For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
I beg you to take a look at what's going on in Massachusetts and ask yourself honestly whether you think this would be a good development nationwide.
Here's one item among many: [emphasis in the original]
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
- Comment (183)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (9)
Comments:
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Trace Urdan
I have no problem with this example. But I find cowardly the insistence that the "defense of marriage" rests on anything other than a negative judgment regarding the morality of homosexuality.
If you mean KatieVs, she's no coward.
She's said pretty clearly and repeatedly that homosex is sinful (I believe homosex is her word for homosexual activity as opposed to homosexual feelings that are not acted on) and that the only way a person who feels same-sex attraction avoids sin is by not acting on that attraction, at least not sexually. (I'd suppose "acting" on the attraction by sublimating the desire for another purpose is OK and even encouraged.)
KatieVs is not afraid to say that she believes homosexual activity is immoral. · 4 minutes ago
Perhaps, though I would argue that even KatieVS dresses up this statement for company with discussion about natural law, and the good of society and so forth. Because making it about personal morality diminishes the strength of the argument for a wider audience. Most opponents of SSM are uncomfortable admitting this simple truth.
Aug '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan
Perhaps, though I would argue that even KatieVS dresses up this statement for company with discussion about natural law...
No, that discussion of natural law isn't window dressing.
Unless I am very much mistaken, natural law is why she thinks personal morality is what it is.
Feb '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan
.....
I have no problem with this example. But I find cowardly the insistence that the "defense of marriage" rests on anything other than a negative judgement regarding the morality of homosexuality. · 2 hours ago
Trace, for the most part the term "cowardly" doesn't seem to apply, certainly not to katievs. Have you read through all of the threads on this topic here at Ricochet? In them you'll find forthright arguments that make no moral judgements on homosexuality. However, there are many of us traditionalists who don't make quite the same arguments as katievs does.
Edited on May 17, 2012 at 1:18amFeb '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
continued
Here's my argument(s):
- Gender has been the essential and defining characteristic of marriage in all of its forms in all times and places. Marriage is where people make a baby and then take responsibility for its care and raising within the new family unit that’s created. Formal government marriage institutions are a recognition of this basic reality and are meant to encourage, support, and enforce it in socially acceptable terms. The discussions about the effects on children of _____-parented households are truly interesting, but ultimately not quite applicable to the current discussion (maybe a separate discussion on adoption practices is needed); as I argued on a different thread, the ideal scenario for raising a child is secondary to actually producing one. On the whole, anything other than biological parents bearing and raising their offspring is a second best reaction, at best, for both children and the rest of us.
Edited on May 17, 2012 at 1:22amFeb '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
continued
2. Government has no business getting involved in personal relationships with a few exceptions: when there is coercion or abuse, when public health is impacted, and when the relationship is procreative. Procreation is included on that list because the effects on the public are fundamental and far-reaching. What is the justification for government involvement and third-party loss of freedom when a relationship isn’t coercive, abusive, a health risk, or procreative?
3. Removing the gender aspect of the formal institution of marriage (here I agree with katievs that no one can change the natural institution, regardless of the law) will make it essentially meaningless and without a limiting principal. Either it becomes a vehicle for distributing benefits and imposing social values on the rest of us (the likely scenario), or it withers entirely and the natural institution is all that remains (the Libertarian dream scenario).
Jun '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan
Because making it about personal morality diminishes the strength of the argument for a wider audience. Most opponents of SSM are uncomfortable admitting this simple truth.
I agree many opponents shy away from making moral arguments, though I don't attribute that to cowardice or discomfort. I think many would agree that this "diminishes the strength of the argument for a wider audience," so they avoid it in an attempt to sway more moderates and undecided voters.
However I'm increasingly convinced this is a strategic error. I think the point Arthur Brooks made by telling the dog story was entirely correct: when the left makes moral arguments, and we respond with practical or economic arguments, we lose.
I suspect that's why the left is winning on SSM: they couch their argument in moral terms of fairness, equality, and rights. When we respond with state interests in procreation, optimal parenting strategies, and limiting principles for the distribution of benefits, we lose. Such arguments, though correct, do not appear to be sufficiently persuasive to carry the day.
making it about personal morality diminishes the strength of the argument for a wider audience
Jun '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Katie O: I have a gay brother who recently asked his partner to marry him. I support them. Why? I believe committing to a exclusive bond of mutual love and support will be a better way of life for their bodies, hearts, minds and yes, even souls, than bouncing around alone from one random lover to the next.
I believe homosexual acts are sinful, and it's not something I take lightly.
By your own beliefs, then, an exclusive homosexual relationship is the lesser of two evils. It reminds me of a line from the movie Moneyball:
While I don't dispute your choice between the two options, there are other options. I object to equating the lesser of the two evils with the great good of marriage. And I don't think holding up a lesser evil as a model for a class of people struggling with powerful temptations is ultimately in their best interests.
Apr '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Joseph Stanko
By your own beliefs, then, an exclusive homosexual relationship is the lesser of two evils. It reminds me of a line from the movie Moneyball:
While I don't dispute your choice between the two options, there are other options. I object to equating the lesser of the two evils with the great good of marriage. And I don't think holding up a lesser evil as a model for a class of people struggling with powerful temptations is ultimately in their best interests. · 1 hour ago
It seems appropriate to note that St. Paul treats marriage as the lesser of two evils; it is better to marry than to burn, but celibacy is better than either of those two things. I'm super grateful for marriage, but I think the precedent makes it hard to object to the logical structure.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
@Ed G -- I don't accept the basic premise that being raised by biological parents is superior. You may WANT this to be true but I see no real evidence that this factor is supreme or even relevant in any empirical sense. Not to mention that this is very, very often not the case. And in my experience, my personal biological connection to my children seems the least important dimension to my effectiveness as a parent.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Sorry for the long absence. And excuse me in advance if I hog the thread a bit here while I try to catch up.
Trace Urdan
There is a great deal of data to show that two-parent households work better than single-parent households. And a fair amount of data to show that multiple parent households lead to sexual coersion and other problems. There is insufficient data on whether there is a meaningful difference between same-sex and dual-sex families but initial indications suggest no meaningful difference.
Once again you're entirely overlooking the underlying issue.
The claim of the SSM lobby is not that "data shows that SSM is good for society"; the claim is that homosexuals have a right to marry; that opposition to SSM is reducible to personal aversion and/or religious bigotry.
If opponents reply, "No, we oppose it because we are convinced it will be bad for society, especially children," you reply: "Prove it," at the same moment you say, "there is insufficient data" for proving it.
Edited on May 17, 2012 at 5:18amMay '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan
The circular argument comes when you ask why homosexual marriage is wrong, how it harms society, opponents simply know it to be true based on some fundamental truth that requires no supporting data.
"Supporting data" is required for empirical cases, not philosophical cases.
Again, I challenge you to answer: Did the abolitionists need to present "supporting data" before they were justified in claiming that slavery is immoral? Did the women suffragettes need to first prove that giving the women the vote would not have bad political effects before they could claim a right to vote?
Moral questions can only be settled by moral reasoning.
To grasp that men are created equal and have unalienable rights, you have to have contemplated what it means to be a human person.
To grasp what are the rights and duties pertaining to human sexuality and marriage, we have to be willing to look honestly and thoughtfully, and as disinterestedly as we can, at the question: "What is marriage?" "What is its role in human life, and in human society?" "How is it related to sexuality?" and so on.
These are basically philosophical, not empirical questions.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
It's possible, but not rational, IMO. Not good either, though totally understandable, humanly. ( I have a beloved gay cousin "tying the knot" with her lover this year.)
It is better. Much. But it isn't okay to pretend that it's marriage. It's not. To call it marriage is to degrade that institution further. (I mean further than it's already been degraded by no fault divorce, etc.) And if you believe that the acts are sinful, i.e. destructive, then (loving your brother as you do) you should ardently hope and pray that he finds his way out of that lifestyle rather than committing himself to it.
I read an interesting post today by a Catholic man with SSA, who lived the life for a while, got out, and now has definite opinions about true and false compassion.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan
...I would argue that even KatieVS dresses up this statement for company with discussion about natural law, and the good of society and so forth. Because making it about personal morality diminishes the strength of the argument for a wider audience. Most opponents of SSM are uncomfortable admitting this simple truth.
Hold on a sec. You seem to be conflating things. My belief that homosexual acts are immoral is not a description of "my personal morality", like, say, my obligation to go to Mass every Sunday, since I'm Catholic. It is a claim about reality.
I hold it to be true, exactly as I hold it to be true that all men are created equal; and that adultery is immoral; that slavery and lying are immoral; and that kindness is good; that polygamy is opposed to the dignity of women; that tyranny is unjust; that abortion is a grave offense; and that "love covers a multitude of sins." I believe these things to be truths "given" in our nature and dignity as persons, manifest in human history, and recognizable to all who seek understanding with sincerity and purity of heart.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Joseph Stanko
While I don't dispute your choice between the two options, there are other options.
He is well aware of the alternative and his family's wish that he would choose it. But, we can't make him choose it. He had another option, the best IMO, but it has been unjustly set out of his reach. But, that's another topic, and not one I feel capable of discussing right now. So, yes, at this point, these are the only 2 options. I support the one that offers many many more good things than the other. Btw I wanted to tell you how much I appreciated the book, Beyond Gay, you recommended for me many months ago. Difficult to read emotionally, but I it's one of the very few books on the topic that I didn't find utterly sophomoric, completely offensive, or just plain worthless. It offers important insight and much hope. Unfortunately, the hope it gives is not a likely outcome for our family. With a philosophy degree and many years of his life spent studying at the Gregorian, my brother is not lacking knowledge or understanding, or likely to be surprised by truth.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
I found the link interesting too, thanks. Of course, I question whether or not I am being truly loving. I think I am. He is committed to the "lifestyle" either way. My sincere hope is that their love is strong enough, deep enough, and selfless enough, to grow into a desire for the ultimate good for eachother. Maybe I sounded too sure of myself before, I understand and agree with different arguments on both sides of the SSM debate. I'm not certain of the impact on society, but my hope is that it will be for the good. Civil unions or getting government out of the marriage business would be imperfect but workable answers IMO.
Edited on May 17, 2012 at 8:01amSep '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
With a philosophy degree and many years of his life spent studying at the Gregorian, my brother is not lacking knowledge or understanding, or likely to be surprised by truth.
Knowledge and wisdom are two different things, and my experience has been that many people who have knowledge presume they have wisdom. True self knowledge -- as the saints throughout time acknowledge -- is the toughest knowledge to acquire.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Katie, first I want to say that I truly sympathize with your painful dilemma and I admire hugely your sincere and loving intention to "be family" in the midst of sorrow and confusion. Life is a vale of tears, and even those of us who believe in Revelation and a God who cares for us and watches over us and leads us, personally, are still, on a level, just muddling through.
Perhaps. That's his choice and his responsibility. The question of whether or not to endorse his "marriage" as a marriage is yours. Marriage involves the community. By endorsing his relationship as a marriage, you are participating in the commitment, publicly attesting to it as a a marriage, promising to regard it and support it as a marriage.
I hope so too. But I think it wrong to gut marriage as a social institution and set up a travesty in its place for the sake of personal hopes like these.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
I've been trying to think of a helpful analogy to explain better why I reject Trace's idea that by legalizing SSM we are strengthening society by "expanding the definition of marriage" to be nothing other and nothing more than any two people who choose to commit to each other and set up a home together.
In this context I think it's worth pointing out that the legalization of SSM will entail not just the end of gender complementarity as a norm for marriage, but of sexual fidelity as a norm for marriage.
As the article I linked above says, homosexuals today are quite open about the fact that they don't identify "monogamy" with sexual fidelity.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Here is more:
Many advocates of SSM are open in their disdain for sexual fidelity. They even claim that one of the social benefits of SSM will be that it will abolish the norm of sexual fidelity.
And of course, regardless of the fact that there are advocates (like Joseph Eager) who want to keep the norm of monogamy, it will be abolished.
Once we establish in law that marriage is just a contract between any two individuals, no moral norms for marriage will have any weight except for individuals.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
For those who have eyes to see, all this is to be expected.
The conjugal act is, in itself, an act of union, of physical integrity, of completion, of self-donation and other-receiving, of pro-creation. It is the physical embodiment of a total, exclusive, life-giving, union and communion of love.
Sodomy is, in itself, none of these things. It is something very different. It is a misuse of the body. It harms the body. Because of its misuse of the body, it is, literally, death-dealing.
Because, in a certain sense, "we are our bodies," to misuse the body is to misuse the person. "Use" is the opposite of love.
As Kant put it, "a person is an end-in-himself, never to be used as a mere means." This is the ground of the natural moral law. (The ground of Christian morality is the Revelation that we are made in the Image and Likeness of God.)
Conjugal love, in itself, as such, aspires to sexual fidelity, and is, ultimately only satisfied with total fidelity, until death. This is why adultery is such a moral crime, personal betrayal, and social disaster.