Today one man, one homosexual judge, has decided for a nation that the people of a state do not have the right to conserve ancient societal institutions such as marriage. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative, passed by the voters in 2008, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Doubtless a river of ink will be spilled over this ruling and its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The questions, the searing questions for Christians are these: What was actually at stake? What, if anything, was lost today?
Was it the name of marriage, its definition, or its fundamental lived reality?
Certainly the definition of what constitutes marriage was dealt a deadly blow in one judicial ruling. But then, the very identity of marriage has been suffering death by a thousand cuts for decades. Marriage was always understood to reserve certain goods for heterosexual couples who promised their lives to one another in sacred oath.
Sexual activity, the procreating of children, adoption, rights of inheritance, rights of visitation, joint ownerships and contracts, joint rental leases, tax benefits, spousal coverage on insurance, have all been goods of marriage. One by one, each has been given away over the past few decades to cohabiting couples, both heterosexual and homosexual/lesbian.
Gays and lesbians may adopt children, whom society has decided do not need both a mother and a father for optimal healthy development.
Sodomy laws have been struck down.
Cohabitation outside of marriage is the norm.
Same-sex partners may share health benefits and have full hospital visitation rights.
Same-sex partners may cosign leases and mortgages.
Same-sex couples have domestic partnerships, quasi-marriage.
The list goes on and on. One by one the goods reserved to marriage have been given away without a firestorm of protest. The result is that gays and lesbians now have marriage in everything but name only. If we have not formally redefined marriage up to this point, we have done so operationally. Anger over Vaughn’s decision, while understandable, is a little like closing the barn door after the horses have gone.
Assuming the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Vaughn and restores the right of the people to define marriage, this will be a very small victory for marriage. No-fault divorce has done more to destroy marriage than all of the gay weddings times a thousand. We heterosexuals have been poor custodians of God’s great institution. Assuming a Supreme Court victory for traditionalists, what then?
Do we then turn our sights on cheap and easy divorces? Do we dare attempt to reclaim the goods of marriage and reserve them to heterosexual married couples only? Are we ready for that series of battles?
Or do we simply claim victory in a semantic skirmish and concede the war?
We have become too comfortable for far too long. Perhaps we dared not oppose the systematic surrender of marriage’s goods because of guilt over our rampant use of porn, rampant rates of adultery and divorce. Perhaps we were too busy with other pursuits, material acquisition and easy living, to man the barricades.
In his first homily as Pope, Benedict XVI reminded the Church that we were not made for comfort, but for greatness. Our collective shrug at the systematic looting of marriage’s goods points to our need to heed the Holy Father’s call to reorient ourselves toward greatness, and not a moment too soon.
excellent, introspective post. You have nailed it
Gerry,
Indeed, very insightful. I think there’s definitely something to the shame factor you mentioned regarding porn, adultery, etc. — any integrity we have to stand firm is being corroded by filth. And it affects us all.
Sheila Liaugminas just wrote a piece at Ethika Politika on the ‘Science of Morality’ that your readers might find useful. It certainly dovetails with what you’ve written here:
http://www.cfmpl.org/blog/?p=986
Thanks for your good work and thoughtful writing!
Solution: Restore the original meaning to the word by getting the government out of the marriage business. All state “marriages” should be civil unions.
Leave marriage to the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.
Mark 12:17.
L.
Marriage is a natural institution, and it is deeply in the states’ interest to recognize and promote healthy marriage. This is part of the natural law. The family is the basic unit of society. Marriage can be sacramental as well but it is also natural. Trying to make marriage simply a private religious affair will not protect it. Look at the Judge’s number 77 “fact”–he has declared it a fact that religions which declare homosexual behavior wrong, are harmful. Whether the state calls these relationships “civil unions” or “marriages”, eventually this will end in outright persecution of Christians and all who hold to the natural law. Semantics won’t save us once society has gone down this road of full acceptance of homosexuality.
Amen, Rebecca.
Rebecca, my partner and I are legally “married,” and yet the Catholic Church does not bless our union — with which I have no argument. I believe the Church is correct in refusing us the sacrament of marriage, because our union does not qualify. But does that mean we should lose the civil benefits as well?
Members of the Church are no more required to accept homosexuality than any other practices they regard as sinful.
Society has accepted a lot of things that the Church doesn’t — homosexuality is just one more. The full acceptance of homosexuality won’t change it.
there should be special civil benefits to marriage.
In this way, society is demonstrating that it recognizes the “specialness” of marriage, recognizes that it forms the cornerstone of society, and is best for the development and raising of children
Cohabitating couples should get nothing – no special benefits nor tax breaks.
And I’m in favor of families really not supporting young couples who choose this lifestyle at all.
You choose this route – you go it alone because the cost to society and families is too great to support this way of living.
In this manner couples will perhaps think twice about living together.
As it is now, there are more financial costs to being married than cohabitating. This must change.
Eventually we as a society will learn this. But not any time soon.
I know this view is considered “intolerant” but the cost to children and women is simply too high to ignore.
These are the chief victims of cohabitation and marriage breakdown.
L:
In short, no, there should be no recognition of same-sex relationships. Again, this is a matter of natural law. You may disagree, but it is Church teaching that this is a matter of natural law, and it has been recognized as a matter of natural law by philosophers and societies long before Christianity.
It seems to me that in this debate (and from the judge’s wording) people are still trying to recognize one aspect of natural law, and that is that committed permanent relationships between two people are the basis of healthy family life and therefore of a healthy society. I have already read articles glorifying three-partner relationships and short-term relationships as worthy to be sought, so I see that last aspect of natural law going out the window pretty fast. There really is logically not anything now which would bar three people who love each other from getting married, or maybe even four or five. Or siblings, or anyone. In fact, why should you have to even be in a sexual relationship at all in order to be married? Why does that have anything at all to do with raising children, in the mind of the people who are behind this ruling? That nature intends a man and a woman to be the heart of a marriage is the most fundamental thing, and once you make that questionable, everything else based on that also is destroyed.
Yes, committed permanent relationships between people are the basis of healthy family life and therefore of a healthy society.
But nothing is really at stake. Heterosexuality will always be the norm, simply because the overwhelming majority of people are heterosexual. Monogamy will also remain the dominant trend, simply because again, most couples prefer to live that way.
The gay agenda is about ensuring the minority has basic civil rights.
It is not about forcing churches to marry couples that don’t qualify, or forcing people who consider such partnerships to think that they are anything but unholy and evil.
It is rare that any post in any web page should startle the imagination of any conservative, for we have long since abandoned the barricades as spoken here. Are we fighting a rear guard action? I think not. But I cannot given the space here allocate the reasons why, let reality as of November reveal.
I think it reasonable to add the following: the premise that liberal feminists make destroys the true understanding of womenhood, whether wife, mother or head of household. Why agitate from within the false premise of all idealist philosophy? Haven’t all modernist’s begin by questioning the ‘res’ that grounds reality. They ignore both the intrinsic worth of both nature and nature emboding realism. By pursuing a strict historical, naturalist ratio within an observed phenomenology never permits the true understanding of the nature of ‘being a mother’ to be revealed. When will conservatives understand that faith is not an ideology imposed on the human person? Have not Michel Foucault, Derrida, and host’s of Edward Said’s done enough damage? Maybe what’s required is to expose the ultra-modernists movement throughout the west as an adjunct of all positivist movements, which are themselves the children of false idealism’s.
The realism required to succeed is found in the repose granted in nature as ‘self evident truths’. Yes the political is the handmaiden of theology. But first, we must wage war against the gods and idols of modernity in Faucault, Derrida and hosts of others who false propagate that ‘man makes himself’. This was always the modernist dream. When will conservatives realize that the ‘power’ so elegantly demonized within the modernist purview can be unmasked as liberty preserving both true freedom, history and nature. In a word: humanness.
Let the war begin.
Peace,
Author of ‘Faith & Reason Collide’
William Holland
wholland68@yahoo.com
wjholland.wordpress.com
“Let the war begin?”
It is already being waged every day, everywhere, with every fiber of our beings.
And at least in my own home, the liberal feminists are winning.
Really, L? Look again at the wording of fact number 77. Those are fighting words. The movement will not be satisfied with tolerating Catholicism or any other religion which insists on observation of the natural law and will not participate in actions which violate it. Already medical students are being forced to participate in abortions; if the trend continues, soon there will be no Catholic doctors or nurses. If you say this is about ensuring the minority has basic civil rights, then you are comparing this to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Was it okay, after that, for people to have segregated seating in their restaurant? Could they really continue to hold that blacks were inferior, and practice what they held in a public way? No, of course not. And thank goodness, because what they held was in fact wrong and bad. But *if* you say that allowing homosexuals to marry or have civil unions, etc., and this is just ensuring basic civil rights, then of course eventually this will mean that Churches will not be able to refuse to marry homosexuals, schools and parents will be required to indoctrinate children to believe that homosexuality is a valid and normal “lifestyle”, and so on. You would no longer be able to hold a Catholic conference for married couples, excluding homosexuals. Actions follow words.
“You would no longer be able to hold a Catholic conference for married couples, excluding homosexuals.”
Sure, you would — the Church can even exclude legally married heterosexuals who don’t fit its own definition of “married.”
It can exclude people who are legally divorced, but whose marriages were not annulled. It can exclude people who refuse to promise to raise their children in the religion.
It can refuse to include ANYONE who it determines is not in full communion with its principles — and people who openly declare to be engaging in homosexual acts certainly fit this bill!
As for the notion that parents will be required to “indoctrinate” their children, did de-criminalizing adultery and sodomy mean that parents had to teach their children that these practices are just fine, just because they’re legal and some people choose to do them?
The message will stay the same. Our Church will continue teaching that homosexuality is an intrinsic evil, but we are still called to love the sinners while hating the sin.
Rebecca I quite agree with you and in fact much of this is already happening.
In Canada, civil servants MUST marry homosexuals. They cannot refuse if they wish to keep their job.
In British Columbia, two homosexuals have designed what is essentially a course in the indoctrination of very young children about the benefits of the homosexual lifestyle. Parents cannot withdraw their children from the courses.
In Ontario an attempt was made to do this but public outcry led the provincial government to withdraw the course – for the time being.
Christian couples who run bed and breakfast homes out of their OWN home cannot refuse a homosexual couple under their roof.
Catholic parish halls run by the Knights of Columbus MUST rent to homosexuals holding “marriage” receptions.
In each of these cases, homosexuals KNOW they can go elsewhere to obtain the services but they choose to force their ideology down the throats of people they know believe that their lifestyle is sinful.
This is all part of a carefully planned assault on heterosexuals who are considered by the homosexual movement to be “breeders”.
I can easily forsee the day when Catholic priests will be jailed for preaching against the homosexual lifestyle.
And yes we are called to love sinners and hate the sin but that many times loving sinners means telling the truth to them. And that truth is that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful. That truth is that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman for life.
As Christ once said, “this is a hard teaching”.
Anything else is a lie.
From Mercator Net some interesting quotes:
“Walker sardonically depicted the testimony of the pro-marriage side as ill-educated, ill-informed, and moronically inarticulate. When he asked the counsel for the Proposition 8 side why the state had an interest in ensuring that marriage was procreative, the lawyer replied, “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.” ”
of course the lawyer doesn’t know because because this is what 50 years of contraceptive mentality has led to.
Marriage is for having children? What an ignorant passe idea!
“However, the champions of marriage had already deserted the field. California Attorney-General Jerry Brown and all of the state officials named in the lawsuit refused to defend the decision of their constituents, as they had been elected to do. Once the State of California refused to defend its own constitution, the battle was lost.”
as with the abortion debate, always those who should be defending common sense and the truth desert the cause in the end…..
all that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.
Look at how gay activists have forced an implicit recognition of homosexuality as being “normal”. No, it certainly isn’t.
I’ve known several homosexuals. Every single one, when left to reminisce long enough, would reveal a “twisted” background that usually involved a tremendous amount of abuse suffered in childhood. The abuse didn’t have to be sexual in nature either.
I know my example is extremely anecdotal, but with everybody quoting their favorite “expert” to either support or attack the idea of gay marriage, what else is left except personal anecdotes to rely on?
So now the argument starts from the premise of granting basic “rights” to a minority. No mention made if the minority is dysfunctional in nature, that isn’t allowed anymore. The terms have been changed. The deck is stacked.
Those of us who support traditional morality will lose as long as this continues. End of story.
“No mention made if the minority is dysfunctional in nature, that isn’t allowed anymore.” —>
Interracial couples were once considered “dysfunctional in nature.” This has fortunately changed, partly thanks to a Supreme Court ruling in my own lifetime.
Still, attitudes remained — my own grandmother felt sorry for her great-grandchildren because they weren’t “all white,” and they practice pagan traditions in addition to Catholic ones. She found this all greatly disturbing and morally wrong.
Needless to say, I am not a great fan of such traditional morality.
But L…have you ever heard of “adultery pride” parades or the introduction of bills which would require kindergarteners to read about the lives of famous fornicators? Or preaching against adultery being called a “hate crime”? No? I haven’t either. I really haven’t. It just doesn’t seem to me that fornicators and adulterers are so eager to make sure that everyone concurs and children are brought up to think that fornication and adultery are just as good and noble as marriage. At least, not in such an overt, coercive way, though sure, there’s a lot of stuff which becomes normalized through TV, movies, etc.
L, this is my question now: Why is it that only people who are in a sexual relationship should be able to be married? Why isn’t that discrimination against, say, roommates or siblings who might like to marry and receive some state benefits as well? What is it about sexuality that should be prioritized by the state?
In fact, why shouldn’t the man who is committing adultery have the right to marry the woman he is committing adultery with, while remaining married to his first wife? Isn’t marriage a basic right, and why shouldn’t three people who love eachother be entitled to be married, too? I read an article recently about such love triangles and how misunderstood these people are. Why excude them? I am not being rhetorical here; I really would like to know what is the argument for including homosexual unions under the definition of marriage while excluding the other things I’ve mentioned.
Rebecca, as far as I understand it, sexuality isn’t an issue — there is currently no requirement for roommates of other gender to prove they have a sexual relationship in order to qualify for marriage.
As for siblings. because they are blood relatives, they already have property rights, hospital visitation rights, etc.
As for polygamy, I personally wouldn’t mind making that legal, too — I sure do wish my partner could marry another wife — a stay-at-home wife, to take care of the kids, and cook and clean up, you know?
Okay, let’s finish up then–according to you, friends can be married regardless of gender. And marriage should not necessarily imply a romantic relationship. So then, shouldn’t silblings also be allowed to marry one another? And shouldn’t more than two people be able to marry one another? Please just define for me what marriage really means or should mean, how many are to be involved, and who it may include or exclude. Please, I am trying to understand your POV.
I posted my comment before I had read your polygamy comment. Okay then. Now that I’m thoroughly confused, I really must have from you a definition of marriage, one that will be lasting, non-discriminatory, and pleasing to all generations to come.
My personal point of view is that consenting adults who want to commit to each other and be responsible for each other’s communal obligations according to local law should be able to form civil unions — not “marriages.” I think we should stop calling them that.
It would be fine with me if siblings wanted to have such unions — and I personally don’t care if siblings want to have consensual romantic relationships.
And I personally don’t see anything wrong with a man having more than one wife, or a woman having more than one husband, provided all of the people involved are consenting adults — though such arrangments are naturally confusing, and I think so few people would want to do this that legalizing such unions might never come up as a serious issue. But those fundamentalists Mormons? As long as they’re not abusing their kids, I have no problems with the way they’re living.
What does “marriage” really mean? It means something different to everyone — there is not one definition, but billions.
And yes, friends can certainly be married, regardless of gender. My own partner is a close friend who I happened to marry to get the legal benefits.
Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I understand that you’re saying marriage can be defined in whatever way you’d like, and you prefer the notion of civil unions. So civil unions should be able to be between perhaps a multitude of people, but there’s some kind of definition–in your words, “consenting adults who want to commit to each other and be responsible for each other’s communal obligations”. So “committing” to each other would mean, right, that you intend the civil union to be permanent, and I think being responsible for each other’s communal obligations would have to do with co-signing for loans, etc? Taking care of children together, if children are part of the picture? Now my question about the civil unions is this–why should people in a civil union receive special state benefits? Short answer is fine; I’m just looking for the gist of the position. Is there any reason, for example, that if my husband dies and I go with my children to live with my parents, that I should not enter into a civil union with my parents, and receive state benefits?
Why would anyone need to enter a civil union with his/her parents? The legal ties are already there — the inheritance laws, the right to sponsor family members who want to emigrate to other countries, etc. — same with siblings. What other “special state benefits” are there?
As for communal obligations, I believe in some places, spouses can be held responsible for each other’s debts, and yes, also responsible for care of children.
Okay, but my main question is, why should there be any state benefits (tax breaks, etc) for people in civil unions?
Civil unions contribute to stability, because their members commit to reciprocal longterm obligations. In exchange, they should get tax breaks, and the right to immigration sponsorship (that last part is personally important to me, who “married” to essentially commit immigration fraud).
“Civil unions contribute to stability, because their members commit to reciprocal longterm obligations.”
Thank you for answering. I will mull this one over.
And as peripherally related post-script, I would like to add that my own very elderly, devout Catholic father supports the legalization of gay marriage (or civil unions), even as he remains deeply morally opposed to it and believes the people involved are, in his words, “sick.”
Perhaps he believes that giving gays more legal rights will encourage them to “take care of their own?”
I hate to say this but most progressive Christians have no difficulty with this. Not because we do not hold a high value bible or tradition we actually respect both enough to be honest at the various changes and understandings that have happened throughout the history of Christianity as the faith has matured. In each decade of the Church there has been an understanding that to understand scripture one needed to lean away from the literalist viewpoint even Augustine said that if he had to accept the Bible literally he would not have become a christian.
Man’s understanding of the universe around him that God created as always changed. What has stayed static in the faith is the principles of faithfulness, love, community, transformation, the incarnation, and the virtues that underline all we do in the faith. The church gets hung up on so many times its petty interpretations on marriage or some other verse written for a venue long dead and gone but misses the mystical meanings underneath them.
I believe that we have lost nothing but have a lot to gain in this debate. Faithful monogamous Homosexual relationships that will learn from their Heterosexual counterparts. I am not gay but admittedly liberal in my theological bent. I thank God for my Church’s stand to be a witness to the idea of faithful Homosexual relationships, gay marriage, and celibacy if it is God’s will.
Mary above said, “Cohabitating couples should get nothing – no special benefits nor tax breaks.”
But how to define “cohabitating?”
The Catholic Church believes that me and my partner are cohabitating, because we failed to agree on a religion. (Fortunately, the immigration departments of our respective countries had a different definition!)
By L.
“What does “marriage” really mean? It means something different to everyone — there is not one definition, but billions.”
To comunicate with another person, one must have a mutual definition of a word. As a word increases in it’s enumerated “meanings/definitions”, communication is diminished.
When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
Through the Looking Glass.
By L.
“It would be fine with me if siblings wanted to have such unions — and I personally don’t care if siblings want to have consensual romantic relationships.”
I’ll have a “greeting mat” made for you, L. What size?
WELCOME
Mom have no burden,
if bro and sis be a flirtin’
WELCOME
Marriage “really means” billions.
Astran — is this better?
Marriage: A covenant which one baptized, Catholic man and one baptized, Catholic woman make, to have and to hold, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and cherish until death do they part, for the purpose of serving each other and God in the procreation and education of offspring.
My own definition of my own marriage: A status conferred by the state on at least two consenting adult individuals who seek to commit to reciprocal longterm obligations to obtain legal recognition of kinship.
Gay people can’t enter into the first kind of marriage — and plenty of straight people can’t, either.
What they will get is the second kind of marriage — so is it really marriage? Can calling it make it so? Does it matter if you call it “marriage,” “civil union,” “getting hitched” or whatever — will it ever be the first kind? No, not that I can see. Not ever.
Okay, while I’m here in Tokyo and all of you over there are probably still asleep, I can ask this: is it possible for homosexuals to have a Josephite marriage?
As you might have guessed, I am asking because I know someone who might fit this definition (though I don’t know him well enough to ask him if he and his room mate are indeed 100% chaste). He is deeply religious, employed by his local Archdiocese and identifies himself only as “called to the single life.” Someone I know, going through some of his paperwork, happened to accidentally stumble across…..their gay marriage certificate.
If he and his partner (whom is also deeply devout) believe that homosexual actions are sinful and are choosing to live together in a chaste relationship, and are committed to caring for each other for the remainder of their lives, would conferring some sort of civil union status on their relationship make society more stable, or less?
the bottom line is that social research has shown again and again that the most stable relationships are marriages between men and women.
Children also thrive best and financially and emotionally adults and children do best in marriages. I don’t know if any research has been done comparing civil marriages to marriages undertaken in a religious ceremony. But I”m betting the most stable and happiest marriages are those of couples who have a good prayer life.
Rebecca, at the rate we are going it won’t be long before all poly people wll be allowed to marry. This despite the fact that research has demonstrated that polgamy benefits (once again) only the man.
I know a friend of mine stumbled onto a poly conference where couples were “misbehaving” openly in a public place while police did absolutely nothing. He was also a police officer and was told by the attending officers that they were to ignore anything and everything that happened because they didn’t want to cause a problem!
So this is how society has degraded in a very short time. All in the name of acceptance.
The whole ball began to roll when society allowed widespread divorce. Part of the problem I feel was the acceptance in Western society (particularly British) of the mistress. Once marriage was no longer deemed “sacred” it has been very difficult to protect much.
It’s such a shame that so many see marriage as a form of bondage, such that they feel all they need is each other’s word. We all know how well that works out when we only have ourselves to answer to.
L, can I ask if yours is the common view? Is this what most homosexuals think about marriage and civil unions? Do most homosexuals not really want marriage for themselves, but to take marriage out of the forum of the state altogether and replace it with civil unions?
Rebecca, I don’t claim to know what “most” homosexuals want. The ones I personally know just want to marry their partners and have the same legal status and rights as married heterosexual couples, and aren’t out to replace all other people’s marriage with civil unions.
I’m the one who wants that, and wants the government to get out of the business of sanctifying some unions with the “marriage” word — and I’m not even gay.
Rebecca I am convinced that most homosexuals see marriage as one part of the whole strategy to ensure that their entire spectrum of lifestyles from trans to poly is accepted. In order to accomplish this end, not only are they determined to change what marriage is but they are also very keen to ensure that children are taught early that everything about the homosexual lifestyle is normal and acceptable. No child must ever be excluded from this indoctrination including those whose religion believe that homosexual acts themselves are morally evil. Parents, particularly Christian parents are definitely the enemy.
This is why the homosexual movement itself is so dangerous. Because they have moved from simply wanting acceptance to a form of soft totalistarianism where beliefs are deemed hate and punishable by very harsh sentences. In their bid for acceptable there is zero tolerance for anything anti-gay. They do not care whose lives they destroy, how many business they ruin and how many young adults never receive the treatment that might have helped them.
The couple that I mentioned in an above comment had a definite right to determine who slept in their Christian home/business. They were a simple couple who just wanted to do something they loved after retirement. They had to close the home.
The homosexual couple that did this – do they feel proud of themselves? These are “typical” homosexuals that L is talking about. To compare this with being black or marrying someone from another ethnic group is insufficient. We are talking about immoral behavior and being forced to be complicit in something that you truly believe to be immoral and unhealthy. And that is the crux of the whole problem.
L, kind of off-topic, but are you aware that you are in dissent with the teaching of the Church in this matter? Is your father aware of this? I mean, I know that a lot of Catholics don’t care whether they are in dissent or are proud of it, but I thought I ought to just mention it…this is dissent on de fide teaching based on natural law, not a matter of discipline which can be changed.
“The couple that I mentioned in an above comment had a definite right to determine who slept in their Christian home/business. They were a simple couple who just wanted to do something they loved after retirement. They had to close the home.” —>
Did they open their home to unmarried heterosexual couples, too? Or couples like mine, which are legal “marriages” but which some churches consider unholy, illicit unions? Or did they carefully screen their guests, and allow only Christian-wed couples?
A private property owner has a definite right to exclude anyone from his property, but as soon as he opens his business to the public….then we’re back to the whole lunch counter thing.
Also, I knew quite a few Catholic gay couples, who definitely don’t have “zero tolerance for anything anti-gay.”
Yes, Dr. Nadal, I am aware I am in dissent. I dissent on contraception and abortion, too. I am aware that these opinions mean I am not in full communion with my church.
And fear not , I do not claim that it is possible to dissent, and still be a “good” Catholic.
As for what my father thinks on the issue…..um, I don’t really know. Nor do I particularly care.
except that as a business owner they do have the right to conduct their business in a way that they see is ethical and done according to their conscience- in this case they view homosexuality as immoral. Their house was private property. They lived there as well as ran a home based business.
In the same manner an ad company would not print brochures for a gay conference. They were also shut down.
The owner started a new company and still will not print wedding invites for homosexuals. He has a right to conduct his business as he sees fit and as he can according to his conscience. And the courts so far have agreed with him.
I believe most western countries allow people to practice freedom of religion or are homosexuals now out to rid us of that “hatred”?
Hatred as a weapon. That is exactly what homosexuals are using.
“L, kind of off-topic, but are you aware that you are in dissent with the teaching of the Church in this matter?”
”
ah, my sweet Rebecca. Many “catholics” care not that they are in dissent. It is a great mystery to many true Catholics as to why these people actually stay in the church. People like Nancy Pelosi for example, have been excommunicated many times over by their actions. Yet still they insist they are devout Catholics!
L.
Some people have no more sense then a baby.
All the unbirthdays
gaijen way’s
narrow walls do sway.
We all turn older
on one day.
It’s the Kempeitai way.
But the Imperor
and all his men
can’t put L together again,
Kitsune kissed her sin.
Hikikomori show the way
No swan, no job, no way to sin,
I murder seven, miss 10.
Maybe flirt with sister, never again.
The Bell’s of Nagasaki
make me choke on tempura sin.
Jisei no uta
Miki Miki your so fine
L can’t figure out this line.
Hachiko Hachiko
L turn her eyes away from you.
Sweep the floor
Tend my kids
what you good for.
It’s all Jobberwocky.
Astran, I think I understand the gyst of your poem, but some of the lines are kind of head-scratchers. Turn my eyes away from Hachiko…?
“…except that as a business owner they do have the right to conduct their business in a way that they see is ethical and done according to their conscience.”
Ah, nope! Same with the wedding invites.
Okay, this hits a little too close to home (and perhaps to astran’s poem?), when I was a teenager and first dating my partner here in Japan, 25 years ago, in a traditional Japanese city.
There were people who didn’t approve of interracial dating — they thought it was just plain wrong. Lots of business in this town were based in homes — did they have a right not to serve us?
We had our wedding reception at an inn in this city. Would such people have been within their rights to insist they could conduct their business in a way that they see is ethical and done according to their conscience?
“It is a great mystery to many true Catholics as to why these people actually stay in the church.” — >
A great mystery to me, as well. It would be far easier to stay home on Sunday morning and make waffles.
I should say, we made a point of NOT patronsizing establishments that didn’t welcome mixed marriages. We still do (but we live in Tokyo now, so it’s been years since this ugly issue reared its head).
I don’t know the circumstances, but if gay couples were staying in at a particular bed and breakfast just to antagonize the owners, I would have say, I don’t agree with those tactics.
My own instinct is to boycott businesses whose principles I oppose.
The same goes for doctors. I once changed doctors rather than return to one who didn’t believe in contraception, and gave me a lecture on premarital sex. Did I want a man like that treating me? No, not when there were other choices.
and I make a point of not patronizing gay business.
My choice. But I don’t go after them. It’s there choice.
Too bad about the doctor. He was a good one who really had your best interests at heart!
The bottom line: to Catholics/Christians the gay lifestyle is immoral and sinful. We should not have to be forced to participate in something we consider to immoral and a great evil. Our beliefs should be respected. There are plenty of opportunities for gays to go elsewhere and have whatever needs they have met just as you left your doctor.
There is no comparison between homosexuality and racism.
There is nothing immoral about being black or Japanese or Tutsi. There is a great deal immoral and unhealthy about the gay lifestyle, whether you would admit it or not.
I’m done here.
“There is nothing immoral about being black or Japanese…”
Of course not. But some people think it’s immoral for someone black or someone Japanese to date/marry someone white like me. That’s the comparison.
“We should not have to be forced to participate in something we consider to immoral and a great evil. Our beliefs should be respected.”
Absolutely, you have rights as private citizens. But these same rights don’t apply to running a public business — unless you want to argue against the whole concept of equal access to public accommodations. How 1964….
the comparison is non sequitur.
and I might add, how 1984 of you…..;)
Heh. Nice try! But as a First-Amendment fanatic, I’m no fan of “right-speak.” I think Catholics have a right to oppose homosexuality on principle, and refrain from associating with homosexuals if they wish. But they need to do this in a private setting, and not in their public businesses.
Still, I can’t imagine it would be all that hard — many private country clubs have figured out how to exclude whomever they want, and still manage to stay in business.
L.
Do you know who Hachiko is? He’s at the Shibuya train station.
What does Jisei no uta translate to? Who sings “the” jisei no uta? One “jisei no uta” was Psalm 31 by Brother Paul Miki.
Do you know the history of tempura?
You have the attributes of nogitsune/ Kitsune.
Coincidentally, I was in front of the Hachiko statue yesterday, which is why I asked you what you meant when you said, “L turn her eyes away from you.”
Yes, I am quite familiar with Nagasaki Catholics, the history of tempura and “jisei no uta” — hearing a lot about the history especially this time of year, with the 65th bombing anniversary this week.
The only reference I didn’t get is the one to Hachiko. (Did you know you can see the remains of the actual dog, stuffed and mounted, in a museum in Ueno?)
And I’m really no kitsune (rain or shine — rain, when it comes to weddings, I guess) — When it comest to mythical animals, I’ve favored tanuki. But without the big….you know what.
Are you in Tokyo, too? Do you ever go to the Franciscan Chapel Center?
L, the discrimination business is definitely newspeak. When a Catholic couple running an in refuses to allow a homosexual couple to rent a room, you call it “discrimination”, which makes it look like the issue is about the people. The issue is not about the people, it is about an action. It is about aiding and abetting sinful activity, which would itself be a sin. Let’s say a man and woman asked to rent the room, and the man told you he intended to kill his wife that night. Would you say, if the couple refused to rent the room, that they were “discriminating” against murderers? No, they are refusing to aid in a murder. A Catholic restaurant owner, on the other hand, does not have an obligation to avoid serving homosexuals (unless they are behaving inappropriately), because any “aiding” of their lifestyle is too remote to be worth mentioning.
You’re trying to act as though we can as a society remain neutral on the topic of whether homosexual behavior is acceptable, but in fact, society must make a judgment. It must either say this is good and normal (as with interracial marriage) or it must say this is perverse and unacceptable. Not allowing Catholics to run businesses refusing to be accomplice to homosexual behavior, and calling it “discrimination”, is newspeak. It is exactly like calling it “discrimination” for hospitals or doctors to refuse to abort babies. Any crime and perversion our confused society has decided to bless is called a right and therefore anyone who disagrees is “discriminating”.
“The issue is not about the people, it is about an action.”
So Rebecca, in your view, innkeepers should be allowed to refuse to rent rooms to unmarried couples as well, who are fornicating or committing adultery, to avoid being an accomplice to sin? Or to couples whose marriages are not recognized by any church?
And if they are among the minority (once a majority) who still truly believe that interracial couples violate natural law, and are therefore sinful, they should also be allowed to refuse to rent a room to a mixed-race couple, to avoid being an accomplice in this?
You used the example of murder — should they be able to make sure the couple doesn’t use any abortifacient contraception on their premises?
You know, maybe there is a real need in society for a private chain of “Judeo-Christian” bed & breakfast establishments, where the righteous can stay and know that nothing unseemly ever occurred in the bed in which they are sleeping.
“Any crime and perversion our confused society has decided to bless is called a right and therefore anyone who disagrees is “discriminating.’” —> Agreed.
You call it perversion, I call it discrimination — the law used to be on your side, now it’s on mine, and no matter what’s legal, neither of us is likely to change our opinion.
I also think you still have every right to call it a perversion, even if it’s no longer a crime. Um…except in places like Uganda.
“So Rebecca, in your view, innkeepers should be allowed to refuse to rent rooms to unmarried couples as well, who are fornicating or committing adultery, to avoid being an accomplice to sin? Or to couples whose marriages are not recognized by any church?”
Of course, L. Haven’t you ever seen an old movie, where a couple who isn’t married has to stay in the same hotel room and make it look as though they are married; typical comical routine? That is because of course a room would not have been rented to them if it had appeared obvious that they were not married.
“And if they are among the minority (once a majority) who still truly believe that interracial couples violate natural law, and are therefore sinful, they should also be allowed to refuse to rent a room to a mixed-race couple, to avoid being an accomplice in this?”
If it were a conscience matter, even though it is an egregiously silly view, I would think government would do better to allow them to refuse the service in a society which emphasizes freedom of religion. I’m not sure about that one.
“You used the example of murder — should they be able to make sure the couple doesn’t use any abortifacient contraception on their premises?
You know, maybe there is a real need in society for a private chain of “Judeo-Christian” bed & breakfast establishments, where the righteous can stay and know that nothing unseemly ever occurred in the bed in which they are sleeping.”
You’re not understanding me. This isn’t about policing people’s beds *at all*. In my example, the man announces to the innkeeper that he intends to kill his wife, or it is otherwise made known clearly. If someone made an intention to kill clear, wouldn’t you do what you could to stop it and not to help it along? Does that imply that you go around doing background checks and psychological examinations on everyone with whom you come in contact? No. Does a priest have to quiz every communicant about his/her state of soul before giving him communion? No. But if a person says to the priest, or if the priest otherwise clearly knows, that he is living in a state of mortal sin, especially public mortal sin, that priest *may not* give him communion. It is not reasonable to quiz people on their sex lives or police them on it, and an owner of an inn would not be morally expected to do so, but if something gravely immoral were made known to him he would need to act according to his conscience.
“Any crime and perversion our confused society has decided to bless is called a right and therefore anyone who disagrees is “discriminating.’” —> Agreed.
You call it perversion, I call it discrimination — the law used to be on your side, now it’s on mine, and no matter what’s legal, neither of us is likely to change our opinion.”
Thank you L for being candid. That is most refreshing. I find you to be rather reasonable in at least some aspects, so I have great hope that you will change your opinion.
“I also think you still have every right to call it a perversion, even if it’s no longer a crime. Um…except in places like Uganda.”
Gee. Thanks. I don’t think this increasingly dictatorial government will be so generous, though. I think it will soon be considered a “hate crime” to call it a perversion.
I’d like to add…thinking about the odd situation of a couple who believes interracial marriage is immoral…though it may be interesting to think and talk about the best way to handle that, I think it is important to remember that with sexuality and marriage we are talking about the fundamental unit of society, the family. This is natural law on the most basic and essential level. Societies definitely have their quirky times and their rough moments, but they seem to come through it if they can at least revere these most basic foundations. Some people in a given society being convinced that interracial marriage is wrong would be silly and harmful, but this would not rip apart society.
Well, as long as “hate crimes” are just those involving intimidation, vandalism and/or assault, I think people will continue to have the right to make accussations of “perversion” to their heart’s content.
I respect other people’s deeply held convictions, even if they are at the opposite extremes of my own, and would vehemently defend the rights of people to express them in a free society.
And guess what — a simple Google search turned up the Web site of an inn in Texas, advertising their honeymoon suite is for “Married Couples Only.”
http://www.fredericksburg-lodging.com/double-b-ranch/honeymoon.html
Is that even legal? I wonder, would they rent the room to me and my partner? We have different last names, and our marriage paperwork is in foreign language. So maybe we would be out of luck!
“Some people in a given society being convinced that interracial marriage is wrong would be silly and harmful, but this would not rip apart society.”
I take it you have never spent any time living in Japan? There are people here utterly convinced that intermarriage is destroying Japanese culture and the purity of the Japanese race — and some of them are basing these beliefs on the native Shinto religion. Fortunately, they are a tiny minority in central Tokyo.
The family is indeed the most fundamental unit of a stable society.
I am not out to destroy the idea of the traditional family — I am just deeply opposed to the notion that ALL families SHOULD be traditional by definition.
hmm, I don’t see why that wouldn’t be legal. It’s still legal to have clubs for men or clubs for women, right? Or clubs for brilliant people? Why wouldn’t it be legal to have suites for married couples?
You’re right; I haven’t spent time in Japan, although I still can sing “sakura” from 2nd grade and admire the culture. I’m kind of wondering if the worry about interracial marriage might be more of a concern about losing the ancient customs and culture. Those things can be very intertwined.
L.
So who is Brother Paul Miki?
Tell me about the history of tempura and the history of “farewell songs”? Which class of Japanese are noted for jisei no uta?
Hachiko is quite simple if you know the iconic value of Hachiko. What honor do you show your partner if you “wish my partner could marry another wife”.
Where have you gone Old Hachiko
A nation turns it’s lonely eyes to you.
What’s that you say, Old Hachiko has up and gone away.
There are 200,000 Hikikomori . Who, and what are they?
Who murdered 10 and injured seven in Tokyo?
I know all those answers well, and anyone else interested can easily find them with Google.
And I think you mean, murdered 7 and injured 10, if you’re talking about the Akihabara stabbing incident.
Hachiko was a very faithful dog (with no direct link to Christianity). So I have no right to look upon a statue of a faithful dog because I dishonored my partner with a joke about wishing he would take another wife?
All righty, then.
“I take it you have never spent any time living in Japan? There are people here utterly convinced that intermarriage is destroying Japanese culture and the purity of the Japanese race — and some of them are basing these beliefs on the native Shinto religion. Fortunately, they are a tiny minority in central Tokyo.”
Of course it is destroying Japan, and those who have worked in Africa and been robbed, beat, and turned themself into Hikikomori, in
a last ditch effort to simply do business in Kenya. Eventually the companies left Kenya from the total corruption of that nation.
Kenyans are racist. .
——————————————————
The corruption and graft that have tainted so much of Africa’s leadership in the post-independence period are well-known; the misappropriation of funds, outright theft, incompetence, and cronyism that have characterised too many African governments for decades have been often catalogued. What perhaps is less well understood is how, because of a failure of leadership at the top of the social tree, the culture of corruption – and dependency – has too often eaten its way down to the roots. This theme is explored in my book The Challenge for Africa: A New Vision (Random House, 2009).
The roots of the problem
How much of a barrier this syndrome is to Africa’s development was brought home to me during the five years I served as a member of the Kenyan parliament (2002-07). A single example can make the case.
One day, I was approached by a group of rural farmers who harvested macadamia nuts. These particular farmers sold their nuts into the Japanese market through a Kenyan processor and exporter, who did not appear to be corrupt. The macadamia nuts’ wide variety of uses – as seed, food, and fuel – meant that they were receiving a good price in the market. If a Kenyan macadamia nut-farmer’s trees were already planted and producing nuts to harvest, there was no reason why he should not have succeeded and become wealthy by rural standards.
Nonetheless, the farmers were unhappy. When we met, they explained that, because there was so much money to be made in the macadamia nuts, their neighbours, also farmers, had begun to steal. Now, macadamia nuts need to be fully ripe to be ready for processing, and they are not fully ripe until they fall to the ground. But some people (the farmers told me) had started shaking the trees before the nuts were ripe, in order to make them fall; others had begun climbing the trees and picking the nuts even before they were ripe enough to be shaken from the tree. In the end, the greed had become so enormous that some individuals had simply crept onto the farmers’ land at night, cut down the trees, and hauled them away, so they could harvest every single nut for themselves.
Because the nuts were not ready, the thieves needed – to make best use of their haul – to find ways to make the nuts look ripe. They would, for example, boil them with tea-leaves to change their colour. But when the nuts arrived at a quality-control post in the market outside of Kenya, they were rejected as obviously rotten. The middleman, furious at this interruption in his export-chain and the potential damage done to his reputation by the rotten shipment, told the farmers he wouldn’t buy any more macadamia nuts from them in future.
—————————————————–
What percentage of macadamia nuts are bought by Japan in world trade?
It has nothing to do with Shinto, it has all to do with indigenious corruption of African nations.
You beat up on religion too often,L.
L wrote:
“Hachiko was a very faithful dog (with no direct link to Christianity). So I have no right to look upon a statue of a faithful dog because I dishonored my partner with a joke about wishing he would take another wife?”
And of course you were joking about siblings in “romantic relationships” too!
You can stare all you want at Hachiko, it means, what it means to you—-nothing more and nothing less.
Tell me, L, do you sit around in Japan and tell them that marriage has a “billion definitions” and that brother and sister can be romantic?
“Tell me, L, do you sit around in Japan and tell them that marriage has a ‘billion definitions’ and that brother and sister can be romantic?”
Yes.
Clarification:
I wrote above, “I would like to add that my own very elderly, devout Catholic father supports the legalization of gay marriage (or civil unions), even as he remains deeply morally opposed to it and believes the people involved are, in his words, ‘sick.’”
Checked with Dad, and in fact, he does NOT support calling it “marriage” — he says it’s one of the few things he and Obama both agree upon.
(However, he does support equal rights and protection for gay people, and has several gay golf buddies.)
Dr. Nadal
You really should read this analysis:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=456
As I have always maintained we lost the argument on homosexual marriage years ago (actually 1930 to be exact) because as with abortion the main factor is widespread contraception and the mentality that goes with it.
Thanks Mary. I’ll get to it later today when I’m done with Regina’s “honey-do” list
Here’s more food for thought, by a gay Catholic:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/25/proposition_8_religion/
I try to avoid salon.com thanks very much. I get enough of left leaning junk through the regular media. No need to seek out more.
L.,
I’m off with the children for a day of swimming. I thank you for the Salon.com article and will comment fully later today. For now, I take this observation from the article:
“Rodriguez, who is Mexican-American, gay and a practicing Catholic, refuses to let any single part of himself define the whole. ”
But that’s precisely what’s at issue here. Living an integrated life means that all parts influence one another. When it comes to issues of morality and faith life is not compartmentalized.
Gays demonstrate that, as they are intolerant of anyone who differ with their lifestyle. Their attacks against the Catholic Church are virulent, with gays now trying to slur the clergy as pedophiles, while remarkably 81% of all the pedophilia was committed by….GAY priests!
It is true that no one part defines the whole of a person. But such a fundamental disorientation spills over into every facet of one’s life. Faith, ecclesiology, sociology, anthropology, psychology, criminology, politics, all are caught up in such fundamental definitions.
It’s anything but isolated and harmless.
I’m not saying I agree with every single point made by Mr. Rodriguez (though i likely agree with far more than other commenters here).
As for the compartmentalized part, I can related to it completely — I am American, alien in a foreign land, feminist, working-outside-the-home homemaker, wife, mother and contracepting Catholic, who also refuses to let any single part of myself define the whole. And I believe the are all integrated, so I think I understand why Mr. Rodriguez still considers himself devout and even apparently receives communion despite living openly with his partner.
(Mary, here’s a fun fact: I’m a journalist myself, and many of my own articles appear…..on the Fox News site. I am not kidding.
)
Here’s another Salon link, relevant to the issue of “compartmentalization” —
http://www.salon.com/life/life_stories/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2010/08/08/im_staying_a_christian
It contains this:
“Maybe it’s the believer’s rite of passage — until you’ve encountered this type and had them declare a fundamental component of your identity an ‘abomination,’ you kind of haven’t lived. The challenge is to have your faith tested this way and not blink.”
I don’t think compartmentalization is the correct word, though. To me, that implies a situation in which other situations are denied — such as people cheating on their spouses, and hiding it.
If anything, the authors of the two Salon pieces aren’t hiding anything, and are living very open lives (as I am).
This reminds me of women in my MOPS group (ever hear of them?) who, before I went back to work fulltime, gave me this advice: “You can’t be devoted mother if you are a feminist, especially if you work outside the home. When you are with your children, you are always thinking of your career, and not fully about them. You are short-changing them, by fracturing your attention and priorities, and your children will be raised by a divided, conflicted women.” And yet, this never came to pass.
Maybe
interesting that you self-identify as a “Catholic” since you are not.
This is the unusual thing about modern day apostates.
They continue to call themselves by the faith they don’t believe in.
The disconnect is quite amazing actually.
This may help some to understand the Catholic position on gay marriage:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
“…interesting that you self-identify as a “Catholic” since you are not.”
Not interesting at all, since I am one!
…unless, of course, someone doesn’t believe that it’s the sacrament of baptism that determines who is a Catholic and who isn’t (which in fact it does), or someone insists that dissenters or even excommunicants aren’t Catholic (which in fact they are).
However, as I said before, I am not in full communion with my Church because of some of my opinions. I do not claim to represent the Catholic point of view on every issue, needless to say. If I did — that would be a problem.
L, I’m not going to get into semantics with you. The fact is that you are Catholic in name only but really nothing else. What is the integrity in a position such as that? Really none. In a way it is quite remarkable because young people since the 1960′s decried the older generations for being hypocritical – calling themselves one thing but in practice doing something quite different. The more things change, the more they stay the same!
From the above brilliant document written by Ratzinger:
. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society
another excellent passage:
Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Alllowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
“What is the integrity in a position such as that? Really none.”
Ah, nope. Integrity is all I have, in fact. I am nothing if intellectually honest. I am not a devout Catholic, I’m a dissenting Catholic.
But I have been shown the door, asked to leave, so many times, that I truly have asked myself over and over again why I even bother, and I suppose the answer is that the Church is about far more than just its views on sexuality.
And Ratzinger is dead wrong about homosexuals being deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. But somehow, I doubt he’s losing any sleep over that.
“Alllowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children…”
That one is a real puzzler — “violence?” Child abuse is no laughing matter, but it doesn’t correlate with gayness.
If I believed differently, I would never have entrusted my three children to their former Catholic school, with its openly gay teachers and families.
Then again, Ratzinger probably thinks I violated my children by taking them to the gay pride parade and forcing even the little one to watch the movie “Milk.”
Lets take a break from the issue here and look at what this judge did. If the supreme court does not overturn his ruling they have created precedence that a judge can over turn the will of the people, the voters, at anytime if the minority kicks and screams loud enough.
This whole ruling is a mess.
L wrote.
“Alllowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children…”
That one is a real puzzler — “violence?” Child abuse is no laughing matter, but it doesn’t correlate with gayness
That’s because you didn’t quote the whole truth of Ratzinger.
“Alllowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.”
Puzzle hint: Full development.
Just as Obama’s baseball skill’s are lacking full development, and his basketball skills are minimal, and he is just now enjoying his adolescent phase of full development by being with other young bucks on his 49th birthday. Or golf.
Tell me L, what life lessons can be learned from the life of the iconic young buck as relates to a young human male?
Puzzle hint; Sex and old age..
Just as you looked at Hachiko and didn’t see, soo may we see what you see in a young buck.
Fire away,L.
Judges can indeed overturn the will of the people.
In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that interracial marriage was okay, despite what in some U.S. states was still overwhelming popular opinion against it; same with segregation.
And oddly, some of the same people in California arguing today that the will of the people should be respected when it comes to gay marriage make the exact opposite point when it comes to abortion, in states where voters have rejected abortion restrictions. They think the will of the people should only prevail when it coincides with their own opinions.
Hey L,
what life lessons can be learned/taught to a young human male via the life of a young buck?
Hint: Male hunters prize the buck with the largest horns. Afterall, the horns are worthless to the hunter as a source of food.
Give it a try, there are no wrong answers to the question.
Sorry, Astran, I’m climbing Mt. Fuji today (physically, not metaphorically) and don’t feel like thinking about deer. Plus, I am not entirely sure I understand your question.
Arguably, I haven’t placed my own biological kids into “an environment that is”…”conducive to their full human development,” as defined by the Catholic Church, since I am raising them as gender-neutral as possible (and in doing so I have rejected many aspects of my own maternal role). Yet, I still don’t believe I’ve done them any “violence.” Go figure.
A Catholic is not someone who picks parts of doctrine to believe.
If you don’t believe in the teachings of the Catholic faith you are simply NOT catholic, no matter what you may think.
It’s like saying you are a mouse because you like cheese.
As for dissent, no. That’s what protestants did. They protested against some of the Catholic doctrine. They formed a new religion (Anglicanism/Calvinism etc) which is now pretty much dead – ironically maiinly because of the issue of homosexuality.
Your beliefs are not those of a Catholic – they are more in line with mainstream protestantism.
Sean,
The scary thing is that this judge considers religion to be damaging to society. Which opens a big can of worms? How long before other judges pick up on this and believers are incarcerated for practicing their religion?
He also considers fathers unimportant to the well-being of children – a position all the more puzzling since he’s a (gay) man.
Judge Walker has stated that the only basis of opposition behind gay marriages has been “biases” and “moral disapproval”. So I’m assuming he will be comfortable in legislating a right to incest, polygamy and pedophilia in the near future. After all those who favor such practices claim that they are not harmful.
I think it not long before the Christian churches experience a persecution unlike any since Roman times.
Frightening but necessary to winnow away all the chaff clogging our churches, schools and institutions.
L.
It has nothing to do with Catholicism. It has to do with transmitting simple lessons about life for male children. Although Catholics can look and see in young bucks, a analogy to their theology.
It’s as simple as when a dog or cat walks up to you and wags his tale…..he smells the perfume on you, the perfume before the Fall.
Tell me about what you see, when you look at a young buck. All over the world, animals are icons to transmit the culture that went before them. Just as the swan in Japan is a icon of undying love, a mating for life.
Back from Fuji — unfortunately, didn’t make it to the summit.
“…transmitting simple lessons about life for male children?”
How about, transmitting simple lessons about life for ALL children, both male and female? Parents can naturally do this, of course. But they’re hardly the only members of the herd who can model constuctive role models for impressionable young minds, nor should they be.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I lived apart from my partner for an extended time, so I am well aware of the gap left by an absent father. While nothing replaced him, I started inviting over a young male teacher from my kids’ school, because I don’t dispute how important it is for children to have positive influences from people of both genders.
And Mary, cafeteria Catholics are Catholics, too, despite those who tell them. “if you don’t believe in the teachings of the Catholic faith you are simply NOT catholic, no matter what you may think.” I am Catholic — just not devout, not in full communion with the Church, and not pretending to be. I remain Catholic despite those who pronounce me otherwise (unless, as I said, you don’t believe in the sacrament of baptism).
L wrote
“How about, transmitting simple lessons about life for ALL children, both male and female? Parents can naturally do this, of course. But they’re hardly the only members of the herd who can model constuctive role models for impressionable young minds, nor should they be”
Give it a try, come on L,
what life lessons can be learned/taught to a young human male via the life of a young buck?
You may give a lesson about female deer if you care, but young male bucks have similarities to young adolescent human males.
A young buck is eventually driven off/abandoned by his mother about one year into his life. The female is about 2 years. He is weaned within 8 to ten months and if he has male siblings becomes disruptive to the mother and her female off spring. One disruptive action is “playing fighting” and dominance within the family. Including, friction between his father who does stick around, but not absolutely.
Being incapable of fending for himself(predators included), he joins with other adolescent males, since survival is easier in numbers. Such as finding food sources, or water sources. All the while, practicing fighting for territory and a future mate.
Another words, a adolescent gang, and looking for a female mate. During mating season, and times territorial matters, the gang approaches young females(some still with the mother and even aunts) and procedes to fight with other males to show his natural dominance and ablity to defend himself and the fenmale too.
Meanwhile, the older and wiser male buck sees caution, and looks at his family in a concealed enviroment. If danger arises to his family, he fights and may die, as with a attack of wolves,etc. He will defend his pre-adolescent male off spring also.
On the other hand, the young buck, and his gang, are prancing and fighting, to impress(and mate hopefully) the young female deer, a defence is let down, caution is missing, and the hunter takes his shot. Or, if you wish predators enjoy a meal too.
So, what is the simple lesson here, which applies to male deer ONLY?
You can do it,L.
Puzzle hint; Don’t lose your head over
I asked you to give a life lesson about the young buck and you failed to stand and deliver. And the reason why?
Soo, we now get to the matter of hunters who prize the horns of the deer. Why?
“I asked you to give a life lesson about the young buck and you failed to stand and deliver. And the reason why?”
The reason is that until I read your comment above, I knew nothing (zero, zip, nada) about the lives of young bucks.
Your Obama reference now makes more sense. (And I hope you don’t mean to imply that all middle-aged men who spend their birthdays playing sports with their guy friends are “enjoying [their] adolescent phase of full development by being with other young bucks.” )
And horns? No clue.
My friends who hunt are after meat, not antlers. Venison sausage, very nice.
L.
Which leads back to my point of full human development.
In all deference, your female mind can see young bucks, but didn’t look at the young buck. The lesson has worth only towards males. If you had a male adolescent?, the lesson woudn’t be transmitted in such a manner by you, leaving him to asssign purpose to his life.
Now, to transmit gender neutral allegories/parable about young bucks, you must deny truth, which is defined as the mind conforming to reality. It is reality and truth that the young buck lives to fight for territory and mate with a female buck. If you like to construct a gender neutral/homosexual male deer, go ahead. Now, remember, youth deserve full truth, Don’t end up giving lessons to youth that are half truths, and having them lack reality/truth.
For a lack of good, is nothingmore then the definition of evil.
“The whole truth is generally the ally of virtue; a half-truth is always the ally of some vice” G.K. Chesterton.
BTW, of course those that hunt and take horns, eat the meat. Male deer with large horns are wise and able to defend their life, where others have failed.
By taking a wise. knowledgeable deer, who one may have hunted, and been tricked for years by the buck, represents something.
Just what it is, I leave up to you, again.