The ruling yesterday by Federal Judge Vaughn Walker, overturning the California State initiative Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage, and limiting the legal definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman, was accompanied by a "stay" of the ruling, in effect prolonging the ban on marriages, until the matter can be resolved, one way or another, at a higher judicial level. The proponents of the measure will be filing a formal appeal of the ruling with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Whereas Judge Walker's ruling applies only to California, the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction applies to nine Western States, including California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Would a supportive ruling by the 9th Circuit have the effect of "legalizing" same sex marriage in all these States, or at least laying the groundwork for a tacit legalization in states which had not yet legislated or decided the matter legally? Then, assuming the matter were to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, would a ruling there have applicability in all 50 States? As I understand it, it would.
Given the determination of the Gay Lesbian Community's pursuit of formal legitimation, it's difficult to see how this issue won't eventually be decided at the national level, by the Supreme Court. Given the way the Obama Administration has approached the immigration issue in Arizona, insisting on a higher bracket of jurisdiction, it seems likely that the Constitutional issues of equality and fairness before the law, will eventually be applied, one way or another, to the same sex marriage issue. We seem on the threshold, therefore, of legalizing same sex marriage, and with it, Gay/Lesbian sexual life-styles and Gay/Lesbian sex in America.
On a personal level, I support the idea of civil unions, while questioning the value of Gay parentage, and the formal encouragement of different forms of sexual practice and identity, implicit in the legal acknowledgment of a separate, protected class. I don't think we have any kind of "rational" precedent for the official recognition of "different" life-styles. Sexual preference isn't equatable with racial stereotyping. Using the equality principle to defend the idea that there is no difference between men and women--when it comes to marriage, co-habitation, rights and privileges, child-rearing, and all the functional applications (like military service), and so on--seems to me a deliberately irrational insistence, designed to defend private preferences and behavior which it is not the government's business to legislate. It is one thing to defend the right of privacy and co-habitation by choice, but it is quite another to insist that what one does in private, and through personal, non-binding choice, should be the basis for a protected, defined class of entitlement.
Marriage carries a number of privileges and entitlements which it is society's right to define and legislate. To insist that that right should apply without regard to the sex of the couples, or to the original meaning and purpose of marriage as an institution, is a sweeping departure from historical precedent. If the legalization of same sex marriage is to be used as a pretext for the adoption of Gay parenting in law, I have serious problems with it. In addition, I have qualms about the celebratory affirmation of different sexual orientations in institutional settings. If same sex marriage becomes law, will our children be taught in public schools that Gay Sex is just another alternative choice, like having children out of wedlock, or extra-marital sex? Will "cruising" be practiced at the Junior Prom, with boys dancing with boys, girls kissing behind the quonset huts?
My personal belief--which on no account could or should be the basis for law--is that the decision to pursue a same sex life-style, should preclude the privilege of child-rearing. Proponents of Gay parentage usually try to defend it by claiming that there is no evidence that the children of Gay couples are any "different" than children of heterosexual couples. Whether or not this is true (and I don't for one moment accept that it is), the plain fact is that being raised inside a non-traditional same sex household will tend to legitimate the Gay lifestyle, and to encourage those children, as well as others, to think of themselves as the heirs to that inheritance. Children emulate their parents.
33 comments:
I thought you were concerned about overpopulation.
The Gay & Lesbian community has expressed the desire to have the same privileges for child rearing as the heterosexual community. This means conceiving (or obtaining) children by some profane method--in vitro fertilization, intercourse with a male (!!), or adoption. One might even deduce that Gay parenting would actually have a "positive" influence on population growth, since those who never thought they could or should rear children will now consider doing so. We probably would end up with more population growth with same sex marriage, than without it. This is purely speculative, of course, but worth considering.
You sound a bit...xenophobic here, Sir F, or at least moralist.Do you have any data comparing "parental effectiveness" between hetero and non-hetero parents ? For that matter, the real issue may be the vote itself--and whether to allow ANY Fed benefits or perqs to marriages, str8..or not. One might argue that the Feds really have no business monitoring "marriages", even to the point of recording them. And let's not forget the most virulent fundies supported prop 8 (mormonics, especially). So Vox populi gets to decide morality by a popular vote? That should offend even sane conservatives, even ones who dislike same-sex unions.
Now, having Jr raised by some leatherboys from Bay Area Castroland might not be so copacetic (yo, Lars you seen our little boy in his new dress...heh heh...)...yet then having kids raised by hells angels or mormons or crips or opus dei papists etc might not lead to socially adjusted individuals either.
I know of a few educated lesbians who I would trust as parents over about any hick or gangster or biblethumping WASP. And I wager any objective study would show as much....
J:
These generic objections you raise here don't get us any closer to a consolidation of view.
My position is that homosexuality is not just one thing: As its apologists and proponents say, it's either predisposition, or just a private behavior. In either case, it has nothing whatever to do with procreation, or marriage as traditionally defined. The wish by Gay/Les to occupy this territory historically owned by heterosexuals is a land-grab, pure and simple. I suspect, but can't prove obviously, that many, if not most, Gay-Lesbians believe that in a perfected state of grace we all have sex with each other, and have no sense of compunction or guilt or embarrassment at all. Everything goes. But humankind is a moral animal, and culture (and society) don't function as a mud-wrestling contest. There are rules. Since the beginning of what we call "civilization" there has never been an institutionalized permission for same sex arrangements.
Children need one of each, to see how the world works. That's written, somewhere, in stone. We've been digging it up and digging it up. But some people dislike history and tradition. They want the old rules taken away.
You offer more generalizations, not data-based inferences. And various social scientists already have years of data on the issue. In some cases a same-sex household could be detrimental. Then so could hetero (ie, you overlooked the point on correlation).
You're merely making normative ...conjectures. As far as say rates of abuse go, or educational success, and other measurements one would have to examine data. For individuals (say prospective same sex parents)...there should be some assessment. The G-word is itself loaded language (for both right and left).
Of course children of same-sex couples (adopted, art-insem, whatever) might be ostracized, at least in the heartland. Probably not in most urban areas. For that matter, many children from non-christian (even non-WASP ) hetero families, or single parents are ostracized in the heartland.
Many non-mormons attending school in Utah-land will be ostracized. You sound nearly Mormonish--and suggesting that all non-hetero people are promiscuous fiends if not NAMBLAites seems rather ...biblethumperish as well.
As far as ancient history (say non WASPish),
,you're generalizing as well. What of ancient greece, the "corrupt" parts of roman empire, etc. What of your favorite abridged Petronius, Sir F? Sappho and her school probably raised young females.
Brave New World, Sir F.
What exactly is the principle for marriage? If times have changed, what has changed? Can anybody marry anybody now that kids don't matter?
Can a grandfather marry his grandson, so long as they are in love, and of age?
You'd think a court would try to articulate some clear principle.
If it's love, and someone says they love an old pair of socks, or if it's love, and ten people love each other, then should they be able to marry?
Maybe the idea of two people is also outmoded.
Perhaps it's time for whole cities to get married.
J:
You're hedging.
Do you have an opinion, other than the fallback "exceptions" you note?
Let's set aside Mormon practice for the moment. It's a special case.
3000 years of history isn't "conjecture."
The key issue, in my view, is how we raise our children. If no more than 15% of the population (a high figure, but let's use it) are "predisposed" how do we define sexuality in the public sphere?
Remember when "Black" was "beautiful"?
Therefore, is "Gay" also "beautiful"?
This is a gross over-simplification, but one I think which bears examination. Are we to enshrine and celebrate, as a form of overcompensating emphasis, to prove our tolerance through exaggerated sympathy? Why should I expect my neighbors or fellow citizens to cheer about my relationship, my affections, my sexual persuasions? It's loony.
We're not allowed to talk about this stuff in public, didn't you realize that?
It's officially off-limits. If you disagree you're a stinking Nazi. Nazis hated Gays, so anyone who doesn't subscribe to every Gay rights initiative is a Nazi.
There's no middle ground. Either you're with or you're against. It's really simple.
They can paint a swastika on your front lawn.
We're racists and bigots and homophobes and terrorists.
We're alone on a little bluff in Montana, and the tribe is whooping it up.
Get ready to be cleansed!
You're sounding more Kirby-like with each post--and ducking the issue, Sir F. Are you making like, a fact claim (ie, hetero parents are always superior to non-hetero, less abusive, produce smarter children, etc) which you could verify with data and research, OR are you merely offering moralist-sunday schoolisms, Sir Faville.
For that matter do you have some like empirical proof or even a valid argument for your supposed moral objectivity?? You ever read like Hume, Mr Faville? Not to say Darwin. And ignoring the Constitutional question (ie some things are not subject to a vote. The First Amendment for example. A majority of WASPS would probably vote to like, end the 15th Amendment, or others. That doesn't make it just, or proper, or likely)
And your moralistic turn is quite odd given your routine praise of queer writers such as beatniks and creatives (like your odd praise for Phillip Johnson, nazi sympathizer until like the 70s--seems to go along with your rabid anti-immigration views as well).
I suspect you do this simply to please some of your conservative pals (like the webclown Olson)., Yet you've probably already upset them by approving of NAMBLAites such as the beats (something which Ive never done).
And finally your false dichotomy doesn't hold. I doubt all that oppose or didn't vote on Prop 8 would say they approve of adoption in all cases, or even necessarily approve of same-sex marriage. But many oppose legislating morality. So that's another grand generalization, Sir F. Then in the belle-lettres biz, that's the SOP.
Ah Curtis, I know some of the guys (and their ho's) wearing swazis, ridin' Harleys, ranching in Montana.
You wouldn't last a weekend.
Do try to uphold progressive Californian policies, instead of chiming in with the mormons, the masonic-WASPs, and the gangsters. Besides even quite a few papists opposed 8. Anti 8ist don't say that La Iglesia has to recognize marriage either. Just the state. A bit of overkill, but Ellen D and her gal are hardly more offensive than the usual protestant hick marriage. Really, a good law would be to like ban baptist, mormon and prezbyterian zombie marriages. Prop 666. Ay ay ay
J:
Some of your questions seem rhetorical, others (as I said before) are fall back "exceptions" which aren't intended to carry the discussion forward, but are just strategic maneuvering. Do YOU have any positions which you stand behind, other than for the sake of argument?
You say--
"You're sounding more Kirby-like with each post--and ducking the issue, Sir F. Are you making like, a fact claim (ie, hetero parents are always superior to non-hetero, less abusive, produce smarter children, etc) which you could verify with data and research, OR are you merely offering moralist-sunday schoolisms, Sir Faville."
No, I said none of those things. I did say that I opposed Gay adoption, because I regard mono-sexual parentage as instruments of abnormal socialization and personality formation. There are always exceptions, and millions of kids get raised without fathers, or without mothers, and that's unfortunate. But as a principle of law, I believe we need to restrict the legality of the original conception to the traditional model.
You say--
"For that matter do you have some like empirical proof or even a valid argument for your supposed moral objectivity?? You ever read like Hume, Mr Faville? Not to say Darwin. And ignoring the Constitutional question (ie some things are not subject to a vote. The First Amendment for example. A majority of WASPS would probably vote to like, end the 15th Amendment, or others. That doesn't make it just, or proper, or likely)"
No, I don't claim to be morally "objective" (i.e., disinterested). We can't be blind like the blindfolded lady holding the scale. We have to see things and have positions. Men and women are different--we're sexual beings--we can't NOT be inside our bodies. Sexual reproduction takes two different sexes. Men can't conceive, and women can't fertilize. That's why there is sex. If we take an official position that sex and sexual difference has no clear relation to conception and child rearing, we're turning our backs on thousands of years of precedent, to a time when there were no contracts and no institutions and people went off into the bushes, and no one knew whose child was whose. Do we really want to revert to that?
End Part I
Part II
You say--
"And your moralistic turn is quite odd given your routine praise of queer writers such as beatniks and creatives (like your odd praise for Phillip Johnson, nazi sympathizer until like the 70s--seems to go along with your rabid anti-immigration views as well)."
I don't praise writers "because" they're "queer"--I praise them because they're good writers. Being queer (or Gay) has nothing to do with it. I'm interested in Johnson's work, despite the fact that he was Gay and a Nazi sympathizer during the Thirties (or rather, it has nothing to do with my interest--except in the intellectual sense). I'm NOT "anti-immigration"--what a grand, idiotic exaggeration! I'm FOR legal immigration; uncontrolled immigration is a complete, unmitigated, disaster.
You say--
"I suspect you do this simply to please some of your conservative pals (like the webclown Olson)., Yet you've probably already upset them by approving of NAMBLAites such as the beats (something which Ive never done)."
I couldn't care less who agrees or disagrees with my views. The sexual proselytization of children is dangerous, both straight and non-.
You say--
"And finally your false dichotomy doesn't hold. I doubt all that oppose or didn't vote on Prop 8 would say they approve of adoption in all cases, or even necessarily approve of same-sex marriage. But many oppose legislating morality. So that's another grand generalization, Sir F. Then in the belle-lettres biz, that's the SOP."
I'm making a distinction, J. I'm DISCRIMINATING between one principle and another. Splitting hairs, you know? That's what thinking about issues comes down to, right? No one agrees with everyone else about everything. Is it possible to have a position which isn't just one thing or another? Is it possible to be FOR Gay rights, but against Gay adoption? Perhaps in your universe of value, there are no shades of grey. Everything must be black and white.
No.
You're still missing the point--i.e. providing evidence/data which would show that het. parents are superior to non-het.--not to say making a false inference that opposing 8 means approving of adoption by s-s couples, a different issue. One could oppose 8 and ALSO say that not all s-s couples should be allowed to adopt children.
Indeed to bring up the parenting issue looks like a typical WF Buckley type red herring..:what if, what if, the f*gs get a ahold of some kids! Merely inflammatory rhetoric
Finally the moral objectivity was in regards to ethics, not ..."being objective." Ie do you have some airtight argument that would establish that any normative claims hold ? (apart from...don't get caught, or "prudence"). Or are you merely saying well its always been done this way, or the bible says its wrong, so forth. Ie overcome Hume's Fact/value distinction . Or is it just...ex cathedra. Right because Faville says it. You're not really making any substantial point apart from "I don't like it."
Furthermore you're not getting the secular/religious separation. The state is not a church. Even if one agrees that the state should allows benes/perqs for s.s. couples, that doesn't mean one thinks churchs must as well.
J:
You say--
"Ah Curtis, I know some of the guys (and their ho's) wearing swazis, ridin' Harleys, ranching in Montana.
You wouldn't last a weekend."
You mean I wouldn't be able to defend myself in a rumble with motorcycle dudes. I'd have to agree. So?
You say--
"Do try to uphold progressive Californian policies, instead of chiming in with the mormons, the masonic-WASPs, and the gangsters. Besides even quite a few papists opposed 8. Anti 8ist don't say that La Iglesia has to recognize marriage either. Just the state. A bit of overkill, but Ellen D and her gal are hardly more offensive than the usual protestant hick marriage. Really, a good law would be to like ban baptist, mormon and prezbyterian zombie marriages. Prop 666. Ay ay ay"
What are "California policies"? I know next to nothing about Mormon doctrine, even less about the Masons. Can't comment about them. Ellen De Generis is a poor comedienne and an even poorer actress--riveting cold grey-blue eyes. Eh? She has plenty of money, but I cringe to think of what it would be like for a boy or girl to grow up in her family house.
You wish to "ban" religious sects you don't like. Interesting.
Ellen De Generis is a poor comedienne and an even poorer actress--riveting cold grey-blue eyes. Eh?
You wish to "ban" religious sects you don't like. Interesting. She has plenty of money, but I cringe to think of what it would be like for a boy or girl to grow up in her family house.
Yeah probably weird but nothing like say raised by hells angels, or other gangsters, or even the usual biblethumping zombie moralist (or abuser, if not rapist) who attends a protestant church. Situational ethics, CF. Not just reactions
J:
Alright, once more around the playground--
You say--
No.
You're still missing the point--i.e. providing evidence/data which would show that het. parents are superior to non-het."
The evidence--which we hear every day in the media--is that children raised in single parent households, or households without fathers, or households with only women, or only men, leads to problems in personality development and socialization. Perhaps you've not been paying attention? Exceptions don't prove the rule. Two sex parenting is the norm, and offers a predominating model for emulation.
You say--
"--not to say making a false inference that opposing 8 means approving of adoption by s-s couples, a different issue. One could oppose 8 and ALSO say that not all s-s couples should be allowed to adopt children."
My view is supporting civil unions, which would entitle same sex couples to all the privileges of marriage, without necessarily entitling them to be parents. Making them "married" opens the door to parentage.
You say--
"Indeed to bring up the parenting issue looks like a typical WF Buckley type red herring..:what if, what if, the f*gs get a ahold of some kids! Merely inflammatory rhetoric"
"Inflammatory rhetoric" is inflammatory rhetoric. I say potay-to, you say pot-tot-to.
You say--
"Finally the moral objectivity was in regards to ethics, not ..."being objective." Ie do you have some airtight argument that would establish that any normative claims hold ? (apart from...don't get caught, or "prudence"). Or are you merely saying well its always been done this way, or the bible says its wrong, so forth. Ie overcome Hume's Fact/value distinction . Or is it just...ex cathedra. Right because Faville says it. You're not really making any substantial point apart from "I don't like it."
No, traditional psychological theory and practice is that children are best reared in a two-party, two sex households. Certainly there are "gay" theorists who say our bodies are playthings, canvases which we can use to paint any picture we wish. My belief is not "religious" but "profane" if you like. No one is required to submit to a personality test to have an opinion about how children should be raised. Do you really wish to discuss specific studies, or are you just rationalizing for the same of argument?
You say--
"Furthermore you're not getting the secular/religious separation. The state is not a church. Even if one agrees that the state should allows benes/perqs for s.s. couples, that doesn't mean one thinks churchs must as well."
Churches can do what they like, as long as they don't abridge the freedoms embodied in our documents. Same sex marriage is a revolutionary new interpretation of the "right to marry" and will be hashed out by the Supreme Court in due course. Given the current (and soon to be altered) balance/imbalance of the court, it's anyone's guess what they'll do. I'm conflicted: I hope they uphold Roe vs. Wade, but I hope they strike down Gay marriage. But you can't pick your outcomes. We're a country of laws.
People who take responsibility for their children are okay by me.
But I do have problems with sects that encourage the persecution of women. If Islam takes hold in the Americas, we're going to have a real problem on our hands.
There are many studies -- a few might uphold traditional marriage/parenting. Not all do. Many don't, at least in terms of providing a safe environment.
And you've even extended the moralizing to say single parents are all flawed as well! Wow. We thought you were a Kerouac or Conradian type of mensch. Now you sound about like Phyllis Schafley--. Curtis Falwell.
Parents don't need official churchly or statist approval of "Marriage" to be good parents . CF. They need intelligence as well as patience, understanding etc. Yes usually that has been provided by a "traditional" family. But not always--many kids are raised by grandparents, aunts/uncles, stepparents, or even boyfriend/girlfriends. And it's certainly not some necessary requirement that they be raised by Ozzie and Harriet.
Curtis, the judge didn't quite ban the proposition. He said that it needed to go to a higher court, so he hasn't overturned anything, as far as I can tell.
This is a very tricky matter. I can't get my head around it.
There is definitely a momentous reach to the decision, and we can't foresee the second-order and third-order implications of it yet.
It's fun to see you go round the ring with J.
His thinking is wonderfully confused.
It seems to go like this, Either you agree with me, Bible-thumper, Nazi, Jew, bastard, or I'll wring your neck and smash your teeth in, because I'm so progressive.
Personally, I found it too bewildering. I was actually delighted today to read Ron's blog and to read an intelligent discussion of a poet I had never heard of (Steve Carey) without having to listen to all the bleachers-chatter and name-calling.
My point, again, which you keep talking around, is that the ideal household for parenting is the biological parents of the child. Exceptions, as noted, may occur, and those are expedient necessities. But we don't as a matter of course privilege or celebrate those. They're EXCEPTIONS. Single parenting is not preferred. There are many, many instances in which it occurs, but those aren't ideal--they're expedient.
We're talking ideal here. Do we want, for instance, to say to African American women: "Stop your griping! Let Black men be free! Don't hold them down! Celebrate the freedom of Black men, the freedom to copulate without guilt! Bear their children! Emancipate the power and decency of free Black men! Hurrah!"
Kirb:
Yes, I've known about Carey for a long time. He's one of those charming minor poets who manage to get everything they're capable of saying said, without fanfare or vanity.
The Whalen connection is probably true too.
I never met or saw Carey. Kind of an obscure dude.
Died young. He was born only two years before I was. Spooky!
Curtis, Carey smoked.
That tends to shorten life-span. Silliman's photo presents him with a cigarette, although I couldn't see which brand.
Uber-progressive turned uber-conservative Hitchens is also dying of cancer. He chain-smoked, and he accepts that it caught up with him. He also drank hard liquor.
Stay out of those woods, and you'll probably live longer.
I didn't feel compelled to read any more of Carey, but liked what I did read today, and will probably remember his name.
One of the problems with poetry as I see it is that it isn't very intellectual. Even many of the greater poets -- people like Pound -- seem to have not been able to think clearly or well.
I find that troubling. With the Language poets -- they got on a bandwagon -- the Freud-Marx bandwagon that was leaving the Gare du Nord in about 1968.
I think that train arrived in Peking in about 1972. Hundreds of thousands got on that train, and many have now arrived at positions of enormous power and influence.
I didn't get on it, and laughed about those who did.
The Cultural Revolution stopped in China in about 1978, but it's still ongoing in American poetry circles.
Race, gender, class, disability, queer studies, etc. etc. etc.
Poetry is something else if it is going to be poetry.
Most of my life -- from about 1970 until about 2004 -- I shut up, but about 2004, I realized I should probably say something.
"I held my tongue and spake nothing. I kept silence, yea, even from good words, but it was pain and grief to me." Psalm 39, 3
"Confused" defines Kirby Olson. He never quite made it through the cliffsnotes to like Jefferson, who, it should be remembered, considered most of the New Testament superstitious folly (and eliminated miracles, including the Resurrection from the NT). Jefferson kept a bust of Voltaire in his study his entire life.
8 was in no way Jeffersonian--and really while many founders were xtians, not all were. It's unlikely they would have backed a law supported by the right-wing fundamentalists of the USA (including the mormons, bapticks, orthodox jews and muslims and rightist papists).
And for that matter you have no idea what Hume's point was regarding the fact/value distinction (ie ye olde "is/ought"), Curtis, anymore than Kirby O does. Perhaps google it and start your graduate education in ethics.
My point, again, which you keep talking around, is that the ideal household for parenting is the biological parents of the child.
And my point is (as stated in my very first comment), let's see the evidence/data/research, instead of merely repeating Falwell-like talking points. Even if that chestnut usually held--say 75% of the time (which I doubt)--that hardly means that unmarried parents, or even non-bio parents can't raise healthy normal children.
I've done some sociological work. The evidence usually suggests children from middle class or wealthy households succeed, and outperform those from poorer families. Income level tends to be the central criteria, if not the only one. The het. or not het issue is not generally relevant, and typically suburbanite same-sex couples are educated, yuppie types.
Moreover some evidence exists showing that kids from wingnut protestant-zombie families tend to become...wingnut protestant zombies....
I've read Hume, J.
With respect to the matter of a "good result" in child rearing.
The "good result" is dependent upon one's definition of what mono-sexuality is. If you believe (and it's just belief, we have no scientific evidence of predetermination regarding sexual preference) that people are "born" Gay, then it doesn't matter what kind of household they're raised in, i.e., there is no moral imperative for children to act or be anything (they're tabula resas). If you believe that becoming Gay is a matter of psychological condition, or even "aberration" then the setting is very, very important (i.e., children "learn" to be Gay by being exposed to it).
Which version do you prefer? And how do you legislate unscientific "preferences"?
Another non-sequitur.
I said, let's see evidence comparing success--education, income, jobs,etc-- of children from het. couples, vs non-Het. That's the issue. I strongly doubt children raised by middle class, or wealthy same-sex professionals
(say two nurses, or teachers, engineers etc) would be in a negative environment. If they're poor, perhaps.
Poor kids out in the trailer camps or tenements with the meth-tweeking parents, or gangsters, even if the parents are Hetero as Hercules are hardly in a good environment. Income's about the only criteria, CF.
And as a language person I think you should be ashamed for just chanting the usual rightist slang and jargon, including the g-word. (Even Wittgenstein probably laughs at you for that, somewhere).
J:
What is a "language person"?
You throw a lot of slang and accusation around yourself, buddy.
Let's close this thread down for a while. I've got work to do.
Alright.
Finally, you have overlooked the canonical Tradition itself. Dante for one envisioned many creatures lower in hell than perverts, whores, and sodomites.
That fits a rational person's sense of justice as well (tho not the usual hysterical WASP): A Barnie Frank may be corrupt and unsavory but he's hardly a Hitler. Or even a Dick Cheney.
Bastante
I was talking with a Presbyterian minister yesterday evening at Vacation Bible School. About a third of Presbyterian pastors are women. They are thinking hard about whether or not to ordain homosexuals.
This pastor, a woman, thought that gay marriage was a slam dunk. She said that God said we all needed company, so why should gays be denied it?
She said she thought we shouldn't judge, and let God do the judging.
But I think we have to continue to judge. That is, I don't think we can just ordain murderers and psychopaths, or let them marry children, or whatever they have on their mind. (She said we shouldn't judge, but I think we have to use SOME judgement.)
Of course, the foolish will always see the wise as foolish, and vice versa, and it's hard to determine which is which. I don't know if the gay leather crowd should be able to marry.
There are other gay people (lavender subset) that perhaps should be married, but not ordained.
Judgement requires principles, and without those, you can't judge. The Pelagian left has tossed all principles overboard that don't accord with its agenda. Which means all principles of any kind!
Oy vey!
show us a picture of a principle, KO. Or for that matter, solve Hume's fact/value problem (or maybe at least read it for yr Spam 101 class). Or prove that Gott exists...I doubt you ever bothered with the cliffsnotes to Aquinas' five ways (not to say Kant's refutations.....or even Tom Jefferson's mockery of christianity...and calvinist moralists for that matter). Then take on what you take to be "ethics."
its like some of these people never read a book in their life.
Post a Comment