I think you're wide of the mark, John.

The coercion in the case of gay marriage lies not in the marriage itself-- one is free to marry or not marry as one pleases. The coercion lies in teaching things to kids who aren't old enough to make sense of them.

So, the anecdote about the cute little Hispanic girl isn't an argument against gay marriage; it's an argument against government-run schools, which are often "captured" by people who really shouldn't be trusted with the power to ram things down the throats of unsuspecting children.

Hale is right.

But how can you insist that gay marriage is somehow going against human nature, given the copious evidence to the contrary? The fact is that millions of people (in this country alone) are gay and many of them want to be married. (And don't appeal to the Magisterium. Until you're ready to accept its teachings on the Iraq war, the death penalty, and other of your bêtes noires, you're on your own. Otherwise you're rending that "seamless garment" you're so proud of.)

At our party on Saturday, you sat and talked with my daughter (one of the young people you said weren't there) and her partner for about an hour. Of course, I assume you were too polite to mention that you think their love is unnatural and that you support efforts to frustrate their desire to be married. But if it came up, how would you justify that to them, to their faces? (Let alone trying to do so to my wife Deborah--it would be a pay-per-view event if you told her that you think that neither of her daughters nor her sister deserve the right to marry!)

To your credit, I don't think you could: the human being in you would overcome the statist. Confronted by the reality of individual human beings rather than the abstraction of "the gays," you'd find your careful arguments dissolving in the face of their obvious love for and commitment to each other. Who knows, you might even remember that moment long enough to make the right decision on November 4th.

(I'm writing a post in response to Hale, so I won't comment here.)

Dave,

In regards to the Magisterium, you simply have your facts wrong.

JP-II's opposition to the Iraq Campaign was based on realpolitic, not on moral grounds. It was never a teaching of the Church, and since 2003 the Holy See supports continued presence of Coalition forces in Iraq.

The Church leans strongly against the death penalty, but does not rule it out. But in fact my position is NOT "pro-death penalty." Rather it is one of bitter anger against the thinking of "anti-death-penalty activist" types, who fawn over criminals while being ice-heartedly indifferent to the victims, to the difficulties of the police, and especially to the communities that are devastated by crime. I would say that the titanic energies poured into saving Tookie almost certainly caused numerous deaths in LA, due to discouraging the forces that fight for the rule of law.

Rose is one of my favorite people--I wish her nothing but happiness. The Church does not in fact have any teaching against being same-sex attracted. (Lots of Catholics are muddled on this point.) In general she is not concerned with feelings, but only with actions. If you confessed to a priest a desire to strangle somebody, he would probably say, "That's nothing, what did you DO?"

The Church says that sex outside of Holy Matrimony, or sex that is not open to procreation, is morally wrong, BUT, that law applies just as much to heterosexuals.

It is important to realize that the Church teaches that morality exists objectively. In fact, that it was woven into creation from the beginning. That natural law exists, objectively. (This is hard for people in our society to grasp, because most of us are, without realizing it, Nominalists.) Catholics hold that even if every living human believed that, say, theft, was not wrong, it would still be exactly as wrong. Even before humans existed, that moral law stood. And it will stand even if humanity becomes extinct.

And, like moral laws, we believe that the Sacraments exist objectively, and exist independently of human belief. Both are as impersonal as the fact that fire will burn you if you touch it. Even if the Holy Father himself performed a same-sex marriage ceremony, the Sacrament would not happen.

In the civil realm, I oppose gay marriage because I think it is really an attack on morality, which is the basis of our free and prosperous society. An attack that is comparable to a leftist politician offering people cradle-to-grave security---I would consider that an attempt to destroy people, by reducing them to dependency and selfishness and socialism. Similarly, I think the gay marriage push is an attempt to destroy people by damaging morality and the family. I believe Rose and Marcie are victims here. (Also, if I did write that "gay marriage is somehow going against human nature," I was imprecise. I suspect that that may be so, but my worry here is that people are being seduced by the possibility of changing human nature. That is, that we are being tempted to be like gods.)

I would have no objection to gay people creating their own institution of commitment--more power to them. And it is interesting that no one is even suggesting that---they always make a bee-line for a core Sacrament.

John writes:

"I would have no objection to gay people creating their own institution of commitment--more power to them. And it is interesting that no one is even suggesting that---they always make a bee-line for a core Sacrament."

Uh, an act performed by the state is a Sacrament??

Talk about mixing religion and politics!

Yeesh.

No sensible person is proposing to force the Church to recognize same-sex marriages, or to not impose some sort of discipline on those who enter into such marriages. The state has no business imposing its will on the Church.

Similarly, the Church, as an organized entity, has no business imposing its will on the state or society. I think that this is where you and I (and Dave-- hello, Dave, long time no speak) disagree. I have no problem with the Church or its members engaging in actions to persuade the state or society to abolish (or never to enact) gay marriage. But to dictate to the state what it can and can't do? Especially when the desire to dictate is fueled by fuzzy thinking that calls a civil act a "Sacrament"?

*wince*

And as for "gay people creating their own institution of commitment"-- they can't, and have it recognized as such by their employers and by society as a whole, for the purpose of securing the sorts of things that marriage usually confers on a couple. Only the state can confer those privleges-- joint property rights, the ability of one partner to act for another in cases of emergency, etc., etc. And the word for that conferring of privleges is "marriage", or better, "wedding".

You obviously don't like the use of those words in the case of gays, John, but they're the only words that fit.

Hale,

"Uh, an act performed by the state is a Sacrament??"

Sorry, I wasn't clear, plus I haven't finished my response to your first comment which might make what I'm getting at clearer.

Marriage is, in our culture, two things. What happens in church, which makes you married in the eyes of God, and what the state does, which makes you married to the state. (Roughly speaking.)

The pushers would not be at all interested in gays creating their own marriage-like institution, even if it made gay people happy. They don't really care about them; they want to destroy institutions that stand between people and the state.

(And, as a Catholic, I strongly suspect that the pushers sense, unconsciously, the ontological reality of a Sacrament, and that is one of their real targets.)

"No sensible person is proposing to force the Church to recognize same-sex marriages"

Hale, you are living in a fool's paradise. The Church is fighting, right now, in multiple places around the globe, against being forced to give children in adoption to gay couples.

What do you think comes next?

You say you wish Rose nothing but happiness, but you insist on imposing an immense burden on her in "creating [her] own institution of commitment." Why should she have to? Why, given the State's monopoly on marriage (which, to me, is the core of the problem), can't she have the same legal rights every heterosexual couple enjoys?

The fact of the matter is that you and others like you are attempting to impose your religious beliefs on other people through State power--which is not the way of Jesus. And you ignore (to paraphrase Mark Kleiman) the sheer cruelty of retroactively un-marrying thousands of same-sex couples and shredding their vows of mutual fidelity by political fiat. Precisely because marriage is for many people a sacred institution, it's a violation of religious liberty for the state to define what it is, or isn't, and so all committed couples ought to enjoy precisely the same legal status.

But the most offensive part of your attitude is the gall of defining Rose and Marcie as victims because they want the right to marry. If they are victims, it is of your intolerance disguised as high-minded concern that they may somehow be "destroyed" by a far-reaching plot to "damage morality and the family."

Frankly, John, your predilection for seeing virtually everything you disagree with as evidence of a conspiracy to destroy this or that institution makes it obvious, to me at least, that your worldview is shaped and defined by fear, the emotion most damaging to the intellect and most likely to distort one's moral perception, and one that is no basis for a humane and human life. It certainly was not the basis of Jesus' life; so why is it the basis of yours?

You say you wish Rose nothing but happiness, but you insist on imposing an immense burden on her in "creating [her] own institution of commitment." Why should she have to? Why, given the State's monopoly on marriage (which, to me, is the core of the problem), can't she have the same legal rights every heterosexual couple enjoys?

First of all, the question of "legal rights" is a red herring. Most of the rights commonly referred to, such as inheritance or hospital visitation are already available in the California Domestic Partner Law. (California Family Code §297 et seq. Charlene just had to research this for some of our gay friends.) Any other legal rights gays need could be added in a similar fashion. The fact that you probably don't even know about this law is good evidence that the gay marriage pushers are dishonest, and that you are being used by them.

"Creating institution of commitment" was not advice for individuals; rather, the lack of any general interest in such a thing is one of the pieces of evidence I think tells us the pushers of gay marriage have no real concern about gays. The honest way to move towards gay marriage would be to say, "Let's earn this right, by demonstrating the positive aspects of gay commitment." I'd say that any movement that talks only of rights and never of responsibilities is immoral, and tending to destroy human souls.

The fact of the matter is that you and others like you are attempting to impose your religious beliefs on other people through State power--which is not the way of Jesus.

This is a false and dishonest argument. One commonly used by Leftists. You people create a novelty, and then say that those who still support the traditional norm are imposing ideas. We saw the same thing with abortion. Five judges changed what had been the default position of Western Civilization for almost 2,000 years, and leftists instantly said that opponents were "imposing religious beliefs." That's bullshit. In fact, it's the "Big Lie" on steroids.

And you ignore (to paraphrase Mark Kleiman) the sheer cruelty of retroactively un-marrying thousands of same-sex couples and shredding their vows of mutual fidelity by political fiat.

Those people rushed to get married, knowing full well that voters would probably not approve that law if they had the opportunity. The moral position is exactly the same as if I noticed a typo in an ad pricing something far too low, and rushed to buy it before anyone noticed the mistake. And you are being doubly dishonest here, because I have no doubt that if voters approved a gay marriage law, and a court overturned it, you would argue that judges have no right to over-rule the wishes of the people!!!

And, you are in fact asking the state to change the definition of the institution of marriage that I--publicly--committed to. You are retroactively shredding my vows.

Precisely because marriage is for many people a sacred institution, it's a violation of religious liberty for the state to define what it is, or isn't, and so all committed couples ought to enjoy precisely the same legal status.

Absurd argument. You used to be a quick thinker. Slavery and Suttee were also considered sacred institutions by many people. Polygamy and female circumcision still are. It is the duty of the people, through their elected representatives, to create laws and norms in the moral realm. "Religious freedom" does not mean "I get to do whatever I want."

And it is proper for religious groups to argue their views in the public square. All laws involve imposing someone's morality on others. In fact you yourself are trying to impose religious views. Secularism is a religion. That is, a belief system that holds ideas about reality based on faith. It is just as much faith to say that God does not proscribe some moral behavior as it is to say he does.---neither position can be proved, both are based on faith.

And--this is important--I am NOT asking the state to define marriage. The state has, up to now, never dared to do so. It has merely adumbrated traditional beliefs; beliefs that came before the state itself. Beliefs held by all cultures securus judicat orbis terrarum. (Even in cultures where homosexuality is normal behavior!) It is only you that is asking the state to define marriage. And doing so would be an extreme extension of state power---you are a Statist.

But the most offensive part of your attitude is the gall of defining Rose and Marcie as victims because they want the right to marry. If they are victims, it is of your intolerance disguised as high-minded concern that they may somehow be "destroyed" by a far-reaching plot to "damage morality and the family."

I do NOT define them as victims because they want the right to marry. (If that's really what they want.)

I DO consider them victims of a type of Leftist plot that the world has seen hundreds of times over the last century. If Lenin were here he would know instantly what's going on, and approve. The scheme is always the same. Champion some "oppressed" group, lure large numbers of "useful idiots" to fight the battle, manipulate the battle to gain Leftist goals, then discard the "oppressed group" the instant they are no longer useful.

The classic example is Communists battling for labor unions, then crushing labor once they gain power. Another is the way, when I was in college, everyone talked about "the People of Vietnam." Then they were instantly forgotten once the Communists were in control. (Stupid me, I thought peaceniks really cared!) Or the black peoples of South Africa. In the 80's your type was shedding copious tears over them. But as soon as they were no longer useful you dropped them. People in Soweto are STILL poor and STILL badly governed. Does anybody talk about them now at the Quaker Meeting? Will your publisher friends want to publish their stories NOW?

That's what's happening with gay marriage. Rose is a PAWN. If, per impossible, married gays started voting Republican and preaching small government, the Left would turn on them savagely. Hurt them or discard them, like Joe Lieberman. Chew them up and spit out their bones. Rose is just cannon-fodder to the Left.

Charlene and I are Rose's real friends. We love her for herself. If we live to be 100, we will feel the same---even if she has a gay marriage or two. And we consider her value, her worth, her loveliness, to be incalculably high, because God loves her. He died for her, and he wishes her to be his adopted daughter.

Does she really want marriage? Kids today are subjected to torrents of propaganda pushing gay life-styles and gay marriage. So I would say there is doubt about it.

And I'm sure you wish to help and guide her, but you are unarmed. You have no philosophy that can draw moral lines. The same arguments you are using right now can support any "life-style" choice. What will you say if next year's Leftist campaign is for group marriage... and some young person you know wants to marry two people? You've just made arguments for it.

You're empty. You are running on the fumes of three-thousand years of Jewish and Christian moral development. Liberalism won't help you here--it can't generate moral law. You need Christ embodied in his Church. "It is I who arm you, though you know me not."

Frankly, John, your predilection for seeing virtually everything you disagree with as evidence of a conspiracy to destroy this or that institution makes it obvious, to me at least, that your worldview is shaped and defined by fear, the emotion most damaging to the intellect and most likely to distort one's moral perception, and one that is no basis for a humane and human life. It certainly was not the basis of Jesus' life; so why is it the basis of yours?

I don't just assert, I always present some evidence. And what is conspicuous is that you never argue the evidence. Your response is always some variant on: "You're not supposed to say that!" (Because it's "contemptuous," or galling, or insulting, or "fearful," or combative or something.) You are repeatedly stung when I criticize the Left, but you never ever present a positive case for your Leftism. You can't, you don't really believe it; it's just a fig-leaf. In fact I wonder if you really believe in gay marriage.

So, I say that we are facing a war against evil, and you say I'm "shaped and defined by fear." Does that make logical sense? No. In fact, that's what the early Quakers were like, back in the day. "Join the Quakers and face imprisonment or death." Yep, it must have been fear damaging their intellects.

And Jesus did exactly the same. Told his followers they were facing a long bloody war-of-conquest against evil, and they could all expect to be killed. He told them the Temple will be left with not one stone standing on another. Dread of the Romans, no doubt. He should have recognized the value of compromise, diplomacy, and "not imposing religious beliefs."

And that's what I'M saying. We face a war. On the surface this is just a political war (and worth fighting at that level). But underneath is the real war, between the Church and evil; one that started before this world even existed. I guess that means I'm fearful. (But if I were afraid, would I be writing things that will get my name put on little lists? Lists of people, "Who simply won't be missed?")

You are the one who is living in fear.

Str0KI cdlfhyaabdsv, [url=http://tbcuiwwtqfca.com/]tbcuiwwtqfca[/url], [link=http://amauosidfplx.com/]amauosidfplx[/link], http://wdqksduaytfa.com/

s33oAP wmamgscehwat, [url=http://qamixpckglww.com/]qamixpckglww[/url], [link=http://ixmzgcishlas.com/]ixmzgcishlas[/link], http://czdqxowdztte.com/