Scalia Protest at Princeton Raises an Important Question

When does it become impermissable for a self-governing people to pass laws that will ensure the survival of the things they love?  When they no longer command a majority of the electorate?  Is that the standard?  Certainly among people of democratic disposition, it is a constitutional given that any time a plurality of voters take charge, they are more or less at liberty to set aside whatever arrangements were in place before they assumed control.

In other words, that massive tectonic shift in the culture we’ve been witnessing over these past fifty years, is about to be given formal and official sanction from the political process.  All the awfulness of the culture, as it were, will sooner or later be codified into law.

Isn’t this what the debate over Gay Rights is finally about?  It is not a civil liberties issue; the proponents of gay marriage are not preoccupied with matters of fairness.  What they are determined on is nothing less than the destruction of the traditional family, which is an institution whose very survival depends on the maintenance of marriage as men and women have practiced it for thousands of years.   Now that the popular culture is no longer on board with this, it is seen as a burden that increasingly nobody wants to bear.

Oh, sure, they’ll pay lip service to it and people will continue in large numbers to avail themselves of the experience.  But tucked away under all that froth and enthusiasm for two people of disparate flesh joining their lives forever together, is a notion of marriage so etiolated, so utterly flattened out, as to be almost unrecognizable.   If you ask young people, for instance, who are the ones destined not only to inherit the future but are in fact giving it shape by the attitudes and tastes which define them at this present moment, about two-thirds will happily tell you that we no longer need to shoulder that particular burden.  The very idea of marriage, they insist, has evolved sufficiently to embrace any number of combinations of consenting adults.  The tyranny of tolerance trumps everything else; and it will have its way over all of us.

Indeed, if the Youth Brigade were not convincing enough to document the vastness of the sea change we’ve undergone, there are now nine states and the District of Columbia on record as actually having repealed the very meaning of marriage; as an historic institution, that is, rooted in both nature and the God of nature.  How long do you suppose it will be before the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to take up the matter, decides to extend across-the-board constitutional protection?  To protect what?   The practice of sodomy, that’s what. That which, until fairly recently, had been widely, universally even, regarded with civilized scorn as an unnatural perversion could, before long, be solemnly enshrined into law from sea to shining sea.

Leaving us still, however, with the question of how to preserve the things we love.  If a nation to be loved, as Burke once said, must be lovely, where does that leave those of us who look upon same sex marriage with abhorrence?   At what point does cultural approval, followed by juridical vindication from the highest court in the land, so diminish the loveliness of our country that to withdraw one’s love and loyalty from it becomes the only tenable course to take?

And can we seriously defend what for large and increasing numbers of people has become indefensible?  Here I think of poor Justice Scalia, who found himself the other day accosted by six hundred or so students at Princeton University, many of them positively ferocious on the subject of gay marriage, who had come out in protest of his atavistic views.  An eighteen year old, self-professed homosexual spearheaded the assault, calling the Justice to account for a comparison he’d earlier made between laws prohibiting sodomy and those directed against such atrocities as murder and bestiality.  That apparently was the warhead.  And did Scalia strike an irenical tone before his student critics?  Did he try and defuse the bomb?  No, he did not.  Digging his heels in, he put to the students the following question, which goes right to the heart of the matter:  “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality,” he pointedly asked, “can we have them against murder?  Can we have it against other things?”

In other words, what are we to do with this sense of instinctive revulsion some of us continue to feel when faced with sexual perversion?  Is it healthy and natural to feel this way?  Or must we move actively to suppress it on the grounds that, enlightened opinion having educated us to view all forms of sexual expression as equally valid and good, only rank bigotry can explain the persistence of the outrage we nevertheless feel?  And if that is the case, then what on earth do we do about other expressions of disgust and revulsion that seem to well up spontaneously from within?   If it is no longer permissible to be revolted by the one, how do we justify the other?  Is it plausible that aversion to homosexual behavior can safely be pronounced as old fashioned, vestigial, and thus no longer a matter of moral importance, but not, say, homicidal behavior, aversion to which we need to preserve and even to stoke up now and again lest our appetite for justice weaken?  Can we really have it both ways?  Or is it an all or nothing proposition?

We’re going to have to face this question pretty soon.  Either that or we simply resign ourselves to being lost souls, stranded on sandbanks of sentimentality, for whom the compass of nature (not to mention the God of nature) is no longer reason’s guide.  In the meantime, to quote a line from Chesterton, “We don’t know what we’re doing, because we don’t know what we’re undoing.”

Regis Martin


Regis Martin is Professor of Theology and Faculty Associate with the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. He earned a licentiate and a doctorate in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. Martin is the author of a number of books, including Still Point: Loss, Longing, and Our Search for God (2012) and The Beggar's Banquet (Emmaus Road). His most recent book, also published by Emmaus Road, is called Witness to Wonder: The World of Catholic Sacrament. He resides in Steubenville, Ohio, with his wife and ten children.

  • Pingback: Scalia Protest at Princeton Raises an Important Question | Crisis Magazine « Servus Fidelis: the faithful servant()

  • Alecto

    Justice Scalia has often been called the “pulsating brain” of SCOTUS. His abilities are beyond those of most ordinary people, including his peers on the Court (most especially John Roberts). I believe he was positing a theory about law and its relationship to society that was clearly beyond the intellectual and moral reach of Princeton. Sadly, the ivory towers have been occupied by “professors” (although I can’t quite grasp what it is they profess aside from a revulsion to ordered liberty) with little capacity for conceptual thinking or critical analysis. The home of James Madison is now a toilet, a societal nadir.

    I promise this is not going to end well for anyone who reveres reason and is subject first to God’s laws.

    • John200

      “I promise this is not going to end well for anyone who reveres reason and is subject first to God’s laws.”

      One hopes you cannot deliver on this promise. If I get your point, it will be harder than it has to be for good people to get to the promised happy ending. But but I think an opposing view might deserve consideration. As a quick reminder, neither the devil nor sinful Man can prevent you from reaching a happy end. It is yours for the asking.

      These lefty professors are not so powerful. They are mouth fighters who repeat what they were told, and not very good at intellectual work. Many laymen have more powerful intellects than the contemporary leftprof.

      I say this freely because I am a professor (in a real discipline; not humanities, not social sciences, not education, not phys ed).

      • Alecto

        I meant the life we have all known, and perhaps even delighted in, is gone and in it’s place is topsy-turvy. I grieve its passing and so should we all. No one can say the U.S. is “good” any longer. And please no missives about how little we have lost. It isn’t a little thing.

  • Ford Oxaal

    I keep chanting this mantra, and I’ll say it again: the natural origin of society itself, from beginning to end, is the family — the first and foremost human allegiance. Society is a social contract among families (not individuals — Locke almost got it right). Individual rights proceed from there (and state rights after that) — but family rights precede society itself. Foolish is the society that puts the state above family. The augmentation of the well-being of the family is the reason for society’s existence. Civil laws that protect the family are not privilege, but founding rights. Such is marriage. The greatest weakening of marriage was no-fault divorce. The redefinition of marriage to matters of equality and extension of individual liberty, for example, as same gender marriage would do/does, is just a symptom of the societal rot of divorce. No-fault divorce is the nullification of the marriage contract. Recasting marriage as an individual right is merely the rebuilding of a destroyed institution in a perverted form. All these attacks on marriage are forms of treason.

    • crakpot

      “State rights” is an oxymoron. States have powers, not rights. Reread the 10th Amendment, and you’ll see that people once understood the difference. As to family rights, there are rights unique to husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and children, but they are not the only people with rights, and we are all still judged one-by-one. Homosexuality is sinful behavior, not nature, and there can be no right to do such a wrong. As a father, I have a right to protect my children from recruitment to it via the propaganda of redefining the word “marriage.”

      • John200

        The term “State rights” mucks up discussions because it is ambiguous. In terms of rights of the state vs. the individual or the family, blast the state. It has very few, if any, rights at all. I think that is what you, F. O. and crakpot, mean.

        In terms of rights of one of our 50 states vs. intrusions and depredations by the federal government, the story is much different. An individual state has many rights indeed, although our political “class” does not seem to know it.

        • crakpot

          Governments have the powers they either take, or get by consent of the governed. Nothing else.

      • Ford Oxaal

        I think you missed the point: society derived its founding motive to exist not from individual good but family well-being/survival. The “social contract” as presently understood is off base — it is between families, not individuals. From small errors come great heresies.

        • crakpot

          If by “society” you mean “nation,” the only moral founding motivation is well stated in the Preamble to the Declaration: To empower government by consent of the governed to help secure a few of our God-given rights. If by “society” you mean neighborhoods and broader communities, I quite agree that families and the Church are their basis.

          • Ford Oxaal

            Sorry, no. I am zoomed way out here. Something like: “Society” — a community supported by mutual interest *beyond* family tie. This definition, or something like it, is discoverable through reason. Family ties are the strongest of human allegiances. Families evolved into tribes, and tribes into societies. But way at the root are families, and again, foolish is the society to screw with the family. Marriage is the ancient institution forming the fundamental protection of family and the children that will form the next generation and culture bearers. The baby boomers, and perhaps their parents, dropped the ball. We have already nullified marriage through no-fault divorce. Society is crumbling as a result. Same sex marriage is a farcical sideshow. Can we self-correct? Or will nature do it the hard way.

  • anonymous

    The issue
    of homosexual “marriage” is so absurd that in a sane society it
    shouldn’t even merit serious discussion however, since we live in a
    homomaniacal society forceful arguments in favor of normal marriage have to be
    presented.Marriage will have no more meaning if homosexual “marriage”
    is embraced by society. Once marriage is defined as meaning a
    relationship of people other than a man and a woman then the term marriage has
    been irrevocably destroyed.That so many courts are ruling in its favor is only an
    indication of how homosexual fanatics have infiltrated the power structure.It
    is ironic that in a time when normal marriage is being ridiculed and defined as
    meaningless and anachronistic these same forces who hold such views are
    obsessed to institutionalize homosexual “marriage” in order to
    legitimize it and force it down the throats of society. Homosexual
    “marriage” is so blatantly absurd that it defies description but
    since we live in a homoobsessive society that relegates reason to the trash bin
    we must be able to illustrate and point out the obvious.. There are basically
    two reasons that homosexual “marriage” is absurd and defies reason
    and logic.

    1. Is the love issue,presented with the innocuous sounding but specious
    and illogical argument: “If two people love each other they should be
    allowed to marry”. Well, that would mean that any two people can marry and
    that would mean mother and son or father and daughter or brother and sister. If
    it does not include them then that would be discrimination according to
    homosexual ideology. Homosexuals cannot say that siblings or parents and
    offspring cannot marry, because that would be contrary to what they
    want,namely, two people in love marrying. Since it is they who want do redefine
    marriage they cannot conveniently say well, two people who are not related to
    each other can’t marry because that would be setting restrictions on marriage
    which they themselves want to obliterate. Why limit marriage to people
    however? Why not animals? Many animals reciprocate their love for their
    masters. Again, if love is the criterion then anything goes.And if anything
    goes then every absurd, unnatural and obscene union can be conceived and
    legitimized as marriage. Homosexuals, once they, society and law include
    themselves in a marriage arrangement cannot be honest with themselves or others
    if they EXCLUDE any other form of marriage.If they do it only reinforces the
    belief that they want to be considered a special and superior group to any
    other and be granted special privileges. If they do not, then marriage can be
    considered anything and the word marriage does not have any more meaning.Either
    way natural marriage is destroyed. To further the point if someone loves
    more than one person and is loved by by more than one person why can’t those
    people marry? After all if love is the criterion of marriage then people who
    love more than one person should be allowed to marry because they are offering
    so much love. Why should Mormons or Muslims be denied the right to marry more
    than one partner? So homosexual marrying “logic” doesn’t even stand
    to the most basic scrutiny, and the courts, if they had any inkling of the law
    and were not fanatical homomaniacs would not even consider listening to
    homosexual marriage lawsuits much less rule in their favor.

    2. It may come as a shocking surprise to homosexuals but they can’t
    reproduce. The main purpose of marriage is to reproduce children and nurture
    them in a protective family environment until they reach maturity. Not all
    marriages produce children but that is due to one or both members of a natural
    marriage being unable to reproduce due to a medical problem or reluctance on
    one or both prospective parents to have children.If the medical problem or
    reluctance problem are excluded the prospective parents would be able to
    have children.Homosexuals ,by the nature of their relationship CANNOT.It is not
    a decision or a medical issue. It is physical and biological IMPOSSIBILITY for
    them to reproduce, whether they like to admit it or not. This is nature at work
    and has nothing to do with bias discrimination or any other words that
    homosexuals and their allies want to introduce. By adding such words as “bias” and
    “discrimination” they also destroy their supposed arguments by
    creating ad hominem attacks thus demonstrating the vacuousness of their
    supposed reasoning by proving they cannot debate the issue on an intellectual

    Homosexuals love to introduce fallacious
    questions such as: “How does it affect you if two homosexuals marry”?
    Denying the truth affects everyone. If I say a gun is a ball does that
    immediately affect me? Probably not. As time goes on however a lie becomes self
    evident, especially when I say: “Be careful of that man with a ball”!
    Maybe I will not pay attention and will not be concerned because I think the
    man actually does have ball. However, if the man starts discharging his gun on
    me I will now know he is actually using a gun against me and putting me in
    jeopardy. That is how intellectual dishonesty can and will affect people and
    that is why being intellectually dishonest is a slap in the face to the truth
    and why it is dangerous.

    Some homosexuals want children even when it is impossible for them to have
    them. This is another example of homosexual intellectual dishonesty and it must
    be said arrogance. They demand children through adoption or through
    surrogate motherhood.If I demand a Ferrari automobile does anyone think the
    court or a government would give it to me? I think not. If I demand to be an
    airline pilot and can’t fly am I being discriminated against? I think not. Then
    why are homosexuals given rights and privileges which they cannot have or do
    not deserve? There is no other explanation than the so called system is
    infatuated and obsessed with creating homosexual “rights” even when
    logic and nature do not. There is a moral question regarding the issue of
    surrogate motherhood however, that is not the question being discussed here.
    The question remains the same as before in that normal couples who use
    surrogate motherhood do so because they are medically prevented from having
    children of their own. Homosexuals are prevented by nature from doing so. When
    the media presents a homosexual couple as having children, as though they were
    naturally conceived by them and give birth to a child as
    though it were their own they are being intellectually dishonest and are
    revolting against nature and life and living a lie and presenting a lie
    to society.

    Homosexuals and their allies love to ridicule
    people who say their lifestyle is unnatural by pointing out that people do
    “unnatural” things everyday such as riding a car, using a phone
    or using eyeglasses. True, people do these things as they do many others. They
    use their God given talent to reason and analyze and improve their lives. It
    was said that if God wanted man to fly he would have given him wings.
    Well, man was not given wings but has superseded himself and learned to fly. As
    he has used medicine to conquer diseases, to build buildings, to use computers
    and so many other things. He has used nature to improve his natural
    surroundings. Of course, one can argue that the making of atomic weapons
    or creation of pollution has not actually improved nature and that is true. It
    is true because they are a DISTORTION of nature and that is exactly what
    homosexuality is: a distortion of nature. And as much as the world strives to
    improve nature to make the world a better place to live in, it should do
    everything to stop distorting nature whether it be in perverting and distorting
    nature in creating weapons of mass destruction or perverting and distorting
    nature by creating homosexual marriage. After all if the world were subjected
    to a massive nuclear attack the world would cease to exist. If everyone entered
    into a homosexual marriage, whether homosexuals want to admit it or not, the
    world would cease to exist in a generation.(Unless, of course, you enter a
    distorted science fiction world where propagation is dependent on in vitro
    fertilization and surrogacy). That is
    not to say that everyone will want to enter into a homosexual relationship or
    homosexual “marriage” however the mere fact of knowing that if every
    person led this type of lifestyle would lead to the extermination of the
    human race means that such a life style cannot be accepted,glamorized,promoted
    or institutionalized into law.Of course homosexuals and their allies who read
    this will howl in outrage at the thought of comparing homosexual marriage
    to nuclear destruction. They are not being compared however, they are being
    analyzed and if one is being followed to its logical conclusion and shown to be
    what they are: Abominations. In the case of nuclear destruction,it can lead to
    the destruction of humanity. So it is with homosexuality, if it is led to its
    logical conclusion it can lead to the destruction of the human race. It may be
    an uncomfortable or an inconvenient truth but it is also undeniable and
    incontrovertible. Homosexuals should be treated with respect and
    should be able to live a life without being subjected to prejudices or
    discrimination but neither should they be granted marriage, or “civil
    unions” or any other form of union which is is what nature has reserved
    and preordained as being ONLY between a man and a woman. The DISTORTION of
    nature has to be stopped. Homosexual marriage up until recently was considered
    an illogical absurdity not worthy of discussion and would be considered the
    same today if the secular, so called “progressives” had not
    infiltrated and destroyed academia and the power structure and reprogrammed a
    malleable and gullible public. Nature is nature, it can be improved and
    unfortunately it can also be ruined and as we are seeing now it is being
    distorted. What would have seemed inconceivable only a few short years ago has
    come to be regarded as a human rights and civil rights issue which could be
    nothing further from the truth. Up is down and down is up. Wrong is right and
    right is wrong The sun is the moon and the moon is the sun. Plants can grow
    without sunlight and without water. That is obviously not true but if
    homosexual marriage is legalized and institutionalized we will in effect be
    saying the same thing. That nature does not mean anything anymore and that
    nothing has validity anymore. When you deny one truth then all truth can be
    denied. It may seem far-fetched but what would prevent someone from saying:
    “I am sick of how I was created. I want to defecate from my mouth and eat
    with my anus and I want the government and society to pay for an operation that
    allows that and not only that, I want a law to recognize it as being
    normal,legitimate and legal”. If nature can be distorted by allowing
    homosexal marriage then reason and nature no longer exist and everything and
    anything goes

    • Bob

      Flannery O’ Conner said “the harder society pushes against you (as a Catholic), the harder you have to push back. Let us defend marriage between a man and woman and that children should have a mother and father, not a Father/father, mother/mother firmly, lovingly and unapologetically.

    • Anon, I think your worries about the destruction of marriage may be a little exaggerated. Marriage has not yet been destroyed in the 9 states and 12 countries where it has become more inclusive. In fact, more people are getting married and there are some signs that the divorce rates are falling in those places. It stands to reason that a marriage between a gay man and a straight woman is not going to be very sturdy; same-sex marriage siphons off gays from the pools of eligible mates sought by heterosexuals. Closeted homosexuals who want families are wont to marry straight spouses. Let’s get everyone out of the closet and match like to like. Enough of mis-matching, which only leads to domestic disharmony. Would you want your daughter to marry a closeted gay man? If not, then provide incentives for him to match up with someone that he loves and is compatible with.

      • MarkRutledge

        Timothy, enough with the propaganda. SSM hasn’t been legal in states long enough to glean any longitudinal data, though it will likely look like the countries that have had SSM for a longer time. Alas, this is contrary to your claim. In nations such as The Netherlands, marriage rates have been dropping, illigitimacy rates have risen, and divorce rates unchanged (not unsurprising given fewer are getting married). This does not bode well for the future of society.

        • Mark, when a gay couple marries, that is one more marriage. When 500 gay couples marry, that is 500 more marriages. If you’re concerned about the declining marriage rate among heterosexuals, then why don’t you just address that instead of discouraging those homosexuals who DO still believe in marriage and want its benefits for themselves?

          And what do illegitimacy rates have to do with SSM? Again, you are citing a heterosexual problem as an argument against gay marriage.

          If you’re really worried about the future of society and the future of marriage, why don’t you focus on where the problems are? Work on the divorce problem. SSM is not a problem. It’s a solution.

    • thebentangle

      Anon, your talk about “homosexual fanatics infiltrating the power structure” sounds a lot like a paranoid conspiracy theory. Homosexuals are people, they are citizens, and they are just as entitled as anyone else to advocate for their interests.

      Your talk about the “irrevocable destruction” of marriage sounds hysterical.

      Your talk about the “homosexual ideology” of love and marriage is a straw man. I have never heard a gay person say without either implicit or explicit qualification that “two people who love each other should be allowed to marry.” Obviously, incestuous and polygamous marriages should not be allowed because of the harm that they cause. Homosexual marriages do not harm anyone, and the state has no compelling interesting in banning them. I think you wasted a lot of energy on that argument, which has been debunked so many times that nobody even pays attention to it any longer.

      Your talk about procreation rests on the twin assumptions that homosexuals want to procreate and that non-procreative marriages are somehow defective. Neither of these assumptions is warranted, so you wasted more keystrokes.

      Your talk about truth and dishonesty is purely subjective and your gun analogy is fatally flawed. While you may be affected by a gun discharged in your direction, two homosexual men marrying will not affect you in any negative way. One possible positive outcome is that they will be out and visible, and your daughter will not make the mistake of falling in love with one of them and getting her heart broken.

      Your talk about adoption and surrogacy is way over-wrought and, again, borderline hysterical. I myself (a gay man) have an adopted son, now 25, and he appears to have all his fingers and toes, so to speak. He works in a bank and has a girlfriend, etc. All is good.

      Your talk about nuclear attacks and everybody turning gay and the world ceasing to exist within a generation and people defecating from their mouths is really over the top, Anon. I am not just saying this as an argumentative ploy or an ad hominem, but I really think you might to get some medical help about these obsessions and hallucinations. You appear to be almost in a state of panic about some imagined loss of control. Take care.

  • Bob

    The act of sodomy is like the act of abortion. If one lets their mind really think about what happens during both acts you find these acts abhorrent and disgusting. So disgusting that people don’t want their mind’s eye to “go there.”

    But take a moment to let your imagination picture anal sex. Take a moment to picture a live baby being ripped out of the womb. Perversions of nature.

    • Dan

      So your saying I should stop having anal sex with my lady fried?

      • Bob

        Yes. Amongst several reasons, fornication is a sin, even with disordered, perverted anal sex with a female.

        • Bob, just stop visualizing it, and maybe the thought will go away.

          • John200

            Dear Tim,

            Because homo”sex”uals insist on public exposure, these thoughts do not go away. But they will, when homo”sex”uals understand what they are doing to
            themselves (list of detrimental effects goes here), to each other, to others who would like to see them live well, and to society as a whole (list of expenses goes here). Let’s peek….

            The matter is much more than visualization. It is a matter of destroying the anus and (list of body parts goes here) of the person you “love” (your word, not mine). Not very loving, that.

            It should not be necessary to give you this at book length. Think of diapers, diseases (list of diseases goes here), poop and lack of control over the poop, wide distribution of the poop,… . You’ll see it, yes, that’s what you are wishing on your “beloved” partner. And on yourself. That’s where both of you are headed.

            I hate to add a little reminder that pathology occurs at each end of the alimentary canal; sometimes, at both ends in the same homo”sex”ual. A twofer! You ruined him at both ends!!

            Not very loving, that.

    • Bob, why are you equating homosexuality with anal intercourse? First, not all homosexuals practice anal intercourse, and second, many heterosexuals do practice it. If you don’t like to think of other people having anal intercourse, then by all means don’t think about it. Why ARE you thinking about it so much? If you continue in this vein, I’ll begin to think you have an unhealthy fixation.

      • Bob

        Did you read the article Tim?? I was relating to ( and agreeing with) Regis’ natural moral repulsion to anal sex. An excerpt from the article:

        “In other words, what are we to do with this sense of instinctive revulsion some of us continue to feel when faced with sexual perversion?  Is it healthy and natural to feel this way?  Or must we move actively to suppress it on the grounds that, enlightened opinion having educated us to view all forms of sexual expression as equally valid and good, only rank bigotry can explain the persistence of the outrage we nevertheless feel?  And if that is the case, then what on earth do we do about other expressions of disgust and revulsion that seem to well up spontaneously from within?   If it is no longer permissible to be revolted by the one, how do we justify the other?  Is it plausible that aversion to homosexual behavior can safely be pronounced as old fashioned, vestigial, and thus no longer a matter of moral importance, but not, say, homicidal behavior, aversion to which we need to preserve and even to stoke up now and again lest our appetite for justice weaken?  Can we really have it both ways?  Or is it an all or nothing proposition?”

    • MarkRutledge

      Indeed Bob. Have you ever heard a homosexual apologist begin a defense with “once you get past the ick factor…” or somesuch? That so-called “ick factor” is the moral compass pointing to something wrong. Folks would do well to listen to that moral compass, whatever is left thereof.

      • thebentangle

        Mark, the “ick factor” is not the same as a moral compass. Not at all. My ick factor kicks in whenever my attention is directed to heterosexual intercourse. I just divert my attention. I don’t conclude that heterosexual intercourse is sinful or bad.

        • John200

          Ha, ha, ha, ha, Mr. Tangle. I give you credit for your sense of humor. You ridicule yourself for our enjoyment.

          Good show. Carry on. Continue the process of your conversion.

          It really was funny.

  • Pingback: Scalia Protest at Princeton Raises an Important Question | Catholic Canada()

  • Flavius

    I am not convinced that the goal of homosexualists is the destruction of the traditional family, although that may well be an outcome, and is an outcome that already has been largely attained even with their impetus. I rather think their goal is the absolute vindication in law of the sexual lifestyle they have chosen to lead, or has chosen them, as they prefer to style it, in some measure or another. The traditional family unit, already in concept weakened, as a fundamental cultural pivot is neither here nor there, or it is expendable, as in necessary collateral damage. When gay adoptions were admitted inside the pale, same sex marriage in law probably became inevitable. An irony is the likely fact that the vast majority of non-homosexualist supporters of SSM would wince at the prospect of their own natural children being sent to a same sex household for rearing if some unfortunate event should absent them from the privelege.

    • thebentangle

      Flavius, As a card-carrying homosexual activist, I can confirm for you that my goal–and our goal–is not to destroy the traditional family. I like the traditional family. I was raised in one, and so was my partner. We love our nieces and nephews and our uncles and aunts.

      You think our goal is “absolute vindication in the law of [our] sexual lifestyle.” That’s casting in very negative terms what is in my opinion a very worthy goal, but I call it equality and respect. “Tony” (above) referred to gay sex as “fornication” but was opposed to our marrying. He has put us in a double-bind, one in which we’re damned no matter what we do, unless we choose self-renunciation and loveless lives. But we are not going to accept self-renunciation and loveless lives. Sex is natural and healthy and homosexuality is part of nature.

      The traditional family is not going to perish unless you allow it to. We are not responsible for your divorces, your out-of-wedlock birthing, your teenage pregnancies.

      Fears about gay parenting/adoption are just that—fears. The medical and social welfare community has stated its consensus view on gay parenting, and there is no more rational reason to fear it than there is to fear straight parenting. Let’s judge each prospective adoptive couple on their own merits, not on fears and stereotypes.

      • Bob

        tangled, I’m assuming you’ve read Robert Lopez’s article on this website, “The Soul-Crushing Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage.” you’ve commented extensively on every other article concerning gays on this site, why have you not commented on his article?

        • thebentangle

          The answer is simple, Bob. You can de-activate your over-active imagination. I haven’t gotten around to it, and I may not.

          • Bob

            Very negative article on the gay lifestyle from someone in the gay community. Lopez seems very sincere, went through a lot of pain and suffering because of the gay culture. Similar to a lot of other articles I’ve read from adults who were raised in the gay community. Interesting.

            • Well, it would be a mistake to generalize from a particular person’s experience. To be fair, we would have to make similar generalizations from personal accounts of being raised in heterosexual families.

          • Bob

            Have you heard of the Catholic homosexual group Courage, Tangle? They find greater meaning in their lives by living chastely a d follow Christ. Here is a link to their website and wonderful testimonials!:


            • thebentangle

              Yes, Bob, I’ve heard of them. I am not actually a Catholic myself, so I don’t understand the path they have chosen, but they are certainly free to follow it. I do not envy them, however, just as they would presumably not envy me.

  • Pingback: Unlovley America – “Scalia Protest at Princeton Raises an Important Question” – Re-blog (Crisis Magazine) | The Peanut Gallery()

  • Dano

    To answer Scalia’s question, I’ll use a variant of one of Thomas Jefferson’s famous quotes: Homosexuality neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket.
    There was a time, not even a hundred years ago, when writing with the left hand was seen as Satanic. My grandfather was forced to write with his right hand in Catholic school despite being left handed.
    Also this “instinctive revulsion” standard doesnt pass the smell test. Heterosexual males aren’t repulsed by lesbian acts at all.

    • thebentangle

      Well put, Dano. I love your Jefferson quote. I, too, felt an instinctive revulsion at Mr Martin’s “instinctive revulsion” argument, but your point about male heterosexual voyeurism of lesbian sex is the best refutation I’ve seen.

      My parents were Southern white racists during my childhood and youth in Texas before the Civil Rights Act was signed. I remember their frequent expressions of revulsion towards African-Americans. They believed that God had instilled this revulsion in them because blacks were cursed. When I read about Mr. Martin’s visceral disgust and his justifications of it, I think back to those days.

      • Bob

        Regardless of whether you believe in Him or not, Tangle, Jesus loves you and wants you to follow Him!

        • thebentangle

          Bob, how could Jesus have loved me? He didn’t even know me.

          • Bob

            He loves you Tangled…..and knows you.

            • TheBentAngle


    • Not true. All of our sexual customs have a profound effect upon the common good. In fact, it is hard to imagine anything that has a MORE profound effect upon the common good, than our shared expectations regarding the sexes and their union. Your comparison with left-handedness is really silly — nobody in the Catholic church believed what you say about it. People were trained out of it here and there because it is a heck of a lot easier to be right handed than to be left handed, if you are doing physical labor with tools as they have been fashioned — scissors, screw drivers, lawn mowers, power saws, etc. I speak from left handed experience.
      Anyway, the public display and approval of male-male sodomy — taking that as a particular example — absolutely crushes the possibility for natural, physically expressed, and NORMAL friendships among boys; that will be driven out because it will be immediately interpreted as erotic. And the boys will have the snare placed in their path — they will be deprived of what is their due, a natural and matter-of-course and uncomplicated expectation of heterosexuality.
      AND — we will be placing our stamp of approval on fornication, a fortiori. That doesn’t break anybody’s leg? The collapse of the family among the poor? Jefferson was too smart a man not to notice what happens when sexual mores disintegrate.

      • Bob

        And really on the subject of morality, should we use someone like Thomas Jefferson as an expert who had several mistresses on the side that he committed adultery with?

        • Augustus

          Just for the record, it has been charged but not proven that Jefferson had a relationship with Sally Hemings. If it is true–which is in doubt–it would have begun after his wife died at a young age.

          • Ray Olson

            Thanks, Augustus. I’d wanted to make that point but felt sheepish about doing it, because I wanted to add, without knowing enough, perhaps, that I question the assertion that Jefferson “had several mistresses on the side”, and not just because “on the side” implies that they were concurrent with his marriage, which was quite short. Until further evidence is presented to me, I shall maintain my belief–in defiance of the sex-is-irresistible/sex is everything! mentality of our time–that Jefferson lived a long and chaste celibate life after his wife’s early death.

      • Ford Oxaal

        Incredible — even friendship itself is under assault. You’d think there is something in the water for our society to be on the brink of ruin, and yet the issues of same sex marriage are ones that need to be contended with. I just shooed my seven year old out of here, because I don’t want her to see a single word on these boards. Society does NOTHING to protect children. I HATE it.

        • You didn’t want your seven-year-old to know you spend countless hours blogging about homosexuality?

          • Ford Oxaal

            It’s too bad that civilization has come to feed on its own young. If we don’t kill them in the womb, we steal their innocence. This is about marriage and family and the cultural cesspool that threatens it.

            • Ford, do you also spend time blogging on sites that discuss divorce, prostitution, violence against women, and out-of-wedlock births?

              • Ford Oxaal

                It is good to develop ideas with intelligent folks such as yourself. I am editing and publishing a work on certainty, and in part two, what may be held with conviction — based on what is discoverable through reason alone. I think a section should be added which tweaks the social contract of Locke to one between families rather than individuals. The primary role of government is to augment the well-being of families, as well as to discover the greatest scope of liberty within justice. I think we agree on this latter role based on what I have read.

      • Me

        “Anyway, the public display and approval of male-male sodomy — taking that as a particular example — absolutely crushes the possibility for natural, physically expressed, and NORMAL friendships among boys”

        Absolutely not true! Public repression and disapproval of homosexual relations merely pushes the behavior underground, as we can see from the number of actively homosexual priests in the very anti-homosexual Catholic Church. As homosexuality gains acceptance with young people, both heterosexuality and homosexuality are becoming more uncomplicated. It’s becoming less likely that unfortunate youths will be ostracized and bullied because they’re perceived as gay. Straight boys and men are now less likely to repress parts of themselves they see as sensitive or affectionate and are more likely to develop straightforward and accepting friendships.

        • Again, not true. And this is easily demonstrable. All you have to do is ask the boys themselves, whether they would walk arm-in-arm down the street — no — or whether they would express their affection for one another as “love” — no. Take a look at photographs of teams circa 1910, and you’ll see the boys fairly hanging over one another. The assumption of normality clears the space for such physically expressed friendship, because it isn’t taken as a sign of anything. This phenomenon isn’t limited to boys, either. We all have to use the same language, whatever it is, and that includes gestures.
          As for the homosexual priests — not all of them, but most of them, were “liberals,” actually sexual antinomians, just like most of the protesters here. Your contention that “repression” causes all the problems is also demonstrably false, since that would imply that the Anglican Church has been wholly free from these troubles, and our public schools, and San Francisco — why does nobody mention San Francisco? Nothing is repressed there, and all that has happened is that the psychological disorder has been allowed to ramify and grow more and more perverse.

          • Me

            Homosexuality is not a “psychological disorder”, except in the minds of those who can’t quite rid themselves of insidious thoughts on the subject. Repressed homosexuality, practiced secretly, is unhealthy. Expressed in open relationships and marriage, it is not. This is how God made these people. I don’t know what boys you hang out with, but the ones I know are quite sympathetic to homosexuals and uninhibited about showing affection with their peers, straight or gay. In any case, the idea that all homosexual youths must be locked in the closet so that straight kids can fit your paradigm is unrealistic, cruel, and bigoted. Gay kids have rights to. How are they supposed to feel in your ideal world? What needs to change is the exclusivist paradigm harbored by people like you who are failing to accept real, live people. How would anyone of us respond if we had a son who turned out to be gay? For my part, I would love him, respect him, value him, and fight for his rights in a world that is filled with haters and bigots.

          • thebentangle

            Tony, your evocation of the sports teams photos of 1910, showing presumably straight boys “fairly hanging over one another,” points to changing perceptions of gay behavior. In that era, gays were thought to be effeminate, and a “gay football player” would have been an oxymoron. So young men, having “cleared the space for physically expressed friendship,” as you put it, felt free to “hang over one another” without fear of stigmatization. Football was a man’s sport.

            One problem with this scenario is precisely that a space was cleared. What does that mean? It means that someone had to be excluded, stigmatized, and ostracized.

            Another problem is that the perceptions of gayness were partially false. Some of the players on those teams were in fact gay, just as team players are today. They were indistinguishable from the others.

            So you are complaining that there is no longer a “space” where straight men can physically express friendship without being mistaken for gay. True. So how are you going to recover that space?

            This is a really interesting dilemma. How ARE sports teams recovering that space? They can no longer exclude gay players, and the public is becoming more and more intolerant of homophobic behavior among athletes.

            The answer is surprisingly simple. Straight players are losing their fear of homosexuals, they are fully accepting homosexuals onto their teams, and the stigma is gradually disappearing. If there’s no stigma, then there’s nothing to fear. Straight men can express as much affection toward each other as they like because they will not be stigmatized for doing so. Get it?

            So I would turn the following phrase from your comment to advantage in my own argument: “The assumption of normality clears the space for such physically expressed friendship.” Right! When homosexuality is considered normal, which it is, then the space for physically expressed friendship is cleared for everyone!

          • Dano

            Whats wrong with San Francisco? Its the most beautiful, scenic city in America (unlike say Houston or Dallas). Its home to the most innovative technology companies in the world.

        • thebentangle

          So true. The social environment for gay and lesbian youth has finally taken a positive turn, though we have a very long way to go to overcome the effects of stigmatization and bullying. Suppressing one’s sexual nature and stifling one’s natural affections can only lead to dangerous psychological dysfunctions, with the results that we have seen among the Catholic clergy and in the hyper-masculine “terminators” of Hollywood.

    • dover_beach

      True, but ‘instinctive revulsion’ has only ever been the beginning of an argument, not its conclusion, so your argument has no legs.

  • “When does it become impermissible for a self-governing people to pass laws that will ensure the survival of the things they love? ”

    Civil laws are passed to prevent harm to others or one self. If this cannot be demonstrated then it becomes impermissible for a self-governing people to pass that law.

    Taking away someone’s natural rights because it affronts someone else’s sense of morality or evokes feelings of revulsion is contrary to the very notion of a free society. Every person’s natural rights, and the ability to exercise those rights (i.e. freedom), must be preserved.

    Providing the freedom to do something does not compel someone to do that thing. 2% same sex marriages will not undermine 98% of the marriages that are heterosexual.

    Sodomy is legal everywhere and has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

    • thebentangle

      This is an excellent summation of the civil rights argument that Mr. Martin glossed over. Thank you.

      • Ford Oxaal

        Marriage has already been nullified by no-fault divorce. The very roots of society are now the plaything to be mocked and abused on the way down! EEEE HAAA. Kind of like Slim Pickens riding down on the A-Bomb in Dr. Strangelove.

        • thebentangle

          No Ford. No-fault divorce is not like the A-Bomb in Dr. Strangelove. If you want to worry about something that IS like that bomb, I would suggest you look at climate change, the global water crisis, and destruction of the environment. Without immediate action on climate change, there may not be anyone around to GET divorced within fifty or a hundred years. So why spend your time re-arranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic? I am interested in this topic because I have a huge stake in it. What’s your motivation?

          • Ford Oxaal

            Agreed we need to hand down a workable situation to the next generation, and preferably an improved one. But these are all ethical issues. And the ethics coming out of, say, Princeton, these days is remarkably decadent.

    • dover_beach

      Peter, where have you demonstrated that gay men or women, or groups of men and/or women, have a natural right to marriage?

      • I haven’t demonstrated that individuals have a natural right to marriage. Without conceding that point however, it probably would have been better that I used the term “civil right” instead since we are talking about passing laws and marriage as recognized in our civil society.

        • dover_beach

          Agreed, but even here, I think some argument needs to be made. If marriage is to be extended to relationships between two men or two women, why is it being denied to polygamous and polyamorous relationships? This is just one more reason why I am entirely suspicious of the civil rights claim.

          • I made the argument re civil rights. For natural rights, the argument depends on the definition of marriage and the basis of natural rights and for that I think there will not be much agreement.

            Polygamy has been a common form of accepted marriage throughout our collective history and is present throughout the world even today. Divorce is also a form of serial polygamy that is much more common today than before.

            Social arguments, however, have been made that polygamy is harmful to society. But Polygamy and same sex marriage are distinct and should be evaluated on the basis of each type of marriage.

            Purely conjecture on my part which may have some support by scientific studies, is that polygamy harms society by upsetting the balance of male to female, much as we are seeing in societies that favor male to female children and is reflected in the birth rates. When large numbers of males cannot find mates, problems ensue.

            • dover_beach

              “But polygamy and same sex marriage are distinct and should be evaluated on the basis of the specifics of each type of marriage.”

              No, surely, if marriage is a civil right it should not be evaluated on the specifics. When we extended the franchise it was irrelevant evaluating whether working class men, women, or African-Americans/ Asians voting would be harmful to society. They have a right to vote irrespective of any purported harm such a measure might lead to.

              “Purely conjecture on my part which may have some support by scientific studies, is that polygamy harms society by upsetting the balance of male to female,”

              This is a rather weak reason. And given more or less equal numbers of polyandrous and polyamorous marriages the harm you allege would never eventuate.

              • A civil right should not be evaluated on the specifics? What about marriage–should that be allowed between a male adult and a female child? I think you need to think this through. All civil rights have limits based on other more overwhelming considerations.

          • thebentangle

            Dover, didn’t we already cover that issue on this thread? No? Maybe it was another thread. The answer to your question (“Why is marriage denied to polygamous and polyamorous relationships”) is that these relationships entail harm. You can easily research this to find out what the harms are. A same-sex marriage does not harm anyone and in fact benefits everyone. It makes the spouses happy, it decisively removes them from the pool of eligible mates for heterosexuals, and it helps lower divorce rates. Just think of it: Young straight men no longer have to compete for females with closeted gay men who badly want families and respectability. Heterosexuals should be delighted that their prospects for successful matching are so improved! Instead, all we hear is complaining.

        • Ford Oxaal

          Marriage is much more fundamental than a mere civil right. Society itself exists to augment the well-being of family, not the other way around. This whole debate would never happen if society had not already nullified marriage with no-fault divorce. If there were lifelong obligations to marriage, none of this nonsense would even be on the table. It would be a purely academic discussion. As it is, the family has been virtually destroyed, and now this is the ensuing societal rot.

          • thebentangle

            Ford, you may be working at the wrong end of the historical succession of rights. If I were you, I would back up and take on the “no-fault” divorce issue first, and if you can get that rolled back, then you’re probably going to want to tackle women’s suffrage, and then women’s rights to own property. If you really want to put all that ointment back into the tube, you’ve got your work cut out for you.

            Anyway, as I keep saying ad nauseum, you can help reduce divorce rates by supporting same-sex marriage. It’s a no-brainer. Believe me.

            • Ford Oxaal

              That’s not my work 🙂 But I am glad to help where I can.

      • thebentangle

        Dover, I think the burden is on you to show that we have NO right to it. This is the way the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals approached the issue of Prop 8.

        • dover_beach

          No, as in most things, the burden is on the person making a positive statement. But, anyway, it’s not as if this burden hasn’t been attempted or met. I think the most recent statement of this is What is Marriage? by Girgis, Anderson, and George, and it is quite adequate.

          • thebentangle

            Again, Dover, you are mistaken about the approach taken by the courts. The burden of proof is on those who want SSM banned. They have to show why the state has “compelling reasons” to withhold from some citizens the same rights that others enjoy. Check it out. Do the research. See for yourself.

        • I agree. We have rights and freedom to exercise those rights unless it shown that it harms someone or ourselves. Harm must be demonstrated.

    • John200

      Nice list of non sequiturs. Homo”sex”uals do indeed choose the homo”sex”ual bahavior. But you use too many big words to see this plain fact. You have confused yourself.

      I give you credit for (finally!) refocusing on the article and delivering the remarkable (you probably meant this as a sincere statement) conclusion:

      “Sodomy … has nothing to do with same sex marriage.”

      You will need some remedial work, unless you are a comedian. And a good one.

  • thebentangle

    Regis, you stated that the debate over gay rights is not a civil liberties issue, but you did not say why. Instead, you moved quickly on to assume malicious intent on the part of gay activists who want marriage for themselves. I can assure you, as a gay activist of long standing, that I do not wish for the destruction of the traditional family. I was raised in one. My partner was raised in one. I love traditional families and would not want any harm to come to any of them. Movies about traditional romances do not evoke disgust or fear in me. I’m happy when the hero and the heroine fall in love and get married and have children. It’s beautiful. I cried in “Wuthering Heights” and “Rebecca.”

    And I have the same reaction to movies about two men in love with each other. I am sorry if they disgust you, but I find them beautiful.

    I don’t think it is at all accurate or fair to claim that the meaning of marriage has been repealed in nine states and the D of C. Men and women still may marry each other there, and their marriages are in no way affected by same-sex marriages in their state–at least not negatively. (There may be some positive effects, but that is another subject…) They can design their weddings as they like and write their own vows in many cases. No “tyrants of tolerance” will be on hand to supervise them.

    You equate homosexuality with anal intercourse, but another commenter on this thread pointed out what should be obvious: that not all homosexuals practice anal intercourse and that many heterosexuals do. Furthermore, I would imagine anal intercourse between lesbians is extremely rare. So what are you talking about?

    I think that you and many of the bloggers on this thread are getting a little carried away. When you are thinking of “withdrawing your love and loyalty” from this country over this issue, don’t you think you might be losing perspective a bit? If you’re not loyal to this country, which one will you shift your loyalty to? Uganda? Pakistan?

    I totally support the student who challenged Scalia for suggesting that homosexuality is anything remotely like murder. That is simply libelous.

    What are you to do with your “sense of instinctive revulsion?” You could see a therapist about it. You seem to be like the blogger (below) who appears to like thinking about anal intercourse so that he can work up his outrage over it. Just don’t think about it. Don’t imagine yourself at my bedside watching me have sex.

    You could also re-read those parts of the Gospels where Jesus teaches us to love one another and not to be judgmental. (But just ignore the parts where he is judgmental himself.)

    And BTW, why is the gay marriage debate NOT a civil rights or fairness issue?

    • Dan Li

      I believe I may differ with Regis, but the reason that it is not a simple ‘civil’ issue is that it is an issue regarding the underlying reality of the union between a man and a woman.

      The institution of marriage is (and has been through the ages) a recognition of the inherent complementarity and directedness of the sexes towards both the union of two individuals and the propagation of human life. It also is a recognition of the way this type of union both brought new life and raised it, forming one of the foundations for society as we know it.

      The type of marriage you seem to support doesn’t account for this fundamental part of human nature, and so to redefine it is sort of like asking us to redefine “triangles” to include closed, four-sided, Euclidean figures.

      One of the fears we have is that failure to recognize this essential part of our nature will lead to marriage being regarded as a simple romantic-social-emotional union that exists primarily for the satisfaction of the people involved. This in turn would leave the original institution without a term that recognizes the essential differences between it and other unions as ‘heterosexual marriage’ is a term that does not really convey a difference in ‘kind’.

      • Dan, your argument is simply that marriage has always been considered to be “X,” and it should therefore continue to be “X” because society will somehow become destabilized unless it does. The traditional marriage that you describe may satisfy certain human needs, but not everyone has the same needs. I have hair on my head, so I don’t need to wear a cap in cool weather. My partner is left-handed, so he needs certain accommodations for that.

        Male-female marriage doesn’t suit our needs because we are both gay men. Nor would our marriage (in WA) suit you.

        If marriage is a positive good and builds stable families and a stable society, then it should be available to anyone who aspires to it as long as it causes no harm to anyone.

        • Me

          I agree, Timothy. I would add that Dan has it wrong about marriage always being considered to be “X”. Look at marriage in the Old Testament — multiple wives and a few concubines on the side. That was biblical marriage:-O

          • Dan Li

            And you bring this up as if the Bible actually *supports* that institution of multiple wives and concubines? What, are you taking your information from some amateur “Bible Refutation” website? Would you actually argue that it endorses Uriah gambits and betrayls ala Judas Iscariot? Solomon’s many wives were not a sign of his wisdom, they were a sign of his weakness and were not in fact morally endorsed. Such things as polygamy and concubinage are hardly portrayed as ideal things anywhere in the Bible.

            That aside, even though these things demonstrate a further corruption of the essential institution, they have retained some ‘sense’ of the original purpose of the institution of marriage.

          • Dan Li

            Additionally, the ancient cultures that we know of do account for such unions as marriage is traditionally understood, at least in the context of a man and a woman united in a union that was inherently directed towards both unity and procreation. Continuing from before, such things as polygamy still recognized that, with men or women sometimes being involved in multiple simultaneous marriages (the multiple part being that which tends towards the disruption ofthe unitive essence of the institution).

        • Dan Li

          I’m mainly concerned with the process of “equivocation” that seems to be going on. It may not be your goal, but others *have* stated that their goal is to see unions between two people of the same sex effectively equivalent in the eyes of society, culture and law.

          The thing I’m contending is that this disregards the intrinsic difference between the two, and the fact that one is inherently capable of generating and propagating life while also simultaneously providing a support system that will allow that new life to acclimate to the society of humanity and the other is not. This disregard may lead to marriage being reduced to an emotional union that exists primarily for the pleasure of the adults involved, leaving the aforementioned differentiating factors essentially unrecognized.

          That’s not exactly in the state’s interest, right? One of the state’s foremost desires the propagation of its peoples and its culture, and the institution of marriage (as traditionally understood) provides an excellent engine for both of these to be accomplished. I recognize that the state also has an interest in improving the happiness of its citizenry (and the inhabitants of its holdings). As such (disregarding any arguments about the morality of homosexual acts while recognizing the moral benefit that may arise from close emotional bonds between any two people) the state would have an interest in providing assurances such as visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc and can create other institutions to provide for these.

    • Dan Li

      Jesus’ “judge not lest ye be judged” statement is taken to be a caution against hypocrisy, not against actually judging the moral acts or the character of other people.

      Justice Scalia’s rejoinder was not libelous, perhaps it was in bad taste, but it was a perfectly valid question. What standards do we ascribe to for our morality and our reactions to immoral acts? On what grounds can we stand to make a case that this-act-here is moral while that-act-over-there is immoral? What makes murder an evil act, what makes petty theft an evil act, what makes drug use an evil act? What makes fidelity to contracts a good act, what makes veracity a good act, what makes cordiality and charity good? On what basis are we validly angry, happy, sad, disappointed, giddy, or fearful of anything at all?

      • thebentangle

        Dan, you really do not know how to distinguish a moral from an immoral act without guidance from law, tradition, or scriptural/ecclesial authority? Here’s something to help you: Think of a behavior that is considered immoral by some people and moral by others. Ask yourself, “Does this behavior cause harm to anyone?” If the answer is “no,” then the behavior is probably moral, or at least not immoral.

        Homosexuality in and of itself does not harm anyone. Certain behaviors done by homosexuals may be harmful, but the same is true of certain behaviors of heterosexuals. So let’s focus on the behaviors and not on the orientation.

        Try to separate the fundamentals from the contingencies. I love my cat who is now sitting beside me watching a bird video. She is just fundamentally a cat and she does what cats do. I try to discourage her from biting me, however, though I know it is in her nature. If she were a human, I could scold and shame her with words like “immoral,” and I probably would hesitate to do so. But her “cat-ness” is not immoral, nor is her fondness for bird videos. There’s no harm in any of it, and it gives me endless delight.

        • dover_beach

          “Ask yourself, “Does this behavior cause harm to anyone?” If the answer is “no,” then the behavior is probably moral, or at least not immoral.”

          I don’t think that is right. Bestiality/ adult incest ‘harm’ no other persons. Are these then “probably moral, or at least not immoral”?

          Your example about cat-ness is interesting since it is a natural law argument of a sort. Implied in it is the claim that cats act in particular ways; ways that are indicative of ‘cat-ness’. The same should also be true of human beings; that they have ways of acting that are indicative of human-ness. What makes human beings acting against their nature immoral is precisely their rationality. Cats, however, cannot act morally or immorally, precisely because they lack rationality

          • thebentangle

            I doubt that so-called “natural law” maps very closely to human nature. Human nature is discovered by empirical observation, and natural law is basically warmed-over Platonic essentialism/idealism, but in no way is homosexuality against our nature. For some people, it is a fulfilment of that nature.

            Rationality can cut both ways: it can lead us to act morally or immorally.

            • dover_beach

              You doubt that because you’re equivocating with respect to human nature and drawing a false distinction. No essentialist has ever argued, certainly not Aristotle, for instance, that we can determine what is ‘natural’ to the human animal without empirical observation. But neither have they or anyone else that has used that phrase believed that any action a human being might do is natural. And that is precisely why non-essentialists, i.e. social constructionists, decline to use the phrase, believing that the human beings lack an inherent nature and are entirely plastic.

              “but in no way is homosexuality against our nature”

              True, but homosexuality isn’t an act. It is the act that is against nature, just as a son lying with his father or mother would be against nature.

              Re rationality, that is entirely the point; we are moral beings precisely because we can choose to act morally or immorally.

        • Dan Li

          Kindly describe what “harm” is, and by what standard do we ascertain “harm”. If one terminates a child in the womb, are we committing a harmful act? If we terminate a socially isolated fully grown and developed human as they sleep by means that will ensure that death is painless are we committing a harmful act? The system you describe is less a moral system and more a system of “situational ethics” with (perhaps?) a dash of utilitarianism.

          My moral system is derived from a system of virtue ethics and natural law. The first primarily looks at what a certain moral action says of the moral agent that performed it; the second focuses on the essential nature and teleology of a subject. I’m hardly the best person to explain this in detail, but I’d recommend Alasdair MacIntyre’s “After Virtue” and “Whose Virtue? Which Rationality?” for knowledge on the first and Edward Feser’s “Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide” and “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism” for good explanations regarding this ethical system, if available to you.

    • Bob

      Definitely, your misinterpreting the “judge not” quotation, Tangle.

      But at least it’s a good start you might be listening to what Christ has to say!

      Keep reading the Bible, Tangle!! Like all of us, watch your heart change over time towards His love! Try reading Augustine and Aquianas, very intellectual reading, but plough through them.

      I’ll say a prayer for you every day for your continued journey towards the love of Christ. I’ll invoke the intercession of the Blessed Mother Mary and her chaste spouse, Joseph, to bring you both purity and strength!

      But don’t stop listening to the quiet whispers of Christ in your heart! Good news!

      “There is no greater joy in heaven then the repentance of one sinner.”

  • crakpot

    “any time a plurality of voters take charge, they are more or less at
    liberty to set aside whatever arrangements were in place before they
    assumed control.”

    “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”
    Benjamin Franklin

    That’s why even supermajority consent to powers (the Constitution) is not enough. I’m sure there’s supermajority consent to stone women and torch churches in most of the Middle East. The other condition necessary for a moral government is that those powers be used solely to help protect certain God-given rights, like the rights of a mother and father to protect their children against recruitment to sin.

    There is no dealing with politics without dealing with right and wrong.

  • dover_beach

    It is true that parts of the gay lobby are not motivated by a determination to destroy marriage but upon traditionalizing gay relationships (my initial support was also grounded in such reasoning) . However, the redefinition of marriage they support would nevertheless, though inadvertently, dissolve marriage as a relationship distinguishable from all others. And this is precisely the aim of groups like the ‘Beyond Marriage project’ – and there support of gay ‘marriage’ – whose avowed purpose is the radical transformation of marriage.

    • Ray Olson

      Dear dover_beach–Thanks for the referral to the Beyond Marriage Project. I’ve just checked its site, which is that of the Queers for Economic Justice. The “executive” (or something like that) summary of their statement of purpose doesn’t bear out that the project’s “avowed purpose is the radical transformation of marriage”. Rather, they want to extend entitlements (i.e., our money) to the usual raft of suspects. Nothing about changing marriage at all that I could see. Maybe that’s in the full document, but I would think that if that’s the “avowed purpose” of the project, something like it would be stated up-front. Seems to me its just another gimme-gimme dodge.

      • dover_beach

        “Nothing about changing marriage at all that I could see.”

        From the website:

        They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

        · Single parent households

        · Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)

        · Blended and extended families

        · Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

        · Adult children living with and caring for their parents

        · Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

        · Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

        · Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

        · Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.

        This unambiguously is an attempt to move beyond marriage and the traditional family as normative institutions in our society.

        • Ray Olson

          Dear dover_beach–I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder, then. I see just a list of other living arrangements that already exist and that aren’t said to be marriages (how could they be?). I don’t see any proposals for changing traditional marriage or the traditional (by which I’m supposing you mean father-mother-children) family. i see no reason for your conclusion, and I’m afraid I’ll remain puzzled until I see further evidence. Either way, don’t expect me to endorse this “Beyond Marriage Project”. We have enough entitlement slaves already.

        • thebentangle

          Dover, are you saying that this group wants to redefine marriage so that, e.g., adult children living with and caring for their parents can be considered married? This is very bizarre, indeed. And are you suggesting that people like me, who simply want to get married, are trying to expand the definition to include all these groups?

    • thebentangle

      Dover, I am not interested in bringing about a “radical transformation of marriage,” as you put it. I’m just interested in getting married. You needn’t make it into some kind of nefarious international conspiracy.

      • Who is stopping you from engaging in your pretend-marriage, if that’s what you want? If for you marriage is a romantic relationship with some vague expectations of exclusivity and duration, plus a party, what is stopping you? You want US to agree that that is what a marriage is, and that’s where you wish to make us party to a lie. You are free to marry — there are plenty of women out there. But you aren’t free to say that two plus two are five, and you aren’t free to coerce everybody else to say that two plus two are five, just because you want them to be. And you are missing Dover’s point. The radical redefinition is already DONE, once we pretend that a man can marry a man. The rest is already implied by that. That isn’t something on the fringe — it isn’t at the bottom of the slippery slope. It’s above us, and we are at the bottom already.

        • thebentangle

          Tony, mine will not be a “pretend-marriage,” and the sooner you understand that, the sooner you will be able to get back in touch with reality. Marriage is legal in my state. I am not a Catholic. If you continue to deny that I am married, you will by definition be in a state of denial, and that is not healthy. People will begin to notice, and you will wonder why they are turning away from you.

          What entitles you to characterize my marriage in such demeaning terms? What do you know about me or my partner?

          I am free to marry a woman, you say? Well, how kind of you. You seem to have no regard for the woman in question or for her happiness or mine. We have to fit into your iron-clad conception of what marriage should be.

          Marriage between two men is not “two plus two equals five.” We’ve done the math, and the structure we’ve built on it is stable. We’ve been together 13 years already, and some couples who married here in the last month had been together for decades. How dare you diminish their relationships or ours!

          “Real men” are not supposed to be hysterical, I’m told. But hysteria about same-sex marriage is rife on this site. And it is all—every bit of it—based on nothing but groundless fears.

          • 12Maria34

            “I am not a Catholic.” – why are you then blogging in a Catholic blog? What is your point?

            • Augustus

              Maria: Douglas (aka “TheBentAngle”) is an atheist gay activist agitator who “came to plant a burr under [our] saddle and make [us] uneasy about what [we] are doing.”
              What we are doing is defending Christian teachings on sexual ethics which Douglas believes are “malicious slanders” against homosexuals who, apparently, should be free to behave however they want without moral restraint and any moral objection constitutes bigotry. And since heterosexuals behave badly too, that justifies sodomy and any other non-procreative sexual act. He will throw everything at us including the kitchen sink

              and he doesn’t really care if he persuades anyone. Which is why he doesn’t really listen to anything we say. Ideologues are unpersuadable.@font-face {
              font-family: “Times New Roman”;
              }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1

            • Augustus

              Maria: Douglas (aka “The BentAngle”) is an atheist gay activist agitator who “came to plant a burr under [our] saddle and make [us] uneasy about what [we] are doing.” What we are doing is defending Christian teachings on sexual ethics which Douglas believes are “malicious slanders” against homosexuals who, apparently, should be free to behave however they like without moral restraint and any moral objection constitutes bigotry. And since heterosexuals behave badly too, that justifies sodomy and any other non-procreative sexual act. He will throw everything at us including the kitchen sink and he doesn’t really care if he persuades anyone. Which is why he doesn’t really listen to anything we say. Ideologues are unpersuadable.

              • 12Maria34

                Dear Augustus,

                God’s blessings of peace & joy!

                Thanks for the info. We need to pray for them. I think “their” last battle is for the Catholic church to change its position as we are the last impediment for them. I do not mind to be called bigot if I stand to our Church teachings and they can throw all the negative words at me.

                God’s blessings of peace and joy!

                Viva Cristo Rey,

            • thebentangle

              12Maria34, I am blogging on this Catholic site because gays and lesbians are being slandered on it, and I am gay. Would you not voice your objections if you were being slandered?

              • 12Maria34

                Define slandered?

                • thebentangle

                  12Maria34. Define slandered? That is easy. It consists of saying untrue and defamatory things about individuals and groups. Your church has certain teachings about slander, and you might want to find what what they are before you proceed.

                  • 12Maria34

                    “It consists of saying untrue and defamatory things about individuals and groups” – definition is correct but what is true to you is not true to me. Relativity of truth. This is the reason I asked what is your definition. As Catholic we have what we call objectivity of Truth. For us, God is Truth. The way you define truth or the way you perceive God in various religions is even different. Like for example, there are a lot of Christian denominations who does not believe what we Catholics believe. Most I consider hurtful but I do not go to their blogs and impose my beliefs and I do not call them that they slandered me.

                    • thebentangle

                      Maria, you write that “what is true to you is not true to me,” but you call me a relativist? I am not a relativist. I just believe that you are wrong, period. I don’t care what you believe about God as long as you and your Church don’t propagate lies about homosexuals. You are free to uncritically accept everything your Church tells you, but please don’t claim that it is “objective truth.” It is not.

                    • If all but one of the Apostles were martyrs (barring Saint John, who was exiled to Greece for evangelizng), that surely says something about the veracity of the Catholic faith. You wouldn’t happen to know of anyone who willingly died for the sake of defending a lie, would you?

                    • TheBentAngle

                      Twin Towers, September 11, 2001.

                    • But the Apostles were Jesus’s closest friends. They were martyrs as eyewitnesses of what they saw. 9/11 happened hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad walked the Earth.

                    • thebentangle

                      Excuse me? The Apostles–Jesus’s closest friends–were martyrs? Help me here. Is this in the New Testament? Wasn’t Peter the first pope? Was he martyred? And who do you think “Mark” was? Was he one of the disciples?

                      And so you think that “eye-witness” accounts are always reliable? Funny about that: U.S. Jurisprudence has learned to be skeptical about such accounts. It takes more than an “eye-witness” to determine that a particular version of a story is true. People tend to believe what they are primed to believe, mimetic contagion is rife in groups of people, and cognitive biases over-ride actual perception in just about everyone. In 1917, 70,000 pilgrims at the shrine of Fatima in Portugal saw the Sun dancing around in the sky. Do you think that it was doing so? Meterologists don’t think so. Psychologists think it was a mass hallucination driven by the mimetic nature of human consciousness.

    • thebentangle

      Dover, I checked out the “Beyond Marriage Project,” and I believe it is a fringe group. Please don’t suggest that it is representative of the marriage-equality movement as a whole. You would not want me to try discrediting traditional marriage (which I would not want to do, anyway) by referring you to some fringe pro-polygamy site. If you have to base your arguments on the agendas of fringe groups, then your argument is not very strong.

  • Speaking to heterosexual fathers of sons: This is what you want for your boy. You want him to grow up comfortable with his identity as a man, attracted to women and attractive to them in turn. You want him to grow up, inside, with broad shoulders and a deep healthy voice. You want him to take as a matter of course that he will grow up to be a father, if God grants him a good woman to marry. You want him to take as a matter of course that he will “team” up with other men, with the bonds of philia, NOT the squeamish exclusive-making team-disrupting perversion of same-sex eros, to get important things done — to pave a road or raise a barn or clear a field, or build a community. You want him to be a man, not some poor lost soul seeking a man as a woman seeks a man, or as a confused semi-man seeks the man he longs to be but cannot be.
    You will do everything you can to ensure that this happens. For, barring something bizarre like a rape, IT IS IN YOUR POWER to see to it. You will lead him by your example. You will usher him gently into the world of men, as a man. You will not put pressure on him — that is not kind — but you will not coddle him either, or let his mother turn him into a girl (as a few bad women will try to do). You will express your affection for him in physical ways, and you will do this often. You will be the single most formative influence in your boy’s life.
    You will NOT ever say to him, “Son, why don’t you try sodomy with another boy, to see if you like it.” No sane father would say such a thing. Any father who would say such a thing should be flogged. Why would a father who loves his son set such a snare in the boy’s path? Nor should anyone else set a snare in his path. If the boy finds himself with ambiguous and stormy sexual feelings during puberty, you will tell him not to worry about it, those things happen to everybody. And of course if there is any more troubled boy hanging about him, you will discourage the friendship, gently and quietly if you can, but firmly. And it goes without saying that you will keep him away from all porn — no exceptions.
    Those who push for sodomy are in effect saying that this father’s behavior is completely unreasonable — that his DUTY to his son is not only no duty, but is downright wrong. Now I wonder — who profits from this inversion? Cui bono? Who wants to see the boy fall on the wrong side of the fence? Who gains?

    • Augustus

      Words of wisdom beautifully expressed. Thank you, Dr. Esolen.

    • Tony, my gay son is a grown man and he is happy and healthy. I am very proud of him, and I believe I can take some of the credit for a job well done in raising him. I just accepted him as he is, without treating his sexual identity as a problem. There were some stigmatization issues along the way, but we helped him deal with them and got him into a community where he was supported.

      • You haven’t addressed my example at all, Mr. Brock. That father and that boy in my example deserve all of our support, and should not be hindered at all. You seem to assume that you and your wife and the people around you bear no responsibility for the way your son “is,” as if it would necessarily have turned out that way no matter what you did. And again I’ll say this: barring the bizarre, like a rape (and, alas, the bizarre these days is more and more common), if a boy is brought up in the way I’ve suggested, the syndrome will not develop.

        • thebentangle

          Tony, I agree with the old maxim, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” You seem to view the way my son “is” as a “syndrome.” I have seen no signs that it is, and the consensus of medical professionals (viz, the World Health Organization, for starters) is that it is not a disorder. If anything is a “syndrome,” I think it is scapegoating and homophobia.

  • This article is amazing, and right on the mark!

  • GrahamCombs

    Maybe the American Experiment is over. Maybe we are at the end of the Constitutional Era in American history. The hostility that Justice Scalia faced is everywhere in the metropolitan areas of the country: NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit. It is in the classroom and the workplace and, sadly, in some parishes. The bishops and priests and religious still have not faced this if their public pronouncements and sermons are any indication. Just this week Gov. Andrew Cuomo (the son of the original personally-opposed-but-won’t-obstruct politician) announced that New York leads the nation in progressive tolerance and “moral” crusades such as “gun control.” These schoolmarmish and censorious city-states are fascistic in nature and are indeed “leading the nation.” We now know where. Justice Scalia said himself, “everyday were are making a Constitution for a country I no longer recognize.” But lets go back further to see how much things have changed. Alexander Hamilton said that “city air is free air.” It isn’t now.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    The reason the state not only forbids, but investigates and prosecutes, murder or other crimes, has very little to do with feelings of moral outrage. It is that murder, especially if of frequent occurrence, produces widespread feelings of alarm and insecurity, for.we see our own fate in that of the victim. This constitutes a threat to public order that it is one of the functions of the state is to forestall or repress.

  • Let’s back up a few steps. Fornication is evil. Fornication betrays the meaning of marriage and of sexual congress, and does a terrific job destroying the common good. Now then — what is male-male sex without fornication? What does chastity look like, for the man who insists that he absolutely MUST do erotic things with other men? (And, by the way, WHY must he? Is it a compulsion?) Fact — it makes no sense at all to talk about chastity then. The whole sexual revolution must be approved, as it rests upon the assumption that consent is all that is needed to make the act permissible. Consent — and no thought whatsoever for anybody else. We should call it the Selfish Revolution. And everybody has been burned by it.

    • Ford Oxaal

      As if there are no such thing as neighborhood effects. Sometimes I think a lot of this nonsense are the fruits of sub-divisions — the faux neighborhood, where children are spoiled and abandoned to their own devices, and everyone lives in competition with their ‘neighbor’, whose name they don’t know. No cocktail parties, no face time — just cars driving around consuming plastic garbage to put in the landfill a month later.

    • thebentangle

      Tony, I am not religious, and I never use the word “fornication” except to parody preachers. I don’t like the word “evil,” either. I don’t know how to even understand what you have written, but you seem to be saying that there shouldn’t be sex outside of marriage. In many places, gay men can’t marry, however, so there’s no way for them to get out of the “fornication” box you’re putting them in unless they are celibate, and personally, I don’t believe celibacy is very healthy in the long run for most people. It is not conducive to psychological well-being. Sex is one of the ways that we connect profoundly and meaningfully with other people. This is why I voted for same-sex marriage in my state: I want out of your “fornication” box and into my state’s “marriage” box. It’s cruel and ironic that we are calomnied both for having sex outside of marriage and for wanting marriage. You can’t have it both ways, and celibacy is pie in the sky.

      • Chastity is no more “pie in the sky” than courage is, or temperance, or prudence, or any of the other difficult virtues. You’ve proved my point, though, that it is silly for us to be arguing about same-sex pseudogamy, when the real problem is far more fundamental. It has to do with what the moral life looks like. No, there should not be “sex outside of marriage,” which is just another way of saying that we should not tell lies with our bodies. You have demoted sexual intercourse to something pleasant which we do with people we have affection for, to “connect” with them. There’s nothing holy about it, then, nor anything that brings the generations together, past and to come, nor anything that implies permanence and complete self-giving, without reservation.

      • The argument that unmarried people “must” have sexual intercourse reduces people to animals or to machines. In any case, it is not true, and again this is demonstrable. Before the Pill, there was no reliable means of contraception, AND the overwhelming majority of children were born within wedlock. Put those two facts together. That wasn’t due only to earlier marrying, either, because the age for marriage in western history hasn’t always been early. People honored the beauty and the holiness of sexual intercourse, and even those who didn’t were held in restraint by the general expectation of continence.
        For you, “marriage” is a romantic relationship with some vague “commitment” and a vague expecation of duration (though not permanence), plus a party. That isn’t marriage. What happens to a society when people accept fornication and divorce and all the rest of it? Absolute breakdown, as our public schools and our prisons testify.

        • thebentangle

          Tony, I try to be nuanced in what I write, but you do not seem to handle nuance very well. I never said that unmarried people “must” have sexual intercourse. I wrote, “I don’t believe celibacy is very healthy in the long run for most people.” I happen to think sex is a basic human need, and that it would be unrealistic to expect people not to sometimes have sex outside of marriage. People just have to work these things out for themselves, and I’m not interested in legislating their moral choices unless there is direct and measurable harm to other humans. In this age of contraception, pre-marital sex is much less a problem than ever before, though that is not to say that is always a “wise” choice. But I would go easy on all the heavy moralistic language about people’s private lives. I don’t think it is helpful. If you want to see divorce rates reduced, then you could join me in advocating for same-sex marriage, because it will remove gay men and lesbians from the “straight-marriage” pool and help clear up confusion on that score. One cause of divorce, of course, is sexual incompatibility.

          • Carl Albert

            It seems as though gay marriage advocates attempt to co-mingle homosexual behavior with marriage. And then serve that as validation for a lifestyle. Can you understand that perspective? Because two (or more) things are similar, does not make them the same.

            Instead, view/consider marriage in the context of a covenant between a man and woman together with God. Then man and woman are one with God – each removing themselves from a state of individual being into a collective. The foundation for this relationship is not rooted merely in the flesh – but is much more spiritual (holistic) in nature. This is not the same for which you advocate. Indeed, a far cry.

            • thebentangle

              Carl, as I so often say on this blog site, gay marriage is a fact. It already exists. Traditional marriage and same-sex marriage may not be identical, but they are similar enough that they are both called “marriage.” Merriam-Webster’s has already recognized our marriages, as have 9 states (+ D.C.) and 12 countries. Your view of marriage as “a covenant between a man and woman together with God” is purely religious in nature. My partner and I will have a civil marriage, and the ceremony will be without religious content. This may seem scandalous to you, but it is a very common and completely valid approach to marriage.

              • Carl Albert

                The view of marriage you cite as “purely religious in nature” is the definition of the sacrament of marriage (holy matrimony) within the catechism of the Catholic church. The position against which your best defenses are isolated occurrences of collectivism and Merriam-Webster. The position you unsuccessfully attempt to subvert in post after post on this site.

                You use the word “scandalous” – which is either overtly back-handed, or complete happenstance. Regardless, you would do well to understand how grave an offense it is to attempt to separate another from his faith in God.

                • thebentangle

                  “How grave an offense”? To whom?

                  • Carl Albert

                    to the guy with the millstone around his neck.

                    • thebentangle

                      Attempting to separate another from his faith in God is a grave offense fo the guy with the millstone around his neck? You’ll need to explain that one.

          • John200

            “One cause of divorce, of course, is sexual incompatibility.” God love you, Mr. Tangle, you have backed into a bit of truth about millions of confused people. They should know better, and you will soon know better. Stay at CrisisMag, you will see.

            I can help you on a second topic; Advocating for same-sex marriage will do nothing to give them a marriage. It will do nothing to resolve the deep confusion of homo”sex”uals. Man #1 and Man #2 ARE sexually incompatible. They cannot have sex, but they can have mutual masturbation in many disordered forms.

            Cue the music,…. Is that all there is? Yes, that’s all there is.

            Now you stick around CrisisMag, don’t stop trolling. You are getting somewhere. I am sure someone will tell you why celibacy is good for properly formed, ie, non-disordered people.

            Sorry I had to tell you the truth again. But you are here, and the truth is in reach, I could not do otherwise.

            • thebentangle

              John200, I don’t need the Church to tell me whom I am sexually compatible with. I can figure that out very well on my, thank you.

              • John200

                At a claimed age of 69, and still mistaken about who you are sexually compatible with, you will permit me to thoroughly doubt that you are going to figure it out. How long should it take …..?

                Oops, I forget you are just trolling away, you almost pulled me into your little web of hopeless nonsense. Credit yourself with one point, that was a good little trap. It cost me 30 seconds.

                Carry on.

  • Ray Olson

    Dear Dr. Martin–Toward the end of your posting, you decry the prospect of being “stranded on sandbanks of sentimentality”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I intuit that you believe gay marriage advocates are being sentimental–that is, grounding their arguments on emotion rather than evidence–and would have everyone act out of personal feelings rather than principles. Given the lack of evidence you provide in support of the characterization (on which you seem to base the rest of your posting) that “the proponents of gay marriage are not preoccupied with matters of fairness[; rather, w]hat they are determined on is nothing less than the destruction of the traditional family,” aren’t you guilty of the same grandiose sentimentality? (Doesn’t the hyperbole–“nothing less than”, “destruction”–in that characterization further indicate rampant sentimentality?) Perhaps you are in possession of a kind of Protocols of the Elders of Fire Island, in which “the proponents of gay marriage” lay out their real agenda. While I have heard communists say they’d like to abolish marriage and the family, I’ve never heard or read any gay-rights advocate say any such thing, not even when a few of them (far fewer recently than in the 1970s and ’80s, as far as I can tell) maintained that marriage made no sense for gay men. Forgive me for feeling that you’re being a tad hysterical.

    • Ford Oxaal

      Marriage is now ‘no-fault’, nullified, gone. So you are late to the party.

      • Ray Olson

        Dear Mr. Oxaal–Actually, I don’t think I was invited. I’m too old and calm to be tempted by marriage anymore. I’ll gladly celebrate others’ marriages, though.

        But seriously, I’m with you about no-fault divorce and also about annulment by the Church–especially when children are involved. Unfortunately, the U.S. has always been latitudinarian about divorce, it seems. Even Western Europeans looked askance in the nineteenth century at how casually Americans married and divorced.

        • Ford Oxaal

          Pretty funny 🙂 but actually, this would seem to be a come as you are party — no liquor, no conversation. Just bags of chips and enormous plastic containers filled with soda. No ice. Estrogen platters filled with veggies and store-bought dips. Walruses stumbling around with the look of a draft animal. No eye contact. A colossal bore.

          • Ray Olson

            And a funny comeback, too. Thanks, Mr. Oxaal.

    • dover_beach

      “Perhaps you are in possession of a kind of Protocols of the Elders of Fire Island, in which “the proponents of gay marriage” lay out their real agenda.”

      No, not in possession, but a document of this sort is freely available on the internet, Beyond Marriage . And then you have the remarks and essays of individual proponents. Again, all freely available. You need to stop pretending that a significant portion of supporters of gay ‘marriage’ do not intend on the destruction of traditional marriage and family. Their words say they do, so I’ll take them at their word.

  • Prof_Override

    “The tyranny of tolerance trumps everything else” OMG , he’s kidding right … tell me he’s kidding?! …. He can’t be serious … are those jack boots he’s wearing … yes they are, and beautiful hob nails I must say … he must be into (tee hee…) some of that rough stuff … I mean look at that face 🙂

  • Robert

    Modern consumerism has destroyed all culture and all ties to families or similar communities and structures that traditionally bound together the conservative state. With the rise of the media this problem has been exacerabated many times over. While the liberal state is horrific in that its dominant ideology is the antithesis of traditional conservativism it at least allowed for some semblance of order. If the state itself is destroyed by an anarchist mob as we see developing on the internet this could lead to destruction like that which existed in the French revolution.

  • UtahTwisted

    I absolutely love the “we should be allowed to legalize discrimination and hate” line, one of my favorites. If the majority of “us” want to make what your liberties illegal, that should be enough – right? I mean, this equality stuff, equal protection, due process, that’s all based on what “most” of us think is moral – right. Well that’s WRONG, in the Untied States of America, the majority cannot impede the liberties of the minority according to the constitution. Yes, it’s taken us awhile to learn this, we had to end slavery (through a civil war because a lot of Christians disagreed and the bible condones slavery), we gave women the right to vote and stopped making them merely property – again fighting the moral police the whole way. Now we’re poised to allow people to marry whomever they want… Freedom – you should give it a try.