What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Why allow abortion but not “same-sex marriage”?

In an election otherwise disastrous for conservatism, “same-sex marriage” was banned in three more states, including even fruits-and-nuts California. And yet pro-life measures failed across the country. What gives? Why are so many people who will not scruple the butchering of unborn children (including even their own unborn children) nevertheless unwilling to make a sacrament of sodomy?

At least three possible motives suggest themselves. I put them forward only as speculations.

1. Though every murder is a more grave offense against the natural law than is sodomy, sodomy is arguably more obviously contrary to the natural law than the specific kind of murder that occurs in most abortions. Hence, while centuries of bad moral theory and decades of marinating in a cultural cesspool have largely deadened most people’s intuitive sense that killing children in the womb is wicked, it has not quite entirely eliminated the intuitive sense that sodomy is contrary to nature, or at least that it would be indecent and impious to give to it the label “marriage.” Perhaps it is easier to deceive oneself into thinking that an embryo is “just a ball of cells” rather than a human being, or even that murdering a Down syndrome baby is an “act of mercy,” than it is to deceive oneself into believing that sodomy is an act of marital union, or indeed anything other than at least faintly indecent – titillating to some people, to be sure, but hardly the stuff of romance or tender wedding night fantasies.

In this connection, it is perhaps worth remembering that Aristotle, and even Plato, both condemned homosexual acts as contrary to nature, though they did not condemn infanticide when done for eugenic reasons. (One suspects they would have regarded abortion or infanticide for the purposes of securing “cost-free” sexual indulgence with nothing but contempt.) This would seem to provide at least some support for the thesis in question: Even in the context of ancient Greek aristocracy, thinkers like Plato and Aristotle could see that sodomy was contrary to nature, though they could not see that infanticide for any reason is too. Similarly, even in decadent 21st century America, people who would not even require a teenager to notify her parents before aborting her child are capable of perceiving that “same-sex marriage” is a contradiction in terms.

(BTW, hostile readers ignorant of what classical natural law theory actually says are asked to spare me stupid remarks along the lines of “Isn’t wearing glasses ‘unnatural’ too?” “How come sterile people can marry?” “If it’s ‘natural,’ shouldn’t everybody already agree about it?” etc. etc. I’m not going to get into a long exchange over sexual morality and natural law here, sorry. I’ve written on this topic at length elsewhere, most recently in chapter 4 of The Last Superstition.)

2. An otherwise healthy procedural conservatism is at play, but partly at the expense of substantive conservatism. By “procedural conservatism” I mean the generally salutary pragmatic principle of avoiding the upsetting of existing apple-carts. By “substantive conservatism” I mean the moral principle of ensuring that the apple-carts are really carrying apples, as it were, while the orange-carts are carrying the oranges and the refuse is in the trash cans where it belongs. Every conservative knows that justice should not always be done “though the heavens fall”; some evils ought to be tolerated, at least under certain circumstances, lest greater evils be brought about by the effort to extirpate the minor ones. But it is possible to make an idol of this pragmatic conservatism, and the procedural tail must never be allowed to wag the substantive dog. There are lines that must never be crossed under any circumstances, and existing apple-carts that must be upset so that the refuse they are carrying may be cleaned out and the apples restored. As I have argued elsewhere, the conservative who forgets this soon loses his moorings and becomes little more than the opposite bookend to the proverbial “liberal in a hurry,” namely a “slow-motion liberal” who is willing to accept virtually any social change, however intrinsically evil, so long as there is a consensus behind it and it is implemented gradually.

Procedural conservatism might be trumping substantive conservatism in the minds of at least some of those who have voted against the recent pro-life measures but also against “same-sex marriage.” Such people might realize that abortion is evil, or at least be willing to concede that it is seriously morally questionable in at least some cases. Yet because it has become so embedded in modern American life, they are wary of interfering with it. “Same-sex marriage,” by contrast, is still a novelty, and those who are pushing it are obnoxious and their methods lawless. Hence the misguided procedural conservatism that tolerates a very grave evil like abortion is still willing to resist the relatively milder evil of “same-sex marriage,” in both cases in the name of keeping the apple-cart stable.

3. Some heterosexuals who have at least a grudging respect for traditional sexual morality are more keen to see it respected by others than to practice it themselves. (Think e.g. of the secularized Beltway conservative think-tank or journalist type who heartily endorses pragmatic Burkean arguments for the social utility of stigmas against fornication and the like, but who nevertheless lives with his girlfriend.) Hence, while it costs such people little or nothing personally to vote against “same-sex marriage,” limitations on abortion might put a crimp on their own lifestyle should their less-than-conservative personal sexual behavior “punish them with a baby.”

Again, these are just speculations. And no doubt there are other factors too.

Comments (124)

The disconnection in morality that sees same sex marriage as an offense but not the lack of parental notification of minors who want an abortion in Cal shocks my conscience to the extent that I'm thrown in laugh/cry mode (there should be a German word for that).

But a sad fact is that next time here in Cal we lose the same sex issue, too.

I was reading in The Sacramento Bee comments about Prop 8 and the vast majority favored same sex marriage and for purely relativistic reasons -- how does it affect your marriage, love has no gender, marriage is a human right, you've no right to be judgmental.

The divorce from reality by my fellow citizens is nearly complete. The only real thing in their lives are their feelings. Nothing else matters.

It may be that banning gay marriage does less in the way of obvious harm than banning abortion does. Banning gay marriage is a subtle threat to gays. It threatens some of their legal well-being, but banning abortion threatens a woman's physical well-being. Telling gays that they may not engage in full marriage (especially in states that allow civil unions and other forms of marriage light) also does less damage to their civil rights than telling a woman that her body belongs to the state.

hostile readers ignorant of what classical natural law theory actually says are asked to spare me stupid remarks along the lines of “Isn’t wearing glasses ‘unnatural’ too?” “How come sterile people can marry?” “If it’s ‘natural,’ shouldn’t everybody already agree about it?”

Don't forget equating "natural" with the animal kingdom, as in "There are examples of species engaging in homosexual behavior", as if ripping the head off your spouse and eating it after coitus would be acceptable.

The simplest explanation: more people have an interest in being able to abort their children than in being able to marry a person of the same sex.

You'd understand if you stopped grasping at every opportunity for self-congratulation on just how awesomely moral you are.

It is obvious that pro-choicers do not consider abortion to be murder, as obvious as it is that pro-lifers do.

This is so obvious, and I assume you know this. Yet acknowledging this divide would deprive you of these precious opportunities to do the public pharisee prayer.

Two other factors:

1. Criminalization is more onerous than withholding societal approval. Abortion restrictions make abortionists criminals, and women procuring them accessorites to a crime, even if they wouldn't be prosecuted. Declining same sex marriage doesn't make a criminal out of anybody.

If there were a ballot initiative to somehow mandate cultural approval of abortion, I suspect it would be worse.

2. The judicial usurpation for same sex marriage is still fresh, and those imposing bans have taken advantage of the court's overreach.

After 35 years, Roe v. Wade is not seen as a judicial usurpation, so it does not draw support from people who may be pro-choice but disapprove of the judical overreach.

Another one--The murder of the unborn child is done behind closed doors in a psychologically sterilized medical context. Homosexual "marriage" is in your face.

Way over analyzed Ed. Check the demographics. Prop 8 passed because homophobia is rampant in the African American community. It lost among Caucasians, and Asians and broke even with Latinos but the exit polls I saw had it passing 70 - 30 with AAs. Had voter turnout been "normal", Prop 8 would have lost even with the huge expenditures and a typical dishonest campaign.

M. Z. has a good point too.

Cute, Mike. Yes, pro-choicers tend not to think that abortion is murder and pro-lifers tend to think it is. But the point of the post was not to adjudicate that dispute, and in any case I think I can safely assume that most (though not all) W4 readers already agree with me that it is murder.

The point was rather to address the question of why at least many people who think "same-sex marriage" is bad enough to ban don't also think abortion is, given that the moral premises underlying opposition to either one are very often the same.

Can't do everything in one post, sorry. So, spare us the pharisiacal phony outrage at my purported pharisaism.

Prop 8 passed because homophobia is rampant in the African American community.

Gay marriage is 0 for 30 in referendums. You might want to develop an argument beyond the assertion of your moral superioity?

Prop 8 would have lost even with the huge expenditures and a typical dishonest campaign.

What was the breakdwon on spending between the 2 groups? And give examples of the dishonest ads - do you mean the one showing Mormons breaking into the homes of gays?

The simplest explanation: more people have an interest in being able to abort their children than in being able to marry a person of the same sex.

M.Z. makes the best point thus far:

People are more interested in murdering something that can become an utterly tremendous burden to the hedonist lives of many than they are in marrying members of the same sex!

OK, I agree with M.Z.'s point too -- but then, it seems to me to be just a variation on what I already said in making my third point:

Hence, while it costs such people little or nothing personally to vote against “same-sex marriage,” limitations on abortion might put a crimp on their own lifestyle should their less-than-conservative personal sexual behavior “punish them with a baby.”

I think too that in the population as a whole more people have at least one friend who has had an abortion than have a friend who wants to engage in homosexual "marriage." There are even homosexuals who do not want to claim that they are "married," so people may have an out-of-the-closet homosexual friend but don't therefore know someone who wants to be or claims to be homosexually "married." There's a lot of pressure to approve of abortion rather than "condemning" a friend or relative, perhaps even a close friend or relative.

Kevin, Ed, use the google, run the numbers. Based on the exit polls and voting patterns, 8 would have lost without African American support, even with the campaign that was run.

Kevin, this is a corollary to Godwin's Law: Any one invoking "for the children", is likely being deceptive. Just what does teach gay marriage mean, anyway?

I was just out walking with Lenny and the following thought occurred to me. Ed is really comparing apples with oranges. We had one measure in which there was a vigorous campaign and another, not so much. Based on initial polling and absent a campaign, 8 would have lost. This does raise an interesting question.

In the real world time and resources are usually limited and where one chooses to expend those is likely where ones heart truly is.

We had two measures. One would make it harder for mothers to kill their children and the other would prevent one class of citizens from using a word. You all chose which was more important.

It is a commonplace on the pro-choice side that when push comes to shove, most folks on the "pro-life" side really don't believe you have a baby. That is what is behind the penalty question. Perhaps this is another indication.

You people are WAY overthinking it.

I can tell you why gay marriage was shot down but not anti-abortion laws.

Have you ever seen a gay pride parage? Ever seen pictures of a gay pride parade? Nuff' said.

Now, have you ever seen an abortion pride parade with abortionist running through the streets acting in the way homosexuals do in those parades? Perhaps something like taking rubber casts of aborted childred smeared with red and dangling them in front of people? Perhaps leading chants like "we kill 'em and we're PROUD!" No? Nuff' said.

The sheer outrageousness of the homosexual movement is damaging to itself. If the pro abortion movement acted in a similar fashion, they wouldn't get their laws passed either.

Al, as someone else pointed out, similar measures passed in Arizona and Florida, and previously in 27 other states -- even though, again, pro-life measures have generally been failing. So it won't do to keep bringing up the African-American vote in California as if it explained this difference all by itself.

(I don't know who "you all" is supposed to refer to, by the way. I voted for both Prop 8 and Prop 4, and I imagine most or even all of those in this particular forum who supported 8 also supported 4.)

Re: M.Z.'s point, I should also add that the fact that more people have an interest in abortion than in "same-sex marriage" is at most a necessary condition for the phenomenon in question, not a sufficient one. All it explains is at most why people would vote against "same-sex marriage" and not against abortion given that they're inclined to vote against the former at all. But it doesn't explain why they're incined to vote against it in the first place.

This is why it seems to me that the existence of some measure of socially conservative sentiment is clearly still in play. But that raises the question of why that sentiment generates a "No" vote vis-a-vis "same-sex marriage" but not (as one might otherwise expect it to) vis-a-vis abortion. Sheer self-interest might be part of the story -- as M.Z. suggests, and as I also suggested in my point 3 -- but there may be other factors too, and it is hardly implausible to suggest that the socially conservative sentiments that get people to vote against "same-sex marriage" at all may be associated with phenomena like the ones I identify in points 1 and 2 of my original post.

One more thing, Al. "Teach gay marriage" means -- quite obviously -- to teach about it in a way that makes it seem as normal and unobjectionable as flossing one's teeth. You might think it is unobjectionable in this way, but -- again, quite obviously -- others don't, and since they don't, they also don't think it is a good idea to convey the opposite impression to schoolchildren. There is nothing "deceptive" here, even if you disagree with it.

Al,
I get it. You make the unsubstantiated claims and we get to track down the facts to refute it.

A)

"...would have lost even with the huge expenditures and a typical dishonest campaign"

First, gay opponents out-spent proponents - http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/73_Million_Spent_on_Prop_8.html

Second; gay opponents resorted to a bigoted, anti-Mormon ad. You've yet to criticize it. Here it is;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE

B) Is "homophobia" a clinical disease peculiar to blacks, or is it a pejorative offered in lieu of a reasonable argument?

C) Instead of asserting a rampant psychological disorder amongst blacks, isn't it possible that a people already racked by high illegitimacy rates, divorce and abortion, might out of sheer self-preservation be resistant to introducing another pathology into the culture?

I teach in a conservative Christian college, and my students are mostly against both abortion and same-sex marriage. They can explain easily why abortion is morally wrong, without resort to Scripture, but they cannot do the same for same-sex marriage, with or without resort to Scripture. The majority appear to have no clue what marriage is even about -- it's just so you can have sex without God's and your parents' disapproval, isn't it?

Their opposition to abortion, which they understand and can explain, is close to unshakeable. However, it appears that their opposition to same-sex marriage rests almost solely on what a pastor I know once called the "ick factor" -- it's just naturally repugnant to them, but they can't explain why. I believe that we will see (probably are already seeing) a steady erosion of opposition among young people as they are indoctrinated into the supposed normalcy of homosexual/lesbian living through the "news" media and film.

Abortion has been culturally accepted and untouchable since 1973. Those who haven't been given excellent reason to see it as evil don't. So I would guess in the particular context of my Christian college that these young people's churches and families are doing well in teaching about the sanctity of life, but not so well in teaching about marriage. "Homosexuality is wrong; the Bible says so" is insufficient for conviction in the face of cultural indoctrination.

To Dr. Feser's point then about the state-wide referendum, I'd guess that at least part of it is the normalization of abortion which leads to widespread acceptance, and that this normalization has not occurred at the same pace yet for homosexuality/same-sex marriage. Not a profound thought, perhaps, but it struck me rather forcefully as I mulled over the post in conjunction with some recent campus conversations.

Al: Why assume that African-American opposition to SSM was motivated by “homophobia” as opposed to, say, principled moral reasons? All of the African-Americans I know who opposed Prop 8 were motivated by reflection on Biblical ethics and a concern for the public good. Your hasty generalization smacks of racism.

Another factor that needs to be considered: the No on Prop 4 (i.e., anti-parental consent) lobby in CA did an effective job of confusing people on the issue. They ran ads enacting scenarios in which young pregnant girls were forced to go to unsafe abortion providers (the old back-alley argument), or were abused by their parents as a result of notifying them of their pregnancy and/or intended abortion. While those who have been trained to think critically can see through the fallaciousness of such ads, many pro-life people were genuinely confused, thus, out of misguided compassion, opposed Prop 4. So, part of the explanation for the situation in CA is that the No on 4 crowd did a better marketing job than the Yes on 4 crowd.

I point out the AA vote in this instance because it explains the results - check out the exit polls. As I also pointed out, MZ's point is an excellent one, but you can't compare the two measures at the level of abstraction that you do when their circumstances were so different. There was no activity around 4 and 8 was one of the most expensive campaigns around a non-economic measure.

Invoking other states is pointless as there are real regional differences; e.g. see the county vote in this map and you can see at a glance where race still counts.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/zell-miller-was-right-sort-of/

Initial polling showed 8 going down. Had the voter turnout been "normal", it still would have lost despite the campaign. Those are the numbers, that is the reality. Check out the map on the California Secretary of State site. Had normal voting patterns held, Los Angeles County would have paralleled the Bay area counties like Alameda and 8 would have gone down. Compare with the map for 4.

All this shows is that given a lot of money, an effective strategy, the lack of the same (strategy) on the other side and a moron for a Mayor in San Francisco, much can be accomplished.

Peace Kevin, while I inserted an editorial comment it remains a fact that a lot of money was spent. How that money was spent counts for much. The anti folks were slow off the dime and ran a bad campaign. The pro folks, regardless of my personal opinions, ran an effective campaign. Note how they didn't use sophisticated natural law arguments in their ads; they invoked the children and used the moron Mayor of San Francisco to good advantage.

Michael, homophobia amongst African Americans is a self acknowledged problem - again use the google. If there are principled moral reasons for voting for 8, I would assume the campaign would have used them instead of playing off emotions. When the vote by precinct in Los Angeles County becomes available patterns will emerge. I don't recall seeing one ad or sign on 4 while the ones on 8 were inescapable.

I note that my point on the allocation of resources is being avoided.

Is it also possible that some socially conservative (at least somewhat conservative) people were discouraged from voting against the pro-life proposals because they thought they would be shot down by the courts even if they passed?

The problem with young people and gay marriage has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with heterosexual marriage. To young people marriage is a financial arrangement with a license to fornicate. Are we really shocked that they think that when over half of them didn't spend 18 years in a home with the same mother and father? Are we really surprised when the churches are following all over themselves making excuses for why 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th marriages are just kosher? Are we really surprised when the first thing a teenage girl is asked when she announces she is pregnant is not if she plans to marry the young man but if she still plans to go to college? Are we really surprised when we encourage our young people to hold off marriage until they are in their late twenties or early thirties lest they live a life of poverty? Are we really surprised when the culture norm for the ideal family has been a husband, wife, 2 kids, and a dog?

*End rant*

"Note how they didn't use sophisticated natural law arguments in their ads;"

Al, are you really shocked that in a secular age of mass communications that a campaign did not rely on natural law arguments in their ads? Obviously, such an option does not exist for advocates of gay marraige, but that does not excuse their crude anti-Mormon bigorty. Nor, your heavy-handed attempt to stigmatize opponents of gay marriage as mentally unbalanced. If dumbed-down discourse offends you, take care not to resort to it.

If I was young being fed this of huey I too would wonder why anyone cares who is messing around with who.

M.Z.,

Anything else you would like to get off your chest???

It seems how I expanded on your earlier statement this morning was not exactly what you had in mind; rather, it seems you are more of the opinion that it's the parent's fault & how they've been raising their children in our modern times, no???

I'm not much into assigning fault. It is what it is. I suppose I could blame the Enlightenment if I was in the mood for blaming something. This whole idea of the atomistic nuclear family brought about by cars and birth control. There is so much that is messed up, it is really hard to know where to begin.

Kevin, I'm confused. I heard the LDS Church, as a corporate body heavily supported Prop. 8. Is that wrong? If it supported it, then what is your problem? The ad is blunt but correct. If you are bothered by it, then perhaps you are, at some level, ashamed of what your church just did. What am I missing?

As with the AA community, individual Mormons have been troubled by the actions of their church in this matter. You may have something in common with them and not realize it.

I again note that "pro-life" folks ignored an opportunity to save babies and instead focused on meddling in the lives of others. You all really need to come to terms with that fact.

"The problem with young people and gay marriage has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with heterosexual marriage."

Easy divorce and unbridled promiscuity paved the way for gay marriage. These destructive patholgies are the result of a de-natured, mechanical view of the human person and sexuality. Accepting gay marriage would exponentially add more disorder and moral confusion to the already creaky understanding of family life.

These destructive patholgies are the result of a de-natured, mechanical view of the human person and sexuality. Accepting gay marriage would exponentially add more disorder and moral confusion to the already creaky understanding of family life.

And what, pray tell, the destructive pathologies that are the result of a de-natured, mechanical view of the human person vis-a-vis human life?

Our having accepted Abortion as a mundane activity has added more disorder and moral confusion to an already devestated understanding of Family!

And, yet, we fear not the consequences of likewise normalizing (i.e., legitimizing) homosexuality as we did with the murdering of innocent children?

Just so I'm clear, I don't support gay marriage. I'm just not apoplectic over the matter. I hate to say it can't get worse, but heh. It's not just the internals of marriage. The idea that a couple owes their parents children is an entirely foreign concept. In other cultures, the same word is used for cousin and brother. Here a cousin is someone else's kid. To say someone is like a cousin is to say that they are a long time friend, nothing more. It's just a mess...

For what it's worth, assuming the exit polls are right and African Americans were 10% of the vote, and they voted for Prop 8 by a margin of 70% to 30%, then even without the African American vote, Prop 8 would have passed.

According to the CA gov website, there were 5419478 yes votes vs 4908887 no votes, making 10328365 total votes. Removing 10% of them, 7% from yes votes and 3% from no votes, you get 4696492 yes vs 4599036 no, or about 50.5% yes vs 49.5% no.

Al, I'm Catholic, but portraying Mormons, or any religous, ethnic, racial group as violent home invaders is hateful. The attempts to demonize a small relgious sect failed. Get over it you lost. Again.

"I again note that "pro-life" folks ignored an opportunity to save babies and instead focused on meddling in the lives of others."

Defeating a nascent evil is easier than rolling bakc an establsihed one. But, look forward to your manning the barricaeds and saving babies from the Obama

EDIT

Al, I'm Catholic, but portraying Mormons, or any religious, ethnic, racial group as violent home invaders is hateful. Yet, exactly the kind of tactics we expect from the kind of “tolerant “ people who claim the preaching of Scripture a hate crime and force Christian charities to either close down or violate their own religious tenets.

"I again note that "pro-life" folks ignored an opportunity to save babies and instead focused on meddling in the lives of others."

Defeating a nascent evil is easier than rolling back an established one. But, look forward to your manning the barricades and helping us save babies from the Obama Regime.

I'm just not apoplectic over the matter.

I can't help wondering just what that means. What would it take to get you apoplectic, MZ? How about fining the dickens out of people and making them apologize (like in some communist thought-control state) for refusing to print invitations to homosexual weddings? That start the old apoplectic fit going? HOw about ditto for photographers who refuse to take "wedding" photos of homosexual "weddings"? How about ditto for a Catholic family who runs a wedding planning service and *merely mentioned* that they wouldn't be able to "put their hearts into it" for a homosexual "civil union" ceremony but *didn't even refuse to do it*? How about sending home "diversity bags" from school with five-year-olds that contain cute little pamphlet story books called "Who's in the family?" all about a little girl and her "two daddies"? Are we there yet? How about kids' having read aloud to them in school a "fairy tale" called "King and King" about a prince who decides to "marry" the brother of one of the princesses presented for his consideration as a wife. Homosexual kisses in your kids' face on television?

I mean, your calmness seems to me a tad...odd. But perhaps worrying about people's feeling insufficiently responsible for their nieces and nephews or insufficiently related to their cousins, or heaping curses upon the age of the internal combustion engine, is just taking too much of your Crunchy Con (TM) energy these days.

M.Z.

FWIW, there are some aspects of your (self-described) rant that I agree with; more precisely, how modern society has come to define marriage which has robbed it of its meaning and, more importantly, its sanctity.

It's become nothing more than a transaction that allows for both legal as well as sexual gratification; nothing more.

Human life has been re-defined in such a morally-reprehensible manner; I'm not suprised human sexuality has been redefined likewise in modern-day society.

Just now, somebody of the legal profession (claiming to be Christian) attempted to render an interpretation of Scripture such that homosexuality was not actually something that Scripture found abhorrently wrong.

I'm just glad there are Christians here who would beg to differ.

Lydia,

How about ditto for a Catholic family who runs a wedding planning service and *merely mentioned* that they wouldn't be able to "put their hearts into it" for a homosexual "civil union" ceremony but *didn't even refuse to do it*?

1. One can get sued for this. (check WestLaw -- it's happened; which is perhaps why they *merely mentioned*)
2. What about Protestant businesses who have done likewise?
3. Are you suggesting that such a responsibility falls solely on the Catholics?

I mean, your calmness seems to me a tad...odd. But perhaps worrying about people's feeling insufficiently responsible for their nieces and nephews or insufficiently related to their cousins, or heaping curses upon the age of the internal combustion engine, is just taking too much of your Crunchy Con (TM) energy these days.

It is unfair to make right-wing Luddites, reactionaries and everyone else who refuses to hop on modernity's descent into an air-conditioned hell, to also bear the burden of M.Z.'s curious logic. He's on his own.

Exactly, Aristocles. Why do you think I brought it up? I know of the case in Vermont. That was my point.

I was annoyed at MZ's "I'm just not apoplectic about it." That seems to me unfortunate, and a bad sign. I think we--all of us conservatives, especially Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike--_should be_ "apoplectic" about homosexual "marriage" and shouldn't water down our condemnation of it and our loud concerns about the coercion it inevitably involves and the badness of it by convoluted references to the death of tribalism and the advent of the automobile, as if, hey, it was all inevitable from there, and where does one start?

Lydia:

At least, you're not a Christian in-name-only unlike the fellow I was alluding to in my earlier comment.

How folks can actually water down Christianity to the point of accomodating abortion & homosexuality as morally acceptable is beyond me; worse yet, to actually force Scripture into a new interpretation that accepts these things (he contends there's something in the Greek) when its traditional interpretation from both the Catholic & the Reformers themselves has long been a rejection of these things as morally wrong & sinful.

What's more bewildering is that the gentleman is a Baptist; the baptists I've had the pleasure of knowing are more strictly traditional in their sense of these things as being flagrantly wrong.

This leads me to the following question: What's becoming of Christianity in America???

As I mentioned on Zippy's blog, silence, or even token objection, on same-sex unions, is not an option for Catholics:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Al: I spent some time on “the Google.” I came across no good evidence that the African-American community as a whole is homophobic, unless by “homophobic” you merely mean, “finds homosexual practice objectionable.” Everything I came across that sought to support your generalization employed the same question-begging sleight of hand. Perhaps there’s some important research I missed. But the truth of your generalization is far from obvious, to put it mildly, even for those who spend some time on Google. I think charity requires that one not attribute pathology to an entire race without offering evidence, as you have done. Furthermore, your assertion completely overlooks the widespread espousal of traditional Christian and Muslim morality within the African-American community.

I spent some time on “the Google.” I came across no good evidence that the African-American community as a whole is homophobic, unless by “homophobic” you merely mean, “finds homosexual practice objectionable.”

Well, you know how it goes:

1. Are logic and reality against you?

2. Accuse your opponent of a pathology.

3. ???

4. Victory

Al is correct that there is a longstanding animus in the black community against homosexuality.

When I claim not to be apocalyptic I'm simply saying that gay marriage isn't a game changer. Look, over 25% of children today are born outside wedlock. The divorce rate is roughly half. Gay marriage certainly won't help marriage, but it ain't what's killing it.

As for photographers and the rest, there are worse things in the world. I've grown tired of the cries of white martyrs. It's like they walk around looking to be persecuted. If the 1st century Christians were like Christians today, Christianity would be dead.

to actually force Scripture into a new interpretation that accepts these things (he contends there's something in the Greek) when its traditional interpretation from both the Catholic & the Reformers themselves has long been a rejection of these things as morally wrong & sinful.


FYI, the "Christian" arguments in favor of homosexuality tend to fall into one of the following categories:

1. "Leviticus says it's wrong huh? So I guess you don't wear cotton/polyester blends?"

2. "The Old Testament prohibitions only applied to pagan rites. It doesn't address people who are in a loving relationship."

3. "The Bible nowhere says that lesbianism is wrong. Paul's statement about women in Romans 1 is ambiguous."

4. "Romans 1 only condemns straight men who experiment with homosexuality. For people born gay, it is the 'natural use.'

5. "Paul invented a new word (arsenokoites) in I Cor 6:9. There were already existing words for gay men, so he must have meant something else by coining this new word."

As for photographers and the rest, there are worse things in the world. I've grown tired of the cries of white martyrs.

The camel just wants to stick his nose in the tent. What's wrong with that?

Al is correct that there is a longstanding animus in the black community against homosexuality.

That's not what Al said. Al said that they are "homophobic." A "phobia" implies a position that is irrational, abnormal, and pathological. A longstanding disposition towards disliking homosexuality does not a pathology make.

It goes something like this:

1. Are logic and consistency against you?
2. Embrace the double standard.
3. ???
4. Victory dance.

Until someone tells me they have no problem with demanding heterosexual couples sign sworn testimony about their use of contraception (since nobody here believes in a "right to privacy"), then denying them access to benefits and/or services based on the response, the above format is the brick wall of unwarranted level of dislike these arguments run into.

...since nobody here believes in a "right to privacy"...

I believe in a right to privacy. I consider it short hand for the 4th Amendment's protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures," the 5th Amendment's protection from self-incrimination and the common law's principles of privileged communication, i.e. marital privilege, priest-penitent privilege, doctor-patient privilege &c. I just don't believe it extends to public actions, like buying or selling things in a store that is open to the public, or to protecting you and your doctor from killing a third party. Oh, and it has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.

Until someone tells me they have no problem with demanding heterosexual couples sign sworn testimony about their use of contraception...

The argument you are attempting here isn't valid. It confuses the accidental with the essential. A heterosexual couple is capable of producing children qua being this type of couple, even if they do not produce children qua being this particular couple. Same sex couples are not capable of producing children qua being this type of couple, since neither two men nor two women can make a baby.

"I'm simply saying that gay marriage isn't a game changer."

No, it just brings us closer to the end of the game.

Look, over 25% of children today are born outside wedlock. The divorce rate is roughly half. Gay marriage certainly won't help marriage, but it ain't what's killing it.

Fighting off gay marriage is a rearguard action against a perverse attempt to alter human nature. In between shrugging your shoulders, wistfully nodding your head and biting your upper-lip, consider helping the effort.

"I've grown tired of the cries of white martyrs."

Tired, or shamed by them? There's a difference. And the Church asks for Witness, not hand-wringing, more in sorrow than anger equivocations by aspiring Hamlets.

When I claim not to be apocalyptic I'm simply saying that gay marriage isn't a game changer.
As for photographers and the rest, there are worse things in the world. I've grown tired of the cries of white martyrs. It's like they walk around looking to be persecuted.

The second quotation belies the first. You aren't "simply saying" the first. You're saying the second. So now engaging in a business connected with businesses and refusing (or even hesitating) to validate the concept of homosexual "marriage" is "walking around looking to be persecuted."

I always knew there was something deeply wrong with Obamacons. Or maybe I should say Obama"cons", since the "con" part is certainly questionable. This, I gather, is MZ's response to Zippy's call for Obamacons to speak up loudly and long about all those deeply important social, moral issues the Democrats are seriously wrong about. Take note: Can't expect anything along those lines from MZ. People who have their businesses closed or their kids' minds perverted by the homosexual activist movement are just "white martyrs" "walking around looking to be persecuted."

Thanks, MZ. Now we know where you are coming from on _this_ issue.

Sorry, that should be "engaging in a business connected with weddings."

the intuitive sense that sodomy is contrary to nature

Why should intuition be used as a guide to what is right and wrong?

150 years ago, it was intuitively obvious that blacks were inferior to whites and that women should not be allowed to vote.

God forbid our laws be decided according to the intuitions of the Ed Fesers of the world.


"I've grown tired of the cries of white martyrs. It's like they walk around looking to be persecuted."

It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of looking insufficiently progressive.

Lydia,

My tiredness of worrying about homosexuals long predates my support of Obama. I heard one too many sermons back in my Baptist days about what the homosexuals were doing while ignoring and many times in fact blessing the grave injustices against the family done within the church.

You won't find me defending gay rights advocates. I have no use for them. As a matter of public policy, the right's attempt to address homosexuality is plain incoherent. Square pegs and round holes is not a public policy argument but one over personal choices. The same people that think regulating junk fund due to the ill health it causes is a step towards totalitarianism argue that gay marriage should be regulated lest we have issues of hygiene. No, I don't support gay marriage, but it has almost nothing to do with the couple does in their home.

"The same people that think regulating junk fund due to the ill health it causes is a step towards totalitarianism argue that gay marriage should be regulated lest we have issues of hygiene."

Don't you tire of always rationalizing your dissent?

The Administrative Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for a constitutional amendment to protect the unique social and legal status of marriage.

In Catholic belief, "marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love," the 47-bishop committee said in a statement released Sept. 10.

"What are called 'homosexual unions,' because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently nonprocreative, cannot be given the status of marriage," the committee said.

It warned that "the importance of marriage for children and for society" is under attack in U.S. courts and legislatures and in popular culture and entertainment media, which "often undermine or ignore the essential role of marriage and promote equivalence between marriage and homosexual relationships."

I haven't dissented on anything idiot.

The same-sex marriage movement only has a chance to win because marriage itself has become so diminished. Since nearly every vestige of the meaning of marriage has been crushed by our culture, it now becomes possible to claim, without warrant, that just about anything can count as a "marriage" as long as the state declares it as such. So, ironically, the only way the same-sex marriage movement wins the marriage it has never had but still wants is to cooperate with advancing a culture that diminishes its content but retains the name.

The charge of "homophobia" is not an argument; it's a slur. In fact, it's a strange judgment to utter given the nature of the debate in question, since it assumes a disorder that ought to be corrected. After all, why should anything think his visceral dislike of homosexual conduct is nothing more than a sentiment with which he is born? If, after all, men who seek the erotic companionship of other men are told that these desires are natural and normal because they well up from the deepest parts of their selves and are unable to be detached from their sexual identities, why can't we extend this assessment to those who feel revulsion at the thought of such erotic encounters and attribute these to similar though contrary feelings no less deep or defining?

There is so little rationality in this debate. For, at the end of the day, the most pervasive and established dogmas of the sexual revolution hang in the balance, and so many baby boomers have staked their entire existence on these "truths."

What a screwed up world: we are certain what the correct temperature of the earth should be, but we have no idea what our privates are for.

Gay marriage is not the camel's nose--it's his hind legs. (The tail, no doubt coming sooner than we'd like to imagine, will be some unspeakable dystopian abomination.) The "nose" was probably contraception, tho' MZ's gestures toward the Enlightenment are as good a starting place as any. Contraception implies consequence-free sex, which implies a right thereunto, which implies children are optional, may be avoided altogether, and may even be terminated when found inconvenient (or the wrong sex or defective in some other way); thus marriage is now less a public institution (i.e., that promotes the common good) than a private contract between two individuals, which means divorce should be easy, possible even without declaring the fault of any party, and ultimately that marriage should be available to any consenting parties (for the moment, and for purely "irrational" reasons, two only) of any sex.

MZ is right that familial disorder is so great so as to make gay "marriage" seem a rather small problem. It should, of course, be firmly opposed, but let's just recognize such opposition as like unto sandbags against a tsunami--one unleashed not by well-organized and fed-up pansies, who for most of history have been content to stay behind closed and carefully guarded doors, but by heterosexuals who over the last 80 years or so have come to see infecund sex as a basic human right. If infecund sex is a right, then homosexual sodomites seek nothing other than what the heterosexual sodomites already have... and then they are correct that this really is a civil rights issue. It is incoherent to oppose gay "marriage" and yet remain silent on the subject of contraception... which has the ready potential to make any marriage "gay" (and often does).

Steve, I really _don't_ think you want to associate yourself with MZ's moral equivalency here. I mean, to him, junk funds have something or other to do with this or at least are worth bringing up in the same context and people who lose their businesses or are coerced by courts to apologize in the newspapers for refusing to treat homosexuals as "married" are phony martyrs who make him feel tired.

Gay marriage is not the camel's nose--it's his hind legs.

I agree - but that is no excuse from the duty to keep the bloody camel out of the tent. And once the hind end gets in there, there is no end to the sh** which will be spread around.

Back to the original question, Lydia writes:
"Is it also possible that some socially conservative (at least somewhat conservative) people were discouraged from voting against the pro-life proposals because they thought they would be shot down by the courts even if they passed?"

I agree very much with this diagnosis. Many people thought the Dakota law wouldn't succeed without one more anti-Roe SCOTUS appointment. In Colorado, the Catholic Conference withheld support, arguing that it would fail in the courts and could even backfire, somehow strengthening the anti-Roe regime. (I could imagine a ruling on the personhood amendment being used to strike down any anti-embryonic research restrictions.)

The people initiating these measures have no political sense. It's like they think the Almighty will miraculously provide a fifth SCOTUS vote. This is putting God to the test.

Driven by Enthusiasm rather than prudence, they alternate between showing hubristic optimism in their prospects of success and showing utter despair in their failures.

The Colorado effort was led by an articulate but unrealistic 21-year-old woman. Only about 40 percent of Coloradoans believe life begins at conception anyway, so there was no way it could have passed.

The charge that the amendment was poorly written was a sound one. Such a measure requires legislative finesse to account for difficult situations.

Further, the rejection of the overreaching proposal is now being used as a talking point that social conservatism is finished. I voted for the amendment just to keep the margin of defeat from being too large.

The political energy powering the Personhood Amendment push would have been better directed at getting pro-life legislators elected to the state legislature, or backing up a besieged Marilyn Musgrave campaign.

As for CA's Prop.8, even its opponents recognize that they picked up some free support among people who instinctively vote no on proposals. One opponent estimated anywhere between five and ten percent of the No vote came from such people.

However, it is disconcerting that so many young people are falling into indifference towards the homosexual agenda. While this demographic's expressed support for same-sex marriage may often be lukewarm, their age group merits concentrated attention to counteract malign influence.

And this attention must be different in kind than what has gone before. Targeting them with the concerns of parents won't work, because they have fewer children and aren't married. Their loyalty to their gay and lesbian friends and family must also be taken into account.

Their indifference to homosexual activity may be comparable to the indifference the ruling generation has expressed towards multiple divorces and remarriage. Lots of work ahead.

Charming as usual, Robert. Anyway, the argument is not an argument from intuition (mine or anyone else's). Classical natural law theory starts instead with an Aristotelian essentialist analysis of human nature, including the natural functions of the various human biological and psychological capacities. It then derives from this an account of what things are good for us by nature and what things are bad. This in turn gives us an account of the content of our moral obligations. "Intuition" plays no role whatsoever in the argument.

The relevance of intuitions are simply that they often correspond in a very rough way to what natural law theory entails is good or bad for us. Nature gives us a natural tendency to find some things abhorrent and other things praiseworthy, so that we will have at least a very general tendency to seek good and avoid evil without having to engage in high-flown theory every time. But these intutions are fallible, can be overridden by bad theory or culture, etc., and at the end of the day can only be put into coherent shape within a culture that reflects some deeper theoretical understanding of the natural law.

Anyway, it is not that something is good or bad because of our natural intuitions, but rather that we have certain intuitions about things because they are for independent reasons naturally good or bad.

Again, this is something I have explained at length and in detail elsewhere, most recently in The Last Superstition. Anyone who wants to criticize classical natural law theory should read such an account first. You wouldn't want to dismiss something without, you know, actually understanding it, right?

"It is incoherent to oppose gay "marriage" and yet remain silent on the subject of contraception... which has the ready potential to make any marriage "gay" (and often does)."

Clearly true, we need to recover a firmer understanding of what it means to be human. We must provide a coherent diagnosis of modernity and an alternative to its progeny; the mechanical mass man - a machine with appetites.

Do not expect much help though, from cultural accomodationists who are forever striking bargains with the world and find any Christian objections to the status quo a source of embarrassment.

"In Catholic belief, "marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love," the 47-bishop committee said in a statement released Sept. 10."

Which is as much an argument for ending the state's involvement in marriage and going to civil unions for putting ones relationship under Family Law and, if you want to be "married", well, find a church that approves of your relationship.

As for the "phobia" thing. IMHO, if you are willing to use the power of the state to enforce your theological notions and in the process mess around in peoples' private lives, you are afflicted with something beyond mere distaste. Call it what you will.

Dave, I wasn't suggesting that we take away the AA franchise, rather that they get their heads straight on this issue. Check out Ta-Nehisi Coates over at The Atlantic. This is one of the problems with measures like 8 - it accustoms folks to taking away the rights of others.

BTW, there is nothing racial in pointing out that this or that culture has its downsides. For example (and balance), it turns out that the gay and lesbian vote for Obama was down when compared to the same vote for Kerry. What is going on with that? Obviously some combination of ignorance and stupidity on the part of certain of our gay brothers and sisters.

Kevin, my point on the natural law comment was that Ed is off track on his analysis of 4 and 8. as there wasn't much of a campaign around 4, folks mostly voted on their own calculus. The campaign around 8 focused on the moron Mayor of San Francisco and "the children" and that is what folks voted on, not on Ed's musings. As the vote was still close after a very expensive and effective campaign, it is reasonable to assume that had the level of noise around 8 been the same as that around 4, it would also have been defeated.

This is in line with MZ's point. Left to their own devices, people will see a certain self-interest in not limiting the rights of others in personal matters as a firewall against their own interests being affected at some point down the line.

Re: the commercial. While the missionaries were intrusive and pushy they were hardly violent and your reaction to what they did is on point as that is what your church did, in effect, to the relationships of others. The church made its bed and now all those missionaries will have to lie in it.

And I still have to draw attention to all those babies who perhaps could have been saved had it not been more important to meddle in the personal affairs of strangers.


Dave, I wasn't suggesting that we take away the AA franchise, rather that they get their heads straight on this issue.

I am "AA."

I oppose gay marriage.

I assure you that my head is on straight.

The idea that we need you to "get our heads on straight" is not only offensive, but deeply ironic for someone who claims to be on the equality side of this issue.

If, after all, men who seek the erotic companionship of other men are told that these desires are natural and normal because they well up from the deepest parts of their selves and are unable to be detached from their sexual identities, why can't we extend this assessment to those who feel revulsion at the thought of such erotic encounters and attribute these to similar though contrary feelings no less deep or defining?

I have no idea what "well up from the deepest parts of their selves" could mean, but multiple lines of scientific evidence converge on sexual orientation not being something a person can simply choose. Could you choose to be gay? Similarly, the gay person cannot choose to be straight.

I realize this scientific evidence contradicts the dogma you folks adhere to, but that is not a new story.

Feelings of revulsion likewise have antecedent causes, but prejudice can be remedied by education. During previous wars, white soldiers were revolted by the thought of recieving the blood of a black man. Today, most people realize that was stupid.

I suspect if you had a son, daughter, sister, or brother who was gay, they could guide you on a path of education.

Even if one grants that the tendency to same-sex attraction cannot be remedied by education, it seems to me highly plausible that one's cultural background exercises an influence on whether one thinks there is or can be such a thing as same-sex "marriage." I know of more than one homosexual person who *believes that this is false*. So if we're to talk of "remedying" things by "education" it makes at least as much sense to talk of remedying by education the homosexual's notion that he should think of a union with another homosexual as a marriage to to talk of remedying by education the idea that most people have that homosexual acts are against the natural law.

Lydia,

I agree with your comment about marriage and education, but that is simply to acknowledge that marriage is an abstraction. My comments about education were not towards how to define marriage, but rather towards how a person might overcome primitive tribalism.

I'm curious, what does natural law say about inter-racial marriage?

I'm curious, what does natural law say about inter-racial marriage?

Nothing, if only for the reason that Natural Law doesn't "say" anything. It's rather a way of thinking about any ethical question that might come up. It's not as if there is a "natural law manual" somewhere, and you can go and look up answers to questions. Such a question as you are asking signals that a serious engagement with Natural Law theory might not be a true interest of yours.

I have no idea what "well up from the deepest parts of their selves" could mean, but multiple lines of scientific evidence converge on sexual orientation not being something a person can simply choose. Could you choose to be gay? Similarly, the gay person cannot choose to be straight.

I realize this scientific evidence contradicts the dogma you folks adhere to, but that is not a new story.

This so happens not to be relevant to Natural Law theory at all. No such dogma exists. It doesn't matter whether or not a condition is chosen willfully, or genetically determined. It only matters what condition is proper to the creature in question. You don't suppose, do you, that a person born with a clubbed-foot is completely healthy, or a person with a genetic disposition to arterial sclerosis? Doctors, one assumes, are in the business of helping people attain health, not helping them to attain the majority condition. The same goes for an ethical philosopher. As such, the question of genetic predisposition doesn't come into play, but rather the question "what is healthy, to what is the human person ordered?" A cardiac surgeon who knows what a healthy heart is will find himself steadily employed. I can't think of a good reason for not applying this same criterion to anthropology and ethics.

Nowadays, unfortunately, an ethical philosopher is far more likely to be _unemployed_ if he has the right idea about what the human person is ordered towards.

Nowadays, unfortunately, an ethical philosopher is far more likely to be _unemployed_ if he has the right idea about what the human person is ordered towards.

I'd even be happy to start the conversation with the idea that the human person is in fact a person with a nature, whether the human person is even ordered to anything at all. That, in itself, is a mountain to be re-scaled. One spends most of one's time spinning one's wheel's at the starting line.

The argument you are attempting here isn't valid. It confuses the accidental with the essential.

Being a type of couple is meaningless if they are actively inhibiting that archetype. The point that matters here, as Steve Nicoloso rightly discerns it, is whether or not infecund sex is a human right. If it is, he is also correct to realize this is a civil rights issue.

The point that matters here, as Steve Nicoloso rightly discerns it, is whether or not infecund sex is a human right. If it is, he is also correct to realize this is a civil rights issue.

Is there a bill on proposal somewhere that would outlaw infecund sex?

Being a type of couple is meaningless if they are actively inhibiting that archetype.

That is like saying that being human is meaningless if one is foolish or vicious. Actively failing achieve the potential one is properly ordered to does not cause one to cease to be the kind of thing one is. Nor does it mean that there is not a difference in kind between one and other beings that do not possess the faculty one fails to properly use.

A truly foolish man may be in some ways no different from an ape. That doesn't cause apes and men to cease being different in kind.

Robert:

You are engaging in special pleading. Because you are already committed to a cluster of dogmas about sexual orientation, you are required to conclude those who do not share these dogmas are mere bigots whose prejudice can be altered through re-education (which sound the sort of thing that one must undergo while wearing a brown shirt). In any event, if we started, however, from a different cluster of assumptions, we may conclude, for example, that what you would consider "scientific" evidence is really nothing but a confirmation of what you already believe philosophically. That's fine, for I suspect that is what we all do to a certain extent in a variety of different ways. Consider, for example, Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers. If we were to exchange the names of these two with John McCain and Paul Hill, I would not by surprised that by now George Clooney and Oliver Stone would already have five scripts in the can so that we may have the privilege to raise our consciousness over the next four years. If Mr. Ayers's Weathermen, in other words, had bombed an abortion clinic rather than a NY police station and the Pentagon, it is likely that he would not have been a resident of Senator Obama's neighborhood. Instead of asking about the American injustices that may have provoked the genius Ayers to cross the line, the press would be condemning him as a stupid religious fanatic whose acts are derived exclusively from his will and cannot be attributed to "root causes." This is, of course, the epistemological shell game the Left always plays. Here's another example. The Rev. Wright comes from an interesting, multicultural and exotic inner-city church that advances liberation theology; Gov. Palin is a white trash animal killer who believes we live in Jesus Land. Only among the Left can a white man attack a middle-aged woman over a difficult pregnancy when the white man is a gay liberal and the woman is Sarah Palin. For what it's worth, here's my theory on that one: Sarah can have Barack's baby; Andrew can't. If I may wax Freudian, Andrew suffers from womb envy.

Back to the case of sexual orientation. It seems to me that the science is nearly non-existent if we compare it to what we know about alcoholism and schizophrenia, both of which have a genetic component, and neither of which can be said to be exclusively the result of "genes." In the cases of the latter two the literature is enormous and impressive. In the case of sexual orientation, the literature is embarrassingly weak. But in the places where we do know something, it seems that sexual orientation has a genetic component but not a genetic cause. For in the case of monozygotic twins (identical twins who share the same genome), there are as many cases of each twin having a different sexual orientation than there are of both twins having the same sexual orientation. This is, of course, higher than one finds with fraternal siblings of the same gender. But it it does show that the genetics as exclusive cause is probably a dead end.

But is it "chosen"? Who actually claims that it is? It is no more "chosen" than is my fondness for brunettes with hour-glass figures. It is probably a complicated consequence of genetics, experiences, choices, influences, and trigger events.

Perhaps if I had to spend 20 years in prison, my interests would change. But those interests would be no more helpful in instructing me about the moral quality of those interests than ones that may arise in the present when I catch a glimpse of Angelina Jolie, Ann Hathaway, Sarah Palin, or Frankie Beckwith.

I haven't dissented on anything idiot.

M.Z.,

No, my friend, you've dissented on everything Catholic.

I hate to have to concur generally with Lydia's perspective on the matter here, but what she says about the "con" that had been rampant at the time of the elections and, in particular, in connection to Obama supporters seem to shed some light on what may very well be how you seemed to have rationalized almost every other issue (as you've done here with homosexuality) in exactly the manner you perhaps had done so with abortion and in your having voted for Obama.

Actively failing (to) achieve the potential one is properly ordered to does not cause one to cease to be the kind of thing one is.

So if a naturally gifted musician (perfect pitch, dexterity, etc.) avoids playing music he is still a musician. Right.

Nor does it mean that there is not a difference in kind between one and other beings that do not possess the faculty one fails to properly use.

The difference in kind exists when they are engaging in fecund sex, by your own assertion of being capable of producing children. Otherwise your end up with the claim that infecund sex is also capable of producing children.

Robert, Andrew Koppleman has written about SSM and natural law. He has a site at Northwestern Law; here is one article:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/koppelman/FinnisCritique.pdf

To assert that everyone who voted for 8 is homophobic would, of course, be a slur. To opine that, in an election as close as this one, that homophobia, loosely understood as Ta-Nehisi Coates' "yuck" factor, operating at the margins, was decisive is entirely reasonable.

Maddow had a guest on today who pointed out that the No on 8 folks didn't do much campaigning in communities of color and that is true. CJ, homophobia in your community is killing people; cultural attitudes that compel men to live on the down-low is self destructive and killing innocent people as well, so I'll stand by my comment; get your head straight on the issue.

Oh and CJ, let's do a thought experiment. It's 1948 and everyone has the 1948 mind set but social conservatives are as politically active in our 1948 as they are now. What do you think the reaction of your new BFFs would be to Perez? Hint - it's still thirty years to 1978.

Kevin, is this for real:
(BTW, CJ, I am unclear about your "equality" claim re: me. Help me out. )

"If, after all, men who seek the erotic companionship of other men are told that these desires are natural and normal because they well up from the deepest parts of their selves and are unable to be detached from their sexual identities, why can't we extend this assessment to those who feel revulsion at the thought of such erotic encounters and attribute these to similar though contrary feelings no less deep or defining?"

We can and do and we also find repulsive those gay folk (should there be any) who would deny heterosexuals the equal protection of the law.

Sigh. Still I note that no one seems to want to account for their complicity in baby killing.

(Dr. Beckwith, I thoroughly enjoyed your excursion into Ayers and Wrightland. Almost as much as I will enjoy hearing Senator Obama addressed as MR. PRESIDENT! Ah yes, Ayers, Wright, Paris Hilton, Joe the unlicensed plumber, hockey moms - seems so long ago and far away.

CJ, homophobia in your community is killing people; cultural attitudes that compel men to live on the down-low is self destructive and killing innocent people as well, so I'll stand by my comment; get your head straight on the issue.

As one who likes to quote Ta-Nehisi, maybe you should check out his article debunking the premise that "down-low-brothas" as increasing HIV+ rates:

"the DL was neither new nor limited to blacks and sufficient data linking it to HIV/AIDS disparities currently are lacking." Researchers don't deny the existence of closeted black men in committed relationships with women or that some of these men infect their spouses. But they're skeptical about the Down Low as a primary explanation for the high rates of HIV among black women. And they also don't think black men in relationships with women are more likely than other men to have closeted sex with men." http://www.slate.com/id/2161452/

"Oh and CJ, let's do a thought experiment. It's 1948 and everyone has the 1948 mind set but social conservatives are as politically active in our 1948 as they are now. What do you think the reaction of your new BFFs would be to Perez? Hint - it's still thirty years to 1978."

I honestly don't know what you're getting at. L'il help?

Regarding the "equality" business, those in favor of gay marriage often frame the issue as "marriage equality." If this doesn't apply to you, nevermind.

Al,
I have no idea what you are talking about. Is the below a self-indictment?

Still I note that no one seems to want to account for their complicity in baby killing

I will enjoy hearing Senator Obama addressed as MR. PRESIDENT

Referenced like a good conservative Kevin, shame on you. Read in the original we have two unconnected items; no wonder you fail to see the gross dishonesty in the yes on 8 campaign.

I made the first point in one of my first posts. "I was just out walking with Lenny and the following thought occurred to me. Ed is really comparing apples with oranges. We had one measure in which there was a vigorous campaign and another, not so much. Based on initial polling and absent a campaign, 8 would have lost. This does raise an interesting question.

In the real world time and resources are usually limited and where one chooses to expend those is likely where ones heart truly is.

We had two measures. One would make it harder for mothers to kill their children and the other would prevent one class of citizens from using a word. You all chose which was more important.

It is a commonplace on the pro-choice side that when push comes to shove, most folks on the "pro-life" side really don't believe you have a baby. That is what is behind the penalty question. Perhaps this is another indication."

I keep referencing it because social conservatives ignored an anti-abortion measure in their zeal to deny a class of their fellow citizens equal protection of the laws.

The reference to Mr. President Obama was obviously a response to Dr. Beckwith's inability to leave a losing strategy alone. Along with the deadenders on the birth certificate matter (see the latest post above)the whole Ayers/Wright thing has become a joke.

CJ, I based my comments on his recent comments about prop. 8. as well as other readings. This is from a recent post on his Atlantic blog:

"...But there's something else. I have repeatedly said that it's in white people's interest to confront racism, that they shouldn't do it as a favor, that they shouldn't lend us a hand, but that they should recognize that it's the best thing for their kids. This is even more true for black people and homophobia. We need all the community we can get. And in these times--like white people and racism--dissing people who want to make family is a luxury we really don't have.

And then there's the obvious detriment of homophobia--the appalling HIV stats in our community. I always thought the absolute worse part of the Rev. Wright fiasco wasn't his quasi-damning of America, but the pushing of conspiracy theories in regards to HIV. It didn't make it better that it came from a guy who's been doing exactly the sort of outreach we need more of from the black church. Talk to black health professionals out in the field--they understand where the notion comes from, but they hate it all the same. Our unwillingness to talk pushes serious issues under the table. This ---- will kill us. It's not a game."

Re: equality. "Marriage equality" may mean different things to different folks but I see it as an equal protection matter.

Perez V. Sharp was a case decided by the California Supreme Court in 1948. I believe it was the first case in the United States in which a miscegenation law was ruled unconstitutional. In 1978 the LDS Church received a "revelation" that in effect repudiated its racist doctrines. In 1948, these were still in effect. The language around Perez was much like the chicken-little language around the Marriage Cases decision. Comparing the two is very much on point. Had the No on 8 campaign done a better job of getting that message to AAs and Latinos (one of the parties in Perez was Latino {duh} and the other was black) the vote would likely have been different. Based on contemporary values in 1948 and had social conservatives still not been in their post Scopes malaise, it is likely we would have have seen your new BFFs seeking to overturn Perez.

Al,

Just curious about something: language is a cultural development - it comes about in and with a development of a people. In that context, a word holds the meaning it accrues by use, consent, and approbation through customary actions by a whole host of people who form the culture and develop the language over years, decades, and centuries. The cultural background to the word "marriage" defines that word in terms of a union between a man and a woman. (I am not saying anything at all about whether it SHOULD hold that meaning. The above is judgment neutral - just an observation.) Do you believe that either a judge, or a legislature, should have the power to redefine the word unilaterally so that it ceases to have the meaning the culture gave it? Does either a judge or a legislature have the right to contradict the entire culture on what a word means? (You said above that the vote on 8 is on what a word means.)

The legislature is in control some of what privileges are granted to married folk under law. They putatively have the right to expand who gets some of those privileges. This kind of legislative act is clearly in their power. I fail to see why they remotely think they have the right to call it marriage when 2 men are united. Unless, like the caterpillar, "a word means what I say it does and nothing else." As for a judge, any judge who thinks judicial powers extend to redefining a word like marriage is patently insane and should be certified.

Al,
Your cavalcade of words cannot obscure either the inherent contradiction in your argument, or the insincerity of your pose.

If you think social conservatives are complicit in baby killing because they over-invested in Proposition 8 and failed to muster the same funding and energy in support of a Parental Notification measure, then it is safe to say, anyone who voted for Obama and against Prop 4 is truly complicit and culpable in barbarism.

However, if your comments about abortion as baby killing are a cynical attempt to mislead your readers as to your true beliefs, and merely a cheap and nonsensical debating ploy, then you have failed to engage in a honest and open manner. Which then leads us to the question; why should anyone correspond with someone who interacts in bad faith?

Either you simply are caught in an illogical point, or feigning genuine concern for babies. The first offense is, given the weakness of your discourse, forgivable. The second is not.

I look forward to your honest reply.

Thanks for the clarification, Al.

Don't have much time to talk, so I'll just say that I believe anti-miscegenation laws are wrong, whereas refusing to recognize gay marriage is not. I know a great many people disagree, not least of whom was the late Jean Loving. Nevertheless, here I stand, I can do none other.

WRT my "BFF" let's suppose there was a proposed law mandating that schools teach that 2+2=5. Let us further assume that the Grand Dragon of the KKK opposed that law. We would be on the same side of THAT ISSUE, despite some *ahem* vehement disagreement on just about everything else. I would do so because the law in question is WRONG. The fact that some people who agree with me on that issue wear the same label as others I disagree with is immaterial.

The difference in kind exists when they are engaging in fecund sex, by your own assertion of being capable of producing children. Otherwise your end up with the claim that infecund sex is also capable of producing children.
I don't think that is what "difference in kind" means here. I think the "kind" in question refers to sexual acts of the kind which at times, when conditions are right, produce children. It doesn't mean only those acts which actually do produce children or even those acts which are in fact capable of producing children.

A long, long time ago, a conservative philosopher friend of mine wrote an article on homosexuality for an anthology on the subject, arguing the traditional position. I remember arguing passionately with him that he *must* say somewhere in the article that he was talking about a particular _kind_ of sexual act. He said to me something to this effect: "I'm trying to avoid saying that for rhetorical reasons, because most of the college students who will be reading this are nominalists anyway." Now I know exactly what he meant.

Finally got the rugrat into bed.

Al, I wanted to respond to the Coates quote that you posted. I don't know whether he changed his mind about the down low, is referring to something else "killing us," or if he's using a meme that he knows to be false in order to advance his views.

In any event, it's irrelevant because "accept homosexuality or the down low will destroy you" is a false dichotomy. There are several other ways to cope with the black community's prevailing views on homosexuality:

1) Be celibate;
2) Marry a "beard" and have discreet relationships on the side;
3) Say to oneself "screw black homophobia" and live openly as a
gay man;
4) Stay on the DL, but use condoms each and every time one has
sex. After all, we are frequently told that condoms are
necessary to stop HIV in Africa. Why can't it work here?

Not that any of these options is necessarily desirable, but they are all realistic ways to cope with whatever threat there is to the community from STD's spread by men on the DL.

Thus, changing the community's mind about homosexuality would NOT be necessary for survival, even if the threat were real. It is only presented as a survival issue in order to appeal to the self interest of those who are not amenable to accepting homosexuality on other grounds.

Prop 8 passed because homophobia is rampant in the African American community.

Al, curious how come gay mobs are protesting out in front of a Mormon temple in West LA, instead of the Crenshaw Christian Center, or several black churches in East L.A.? Is it because Mormons are a smaller, weaker and therefore easier group to attack? I mean, that ad showing 2 white Mormons breaking into the home of a lesbian couple and rifling through their drawers was really neat and everything, but why didn't the producers use 2 "AA" (as you like to say) men?

From here it looks like cowardice, but maybe you have another explanation.

Kevin, fyi, there have been reports of gay protesters using racial slurs against black people, even a black, gay couple that was protesting on their behalf.

A liberal blog has the story: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/the_n_bomb_is_dropped_on_black_passersby_at_prop_8_protests/

Zippy,

It doesn't mean only those acts...which are in fact capable of producing children.
So his assertion about difference in kind applies to acts both capable and incapable of producing children. Seriously, the double standard there is epic.

Kevin,

...why didn't the producers use 2 "AA" (as you like to say) men?

Because the Mormons were bankrolling the vast majority of the opposition.

So his assertion about difference in kind applies to acts both capable and incapable of producing children.
Well, yes. The kind of act which sometimes does in fact produce children also, often enough, does not, for a variety of reasons. Other kinds of sexual acts never produce children, and it is possible to make the distinction.

Do you deny that "the kind of act which sometimes produces children" coherently describes a particular classification of sexual acts?

CJ & Step2,
I have no doubt gay activists are, given the decisive role blacks played in Prop 8 passing, foaming at the mouth in full racist rage. But, like liberal editorialists and cartoonists who cower in fear of offending Muslim sensibilities, yet delight in anti-Christian works, they are just school-yard bullies. The Mormons are a tiny percentage of the population and the subject of cultural disdain. Gay activists know who, and how to target.

Years ago, here in NYC gay protesters desecrated the Eucharist during a series of Masses at St Patrick's Cathedral. Could anyone imagine a similar ploy occurring at a synagogue or a Baptist church in Harlem? To stop the abominations, Cardinal O'Connor had the directors of the first 2 homes for those afflicted with Aids - both Catholic institutions - put the word out that they would close down if the protests continued. The desecrations ended. I doubt the Mormons have comparable leverage and will likely suffer more assaults from the lavender mob.

Zippy,
Other kinds of sexual acts never produce children, and it is possible to make the distinction.
If heterosexuals were unable to do those types of acts, as well as using contraception to not produce children from those acts which otherwise could, the distinction would carry some weight. To make a distinction without comparing the substantive effects of those acts is disingenuous.

Kevin,
The difference being they knew before the vote who was financing their opposition. Now they know that they have a more difficult path to climb in educating and persuading the general public, especially within the black community. So I agree with you that after the vote, they should not continue to target the Mormons for blame.

If heterosexuals were unable to do those types of acts, as well as using contraception to not produce children from those acts which otherwise could, the distinction would carry some weight.
As you know, I have no brief for contraception, I consider it a worse social evil than the normalization of homosexuality generally, and it is the bad behavior of heterosexuals which has brought us to this pass. (Indeed the answer to the question asked by this article resides in that fact). Maybe you just like hearing me say that?

Having said that there is a legitimate distinction subject to prudence between refraining from making contraception illegal, on the one hand, and having the state sanction and legitimize homosexual relationships, on the other. It is similar (though not identical) to the distinction between the state failing to forbid commerce in contraception and the state passing out condoms.

All of these matters fall under prudence, though given my authoritative proclivities I tend to think that the purchase and sale of contraception ought to be banned.

To make a distinction without comparing the substantive effects of those acts is disingenuous.
Well, the substantive effects of the kind of act at times capable of producing children are obvious, in contrast to the substantive effects of the kinds of acts which are never so capable. So I'm not sure what the objection is here.

Well, the substantive effects of the kind of act at times capable of producing children is obvious, in contrast to the substantive effects of the kinds of acts which are never so capable.

Which is perhaps, being interpreted, contraception sometimes fails and children are produced by contracepted heterosexual acts by accident. This is not possible for homosexual acts.

What Step2 never seems to acknowledge, either, is the sheer fact that a photographer who takes pictures of a heterosexual couple's wedding, a wedding planning company that planned it, or a newspaper that announced it in a list of weddings, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken to be endorsing contraception, even if in fact the couple intends to use contraception, because *this is not a fact that is self-evident from the very nature of their union*. Probably very few people would even know one way or another. The union isn't on its face an endorsement for contraception. But a formal union calling itself "marriage" between two men or two women is on its face an attempt to redefine marriage and an endorsement of sexual acts between two men or two women. How hard is this to get?

Step2,
Singling out the Mormons was a clever tactic in line with such ploys as branding opponents of gay marriage as clinically disturbed sufferers of "homophobia" and consistent with an over-arching strategy. Hate Crimes legislataion, Speech Codes, forcing Catholic Charities out of adoption services are not typical forms of moral suasion, but rather a way of squashing all dissent in the name of a "tolerance" they have no intention of extending to others. Gays should renounce
employing the heavy-hand of the state against churches and disgraceful disruptions of religious services as happened last Sunday in Michigan by lunatices acting in their name.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111104.html


The difference in kind exists when they are engaging in fecund sex, by your own assertion of being capable of producing children.

You are confusing the issue.

I am not making an argument about the kind of sex a couple may or may not have. I am making a distinction between the kind of sex a couple is capable of having by being the type of couple they are.

I other words, I agree completely with the assertion you seem to be trying to demonstrate that I hold, i.e. that the use of contraceptives to deform sexual acts so as to render them essentially infertile makes them no different in kind than acts of sodomy or tribadism. Granted but irrelevant to my point.

My point is not about the particular kind of acts engaged in by any particular couple. My point is about the the kind of act capable of being engaged in by the couple because they are the type of couple that they are. A man and a woman who never engage in sexual acts ordered towards procreation are still, by being the kind of couple they are, capable of engaging in such acts. Two men or two women are not so capable.

I believe the use of contraception is a grave moral evil, and I believe that allowing it to be widely and easily obtained with no consequences is a grave social evil. But the widespread availability and use of contraception is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that the law must recognize the distinction between those couples who are capable of rightly ordered sexual acts and those who are not. The fact that couples capable of rightly ordered sexual acts are also capable of disordered ones is not relevant.

[tho' this is clearly water under the bridge by now...]

Steve, I really _don't_ think you want to associate yourself with MZ's moral equivalency here.

Lydia, I didn't sense that the moral equivalency was being drawn between say murdering babies and government regulations that promote the use of high fructose corn syrup; but rather and equivalency between gay "marriage" and devolution of "marriage" in modern society more generally... which is a perfectly valid equation: sodomy is as sodomy does.

My point was that we wouldn't be having the gay "marriage" debate if it hadn't been for the past several generations of "heterosexual" sodomy institutionalized in the easy (and almost universal) acceptance of "no-fault" divorce, serial polygamy, and contraception.

Yes, we all should get "bent outa shape" about gay "marriage"; but we should all equivalently get "bent outa shape" about the others as well, and... well... it is really hard to keep bending onesself in that way: While it ought pain everyone of us to see, for example, contraception so universally accepted and readily available, there is so little that we can do... were we to vote our consciences in the matter, we would quite literally never vote, and it is far from clear that a remedy even could (today, rightly) exist in positive law. Try tying yourself in knots over that. Only the most saintly of us could manage it. Yet contraception is, in every way that matters, as sodomitical as gay "marriage". Yes, remedies still exist in positive law against the latter, and they should be supported and promoted by every (licit) means. But let's not kid ourselves that a "win" in the fight against gay "marriage" we have done very much to beat back the rising flood of marital disorder. We may have at most added a couple layers of sandbags. We've, at most, dealt temporarily with a symptom, but hardly even touched the underlying disease.

Yet contraception is, in every way that matters, as sodomitical as gay "marriage".
It seems to me that they are different in important ways. One thing that makes contraception worse is that any children who result from contraceptive failure are, not "unwanted", but "wanted-not": that is, the couple wanted to not have that child, so much so that they engaged in a concrete act to prevent that child from coming into being. Obviously this also leads to abortion. These are just two related examples of how contraception is worse than sodomy.

On the other hand homosexual sodomy is by the nature of the persons, and not merely their particular acts, incapable of procreating children, so gay 'marriage' completely severs sexuality from procreation in a very public way and represents an assault on the institution of the family from without; whereas contraception is more of an assault on the institution of the family from within.

So I think they are different in ways that matter, though not necessarily in ways which conclude that gay 'marriage' is more grave than contraception; but nevertheless given particular circumstances it may make prudential sense to choose our battles.

Zippy,
The contention I have is with the claim that it is what homosexuals couples are rather than what they do that merits a legal distinction. My counterclaim is that heterosexuals should not be held to a different standard when engaging in similar or equivalent acts. I have not argued that contraception should be made illegal, only that it should be legal to discriminate based upon that information.

Lydia,
Since you don't believe in a right to privacy, it doesn't seem unjust to ask for a declaration that these couples are not using or plan to use contraception. That way you can be reasonably sure you are not endorsing it.

Kevin,
I have already stated that Mormons should not be targeted anymore for blame. If Mormons want to play in the political arena they should be ready for some strong polemics while the issue is open for debate. Politics is not a game for thin skin.

Step2,
Disrupting religious services and spray-painting temple walls are not polemical arguments. They are acts of intimidation and a foretaste of what awaits those who stand opposed to the insatiable dynamo of the anti-culture. Redefine the family out of existence ("two or more people capable of orgasms, or affection ) and the greatest rival to the omnipotent State will be eliminated.

Any doubts about the thuggish nature of the gay rights movement and the totalitarian nature of state-coerced "equality" and personal liberation, should be dispelled by the use of blacklists to drive resisting individuals out of the workforce;

“I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community,” he said. “I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most.”
http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/11/10/daily40.html?jst=pn_pn_lk

"My point was that we wouldn't be having the gay "marriage" debate if it hadn't been for the past several generations of "heterosexual" sodomy institutionalized in the easy (and almost universal) acceptance of "no-fault" divorce, serial polygamy, and contraception."

I find the direction this discussion has taken to be quite revealing. Ed's original point and the speculation that followed is irrelevant because people voted on 8 based on a Atwater-Rove type of campaign in which winning is everything and clarity not so much. More folks in the general population need to know the apparent agenda re: contraceptives. Also it was not on the type of sex acts in which consenting adults engage. Sex serves more than one purpose amongst primates. I find the natural law obsession with "kinds" of acts to be weird and not in a good way.

"The legislature is in control some of what privileges are granted to married folk under law. They putatively have the right to expand who gets some of those privileges. This kind of legislative act is clearly in their power. I fail to see why they remotely think they have the right to call it marriage when 2 men are united."

Tony, your point here seems to contradict itself but in situations where there are matters of equal protection and due process the legislature (and the voters) are limited in what they can do. It would have made things easier has Lawrence been decided on Equal Protection grounds but the California Supreme Court still may decide that 8 violates the state constitution.

One might look at it this way. We are not going to recriminalize homosexual behavior. We are not going to sterilize gay and lesbian folk and we are not going to seize their children. These people are free to form relationships and those relationships are, to all appearances save for gender, identical to the married relationships of heterosexual folk. They involve identical issues of property, children and consent matters. To me that call equal protection issues into play. We shall see if the Supreme Court agrees.

Kevin, I believe I have the right to call you on what you purport to believe in terms that you would agree with. It is not necessary for me to agree with them in order to use them. I still want to know why the focus was on 8 and you all allowed an anti-abortion measure to be, well, aborted.

As for your church; if it doesn't want to be an object of scorn and contempt then it shouldn't do scornful and contemptible things. If it gives in to the totalitarian impulses that religious folk often manifest then don't be surprised if your targets and civil libertarians object. If you want it to stop being behind the curve as it was in 1978 then come up with a way of selecting leadership that doesn't reward longevity. Attitudes towards same sex issues are especially age sensitive. having a leadership older than dirt will likely put you on the ewrong side of things.


I find it quite revealing that our pro-homosexual "marriage" people here seem to have lost the word 'spade' in their dictionary, as in "calling a spade a spade." Now vandalism and open mob intimidation are "strong polemics" and "being an object of scorn and contempt." Please. Sit around and feel scorn and contempt all you like, but vandalism and disruption of churches are a different matter.

Step2, you aren't usually this wilfully dense:

That way you can be reasonably sure you are not endorsing it.
How many times do I have to say that a person who takes pictures of a heterosexual couple's marriage cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken to be "endorsing" actions they undertake in private that no one knows about? For all the people know who view those pictures, they are going to have ten children, one right after another, or they are naturally infertile, or whatever. The whole point is that taking pictures of two men kissing and pretending to get married under the rubric of one's job as a "marriage photographer" _is_, _automatically_, _in itself_, endorsing the idea that these guys should be kissing each other and that they are getting "married." I don't know why this should be hard to understand.

Al are you Boonton? You reason just like him and I don't blame you for operating under another name.

As a Catholic I welcome the scorn and contempt of those who crush the skulls of babies, equate sodomy with love, invade houses of worship, harass Christians from their places of employment, and seek the eradication of all obstacles to the purported historical trajectory of cultural Marxism.

The ugly, inhuman nature of you agenda requires it be imposed by violent force. Expect more resistance like the kind offered by this elderly women in the face of your fellows; http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111010.html

Lydia,

The only thing I condoned was using polemics before the vote was taken. That is all. If you and Kevin would care to notice, the church disruption happened after the vote. Kevin keeps moving the goalposts and then accusing me of things I never said. Since he is already in full-blown martyr mode I will stop responding to him, but I expected better from you.

Do you believe in a right to privacy or not? The reason this came up is because your position on privacy says that it should be perfectly okay to find out. What is hard to understand is why you are asserting a privacy right for heterosexuals.

It is not necessary to have a law banning contraception to be consistent in not allowing gay marriage. As a matter of custom however, marriage should rightfully be understood to be ordered to generation. Marriage is no longer understood to be ordered to generation. More sadly, generation is no longer understood to be ordered to marriage. Once the proper ordering of generation is removed, the interests of the State in marriage are largely removed.

Kevin would care to notice, the church disruption happened after the vote.

So? The standards for decency are not dependent on the calendar. The movement for same-sex marriage likes to elevate itself by claiming to be in the tradition of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Obviously the tactics gay militants use put the lie to that claim. King's movement arose from with the very Christian faith and churches that gays are now attacking.

Step2 I don't know why rights talk is relevant to the disagreement between us, one wayor another. We are, after all, talking about actions by private individuals (people offering services to the community). I'm not asserting that anyone's _rights_ would be violated by questions, though I do think it is incredibly unjust that business people should be fined and foced, Stalin-style, to apologize for refusing to endorse homosexual "marriage" by their actions. I'm talking about why it is reasonable and understandable that someone with a particular set of views would act in a particular set of ways, while you are accusing such a person of inconsistency.

Once the proper ordering of generation is removed, the interests of the State in marriage are largely removed.

Cool. Let me play too;

Once the proper ordering of spiritual and intellectual development is removed the interests of the State in education are largely removed.

Once the proper ordering of natioanl self-defense is removed the interests of the State in foriegn affairs are largely removed.

Once the proper ordering of humane economic arrangements are removed the interests of the State in the marketplace are largely removed.

McCarthyism in pink;

"In a dramatic, closed door lunch meeting, the owner of a renowned Mexican eatery in Hollywood expressed regret in her decision to donate $100 to the “Yes on Prop 8″ campaign, but her remarks before a group of about 60 members of Los Angeles’ LGBT community fell short of an outright personal apology."
http://www.peacelovelunges.com/2008/11/12/el-coyote-owner-expresses-regret-over-prop-8-contribu

I caught Prager ranting about this yesterday. Last night Phil Hendrie made the apt point that this isn't really any different then the boycotts that took place during the civil rights actions in the 1960s and, I would add, the purchasing decisions that consumers made over farm labor issues.

Kevin, Joe McCarthy was a United States Senator. He used government power to persecute innocent people. What that has to do with private individuals choosing where to spend their dollars is lost on me.

Some people made some stupid decisions and now there are consequences. That's called life. If you are a music director, your job is likely going to involve an artistic collaboration with a lot of folks who are gay. So you give a thousand dollars to an measure which will be viewed by many, if not all, of the folks whose good will you need in order to do your job, as an attempt to take away their civil rights. You have a right to do that and they have a right to not want to have anything to do with you. Which, of course, will make it impossible for you to do your job.

The restaurant is a bit different and raises a couple of questions. $100 dollars is a minimal amount and if it results in $5,000 to Lambda Legal then let the angel of death pass over, so to speak.

I do have to ask if the LDS church is also keeping tabs on its members. Had the owner given less than $100, her identity would have been secret. I read stories about LDS members being expected to contribute. Was her contribution solicited in her stake house?

Kevin, are you holding that individuals don't have the right to freely organize? If a business owner contributed to an measure to eliminate church operated schools would you still want to do business with him?

Possibly you have so internalized the "defend", "redefine" marriage line that you can't wrap your head around the idea that others might see your efforts as a serious attack on the civil rights of a small group on what, in a few years, will likely turn out to be no big deal.

One other matter here on the over-the-top activities of the LDS Church in the same sex marriage issue. I have to wonder if this is nothing more than an attempt to buy acceptance from the Christian Right (thinking of the Hinckley memo). If it was, than the geezers (check out the ages of the 12)at the top were willing to send a number of their flock to financial slaughter (so to speak), as well as attack the civil rights of a minority, in order to advance a largely political agenda. Just wondering.

Same-sex attraction is a painful disorder most often caused by the absence of personal affirmation during one's early childhood or adolescence. The deep wound that results can be healed and the brokenness repaired. Not however by immersing oneself in an enclave of alienated and angry souls, nor by channeling the innate desire for acceptance into futile, rage-filled pursuits of self-deception. Seeking social approval by engaging in thuggish street theater, the composing of enemy lists, storming houses of worship and seeking the suppression of religious institutions and practices only further entrap one in the very way of life that is the root of profound unhappiness. No government can reconstruct reality and no amount of Orwellian massaging of language can obscure the truth; same-sex attraction is a heavy Cross. Several ministries have emerged, Simon-like to break the cycle of despair and self-degradation that oppresses those afflicted by same-sex attraction.

Hell releases no prisoners willingly and prefers the captives remain shackled by the chains of destructive desires. The empty agitating for the State's imprimatur will shackle many, while ghouls hope the measures below seal-off the only true means of liberation;

The survey revealed that over 350 separate state anti-discrimination provisions would likely be triggered by recognition of same-sex marriage.... Based on this data, we conclude that if same-sex marriage is recognized by courts or legislatures, people and institutions who have conscientious objections to facilitating same-sex marriage will likely be sued under existing anti-discrimination laws—laws never intended for that purpose. Lawsuits will likely arise when religious people or religious organizations choose, based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, not to hire individuals in same-sex marriages, refuse to extend spousal benefits to same-sex spouses, refuse to make their property or services available for same-sex marriage ceremonies or other events affirming same-sex marriage, or refuse to provide otherwise available housing to same-sex couples. http://www.becketfund.org

And the same study points out that California provides religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws rendering your objection irrelevant in the case of same sex marriage in California (not that I agree with your quoted paragraph given the First Amendment of the US Constitution).

I don't care about the psychological and religious stuff that preceeded that point; it is also irrelevant. Even granting you are correct (and I don't), gay folk who form relationships will still have the same legal issues to deal with as opposite sex couples and that is an equal protection matter and that is all I care about. The rest is none of my (or your) business.

You make the personal, political and defend the hounding people from their places of business and are too consumed by the totalitarian impulse to be trusted with matters of law. Also, the reductionism you promulgate is another example of cultural decay. Marriage is not a mere "contract" covering a mundane, private "transaction" of elastic meaning and indeterminate ends. Even may of those with same-sex attraction understand that, as the quote below from Lee Harris indicates.

The preservation and transmission of civilized standards are the obligation and "business" of everyone. I think you've exhausted your supply of anthropology-free canards, all in the service of leveling the family as part of a social experiment in "progressive" novelty.


"This is why for most people, including many gay men and women, the immediate response to the idea of gay marriage came at the gut level -- it somehow felt funny and wrong, and it felt this way long before they were able to spare a moment's reflection on the question of whether they were for it or against it. There is a reason for that: They were overwhelmed at having been asked the question at all...One of the preconditions of a civilization is that there is a fundamental ethical baseline below which it cannot be allowed to fall. Unless there is a deep and massive and unthinking commitment on the part of most people to the well-being not merely of their children, but of their children's children, then the essential transgenerational duty of preserving the ethical baseline of our civilization will become a matter of hit-and-miss. It may be performed, but there is no longer any guarantee that it will be. The guarantee comes from shining examples."
Lee Harris
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2932146.html
from Rod Dreher's blog

I think they forfitited the personal refuge when they used the political to meddle in the personal relationships of strangers.

"Unless there is a deep and massive and unthinking commitment on the part of most people to the well-being not merely of their children, but of their children's children, then the essential transgenerational duty of preserving the ethical baseline of our civilization will become a matter of hit-and-miss."

A number of years ago I was walking up a flight of steps at a temple in Nepal. As I came to the top I found a pair of monkeys, a mother and her child. The mother's back was to me and my sudden appearance startled her offspring who became alarmed. The mother wheeled around and attacked me. Natural limitations in communication prevented my explaining myself so I just ran, fast. She had a "deep and massive and unthinking commitment" to the welfare of her child and she also had her limits. Why you think that similar unthinking behavior is admirable in homo sapiens is beyond me. It is a good description of conservative thinking though.

"Marriage is not a mere "contract" covering a mundane, private "transaction" of elastic meaning and indeterminate ends."

Yes it is. "300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the
parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone
does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the
issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this
division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing
with Section 500)."

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310

"The preservation and transmission of civilized standards are the obligation and "business" of everyone. I think you've exhausted your supply of anthropology-free canards, all in the service of leveling the family as part of a social experiment in "progressive" novelty."

I value and take seriously concepts like due process and equal protection, you seem to put your theology and personal problems with other peoples consensual behavior above the rule of law. "Leveling the family" is a slogan not a serious idea.

The mother wheeled around and attacked me. Natural limitations in communication prevented my explaining myself so I just ran, fast.

Perhaps your prideful bearing and attire (were you wearing a Planned Parenthood T-shirt?)gave you away as an exceptionally aggressive representative of a technological civilization that does "not care about the psychological and religious stuff", or any other irrational forms, customs and traditions that can't be measured by machines. Maybe she intuitively knew that you appeal to no higher authority than the State, and your conception of marriage is identical to that of a permit issued by the Motor Vehicles Department. Given your low regard for human babies and glib indifference to the causes and conditions of same-sex attraction, is it any wonder she sensed a threat and acted accordingly? You should do a little soul-searching Al and ask, what it is about you that causes these reactions.

I love the irony in positing a simian person (esp. under the classic Danger Will Robinson threat level) to make a case that gay adult couples are too risky and strange.

That Kevin quoted the statement he used with approval is actually reflective of a general problem with conservatism, one that has been addressed at the American Conservative and other places since the recent election.

Conservatism as an impulse is perfectly reasonable. Translating that impulse into a useful philosophy has proven difficult and into a movement, dangerous and destructive.

There is nothing wrong with starting with the proposition that since something has always been a certain way, it should persist, but that is only an analytical starting point.

The ape is guided by maternal instincts (so pre-modern and unenlightened) and incapable of arguing the life-sustaining merits of traditional marriage and the social value of other human constructs. Understandably, she panicked when placed in close proximity to a man suffering from a similar shortcoming. The monkey “understands” an ordered existence is essential, if not perfect, but only because she is hard-wired for self-preservation.

"The monkey “understands” an ordered existence is essential, if not perfect, but only because she is hard-wired for self-preservation."

Sullivan linked to this item which you might find interesting.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12599247

Trying to make a monkey out of me? The link doesn't work.

just tried it twice, worked fine.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.