by. People who are not trying to push any particular agenda, and who are often not even politically active. They are not cruising or hanging out in bath houses.
For these people, who at some point in life simply want to experience love in all its aspects, there must be some way to “accommodate human weakness.” Politics, rhetoric, and research studies aside, I simply have a hard time condemning someone for doing that which every fiber of his or her being says is right and good. I know one gay couple who have been together for over 20 years. At this point I have a hard time seeing how it would be better were they to split up and live alone.
James says:
What I see in many of these posts is a lack of any sense of the nuance and range of ideas and behaviors in humanity. One is apparently either way on one side of the fence or the other; they are either totally self-sacrificing or they embrace nihilism and “the abyss”. Is this really your experience of what people think and do in day-to-day life?
See my post on the other thread – you seem to want to ride the fence and deconstruct that which should not be. We are discussing principles, Dogma, and how it relates to life. First things are first, and you can’t through away principles when you are neck deep in praxis – because principles are what tell you what to do next.
Besides, some things should not be allowed – like “gay marriage”, abortion, and the like – no “nuance” about it…
Note 145–
I was responding to your assertion that there are no clear scientific studies that a “gay orientation” exists. If, as you claim to acknowledge, being gay is caused by a birth defect, then, indeed a “gay orientation” might exist. Yes?
No offense, Missourian, but you’re applying a few concepts from 7th-grade science to a question that is a little too complicated for the scope of most 7th-grade biology books. To wit:
Look, if your assertion here (your “solid case” that homosexuality cannot have a genetic cause) is true, then it would also be true that there are no genetic conditions that result in infertility, because, as you say, “Nature does not select for sterility.”
However, there are actually a number of genetic conditions that result in an organism’s infertility. So, clearly, sometimes Nature _does_ select for sterility.
Sure, but if you’re saying things that you believe are untrue in order to get a response from someone else, then you’re not really engaging in a discussion, you’re just trolling.
Missourian, your tone for this entire post was a bit of a rant. If our discussion is upsetting you to the point where you’re making personal attacks, I’m happy to stop.
Phil wrote:
The gene doesn’t survive it dies out with the first generation. Nature did not select for the gene to survive, because it was not passed on.
Note 173, No logical inconsistency in my reference to “birth defects”
Birth Defects and Genes
A birth defect is any condition in which the organism fails to develop fully and properly. Many things can cause birth defects. Damage to the child in the womb through exposure to toxins, radiation, trauma, or deficient maternal diets for example. A child’s genes may be perfect but the expression of those genes may have been interrupted or disrupted somewhere between conception and birth.
It is possible that someone could be born with a birth defect which would render them physically infertile, however, that does not mean that there exists a “gene for infertility.” It means that same aspect of the organization suffered damage pre-conception or post-conception or during gestation. The genes of a physically infertile person will not be naturally passed on. Darwinians refer to this as the process of a gene being “extinquished” in the population. Even if combinations of genes cause physical infertility those combinations of genes will also be extinquished after they occur once.
So there is no logical problem with stating the homosexual conduct might be the result of a) a birth defect b) psychological disorder or c) moral disorder. In fact, the research the I quoted on sheep points towards the birth defect
theory. Sheep farmers who monitor the gestation period of sheep can prevent the creation of a ram which will not mount ewes. Gay activists have actually asked that this research be stopped. Quite amusing, I would say.
For the purposes of medical/genetic studies what makes a person gay? Physical structure? Conduct? Emotion?
Medical/genetic studies can not be properly constructed unless there exists a solid definition of who is gay. Anne Heche and Angelina Jolie do present a real problem.
What does it mean to classify a person as “gay.” Are Anne Heche and Angelina Jolie gay? They have had sex with both men and women. We have just described conduct not a physical condition. Should “gay” be restricted to people who only have had sex with members of their own sex? Maybe, but, again we have only described conduct. A male vrigin could be convicted of a crime and then have sex with men in prison only because there are no females around. Plenty of male prisoners have homosexual sex while incarcerated. Again, conduct doesn’t seem to be something that we can base a medical/genetic study on.
What about physical structure? Do all gay men possess some physical attribute that a physician could examine and point to and say “yup, there is the gay body part?” Obviously not. So we can’t use physical structure or make-up to define a person as gay. If such a structure exists, we haven’t found it and therefore we cannot classify people as “gay” or “straight” based on the possesion of this alleged physical structure.
What is left? Emotion, preference, “orientation?” How do we know that this “emotion”, “orientation” or “preference” exists? Self-reporting? At what point in time? Sexologists report that many teenagers experiment with some form of homosexual conduct, even if just same-sex kissing, yet they don’t pursue homosexual relationships and engage only in hetereosexual activity as they grow up.?
Again, it is questionable whether it makes any sense to refer to a gene which does something other than direct the creation of a body part. Parental genes can be damaged, developing foetal body parts can be damaged and these can result in a birth defects, but, it doesn’t produce a gene that will be passed on and cause the same birth defect. The child’s gene is fine.
If a gene did exist which absolutely created a “orientation” it would have to be recessive or a majority of the population would be “gay”. If it is a recessive gene it would only be expressed when both mother and father passed on the recessive gene. If a person had two gay recessive genes the probability that they would conceive and pass on their recessive genes is very small. This remains true even if you posit rape of a double-recessive gay woman.
Insults aside, you haven’t touched my argument.
Notew 170, James K, ideas have consequences,grave consequences
What I repeatedly miss in your posts is any recognition of the gravity and importance of what we are debating. You float above it all as if it were simply an academic debate. What we are debating is the very survival of a great civilization- Western civilization.
Every anthropologist starts his study of a culture by looking at family structure. As citizens of a democratic country there is no more important debate than thata which decides what kind of family structure the country will recognize and support and reward. It is crucially important. Have you given any thought at all to the writings of Peter Hitchens and Theodore Dalrymple. They have meticulously documented the rise of negative consequences in Britain as the traditional family was dismantled piece by piece. I don’t think so. The rise of crime, illegitimacy, drug usage, alcohol abuse, chronic unemployment and other social factors has been meteoric in the U.K. since WWII. Prior to WWII Britain was known as the one of the most peaceful, law-abiding and well-educated places in the world. That is no longer true.
I am fully aware of the range of behaviors in humanity. What you are not aware of is that as a citizen of a democracy we are called upon to govern ourselves and to do that we must establish rules through our legislature.
Many times you state that some issue should be decided on a “case-by-case” basis. But this is no solution at all. Our legal system does resolve things on a case-by-case basis BUT it needs to have rules in place to resolve the case, otherwise, a judge is simply an arbitrary and capricious dictator.
Frankly, JamesK, I don’t understand how you can’t understand how law and society works and must work. I don’t understand how you can have such a cavalier attitude about the most important issues we will ever have to decide.
I don’t know if there is a legitimate theological definition of “fundamentalist” but I do know that when that term is used by atheists it generally means someone who has principles who is annoying an atheist who would like to be free of the constraints of those principles.
Note 175–
I didn’t say that you were logically inconsistent when you call being gay a “birth defect.” If you want to call it a birth defect, fine. But you cannot both claim that it’s a birth defect and that there’s no such thing as a gay person.
That’s a very good question. It’s one reason that handedness makes an interesting comparison, because it’s _not_ a cut-and-dried case of a physical structure. And gay people are physically capable of mating with members of the opposite sex, just as straight people are physically capable of having same-sex sexual interactions. Similarly, left handed people are capable of using their right hands; it’s just a pretty ridiculous society that insists that they do so their whole lives.
The people involved in hair-whorl studies and finger-length studies were people who self-reported as gay. But they didn’t know, for example, at the time of the study that their hair whorled counterclockwise. It’s a stretch to say that they threw off the sample by somehow lying or otherwise misreporting.
As you imply, there’s more to it than a single characteristic. I’m of the opinion that the person best qualified to determine whether someone is gay is that person.
And yet, knowing nothing about his personal life, I can say with confidence that Clay Aiken is probably gay. What combination of traits make this fact guessable? It’s hard to say, but it’s a likely bet that if your sister were dating Clay Aiken, she’s due for a cold dose of reality.
Note 174–
Hi JBL. I’m having trouble understanding your post.
Are you saying that _all_ genes which cause an organism to have a condition making it infertile die out in one generation?
Note 161-
Yes.
Whether a rhetorical trick or not, however, I have trouble believing that you’ll be able to resist bringing it into debate. I don’t think there’s been a single instance where we’ve discussed children that you haven’t mentioned the fact that I don’t have kids, for example.
Note 177, Phil, you have just thoroughly defeated any shred of scientific argument for your position
If a medical/genetic researcher wanted to design a research protocol for the investigation of homosexual conduct, he would first have to identify “gay people” and “straight people.” This is necessary in order to establish that what he is studying is truly “gayness.”
However, if he cannot find something physical or biological to distinguish between “gay people” and “straight people” then he has nothing but conduct or self-reporting. If he relies on “self-reporting” then he has NO ASSURANCE that he is truly studying a group of people all of whom are biologically/physically “gay.” John may define gayness in one way and self-report that he is gay. George may define gayness in another way and still self-report that he is gay. Given that the medical/genetic researcher has no good way to know whether John and George actually share some genetic/biological (as opposed to psychological or cultural) characteristic which is capable of being studied scientifically. Compare a medical/genetic researcher who is interested in diabetes;that researcher can objectively separate people as having been diagnosed with diabetes or as being diabetes free. There exists an objective and consistent way to identify membership in each group: diabetic and diabetes-free.
The fact that no one has found biological/physical markers which occur in all people who self-describe as “gay” is meaningful. Even if you site studies which allege that “lesbians” have a higher probability of possessing some physical characteristic, you haven’t established that you have a clearly defined biologically determined group called “lesbians.” It is just a bunch of self-reporters which is virtually scientifically meaningless given the range of human behaviors involved in homosexual conduct.
You also deeply misunderstand “handedness.” Handedness is hard-wired into permanent neural connections. Pianists are always working to equalize dexterity between their two hands but they all admit they never achieve it, it is just a theoretical goal. Handedness is not a good proxy for “sexual orientation.” Sexual orientation is a political term, not a scientific term as my discussions demonstrate.
You have demonstrated so much scientific ignorance and willingness to waltz past reason and fact that I am classifying you as a troll. Bye
Note 179. Actually, I mentioned kids twice, both times when it appeared your conclusions stemmed from a lack of experience with parenting.
So, are you homosexual, or do you just believe in the homosexual cause?
Let me try again although most seem to simply ignore it:
Predispostion to sin is in each of our bodies because of the fall and because we are a physical/spiritual whole.
When St. Paul wrote that we struggle against the flesh he was being quite literal.
Every besetting sin has its roots in our bodies as well as our soul and how we experience life.
Genetic determinism can only be meaningful for materialists, dualists or deists. It has no function in traditional Christianity.
So Michael that means that when a male is attracted to another male that has been brough on by something in their soul? You say struggle against the flesh and traditionally that means men struggling against having lots and lots of sex with women and not reproducing?
Men liking men or women liking women would be just a traditional starving for for flesh, so if they were to say get married then that would be a master promissory that they make to the other person, so that they are commited to each other and no one else, which is in hope to stave lots of promiscious sex am i correct?
I keep seeing the whole argument about sex in general without marriage is bad, but yet people dont want to let gay people get married, so therefore it is souly because they cannot reproduce traditionally, so overall this stems from the fact that they cannot reproduce.
I am sorry but i see some real weakness in trying to understand everyone here i mean i see how its not the usual traditional marriage, but then when people then do a 180 and go to the fact of them sleeping around is bad, so what is it:
gay people getting married is a sin?
gay people sleeping with the same sex is a sin?
The gay people adopting is a sin?
The gay people themselves are sins?
This whole thing is just flimsy, whether or not you have morales or not is irrelevant.
My upbringing is where my morales come from:
“i was given life, so therefore i shall not take life from another”
“i was given something, so therfore i shall take from others”
” i was blessed with kindness and Fairness, so therefore i shall extend that to others”
” i was forgiven for my mistakes, so therefore i shall forgive others”
I apply the fact that i am living and was given this opportunity of live as how i shall live it, however i am not trying to have my cake and eat to like many others are.
It seems like what alot of you on here want is to take everything away from gay people, but what shall this accomplish (think about it deeply).
Everyones goal on here is to make sure that gay people are truly an abombination of god, but with that accomplish what will it solve, does all of you really think that will fix marriage i hope not, because everyone will be sadly dissapointed.
Plenty of people have spoke as if i lack grounding and morales, but this only because i am not black & White (give or take) (live or Die).
I guess it is sinful for me to want a neutral solution to this where everybody wins.
No matter how hard gay people can try to be good in religions eyes they are still outcasted, and all there pain and suffering and attempts fall short of everyone, so to me i think the fact that they are trying we should give some credit you know, as would any person give to someone who tries.
Black & White here people we do not live in a black & White world, so you can keep budging the Black & White look, but it will only cause you pain and suffering, and create a world where nobody wins, but everyone suffers until their last breath (hey this could be a prime example of what Hell must be like).
Fight until the end, because it is human nature
We could always be like the muslims and just kill people who commit gay acts, does that sound like a good idea?
I still fail to see ample proof of how gay people are ruining society, can anyone challenge me to this, and prove me wrong?
gay people getting married is a sin?
Gay people can not get married. Marriage is ordained by God. It was instituted by God the Father and is not negotiable. Even in the past when whole societies were steeped in pederasty (ancient Greece) or highly accepting of same-sex relationships (pre-Christian Rome), no one had any idea of ‘gay marriage.’ The whole idea is sill on it’s face. God has ordained marriage as between men and women, the Church has upheld this throughout 2,000 years even as the Israelites did before them and even as all pagan cultures of Europe as well.
gay people sleeping with the same sex is a sin?
Yes. There are lots of sins, this is one of them. Homosexual relationships are contrary to the design of God. Male and female were designed as physical complements. Will use of the sexual organs for homosexual sex is wrong.
Simply wrong. No gray here, no question here, no need for studies or dives into genetics. Just wrong.
The gay people adopting is a sin? People practicing a homosexual lifestyle should not adopt, nor should people who practice Wicca, S&M, drug use, alcoholism, or a wide variety of other problems.
The gay people themselves are sins? Of course not. No one is a sin. Sins are acts which cut one off from God. A person is not an act. A person can choose behavior.
This whole thing is just flimsy, whether or not you have morales or not is irrelevant. No, your willful misunderstanding of everything said to you is annoying, but the Theological ground is quite solid.
You are free to reject the Christian Church, and free to reject Christian morality. However, you can’t adopt it part of the way. Those of us who have committed our lives to the Church are under its authority, and are committed to telling the world how to attain the Kingdom that is to come.
If we were silent in regards to homosexual behavior, then that would be a travesity. Instead, we attempt to reach them and bring them out of their darkness.
By the way Brent – get a grip on who you are debating. Same point to Jim H. The Orthodox Church has tens or thousands of members (monks and nuns) who are celibate.
The celibate lifestyle in Orthodoxy, unlike the counterfeit Fundie faith, is not denigrated. I’m counseling with a young girl in our parish now who is considering being a nun. I am not discouraging this, neither are her parents. If this is her call, then it is her call.
Sex is not the most important thing in life. This elevation of it to supreme status (I have attraction, I must act!!!) is simply denigrating to the human spirit.
Note 185, Brent, challenge accepted, now read and think a bit
Brent, you will need to invest some small amount of effort to think about the society wide picture and the long term. Here goes.
Making policy for a society as a whole over the long run. First, we have to establish what the debate is about. This debate over homosexual conduct. The debate can be approached on at least two levels: spiritual and public policy.
Secondly, looking at life through a soda straw will not produce good policy.
By “looking at life through a soda straw” I mean looking a anecdotes about individual same-sex couples. Libertarians make this fundamental mistake.
The proper analysis is to look at society-wide behavior patterns, not individual anecdotes. We have to make rule for all people at all times, not react to an anecdote here or an anecdote there. Just because you do not observe an immediate negative impact of a same-sex marriage within 5 minutes after the same-sex marriage is created, does not mean that same-sex marriage does not harm society.
Spiritually or human being to human being As a Christian I can only say that a person should seek Christ. I am not a qualified spiritual guide or counselor but I can personally witness to Christ. I would refer someone to a mature and qualified spiritual counselor.
Public Policy-Secular A strong case against the legimtization of same-sex attraction can be made on purely secular grounds.
Here goes:
1) Society need to reproduce itself if it is to survive.
2) People need to have babies
3) Civilization has to be passed down to the next generation which
means that the babies have to be raised.
4) Someone in society has to take on the difficult task of raising
the next generation to be productive citizens
5) It is hard to be a parent and stick with the job for 18 to 25 years
6) It is easier to be a non-parent and have the freedom to please
oneself first
7) No one disputes that children do best in homes with both a steady and permanent mother and father.
7) Human beings are capable of gratifying themselves sexually in many different ways. See Kraft-Ebbing a pair of psychologists who put together an encyclopedia of the ways in which human beings have gratified themselves sexually over the centuries. Not a really appetizing book but somebody had to research it. Homosexual sex is just another form of
sexual gratification that people engage in.
strong>CONCLUSION: Society has the right to choose a particular form of sexual expression–true, life-long marriage and FAVOR THAT because it benefits society.
We have evidence of what happens when society FAILS to honor marriage.
Please reflect on the following trend.
First, we trivialized marriage by making divorce easy therefore undercutting the stability of the home for children (among other things). This policy favored the freedom of the adult over the welfare of the child.
Second, we trivialized marriage by condoning co-habitatoin, therefore undercutting the stability of the home for children. This policy favored the freedom of the dult over the welfare of the child.
Third, we normalized frequent, serial sexual relationships.
Fourth, we are in the process of normalizing same-sex couples. This will deprive a large number of children of the influence of a mother or the influence of a father.
Boys who grow up without fathers have a much harder time achieving basic success in life, in fact, fatherless boys are, the single largest group of criminals in the United States and worldwide. Nearly all serious criminals were fatherless boys.
We can de-criminalize adult gay sex WITHOUT normalizing it, legitimizing it, teaching it in our schools, giving it tax breaks or other legal or financial benefits.
Question, why should I even have to explain why the abuse of the human body inherent in homosexucal conduct shouldn’t be considered improper, disreputable and undesirable?
This was a quick answer to your challenge. I can give you references to literature to read, if you show that you are sincerely interested in learning something rather than just restating the routine party line on gays.
Well CFLConservative,
If all of it is a sin then won’t they burn in hell?
If this true then why are you so worried about it?
Wouldn’t God intervene if it was destroying gods creation?
You still cannot truly prove the point you are using a 100% theology, whereas younger people are hybrids, where we accept everything and go from there.
If gay people are going to burn in hell for their sins then why are we evening arguing in this blog or any blogs about them getting married if they are on their one way track to hell then let them be, because they have to answer in the end don’ they?
I think people are scared that maybe God did not create the black & White world as most of you want to live in. Remember if god created everything then god also created homosexuality, freewill is a stupid idea, how could something have free will if it was created in likeness of something else.
We all sin everyday, so gay people are just in the same boat:
A gay women wakes up in the morning and kisses her Wife, and says i love you: +1 Sin
She has adopted an abandoned kid: +1 sin, but -1 sin for her act of kindness.
She goes to her job as a social worker trying to help abandoned kids get a home: -1 sin, +1 sin if she helps another lesbian adopt.
She then goes home to make dinner for her adopted kid, and maybe before bed engages in a sexual act for her female partner: +1 Sin
So to cap it she commited two sins today,
How many sins does a heterosexual person commit in a day or a drug addict, or an alcoholic, or an evil warlord?
You say they are sinning, but you are making it sound like you are sinless.
I am sorry, but your argument is still flimsy.
And you cannot say i am not christian, because i am not saying no to gay people all of the time, maybe i am tired of hating and taking away from others, and have decided to be in the likeness of god and be a forgiving soul, rather then a soul who harbors on whats wrong rather then whats right.
You cannot make any proof of gay peoples sins effecting anyone else, well maybe you and others, because you are so black & White and lack proper horizons to the universe god created.
Please make a good Scenario or incident that has a negative impact of gay people being together, besides theory, and the fact that it is a sin, because once again we all sin daily.
:0)
Nancy L: I do not mind your questions.
I understand the concept of original sin, although I must be honest, if God is God, wouldn’t it have been more just and fair to devise a system whereby every man is born in original innocence as was Adam? He’s God after all, and can do anything. What purpose is there in, as you say, “visiting the iniquities of the fathers” onto the tenth generation? Do we send grandchildren to prison for crimes their grandparents commit? In any rate, whether original sin is partially or wholly made manifest in genetics, I wouldn’t presume to guess, but it sounds like a reasonable idea.
I also understand the Christian path of how we are set free from various inclinations. Supposedly, only God has the power to do so. Now, I have no doubt that there have been many, many gay persons who have prayed many years to be “set free” from their inclinations. If God is fair and God is just and desires people not to sin, what purpose what there be in not removing that inclination? So, one prays “Lord, please remove this deep-seated desire for which I did not ask for, over which I have little control and which I do not want”. His response in apparently a vast majority of cases? “No.” But why? Why is freedom prayed for … and declined?
I don’t think I’ve witnessed any cases of these remarkable transformations. On occasions, I see some change in people who have strived and desired to change themselves, but I have not seen anything that I would call “miraculous”. I have seen personal change in my own life, but let me tell you, it took a number of years and no small amount of effort. I won’t discount the possibility of divine assistance, of course, but it seems more a result of personal will and desire. I suppose this will sound arrogant, for which I apologize, but I’m simply trying to present my observations.
“I’m simply trying to present my observations.”
As a gift?
What prevents you from moving from spectator, though………..to something else?
Upstream you write:
Which is it? Personally, I don’t think carnal attractions are to be equated with love (a mistake often made), but it does seem that few can do without the closeness, exclusivity and bonding that can only be found in a romantic pairing. This is just my observation, however.
ever-observing…
Not minding my questions, and me desiring your closure with your Maker, I’ll ask you concerning your observation above, how are you using the term carnal? You seem to equate it with “closeness, exclusivity and bonding” — what’s “carnal” opposed to, in your use?
To Nancy L.
I can say from personal experience that you may have a belief or any idea about something, but it is subject to change, just like everything else in this world.
Years down the road men maybe able to Concieve
Women may be what men are now
its hard to say, because our world is constantly changing
God has obviously created this world to be a constant changing thing, and their maybe a reason to it, and that goes beyond all of us.
This is yet why i argue about the whole Black & White mindset that alot of people in this world have.
Maybe this is gods way of population control. How people are in this world, and what will happen when resources run out?
Their is to much procreation, because their are too many unwanted babies.
God is the creater of everything and including this and nobody can argue that, so rather than fight god’s way of working i will help to slowly accept it, because its gods will not mine.
Note 192, Brent, how do you know what is God’s way?
Do you agree that lungs are structured in such a way as to process
the absorption of oxygen? Would you try to ingest food by
pushing it down your windpipe? I think not
Do you agree that your stomach is structed in such a way as to
process nutrients in food? Would you try to breath with
your stomach?
Do you agree that your teeth are structured in such a way
as to allow you to break down food before swallowing it?
Do you agree that the genitalia of men and women are complimentary
and that together they create children
If the human body is created by God, then why would you think that God would approve of homosexual conduct as it does not conform to the obvious function of the human body?
Note 185, Brent, How acknowledging my response to your challenge
Brent, you issued a challenge in Note 185 I responded in Note 187, how about a response?
Beautifully expressed, Michael, I am copying that one and saving it
JamesK in #189 you say:
“I understand the concept of original sin,…” The rest of your post demonstrates that you do not. You have a secularized version of the modern western idea of what the culture thinks original sin might be.
I cannot be critical of your lack of understanding since it has taken me 20 years in the Church to finally have a little bit of light dawn in my own mind and heart. I just want to take the opportunity to politely point out that you haven’t the foggiest. I will make one comment. Your idea of original sin has more than a touch of spirit/matter dualism. ‘taint so Magee.
I can only approximate an answer to the rest of your questions: The way of Christ is the way of the Cross. The Russians call it podvig, i.e., struggle. Since we are a body/spirit unity the struggle is both physical and spiritual. Part of our struggle is to be thankful, in fact to rejoice in anything we experience that is less than what Jesus Himself experienced in the Garden and on the Cross. We can do this because, despite what we perceive, He is bearing most of the weight.
Metropolitan Phiaret of Moscow, reposed 1867 prayed it this way:
In the Garden, Jesus prayed that the cup would pass from Him, but submitted His will to His Father’s and went to the Cross. In a sense, Met. Philaret is making the same prayer.
Jesus never once promised happiness to us in this world, only struggle, oppression, persecution and hatred. Life and Victory are in His Kingdom which we can experience here and now by His grace and submission to His love.
JamesK writes:
I understand the concept of original sin, although I must be honest, if God is God, wouldn’t it have been more just and fair to devise a system whereby every man is born in original innocence as was Adam?
Good for contemplation: What clues are there? It’s a given, God is wise. Why did he make Adam our Federal Head. Why was he allowed to choose in the stead of a race? (This is why I reject the idea that Adam was the equivalent of a two-year old, if you’ve ever heard that. Sounds like an “up-from-the-apes” thynge rather than “fall-from-Paradise.”) Whatever level of maturity Adam/Eve were – age built-in the moment they were spoken into existence, each were adequate to the task of obedience, and the pleasure of fellowship with God himself. Here are two questions. a) Do you think that if you were in Adam’s place, you would have done better? I think it reveals that, apparently, we would each one – even given every possible advantage, even walking with God himself in fellowship in the cool of the evening, not withstood the most Subtle One, jealous being, that God would get glory from Adam and Eve marveling, etc, over Paradise. Adam saying, “Eve you are bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” Jealous that here is a picture saying something awesome about the Triune God, and the devil refusing to worship the picture. Why was that?
b). The New Adam, Jesus Christ. The central figure in the whole picture, and the Artist continues to draw. What should be the first on our minds as concerns ‘fairness doctrine?’ That the innocent son of God come to provide an Eternal Home, dies an ignominious death at the hands of People unwilling to live in his Home, on his terms, and refusing him as Bread of Life. Is that hideous crime fair? Whatever our answer it nevertheless pleased the Father to bruise the Son. Why?
Missourian on #187
Some of the things you say make a valid point, but it does not point to same sex couples
Self sexual Gratification is done by all groups people, not just Homosexuals, and you cannot argue that they do it more, because their is no proof (at least valid proof).
#8 about single parent families only holds truth if the single parent is lousy parent, so that statement is not legitimate unless stated “Single family home in, which the parent ceases to be around for parental guidance”. I grew up in a single parent home, and my mother worked two jobs and still had time to be a parent, so how dare someone make an assumption that i will be more opt. to commit a crime. I am working on my second Degree, and i have a job, so i throw that stupid remark about single parent families yet another scapegoat.
Same sex marriage has not occured yet, so you are theorizing about what will happen well actually ASSuming.
Marriage has been falling apart for a while now, so dont blame it on same sex relations, because then your theorizing that the gay population growing in huge numbers, and is going to eventually take over the world, because the marriage rate continues to drop.
Everyone is to blame for the decline in marriage including myself, and you know why i would not get married, because alot of women are con-artist and if you make a decent dollar they take it from you. The marriage laws have alot to do with why Marriage is declining. Men are afraid to marry, and loss half or more of their possesion if the woman decides to take off (which they do that more than you think).
Thats great that you accept christ, but the question is what would christ to if he was here right now?
Would he burn all the Homosexuals with his Powers, or do you think he would take them in and try to mend their broken hearts, and help them seek resolution.
If you really seek christ you would be more opt. to experiment in finding a way to help the homosexual community solve things in a more constructive way instead of saying “those homos getting married is a sin” nothing but a bunch of bitching and no means of trying to help fellow man/woman, so at least i am trying to help.
Throughout your blogs i noticed you use the word me or what i would do, well Missourian it is not about what you would do now is it. What if everyone in this world was like you (it would be utter choas and the end of the world as we know it, and nobody would feel fine).
Alot of people on here tend to talk about themselves alot, and not about anyone else this world, so how very selfish of people “its all about what they want and nevermind what anyone else may want”
Was jesus Selfish? I thought he sacrificed himself to help us, and granted we havent been quite as appreciative as we should be, but god did create a flawwed species did god not do so?
Overall their is no ample proof of the exact problem to why Marriage is declining, except that our society has became so fast paced (creator of A.D.D), and that the laws have made marriage to costly and to dangerous. Marriage to most is a legal status, nothing to do with the church anymore.
This world is changing whether people like it or not, and missourian your argument to marriage is sooo very old and archiac, that i have to dismiss its validity being that it is 2007 and not 1407, and 2007 is much different people are more open and free to be what they were intended to be, and the world has became a true melting pot, not a bunch of clicks (like in highschool).
Obviously god is aware of this change and has something to do with it, or god just doesnt care about this world anymore, which in that case well we are all doomed then.
I am defending all aspects of marriage, because it is on its last limb, and it needs some new rules (minus peopel marrying pets, because we cannot understand pets, so therefore it is not concensual).
Live in the dark ages all you want missourian, and eventually you will end up just like fred phelps and his Evil hatred/resentment towards the world.
I watched a documentary the other night just to see the other side about a small town gay bar.
Do you know what happens to gay people in small towns?
They are generally beatened and stangled and murdered, because they are gay
Do you think that is just cause, and do you think god wants it to end like this.
What if i were to say that old people cannot support their own weight anymore, so therefore they are hurting our society and not helping it prosper by using up the hospitals, and what not. Does it make it fair for me to prostest and speak of them as sinful people
Old people who live off of the system
Gay people who have relations with same sex
People who murder
People who Rape
People who lie/cheat/steal
Obivously out of those 5 the last three are the worst ones.
Look at the guy who just died that was behind the scheme at ENRON, now he was a bad person he stole from millions of peoples retirement funds, so they had not much to fall on.
Face it folks their are the real bad ones out their and then the ones who suttly commit sins, but still have the sincerety to do good, and are still trying to please God almighty.
Im sorry but i have to give credit to alot of gay people for at least trying to do good, yet you just want to talk down to them.
Shame on those who kick people when they are down.
Jesus wouldn’t have done that
So missourian live by your code all you want, but remember in the end god will do the judging not you or any other human on this earth, so let the judge decide the fates mankind, and humans can keep trying support one another through it all.
Sorry if this sounds philosphical, and mushy, but some of us still have some ounce of compassion in the world for people, and all their attempts that may fall short of god, but at least they are trying.
Love Thy God, and all of his Creatures :0)
Note 181-
As I said in note 179, yes.
Brent, your compassion doesn’t seem to extend to children
Brent, you don’t seem to get past the false idea that I what personal harm to come to people who engage in homosexual conduct. I have never advocated that, nor has anyone on this board. It is simply a false concept that you have lodged in your head.
You seem to think that there are two choices: agree to the entire gay agenda or agree to violence against gays. These are not the choices and you don’t seem to be willing to give any thought to anything else.
We are talking about two things: personal spiritual status and public policy.
I am not qualified to discuss personal spiritual status except to say that I am a Christian and I urge people to seek Christ. As to public policy I have stated repeatedly, which you didn’t seem to notice, that I would agree with the decriminalization of adult to adult homosexual conduct. This means that no one would have to worry about being arrested for gay conduct. However, I object to the official legalization and normalization of homosexual conduct through laws and social policy. I advocate a neutral policy
The entire quote was about social policy regarding the family. Homosexual conduct is one piece of the puzzle, not the entire topic and yes, they are involved in the controversy.
I never suggested anything about the frequency of homosexual conduct by homosexuals., it isn’t relevant to the debate. What I pointed out is that human beings have many forms of gratifying themselves sexually and we need to have a social policy that is consistent across the board. There does exist a group of people that want to legalize sex with children. My policy applies to all forms of human sexual activity. My policy is that the state should only endorse and support real marriage. I don’t why that is so hard to understand.
What you are engaging in is a logical fallacy. The fact that you can fine one successful single parent does not affect the decision on social policy. Social policy is about groups of people and choosing the policy that is best for society as a whole. There is no question that when large groups of people are looked at as a whole, children raised in a home with both parents do much, much better. You don’t seem to understand what it means to analyze a problem based on the behavior of large groups of people.
Actually, same-sex marriage has happened in Europe. Stanley Kurtz and Theodore Dalrymple are just two of the scholars who have taken a close look at what happened to society after same-sex marriage was legitimized. We need to look at that data. You need to read something substantive about the issue.
Well, Brent, as I have said many times. I support traditional marriage because it think it is not only desirable but absolutely necessary to perserve a civilized culture. The fact that marriage has been falling apart for a while now, is reason for concern, not reason to help it fall apart even more.
This is about social policy towards marriage in general and whether the government should endorse homosexual conduct as opposed to making it illegal as it has been in the past. It would help if you would try to stay on point. I am sorry if the only women you meet are “con-artists” This attitude is a post-Christian approach to marriage. Christianity teaches that men and women should form life-long bonds, for richer and for poorer, through sickness and health. Christian married couples pledge to love and serve each other for life. Perhaps you should consider the positive impact Christianity could have on your personal life I feel sorry for people who have no guidance in their personal life and flounder around in meaningless relationships, it is a hard life.
I don’t understand where you get all these negative ideas regarding my attitude toward people who engage in homosexual conduct. When have I suggested violence towards people who engage in homosexual conduct?
Christ stated that He came to heal sinners, nothing in the Bible suggests anything else, however, he stated to the women engaged in adultery that she should “go and sin no more.” Christ also stated that marriage was created by God to occur between and man and a womand that the act of marriage meant that “they became one.” Please pick up a New Testament and you will see that Christ does address marriage and he clearly states that it was a creation of God for one man and one woman.
I have noted many times that I am not qualified to provide spiritual guidance to any individual, I can only urge people to seek Christ and share my own experiences if an individual is interested in hearing them. I actually haven’t discussed my personal life at all in connection with this issue other than to state that I am a Christian.
Again, Brent, I don’t think that I have discussed my individual life very much.
What I am trying to do, without much success, is discuss social policy. This means that we look at the information that is available in Europe and Canada about the behavior of large groups of people over time in response to certain social policies.
I don’t think that you can find any references to my personal life except my statement that I am a Christian and those are short.
My discussion has been about social policy. As a citizen in a democracy we are called upon to debate and discuss these issues. Would you consider me selfish if I opposed the legalization of sex with children or a citizen that is involved with public debate as is my First Amendment right.
No, Christ was not selfish, and yes humanity is flawed, but Christ offered us a way to overcome our flaws.
).
The prohibition against murder is “old and archaic.” Should we get rid of that?
The current political push in America is less than 60 years old. Homosexual conduct is nothing new, societies have addressed it for many centuries.
The age of an idea has nothing to do with whether it is worthy or not. For someone working on their “second degree” it seems odd that you would state that since 90% of what you will be taught was developeed or determined prior to the 21st century.
The Nazis came to power, did God have something to do with that?
I am sure that America’s pets are grateful to you. You have never addressed any of the concerns about the welfare of children. If you are such a humantarian, you seem to have forgotten about a rather large group.
I would appreciate a reference to this program. This is simply false. I lived in several small towns and gays were not beaten. Someone has really convinced you to buy into the propaganda. Nearly every academic institution in America is actively and openly promoting homosexual conduct. Many “churches” are promoting homosexual conduct. The entire Democrat party are promoting homosexual conduct. Seems to contradict the claim the gays live in fear of violence.
No, and no Christian organization has ever promoted such conduct.
Try to stay on topic, Brent. We are citizens of a democracy and this is a debate that we have to address. Right now, I am addressing the question of whether the state should legitimize homosexual conduct. I have every right to discuss one topic at a time and I suggest you follow suit. The homosexual political organization have a very active list of changes that they want.
You seem to think that the choice between the violence against gays and nothing. First, you overstate and exaggerate violence against gays and secondly, you haven’t addressed the gay agenda.
Gays are not “down” they are politically powerful. They were able to get all of the candidates of the Democrat party to answer to them in a debate.
You are ignorant of what is happening in Canada and Europe where the religious freedom of those who believe homosexual conduct to be immoral is being restricted.
Do you have “compassion” for children? Do you care about how they are cared for? Do you care how the government provides for the care of children? Is the welfare of children more important than the sexual gratification of an adult?
Your concept of “compassion” is very limited Brent and very narrow.
Brent, my God is revealed by the Christian scriptures, those Scriptures teach that homosexual conduct is a grave sin and that sin separates us from God.
If I loved someone wouldn’t I want them to be close to God and not separated.
Where do you get your ideas of God, I tend to think it is a free floating idea not particularly anchored to anything in particular. My idea of God is that which is found in the Christian tradition which has been maintained over 20 centuries through great adversity. I invite you to look into it.
Nancy L. ,
You are one of the few on here that shows great knowledge in several areas.
You are right i search for truth, and i am not afraid of it, however what i am afraid of is peopel misinterpreting the lords gospel, and by doing that commiting acts of hate and hurting others.
In my generation violence is very real and it is all around (its really sad that it is this way), and i see alot of violence that arises out of disagreements, and the different religious beliefs. I think god created all of these different religious organizations, and different classifications of people as a test. In order for us to pass the test we have to not let other peoples choices get to us, and not let others change how we percieve things.
I think that homosexual marriage will not affect anything, unless we let it, and most people are doing that. I think that everyone can find someone and be with them, and not all relationships are going ot be quite precise as hoped, but that does not mean it is going ruin everything.
Their is enough room in this world for many things, and we shouldnt let certain change effect the way things are done.
Homosexual marriage will only then make marriage not so tightly defined, because remember at one point marriage was defined between a certain race of male and female.
What makes marriage being defined as two people whom want to share their lives together so bad, because even if they aren’t married they could still do it anyways.
If its the thought of same sex in action then that is an issue with the individual, because nobody should be wondering about someones sexual acts, because its behind closed doors.
Im looking through the window at the world, and with all evidence and words of wisdom i still cannot see how same sex marriage is ruining traditional marriage, because what i see is people are letting other ruin things, because of their inability to live and let live.
I tend to dance on the neutral field, and that doesnt mean i dont have any direction it just means i am not always going to pick the same side of the field everytime, because i want to see how it things are really affecting others then i can make my assertion.
They can always repeal gay marriage if it becomes a circus can’t they?
This world has always been trial and error its how we learn as people, and i cannot assume what people want, but only try to see both edges of the sword.
I like your blogs Nancy, because you show alot of knowledge, and that you may not always agree with one side on whim.
I dont agree with certain things like gay men being overly promiscious and a higher rate of drug use in the gay community i think that if they are wanting to fight for something they need to put a little effort, and be a better example to strengthened their stance that they really do love their same sex partner, and that isnt just about sexual gratification.
I think that more religious organizations should be a little more understanding that the sword always has two edges to it, and if anything dislike the sin, but not the sinner of it.
In my generation i see alot of violence by secular governments such as the muslims, and i see what they do to people, and it is just awful, and what is scarier is that we can end up like that one day.
I know most people dismiss people of my age group as that we are inexperience, but i can tell you something that you’d be surprised what we really see.
I see 12 years old that have more insight and knowledge than 45 year olds i really believe that age can be totally irrelevant to knowledge.
Eventually we are all going to have to come to a mutual agreement otherwise its going to start a battle of rights, and the only way to a mutual agreement is understanding to some level.
I am ready to be in mutual agreement, its just sad that alot of others want to keep fighting this instead of coming to some sort of arrangement
(this goes for gay people to).
Brent – you might actually try reading the Gospels. The actual Jesus may have saved the woman taken in adultry, but He also the one who condemned sin and called for repentance.
Helping homosexuals renounce their sin and live in accordance with God’s Law so as to attain salvation is love. It is the love of Christ.
Re-affirming homosexuals in their chosen lifestyle is not love. It is an uncaring attitude.
We care about the salvation of others because we love them. Salvation is re-unification with God. Salvation is life.
Christ does try to mend the broken hearts of the homosexuals, but he does not do that by being non-judgmental. Christ was, in fact, very judgmental. I’ve listened to more than one person who turned away from Christianity because Jesus was just too tough for them. They wanted a non-judgmental, feel good kind of Guru, and Christ wasn’t it.
Re-unification with God means turning from sin and embracing God’s love. You can’t do that if you are mired in sin.
Brent – you’ve asked me to put away Theology and argue on the basis of cause and effect. If you abandon first principles, then you can make a case for anything from the Holocaust to the Gulag.
Two things – abandoning capitalization doesn’t make you edgy or progressive. It just makes your writing hard to read.
Second thing, I’m only 37, so don’t give me the garbage about your generation versus mine. I’m Generation X, you’re Generation Y. I listened to Nirvana in high school, had friends into Gangsta’ Rap, got my first PC when I was 12, and lived through Baby Boomer parents with all their issues.
To make the case that those of us on this board in their lates 20′s through their 30′s are somehow so remote from your world as to be incapable of understanding your silly post-modern ideas is preposterous. We were around when they first hit the streets, and they haven’t gone away.
Yes, there was a huge gap between a 37 year old and a 17 year old in say – 1967. The difference (culturally) between a 37 year old and a 17 year old in 2007? About zilch. Look around – from rap, to Grunge, to body piercing, to tatoos, to Wicca, to homosexuals on Oprah, to Marxist world views, etc. It was all there youngster when I was a strapping young boy of 17, and hasn’t changed since.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
A large number of young people these days are actually going more conservative than the preceding two or three generations. They are more in search of the constant, the unchanging, the timeless than their own parents were.
Life is hard when everything is relative. Which is why replacement ideologies so readily appear.
Actually CFLConservative i am a Millenial i was born in 1985.
I drop alot of theology, because people pick and chose what they want, and interpret however they see fit (its human nature).
Your interpretation of jesus is very dark and Judgmental, however jesus was viewed by most as a very forgiving person who would help those willing to help themselves.
We are not all negative like your viewpoint is.
Furthermore your standpoint is pure theology, whereas mine is a mixture of some theology and some real life scenarios.
Sorry i am nothing like you in so many ways (Kurt Cobain killed himself when i was in like 2nd grade).
Furthermore if you have trouble reading what i type then don’t read it, or peer a bit closer to the screen.
Cause and Effect is what strengthens theology, without any inkling of cause and effect then the existence any form of god would be non-existent.
and i never said re-affirming gay marriage (being an advocate for gay marriage or something), but rather learn to deal with the change, and let God take the wheel and steer, and quite feeding us your interpretation, because like most the bible has its holes in it, and according to most sources jesus was kind the caring individual, which doesnt mean he didnt judge, but not how you make it out be.
Sorry but your interpretation is Negative, and the world does not need it right now.
You say you care that others find salvation, but yet your words speak of nothing of the sort when it comes to helping others.
Actions always speak more than words,
Why dont you actually get to know a gay person, and see the sin for what is the person for who they are, but apparently you would rahter just judge.
Im sorry to tell you but Homosexuals have been around since the dawn of time, so i dont think you seen them for the first time hit the streets, because they are all around everyone like aliens i mean your best friend could be one, so homosexuality is not a new thing, its only new because they have started to gain some freedom alot like other minorities groups.
Any other words of wisdom?
CFL writes: “We care about the salvation of others because we love them. Salvation is re-unification with God. Salvation is life.”
IF you don’t mind some personal questions: how long have you been a Christian? Have you ever met someone you’d consider a saint? If so, what were their qualities? In the years you’ve had your faith, have you noticed a change in yourself? Are you more virtuous? Less sinful? If so, by what degree? Do you wake up periodically and say, “Hey, that difficulty I had with x or y is no longer there.”? Do you feel that there is some effort on your part, or do these things just sort of “fall away”?
I know that, in theory, the Christian life is supposed to enable one to “grow in holiness”. However, I’m not sure what that means anymore, because the things I associate with holiness such as generosity, long-suffering, patience and forgiveness (and even a sense of humor?) seem to be denigrated as weaknesses here or, at the very least, deemed unimportant.
Note 205:
However, I’m not sure what that means anymore, because the things I associate with holiness such as generosity, long-suffering, patience and forgiveness (and even a sense of humor?) seem to be denigrated as weaknesses here or, at the very least, deemed unimportant.
What? Do you believe that because someone disagrees with you (almost always) liberal/materialistic position on X or Y, that “generosity” is unimportant?
Note 206: No, not at all. I’m not threatened by someone telling me my ideas are so much hot air.
It does seem, however, that the culmination of Christian virtue is in sexual self-restraint, as if nothing else matters. I hear almost nothing about any other virtue. Anger, hostility, downright venomous, boiling hatred? Hey, everyone’s got their flaws, right? Besides, “righteous outrage” is a healthy expression of Christianity. Wealthy and stingy? At least they’re not some slacker sucking off society’s social welfare programs (which is supposedly the case for everyone who needs assistance). Dishonest? Well, if it’s for the “right” ideology, facts don’t really matter, do they?
If I arrived here from outer space and read this blog, I would also be convinced that gays (who make up around 1-2% of the population, according to the Family Research Council) were the sole cause of every societal ill, from illiteracy and teen pregnancy to earthquakes.
Brent, you’ve got to stop the 60′s philosophy redux. After reading your posts its all I can do to keep from breaking out my tie-dyed T-shirts and matching headband, put on Bob Dylan singing “The Times They Are a-Changin’” and Barry McGuire about the “Eve of Destruction” then get all my neighbors together, build a camp fire and sing Kum Bai Ya with a little Groking on the side. Had I been into acid back then it would be enough to give me a flashback.
All I can say is, Peace man, be groovy.
Note 207:
It does seem, however, that the culmination of Christian virtue is in sexual self-restraint, as if nothing else matters.
What? Your kidding, right? Have you read the Gospels, the letters, have you availed your self of a basic catechism of any traditional body?
This blog is a discussion place for ‘Orthodoxy meets modern culture’, so of course (like this thread) are going to focus on certain aspects.
You know, when you say things like this, you really reveal yourself as either profoundly ignorant of Christianity or a Troll, who just does not like the fact we don’t approve of the “gay” agenda. It’s a lowball attempt to short circuit discussion. It won’t work.
Are you, JamesK, a homosexualist?
JamesK It is evident you don’t really read what is written here but since I”m just an ignorant, arrogant, judgemental, old crumudgeon who doesn’t give a damn about anyone else except to get them to stop having sex, I’ll take a stab at your questions from post #208:
IF you don’t mind some personal questions: how long have you been a Christian? 40 years, 20 as an Orthodox
Have you ever met someone you’d consider a saint? Yes although he would emphatically disagree as he sees himself a slave yet to sin.
If so, what were their qualities? Humility demonstrated by his unceasing efforts to conform his life in obedience to the life of the Church in prayer. He evidences an absolute condemnation of sin because it is what keeps us from being human.
In the years you’ve had your faith, have you noticed a change in yourself?
Yes
Are you more virtuous? Yes
Less sinful? Yes
If so, by what degree? Not enough
Do you wake up periodically and say, “Hey, that difficulty I had with x or y is no longer there.”?
Do you feel that there is some effort on your part, or do these things just sort of “fall away”?
These two questions are framed from a legalistic, almost magical mentality and reflect an ignorance of the traditional Christian approach to sin, repentance and communion with God. I’ll refer you back to my post #197 which you evidently did not read.
James further re Note 208: It is not that the culmination of Christian virtue is in sexual self-restraint, as if nothing else matters. It is the fact that the un-Christian posters want to make sexual license the cornerstone of freedom and compassion. That is a lie.
Christopher, I’m uncertain what you’re asking me, but I’ll attempt to answer. From my perspective, I think it should not be legal to fire someone or evict them because of an orientation. I oppose censorship of non-violent speech, whether it’s that of Howard Stern or Fred Phelps, so I thus would oppose any attempt to stifle religious opinions. I do not believe churches should be forced to perform gay marriages, but I find no valid reason why anyone should not be free to extend certain benefits to whomever they wish, whether it’s someone of the same gender or not. Is this all too radical, do you suppose? Well, I don’t support enacting divorce statues based on Scriptural standards, either. In other words, though physical abuse may not be an acceptable reason to divorce according to the Bible, I think it’s sufficient grounds for a civil separation. I’m a moderate, not a radical.
Are you asking me about my personal life? Not that it’s any of your business, but I’m sure it will greatly disappoint you to know that my personal life is rather dull. I go to work, go to the gym, have a glass of merlot while doing an online crossword puzzle and go to bed. I rarely even watch the television. Weekends consist of housework and a choir rehearsal and church (though they pay me for playing the piano so I suppose that doesn’t count). Is it as decadent as you assumed it would be? Besides, I thought we were supposed to be discussing ideas and refrain from bringing up personal details.
Do you really want to use this forum as a personal confessional?
Note 210. James writes:
Not true of course (James, have you ever taken a definitive stand on anything?). It’s just that sexual license has been the topic of discussion.
Having said that (not directing this to James), I’ve been working on an article for the Sept. issue of AGAIN, a section of which concerns the co-opting of the moral lexicon (the theme of the section is cultural deconstruction). I wanted to get away from gay marriage, abortion, etc., IOW, avoid the hot button issues for the most part since the theme of the issue is biotechnology, etc.
What I found is that it is almost impossible to talk about the reappropriation of the moral vocabularly apart from the sexual issues. It seems the sexual issues are both the source and driver of much of this coopting that results in the moral confusion about so many other things. On a deeper level it’s materialism of course (the dimming of man’s self-awareness of the spiritual dimension of his being), but trying to describe this the cultural ramifications is almost impossible apart from the hot button issues. I’m wondering if the moral questions surround the bioethical advancements can ever be benevolently resolved apart from resolving the sexual questions first.
In the end I had to retructure the entire piece. I used literature, primarily Solzhenitsyn (the Harvard address as moral exhortation, particularly the part on society on a new anthropological threshold), Orwell (language and cultural deconstruction), and Huxley (materialism expressed as physical pleasure (body as machine) as the final expression of that deconstruction).
There really is no way to address these issues without talking about sexuality. Put another way, in our culture, moral discourse seems captive to issues of sexuality — at least when discussing morality in broader terms.
I may have stumbled upon another essay here, but I’ve got to figure it all out first.
Brent -
Sure he did. Listen to Nirvana and then compare it to any of the psuedo-Grunge being played today. Or House, Hip Hop, Gangsta Rap, Ska, Death Metal, whatever.
Sorry. Been there and done that. What do you have there my Millenial friend that we didn’t already have in the 80′s? Body piercings? Same sex relationships in high school? Sex parties?
MTV? Video games? What on Earth is in the ‘youth’ culture of today that we hadn’t already seen? D&D?
Get a grip. You can’t be that ignorant. The number one tour in 2006 was Madonna for Pete’s sake.
We’ve reached cultural stability. Why don’t you just pick something, anything, that I might not have seen or dealt with at your age.
Do you think that the 80′s and 90′s were Leave it to Beaver reruns?
Like we all didn’t get drunk and go to Red Hot Chili Peppers concerts or Rage Against the Machine, or Porno for Pyros, all bands you’ve heard of I’m sure because they still have a following in your age group.
What about fiction? Ann Rice was already big. Vampire cults? Wicca? We had that already.
Politically Correct ideas about tolerance being the highest ideal in the world? Sorry, we had that also.
In fact, there isn’t one sentiment, not one, that you have expressed on this blog that couldn’t have come straight out of the mouth of one of my leftist classmates in 1988.
Not one. You could have stood in the hall in 1988, said exactly what you are saying now, and no one would have blinked.
Been there, heard that.
Think I’m kidding? Anyone under 40 on this blog will back me up on that.
You’re nothing new, kid. Sorry to break that to you.
Oh, I agree you and I aren’t that much alike, but the idea that there is some great cultural chasm between you ‘Millenials’ and us ancient Gen Xers is just so much bunk.
You are what we were, but may be a few more piercings and a few more Tats and your music is even more derivative.
Actually, I attempt to live exactly by the teachings of the Orthodox Church. I accept everything, even the hard things. To pick and choose is the essence of heresy, which is, of course, the opposite of Orthodoxy. I would think, given where you are, you would understand that standing on the side of several thousand years of teaching would hardly be considered ‘picking and choosing.’
Do you recognize the passage from Luke, my young Millenial friend? Christ died for those who would repent. For those who will not, they choose their own path.
What am I to do? Ignore the plain scriptures? The words of Christ, the words of the Apostles, of Paul, of the Church throughout all history?
No, I won’t. God is love. God is Father, and fathers in love chastise their children so as to teach them the right path. Being a father means loving your child even when they do the wrong thing, but it doesn’t mean accepting their bad actions.
You are free to reject the scriptures, the Orthodox Church, and the teachings of Christ. But what you are doing is trying to co-opt them into something else. You are trying to make of Jesus some New Age guru straight out of a campus philosophy department. That simply won’t do, and you should know better.
It is better for you to simply reject Christ, than to lie to yourself about his teachings.
There have been people who engage in homosexual activities for all time. There have been adulterers, murderers, rapists, gossips, men who hate, men who covet, misers, and all the like. Their persistance does not prove that they are right, or natural.
IF you don’t mind some personal questions: how long have you been a Christian?
I wouldn’t consider myself to have been a Christian prior to becoming Orthodox. I was raised Evangelical, but really didn’t pray or live by any of the teachings. I started drinking and fornicating as soon as the opportunity presented itself, and never looked back. A stint in the Marines only exacerbated what was already there. College didn’t help. I had flashes where I knew there was more to life than this, and would seek God momentarily, but then slip back into life as I knew it.
I became Orthodox in December 2000. I started to be serious about the faith about 9 months previous to that.
Have you ever met someone you’d consider a saint? If so, what were their qualities?
Absolutely. Earnest, humble, prayerful, sincere, honest, brave, forthright, faithful, compassionate, kind, and cheerful are all qualities I have learned to associate with the extremely holy.
I am not a saint.
In the years you’ve had your faith, have you noticed a change in yourself?
Yes. Evangelicalism expected you to go to the altar and come back changed. I never did. I came back and went right back to what I was doing. Orthodoxy is about process. You pray, even when you don’t want to. You face the icons, you face God, even when you prefer to hide. You pray, you partake of the Eucharist, you struggle on, even when you prefer to give up. Orthodoxy is a tool set to grow spiritually. I am different now than I was.
But as you grow, you understand better just how far you are from God. The most holy are the ones who best understand their sins. They are the clearest picture of their own imperfections. I now understand better how poor a specimen I really am. Would that I understood such things better.
Are you more virtuous? Less sinful? If so, by what degree? Do you wake up periodically and say, “Hey, that difficulty I had with x or y is no longer there.”? Do you feel that there is some effort on your part, or do these things just sort of “fall away”?
Nothing falls away by itself. It takes work. The holy fathers of the desert wouldn’t have abandoned everything to seek solitude if this was easy. Over time things do get easier to avoid.
I know that, in theory, the Christian life is supposed to enable one to “grow in holiness”. However, I’m not sure what that means anymore, because the things I associate with holiness such as generosity, long-suffering, patience and forgiveness (and even a sense of humor?) seem to be denigrated as weaknesses here or, at the very least, deemed unimportant.
I’m not sure who it is that denigrates such things as generosity. It is true that the Fundies are, by and large, a strange lot. But to think that the Orthodox Church is somehow disdainful of generosity, patience, etc. is simply not true. If you examine the lives of recently canonized saints, you will see all of those qualities in abundance.
I often feel like on this blog that no one is really arguing against Orthodoxy.
As Michael pointed out, the arguments seem to be directed at American fundamentalists. What applies to them, does not apply to us in many regards.
This was the crux of my priest’s last sermon:
“Whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Here is a powerful statement: that we learn humility by humbling ourselves. It is difficult, because it contradicts the spirit of our age. But we begin the journey by humbling ourselves before the Church’s Tradition and before God’s words. We can learn to humble ourselves before one another, and even before life’s irritations and bothersome events.There are many opportunities to learn humility, if we will only look for them!
We don’t get sermons on gays every Sunday. In fact, I’ve never heard one. We don’t get Hellfire and damnation either. In fact, the above is pretty much on par with the normal course of parish life.
Note 216. Glen writes:
True, but let me focus this even more. I get the feeling that many who argue against religion here are trying to come to some sort of resolution with their own religious past.
Note 213:
From my perspective, I think it should not be legal to fire someone or evict them because of an orientation. I oppose censorship of non-violent speech, whether it’s that of Howard Stern or Fred Phelps, so I thus would oppose any attempt to stifle religious opinions. I do not believe churches should be forced to perform gay marriages, but I find no valid reason why anyone should not be free to extend certain benefits to whomever they wish, whether it’s someone of the same gender or not. Is this all too radical, do you suppose?
Radical? No. Just a bit incoherent however.
Do you really want to use this forum as a personal confessional?
I asked because you, incoherently, appear to support the homosexualists (those who believe there is nothing wrong with said behavior). You morally can’t oppose it, which reveals you to not be a traditional Christian. You claim a RC background, but I think your a radical, at least in Christian circles – one who would deconstruct Christianity based on your personal whims (even though those whims seem righteous to you).
So, what “church” do you play in? What is your denomination? Why do you hide it? Is that too “personal” for you?
note 218:
LOL!!!
What kind of “christian” are you James? You have been posting here how long, and still don’t have a clue about the 7th ecumenical council? Or that the Sabbath is on SATURDAY, not Sunday?
These are not arguments JamesK, these are you wearing a big poster board exclaiming “I’m ignorant”.
Sorry to be so forward, but really, get a clue. Not only will you be better for it, but we won’t have to suffer your ignorance. I recommend Clark Carlton’s “The Faith”. It’s a basic catechism. PLEASE pick one up, you REALLY need one.
Somewhere up stream you said you have “studied” various christian communions. I am wondering if you are not an outright liar! Really, get a clue before you post this stuff. If you are not going to simply ask questions, but actually allege error, and such hollers as “the essence of Christian ethics is sexual behavior” then you really need to know a small tiny of a fraction of what you are talking about. You don’t understand Christianity in the least – even non-Christian’s will agree with that. Before I was a Christian, I never caricatured it as badly as you have.
Again, sorry for being so forward, but I don’t know how else to say it – you have no idea what you are talking about. Please, get a catechism and READ it before posting on anything having to do with Christianity here again – you are playing a fool!!!
note 217:
True, but let me focus this even more. I get the feeling that many who argue against religion here are trying to come to some sort of resolution with their own religious past.
I have said it before – the UU “church” I grew up in was a sort of recovery group for real recovering “fundamentalists” and people who had convinced themselves that they had a fundamentalist past (when in fact they did not).
I find it somewhat fascinating that we have regular posters here, who insist on “debating” Christianity, when they themselves are explicit non-Christians or (like JamesK) apparently attend a “church” (probably Episcopalian) , so are nominally “Christian” but are so plainly not in any significant way Christian.
Why?
Perhaps I should ask the regular Orthodox contributors here: Do you regularly “debate” non-Christians on non-Christian blogs? If so, why?
note
There really is no way to address these issues without talking about sexuality. Put another way, in our culture, moral discourse seems captive to issues of sexuality — at least when discussing morality in broader terms.
I believe it has to do with the tenacity the culture wants to hold on to sexual “freedom”. It comes down to pain vs. pleasure and sexuality in our culture represents the highest form of pleasure. It also is so plainly and obviously opposed to our past, and the modern is always raising himself above the past. Other Idealists (like Dean) while not quite enraptured with sexuality, still cling to their superiority over the “old”, thus ferocity of his moral posturing and quaint liberal story about overcoming various “isms”…
To Christopher, Missourian, CFLConservative,
CC: Glen
You guys are very misinformed about the youth these days. When i was younger i wasn’t much different then you were i was boy breaking things and getting into occasional fights and what not. What makes me different than you is i would rather not harbor on the negative aspects of everything, and then pick and chose what i feel is acceptable and then preach it, and furthermore i don’t condone everything, but i let people chose their own posion as they let me chose mine. Does this saying mean much to you:
“Judge Not Less thee Be Judged”
Gay people have not judged me to any extent, so how dare i try to judge them or anyone else, so you can say i am a polymorphic identity disorder (that of which i am not i am a male and plan on staying that way), and that i have not a care in the world you are just trying to discredit me, so that my words mean nothing, while your words mean everything.
Sorry to break it to you, but the world would rather have homosexuals marrying then the constant yip yap of hatred being tossed around, because we all know most of you are like bandwagon members, and once gay marriage you will shut up move on.
All of you want to preach that you are following gods will, and what not, but i am sorry you can lie to people on here, but you cannot lie to others above and beyond.
I hope gay marriage passes, because then you can all see how it isn’t go to affect much of anything, except marriage rate might actually go up, and promisciousity will go down.
God would not distill such feelings into his fellow man/woman if it were such an abombination to his will, so therefore the very arguement of homosexual is somewhat flimsy, because pyschologicially speaking most homosexuals try to fight it and they cannot.
Gay marriage rights will eventually pass, so you are going to have to deal with it, or go away. Start learning how to worry about what you are doing, and not so much everyone around, because this isnt a power struggle and you cannot control everyone around you like a puppet master.
I’d rather focus on the fact that their is always light in even the darkest of places, and you just want to put more darkness into everything.
Its a shame that you guys/girls cannot be a little bit more positive, and i mean if it happens and things go to ruin you could always say “I told you so”
On another note i would have to say i agree with jacobse about the search for something.
We are all in search of something, however where people like me differ or search isn’t about whats wrong with everyone else, but rather whats wrong with ourselves, and if we could all just worry about ourselves the world would be such a better place, because half the worlds problem is everyone is worried about what everyone else is doing.
I am in search of the Real Bible (the one that isn’t edited for certain needs, and people cant just pick and chose certain statements out of it and run with it, the one that clearly states that it is a guide to life, not this is how you had better run your life or you will burn forever in a river of fire and Snakes).
The real untainted bible
Sadly it is probably nowhere to be found :0(
But faith always makes the pain go away, at least its what i used as a child my safety blanket from the pains of this world.
Christopher writes: “You claim a RC background, but I think your [sic] a radical, at least in Christian circles – one who would deconstruct Christianity based on your personal whims (even though those whims seem righteous to you).”
You know, it seems the core of your thought processes always involve circular logic. How do you know something is true? Because you say it is! It’s like talking to a fundie. (“How do I know the Bible is true? Because it says so! How do I know I’m among the elect? Because I believe I am!”)
I separate the morality of actions from how they are dealt with in a democratic, free-market society. I don’t want legislation that constructs marital laws based on Scriptural principles: as I’ve said (at least three times now), Scripture does not allow for divorce because of physical or mental abuse. If you want to advocate for such laws, you go right ahead. It may be “unethical” to work on Sunday, but I don’t want to mandate that no one be permitted to do so. Why is this so hard to understand?
Christopher writes: “Please, get a catechism and READ it before posting on anything having to do with Christianity here again”
As I’ve said, you operate from the presupposition that everything you believe is true. Why? Because you say it is. I know the Sabbath is “technically” a Saturday. So what? My point about working on the Sabbath stands. It’s forbidden. PERIOD. No loopholes, no exceptions. It’s Scripture, not an IRS tax form. I don’t care what you think the proper interpretation of that Commandment is. Besides, half of what you say is rejected by millions of other Christians who argue with the same certainty, arrogance and rudeness you do.
And why should take your word in the first place? Who are you?
Thank You James K.
Christopher uses the Because i said so tactic, and just because i interpret it that way then everyone else should, otherwise they are wrong tactic
Christopher might i ask? Are you God?
Because you seem to think you know what is the right meaning to all the scriptures and what not.
As i mentioned previously my views are collective from what has been happening with the world, not what some musty old scriptures that have been misinterpreted a billion times over.
Lets face it these musty old scriptures are good for only so far, and i am sure God did intend to put some expiration dates on them, but must have forgot.
We use the past to learn from our mistakes, not doom ourselves to continiously repeat it, and please don’t use soddom and Gemmorah as an example, because their where other things going on this citys besides “gayness”.
Why can’t religion focus more on the future, and not harbor on the past so much its get old fast, hence why the churches cant keep the attention spans of younger people as well as they use to.
In one hand we have the musty old scriptures, and on the other hand we have life and the future.
Both hands cannot hold musty old misinterpreted scriptures, otherwise this world is doomed
James says:
ou know, it seems the core of your thought processes always involve circular logic.
Wrong – I assume traditional Christianity, as does this spirit of this site (it’s called “OrthodoxyToday” if you have not noticed). Your the one who brings in different presuppositions. If you want to talk about the, that’s ok – but more often than not you don’t seem aware of them. Then you (foolishly, ignorantly) try to bring in a little Christianity (your “point” about the Sabbath for example) which is invariably plain wrong – it only makes sense from your (largely unexamined) presuppositions. You of course claim “privacy” when asked about your presuppositions. What church do you attend JamesK? What “christianity” do you profess? If none, what philosophy do you look to inform your morality and politics? By not answering these questions, and continuing to “debate” traditional Christians, your simply playing a Troll.
My point about working on the Sabbath stands.
It does not. It falls flat on it’s face, it never made it past the prone position – it’s not a point at all. If you understood anything about the Church & Christianity, anything at all, you would understand this. You are profoundly and deeply ignorant about this “point”. You should be a bit embarrassed about your ignorant “point“, and perhaps one day will be if you decide to really “study Christianity” as you claim you have. If you picked up a basic catechism, you could confirm this (don’t take it from me). But you won’t, I predict. Instead, you will continue to foolishly “debate”…
Christopher you keep trying to probe into James K’s personal life as a means of justifying that you are right, so therefore you are not a traditional christian, because a traditional wouldn’t sink so low.
Quit searching for personal weakness in people to justify your flimsy misinterpretations, and discuss fairly ;0)
And why should take your word in the first place? Who are you?
I am Christopher, grew up Unitarian, converted to Christianity in my early twenties. steped through a few protestant denominations, spending the most time in the Episcopalian sodimite sect, mostly because my wife and I felt it was the best “compromise”. Converted to Orthodoxy with my wife in the mid nineties in a GOARCH parish, spent about two years there. Have been mostly Antiochian sense then, OCA currently. Politically, was a “liberal”, even spending time supporting “abortion rights” in my early twenties. Mostly liberal anthropology did not make sense (it is materialistic, thus nihilistic, at bottom) so gradually became a ‘Kirkean’ conservative. Been a regular poster here for a while, and I am recognized by the other posters as “Orthodox”, but of course human and imperfect. Computer professional by trade. My hobbies include violent computer games, Jiu-Jitsu, and vainly trying to train my dog. Now that my better half informs me it’s time to have children, my hobbies are going to go away soon ;(
Who are you? What is your church? What is your moral and political philosophy?
Christopher, Brent debates gay issues based on the factual assumption that “gay marriage” hasn’t been “passed yet”
Christopher. I made the mistake of addressing Brent’s ideas on gay issues. He informed me that “gay marriage” hadn’t been passed yet.
As to the plain facts, he is unaware that gay marriage exists in the United States in Massachusetts created by judicial fiat, and, by some definitions it exists in Vermont. He is also clueless about the existence of gay marriage in Europe.
You may wish to consider classifying him as a troll but of course that is your decision
Christopher, JamesK and the constitution
About a year ago, I wasted keystrokes discussing constitutional issues with James K ( I am a lawyer). In the end, I was writing him notes asking him to actually read some standard sources on early American history and constitutional history. He didn’t. JamesK will hypothesize and pontificate in a total vacuum.
One of JamesK responses to a discussion of any law is to assert that if he can hypothesize one situation in which a law has negative effect that the law should not be passed but that matters should be decided on a case by case basis.
He fails to acknowledge that the rule of law is founded on the idea the people who are similarly situated are treated the same by the law. This requires a general rule. He also doesn’t recognize that someone has to be chosen to made decisions on a case-by-case basis and that someone has to have rules of decision. Courts decide matters on a case-by-case basis but the judges and juries need to have rules to follow to decide those cases.
So, most of the time I ignore JamesK although he is personable enough.
note 230:
As Fr. Jacobse said, Brent is young. God willing, he will get more “experience”, though I am not sure we should wish that on anyone
His behavior with those he disagrees with could be a little more respectful, considering the site is “orthodoxytoday”. Not sure how these non-Christian’s miss that! He is new, I want to see if he can narrow his posting down to one or two points, and actually begin a discussion about something substantive.
JamesK on the other hand has historically not waded neck deep into Troll waters as has Dean and Jim. Usually he gets a foot in, and then backs out. However, lately, he is getting deeper and deeper…
As Fr. Jacobse has noted, these sexuality issues really reveal the fault lines in our culture. I think what is frustrating to the Traditional Christian’s here at OT is the ignorance of the non-Christians, and their unwillingness to discuss their own presuppositions. We are open about who we are, what we believe, why we believe it. We even “get” their perspective/philosophy/worldview, describing it better than they do most of the time. Instead, they want to “debate” – which is a dishonest form of communication in that this site is explicitly Christian…
Your absolutely right Christopher and Missourian, although i always thought of the definition of a troll to be a creepy old man, or a monster that lives under a bridge and demands money from those who pass, but hey i will let all of my friends know that i must be one those two things.
And your right i am unexperienced and as i get older i become more bitter with alot of things, so that must be part of my growing up experience ;0).
I have been reading these blogs for a few months now and only recented decided to input something, but honestly i think this whole blog is the biggest waste of energy, and my reading of these blogs has only pulled me further away from god.
I take comfort in knowing the fact that everything you guys/girls are arguing about isnt working, because you are outruled by the majority (Snickers to self), so i think i am done, and i am going to go find a real cause.
God Bless
Note 233, Christopher, discussion require some common ground of
agreed upon facts
Christopher, discussions require some common ground of agreed upon facts. New facts can be brought into the discussion but they should be based on reputable sources. People also need to agree on what constitutes a reputable source, or least be able to defend the worth of the source that is cited.
Brent will undoubtedly acquire more experience as time passes but unless he starts reading something serious about Christianity and the moral and philosophical questions raised by the proposed legitimization of homosexual conduct, he will remain clueless. I reached the end of reasonable discussion with him pretty quickly. It was a bit tiresome to have him constantly accuse me of supporting Fred Phelps’ vicious attitude towards gays. I have expressly stated that I supported de-criminalization of homosexual conduct between adults but that I opposed the official support and recognition of homosexual conduct by the State, yet he wants to claim that my attitude is based on a desire to punish and torment people who engage in homosexual conduct. It isn’t. As they old saying goes, I have had at least three true friends who consider themselves gay. I don’t want them to be persecuted and harasssed, but, I don’t want homosexual conduct to be elevated to the level formerly held by marriage. Brent has not read this in my notes, or not absorbed it and he keeps repeating unfounded accusations against me.
Note 233, Brent, check your facts
Recent polls state that Americans in general oppose gay marriage by a factor of 60% nationwide.
Nineteen states have passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.
How do these facts square with the idea that the Christopher and I are “outruled by the majority.”
In fact, gay marriage has been imposed on Americans not by a democratic vote but by judicial fiat.
I like the “snickers to self” line I think I will use it myself.
re:
Good riddance! As they say, don’t let the Blog door hit you in the a$$… So long and thanks for all the immature posts to remind us how simplistic and uncritical some arguments are postured. Please do come back when you’re ready for some mature and intelligent discussion.
Missourian:
How do these facts square with the idea that the Christopher and I are “outruled by the majority.”
Brent is the new majority of one.
Note 127, Michael, Brent needs to brush up on political facts on the ground
Yes, Brent is not in touch with the political facts.
There are som savvy political analysts who, speaking solely from a secular viewpoint, are worried that the special gay debate held by the Democrat candidates for President was a mistake given the large, overall percentage of Americans who do not want gay marriage legitimized.
If I were the Republican candidate I would definitely highlight that debate. I think most Americans are “live and let live” and would accept de-criminalization of adult homosexual behavior but do not want the gay activists pushing their agenda in elementary schools.
Michael, overconfidence based on the “youth” vote
Every presidential election cycle, someone on the Left promotes the “youth vote.” It is always accompanied by pronouncements that young people embrace the “progressive agenda.” They cite polls on various issues. The problem has been getting those young voters to register and show up and vote.
One of the silliest lately, was the “VOTE OR DIE” campaign featuring Puffy Combs and Paris Hilton. Yes, they called on the heavyweights. Actually Paris herself never got around to voting.
Time after time after time, young voters have punched beneath their weight.
In every Presidential cycle, voter turn-out among the under 30 group has been the lowest by percentage and absolute numbers. So much for all their moral exhibitionism and moral superiority, these people can’t get off their futons to bicycle themselves to the ballot box. Every professional political adviser and activist knows these numbers have held true for 10 to 15 presidential elections and off-year elections, also.
Brent probably believes that his generation, what he perceives in his circle of friends, is the future. Everybody tells him he is the future, so how could it be otherwise?
But the future belongs to people who reproduce. Despite the political flurry about gay adoptions, very few gay couples will adopt children. The populations of groups that promote fertility (surprise) will increase, those who de-emphasize fertility will shrink, it was ever so.
JamesK: Do you not recall that one of the justifications for Jesus’ Crucifixion was that he worked on the Sabbath by healing people; that He and His disciples picked food to eat while walking on the Sabbath? He also said the Sabbath is mad