Why “Value” Families?

Waltons_on_porch

In responding to a recent post of mine criticizing our liberal culture for its hostility toward the traditional family, a commenter wrote: “I don’t know a single liberal who … doesn’t value (and participate in) both traditional and non-traditional families.” I think it is important to examine this liberal response to conservative criticism, not because the issue can be “settled,” but because it can tell us why liberals and conservatives so often seem to be talking past one another when it comes to social issues.

Conservatives (like me) often are accused of being unfairly censorious in accusing liberals of undermining primary institutions like the family.  After all, the argument goes, we talk about “attacks” on relationships liberals genuinely value.  And there is a way in which this is true—a way that shows why the “culture wars” are not likely to end any time soon.

When someone tells you that he and his liberals friends “value (and participate in) both traditional and non-traditional families” that person expects a fight about just what a “non-traditional family” might be. Most liberals, in my experience, are loaded for bear on this question. “What, you mean just because both parents aren’t present, or both happen to be male, or female, or the family is a mixed one, having been through one or more divorces, or there is no marriage certificate, that it somehow isn’t ‘real’?  Well how intolerant and narrow-minded is that?”

If true, this charge would be a serious one. But it is not. Tragedies occur, as they always have. Children are left to be raised by a single parent—neither death nor abandonment is new. Children are raised by maiden aunts, struggling uncles, and other relatives or adoptive parents. Broken families seek to reform in the wake of one or more tragedies.  And common law marriage grew up to recognize the rights of children and spouses in situations where marriages are difficult to obtain or one spouse (or both) persists in refusing to solemnize the relationship.

The real issue is not what exact form of family we value, but what it means to “value” this fundamental institution of social life.  The difference between the traditional and liberal position, here, is summed up in the term “broken family.”  The term is considered rude, today, because it is seen as indicating that there is something wrong with single parent and other “non-traditional” families. In reality, it is a recognition that something tragic has occurred when spouses die, abuse, walk away, or never marry, leaving children to be raised by fewer or more distant relations.  Countless children have overcome the struggles caused by such a tragedy, and we have a duty to help them in that endeavor.  But pretending that nothing bad has happened is something we do for our own benefit (so that we will not “feel guilty”) not for theirs.

The issue, then, is not the particular shape of a particular family, but rather the understanding of what purpose a family is by nature intended to serve.  Perhaps it is best, here, to go a bit deeper into the charge against conservatives:  not only are we narrow-minded for denying the status of “family” to “non-traditional” relationships, we are, in effect, denying the validity of the feelings of those who live in intimate relationships that don’t fit our definition of “family.”  That is, we are accused of somehow claiming that the feelings of homosexual couples, or non-married co-habitants, or persons in other relationships, are false.

The source of this charge is the belief that those feelings are what really matters in any family.  As I’ve been told more than once, the real issue in the same sex marriage debate is love. By denying the full status of married people to various groups, conservatives, on this view, are standing against love.

No one should deny the reality of love (after all, God Himself is love). Nor should we deny that love is an important good (after all, again, God Himself is love). The question, however, is not one of love, or even of commitment to and support for a particular person, but of what purpose a family serves. For example, the fundamental issue in the same sex marriage debate is not whether homosexual couples should be allowed to love and support one another, but whether that love should be recognized as familial.

Americans increasingly fail to recognize the importance of this distinction because they increasing fail to recognize the natural purpose of the family, which is to raise children. Marriage, in the proper (non-“broken”) sense means giving oneself wholly to another person and the natural outgrowth of that relationship. So now I have “narrowed” the definition of family still further?  Only a couple with their own biological children is a “real” family?  Again, tragedies, including the inability to have children and the death of a child, occur. But the millions of couples struggling to have or adopt children are evidence that such facts are, in fact, tragic, because they obstruct us from achieving the full good of family life.

Not to come off as too harsh, but love does not make a family. I am reminded of the ending to that old Robin Williams movie, “Mrs. Doubtfire.”  Having been divorced by his wife, mostly for not paying attention to her or his children, Williams’ character gets decked out in drag to play nanny to the kids so that he can spend time with them.  It can’t last, of course.  But in the end, back in drag, the title character tells us that “some families” aren’t like in storybooks, spending all their time together; some may not even see one another very often, but they still are families, so long as there is “love.”

My question at the time remains my question now:  “how does the occasional ‘I love you’ delivered over the phone or on a weekend visit make a family?”  Such expressions are natural and good, but constitute, at best, recognition of meaningful ties and yearning for familial connections that are no longer fully there.

The family is by nature a lifelong joining of two people, and their families, for the purpose of bringing new life into the world and raising children to be virtuous members of that family and, through it, of society. This is a demanding vision. And it does, in fact, entail the view that a whole slew of behaviors that are common today are in an important sense wrong—because they prevent the formation and flourishing of real, full families and, through them, of full lives.  What really upsets people, of course, is the notion that they sin when they engage in these behaviors.  But then adultery, abortion, non-marital sexual intercourse, contraception, and abandonment of one’s family (not to mention spousal or child abuse) do not cease to be sins just because we fail to recognize them as such. And “sin” is not a word coined so that Church Ladies can feel superior to people who live on the edge.  Sin is a fact of life, something in which we all share in many, many ways. Pride, sloth, gluttony, greed—sins are everywhere and we all engage in some of them. The point is not to pretend that we are better than one another, but to recognize and work on our failings so that we all can be better people.  And families provide the natural and by far the best institution in which to do that.

Families are not relationships, they are institutions that are rooted in relationships. If we only value our families because of the good feelings we get from them, they will become disposable extensions of ourselves, and they will die. Obviously, this does not mean that all natural families fulfill their purpose of nurturing children and raising them to be virtuous adults.  Many children, sadly, grow up in “traditional” families that inculcate violence, hatred, or simple indifference.  But that is a commentary on the failure by one or more members of that family to live up to their duties, not of the family itself.

The family is the basis of any decent society because only in it do children learn how to be decent adults. They are taught virtue in families, or nowhere, because it is only in the home that the kind of intensive, round-the-clock nurturing and acculturation necessary for character formation can occur. And, while it may be nice to talk about how common emotions and dedication to abstract ideals like justice or tolerance or love are what really matter, those emotions and ideals only become real when they are shaped by traditions handed down from parent to child over generations and reinforced through broader institutions of family, church, and local association.

Editor’s note: This essay first appeared May 21, 2013 in Imaginative Conservative and is reprinted with permission. The photo above pictures the cast of The Waltons television series which began airing on CBS in 1972 and ran for nine seasons.

Bruce Frohnen

By

Bruce Frohnen is Professor of Law at the Ohio Northern University College of Law. He is also a senior fellow at the Russell Kirk Center and author of many books including The New Communitarians and the Crisis of Modern Liberalism, and the editor of Rethinking Rights (with Ken Grasso), and The American Republic: Primary Source.

  • Alecto

    I would further offer that the purpose of a family in the eyes of a Christian is not solely to “raise” children, but to attain salvation and help others attain if by faithfully fulfilling the role God gives us. Society diminishes the conservative argument on family because we don’t extend it to its logical conclusion.

    Families are an instrument by which we become familiar with God, with God’s love, with the obligations we have to one other. If family is the incubator of love, can a “family” which is created in a same sex disordered “love” offer a path to salvation? That may be why those who advocate or equivocate same sex marriage are intent on destroying the family. The Christian family ideal cannot be allowed to exist alongside same-sex “families” if only the Christian ideal leads us to reject this world and attain salvation.

    • Bill S

      “The Christian family ideal cannot be allowed to exist alongside same-sex “families” if only the Christian ideal leads us to reject this world and attain salvation.”

      This seems to be the overriding reason for Christian opposition to same sex marriage. Yet, it is a mere religious belief and most religious beliefs are not rooted in reality. We are each living this life accordance with our own worldview. If you think you are here to reject the world and to work out your “salvation” you are going to be diametrically opposed to those who, by your religiously influenced judgment, do not have the same goals as you and who are living a life that leads to damnation. What you have to realize is that that is just your opinion which is heavily influenced by a religion that is probably wrong.

      • HigherCalling

        Relativism in a nutshell.

        Of all the false “isms” designed to replace Catholic philosophy, relativism has proven to be perhaps the most effective. Not that relativism is not easy to refute (heck, it practically refutes itself), but because it leaves no basis from which to carry on a debate. It positively stifles real thinking. It is the ultimate debate-stopper. Even atheism, which at least asserts a premise from which to argue, is not as effective in killing reason and curiosity that are so vital to human thinking. Atheism at least demands an argument — relativism won’t. A discussion must start with an agreed upon premise, some first principle that is agreed to be unprovable, in order to begin. Seriously, Bill, what premise can a relativist and a Catholic (or any thinking person) agree upon so that an intelligent discussion can commence? Reality? Reason? How, when our definitions of reality and reason are always relative? Reason itself is a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. The relativist will always appear to “win” at any point in any dialog because he can always default to, “well, that’s just *your* opinion, your religiously-influenced judgment, one among millions, and therefore it’s not valid.” Off he goes having smugly neutralized any further thought.

        If by some dark cosmic joke relativism were actually a universal truth, mankind would never have made it out of the cave. The human mind would have been set in neutral from the get-go, unable to come to a conclusion or conviction on anything, sinking mindlessly back into the dogma-free vagueness of animals and vegetables. There is no sense in arguing with a man who refuses the premise of argument. There is no sense in trading ideas with a man who denies any validity in ideas. This is why Benedict XVI called the Dictatorship of Relativism the most pressing problem of our day. It is the simplest yet most stiflingly effective trick yet played on human thought. How can you reason with someone who refuses to accept a premise from which to reason, calling even the premise relative or a matter of personal opinion? It is devilishly amazing that such a spineless and brainless trick is “winning” today’s cultural and moral battles.

        • Bill S

          What you call relativism is really an attempt to be polite in response to someone stating a religiously influenced opinion. Catholics believe that they have the truth, which they do not. Instead of telling someone how full of you know what they are, I just pointed out that what they are saying about gay marriage is influenced by their religious beliefs, which are probably wrong.

          • tom

            Bill S., isn’t there a communist tract you could contribute to? Is railing against traditional morality so much a part of you that you need to tear the “gold standard” of family life asunder? What’s your problem, lad?

            • Bill S

              ” Is railing against traditional morality so much a part of you that you need to tear the “gold standard” of family life asunder?”

              I support gay marriage. I’m not trying to do anything to traditional family life. If Catholics are going to try to impose their beliefs on others, those beliefs should at least be correct, which they are not.

              • tom

                Then, there’s no room for relativism, compromise or accommodation to your perversity. There never was. Your “magical thinking” society would last about 10 years, but would destroy Western Civilization. Go away.

                • Bill S

                  My perversity? Magical thinking? Destroy Western Civilization.

                  What the heck are you talking about? I just think gays should be able to marry and raise families and that religious zealots should stop trying to impose their morality on others.

                  • tom

                    Exactly, and that’s inimical to Western Civilization!

                    • Bill S

                      Western Civilization is threatened by massive national debts. Gays do not do anything to exacerbate those debts. For a pope to say that, like abortion and euthanasia, gay marriage poses a threat to world peace is just ridiculous. Actually, none of those pose a threat to anything.

                  • Alecto

                    Gays can’t raise families because they aren’t capable of having them. And talk about the ultimate intolerance, bigotry and narcissism in denying innocent little children mothers and fathers because homosexuals want to indulge their selfishness.

                    • Bill S

                      There have been studies showing that gays can indeed raise families. Your opinion is biased

                    • Alecto

                      I freely admit my view is biased towards what is in the best interest of children, and that is clearly having mommy + daddy. I can’t fault homosexuals alone for being narcissistic, the whole society is that way, but that doesn’t exculpate them. What I find objectionable is proclaiming some right to have a child at any cost, whatever is necessary, like a child is a lifestyle accessory or a commodity to fulfill oneself (to be fair I hear too many women using this excuse to run to in vitro if they haven’t found a man by age XX). It demonstrates the opposite of love which is at all times putting others best interests first, not oneself.

                      Since you haven’t named any studies, no one can refute them, but most aren’t statistically valid (samples too small to draw broad conclusions, self-selecting of participants, etc…). Then there’s the Regnerus’ study. The homosexualist lobby went nuclear on him, tried to get him fired. I don’t find that behavior tolerant.

                    • Bill S

                      “What I find objectionable is proclaiming some right to have a child at any cost, whatever is necessary, like a child is a lifestyle accessory or a commodity to fulfill oneself (to be fair I hear too many women using this excuse to run to in vitro if they haven’t found a man by age XX). It demonstrates the opposite of love which is at all times putting others best interests first, not oneself.”

                      Do you see what you are doing here? You are passing judgment on gays who want children, women who resort to IVF to have children, etc. You are presuming that they are selfish and narcissistic and that you know more about love than they do. That’s just wrong.

                    • SJBB

                      Bill, I wanted to discuss against your statement calling Natural Family Planning (NFP) “bizarre”. The concept is that those practising NFP choose to avoid placing a barrier between themselves and God’s natural law. Sex has both unifying and procreative (vital to society) aspects. NFP couples choose to participate fully in both the unifying and procreative aspects, at least not to place an unnatural barrier against it. True reason holds that sex does include a unifying aspect. (Science shows that sex induces chemicals in the brain which encourage a “bond” between the female and male. In terms of evolution, this makes sense – the best means of carrying on the parents’ genes is to ensure a bond between the parents.) True Reason further does not deny that sex can and often does result in procreation. NFP couples work in concert with this, not putting barriers against it. The way I view this, this is the real “organic way” of approaching things.

                      Also, to discuss the sentiment that Catholics “impose” their beliefs on others…. I heard it best said that we do not “break” the Ten Commandments; rather we break ourselves against them. In other words, whether you or I admit the Ten Commandments are real/true – they are. We can debate and operate otherwise, but we are creating a mess for ourselves. This has been revealed to humankind, and therefore, Catholics to share this knowledge. Science/experience also does not find this so strange. For example, common stealing, adultery, and murdering does harm society. There are Absolute Truths, whether they are recognized or not. On homosexual acts: sodomy is not the “cleanest of methods”; without being graphic I think this is fairly obvious. Homosexual lifestyle does indeed show a prevalence of diseases. STDs exist for all, but certainly, there are distinct “disadvantages” when it comes to sodomy. This is not opinion, but biological / empirical fact. Again, not imposing my will upon others, just realizing the elephant in the room.

                    • Bill S

                      You make some interesting points to ponder. You probably have a better outlook on life overall, but I take exception to a few of your statements.

                      “The concept is that those practising NFP choose to avoid placing a barrier between themselves and God’s natural law.”

                      First, I should tell you that I am sort of an atheist. I say “sort of” because I have come to fully believe in intelligent design, which is a no no for true atheists. If I chose to name the intelligent designer “God”, that at least makes me a deist and maybe even a theist. If you tell me that, for all the times I have worn a condom, I have put a barrier between myself and “God’s natural law”, that wouldn’t make any sense to me. To me, the designer’s natural laws are the physical laws of nature, like gravity or electromagnetism. Maybe I would be putting a barrier between the sperm and the egg thereby overriding the main purpose of all sex acts, and maybe that is what you mean. But, so what? It’s like the ad that used to say “it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature”. Fooling Mother Nature is not always a bad thing. We do it all the time with great success when we build dams, fly in planes, etc. Yes. NFP does resemble the organic approach to achieve the same goal. But, again, so what?

                      “whether you or I admit the Ten Commandments are real/true – they are.”

                      I’m not going to argue this point. But we rely on orders of magnitude more information than the Ten Commandments to decide between doing right and doing wrong. Just telling people not to worship other gods, etc. isn’t enough information.

                      I didn’t find anything else wrong with what you said except maybe an over generalization regarding sodomy. Things like that are between the participants and really none of my business or yours.

                    • Paul McGuire

                      Most STDs occur in people who are begin promiscuous and having unprotected sex with multiple partners regardless of whether a man is having sex with other men or with women. A man can develop mouth cancer through oral sex with multiple partners whether he is engaging in cunnilingus or fellatio.

                      When men get HIV/AIDS it is most often because they are engaging in frequent unprotected sex with multiple other men more so than simply because they are engaging in sex with another man. Most people who use protection when having multiple partners rarely develop the same diseases.

                      I realize this is difficult to understand because many religious publications frequently try to make it sound like condoms don’t work but they do. If a man becomes romantically involved with one of his male partners then if both get tested at the same time for STDs and are free from them then as long as the two are exclusive the unprotected sex between them is no more risky than unprotected sex between a man and woman (minus the possibility of pregnancy).

                    • Alecto

                      Didn’t I already state that I am passing judgment on behavior which places selfish desires ahead of the best interest of the child? That’s what mature adults do. We evaluate decisions, behavior and we call things what they are. This behavior is motivated by selfishness. We have seen too much of this in our society and it hurts children and adults.

                      I am taking my guidance from sources like the Bible, Catholic teaching, and even M. Scott Peck. Love is not selfish. Love is the opposite of selfish. It IS selfish to think that one’s desires justify any behavior, without any regard for the child. I think it’s very sad that kids are being shortchanged out of mothers AND fathers.

                    • Bill S

                      “Didn’t I already state that I am passing judgment on behavior which places selfish desires ahead of the best interest of the child?”

                      Neither you not I are qualified to make such a judgment even on a case-by-case basis let alone on a general basis. How does one recognize and prohibit behavior which places selfish desires ahead of the best interest of the child without even knowing the people involved. Just because someone is gay or uses IVF doesn’t mean they are being selfish or are not going to look after the best interests of the child. Going by the Bible or the teachings of the Catholic Church does not qualify you to make sweeping judgments. It’s hard enough for a judge hearing such a case to rule on it. How can you with no other information? Do you even understand the ramifications of your blind judgments?

              • HigherCalling

                What Catholic beliefs regarding gay “marriage” are incorrect, Bill. Explain.

                • Bill S

                  All Catholic teachings about gay marriage are wrong. To the Church, homosexuality is disordered. Psychologists do not agree. To the Church, with the bizarre exception of Natural Family Planning, all sex acts must be for the purpose of procreation. Gay sex and contraception fail to meet this requirement so are considered to be intrinsically evil. People enjoy sex and there is no reason why every sex act has to be for the purpose of procreation.

                  • Anders13

                    Marriage is the biological and spiritual union of a man and a woman into a single complete unit which serves as the building block of Christian churches and civil institutes in this country. Without the biological union, the spiritual union cannot happen, so in addition to the married couple’s personal interest, spiritual and civil institutes must have a personal interest in preserving marriage as is, in order to preserve their own existence. You must be well aware that institutes built on fake or pretended unions will eventually collapse when reality sets in.

                    I understand that that you do not except or comprehend the concept of spiritual union because it lies outside of the context of humanistic philosophical thought and you may want to call something else marriage , but marriage is what it is; civilization would not exist without it.

                    Marriage is the biological and spiritual union of a man and a woman into a single complete unit which serves as the building block of Christian churches and civil institutes in this country. Without the biological union, the spiritual union cannot happen, so in addition to the married couple’s personal interest, spiritual and civil institutes must have a personal interest in preserving marriage as is, in order to preserve their own existence. You must be well aware that institutes built on fake or pretended unions will eventually collapse when reality sets in.

                    I understand that that you do not except or comprehend the concept of spiritual union because it lies outside of the context of humanistic philosophical thought and you may want to call something else marriage , but marriage is what it is; civilization would not exist without it.

                    • Bill S

                      “Marriage is the biological and spiritual union of a man and a woman into a single complete unit which serves as the building block of Christian churches and civil institutes in this country”

                      Yes. And that is not going to change for those who enter a traditional marriage. In this secular world, same sex marriage is becoming more and more accepted by governments. This acceptance does absolutely nothing to traditional marriage. And it has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage which does not apply to same sex unions. No one is trying to take anything away from traditional and sacramental marriage. It will be the same as it has been for thousands of years.

                    • Paul Tran

                      If what you’re saying is true about same-sex marriage not taking anything away from traditional marriage then why not settle for civil partnership which is accorded with the same civil rights as marriage ?
                      Moreover, same-sex marriage means same-sex couples are accorded the rights to be wedded on holy ground. This is an anathema to God.

                    • Bill S

                      “Moreover, same-sex marriage means same-sex couples are accorded the rights to be wedded on holy ground. This is an anathema to God.”

                      No. They don’t need to be wed on “holy ground”. I don’t believe in God so the “anathema” thing is not a problem to me. Neither is the “holy ground” because I don’t believe in that either.

                  • HigherCalling

                    The Church does not teach that all sex acts must be for procreation. The Church does teach that sex acts, rightly ordered, must be open to new life — big difference. Part of the reason you are getting so many replies is that you misstate Church teachings and seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of them. The Church rightly calls homosexual desire disordered, because she recognizes that there is order in nature. Disorder, by definition, separates human beings from their true nature. Alignment with true nature leads to human flourishing, something the Church desires for every person. Abandoning the order/disorder concept (natural law theory) violates even your adherence to logic and reason. Modern psychology, a soft and agenda-driven science if there ever was one, is certainly no arbiter of truths in the matter of human existence. The Church calls homosexual *behavior* sinful, because sin separates a person from God (Who can be found through pure reason). It is the Church’s duty to care for human souls, and to let her children know when their souls are in peril. A Catholic accepts the inconceivable idea that something in the world has taken reason to its ultimate end, something has explored the ultimate heights and depths of human existence, and that that thing is wiser than he is.

                    • Bill S

                      “Modern psychology, a soft and agenda-driven science if there ever was one, is certainly no arbiter of truths in the matter of human existence.”

                      I disagree. Modern psychology has played an important role in my life and I place more faith in it than in the antiquated traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church. It doesn’t regard homosexuality as disordered, although it once did but not any more. I think it is the Church that is no arbiter of truths in the matter of human existence.

                      “The Church calls homosexual *behavior* sinful, because sin separates a person from God ”

                      First of all, the concept of “God” is imaginary. To call homosexual behavior sinful because it separates a person from God is meaningless and insulting.

                      “It is the Church’s duty to care for human souls, and to let her children know when their souls are in peril.”

                      No. The Church has no business telling gays that they are sinning and that their souls are in peril. That is wrong at so many levels that I can’t begin to list them.

                  • Paul Tran

                    So I guess pedophilia, incest & sex with animals are OK too by your definition ?

                    • Bill S

                      No. I said that psychologists do not consider homosexuality to be disordered. How did you go from that to the gutter? Why would I consider those things to be OK? Do psychologists say they are OK? I doubt it.

              • Alecto

                Seeking out this website is evidence of your religious bigotry and intolerance of those who do not think like you. Imposing your beliefs on others and denying a majority of the population their rights is the ultimate in intolerance.

                • Bill S

                  I’m just stating an opinion like everyone else. I’m not denying anyone their rights. I didn’t seek this site out. Someone sent me a link to the article, which I did enjoy, as I enjoy conversing with you.

                  • Alecto

                    Did you click on that link, Bill? That would be an intentional act.

                    • Bill S

                      Yes, it was an intentional act and I’m glad I clicked on it so we could have this conversation.

          • HigherCalling

            And what unbiased principles influence your perfectly objective thinking, Bill?

            • Bill S

              My principles probably won’t come across as unbiased and objective to you. I know that every world religion is wrong in that there is no supernatural anything. No God, no soul, no afterlife, etc. What you see is what you get. Reason and logic are all we’ve got. That’s what makes these discussions so valuable.

              • HigherCalling

                Reason, fully realized, takes one to God. History’s greatest thinkers have found God through pure reason. But reason and logic are thankfully not all we have. Relying solely on the wonderful faculty of logic is a limitation to human thinking. Constraining the investigation of human existence to one half of the human brain is a sad simplification, and is, well, unreasonable. What of the other half of the brain? I know it feels specially smug and intellectual to “know that every world religion is wrong,” but when only one half of the brain is engaged in reaching that conclusion, that half is overdeveloped, that brain is unbalanced, and thinking is incomplete. But you do share a love of reason and logic with Catholicism. You’re part way into the Church. Catholic reason frees logic from the cosmic prison of materialism. It joins the two halves of the human brain in a natural balance, freeing the mind to see human existence in full. Catholicism is complete thinking. A truly reasonable person would, at the very least, display the intellectual integrity to honestly confront what is ultimately the only real obstacle to his materialism, to tear down that obstacle fairly, face to face, with an honest attempt to understand that obstacle completely, always avoiding quick dismissals, with the real goal of showing his philosophy to be the only correct one. If you’ve done that heavy work, you should be satisfied. If not, how do you “know” what you claim to know? The Church takes on all challengers on their terms, usually understanding their claims better than they do. But today’s challengers refuse to take on the Church with integrity, never with an honest effort to understand her thinking. That’s an unreasonable stance, even for a logician. Becoming Catholic is not to put off thinking; it is, as Chesterton said, to begin to think.

                • Bill S

                  “Relying solely on the wonderful faculty of logic is a limitation to human thinking.”

                  “Catholic reason frees logic from the cosmic prison of materialism.”

                  Ah, no. Catholic reason is simply illogical. Nevermind this “cosmic prison of materialism”

    • tom

      A real problem is the refusal of the all-powerful gay lobby to even allow Christian entities to remain in the adoption business. Their connivance in removing Catholic institutions from the adoption field is unforgivable. The gays ain’t taking prisoners.
      This is Life vs. Death.

      • Bill S

        “This is Life vs. Death.”

        How is it Life vs. Death? How about Discrimination vs. Equality?

      • cminca

        OK–let’s try and use facts.
        Catholic Charities voluntarily closed those adoption facilities because they faced the choice of either allowing gays to adopt or–LOSING TAXPAYER FUNDING.
        No one stopped Catholic Charities from staying in the business. Catholic Charities just didn’t want to do so if they couldn’t do it on the public’s dime.

        • Augustus

          What you say is complete and utter nonsense. Tax dollars had nothing to do with it. The state refused to give Catholic Charities a license to operate in the state because it would no longer place kids in the hands of gay couples, which would be a violation of the state’s anti-discrimination laws. The state government refused to give Catholic Charities a religious exemption. So, when the gays take over, religious freedom ends. It’s not about live and let live, it’s not about toleration, it’s about demanding complete acceptance and affirmation. Anyone who dissents will be punished. Gay activists will lie to get their way. For the political left, the ends justify the means. If you are serious about learning the facts, then educate yourself: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?page=1

          • Bill S

            Yes. They demand acceptance and affirmation. If people have religious reasons why they can’t give that, maybe they should examine their religion and ask themselves if they want to practice a religion that condemns homosexuality. Maybe it is your religion that wrongly demands acceptance and affirmation. Maybe religion is disordered and homosexuality is not. Did you ever think that might be the case?

    • Paul McGuire

      Destruction of the family comes when a gay man marries a straight woman because eventually that family breaks down. Even if the two stay together, they are not likely to be very happy. For the longest time, families and communities pushed young people to marry, causing many gay men to marry women in order to fit in or otherwise appear normal.

      We are at the point now where a majority of families recognize that it is better for their gay son to marry a man than cause hurt to a straight woman. When people suggest that the gay man should marry a straight woman anyway I ask them, “Are you going to volunteer your daughter for this experiment?” Few people are willing to do so.

      Last time I checked, the majority of my straight friends from college and law school who support gay marriage are still getting married to people of the opposite sex and starting families. My facebook is full of pictures of all their beautiful children. I can assure you they are going to create families regardless of whether two men can marry.

      The difficulty with pushing for “the christian ideal” is that freedom of religion in this country also means freedom from religion and freedom to join less traditional religious groups. For every church that doesn’t agree with two men getting married, there are other churches that perform gay marriages. The freedom of members of liberal groups and members of no church at all to live how they choose is also important.

      Would you like it if the Mormon or Muslim churches legislated their beliefs on the country? Why should Christian beliefs be any more allowed to be the basis of national legislation?

  • hombre111

    Excellent article, argument well constructed, worth a thoughtful read. I still think the gay couple question needs a reasonable answer. As for families built around a gay couple, I do know a lesbian couple raising a couple of daughters who seem to be happy teenagers who are active in school and are strongly encouraged to be involved in heterosexual dating. As Doctor Frohnen says, an exception does not make the rule, but there needs to be some research to show whether or not this is less healthy than the serial polygamy we often see.

    • B.M.

      Well, if you want a reasoned answer, here it is. One purpose of the family is to inculcate virtue into the children. This is done by teaching but more by example and custom. A gay couple, therefore, is essentially incapable of fulfilling parental duty as head of a family since they, by reason of their vicious relationship, stand as a permanent counter-witness to the very principles of virtue and temperance/chastity in particular. Q.E.D. (There are plenty of traditional families that stand counter to virtue as well, most probably, but this isn’t essential to their relationship, only a failing that should be remedied.)

      • tom

        This is far too thoughtful for Hombre’s ken.

      • Bill S

        “A gay couple, therefore, is essentially incapable of fulfilling parental duty as head of a family since they, by reason of their vicious relationship,
        stand as a permanent counter-witness to the very principles of virtue and temperance/chastity in particular.”

        That is a very prejudicial and judgmental attitude to express in relation to same sex couples. Who are you to call their relationship “vicious” or to say that they “stand as a permanent counter-witness to the very principles of virtue and temperance/chastity in particular.” This kind of attitude reminds me of the movement that led to prohibition. It is self-righteous and counterproductive.

  • publiusnj

    Whether liberals are more antipathetic toward marriage than conservatives, one thing is for sure: our Entitlements /Tax Structure definitely works against Marriage. Lower income people have are incentivized by the Income Tax Structure
    into remaining single due to the structure of the Head of Household Filing Status and the Earned Income Credit. So long as they are not married, couples that have more than one child can split the children between them for purposes of claiming the Earned Income Credit and for purposes of claiming “H-o-H” status (the child credit and child care credits can also be split between them).

    Of course, they do have to show different addresses to make those claims.
    But the EIC provides up to @$5,000 in annual Governmental largesse if the
    claimant earns below $40,000 or so. If the couple show themselves as married,
    though, the ceiling on EIC is increased by just $5,000. So, if a married couple claims EIC
    on a multiplicity of children, they need to earn less than about $45,000 to get
    any EI Credit. By contrast, if they file as two single (or H-of-H) people they can each earn $40,000 for a total of $80,000 and split the kids up between them for tax/EIC purposes.

    Likewise, H-o-H status gives each of the non-spouses a larger standard
    deduction and a “higher effective cap” on the 0, 15 and 25% tax rates (as well
    as higher rates). By “higher effective cap,” I mean that if the couple’s
    members stay “single” and each earn the same amount of income, they will continue to be taxed a, the 15% rate on a non-married/H-o-H basis up to a combined total of $97,200 but if they dare make the “mistake” of getting married, they will be taxed at a 25% tax rate on income in excess of $72,500. That works out to a $2470 penalty for a
    married couple earning taxable income of $97,200.

    And thus Leviathan inexorably destroys the Traditional Institution of Marriage. It used to be called the Marriage Penalty and get a fair amount of play, but it hardly got a mention in January 1-2, 2013 Tax Deal, when the penalty on Marriage laid out above was once again enacted and specifically adressed in the one tax bracket that faced a tax hike. A single person is not subjected to the highest rate until $400,000 while a married couple gets hit with the highest rate at $450,000 just 12.5% more than a single person.

  • Caroline

    The majority of my liberal friends are part of traditional families and make very good parents to their children and partners to their spouse. So, no I don’t see any “hostility” toward the traditional family, only charity and love toward non-traditional families.

    • tom

      Caroline remains..well…er….Caroline. Adrift.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    It is a fact that every jurisdiction that has introduced same-sex marriage has also permitted human gametes to be treated as articles of commerce or tolerates a market in babies, bespoke or prêt-à-porter, through surrogate gestation, assisted reproduction and joint adoption by same-sex couples.

    Hence, in her speech on Sunday, Mme Ludovine de la Rochère of « Manif pour tous » demanded « De quels progrès parlent-ils? Le leur probablement : celui de la marchandisation du corps, celui des ventres à louer » [Of what progress do they speak? Their progress, probably: that of marketing the human body, renting out wombs]

    I find it astonishing that those Americans, who have viewed with equanimity the development of this form of human trafficking, should get into such a pother over SSM. It is to exalt form over substance with a vengeance.

    Those following the debate in France will have seen that, in that country, the widespread secular opposition to SSM stems from the belief that it will erode the ethical principle, enshrined in the Code Civil, that children cannot be made the subject and source of a transaction. Art 1128 lays down the general principle, “Only things in commerce can be the subject of an agreement.” Again, no one can own human genetic material; this is excluded by Art. 16-1 “The human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right.” Art. 16-5 reinforces Art. 1128, by providing that “Agreements that have the effect of bestowing a patrimonial value on the human body, its elements or products are void” and, out of an abundance of caution, Art. 16-7 provides that “All agreements relating to procreation or gestation on account of a third party are void.”

    There is something to be said for Gallic logic

    • Bill S

      “It is a fact that every jurisdiction that has introduced same-sex marriage has also permitted human gametes to be treated as articles of commerce or tolerates a market in babies, bespoke or prêt-à-porter, through surrogate gestation, assisted reproduction and joint adoption by same-sex couples.”

      I live in Massachusetts and I am proud of its progressive and tolerant politics.

      • tom

        There’s always Thorazine, B.S.

        • Bill S

          What makes you think I need Thorazine? Because I live in Massachusetts?

          • tom

            Just your nonsensical agenda.

            • Bill S

              Tom,

              Do you really think I have a nonsensical agenda because I speak up for gays? Gay marriage has been legal here for ten years and we are none the worse for it. The only bump in the road that we have run into is when Cardinal Sean O’Malley put a stop to Catholic Charities placing foster children in same sex households. They lost their government funding and had to discontinue the program. The people at CC must have had a few choice words for the Cardinal-Archbishop and some of the Board members resigned in disgust for him.

    • slainte

      Does the French Code, and its underlying ethical principles, assign personhood status to unborn children?

      If not, a logical response is to amend the Code to recognize the humanity of the unborn, thus providing the unborn with “rights” which may be adjudicated against the competing interests of those who view unborn children as things in commerce.

      The perfection of human cloning adds yet another dimension to this tragedy by creating life expressly for spare parts and experimentation.

      • musicacre

        “Spare parts and experimentation…” makes me think of an article I just read that stated in Israel eggs are removed from an aborted baby that was aborted because it was genetically “unfit” to be born, yet the eggs will be used to engineer a better baby. It this just the Nazi experimentation continuing? Of all people, shouldn’t they know better?

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Embryos produced by in vitro fertilization are not “things in commerce” [« les choses qui sont dans le commerce »] They are products of the human body under Art. 16-1

        A child in utero is “pars viscerae matris” [part of the mother’s innards]; this follows the Roman Law (See Ulpian in the Digest 25.4.1.1), so it is a part of the human body under Art. 16-1. In either case, in virtue of Art. 16-1, it cannot be owned (“the subject of a patrimonial right” – « l’objet d’un droit patrimonial ») and a contract of sale would be void under Art 16-5 as an agreement having “the effect of bestowing a patrimonial value to the human body, its elements or products” [« Les conventions ayant pour effet de conférer une valeur patrimoniale au corps humain, à ses éléments ou à ses produits sont nulles. »] Thus, contracts for surrogate gestation are void, as are contracts for the sale of human gametes.

        The question of rights does not arise. Art. 16-9 declares the provisions of Article 16 to be part of Public Law – « Les dispositions du présent chapitre sont d’ordre public » They are rules of public order and they affect private rights only to restrict them.

        • slainte

          Does the French Code Civil bar a woman from aborting her unborn child?

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            The Law of 1975 (Law No. 75-17 of 18 January 1975), usually referred to as the Veil Law, after Simone Veil, the minister who introduced it, in its first article, declares, “The law guarantees respect to every human being from the commencement of life. No derogation from this principle is permitted, except in the case of necessity and according to the provisions defined by the present law.”

            It then proceeds to decriminalise abortion up to the tenth week of gestation, where the woman is in a “condition of distress.” It also contains provisions about mandatory counselling, waiting periods, financial support &c

            In other words, the National Assembly, too squeamish to establish abortion as a right, sanctioned it as a derogation from a right, namely, the right to respect for life.

            • slainte

              The door to an individual’s exercise of dominion over another, via abortion, opens slowly and incrementally, with exceptions to the general rule provided as a matter of compassion.

              Mme Ludovine de la Rochère has reason to be concerned about the erosion (the enlightened would call it “evolution”) of
              “the ethical principle, enshrined in the Code Civil, that children cannot be made the subject and source of a transaction”.

              If a state permits abortion, why wouldn’t it also permit an individual or couple to transact arrangements for the adoption of unwanted frozen embryoes (human genetic material) resulting from IVF procedures? Adoption it might be argued is a more compassionate form of embryo disposal than outright destruction. Any adopting individual or couple is preferable to none at all. Any form of existence is preferable than allowing an unborn child remaining frozen indefinitely.

              Humanae Vitae is more relevant today than ever before.

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                “why wouldn’t it also permit an individual or couple to transact arrangements for the adoption of unwanted frozen embryoes (sic)”

                Because they do not own them – Art 16-1

                • slainte

                  Can a couple whose combined genetic material caused the creation of an embryo, that is no longer wanted, and is stored following an IVF procedure, elect to destroy the embryo?

                  If so, what legal claim, recognized by the French Civil Code, permits the couple to destroy the embryo?
                  What is the nature of the relationship between the couple and the stored embryo?

                  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                    No legal claim recognized by the Civil Code. Such questions are governed entirely by the Code of Public Health and by regulations made by the Ministry of Health. It is a subject, not of private rights, but of « droit administratif » [administrative law] and disputes are dealt with by administrative tribunals, with the Council of State at their head, not by the civil courts, which deal only with disputes between private individuals.

                    • slainte

                      You said….

                      “In other words, the National Assembly, too squeamish to establish abortion as a right, sanctioned it as a derogation from a right, namely, the right to respect for life.”

                      I hope that the French Assembly does not carve out additional exceptions to the general protections accorded unborn children.

                      Mòran taing for your patience and scholarship.

            • tom

              Do you ever just say what you mean, Seymour?

              • tom

                I didn’t think so. Obfuscation, followed by smoke and mirrors.

                • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                  Simple, really. The Assembly simultaneously affirmed the personality of the unborn child and permitted some abortions.

          • tom

            In the Middle Ages abortion was considered a cardinal sin.,.[3] Abortion had been criminalized in France with the imposition of the Napoleonic Code. Now, it’s OK to 12 weeks. Progress? I don’t think so, but then, they just had gay marriage imposed upon this collapsing nation against the will of the majority. sharia’s starting to look good, I fear!

            • slainte

              Peter Kreeft, Philosophy Professor at Boston College, maintains that Enlightenment principles are a greater threat to humanity than Islamic terrorism.
              I think what we are experiencing globally is a final assault against Christian principles by superimposing Enlightenment ideals on our culture to undermine the family, family values, and all Christian churches. The result will be cataclysmic.
              We are fortunate that our popes have seen this coming for a long time and have, through their encyclicals, warned us repeatedly. Thank you P. Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius X and Paul VI.
              I disagree with your position re: Mr. Paterson-Seymour. He is a brilliant thinker, and a very talented writer.

              • Alecto

                I think you will find that its the perverted expression of the Enlightenment principles of life, liberty and property which present the danger. Denial of Enlightenment principles logically results in tyranny.

                Once separated from objective morality, law is adrift and temporary. Law is supposed to be an anchor, fixed, so that society can build. I fear what’s coming.

                • slainte

                  The philosophes of the French Revolution denied faith and elevated pure reason and individual will to primacy. Hence their error.

                  Pope Benedict recognized the perversion when he concluded that,…..Faith without reason leads to superstition, Reason without faith, leads to nihilism and relativism. Fides et Ratio 1998.

                  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

                  Our culture of relativism, unchecked, has evolved to attacking the family and its values globally.

                  Can the French Code, enacted in 1804 and purportedly informed by the philosophes’ ideals, protect present day France from the pernicious effects of the relativism engendered by its 1789 revolution?

                  • Alecto

                    I mean the American Enlightenment, which valued the contributions of faith to society, and always understood that religion informs the public debate and must be protected – not the French version of Enlightenment at which John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and other Americans recoiled for its extreme violence, killing, blood, torture.

                    It certainly remains to be seen whether France can protect its history (the long, long history prior to 1789) from relativism.

                    • slainte

                      Many of the most well known American founders were informed by Deism and Freemasonry, ie., Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson (Deist), Paine, and French ally General Lafayette.

                      The Enlightenment principles that informed both America and France were the same. These principles include a rejection of the Authority of the Catholic Faith and the divine right of kings in favor of the autonomy of the individual human will through the use of reason.
                      The effects of the Enlightenment played out differently in each country due in part, I suspect, to America’s being primarily a Protestant country (its people having already rejected Catholicism), while France remained Catholic. Adverse economic conditions and excessive taxation in both countries served to ignite both revolutions.

                      Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France of 1790″ describes a revolution of extraordinary violence that was an annihilation of all things Catholic, especially its clergy, and a frontal assault on Catholic Church buildings. A Temple of Reason and Philosophy was erected upon the altar of Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral. The goal was reportedly to superimpose over Christ’s altar the symbol of mankind’s perfection through rejection of God and the attainment of Truth and Liberty through the guiding principle of Reason alone.

                      The Catholic faith finds Truth in both faith and reason; the enlightened French Philosophes rejected faith entirely in favor of Reason alone.
                      Both France and America, each founded on the same Enlightenment principles, have evolved to reach the same impasse, relativism.

  • crakpot

    You forgot to mention in your list of sins one very important in this discussion: sodomy. God leveled entire cities with fire and brimstone because of it.

    The fundamental issue in the same-sex “marriage” debate is not what flavor of love they have, but the fact that homosexuality is behavior, not nature. No sinful behavior can be called “love.”

    Why is it so very important to redefine the word “marriage,” speak of homosexuals as if they are born that way, and to reduce all that is right about families to the adjective “traditional,” as if that’s just the old way of doing things?

    • Bill S

      “You forgot to mention in your list of sins one very important in this discussion: sodomy. God leveled entire cities with fire and brimstone because of it.”

      That’s kind of an ignorant statement for a number of reasons. First, its just a made up story and didn’t actually happen, same as the Garden of Eden and the Flood. Second, the evil was everything going on and the men there wanted to rape the angels. There was no judgment specifically expressed in regard to sodomy. I think the real evil was the rape part of it. Third, that old story is not a special guide for living a happy and healthy life today. You really have to come up with something more current and relevant on which to base your reasoning.

  • Paul McGuire

    Many gay men and lesbian women were raised in traditional families and desire to have one for their own. I was raised in a traditional Catholic home and that is why I want to marry my boyfriend and not just commit to something less. At the same time, they realize that it is not fair to do that by marrying someone of the opposite sex because the emotional connection is not there. While emotional connection is not the sole basis for marriage, it is an important part such that entering into a marriage without it can only lead to failure.

    While two men come together initially for that bond, many also have a desire to raise a family and do so by providing a home to children who otherwise are going to be stuck in the foster system. These children deserve to have the relationship of the men raising them given the same protections by the state as any other family would have.

    If a single mom is left to raise children, she can marry a man and have him adopt them. If an aunt and uncle end up raising children, they can eventually adopt them. The same option for two men raising children to both adopt the children should be available. In all three cases, the children are raised in something other than the ideal but it is better than living in foster care.

    • mally el

      Only when two people from the two genders designed in our nature and which have meaningful, complementary organs associated with them commit themselves to each other is there a human marriage. This marriage is designed to sustain society like no other union. It is unique. There are other loving relationships in society but none is like marriage.

      • Paul McGuire

        I think you mean the two sexes. Not everyone who is physically male is of the male gender and not everyone who is physically female is of the female gender. Sure most people’s gender expression mirrors their physical characteristics but others don’t. I recognize the Catholic preference for a cisgender* man and cisgender woman marrying and entering into a physically complementary relationship.

        *The word cisgender refers to those whose gender and sex are in agreement. It is the opposite of transgender.

    • AnthonyMa

      How is living with two homosexuals better than living in foster care? Do you think all foster parents are evil and abusive to the kids they take in? Do you think all homosexuals are sainted and take great care of the kids they take in? Homosexuality is a sin against God and an offense against nature, that’s just they way it is. You appear, in your photo, to be a grown man, you must realize that the human body was not built to accommodate the very actions that define you as a homosexual. Personally, I have never, and I mean never, met a male homosexual who didn’t appear to have serious mental problems and I live and work in New York where we have a very high percentage of these people.

      • Paul McGuire

        The human body seems to accommodate those actions quite well. I will spare you the details.

        I haven’t met a single gay man who seems to have serious mental problems. I know a lot of successful gay politicians, attorneys, and other professionals.

        • tom

          You’re daft, Paul.

        • Bill S

          I am sorry for the ignorant responses you have received. These people represent the worst that religion has to offer.

  • Tony

    Compassion, eh? Compassion that costs nothing is just self-hugging, an indulgence in a pleasant feeling, getting credit for solidarity without doing anything at all.
    It’s a tragedy when a little boy loses his father to cancer or a heart attack. But if that same little boy is deprived of a father by the deliberate actions of adults, hey, let’s throw a party with cake and rainbow icing! That is not tolerance; it is indifference, and it is cruel. What, you don’t have a father? Who cares? You don’t have a mother? Big deal. Your “mothers” set about denying you a father? Lucky you! Your father ditched your mother to “fulfill” himself with his secretary? Get over it. Your mother invites into your house a series of live-ins? Hey, all the better for you! Your mother and father called it splits, out of boredom or orneriness or “love”? Hey, you wouldn’t want your mother and father to be unhappy, kid, would you? You don’t even know who your father is? Would you really want to know?
    Here’s what it is, after the Sexual Revolution: Sex is trumps. Everything must take second place to sexual “fulfillment” — marriage, family, public morals, the welfare of children, the Christian faith, everything. The Zipper rules. The difference between defenders of the sexual revolution and pedophiles is that the latter, though more obviously vile, do less harm in the aggregate, because there are (so far, thanks be to God) a lot fewer of them. But if we ask how many children have their lives messed up because of OTHER sexual sins besides pedophilia — well, we won’t ask that question, will we? Too uncomfortable, that one.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    The atheistic British philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell, wrote, “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex. It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.”

    He was discussing divorce law reform, but the argument is compelling.

    • tom

      Was this Russell stiff the atheist who didn’t want to fight Hitler? Then, he was found “morally unfit” to teach in America because of his bizzare ideas? What a source, What a source for wisdom, Michael. He’s like a bug squashed inside the pages of the Bible. Clean him off and get on with the reading.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Russell is principally remembered today as the co-author, with Alfred North Whitehead, of Principia Mathematica, exploring the logical grounding of mathematics.. His essay, “On Denoting,” had a profound influence on his protégé, Wittgenstein, making him an important figure in 20th century Analytical Philosophy.

        This made him an important influence on Miss Anscombe, the leading Catholic philosopher of the last century, my former tutor.

        He was a pacifist leader during the First World War, for which he was twice imprisoned under the Defence of the Realm Act.

        One recalls Einstein’s letter, written in defence of Russell, beginning “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds … “

        • Bill S

          Tom could use a mediocre mind. It sounds like it would be a step up for him. Let’s see: Tom or Bertrand Russell. Gee. That’s a tough one.

        • Ford Oxaal

          “former tutor” — lucky you! Here is a quote from an article in the NY Times, written on the 10th anniversary of her death:

          “Christianity,” Miss Anscombe wrote, “taught that men ought to be as
          chaste as pagans thought honest women ought to be; the contraceptive
          morality teaches that women need to be as little chaste as pagans
          thought men need be.”

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            My favourite Anscombe quote is the conclusion of her essay objecting to the University of Oxford conferring an honorary degree on Mr Truman

            “It is possible still to withdraw from this shameful business in some slight degree; it is possible not to go to Encaenia; if it should be embarrassing to someone who would normally go to plead other business, he could take to his bed. I, indeed should fear to go, in case God’s patience suddenly ends.”

  • Pingback: Jimmy Akin - BigPulpit.com

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION - CATHOLIC FEAST - Sync your Soul

  • tom

    Is the photo of Grampa Walton, Will Geer, there as ironic humor? Geer, a noted communist, was the lover of Harry Hay who was a lifelong communist, homosexual and cross dresser.

    • Bill S

      Man, your crude.

  • tom

    why are conservative viewpoints dropped to the bottom? Crisis may well be in crisis!

    • Crisiseditor

      Tom, you are being silly. Ever thought that you are at the end because you were the last to post? In the Blogosphere, unlike in Scripture, the last will not necessarily be first. If the comments are organized by “best” (as is the default option on this site) then fellow readers will judge whether your posts are worthy by clicking the up arrow on the bottom left of your post. So be nice and say something clever. You may very well win friends and influence people.

  • tom

    Will Geer and Harry Hay. Gay communists.

  • cminca

    Tell me–

    How does your definition of “broken families” account for those lgbt children that are thrown out by their “Christian” parents?

    Are they responsible for the brokenness?

    You have NO CLUE what it means to be gay, or to have to build your own FAMILY (in every sense of the word) because you are denied by your own flesh and blood.

    “The family is the basis of any decent society because only in it do children learn how to be decent adults. They are taught virtue in families, or nowhere, because it is only in the home that the kind of intensive, round-the-clock nurturing and acculturation necessary for character formation can occur.”
    So you are saying that it is impossible for anyone who has grown up in an orphanage or foster care to be a “decent” adult.
    Does that include Catholic orphanages?
    You also might want to look at the non-biased research on the children of same-sex partners. You’ll find that there is NO difference–except the children of same-sex partners are more open and accepting. Gee–who’d of thought?
    Stick with your religion. Your much better with faith than facts.

  • Pingback: Steynian 471rd | Free Canuckistan!

MENU