Wednesday, May 21, 2014

The wicked pro-gay marriage culture of stupidity rolls on

So, yet another pathetic judge dreaming of immortality, or at least recognition, decides to toss out Pennsylvania’s sane, sensible definition of marriage in favor of a mishmash of nonsense and offensive rhetoric.  Nobody takes His (dis)Honor apart more satisfactorily than Joe Grabowski in his open letter to the idiot judge:
You see, Your Highness - er, rather, Your Honor ... or, well, which do you prefer? A careful reading of your recent decision leaves me in doubt - I am one of those who believes that the institution of marriage is fundamental to the health of society, and that the family founded upon the union of husband and wife is the sine qua non of a healthy public order. I also believe that the "first of the firsts" of our rights as citizens - the right to free exercise of religion - is most threatened today by attacks upon this institution. Yet you, in your decision issued yesterday, wrote that laws defending this institution should be "discard[ed]... into the ash heap of history.”
That was, by the way, a fabulous turn of phrase. Did you write it, or a clerk? I hope no overtime was spent on it, but I do know how evasive le mot juste can be and how easy to rationalize can be one's attempts in tracking it down. I note especially your careful avoidance of the more standard idiom - pardon me, but I can't help observing the fact, having a Masters in English myself - that you chose not to reference the "dust bin" but the "ash heap." Of course, to non-British readers, perhaps "the ash heap" registers more readily. Or perhaps did you intend something more? There have been, after all, those in history who have suggested that laws attested in Holy Writ be ultimately relegated to "the ash heap" - and perhaps you meant purposefully to ascend to their ranks? [...]
You write further in your decision that '[w]e as a people are better than what these laws represent" - with "these laws" referring to enactments such as Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. Here, I'm afraid, I must beg to disagree. Saint Paul tells us that marriage between a man and a woman is a type of the relation which Christ has to His Church. Whether you agree with me that that Man was divine, you must certainly admit that there's a certain beauty to Saint Paul's assertion in this regard. Yet, as I look around the world today, I don't see that beauty reflected in marriage. Men and women don't seem to bear the same manner of commitment in approaching marriage as Christ bore on his way to the Golgotha. They don't seem to be willing to commit 'til death do them part, or to the sacrificial and self-giving love exemplified in Christ's outpouring on the Cross. They seem much more apt to prefer their own advancement, their own good, than the good of the other - to say nothing of the good of the only-as-yet-imagined others that might spring from their sexual union, their children. Sex is for their benefit first, and not ordered toward the good of others. And so when it results unexpectedly in a new life, it seems to be the case that often one or the other - and I'm ashamed to say, it is most usually the man - will run from the obligation implied in the act of depositing his or her seminal biological potential into an equation outside of his or her complete management. Thus, we have "dead-beat dads" and so many other social ills.
In the face of such problems, I am inclined to think that we need, if anything, to bolster the notion that sexual congress demands commitment, that responsibility to the consequences of one's sexual actions are demanded by the choice to engage in those actions. I am also inclined to think that we grow stronger as a society to the extent that men and women accept such responsibility and do not look at the first opportunity to pass it on to the broader population. And I am finally inclined to think that there is no better way of maintaining and communicating such expectations than promoting the institution of marriage.
Joe’s letter is superb; I hope you will go and read the whole thing.

I am afraid I am not capable of writing such a letter to the judge myself, not only because I am not a resident of Pennsylvania, but also because such a letter would require me to pretend to respect the judge.  And I don’t respect him.  Under that black robe is the soul of a political prostitute, a charlatan who cares nothing for law or justice and everything for the prevailing winds of political opinion.  At least when Richard Rich sold his soul for the praise and acclaim of the powerful and pretty, he got Wales in the bargain.  Jones doesn’t even get Pennsylvania, and I have to think that those American Humanist banquets are more along the lines of appropriate punishment than any sort of reward.  But maybe, if he grovels and spins and bootlicks and toad-eats just a bit more, he’ll be invited to play himself on some upcoming episode of Modern Family, or something.  Which would be just about the most fitting reward for his service I can imagine.

The wicked pro-gay marriage culture of stupidity rolls on apace.  But the craven and the evil and the stupid have been trying to destroy virtue ever since a certain Crucifixion, and they won’t succeed now, either.  Their victories will all be Pyrrhic and their celebrations short-lived.

34 comments:

L. said...

Every once in a while, when I find myself starting to think that you and I have more common ground than differences -- and that if we ever lived next door to each other, you would be the kind of neighbor who I'd ask to water my plants and pick up my mail while we took a trip -- you write something like.....this.

Chris-2-4 said...

Wow! The tolerance abounds. Now if you support traditional marriage, you aren't even worthy to water your neighbors' plants!

L. said...

Ha -- is really that what you took from that?

No, I meant that she'd probably be the kind of neighbor who would not want any unnecessary contact with "the craven and the evil and the stupid" people living next door.

Pat said...

Repeating the untruth that denying civil marriage rights to 1% of the population will cause inner city dead beat dads to act righteously is just dumb.

Red Cardigan said...

Oh, so you're only about the 1%, Pat? You're fine with "denying civil marriage rights" to groups, incestuous couples, non-sexual sibling couples or relative tribes/groups, etc.? You're okay with "denying civil marriage rights" to singles on the grounds that there's something much better about two people than one person, even if that one person is completely happy alone? Bigot.

Pat said...

I will gladly retract my comment if you show me one dead beat dad who returned to his responsibilities because an anti gay marriage law was passed.

John InEastTX said...

Pat has made a good point, Red - just what exactly is the mechanism through which denying SSM will encourage men to take responsibility for their children?

Your blog, your choice, of course, but it would be nice if you addressed Pat's point instead of going off into the weeds about incestuous couples.

Red Cardigan said...

John, all due respect, but I’ve answered that question hundreds of times.

Marriage can *either* be about heterosexual pair-bonding and the resulting children (yes, even if a tiny fragment of heterosexual couples are infertile) OR it can be about the satisfaction of adult desires with no reference to children whatsoever.

Once you define marriage to include by definition couples who cannot reproduce as couples and who cannot even engage in the act that can lead to reproduction, you have pretty much severed the connection between marriage and children. “Marriage” is just a cute cultural artifact to make adults feel good about themselves at that point, and to hell with the children.

To be fair, this is where we ALREADY are as a nation. This is why 40% of children are born out of wedlock to people in fragile relationships where the good of the child is almost never put first. That number rises to 70% in some populations.

Gay “marriage” just makes it official: marriage is not about kids, fragile relationships are just fine, and children--well, sucks to be you, but adult pleasures and illusions of happiness are way, way, WAY more important than your right to a natural family. Which is also why we have abortion on demand for nine months of pregnancy, by the way--Americans have already decided that kids really aren’t worth much.

Red Cardigan said...

I should just add that cultures who decide that children are totally optional expensive luxury items that might or might not be good for your lifestyle choices are already cultures that are dead and decaying. We will be replaced by a culture that values children. It may very well be Islam.

Red Cardigan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John InEastTX said...

But that doesn't address Pat's question.

Why is it likely that the deadbeat dad will respond to that line of reasoning you put forth above and from that, then decide that he should support his kids?

Red Cardigan said...

What made the deadbeat dad decide not to support his kids in the first place? A culture that devalues both children and responsibility and that values hedonistic pleasure and selfishness. Such a culture's ideas of marriage will always be bad news for the children.

John InEastTX said...

It seems odd to me that your proposed solution to deadbeat dads is not 'create a culture where men support their children' but rather 'keep gays from marrying because gay couples cannot create a child'.

It seems like a very roundabout way of approaching the issue.

Red Cardigan said...

Well, John, how would you fix things? One reason we have deadbeat dads is because so many men already believe marriage is a joke, a way for a woman to trap him into handing over his money and property to her and to some child he didn't even want, and that she had the right to kill before the child was born (while he had no say whatsoever). Do we fix that by making marriage mean even less? At what point do we admit that we've royally screwed up the whole concept of marriage and family?

Pat said...

Erin,

But why must marriage "either" be about children or not about children in your world? Why?

Marriage can and should be (and is) about a stable bond between 2 people who make a home together as well as a social and economic partnership. Only in recent years, does it almost always result from or relate to romantic feelings between the 2 people. Their ability or desire to include children into that home (naturally or by adoption) is really a separate matter. That's "parenting".

And yes, parenting within the nuclear family is ideal for kids, but that doesnt change the nature of civil marriage as a bond between 2 people. The rights and responsibilities of marriage and the rights and responsibilities of parenting are largely governed by separate laws and policies. None of this new. I'm married when I say "I do", not when my first child is born. And I'm still married when my children die or reach maturity. Those facts have been true for more years than I can count.

Parenting is laudable but marriage has its OWN value and you strip that value away when you say that marriage is nothing more than a registration for legal human breeding.

Your goal to fix some broken American families is great, as long as it's not done at the expense of the nice gay couple down the street.

Red Cardigan said...

Pat, the short answer is that marriage is a SPECIFIC kind of an adult relationship that requires a man AND a woman, a husband AND a wife, a bride AND a groom. To declare that all of that is simply optional and marriage can be two wives or two grooms is to say that marriage means absolutely nothing. Why not three loving committed people? Why not a mother and daughter who certainly don’t have sex together but would like in on the SS benefits and the inheritance rights? Do you have a coherent reason why they, too, can’t be called a marriage? Or do you just hate mothers/daughters?

You see how easily this dissolves into nothingness. Redefine marriage to mean “temporary adult sexual partnerships” and the immediate question is, “Okay, then, but why the hell should the state care about or create a licensing system for temporary adult *sexual* partnerships, and not other kids of temporary adult partnerships?” It’s unanswerable.

Pat said...

What you are saying is contrary to reality. Expanding voting rights to include women did not make voting "mean absolutely nothing" nor did it make voting rights "dissolve into nothingness".

Expanding marriage laws to include gay couples does not dissolve the institution of marriage. We've had civil gay marriage for 20 years in some European countries and for over 10 years in Mass. There are thousands of legal gay civil marriages on earth right now.

To say that has caused marriage to dissolve into nothingness is ludicrous and contrary to what we all see when we step out the door in the morning.

And marriage is not a "temporary adult sexual partnership." That's a creepy redefinition from your own head, not any civil law you can point to.

Red Cardigan said...

Pat, voting does not require the use of one’s genitals. Marriage used to. Now, of course, it does not, because how dare we suggest marriage has anything to do with sex?

And, yes, civil marriage is nothing but temporary adult partnerships. That is the totality of it. Individuals can *choose* to stay married, but they don’t have to. The law does not require it. The partnership can be fruitful and produce children, or it can involve two males or two females engaging in various forms of pleasurable friction. Or it can be totally devoid of sex (except in those states where heterosexual couples can demand civil annulment for non-consummation, which is silly, given that consummation obviously has nothing to do with marriage any more).

So: show me the state’s compelling interest in regulating a fluid, formless, undefined adult partnership which by the state’s own definition is easily dissolved and thus temporary. You can’t do it. You can only make reference to what marriage USED to be, not what it is now, in any attempt to do so.

Pat said...

Of course I can. In fact, I've answered this very question before on another blog. You're basically asking me what is the government's interest in promoting marriage or making accessible to the people who want it.

Stability. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities.

Unity. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society.

Committment. Marriage promotes financial interdependence, shared living arrangements, and a commitment to mutual caring, all of which benefit society as a whole.

Responsibility. Marriage is good for society as a whole. In marrying, the couple makes a deeper commitment to one another and to society.That helps society. It provides a mechanism for emotional stability and economic security. Those are both good for society. Marriage places more responsibilities upon citizens, fosters social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence. Marriage also provides an anchor for a couple in the chaos of sex and relationships to which all people are prone.

Further reasons to expressly include GAY people into the institution of marriage:

The Alternative is Shameful. Gay people are a permanent minority and aren't likely to go away. We should encourage them to participate in the traditional values and institutions that have proven to work for society, like marriage. The alternative is bad public policy and bad for society: framing laws to encourage gay relationships to be unfaithful, undeveloped, and insecure helps nobody. Gays should be encouraged to form the kinds of lasting commitments that have proven so helpful to straight people.

It Reinforces Straight Marriage. Gay marriage is good for straight marriage in that including gays into this institution reinforces what we know to be a healthy social trend. Marriage is good.

A social, public institution. Lastly, civil marriage should not be left unregulated or left to the individual religions to regulate because unlike baptism or communion, or a seder meal or anointing of the sick it is a vibrant and dynamic social institution that every day involves the married couple vs. the world. It is a public institution, it involves the common good of all citizens and the state should do what it can to provide that institution, educate the public about that institution, and make easy access to the institution. Marriages HAPPEN in our society: couples come together, form committed partnerships, and bind themselves to each other. Government should help them in those endeavors.

Given all of the above points, I dont see how a government can say -- and so far our government has not been able to say -- that society has a compelling interest in keeping gay people out of this institution.

In short, civil marriage is such a good institution for society that we should allow gay couples to join that institution.

Can you, Erin, reasonably deny that the government has a compelling interest in promoting and regulating this particular civil institution?

John InEastTX said...

Strange, I'm sure I replied to your above 'what would you do' question.

I'd create a culture where dads supported their kids. To further expand on that, I'd enlist Tyler Perry to make heartwarming movies where a young man finds redemption by facing up to his responsibilities and finds that being a family man is ultimately more satisfying than running around on the streets.

Erin asks:
"So: show me the state’s compelling interest in regulating a fluid, formless, undefined adult partnership which by the state’s own definition is easily dissolved and thus temporary."

I reply:
It simplifies the paperwork by providing a standard set of regulations that apply to the people who sign up for that partnership. This seems obvious to me.

Red Cardigan said...

John, I don’t see an earlier comment. Could be me; could be Blogger--I never know! :)

Pat, let’s take these one at a time:

Stability: over half of all marriages already end in divorce. The number of people who stay married less than five years is rising. Unless you think that the tiny handful of the 2% of the population who is gay and who actually wants to get married (significantly less than the whole 2%, by the way) are somehow going to change this, marriage is already the opposite of stability. That trend will increase to the point where most marriages will end in divorce and most children will be born out of wedlock, making it difficult to see why the government should encourage marriage (since it obviously has nothing to do with children).

Unity: Not really. The legal link between married people is less than it has ever been. Don’t believe me? Try to deposit a check with only one spouse’s signature, or get the cable company to answer your questions when your husband is the primary account holder. Both of these things have happened to me; the trend is to treat a married couple as two autonomous individuals who happen to live together. That trend will increase.

Commitment: Right, like Andrew Sullivan’s advocacy for “extramarital" sexual encounters even though he is HIV positive and “married?” Please. You think that marriage is still about commitment, even though it can dissolved more easily than most kinds of contracts and doesn’t require any specific level of commitment up front from the spouses--well, where does that notion of commitment come from? From the traditional understanding of what marriage meant, which has already been destroyed. Today, a couple can stand in front of a judge and recite their own vows, including the promise to cheat regularly on each other and the promise to maintain separate establishments, and they’ll still get “married."

Responsibility: Sure, if the couple wants to be responsible. They aren’t required to be. They can be irresponsible, commit serial bankruptcy together, engage in tax fraud together, etc. There’s nothing magical about marriage that can turn two selfish and irresponsible people into two selfless and responsible ones. Again, you are confusing cause and effect: traditionally, it was selfless and responsible people who married, because it was selfish and irresponsible to have kids out of wedlock. But now that kids don’t count at all re: marriage, why should we expect selfless and responsible people to sign up for what is basically an unimportant lifestyle choice with an expensive party attached to it?

You are making the same mistake most people make: you assume that “marriage” somehow produces all sorts of magical good effects quite apart from its connection to the natural family. Wrong! It is the natural family which is good for society, and if the state no longer sees the natural family requiring marriage, then why should the state care who signs a piece of paper and who doesn’t?

L. said...

You ask a compelling question!

"... if the state no longer sees the natural family requiring marriage, then why should the state care who signs a piece of paper and who doesn’t?"

In short, then, it should NOT care - it should open marriage to all.

And let's stop calling it "marriage" and leave that to the churches! Let's call it "civil unions," for all.

David Sharples said...

Among the many logical fallacies promoted by the gay marriage crowd, one is the fallacy of "false alternatives" (FA).

The FA deception goes like this: Are you heterosexual? (or homosexual?) The answer is neither, there are no such persons. There are male persons and female persons. Yes, there are persons with a (disordered) attraction to the same sex, male and female.

Below is a short list of common logical fallacies, all SSM arguments provide a wealth of examples...
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/criticalthinking/Six%20Common%20Fallacies.htm

Pat said...

I think your passion on this topic is blinding you to the very important things that flow from marriage that I have listed above.

In my view you are not making a reasonable argument for excluding gay couples from civil marriage. You seem to be making an argument to either eliminate this important social institution altogether or change it into an Orwellian registration system for legal human breeding.

Nonetheless, I do appreciate the discussion. I think we have to discuss these matters to learn and I think God wants us to learn.

L. said...

To David above: How would you classify a person with androgen insensitivity syndrome, with a male Y chromosome as well as breasts and a vagina? Or 5-alpha-reductase deficiency whose genitalia appear female at birth, but who develop male genitalia during puberty? Yes, there are There are male persons and female persons. And there is a minority of people with medically verifiable characteristics of both.

As for "disordered" attraction, who's to say that an attraction is "disordered," if God created a person that way? You can say it isn't considered licit by some religions, but not all people believe (or should be required to believe) in such religions.

My sexual partner is a different race from me, and I consider this a point of great attraction. Another generation might have viewed this attraction as "disordered."

Pat said...

David,

Curches (some churches) say it is disordered, but medical professionals say it is not. Same with masturbation and a host of other areas where religion and science block heads. We, as a society, no longer turn to the medieval village priest for medical advice.

Thanks for raising the issue of logical fallacies. A better example of logical fallacy is the False Dichotomy, presented above by Erin on June 2 in her reply to John, She says marriage is either A or B. Either (A)about children or (B) about people in fragile relationships who have merely the illusion of happiness.

A classic, textbook case of a logical failure due to presenting a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. Option C exists: that marriage is about 2 people, romantically bound to each other and committed to sharing a home, and making their lives and the world better by joining forces. Perhaps there's an option D? An option E? You tell me. But saying its either beautiful babies or evil hedonism is a false dichotomy and flawed logic.

David Sharples said...

Dear L. and Pat,
I think the rabbits under the shed in the back yard, the hummingbirds that are nesting in the tall tree that visit the flowers and feeder regularly, the tomato plants that grow toward the sun all have it right.

And while the American Psychiatric Group caved in under political pressure, the humming birds have not.

David Sharples said...

SSM arguments are just such great examples for students:

"How would you classify a person..."
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/

"but medical professionals say it is not..."
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

"other areas where religion and science block heads.."
http://www.logicwarrior.net/tag/law-of-non-contradiction/
- truth is truth, God is the Author of, there can be no contradiction..

"My sexual partner is a different race from me..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
- it does not follow that race is the same as sex. Interracial marriage affirms marriage, it doesn't try to change the meaning of-

"no longer turn to the medieval village priest.."
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/
and also http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/

"Option C exists: that marriage is about 2 people, romantically bound to each other and committed to sharing a home, and making their lives and the world better by joining forces."

The intent was not to set a false dichotomy that did not include (C) in the option of (A).
Why two? Why romantic? By that you must mean sexual, but if a man acts as a woman isn't that a lie? Isn't that meaning of two, opposite sex, and therefore sex is possible?
If a man and woman become one, as only a man and woman can, any infertility is accidental, and likely is not found in the man. Same sex however, is by definition impotent, totally devoid of any life giving potential and devoid of any unitive sexual aspect.

L. said...

I do agree with you about the hummingbirds:

http://www.rulit.net/books/biological-exuberance-animal-homosexuality-and-natural-diversity-read-274444-245.html

David Sharples said...

Red herring.
(a confused humming bird)

L. said...

Hey, you -- not me -- were the one who used hummingbirds as an example.

And you, too, offer to students a clear, recognizable pattern of argument: 1) First, define marriage in a narrow way, as you see fit, and then 2) exclude all unions that don't fit your own definition. Neat!

But nature is not always that neat.

David Sharples said...

I define marriage!? Oh brother, will the Sophistry ever end..

L. said...

Yes, you certainly did, when you insist that marriage is about children.

My marriage isn't, never was, and never will be about children. It's about two people. That's all.

Perhaps, then, that it's best to call unions like mine "civil partnerships," and leave the definition of "marriage" to people like you?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I don't have much respect for the judges either, but I don't think they are engaged in a conspiracy of evil. I think they are just intellectually lazy, and less than rigorous in their jurisprudence.

There is a well established precept that the constitution does not mandate the law to treat alike things that are in fact unlike. The fallacy, which dates to the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, is the construction that we have two distinct demographics, both desiring the same thing (marriage), and the law has excluded one demographic from the benefits of marriage.

Not so. If we can even speak of "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" as demographic classes, they are defined by the fact that they desire two different things, actually, at least three different things. The fact that the Goodridge court had to "construe" marriage by a definition the court candidly agreed it had never had before, should have suggested that they were exceeding their own powers.

I wouldn't argue that marriage is all about procreation, but it is a biological fact that sexuality exists ONLY because it was a useful way to procreate. Humans may well have higher functions for sexuality than other mammals, or reptiles, but if the species were not male and female, if there were not a specific complementarity to male and female, then sexuality would not exist, and homosexuality, which is a rather pointless outlier, could not exist.

Thus, there is nothing ethically wrong, or constitutionally suspect, in licensing, regulating, and taxing a human bond that is fundamental to the species, while overlooking and ignoring any number of other human inventions that just don't have the same social significance.

I'm sorry if that makes some gay couples feel hurt, but its a fact. I deliberately write in secular and biological terms, because the laws of our republic may not be founded on religious doctrines made mandatory by the police powers of the state. Religious teachings may be true, but secular facts are quite sufficient to label the wave of judicial decisions something akin to a giddy hysteria, from which our judiciary will someday wake up with a terrific hangover.

The existence of infertile married couples is a straw man. To the extent that procreation is the basis of state interest in regulating marriage... the state may well focus on that human relationship which is known to have a propensity for begetting babies, while ignoring those known to have no possibility of doing so. The state need not, arguably may not, indulge in any intrusive and intimate inquiry into the precise capacities of each partner to a marriage... privacy, and human dignity, don't you know?