Monday, May 09, 2005

Gay Marriage is a "Crime Which Represents the Destruction of The Word"

Here are some more gems:

Countries that "open the way for same sex 'marriage' . . . destroy piece by piece the institution of the family the most valuable heritage of peoples and humanity."
-Woah

Gays adopting children "would destroy the child's future, it would be an act of moral violence against the child."
-Yikes

"They say that children adopted by two people of the same sex are very happy. A child may be for a couple of years but when the child reaches the age of reason, when he grows up and becomes a young adult, how tragic it will be for him to let his friends know that his 'parents' are two women or two men? This situation endangers the child's personality, balance, harmony."
-Hmm, this doesn't sound like the results of any study I have read...

"As I have said many times, homosexual peoples must be respected, loved and assisted. We must help them overcome this situation if they seriously want to and help them realise that there is not only life on earth, there is another life. The Church does not wish to see these 'couples' suffer discrimination, or humiliation, jeered at or treated without respect. They are human persons and we must love them."
-Well at least we ended on a high note.

All of these quotes came from Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, one of the highest Cardinals in the Catholic Church. You can read the article here.

Don't get me wrong, I can certainly appreciate the call for dignity and respect the Cardinal ends with, but I put these quotes up here for a reason. To me, it seems pretty ironic to say something was going to cause the "destruction of the world" and then say the people that are trying to attain that thing deserve respect.

I am glad he kept his "chicken little" rantings to gay marriage and adoption and not gays in general (as some of the Protestant right-wingers have done), but it still sits odd to me.

To say that gay parents are committing moral violence against their child is pretty out of line if you ask me (yes, I know the statement was general, but it has personal consequences). Calling a loving, caring parent a committor of violence, moral or otherwise is a huge accusation, and even the final call for dignity and respect can't cover that up. In fact, I don't think this particular statement has anything to do with dignity and respect, it is the opposite of dignity and respect. This is over the top rhetoric used to incite people, nothing less.

Disagree all you want with homoexuality, but this type of language is not backed by statistics at all, and does no good to anyone.

Man, Satan sure did hit the jackpot with this gay thing. Even if being gay isn't going to send a person to hell, the over the top nonsense by the Church is doing a pretty good job of driving gay people away from it too.

10 Comments:

At 9/5/05 8:35 AM, Anonymous David Morrison said...

Brady, actually I think Trujillo's language was meant to indicate how seriously the Church takes these matters.

The way I see it, adoption by same sex couples seems to devolve into three broad categories.

First, adoption by an adult who is not the child's parent but who is attached to the child's remaining biological parent who has custody. This is closely analagous to what happens in the heterosexual world which I also don't think is great (because in an ideal world divorce and parental abandonment would not take place in the first place).

Second, adoption by same sex couples of kids who are otherwise abandoned and widely considered unadoptable.

Third, deliberate procreation through artificial ensemination of a child who, from the beginning, has been determined not to need a parent of the opposite sex.

Of the three I strongly, almost viscerally believe, the third to be deeply wrong and represent selfish cruelty to the child. Yes, no parent is perfect, but to decide in advance that a child will not need a father or mother is, to me, simply terribly selfish and represents a sacrifice of a child on an altar of ideology.

The other two represent to me attempts to more or less make the best of what seems to be an already damaged and failed situation. It is definitely not the ideal since the child is still not being reared in the home by two parents, each representing for the child what being a man and being a woman is about, but if the situation prior to the adoption is worse maybe its better to go with the same sex couple adoption.

Finally, I also don't believe most people (tantamount to all people - at least that I talk to - both identifying Republican and Democrats, Catholics, non-Catholics and people of no faith) believe that kids need both mothers and fathers and sorry but the advocates of how same sex adoption is a good thing have still not advanced one one-thousandth of the proof necessary that their experiment is the best thing for kids.

 
At 9/5/05 9:15 AM, Blogger Brady said...

Hi David,

Whatever your belief on adoption by gays is, I think moral violence is much to strong an accusation, and I think it does negate the later call for dignity.

Also, while you have done a good job of dividing up the types of gay adoptions that might occur out there, the Cardinal has not, and it makes it look like a gay family that is trying to rescue a child otherwise doomed to grow up in institutions is nothing more than morally bankrupt and violent.

I disagree with the third category being about ideology, and I think you sacrifice at the later language is a bit of an exaggeration. I think there are many families out there that want a kid not out of selfishness, but out of the biological instinct to love an nurture and procreate (yes even some gays seem to have this feeling).

Oddly enough, of all the scenarios that you disagree most with, this is the one that is legal and probably always will be. But, the adoption as being the better of an already bad situation scenarios are becoming illegal in some states.

 
At 9/5/05 12:09 PM, Anonymous David Morrison said...

Hey Brady,

See I don't see the depriving a child of contact with either a mother or a father as a small thing. I see it as a very big thing that needs to be called morally violent, because it is.

My dad made himself absent from me emotionally and in other ways for much of my youth and I am still dealing with the fall out of that absence. I think deciding in advance for a child that cannot have a say in the matter that he or she does not need a dad or a mom is simply deeply seriously wrong.

Just because someone wants a child doesn't mean they have the best interests of that child at heart. Sometimes restaining our impulses is the most loving thing to do.

 
At 10/5/05 2:32 PM, Anonymous Lucas said...

Brady...do you have an email address??? Can I email you???

 
At 11/5/05 7:37 AM, Blogger Brady said...

Hi Lucas,

It's brady234@gmail.com

I will put it up on the blog soon too.

 
At 13/5/05 6:44 AM, Blogger GayLikeAFox said...

David says:

"See I don't see the depriving a child of contact with either a mother or a father as a small thing. I see it as a very big thing that needs to be called morally violent, because it is.

My dad made himself absent from me emotionally and in other ways for much of my youth and I am still dealing with the fall out of that absence. I think deciding in advance for a child that cannot have a say in the matter that he or she does not need a dad or a mom is simply deeply seriously wrong."

I agree that to deliberately deprive a child of a mother or a father is an act of moral violence. Like many in my generation, I grew up without a father (though given the type of man my father is, perhaps that was the lesser of two evils) and it sucked. However, my issue with so many conservatives is that they focus on gays who deny their children opposite-sex parents but don't seem to spend too much time chastising straights who do the exact same thing via divorce. Why? It's political. You get more votes and support if you provide people with a scapegoat for the meltdown of the nuclear family then you do if you remind the vast majority of the population of their role in it.

 
At 13/5/05 11:56 PM, Blogger Victor said...

I agree that to deliberately deprive a child of a mother or a father is an act of moral violence. ... However, my issue with so many conservatives is that they focus on gays who deny their children opposite-sex parents but don't seem to spend too much time chastising straights who do the exact same thing via divorce.

Well, but when Catholics make clear our opposition to divorce and the divorce culture, we get the "tails you lose" end of the libertine game: "You don't even want people to be free to divorce?!?!? What out-of-touch pharisaical theocrats you are?!?!? How judgmental, casting the first stone?!?!?! You're forcing battered women to take more beating because they can't leave their husbands!!!! ... (do I really need to continue?)

OK, that's somewhat of a debater's point, though not untrue and not invalid as a rebuttal to what is essentially a debater's point in the first place ("why don't you criticize those OTHER sinners over there, huh?")

But to directly answer the question: Because nobody gets married in the hope of divorcing. In other words, even when divorces happen, they're seen as unplanned tragedy and can be understood as such. (As could in an earlier era, the common event of parental death.)

In contrast, and this is why makes gay "parents" in David's Category 3 commit such an act of unmitigated selfishness ("violence," if you like). A homosexual couple always, by definition, and by design, cannot provide a two-sex adult household. And 50 percent of the time, there will be no adult of the same sex in the child's home. A married couple can, even if they sometimes don't.

So if we're agreed that having a father and a mother is the ideal for children, it only makes sense to oppose unions that can never ever never ever provide that, a fact that is known in advance of every such union.

 
At 15/5/05 8:17 PM, Blogger Brady said...

To expand on what Gaylikeafox said, saying that gay marriage is going to cause the destruction of the world does seem to be blaming gays more than most of the other sins out there.

I will agree with Victor, though, that unlike Protestants that seem to have every excuse out there as to why divorce, even no fault divorce is ok, Catholics have been firm in that regard, and more fair.

However, regarding the end of Victor's post about opposing gay unions only because they can never provide the "ideal" family unit, I'd argue several points. One of them being that we do not honor marriage solely for child-bearing purposes. The other is that what is not "ideal" in the minds of Victor and others doesn't therefore have to equal 100% bad. Gay families can still provide a great home in situations that may not have the "ideal" as an option.

 
At 16/5/05 8:54 PM, Blogger Victor said...

One of them being that we do not honor marriage solely for child-bearing purposes.

But the definitive and definitional absence of children means there is no advantage to socially honoring homosexual couples.


The other is that what is not "ideal" in the minds of Victor and others doesn't therefore have to equal 100% bad.

Why did you put the word "ideal" in quotes? I have never used it, so these must be sneer quotes. And good job refuting a perfect straw man I never stated ("100% bad").


Gay families can still provide a great home in situations that may not have the "ideal" as an option.

Ah ... so that's the reason for the sneer quotes around the word "ideal." To delegitimize the concept, making sodomy not such a big deal after all.

 
At 17/5/05 7:45 AM, Blogger Brady said...

Victor- a quote from you:

"So if we're agreed that having a father and a mother is the ideal for children, it only makes sense to oppose unions that can never ever never ever provide that, a fact that is known in advance of every such union."

You said ideal there, and that is what I was responding to, not a strawman. The quotes refer to the fact that I don't agree with your description of ideal.

And if you can put gay "parents" in quotes, I don't think it is too much to put "ideal" in quotes.

As for sodomy, I really can't get over why it comes down to that. There is way more to my life than sex, way more. But, I think your focusing on that is to ignore the rest of the lives of gay people, lest they have some positive qualities.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home