The Miraculous Healing Power of Gay “Marriage”…

will soon usher in the Great Rosy Dawn:

And, who knows, maybe we’ll see other spheres in life where restraints are placed on maximum personal choice. Maybe there will be sumptuary codes that will make lavish spending and CEO salaries unseemly. Maybe there will be social codes so that people understand that the act of creating a child includes a lifetime commitment to give him or her an organized home. Maybe voters will restrain their appetite for their grandchildren’s money. Maybe more straight people will marry.

Gay “marriage”: is there anything it can’t do?

Homosex!  The source and summit of all that is noble, good, true, and beautiful!  We must praise its manifold glories!  All who doubt or question must be punished.

  • Blog Goliard

    Of those same-sex couples who present themselves to the civil authorities seeking marriage, what percentage adhere to a moral code that will give them less sexual autonomy and require more restraint as a consequence of being married?

    I honestly don’t know. But David Brooks is apparently confident that the percentage is quite large.

    (And he may be right, if the moral code we’re talking about has no quibble whatsoever with promiscuous pre-marital relations, but takes a firm stand against any extra-marital relations. Which would make as much sense as anything, I suppose. Is there a single same-sex couple, in any of the places in the world where SSM has been made legal, who plan to wait until marriage?)

    • Bob

      About the same percentage as opposite-sex couples, I would think.

  • Imp the Vladaler

    Since good can spring from evil, I’ll hope that same-sex marriage will cause a cultural shift that will decrease promiscuity and encourage lasting love in the homosexual community. Disordered sexual acts are still nothing to celebrate, but better that they occur in a monogamous, loving context.

    It’s a thin reed of hope, though. The way the debate is framed surrenders the issue to the pro-SSM before we even start arguing. Marriage is a simple contract between two people who love each other, you see. Once you define marriage that way – as a Love Contract – how can you say that *these* two people can make a contract and *those* two people cannot? They love each other.

  • Dale Price

    Brooks needs to explain that to Masha Gessen.

    I’m sure he and the “marriage equality” champions will issue a clarion call of “Sorry–But this far…and no farther!”

    I’ll be waiting.

  • LJP

    Disordered sexual acts are still nothing to celebrate, but better that they occur in a monogamous, loving context.

    Kind of like how abortions are nothing to celebrate, but better they occur legally in a state-sanctioned clinic?

    Sorry, I’m not buying it.

    • Imp the Vladaler

      Kind of like how abortions are nothing to celebrate, but better they occur legally in a state-sanctioned clinic?

      Well, yes. If evil is a *certainty* to occur – if it cannot be stopped – it’s better if it happens in a less-bad way. If your best friend or sister confessed to you that she had an abortion years before, would you prefer that she had it performed competently by a skilled physician, or by some Gosnell type who gave her an infection and rendered her infertile?

      This is not to say that the efforts to end abortion and disordered sexual acts should cease, and it definitely doesn’t mean that good ends justify evil means, but not all consequences of same-sex marriage will be bad. If some frozen left-over embryos get adopted by a same-sex couple, that’s preferable to their destruction, right?

      • LJP

        …would you prefer that she…

        That’s an odd question…I would have no preference whatsoever. I don’t believe I would think to ask about her abortion experience…frankly I wouldn’t care. I would only care that she was truly repentant. If she had received an infection or became infertile in the process, I wouldn’t admonish her for not having gone to a more reputable abortionist, I would admonish her for having an abortion. The consequences of sin are many and varied. (Actually, if she were repentant, I guess I wouldn’t be admonishing her at all, but you get the point).

        If there are good consequences of the redefinition of civil marriage they certainly won’t be due to the redefinition per se, but due to it’s ancillary ramifications. Possibly a strengthening of the Church when faced with growing persecution, an increased number of Protestant conversions when faced with the deepening rift of moral relativism in their own communities etc…

        I’m not a moral theologian, and I believe there are varying valid opinions out there on the issue of the fate of frozen embryos…but I’m pretty sure same-sex couple adoption isn’t one of them. An injustice cannot be rectified with another injustice. Adopting frozen embryos out at all runs the risk of legitimizing the practice. So, no, I would not necessarily agree with your last premise.

        • LJP

          …and, perhaps you just typed this without giving it much thought, but I must balk at the description of any abortionist as a “skilled physician”

          physician 1: a person skilled in the art of healing (Merriam-Webster)

          • Imp the Vladaler

            A skilled physician doesn’t cease to be a skilled physician when he’s doing things that aren’t healing.

            • LJP

              If they are doing things that are the *polar opposite* of healing, then yes, yes they do. If I’m a caring father, and then abuse or kill my child, I cease to be a caring father. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t then repent and begin to again be a caring father, but as long as I continue to abuse I have no right to call myself a caring father. If the abortionist ceases to be an abortionist, then perhaps they could be called a skilled physician; but certainly not while they are willfully killing. Would you call Kevorkian (sp?) a “skilled physician”?

            • http://www.SaintLouisAcupuncture.com Dr. Eric

              “A skilled physician doesn’t cease to be a skilled physician when he’s doing things that aren’t healing.”

              “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art…

              If I fulfill this path and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.” -Hippocratic Oath

        • Imp the Vladaler

          You make some interesting points, but I can’t possibly say that destroying a human embryo and having that human raised by two women are of the same moral weight. I don’t think you’re saying that, but that’s where your reasoning leads, I believe.

          • LJP

            Actually, I would back up a bit and argue that the destruction of the embryo was previously secured by the “skilled physician” that performed the illicit fertilization. I would argue that simply allowing the embryo to thaw and die a natural death would be…well, natural death, not willed destruction. The injustice was perpetrated on that innocent person when they were manufactured outside the marital embrace. If the death of said embryo could be argued to be unnatural, surely the culpable party would be the person/persons who willfully denied him/her the necessary natural environment required for life in the first place.

            • newp

              I know you prob didn’t mean it this way, but your argument could be simplified to: human being, conceived under non-ideal circumstances,we have means to keep it t alive, but better to let it die. Someone else brought about it living to begin with so its their fault.

              Care for the least, but this one is a little lesser than least.

              • LJP

                You’re right, I didn’t mean it that way. I’m saying that the “destruction vs. same-sex couple adoption” is a false dichotomy. I’m making the simple argument that allowing a person to die does not equal willful killing. I’m *not* saying that allowing these embryos to die is the *best* option, just that it could be argued to be a morally licit option.

                Like I said, I’m not a moral theologian, so I will now keep my pie-hole shut and defer to Blessed John Paul II in Dignitas Personae, section 19: “…there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos…”

                Jimmy Akin has an interesting treatment here: http://jimmyakin.com/2005/05/what_to_do_abou.html

                And the National Catholic Bioethics Center here: http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=478

                • newp

                  Thanks for the reply and the links. I heard something similar too from Father Rocky on relevant radio, that the best thing might be to let them die a natural death. Anyway, it’s not like we have enough people who want to adopt for all the frozen embryos.

                  Jimmy’s point regarding the artificial womb is an interesting one. But once that technology is available (and I think he alluded to this) people will probably be using the artificial wombs out of choice, thus avoiding traditional pregnancy and then the whole situation is kind of f_cked, anyway, as far the church’s vision of human dignity.

                  • LJP

                    Temporarily re-opening pie-hole to say…agreed.

              • LJP

                (Ok, I’m posting this again without the links at the bottom…I’m assuming that is why it is stuck in moderation…sorry if it posts twice)

                You’re right, I didn’t mean it that way. I’m saying that the “destruction vs. same-sex couple adoption” is a false dichotomy. I’m making the simple argument that allowing a person to die (a natural death) does not equal willful killing. I’m *not* saying that allowing these embryos to die is the *best* option, just that it could be argued to be a morally licit option.

                Like I said, I’m not a moral theologian, so I will now keep my pie-hole shut and defer to Blessed John Paul II in Dignitas Personae, section 19: “…there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos…”

  • The Deuce

    Yes, I’m sure that “gay marriage” will have exactly the effects that Brooks predicts, just like it has everywhere it’s been invented by the state previously.

    (That was sarcasm, FWIW)

  • Stephen J.

    I’m in an unfortunate position, as far as arguing about same-sex life-unions in real life goes, in that the only “married” gay couple I know have in fact been together for at least twenty years and have, so far as I know, been faithful to one another all that time. (I don’t know at what point they civically married but I’m pretty sure it was as soon as they were able to.) So while I don’t have a high opinion of the sexual standards in the GLBT community generally and doubt this shift towards fidelity will ever actually occur, thanks to this couple my non-Catholic friends have one unanswerable arrow in their quiver: “Even if we grant the poor record of many same-sex couples at meeting ‘classical’ standards of permanence and fidelity,” they can say, “why does that justify denying the chance to those couples who *can* meet them? Would you deny any given straight couple a chance to marry on the grounds that all their straight friends happened to have botched their own marriages through infidelity, or had no interest in getting married?”

    The problem with the debate is that the ability to articulate the distinctions of true marriage in a meaningful and obvious way was lost with the public acceptance of birth control and no-fault divorce, and those things we have to lay at our own doorstep. That said, there’s no doubt that the easy divorce prospect is a large part of why the GLBT community is much friendlier towards marriage in practice now; I’ve sometimes wanted to tell SSM advocates, “I will vote for any gay ‘marriage’ amendment you can name *if*, and *only* if, you include a rider repealing no-fault divorce for *all* marriages,” just to see how many would still go for it.

    • Imp the Vladaler

      The problem with the debate is that the ability to articulate the distinctions of true marriage in a meaningful and obvious way was lost with the public acceptance of birth control and no-fault divorce

      Yes. The SSM marriage debate was over before it even started. When marriage was understood to be stripped down to a contract for state-supplied benefits that can be terminated willy-nilly, we lost the ability to argue that it should be treated any differently from any other contract. Members of the same sex have always been able to own property together, name each other in their wills, and give each other power of attorney. If marriage is just about property rights and hospital visitation, why should we make members of the same sex write up a dozen contracts? Just let them get married and get all the benefits in one fell swoop?

      I’ve sometimes wanted to tell SSM advocates, “I will vote for any gay ‘marriage’ amendment you can name *if*, and *only* if, you include a rider repealing no-fault divorce for *all* marriages,” just to see how many would still go for it.

      The deal is appealing in theory, but eliminating no-fault divorce de jure won’t get rid of it de facto. If both spouses want out, they’ll fake grounds for divorce. New York only recently established no-fault divorce, and as far as I know, the divorce rate in NY was the same as the national average.

      • Stephen J.

        True, but at least a de jure prohibition would prevent one spouse walking out on the other simply because he or she was bored, and financially devastating the other in the process, as is all too often the case; if the couple has to cooperate on deceiving the law, there will be limits to how much they can hurt each other and any children involved in the process. (I can’t help but wonder, with some schadenfreude that I’m going to have to confess in Reconciliation, what the marital aspirations of the GLBT community will be like after the first wave of truly, toxically bitter, financially destructive and custodially conflicted divorces hits. If a child deserves to be with her mother, which woman becomes “her mother” for the Court’s purposes in a lesbian union?)

        • Imp the Vladaler

          That sounds right (and I’d love for it to be true because the woman I married left me and filed for divorce without cause!), but again, I don’t think New York’s divorce rate was any better than the rates in states that had no-fault divorce. The partner that wants out just claims “cruelty” and raises run-of-the-mill marriage problems to the level of existential crises. But if I’m wrong, great.

      • Pat D.

        “Yes. The SSM marriage debate was over before it even started. When marriage was understood to be stripped down to a contract for state-supplied benefits that can be terminated willy-nilly, we lost the ability to argue that it should be treated any differently from any other contract. Members of the same sex have always been able to own property together, name each other in their wills, and give each other power of attorney. If marriage is just about property rights and hospital visitation, why should we make members of the same sex write up a dozen contracts? Just let them get married and get all the benefits in one fell swoop?”

        This raises an interesting question – why should state benefits be tied to sexual relationships in particular? If it’s “bigoted” to deny benefits to gay couples then why shouldn’t the same hold for close friends, roommates, siblings, cousins, etc.?

  • Stephen J.

    Sorry to hear about your own troubles; I apologize for poking old wounds. And you’re right, the problem with any law is that if neither those subject to it nor those charged with enforcing it take it seriously (a thing that law itself cannot confer), it will be effectively impotent; but the law has to at least be there before taking it seriously is an option or not. (Or perhaps I’m putting the cart before the horse, and for the law to be passed at all it already has to be something taken seriously in the culture.)

    • Imp the Vladaler

      You’re very gracious and kind, but it’s not really a pokeable wound any longer, and even if it were you’d have no way to know. No children were involved, life goes on, and God has given me the gift of strength to remain faithful to my promises.

      Anyway… we need a culture that respects marriage or the laws will simply be circumvented. Having pro-marriage laws might move the culture in a positive direction, but I don’t know how we get those laws unless we have those values in place in the culture first. We’re losing the same-sex marriage debate not because the majority of jurisdictions permit it (they don’t) but because the culture wants it.

      That’s why Ross Douthat is correct about the problem that we face in advancing any marriage argument. I’m convinced that same-sex marriage is a step backward for society as a whole, and will work to harm the family. The difficulty is that these harms are diffuse, nonspecific, and hard to quantify, while the two charming men who love each other just want the law to protect their relationship. So too with divorce: it’s bad for society, but if these two people would be much happier apart, why are we forcing them to stay together?

      • Jon W

        BTW, apropos of nothing in the conversation, I love your handle.

  • Nicola L.

    It sounds to me like the same bias of those who see same-sex marriage as the source of all evil.
    Try this: ” Maybe there will be pedophily. Maybe there will be bestiality. Maybe there will be police state. Maybe there will be civil ware. Maybe straight people will not marry anymore.
    Gay marriage: is there anything evil it can’t do?
    Homosex! The source and abyss of all that is miserable, evil, false, and ugly! We must praise for its defeat! All who doubt or question must be punished”.
    Quite silly uh?

    • The True Will

      You forgot “Maybe there will be polygamy”.

      If we accept the normalization of contraception, maybe there will be abortion. Maybe there will be epidemic divorce. Maybe there will be widespread “shacking”. Maybe there will be attempts to normalize homosexuality. Contraception: Is there anything evil it can’t do?

      Yes, that is silly.

      Every step of the way, we have been told that there’s no slippery slope, there’s no slippery slope, there’s no slippery slope..

      • Stephen J.

        Slippery slopes in themselves I can live with. The problem is that, by definition, to stand still at a desired point on such a slope you have to keep running upwards, and sooner or later you just can’t keep up the effort; I can understand those who forget or don’t grasp this fact, but it’s a lot harder to forgive those who wilfully obscure it.

      • LJP

        More like society has been convinced that the slippery slope is “Fun and Exciting!!!”

      • Blog Goliard

        The slippery slope is a feature of progressive ideology, not a bug. There is no limiting principle, no end-point; there is only the never-ending imperative of progress. After we’ve progressed as far as X, we must continue on to Y, and after that to Z, and so forth.

        Eventually, any and every inconceivable thing that all right-thinking progressives presently abhor will wind up first on the on-deck circle, then become a live issue, then become an inalienable right which all right-thinking progressives must support.

  • Beccolina

    I thought we ushered in a new age of peace, prosperity and enlightenment when Barak Obama was elected. You’re telling me we didn’t?

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    There is no such thing as “same-sex marriage”, except in some kind of duck speak. It is an Orwellian idea, and Eric Blair, a socially-conservative socialist, would have seen it for what it is: A power-play to erode the family so that the State, or what passes for it, can succeed in its socially instinctive drive to control everything and everybody. “Same-sex marriage” is a profoundly reactionary idea presented to the gullible as “liberal.”

    Blair loved the Mum and Dad society of his day. How I wish he were still with us. Have we no Orwells, no Swifts to rip away the sleazy veil of “progress”?

    You will see, unfortunately.

    • Stephen J.

      Well, as Inigo Montoya said to Vizzini about the word “inconceivable”, much of the argument boils down to simply: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

      The problem is that most straight society hasn’t really been behaving like we think it means what we think it means, either.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X