Pope Poops on Idea of Marriage
This issue has also gotten up my sleeve, and David says it with more immediacy to the first person feelings than I can. To the Pope: go pedal your Papal Bull elsewhere. In this country, we're having a discussion about a civil matter. Talking in a civil manner which does not involve name-calling. WhateverUpon further thought, and a well deserved knock upside the head by Zombyboy, in the comments section of David's post, I must add to my comments: I made the reference above as a way to differentiate superstitions of exclusions from religious beliefs; not to malign anyone's religious beliefs. I put it that way exactly because I see this particular part of the Pope's beliefs, as indicated by his statements, to be superstitious in nature. Below are the definition and the document on which I base my statements:
superstition: A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from a belief or practice irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature
The original document translated into English: CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS . Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth ...Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; ..." [emph. mine] Here's the fear part. and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. And here's the ignorance part. The idea that if children see gay couples, they will be "turned" gay has been disproved in so many ways that I find it unreal that some still believe it. People are not "convinced" to be gay, nor are they "turned" gay any more than they can be 'convinced' to be straight. People can be convinced or forced to behave differently, deny their feelings, and live a lie. How helpful is that? Think it through. Do you know anyone who has been "turned" gay/straight? What would it take to "convince" you to be straight/gay? A heterosexual child who grew up knowing only a homosexual society would be subject to the same feelings of confusion and alienation as a homosexual child who had never seen anything but heterosexual people. With human sexuality, as with everything else human, there is a continuum -- a range within which everyone falls somewhere between the strictly black-or-white definitions of hetero- and homo- sexuality. Were it not for the rigorous training of our society which dictates that "you Must decide, one way or the other, and be bound by that decision forever," more people would be aware that they feel attraction for members of their own gender. Maybe enough to act upon it, and maybe just enough to lend a little more enjoyment to life. Alas, the penalty for even recognizing such feelings, let alone acting on them, is so high that many never afford themselves the opportunity to realize the many shades of color that lie between Black and White. Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Blew a coupla toes off with that one, insofar as the inalienable rights of citizens of the US via the Constitution. Otherwise why would an amendment be necessary to exclude gay marriage? And, really; just because you run a major religion doesn't mean you can define for the rest of us "natural moral law" and "right reason." Here in America, religion is a choice. Philosophical outlook is a choice. If one chooses to subscribe to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, that is their Constitutionally given right. However, if one is in a position to make laws that govern others who subscribe to other beliefs, one must base those laws on the good of this society and for reasons which are demonstrable outside of the belief system of the Catholic Church, the Wiccan faith, or any other faith-based belief system. We take nothing for granted; we must prove the usefulness of all proposed laws, each on its own merit. Which statement, I believe, addresses the participation of Catholic lawmakers: Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to oppose laws granting legal rights to gay couples, and non-Catholics should follow their lead since the issue concerns "natural moral law," said the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. This seems a bit of faulty logic as, otherwise, any people who happen to be unable to reproduce for whatever reason should also not be eligible to marry. Methodologies of contribution to the survival, and thriving, of the human race have gone far beyond simply procreating. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. According to this, children who are raised without exposure to music, literature, travel, and the refinements of every civilization the world has known are also being done violence as that is the environment conducive to full human development. Or, wait; isn't there something in human nature that requires that the individual must develop the skills to learn and discover for himself? I've never met anyone who believed exactly as their parents do, and who shared exactly the same interests, passions and perspectives in the world. That is definitional to "individual." [It's not like kids of gay couples will never see any heterosexual culture, after all. They might even have (gasp) heterosexual teachers or scout leaders.] 8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. I disagree. I believe society owes its continued survival to recognition of the humanity in each of us, and a corresponding respect underlying the treatment of each individual by the State. 11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. Didn't the church take the position while ago that homosexual people didn't actually exist; only "deviant behavior?" I think that, despite themselves, they are making steps. Itty-bitty unconscious ones -- yet, steps. None of what I've read substantiates any of the fear contained within it. I think it behooves us to re-examine the actions and the resultant outcomes of the Netherlands and Belgium which have "extended marriage rights to all couples, no matter the partners' gender." [Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and, yes, even France have "civil union" laws.]
"It's the Vatican's good right to make statements like this, but here in the Netherlands, we have separation of church and state," said Kathleen Ferrier, a spokeswoman for the Christian Democrats.
In Belgium, where three-quarters of the population is Roman Catholic, the Flemish Christian Democrats said the issue boiled down to supporting all kinds of families.
"For us, what's important is sustained relationships," said Luk Vanmaercke, a party spokesman.
Sustained relationships. Mutual respect among people. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They all belong together and support one another.
Just in case you don’t see it, I’ve made a suggestion on your “how to get the email comments thingy to work” post ;)
Posted by michael heraghty on 08/01/03 at 05:10 AM‘Think it through. Do you know anyone who has been “turned” gay/straight? What would it take to “convince” you to be straight/gay?’
This is probably a rhetorical question, and you probably don’t want to hear a dissenting view. But as long as I’m here…
When I was a kid, I was different. My mother always told me I was ‘special’...’gifted’. I only knew that no matter where I went, I felt weird. I was ostracized and rejected and made fun of.
My first sexual experience was with a boy when I was about 6. When I was 9, the neighbor teen made me suck his dick...I did it willingly, it was fascinating and exciting and I knew it was something I shouldn’t be doing. I hid my stained T-Shirt so my parents wouldn’t discover it and know what I had done. I thought about that encounter in fantasies after that.
When I was 15, older, openly gay men started paying me attention. They adored me. They followed me around and got me stoned and fought over who would get to sit by me. It was the first time in my life I ever felt desirable.
I began to identify myself as ‘gay’ and pursued sexual relationships with men from this community. This behavior persisted for a few years, and then I discovered women and had sexual relationships with them too. I called myself ‘bisexual’.
I was whatever you wanted me to be if you would love me and make me feel like I was worth something. That’s what it took to ‘“convince" me to be straight/gay’.
Later in life, I *chose* to abandon my lifestyle of a) homosexuality, b) sexual promiscuity and c) using sex as a means to feel like I was worth something.
Now I am married and have a very healthy sex life. I do not cheat on my wife, not even in my imagination. I do not look at porn. I do not flirt or even look too long when I see attractive people. I am not better than anyone else and I don’t wish to condemn anyone for their life choices.
I have BEEN THERE.
Fine, don’t accept morality as an objection to homosexuality. But don’t tell me that homosexuality does not influence the young, impressionable people who are around it.
I’m not the only person who has had a similar experience:
http://www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzer.htmPosted by John Corry on 08/01/03 at 10:42 PMAmen sistah! As I said in a comment on another blog about a month ago, I was raised Catholic AND I was adopted. So let me say two things:
1) The Catholic religion is a beautiful faith turned ugly by males who live outside of society and reality, and who are drunk on their own power. As a result of this isolationism and the cumulative effect of years of privilege, the upper levels of the church are about as UN-Christlike as you can get. (Kind of like politicians; there is bound to be a moral one somewhere, but the longer they are in power, the less likely it is to find.)
They want to keep women from having any control of their lives by making birth control a mortal sin (hard to be independent if you’re a breeding factory). They’re spouting off about how being gay is so horrible, yet they ONLY took action on the long-standing pedophile problem in their own ranks WHEN DONATIONS DROPPED. As a nurse, I’m horrified that the church still tries to dictate health policy (the abortion issue aside, Catholic run hospitals require the HUSBAND’S permission if a woman wants a tubal ligation, and it has to be for health reasons. They give a shit not if the woman is in an abusive marriage and her husband is trying to trap her there because he sabotages birth control attempts). And I won’t even MENTION how much of a better lifestyle the priests have over the nuns!
It broke my heart to abandon my faith, but the church is turning a deaf ear to its members who want change and reform. Why shouldn’t they? Reform would certainly include taking power away from the bishops and above. Oh no, we can’t have that.
2) I was adopted by parents who thought they couldn’t have children. They later shot out two crotchfruit of their own, and I was an annoyance that they couldn’t give back. Believe me when I say that I would have been better off being raised by two parents of EITHER sex who loved me unconditionally.
Posted by Mary on 08/02/03 at 02:42 AMYou know, it’s not a matter of “straight” or “homosexual.” Those are a violent hierarchy nobody actually inhabits.
Posted by on 08/02/03 at 05:00 AMYeah, that’s what I think, too. That’s why I wrote the part about “ there is a continuum—.”
Wasn’t I clear, there?
Posted by Claire on 08/02/03 at 06:13 AMBut John (Corry), please consider this: we aren’t really discussing here the idea of placing children in the culture you stumbled upon as a youth. We are discussing marriage, which civiilizes men and women. Marriage, which acts as a brake pedal on human excess.
I was a girl--awkward, outcast, made-fun-of--who discovered male attention at the age of 14 or so, and stumbled for a while, treating it as a sort of drug.
But we’re not talking about adolescent sexuality, or allowing it to be exploited by adults. We’re talking about whether being raised by two gay parents in a stable, loving union would make it more likely that a person would grow up gay. My understanding is that every study ever done says “no.”
Claire, thanks for the post. I’m a Catholic, and I’m mortified by the Pope’s statements; they are simply uncalled-for. More destructive to the Church than to homosexuals, if you want to know the truth.
Posted by Little Miss Attila on 08/02/03 at 08:54 AM‘But John (Corry), please consider this: we aren’t really discussing here the idea of placing children in the culture you stumbled upon as a youth.’
No, we’re talking about taking the culture I stumbled upon and legitimizing it before those children. Teaching our kids, ‘see...this is good too, it’s just a matter of personal preference, find what works for you and embrace it’
The morality of sexuality is at the heart of this matter.
How I wish that the people who are advocates of moral justice and good would ACT what they speak! It grieves me to see ‘followers of Christ’ abusing, disrespecting and generally bludgeoning people with ‘righteousness’.
That’s not what Christ does.
Jesus was a discriminator too though, he took a hard line on moral issues...he did it with humility, grace and love though...which is a little different than what we see from the Christian community (but hey, is it really any surprise that people fall short of the perfection of God and act like jerks?)
Jesus’ message (to EVERYONE) was that people could be free of what screws up their lives (ie: sin) by surrendering their entire lives (including their sexuality) to God. He offered to take the penalty for ALL of our sins if we would commit our lives to loving and following him.
Posted by John Corry on 08/02/03 at 09:57 AMI felt that your comment made adult-adolescent sex equivalent to committed stable relationships between two adults. I still feel that way. I think your early experience gave you a specific feeling about what homosexuality is. I may not be able to persuade you that you’re wrong (and, in fact, what you see and remember IS part of the truth), but please keep in mind that there is plenty of crass, exploitative, inappropriate heterosexual sex out there. So focusing on exploitative homosexual sex is really beside the point.
As for the Lord’s views on sexuality, I do not know what he would have said about homosexuality, since he never made a statement about it.
But he socialized with prostitutes on a regular basis, so it’s hard not to imagine that he would be hanging around with homosexuals in this day and age.
I know, I know: there are statements from the Old Testament--and from Paul’s epistles--on homosexuality. But when you look at some of the other material in the Old Testament (and in Paul’s epistles) you must realize that there are cultural factors at work there. Unless you believe, for example, in polygamy and strict interpretation of Levitical Law (Old Testament) or slavery and the complete submission of women to men (Paul).
Posted by Little Miss Attila on 08/02/03 at 10:20 AMwonder if the pope realizes that papal bull equates to papal bullshit.
i’m kind of tired of old men wearing dresses and claiming to have the only land line to gd. telling their parishners and the rest of the world how to live.
doesn’t seem to me that they’ve got it worked out yet.... look at the borgia pope.... and his brood of kids.... and the fact that the vatican at one point actually owned a company manufacturing birth control pills back in the 70s. DUH. talk about hypocrisy.
it’ real simple. treat others as you would have them treat you. the rest is editorial…
Posted by on 08/03/03 at 10:04 AM
Next entry: Ahh, the Humanity
Previous entry: More foto madness
