Follow Patheos Catholic:
Thanks for posting it.
Isn’t that a man in the video? When did he have an abortion?
It’s perfectly normal for people to survive having an abortion. In very pro-life countries, where abortion is made illegal and safe abortion is difficult to access, abortion is still less dangerous, statistically, than carrying a fetus to term and giving birth.
Still nothing from you about why you want the children of same-sex couples to be discriminated against, Marc?
So far your supporters have come up with a range of rationales on your behalf, from the belief that you think these children would be better off if they had never been born to the belief that you see marriage and families not as real human beings but as a form of advertising.
I’m not sure why you think I want the children of same-sex couples discriminated against. I am emailing you now.
wait, no I’m not, can’t find your email. hit me up — email@example.com
Why are you ashamed to explain, in public, on your blog, why you think the children of same-sex couples should be discriminated against?
This post doesn’t have anything to do with same-sex couples. Stop trolling.
The most common response of homophobic bigots to the point I have just made to Marc, that imposing a ban on marriage for same-sex couples is direct discrimination not only against the couples but against their children, is that those children shouldn’t exist.
I see a rather ironic link between the aspiration that (among other things) lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to give birth, and the pretence that so many right-wing Christians make that they oppose legal abortion not because they hate women but because they love fetuses.
Those children don’t exist. They are not the children of a same-sex couple. They are the children of another couple, one of whose members either sold their child, or had it stolen, so a homosexual couple could play house.
But some of us know where babies come from.
Stop harassing Marc.
Are you too lazy to look? I can only guess how you define ‘discrimination’ but was there not a lengthy post on same-sex parenting and adoption just, like, a week or two ago? There may even have been two consecutive entries if memory serves.
I had no idea – I’ll go look. Thanks for the heads-up!
would you PLEASE just email Marc about this? he doesn’t have the time to keep up with all the comments on his blog, so he can’t respond to everything he’d like to. If you just email him, he’d be more than willing to talk with you.
Nope, I paged back through to November and the only other post I could find is where Marc cites some pseudo-research from an anti-gay hate site to “prove” that same-sex couples are bad. He later had to admit he’d screwed up because the research he’d cited had been publicly shown to be nonsense.
This is silly. By application of the same “logic”, Edinburgh Eye’s own blog advocates discrimination against the children of polygamous families.
Thanks for reading! I welcome comments at my blog.
Okay, let’s run through this again. I’ve done it multiple times already, but let’s pretend you didn’t read them – or read the multiple other comments from people challenging you on this point which you’ve also ignored.
Marriage provides a set of rights, responsibilities, and obligations to a couple who have decided to pledge lifelong to love, honour, and cherish each other. There is, in fact, no requirement for a married couple to intend to or to be able to have children: but where a couple have children – whether by adoption, fostering, AID, or from a previous marriage – it is a fact that the children will benefit from being the children of a married couple: both because marriage provides a framework for the essential needs of a child, stability and love: and provides a legal framework for the parental rights, responsibilities, and obligations to and for their child.
You’ve made up your mind by extensive reading of anti-gay hate sites that same-sex couples are inferior parents. I think you’re wrong about this, but I haven’t tried to argue with you about it: I accept that as your premise.
What I don’t follow – what many of the commenters on this blog have clearly already said they do not follow and which you have declined to explain – is why you leap from “Those children have inferior parents!” to “Those children shouldn’t be allowed to have married parents!”
Your defenders have offered rationales ranging from the idea that you see married couples with children not as real human families but as a form of advertising, to the much more common assertion that the children just shouldn’t exist at all. But you haven’t said a word about why you think these children should be discriminated against. You just keep refusing to answer.
why you leap from “Those children have inferior parents!” to “Those children shouldn’t be allowed to have married parents!”
Alright there it is. Sorry, I couldn’t figure out what on earth you were talking about for a while.
Let me begin by saying you really should email me. This isn’t because I am ashamed to to explain my views in public. To prove this, I promise to post our entire email exchange onto BadCatholic, with links to your blog etc. No, this is because you seem extremely conscious of individuals reading each and every one of your comments, and as a result your comments tend to scream a bit, and it makes discussing with you frustrating, tedious, and in the end, a bit like talking to a wall. I believe that making the discussion between ourselves would take away some of those elements and leave us to pursue Truth. (I only say this knowing I level the same criticism at myself.)
So please email your response to firstname.lastname@example.org.
First of all, you’re asking the question backwards — intentionally, obviously, because it makes the pro-marriage stance seem like an attack on children. To say “Those children shouldn’t be allowed to have married parents!” implies that children are out looking for married parents and the big bad catholics are denying them their choice. In reality, all adoptive parents look for the children. If by this backwardsness you imply that I advocate all “children” of gay parents to be kidnapped, or something equally ridiculous, then stop. I’ve voiced no such thing. Children should be given their own choice if they find themselves without biological parents present. And many have — many feel the absence of a father and find their biological father with DNA tests. My goal is not to say the government should do this or that, it is to point out that there are reasons outside of the obvious issue “what is marriage” to oppose gay marriage. That it seems that biology prefers biological parents is just one of them.
“First of all, you’re asking the question backwards — intentionally, obviously, because it makes the pro-marriage stance seem like an attack on children. ”
So it is.
“To say “Those children shouldn’t be allowed to have married parents!” implies that children are out looking for married parents and the big bad catholics are denying them their choice.”
Marc, you’re trying to imply that it doesn’t matter what children need / want: it only matters what childre are “out looking for”. Children need nourishing meals, whether or not they’re “out looking for” food: children need stable, loving, caring parents, whether or not they’re “out looking for” them. Whether or not a child’s parents are married is never the child’s choice.
But you – and many in the Catholic hierarchy – explicitly seek to deny the children of same-sex couples married parents.
“In reality, all adoptive parents look for the children”
And all biological mothers give birth to children. Yes? So?
“If by this backwardsness you imply that I advocate all “children” of gay parents to be kidnapped, or something equally ridiculous, then stop.”
Nope, I think this was one of your defenders, who argued that you were opposing the children of same-sex couples having married parents because – this defender claimed – you wanted the children “rescued from a bad situation” – ie forcibly kidnapped from their same-sex parents. Glad to know you don’t agree with them: perhaps you should tell them that yourself. It’s … er, somewhere in these commen threads.
“Children should be given their own choice if they find themselves without biological parents present. ”
How does this justify, in your mind, denying marriage to same-sex parents? Do you feel that if a child is wicked enough to actually choose to stay with their two dads or their two mums, that it’s okay to punish that child by denying the child’s parents the legal right to marry?
“My goal is not to say the government should do this or that”
That’s odd; your posts read like you’re arguing that the government should deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry.
“it is to point out that there are reasons outside of the obvious issue “what is marriage” to oppose gay marriage.”
Yes, I get that you think that “same-sex couples are inferior parents” is a reason to deny those “Inferior parents” marriage. What I don’t get is why you think it’s appropriate to discriminate against the children of same-sex couples because you think their parents are inferior.
That it seems that biology prefers biological parents is just one of them.
Why? I get you’re saying that you think any set of parents but the biological mother and father are inferior – adoptive, fostering, stepparent, AID. I don’t get why you jump from “they’re inferior” to “So they should be legally discriminated against” – especially as you claim you don’t want to say what the government should and shouldn’t do.
Stop with the emotional appeals — I am not arguing that same-sex couples who take care of children shouldn’t be allowed to marry — I’m arguing that same-sex couples shouldn’t be raising kids in any pseudo-parenting situation in the first place, for there is no right to a child. This is certainly a discrimination — in the true sense of the word — but not against children. It is a discrimination against homosexual couples.
“I’m arguing that same-sex couples shouldn’t be raising kids in any pseudo-parenting situation in the first place”
Ah, I see.
You are arguing that:
1. All lesbians should be forcibly sterilised – that way no lesbian can do anything so nasty and evil as give birth while in a same-sex relationship.
2. Anyone who identifies as lesbian or gay should be banned from adopting or fostering children, and in divorce custody should always go to the heterosexual parent.
3. Anyone in a same-sex relationship who somehow despite those two first steps is “pseudo-parenting” a child, should have their children forcibly kidnapped.
Very Godly and Christian of you.
Feel free to tell me you don’t want any of those horrible things to happen, and we can go back to discussing why you want to discriminate against the children of same-sex couples.
Because without steps 1 to 3, there will be children with two Mums or two Dads. And you will be arguing that those children should be denied married parents.
1. No, don’t be silly, that’s redundant because lesbians can’t have children. They could find a biological man to donate sperm so they could raise his child, but I — with the Church — am against all artificial reproductive technologies, for they make a child a thing that we have the right to. And again, this isn’t about the government doing this or that, this is about changing people’s hearts and introducing ideas. You’re the one assuming I want some sort of government intervention.
2. No, I wouldn’t say that. I would say that adoption centers should be able to choose for themselves whether they allow gays to adopt and not have the government force its views on them. I would also distinguish between a gay man adopting a child for the sake of that child and a gay couple adopting children because they believe they have a right to children. No one has a right to children, as if they were objects, straight or gay.
3. Don’t be belligerent, I already told you that was no idea of mine, which you confirmed.
This is getting too narrow, let me take it upthread.
“I’m not sure why you think I want the children of same-sex couples discriminated against.”
Because you’ve repeatedly declared that you do.
“1. No, don’t be silly, that’s redundant because lesbians can’t have children. They could find a biological man to donate sperm so they could raise his child, but I — with the Church — am against all artificial reproductive technologies, for they make a child a thing that we have the right to. … You’re the one assuming I want some sort of government intervention.”"
Don’t be silly, Marc. In the real world, lesbians can and do have children. You can only change that by having every lesbian forcibly sterilised.
You would NEED government intervention, because the “artificial reproductive technologies” required are: a clean jar, a syringe, and a man they trust. You can’t ban the sale of jars or syringes, and you can’t ensure that no man is trustworthy, and without government intervention you can’t take away the birth mother’s right to her own child.
” And again, this isn’t about the government doing this or that, this is about changing people’s hearts and introducing ideas.”
Catholic schools can and do succeed in teaching children both gay and straight that the gay children are inferior and that gay parents are inferior. This is “changing people’s hearts” and “introducing ideas” – children aren’t naturally homophobic or inclined to bully, they become so when taught that by adults. You can do that. I’m sure it was done to you, too. That’s the kind of thing the TrevorProject was founded to combat – to let LGBT teenagers trapped in that kind of hateful enviroment know It Gets Better.
If your reaction to this that you don’t want to teach people to hate, Marc, you cannot set out to make people feel inferior and enforce legal discrimination without teaching people to hate. Your posts about this are full of hate – you cite pseudo-science from anti-gay hate sites, justifying your need to believe lesbian and gay people are your inferiors.
“2. No, I wouldn’t say that. I would say that adoption centers should be able to choose for themselves whether they allow gays to adopt and not have the government force its views on them.”
I disagree – adoption agencies need to be regulated and need outside standards. You can’t have adoption agencies deciding they’ll only allow white parents to adopt, or only allow Protestant parents, or only allow heterosexual parents. Adoption agencies ought to exist for the sake of the children they should be serving, not to perpetuate prejudices against entire groups of people.
“I would also distinguish between a gay man adopting a child for the sake of that child and a gay couple adopting children because they believe they have a right to children. No one has a right to children, as if they were objects, straight or gay.”
Children without parents who can’t care for them have a right to parents who can. That’s what adoption agencies are supposed to do – they should assess every couple – and every single person – who applies to them. And then when they have a child or children who will benefit from being cared for by the potential parents they’ve assessed, that child should get those parents.
Homophobic prejudice against same-sex couples adopting leads simply to ensure that a child adopted by a same-sex couple gets one legal parent, whereas a child adopted by a mixed-sex couple gets two. Why do you want children adopted by same-sex couples legally discriminated against?
“3. Don’t be belligerent, I already told you that was no idea of mine, which you confirmed. ”
Okay. But unless you plan to have them forcibly kidnapped, at the 2000 US Census there were nearly 200,000 households with same-sex parents. (Most of the children were living with their own biological parents – a small percentage were adopted.) That’s an awful lot of children for you to just *handwave* out of existance – and I’d guess that when the data is available from the most recent US Census, the number of children known to have same-sex parents will go up.
So, quit squirming! Stop pretending to yourself you’re not really calling for legal and social discrimination against the children of same-sex parents, or that your final solution is just to declare all those children don’t or shouldn’t exist.
Answer the question: why do you think the children of same-sex couples should be discriminated against?
Alright, I’m just barely holding on to what’s left of your rational argument. You’re doing the screamy thing again. Remember: email@example.com
How do you not understand this? I’m saying that there is no right to children and thus lesbian couples shouldn’t use ART or “a clean jar, a syringe, and a man they trust”, because basic biology shows the importance of biological parents.
Your response to this is that lesbians are going to use ART anyways, because all they need is “a clean jar, a syringe, and a man they trust.” That’s akin to responding to an argument that people shouldn’t masturbate by saying, “but people are going to masturbate!” I know! That’s why I’m speaking against it!
It’s not your points that are stupid; you’re not making points. Again, I’m saying same-sex couples have no right to children. Your response is that same-sex couples are going to have children. That is what I’m arguing. If you don’t stop this method of arguing — which is no method at all — I will end this conversation.
Again, I don’t think same-sex couples should adopt children as things they have the right to, or pretend to be parents to a child they raise. I discriminate against same-sex ‘parents.’
Your argument that it is otherwise relies solely on pretending I’ve said things like all lesbians should be forcibly sterilized. Do you not think that arguing that I believe certain things is a little ridiculous, as if I suddenly started arguing that you hated Catholics and wanted to prevent them from obeying what they believed to be the sacrament of marriage? Why would I put words in your mouth? Why do you put words in mine? If you don’t stop using this ridiculous method of argument — which is no argument at all — this conversation is over.
The only piece I can find in your entire comment that isn’t the loud and banal repetition of rhetorical fallacy you’ve been consistently called out on is this:
“Homophobic prejudice against same-sex couples adopting leads simply to ensure that a child adopted by a same-sex couple gets one legal parent, whereas a child adopted by a mixed-sex couple gets two.”
True, two parents are better than one. Why? As I attempted to show in my post, because of the complementary nature of the opposite sexes. To be clear: the value of two parents comes from two sexes, not from two people. Otherwise, I suppose polygamy would be a brilliant idea — the more the merrier. You must refute this idea if you are to make a valid claim that I am discriminating against children by saying that same-sex couples have no right to them. Otherwise your merely taking on religious faith that it is better for a child to have one biological mother and a pseudo-mother than one biological mother. Prove that this is true, and you’ve got me.
“Again, I’m saying same-sex couples have no right to children.”
And I guess that – pure homophobic prejudice, they have no right to exist is as direct a statement I’ll get from you as to why you want the children of same-sex couples to be discriminated against.
I really don’t want to let a homophobic bigot have my email address. Particularly not as extreme a bigot as you.
“they have no right to exist” Wait, who said that? Are you quoting some one? Whose the “they” in that sentence?
The children of same-sex couples, Marc. You’ve declared that those children can be discriminated against because they ought not to exist: their parents had no right to conceive them and no right to take care of them. I’m somehow not surprised that you don’t want to write a front-page post explaining this.
Let me clarify– Nobody has a RIGHT to a child, Edinburgh. Children are not commodities, and they are not a gift you give yourself. They are something you recieve– the mother recieves the father’s sperm, creating new life.
Homosexual couples are UNABLE to recieve this gift because by their very nature they cannot bring new life into the world in a NATURAL way. That is not disputable, it is a fact.
Nowhere, not once, has Marc ever said that he wants to see children discriminated against. I don’t know why you keep bringing that up, because he is VERY clear on what he believes, and if he DID want to see them discriminated against, HE WOULD JUST FREAKING SAY SO. He has no problem stating his views explicitly, so I don’t understand why you keep putting words into his mouth.
Now, please, won’t you go somewhere else? These conversations are full of hatred and personal attacks, and they are not doing an ounce of good. This is not a debate forum, it is a Catholic blog, and if you have a problem with Catholic beliefs…. fine, go somewhere else! The internet is huge! But please, seeing all this negativity is really bringing me down.
If you really can’t let it drop, just send him a personal email. Please don’t let these conversations foul up his blog anymore, though.
“Nowhere, not once, has Marc ever said that he wants to see children discriminated against.”
He’s said it repeatedly, Elaine. You’re saying it too.
Trying to pretend these children don’t exist, or that they’re inferior children because of how they were conceived, so it doesn’t matter – well, that’s the bigot’s solution.
It’s ugly, but I have my answer: Marc doesn’t want these children to exist, so he’s okay with their being discriminated against.
That’s what I was hanging around for: and I’ve really no interest in continuing the conversation now Marc’s answered.
I certainly have no intention of giving a homophobic bigot my email address. If Marc wants to communicate with me elsewhere, there’s m blog.
Except for the fact that, statistically speaking, a successful abortion only results in death, and it was a failed abortion that led Fred Hammond to live. The question is not about reproductive rights, it’s about whether or not a fetus counts as life. Fred Hammond was no less a human being when his mother tried to abort him as he is now.
“Except for the fact that, statistically speaking, a successful abortion only results in death”
According to your name choice, you’re a woman. Do you not regard yourself as alive? Or is it all other women you think are zombies? A successful abortion ends with a living healthy woman. Doesn’t that matter to you?
Of course not. You’ve got our number: we want all women (myself included!) miserable, benighted, and enslaved. We have no regard for their well-being whatsoever. That totally explains why we are feeding and clothing them and referring them for jobs and doctors and housing and classes — it’s all so we can feel smug and superior. Brilliant detective work.
Oh, and we can’t stand happiness, so they’d better not get caught doing any of that obnoxious smiling. We keep the sackcloth and self-flagellation whips in the hall closet.
“we want all women (myself included!) miserable, benighted, and enslaved. We have no regard for their well-being whatsoever.”
“That totally explains why we are feeding and clothing them and referring them for jobs and doctors and housing and classes — it’s all so we can feel smug and superior. ”
Mmm-hmm. Actually, many prolife “charities” in the US that ever so kindly take in pregnant women seem to be direct funnels to adoption agencies.
And a successful pregnancy results in a living, even healthier woman and a living baby. The goal is to get both mother and baby through pregnancy as healthy as possible. As a Catholic, if the mother has cancer, chemotherapy is morally acceptable. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, treating the ectopic part is permissible, although at this stage in technology, the baby will likely die from this treatment barring a miracle. This is tragic, but morally permissible when treating a tragic situation that would end in imminent death for the mother and baby. It is not okay to just kill the baby. I realize this is a very fine moral line, but an important moral distinction. Treatment of a disease/condition is okay, even if it results in tragedy. Outright killing is wrong.
Look, Edinburgh, I’ve read a lot of your posts. I had a lot of the same concerns and fears about Catholicism before reverting. I asked questions for years, researched fervently, debated, and picked it all apart. As a woman, I was worried about the same stuff. Sometimes statements made by Catholics can sound so harsh until one works through all the angles and logic. And, yes, there are plenty of grave sinners in the Church. Welcome to humanity.
I am now a mother of three and hoping for more. I just broke 30. I’m not a zombie or a slave. In fact, I’m well educated, well respected by all the men around me and, most importantly, loved. I have horrible pregnancies, the children are worth it, and I’m much stronger for it. Life isn’t always fair and, in my moments of relentless puking, I often think of the women who don’t endure that part. But then who doesn’t have to suffer in some capacity in life, and what better reason than for the sake of another?
So…Why are you still here Edinburgh? You seem to think you have Catholics all figured out. You seem intent on telling us what we believe. It’s like writing to a brick wall. Why do you subject yourself to this blog if you are so convinced of your ideas? Why do you hang around? I don’t ask this to encourage you to go away, but out of genuine curiosity. What is your goal here?
“So…Why are you still here Edinburgh?”
I keep coming back wondering if Marc’s found the moral courage to explain why he thinks the children of same-sex couples should be discriminated against.
And I have to admit: the denial of safe legal abortion, which the Catholic hierarchy the world over has enforced wherever they could, is one of my hot buttons. I value human life, which prolifers never seem to. Denying women who want to terminate a safe legal abortion merely ensures that more women die: and the idea that women should be forced against their will is just appalling.
“I have horrible pregnancies, the children are worth it, and I’m much stronger for it. Life isn’t always fair and, in my moments of relentless puking, I often think of the women who don’t endure that part. ”
So you’re prolife because you feel the need to be forced through your horrible pregnancies – you would never choose of your own free will to stay pregnant?
No, I do choose to have children despite horrible pregnancies. It would be really nice if I had easier pregnancies like other women, but that is not how my body works. In fact, I use NFP to space more for a physical and psychological break. The point — I do understand some of the intense suffering of some pregnancies. Suffering is not a justification for ending the baby’s life, but it is important the doctors work to keep me and the baby as healthy as possible and address problems as they arise. I was prolife before I started having children. I thought it through on a moral and intellectual level before I ever started building my own family.
My other point — We all suffer on some level. For me, pregnancy is a form of suffering, but my children are worth it. All children are worth it. All mothers and fathers are worth it too.
I don’t think you will attain your goal on this blog. You don’t have your facts right, and I can tell you that Marc does not condone discrimination against same-sex couples. You have made your point. We disagree. We clearly aren’t changing your mind any more than you are changing ours.
Read the Catechism front to back if you want to really understand the teachings of the Catholic Church. Start there, then come back. That’s my best advice.
“No, I do choose to have children despite horrible pregnancies.”
So why would you want to lose that choice?
If you lived in a prolife culture, where abortion was illegal, you would not be choosing to have children; you’d be forced.
“I was prolife before I started having children. ”
You claim that you chose to have children. If you choose, you’re pro-choice.
“and I can tell you that Marc does not condone discrimination against same-sex couples.”
You’ve not been reading his blog recently – he argues for legal discrimination against same-sex couples in several posts. More active than “condoning”: he argues that legal discrimination is a good thing.
“Read the Catechism front to back if you want to really understand the teachings of the Catholic Church. ”
I’m not Catholic. What I’m interested in is how Catholics use their religion to behave towards others.
No, I am not pro-choice. If I endured rape, abortion would not be an option. I had one unexpected pregnancy. Abortion was not an option there either. Regardless of the nature of conception, abortion is not an option despite the suffering. I have planned two out of three of my children (my 2nd and 3rd), and that is why I said that I choose to keep having children despite knowing that pregnancy will be rough. It was in response to your earlier question/comment — That I would not choose it if I had a choice. I continue to choose it, even though I realize that I also may have an unexpected child at some point. It’s not either/or, but both/and.
If you are interested in how Catholicism functions in the world, the Catechism is still the best possible source for that understanding. It’s hard to evaluate Catholics if you don’t understand their beliefs. I’m not saying you will agree with those beliefs, but it would be helpful in your quest.
I have read the other posts. I understand that we disagree on the issue of discrimination.
“No, I am not pro-choice. ”
Why do you want to be forced through pregnancy against your will?
“I have read the other posts. I understand that we disagree on the issue of discrimination. ”
So, like Marc, you think the children of same-sex couples should be discriminated against. And you lied outright when you claimed you could tell me Marc “doesn’t condone” discrimination.
How does your Catechism justify forcing women, discriminating against minorities, and lying about it?
“Why do you want to be forced through pregnancy against your will?”
Okay, this is like saying that I’m being forced to breath and pump blood against my will. You can force someone to GET pregnant through rape, which would be wrong. Once one happens to be pregnant, she isn’t forced to do anything. Her body just does what it naturally is designed to do (and that’s not sexist- men’s bodies are designed to impregnate; women’s are designed to conceive and carry life. Biologigally, that’s why we have gender.) No one is forced to give birth anymore than I’m forced to have a metabolism. When a woman’s body has a fetus in it, it’ll give birth in around 9 months and she doesn’t have to do anything except eat a bit extra and push at the end. After that she can give her baby up for adoption if she would be burdened by it. Before that, I think she can handle nine months of mild inconvenience. And yeah, I’m talking about the majority of pregnancies. Some pregnancies are dangerous (less than before, what with modern science). Women with such pregnancies are faced with pain and sometimes death, but that doesn’t give them the right to kill their child instead of themselves, anymore than any dangerous situation gives you the right to kill an innocent person. Women in these situations must be courageous, but that’s often what it takes to do the right thing
“Okay, this is like saying that I’m being forced to breath and pump blood against my will. ”
Hey guys let’s make this column even narrower
Edinburgh, the fact that we hold different views and arrive to our views with different logic does not mean that one of us is lying. We do not agree on the discrimination issue — I don’t think the Catholic view is discriminatory in the political sense. (The word has several meanings, but that’s my understanding of this discussion.) You do think it is discriminatory. Fine. We disagree. That doesn’t make me a liar.
Why would I carry an unplanned baby? Like I said earlier, I don’t always want to do things, but my desires to avoid every ounce of suffering on this earth does not hold priority over another life. The other life is just far more valuable than my pain. Not more valuable than my life, but more valuable than my pain.
You seem quite upset over a man killing another person, particularly when that person is a woman, but you seem to have no trouble with affording women the option to kill an innocent. In my moral universe, the Catholic one, neither man nor woman has the right to kill an innocent. And there are very rare circumstances that allow an adult to kill another adult.
“We do not agree on the discrimination issue”
This is a matter of fact. The Catholic Church is campaigning for same-sex couples to be subject to legal discrimination.
…let me take this upthread.
“You would not be choosing to have children; you would be forced.”
I know! It’s such a terrible thing to be forced not to kill someone.
Read this. Should help you out, bud.
“Edinburgh, the fact that we hold different views and arrive to our views with different logic does not mean that one of us is lying. We do not agree on the discrimination issue — I don’t think the Catholic view is discriminatory in the political sense. (The word has several meanings, but that’s my understanding of this discussion.) You do think it is discriminatory. Fine. We disagree. That doesn’t make me a liar.”
A ban on same-sex couples being allowed to marry is explicitly discriminatory.
You can argue that you think discriminating against same-sex couples and their children is a good thing. Marc has been arguing that for ages, though he won’t say why – his latest tactic is to argue that these children shouldn’t exist.
But if you try to claim that it’s not discriminatory, that’s just plain lying.
“A ban on same-sex couples being allowed to marry is explicitly discriminatory.”
Totally false assertion…you are trying to redefine what marriage IS ontologically….what it has always been. I can call myself a couch, I can even get people to agree to it, heck I can even pay off politicians to pass a law stating that from this point on I am now to be thought of and referred to as a couch. That doesn’t, and never will, make me a couch. Marriage is between a man and woman with the underlying act of procreation at its core…it is the most basic element of human society, rooted in natural law, and anything else claimed in its name is a cheap counterfeit.
“A successful abortion ends with a living healthy woman. Doesn’t that matter to you?”
The point of an abortion is to kill the baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it. That’s like saying a successful shooting ends in a living healthy winner.
He didn’t have the abortion, he was the one BEING aborted.
His mother asked doctors to kill him; they tried and failed. She asked them to do it again, then realized the gravity of what she was asking and made the courageous choice to save his life, then years later again had the courage to tell him about it.
“Isn’t that a man in the video? When did he have an abortion?”
Dumbest comment ever.
“It’s perfectly normal for people to survive having an abortion.”
Did you just acknowledge that they’re people?
“abortion is still less dangerous, statistically, than carrying a fetus to term and giving birth.”
It’s certainly not less dangerous for the child.
“Still nothing from you about why you want the children of same-sex couples to be discriminated against, Marc?”
Same-sex couples can’t have children. You should consider taking a biology class.
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
All death threats will be disregarded unless written in iambic pentameter.
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2013, Patheos. All rights reserved.