What you won’t hear from the media and gay activists about same-sex “marriage”

posted at 4:01 pm on April 29, 2015 by Dustin Siggins

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard what could be the defining case on whether marriage in America is legally restructured from a relationship between people of the opposite sex with an eye towards procreation to an “anything goes” system.

The media has responded as expected, with articles and reports brimming with support for changing marriage. Therefore, it is important to explicitly spell out a few realities of marriage and same-sex relationships.

Most importantly, marriage is between a man and a woman — no matter how much some wish it weren’t so. As Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out yesterday, this has been the definition for millennia, and as such allowing same-sex “marriage” does not expand marriage, but instead redefines it.

Why is marriage between a man and a woman? For starters, sexual intercourse is a reality for the survival of the human species, and lifelong marital fidelity is the best environment for procreation. Sexual relationships between people of the same sex cannot propagate the species, and even immoral child creation practices like IVF — which treats unborn children like chattel and often results in death for embryos — that are popular among same-sex couples require the reproductive assistance of both a man and a woman.

Related, marriage benefits children. As researcher and priest Dr. Donald Sullins noted last week, social science has proven that no parental relationship is as emotionally beneficial to children as marriage. Additionally, no other relationship provides the same educational, financial, and spiritual benefits to children as marriage.

Moving into the Supreme Court’s realm of the U.S. Constitution, there is no right to legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the U.S. Constitution. Marriage has always been left up to the states in this country — and the Supreme Court should continue to recognize this legal reality, as it did in the Windsor case last year.

A number of judges have purported that laws against legal recognition of same-sex relationships consists of “animus” against homosexuals. Not only have these rulings erred in using the legally-loaded word “animus,” the simple fact is that opposition to changing the definition of marriage is based upon love — not the hate or bigotry alleged by gay activists and the media.

Perhaps nobody has said it as well as LifeSiteNews co-founder and Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen. (Disclosure: Westen is my boss.) Last week, speaking on a panel in D.C., Westen said that marriage supporters have love for people with same-sex attractions — but animus against same-sex sexual relationships.

According to Westen, the difference is key. Like Christ, who showed love to the adulterer by forgiving her sins and admonishing her to “go and sin no more,” criticism of same-sex relationships is based on concern for the physically, psychologically, and spiritually damaging consequences of same-sex sexual relationships.

This point about animus is not just important for the Supreme Court to understand. It also relates to the many laws across America that are putting Christians out of business.

Consider: If it is assumed that someone has hatred for homosexual persons, it is easy to justify laws that restrict their liberty. It is easy to put someone who finds same-sex relationships objectionable in the same category as racists — even though the latter is based upon animus against innate, unchanging traits, while opposition to same-sex “marriage” addresses relational choices.

This is an area where pro-family, pro-marriage activists failed to convince the public of their sincerity. This is in part due to the well-funded, well-organized gay activist groups, and it’s in part due to media bias. But it’s also due to the unwillingness of social conservatives to talk about the damaging realities of same-sex relationships, such as the high propensity of HIV/AIDS among gay men. As Westen pointed out, there has been virtual silence in the pulpits for decades, which has led to a general social squeamishness that has spread to most of the political leadership in this country.

The love that causes someone to tell another person that their relationship is harmful is akin to that of an admonishing parent. No parent would say love is shown by simply affirming every decision a child makes, and likewise, those who know the physical, psychological, and spiritual harm of same-sex relationships would be remiss to not show love for people in same-sex relationships, their children, and society as a whole.

Finally, despite the media’s proclamation that same-sex “marriage” will bring social peace, historical evidence makes it clear this is not the case. We’ve already seen the curtailing of liberty in Indiana, Colorado, California, and other states, where religious freedom and property rights are limited because less than four percent of society prefers state-sanctioned discrimination over free speech and freedom to disagree.

Around the world, such problems have included imposed curriculums in public and even private schools. In the Canadian province of Quebec, it is even illegal to teach the realities of marriage for parents who homeschool their children — which makes sense, since if you want to corrupt how people view proper sexuality, it’s best to start young.

Interestingly, none of my arguments against redefining marriage have had a religious foundation. Despite popular rumor, marriage can be defended through recognition of social, physical, psychological, and natural law sciences. And redefining it cannot.

Dustin Siggins is the Washington, D.C. Correspondent and public relations officer for LifeSiteNews.com, the world’s largest pro-life, pro-family daily news website. He is also a co-author of the forthcoming book, Bankrupt Legacy: The Future of the Debt-Paying Generation.

The opinions expressed here are his own.

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Augustinian on April 30, 2015 at 8:31 AM

Glad I caught your comment. Thanks.

HonestLib on April 30, 2015 at 8:39 AM

Back atcha!

;-)

Augustinian on April 30, 2015 at 9:06 AM

The DoI was just some paper those powdered wig dudes scribbled out in order to start a war and form a new nation – and the fact that it specifically cited unalienable rights and equality endowed by the Creator as it’s principled motives was just a mere trifle bit of nonsense in order to…….? What exactly?

Augustinian on April 30, 2015 at 12:15 AM

.
to justify their treason.

Tlaloc on April 30, 2015 at 12:21 AM

.
“Rhetorical flourish” justifies nothing.
.

“Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse for hanging the losers”

Dr. Benjamin Franklin

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 9:10 AM

Pity poor Tlaloc and his fierce hatred of anything Godly.

Because he cannot endure the thought of a Creator, even in the abstract, he has argued here for the legal and moral justification of his own enslavement. Think about it: if we took away those God-given rights and made black people chattel property again, we would cut the crime rate more than in half, save billions out of the treasury and FINALLY have someone to mow our lawns and do our laundry who wasn’t an illegal alien.

Seriously, it would be a huge economic win for America as a whole and if law and morality is simply society doing what works best for it at the moment, Tlaloc has successfully argued that he doesn’t have a legal or moral leg to stand on to oppose his being sold into servitude.

Not that *I* would buy him, because, you know… he’s useless.

Dolce Far Niente on April 30, 2015 at 9:19 AM

Two examples both from the last few years which took 5 seconds to fine. If it had taken an hour then yeah there probably are few real examples, but given how easy it was (trivial really) to come up with examples that suggests there are a great many out there.

Tlaloc on April 29, 2015 at 8:10 PM

I’m please to see that you’ve taken to adopting my approach to the 30 second Google search, and how easy it is to discredit liberal blather.

The problem you’re having here though, is that so much of these sorts of instances are manufactured hate hoaxes intended to prove points that don’t exist, that any instances you find are immediately suspect, which is why the hospital’s response rings true.

Rather than the little boy who cried wolf, it’s the little commie who cried racist/sexist/homophobe.

Star Bird on April 30, 2015 at 9:23 AM

. . . . . Prior to that, it was a DIFFERENT country. Tiaioc stupidity at work.

blink on April 30, 2015 at 9:15 AM

.
Playing Tlaloc’s advocate (yeah, I know…)

Prior to that, it was a NON-country . . . . . it was an unviable tissue mass of people, needing the seminal moment of the ratifying of the Constitution, before they would become a viable country.

Tlaloc on (any date) at (any time)

.
Did that misrepresent your real convictions, Tlaloc?

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 9:24 AM

Star Bird on April 30, 2015 at 8:52 AM

Spot on Star Bird.

itsspideyman on April 30, 2015 at 9:25 AM

3.4 percent of American adults identify themselves as being LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
 
HonestLib on April 30, 2015 at 8:37 AM

 
FWIW, recent data puts it about 30% lower:
 

Among all U.S. adults aged 18 and over, 96.6% identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual.
 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf

rogerb on April 30, 2015 at 9:28 AM

Among all U.S. adults aged 18 and over, 96.6% identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf

rogerb on April 30, 2015 at 9:28 AM

Well, it is the CDC, so there’s a good chance that those numbers are inflated.

Star Bird on April 30, 2015 at 9:46 AM

Among all U.S. adults aged 18 and over, 96.6% identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf

rogerb on April 30, 2015 at 9:28 AM

Fascinating…and ironically from the CDC.

balkanmom on April 30, 2015 at 9:47 AM

So 1.6% of our population practically rules the country.

balkanmom on April 30, 2015 at 9:52 AM

Center for Disease Control. Diseases can be both mind and body. Such a misleading word. For instance, I have been diseased almost all week.

Judge_Dredd on April 30, 2015 at 9:55 AM

Most of the argument for SSM is why the ADULTS should be allowed to “marry” each other. What about the kids?

What is the impact on children being raised only by 2 males or 2 females? Children need to see both, period. That’s the best. As for single moms and dads, most have family members and most try to continue a relationship with the non-custodial parent. Exceptions? Absolutely! Majority = exceptions? Nope.

So, what about the kids?

Unrelated but critical point: Why does the left/dems/central-control people want to destroy millennia of family basics? Why tear down the one social structure needed for civilization? Do they really think they will be treated better when the other, leftist/socialist/totalitarian groups take over after using the LBGT community to break down the one stable institution for societies, worldwide? They will find they were used.

MN J on April 30, 2015 at 10:18 AM

Allah…Ed….?
How did this get ok’d as a HA post?
It’s personal essay and a rant.
The “immorality of IVF”??
What’s next…a post about the evils of dancing?

All due respect, I appreciate this is a site grounded in the conservative viewpoint.
But this is some weak and batty tea.

verbaluce on April 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM

I wonder what the fall out will be if the Supremes decide that We the People, instead of judges are the ones who determine what marriage is.

In reality same sex couples cannot be married. Not really. They can enjoy the legal rights of marriage, but no matter how you change the language, the plain truth-reality is: that two people of the same gender sharing their lives, is something entirely different, than two people who are opposites in every way, sharing their lives.

One is not like the other.

If everyone was gay, marriage would never have been a thing. It’s only important because men and women are not the same.

But society is trying so hard to fit square pegs into the round whole.

I predict that if the world lasts past this generation, this era will be laughed at for it’s silly attempt to deny human nature and the obvious realities of humanity.

petunia on April 30, 2015 at 11:40 AM

Probably the best post I’ve on the topic here at HA.

Ward Cleaver on April 30, 2015 at 11:48 AM

Probably the best post I’ve read on the topic here at HA.

Ward Cleaver on April 30, 2015 at 11:48 AM

PIMF.

Ward Cleaver on April 30, 2015 at 11:49 AM

As Westen pointed out, there has been virtual silence in the pulpits for decades, which has led to a general social squeamishness that has spread to most of the political leadership in this country.

True. Even in Catholic churches, too many priests are afraid to speak up, afraid that some parishioners will leave and not come back. But, their job is not to make parishioners happy, it’s to help them get to heaven.

Ward Cleaver on April 30, 2015 at 11:53 AM

Ah, Tlaloc, your ignorant dogma is amusing! You “already explained” something you simply made up with little understanding.

The Articles of Confederation establish the confederacy and the name (“stile”)of the union. The Preamble to the Constitution claims to establish this Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The clearest reading of this is not your pedantic petulant “because I explained it” dogma but that a people of a already existing “United States” ordained and established this Constitution.

It takes its parallel in the states, the state governments had existed prior to their Constitution, but the buzz of musings about our federal (see that “fed” as in in “confederacy”) Constitution, states drew up their own Constitutions. Each constitution is simply a writ of intent for a previously existing government, to explain how the governments would fulfill the gap the colonists saw in England protecting the rights “for which governments were instituted among men”. And in each case the people of the pre-existing state ratified their state Constitution.

Take your weak because-I-explained bullshit dogma someplace else.

Axeman on April 30, 2015 at 11:54 AM

verbaluce on April 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM

Come on Verbs, it is spring and time to clean out the closets. I found my stunning Richard Simmons leather beach thong in mine. I should thank Ed as it saved me abut $250 buckarros.

I will now be a studly RedNeck cowboy at the Pattaya Beach Club.

HonestLib on April 30, 2015 at 11:57 AM

Whoops. Insert: … The Constitution definitely didn’t create the union of states, which were what they are when the AoC was ratified and simply continued as the AoC claimed “in perpetuity”, separate states agreeing to work together for a common interest, they just formalized the structure of the government which served in the interest of the union.

Axeman on April 30, 2015 at 12:00 PM

Allah…Ed….?
How did this get ok’d as a HA post?
It’s personal essay and a rant.
The “immorality of IVF”??
What’s next…a post about the evils of dancing?
 
All due respect, I appreciate this is a site grounded in the conservative viewpoint.
But this is some weak and batty tea.
 
verbaluce on April 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM

 
Hint #1:
 

Dustin Siggins is the Washington, D.C. Correspondent and public relations officer for LifeSiteNews.com, the world’s largest pro-life, pro-family daily news website. He is also a co-author of the forthcoming book, Bankrupt Legacy: The Future of the Debt-Paying Generation.

 
Hint #2: You posted that on page 10 of the comments section.

rogerb on April 30, 2015 at 12:00 PM

I know others have stated so, but honestly Dustin… this was one of the best articles on HotAir in the last few years. I hope they recognize your skills and bring you on full time. I would LOVE to read more of your articles! Thank you for so eloquently writing what I have been thinking for some time!

dominigan on April 30, 2015 at 12:08 PM

All due respect, I appreciate this is a site grounded in the conservative viewpoint.
But this is some weak and batty tea.

verbaluce on April 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM

Shouldn’t you be busy organizing May Day’s mass stupidity for the Collective?

Star Bird on April 30, 2015 at 12:28 PM

All due respect, I appreciate this is a site grounded in the conservative viewpoint.
But this is some weak and batty tea.

verbaluce on April 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM

Not as weak as your whine.

de rigueur on April 30, 2015 at 12:32 PM

how does this dustin siggins guy get published? he is the lowest of the low. completely without value or merit. is this place turning into world nut daily?

brushingmyhair on April 30, 2015 at 1:57 PM

The HIV link is a bad argument. Among the benefits of *any* marriage is that it reduces the potential sex partners and, therefore, the spread of HIV. To what extent was the HIV epidemic due to homosexuality and to what extent it was due to the promiscuous behavior associated with hiv is an open question.

Regardless, telling people they shouldn’t get married because it will *increase* promiscuity seems somewhat disingenuous.

So far as I can see, the fundamental of marriage is that it’s not just a compact between two people, but a compact between two people to *raise a family and procreate*. I think that has to be our secular basis for saying why gay marriage is a bad idea.

However, I do not believe the USSC will find that convincing.

pendell2 on April 30, 2015 at 2:02 PM

I remember back to my days working as a waiter at Olive Garden and this older gay waiter often said, “I hate religious broadcasts and wish they were banned, that sh** shouldn’t be allowed on tv.”

Flash forward 20 years to today and largely he has his wish, a Leftist should never have to encounter anything that doesn’t validate their beliefs, and pretty soon they won’t have to.

timoric on April 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM

how does this dustin siggins guy get published? he is the lowest of the low. completely without value or merit. is this place turning into world nut daily?

brushingmyhair on April 30, 2015 at 1:57 PM

.
Actual meaning :
.
Dustin Siggins knocked it outta’ the park.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 2:37 PM

how does this dustin siggins guy get published? he is the lowest of the low. completely without value or merit. is this place turning into world nut daily?

brushingmyhair on April 30, 2015 at 1:57 PM

I would have thought AP would fill the site’s quota for “Older virgins we ought not be taking life advice from,” but apparently they decided to go all in on that.

alchemist19 on April 30, 2015 at 3:02 PM

Actual meaning :
.
Dustin Siggins knocked it outta’ the park.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 2:37 PM

Dude, no.

I need an Archer meme to do proper justice to his line “….even immoral child creation practices like IVF.”

Do you want to lose the middle (and part of the right) and get everyone to brand you “Crazy,”? Because that’s how you lose the middle (and part of the right) and get everyone to brand you “Crazy.”

Even if everything else Siggins wrote was accurate, that one statement is so out of bizarro world that it disqualifies him as a person worth listening to. Worse than that, that statement is so lunatic fringe that it paints the rest of what he says with a tinge of crazy, too. With those seven words he unintentionally turned his essay into a plus for my side of the marriage debate because he made his own side look so bad; he’s an unintentional moby. All of that is great for me at the moment so I hope he keeps writing for now, but in eight weeks when this issue is put to bed then I’m going to want him to stop making conservatives look like looney toons.

Unless you meant “knocked it outta the park,” in the sense that he knocked the people away and he’s now on a island by himself. That I would agree with.

alchemist19 on April 30, 2015 at 3:11 PM

Not marriage. Never will be marriage. Civil unions weren’t enough while the Gay Rights movement wanted/needed to destroy any faith base disciplines.

hawkdriver on April 30, 2015 at 3:12 PM

I need an Archer meme to do proper justice to his line “….even immoral child creation practices like IVF.”

Do you want to lose the middle (and part of the right) and get everyone to brand you “Crazy,”? Because that’s how you lose the middle (and part of the right) and get everyone to brand you “Crazy.”

alchemist19 on April 30, 2015 at 3:11 PM

He disagrees with me, therefore he must be crazy. Got it.

Man, all you guys having a spazz over somebody holding a different classification of immorality than you have. Spazz down.

For the record, I’m not sure what reasons Siggins has for suggesting that IVF is “immoral” so I don’t believe it, I’m just okay with other people expressing opinions I don’t hold.

Axeman on April 30, 2015 at 3:39 PM

I need an Archer meme to do proper justice to his line “….even immoral child creation practices like IVF.”

Do you want to lose the middle (and part of the right) and get everyone to brand you “Crazy,”? Because that’s how you lose the middle (and part of the right) and get everyone to brand you “Crazy.”

Even if everything else Siggins wrote was accurate, that one statement is so out of bizarro world that it disqualifies him as a person worth listening to. Worse than that, that statement is so lunatic fringe that it paints the rest of what he says with a tinge of crazy, too.

Crazy huh? Let me ask you a question, do you believe in human rights? If so, it is only logical to believe ALL humans have rights, the most basic is the right to life, without which all other rights would be meaningless. Agreed?

Basic biology tells us that an embryo is a living organism of the species homo sapiens and thus a ‘human’. Sperm cells and eggs are not living organisms and therefore not human. So if you don’t think embryos have rights, then you really don’t believe in human rights and thus must believe the government can give rights to preferred classes of humans only.

Furthermore, if you believe God gives a spirit to each human, then those embryos have spirits, which makes them just as valuable in God’s sight as any other spirit (in the the Christian view).

It may be a minority view that embryos should have rights, but that doesn’t make it illogical. What is illogical is to believe in human rights and then deny certain humans those rights because it is inconvenient.

moonfox on April 30, 2015 at 3:40 PM

how does this dustin siggins guy get published? he is the lowest of the low. completely without value or merit. is this place turning into world nut daily?

brushingmyhair on April 30, 2015 at 1:57 PM
.

Actual meaning :
.
Dustin Siggins knocked it outta’ the park.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 2:37 PM

.
Dude, no.

I need an Archer meme to do proper justice to his line “….even immoral child creation practices like IVF.”

Do you want to lose the middle (and part of the right) and get everyone to brand you “Crazy,”? Because that’s how you lose the middle (and part of the right) and get everyone to brand you “Crazy.”

Even if everything else Siggins wrote was accurate, that one statement is so out of bizarro world that it disqualifies him as a person worth listening to.

alchemist19 on April 30, 2015 at 3:11 PM

.
Alright … let’s revisit the offending passage :
.

. . . . . even immoral child creation practices like IVF — which treats unborn children like chattel and often results in death for embryos — that are popular among same-sex couples require the reproductive assistance of both a man and a woman.

Dustin Siggins on April 29, 2015 at 4:01 PM

.
Did anyone else (besides Dustin and myself) go to the link?

After visiting the link, I conclude that Dustin Siggins would have no problem with IVF for married, HETERO (have to include that qualifier, now) couples … meaning one “born-as-is” MAN, and one “born-as-is” WOMAN.

Dustin and myself would exclude gay/lesbians, transgenders, and SINGLE parents, from using IVF to conceive children.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM

Did anyone else (besides Dustin and myself) go to the link?

After visiting the link, I conclude that Dustin Siggins would have no problem with IVF for married, HETERO (have to include that qualifier, now) couples … meaning one “born-as-is” MAN, and one “born-as-is” WOMAN.

Dustin and myself would exclude gay/lesbians, transgenders, and SINGLE parents, from using IVF to conceive children.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM

It’s not at all clear from the link if Siggins objects to IVF in toto or only when used by “the wrong kind of people”. Siggins is Catholic and I’m clearly not. Because I’m not Catholic I can’t speak with authority on what the church teaches, but a little bit of Googling sure makes it look like the Church is opposes IVF in all cases. If that’s not the case I’m happy to be corrected by any of the practicing Catholics out there.

alchemist19 on April 30, 2015 at 4:02 PM

Most Americans say religious freedom should take priority over gay ‘rights’: http://go.cbn.com/31

TheMadHessian on April 30, 2015 at 4:05 PM

Augustinian on April 30, 2015 at 8:31 AM

Thank you for that very apt Chesterton quote. It’s been a while since I’d read it, and I’d forgotten it.

INC on April 30, 2015 at 4:29 PM

Dustin Siggins knocked it outta’ the park.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 2:37 PM

oh yah if only this winning essay were written earlier this whole matter woulda been settled already.

brushingmyhair on April 30, 2015 at 4:38 PM

All due respect, I appreciate this is a site grounded in the conservative viewpoint.
But this is some weak and batty tea.

verbaluce on April 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM

Not as weak as your whine.

de rigueur on April 30, 2015 at 12:32 PM

Ha…& touché.

verbaluce on April 30, 2015 at 4:41 PM

MN J on April 30, 2015 at 10:18 AM

Adult COGs (Children of Gays) have been speaking and writing about the impact of growing up in a same-sex household. Four filed amicus briefs to the Fifth Circuit Court on marriage. They were joined by two more in co-authoring briefs filed with SCOTUS. I’ve written about the briefs and linked to many of the other things they’ve written in: Voices For Children: COGs Go To Court. Five of the six are active in the new organization International Children’s Rights Institute.

INC on April 30, 2015 at 4:54 PM

Religious freedom is guaranteed in the First Amendment; both freedom from coersion and from constraints.
I see no mention of “gay rights”, other than the same freedoms guaranteed everyone.

ReggieA on April 30, 2015 at 5:16 PM

It’s not at all clear from the link if Siggins objects to IVF in toto or only when used by “the wrong kind of people”. Siggins is Catholic and I’m clearly not. Because I’m not Catholic I can’t speak with authority on what the church teaches, but a little bit of Googling sure makes it look like the Church is opposes IVF in all cases. If that’s not the case I’m happy to be corrected by any of the practicing Catholics out there.

alchemist19 on April 30, 2015 at 4:02 PM

That is correct. In-vitro fertilization is never permitted in Catholic theology. The Church teaches that children are a gift, not an entitlement.

Augustinian on April 30, 2015 at 5:50 PM

That is correct. In-vitro fertilization is never permitted in Catholic theology. The Church teaches that children are a gift, not an entitlement.

Augustinian on April 30, 2015 at 5:50 PM

There you go. Being a Catholic and espousing consistency with Catholic standards is now “crazy”!

It’s so crazy that it will scare people in the center off–if I don’t do it first by talking about how scared I am about the sanity of the people whose politics, I, to a degree, share

Axeman on April 30, 2015 at 6:12 PM

There you go. Being a Catholic and espousing consistency with Catholic standards is now “crazy”!

It’s so crazy that it will scare people in the center off–if I don’t do it first by talking about how scared I am about the sanity of the people whose politics, I, to a degree, share

Axeman on April 30, 2015 at 6:12 PM

That particular Catholic standard is a very tough sell politically because it’s a position that’s very easy to marginalize. You’re free to believe whatever you want and I’m not going to try to talk you out of it, even if it comes off as crazy.

alchemist19 on April 30, 2015 at 6:42 PM

Most of these Christians have only read the feel-good parts of the bible. They think it’s all free fish and wine.

triple on April 29, 2015 at 10:56 PM

…and the anti-christians, proud of proclaiming their ignorance, deliberately read and understand even less.

Ricard on April 30, 2015 at 6:44 PM

So 1.6% of our population practically rules the country.

balkanmom on April 30, 2015 at 9:52 AM

…welcome to your “transformed” America!

JugEarsButtHurt on April 30, 2015 at 6:57 PM

There you go. Being a Catholic and espousing consistency with Catholic standards is now “crazy”!

It’s so crazy that it will scare people in the center off–if I don’t do it first by talking about how scared I am about the sanity of the people whose politics, I, to a degree, share

Axeman on April 30, 2015 at 6:12 PM

Yep.

“He came home. Again [the] crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” The scribes who had come from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “By the prince of demons he drives out demons.” – Mark 3:20-22

That particular Catholic standard is a very tough sell politically because it’s a position that’s very easy to marginalize. You’re free to believe whatever you want and I’m not going to try to talk you out of it, even if it comes off as crazy.

alchemist19 on April 30, 2015 at 6:42 PM

All true. And I love it.

“If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me also hates my Father.” – John 15:18-23

Augustinian on April 30, 2015 at 7:22 PM

Adult COGs (Children of Gays) have been speaking and writing about the impact of growing up in a same-sex household. Four filed amicus briefs to the Fifth Circuit Court on marriage. They were joined by two more in co-authoring briefs filed with SCOTUS. I’ve written about the briefs and linked to many of the other things they’ve written in: Voices For Children: COGs Go To Court. Five of the six are active in the new organization International Children’s Rights Institute.

INC on April 30, 2015 at 4:54 PM

Excellent stuff INC.

Keep it coming.

Augustinian on April 30, 2015 at 7:24 PM

Augustinian on April 30, 2015 at 7:24 PM

Thanks!

INC on April 30, 2015 at 8:54 PM

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM

.
It’s not at all clear from the link if Siggins objects to IVF in toto or only when used by “the wrong kind of people”. Siggins is Catholic and I’m clearly not. Because I’m not Catholic I can’t speak with authority on what the church teaches, but a little bit of Googling sure makes it look like the Church is opposes IVF in all cases. If that’s not the case I’m happy to be corrected by any of the practicing Catholics out there.

alchemist19 on April 30, 2015 at 4:02 PM

.
IF … the Vatican opposes IVF in all cases, then I disagree with them on that.
.
This line should read:

It’s not at all clear from the link if Siggins objects to IVF in toto or only when used by “the wrong kind of people” anyone using donor sperm, or any couple other than a natural-born (non-transgender) heterosexual couple who are using their own eggs and sperm.

.
The phrase “wrong kind of people” can mean anything the individual beholder wants it to.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 9:04 PM

Catholic opposition to IVF is hardly “crazy” …. it’s perhaps the clearest example of the evils that result from separating procreation from the natural act of a man and woman in marriage. IVF results in “excess” babies, which results in reduction abortions, destroyed babies, and babies used for scientific research, which leads to embryon cloning for more research … a real Pandora’s Box.

Oilwatcher on April 30, 2015 at 9:07 PM

Adult COGs (Children of Gays) have been speaking and writing about the impact of growing up in a same-sex household. Four filed amicus briefs to the Fifth Circuit Court on marriage. They were joined by two more in co-authoring briefs filed with SCOTUS. I’ve written about the briefs and linked to many of the other things they’ve written in: Voices For Children: COGs Go To Court. Five of the six are active in the new organization International Children’s Rights Institute.

INC on April 30, 2015 at 4:54 PM
.

Excellent stuff INC.

Keep it coming.

Augustinian on April 30, 2015 at 7:24 PM

.
Thanks!

INC on April 30, 2015 at 8:54 PM

.
Dittos … GREAT links.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 9:16 PM

Catholic opposition to IVF is hardly “crazy” …. it’s perhaps the clearest example of the evils that result from separating procreation from the natural act of a man and woman in marriage. IVF results in “excess” babies, which results in reduction abortions, destroyed babies, and babies used for scientific research, which leads to embryon cloning for more research … a real Pandora’s Box.

Oilwatcher on April 30, 2015 at 9:07 PM

.
If you’re referring to this business of (pro)creating multiple “conceptions-in-a-tube” ahead of time, and then freezing them, then I’ll concede your point.
It should be done ONE AT A TIME, in accordance with the other criteria I layed out above.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 9:27 PM

how does this dustin siggins guy get published? he is the lowest of the low. completely without value or merit. is this place turning into world nut daily?

brushingmyhair on April 30, 2015 at 1:57 PM
.

Dustin Siggins knocked it outta’ the park.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 2:37 PM

.
oh yah if only this winning essay were written earlier this whole matter woulda been settled already.

brushingmyhair on April 30, 2015 at 4:38 PM

.
No matter how “winning” this essay is or is not, or who wrote it … it wouldn’t have made any difference in settling the matter.

Your mind is already made-up and set-in-concrete.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 9:44 PM

If you’re referring to this business of (pro)creating multiple “conceptions-in-a-tube” ahead of time, and then freezing them, then I’ll concede your point.
It should be done ONE AT A TIME, in accordance with the other criteria I layed out above.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 9:27 PM

This is a very complex issue.

IIRC it’s something like 80% of a woman’s fertilized eggs get flushed out of her body and don’t result in pregnancy. The weaker and less viable fertilized eggs – which are alive if you believe life begins at conception – tend to not make it. It’s perfectly fine if a sperm-egg combination meets its fate in the uterus and dies there but immoral when the exact same process that would have happened in the uterus happens in a lab? Get beyond that and you’ve still got to get a successful implanting of the egg; if you’re using IVF and fertilizing and implanting one egg at a time you’re facing the possibility of multiple attempts even after the less viable eggs that would normally be flushed from a woman’s body are removed. You’re talking about making a $15,000 process even more expensive and time consuming. If having kids is the whole point of getting married then you’re not doing much to make that easy for them.

alchemist19 on May 1, 2015 at 12:40 AM

It’s perfectly fine if a sperm-egg combination meets its fate in the uterus and dies there but immoral when the exact same process that would have happened in the uterus happens in a lab?

alchemist19 on May 1, 2015 at 12:40 AM

I hear people die of natural causes all the time. So why do we have laws against murder?

Same argument. There is a big difference between deaths that happen naturally, and deaths that are deliberate.

I would not call IVF necessarily immoral, because it seems obvious that you can respect the life being produced, rather than just casually destroy the embryos you don’t want. But it seems rather obvious also that some people create a number of embryos, use just enough to get a baby, then discard the rest. If you’re deliberately destroying life, it doesn’t become all right just because you created that life in the first place.

The Catholic church seems to have decided that all IVF is immoral. I’m not convinced that’s always the case, but it’s certainly true that the casual approach taken to human life in IVF has led to a lot of embryos being lightly discarded and destroyed. At any rate, calling this idea crazy is a little, well, crazy.

Of course, for a lot of people making such a stink about the comment, it’s really just a chance to call their opponents on an issue crazy, rather than a substantive objection.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 1, 2015 at 2:19 AM

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 9:16 PM

Thank you!

INC on May 1, 2015 at 6:54 AM

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 9:27 PM

.
This is a very complex issue.

IIRC it’s something like 80% of a woman’s fertilized eggs get flushed out of her body and don’t result in pregnancy. The weaker and less viable fertilized eggs – which are alive if you believe life begins at conception – tend to not make it. It’s perfectly fine if a sperm-egg combination meets its fate in the uterus and dies there but immoral when the exact same process that would have happened in the uterus happens in a lab?

alchemist19 on May 1, 2015 at 12:40 AM

.
It’s NOT “perfectly fine if a sperm-egg combination meets its fate in the uterus and dies” … it’s a tragedy, brought about by the corruption of this natural, physical world, caused by the first Adam’s sin, just like all other unintended, tragic deaths (from sickness and disease, volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, lightning, accidents, animal attacks, etc).
It’s only immoral if it’s deliberately done by or due to the hand of man.

I read There Goes the Neighborhood’s 2:19 AM comment, up above, and his/her thinking seems mostly inline with my mine.

listens2glenn on May 1, 2015 at 8:55 AM

listens2glenn on April 30, 2015 at 9:16 PM

.
Thank you!

INC on May 1, 2015 at 6:54 AM

.
Your welcome.

I hadn’t heard of either organization before, and their mission goals are very worthy. Reposting links:

Upstream Politics

International Children’s Rights Institute

listens2glenn on May 1, 2015 at 9:10 AM

IIRC it’s something like 80% of a woman’s fertilized eggs get flushed out of her body and don’t result in pregnancy. The weaker and less viable fertilized eggs – which are alive if you believe life begins at conception – tend to not make it. It’s perfectly fine if a sperm-egg combination meets its fate in the uterus and dies there but immoral when the exact same process that would have happened in the uterus happens in a lab?

alchemist19 on May 1, 2015 at 12:40 AM

I would think that a proponent of materialist evolution would be able to distinguish between ‘natural selection’ and ‘not natural selection,’ and the huge differences therein.

Ricard on May 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM

Even though Article of Confederation is probably way past the topic, I just thought of something to illustrate Tlaloc’s cluelessness as I rose from bed this morning.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the states that are being joined in a union–the parties of agreement. They are however specifically mentioned in the AoC. So if the Constitution disbanded the union created in the AoC, and it became a wholly different union, it simply assumes the union in the Constitution, and never specifies who is joining except as the “People of the United States” a union that already exists.

Which is a pretty good argument that the Constitution was simply a reorg of the federal government and a formalization of the distribution of powers which weren’t so clear in the sort of loose confederation specified in the Articles. In fact in the Federalists, they only refer to “the several states” which several?

Provided that this argument holds, Tlaloc’s glib confidence that he has “explained” something that is not true, would tend to be illustrative of an assumptive mindset.

Of course, he can explain things to us, he’s a smart lib and we’re all wingnuts!! Geez, don’t you wingnuts understand this!!

Axeman on May 1, 2015 at 10:38 AM

I would think that a proponent of materialist evolution would be able to distinguish between ‘natural selection’ and ‘not natural selection,’ and the huge differences therein.

Ricard on May 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM

Do you really have confidence in that? You’re just being ironic, right?

Because I find few things so common as that the average materialist-spouter can’t even think in terms of natural selection, directionlessness, or even the implications of adaptation. To them Evolution is simply the Ark of Noah. It is the backdrop of the world they are incurious to investigate. They just want to spout shibboleths that give them access to respect in the modern world.

“We owe human rights to Darwin/natural selection!”

“Have geneticists found the alleles that pass on the “rights” structure?”

No to the modern adherent it’s all in there somewhere. “Rights” exist in their world-view and there are tapir-like primates becoming homo way in the backdrop. They are rational people–not like the superstitious God-people. So it all makes sense somehow, and believing in God isn’t going to make rights any more rational. As it all seems reasonable to the clean mind whose applied the brain soap of rejection of–a species of–irrational thought, it is preferable to people who “just believe stuff”.

People who think this tend to be incapable of accepting that people of convention tend to exist in all groups. And as far as this prospect is viable, this might lead no group being the safe haven from being compared to a folk of convention. Thus even if skewed toward my side the illustration of convention, you can’t get that common trend within a group de facto delivers to the individual characteristics trending in that group.

It’s the lack of understanding of the conventional lib who thinks that conservatism is “anti-intellectual” and the lack of understanding from the brain-soap salesmen that is a wellspring of amusement and irony for me.

Axeman on May 1, 2015 at 11:40 AM

The comment about IVF is totally on the fringe. I agree with posters who say this puts the writer in moon bat territory. He says he doesn’t need religion to make his argument, but what morality code is his anti-IVF stance based one?

He also contradicts his argument that anti-SSM is based in love and not religious ideology. Isn’t the concept of heaven and hell a religious concept? He states that protecting gays from hell is love, but remove religion and you’re not protecting gays from anything except STD’s. And wouldn’t the loving thing in that case be to encourage them to marry so as to avoid promiscuity? So no, the authors argument is not based in love, but in a religious point of view.

As for the children, well, isn’t it more loving to take a child out of an orphanage even if the child has to live with two gay, but very loving, men? Is it truly in the child’s best interest to keep them in an orange over a gay family? I doubt it.

Also, the validity of two parent families being better is not undone if gays can marry. In fact, it may be reinforced.

This article is pretty weak, overall.

DepthTested on May 1, 2015 at 1:27 PM

He says he doesn’t need religion to make his argument, but what morality code is his anti-IVF stance based one?

DepthTested on May 1, 2015 at 1:27 PM

Well first of all, one should know how to spot what is an argument and what is not. “immoral” is simply an adjective in this sentence: “Sexual relationships between people of the same sex cannot propagate the species, and even immoral child creation practices like IVF — which treats unborn children like chattel and often results in death for embryos — that are popular among same-sex couples require the reproductive assistance of both a man and a woman.”

Diagram the sentence to see what it claims, don’t just treat the “immoral” as a shiny distraction. “Sexual relationships between people of the same sex cannot propagate the species” True or false?

Let me remove the shiny part for you: “child creation practices like IVF that are popular among same-sex couples require the reproductive assistance of both a man and a woman.” True or false?

Which one of those facts relies upon mystical belief?

His stance isn’t part of his argument. So you’re first point is to say that that his argument relies on belief, because a detected stance relies on God.

Be less dumb.

Axeman on May 1, 2015 at 3:22 PM

I would think that a proponent of materialist evolution would be able to distinguish between ‘natural selection’ and ‘not natural selection,’ and the huge differences therein.

Ricard on May 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM

Do you really have confidence in that? You’re just being ironic, right?

Axeman on May 1, 2015 at 11:40 AM

[sputtering, lowering head in shame]

Ricard on May 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM

I would think that a proponent of materialist evolution would be able to distinguish between ‘natural selection’ and ‘not natural selection,’ and the huge differences therein.

Ricard on May 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM

Your analogy isn’t really very fitting and perhaps it’s because I wasn’t explicitly clear in the biology talking about the different stages where embryos would be killed. I will admit I only got a “B” in biology so I went back and reviewed for myself so I could be a bit more descriptive about the process.

We now know that, depending on when you want to start counting life beginning, that 60% to 80% of a woman’s fertilized eggs don’t survive. Of the ones that don’t make it somewhere around half that fail to survive do so because of some defect in either the sperm or the egg. They don’t survive regardless of whether fertilization takes place in the uterus or in the lab. Is there a moral difference if that doomed-from-the-start embryo meets its identical, unalterable fate in a different location? That’s not a rhetorical question.

Once we eliminate those that were doomed from the start, the other half of babies that die simply fail to implant in the wall of the uterus and are flushed during the menstrual cycle. Making a baby naturally will typically involve the creation of many babies, including viable ones, most of which don’t survive the process. The same is true for IVF. IVF typically involves multiple insertions because so many otherwise viable babies die in this way. So whether it’s natural or IVF, odds are you’re going to kill a lot of babies just to have one. It’s the identical process, and result moral in the uterus but immoral in the lab?

I will repeat this because it bears repeating needs to be made absolutely clear: If you choose to have children naturally and you believe life begins at fertilization then you are choosing to kill a large number of babies for every one baby you do give birth to.

The value judgments I leave to you.

Politically the IVF statement is a loser because couples who desperately want children, can’t have them but then do through IVF are some pretty sympathetic people to be picking on. Even if we set aside the fact that the moral judgment on IVF is absurd (and it is) the optics of saying to a couple that their child whom they love and sacrificed a great deal to bring into this world is somehow immoral and shouldn’t have been conceived is an argument that’s not going to win conservatives a lot of friends. Granted that hasn’t stopped us before, but that’s another issue.

alchemist19 on May 1, 2015 at 6:04 PM

It’s significant that the biggest “issue” to come out of the gay-marriage debate is … wedding cakes and uncooperative Christian bakers. How appropriately trivial is their issue, after all!

Now SCOTUS has to sully themselves with this childish topic. Is same-sex marriage real? (of course not) Do we have to act like this is a proper subject of debate? (yes, ‘fraid so). Will gays throw their binkies out of the stroller again? (you bet!)

virgo on May 2, 2015 at 1:15 AM

Why is so much attention being paid to such a small demographic comprised of unusual men devoted to sodomy?

JackM on May 2, 2015 at 11:18 PM

How can you explain marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, to a bunch of creepy people who believe being a man or, a woman, depends on what you think you are?

“I may be sporting a fat hairy ass, but I identify with being a woman, so you have to let me go into the Ladies Room with your mothers, wives, and daughters.”

How about I kick your fat hairy ass, right back into the closet?

JackM on May 2, 2015 at 11:33 PM

Why is so much attention being paid to such a small demographic comprised of unusual men devoted to sodomy?

JackM on May 2, 2015 at 11:18 PM

.
I would add ‘abnormal’ to that description … but the reason why, is because IT HELPS THE ‘INTERESTED’ PARTIES TO WEAKEN AND DESTABILIZE THE U.S., AND ULTIMATELY BRING IT DOWN.
.
That’s all there is to it.

listens2glenn on May 3, 2015 at 7:44 PM

How about I kick your fat hairy ass, right back into the closet?

JackM on May 2, 2015 at 11:33 PM

How really f’in Christian of you…

Keith_Indy on May 4, 2015 at 9:31 AM

Does anyone else here believe that some gay people are born that way? Celebrity Olympics stars aside, I do believe some are born that way. I just cannot reasonably or logically conclude otherwise.

I have observed two gay people from birth through adulthood that I do not doubt were born gay. 1 was a little boy that began pre-school with my oldest boy at age 3. Perfectly normal parents and extended family, (my husband grew up with his father), but I knew because he was so different from my own 3 year old son. He is now an openly gay man. We live in a very rural area, so the chances that he adopted gay behavior from observation is very remote. Yet, he displayed femininity as a toddler! He’s a very sweet, earnest young man, and was raised in the church. I do not know what his parents could have done any differently.

Another was a friend’s daughter. I’ve known her mom since college, and was one of the first friends to visit the hospital when she was born. Literally known her since birth. She too displayed the opposite gender characteristics as a toddler/child/teen, and now lives as an openly gay woman. Parents are Baptists and active in church as well. Same for these, I just do not know what, if anything, her parents could have done differently.

These two people are prime examples of individuals that I believe were born gay. Thankfully, they are well loved by their families, although I’m sure their parents are disappointed that their children are not like everyone else’s. I guess I’m just amazed that modern medical science has not found a biological explanation for this difference. Or perhaps they have, and are too afraid of letting it be known that they do know. Imagine what would happen if this was something that could be tested for.

graywaiter on May 4, 2015 at 12:46 PM

graywaiter on May 4, 2015 at 12:46 PM

I will let Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, the authors of After The Ball speak:

Two different messages about the gay victim are worth communicating. First the public should be persuaded the gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did say their height, skin color, talents or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay—even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.) . . .

And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness. Second they should be portrayed as victims of prejudice. Straights don’t fully realize the suffering they bring upon gays . . .

Their propaganda plan has succeeded quite well.

INC on May 4, 2015 at 5:55 PM

graywaiter on May 4, 2015 at 12:46 PM

.
Agree totally with you, that this is something that can be ‘inherent at birth’, but I absolutely insist that it be defined as an “abnormality”, just like any other birth defect.
.
I personally believe the cause to be demonic influence.
.
That the families continue to love their respective children, is the right and Christian thing to do.

Do these gay-lesbian adult children of your friends know the LORD?
Simply ‘going-to-church’ or being ‘raised in the church’ isn’t good enough.

listens2glenn on May 4, 2015 at 10:25 PM

I am done with this publication, HotAir. I found like-minded opinions when it came to federalism, monetary policy, and taxation, but I am deeply offended that the same, tired, and ignorant arguments are still being used against the LGTBQ community and other outsiders. You writers have a lot of maturing to do. You are offensive.

rowbear on May 5, 2015 at 6:53 AM

This is not a minor matter but one of the survival of the nation at the hands of our bigoted, lawless, fascist SCOTUS majority that an adult Congress (no danger of that with Bonehead & McConman’s spineless RINOs running it) would swiftly impeach and imprison/execute for treason. Americans’ refusal to hold them accountable for this will show that we deserve to lose our country for our spineless, ungodly disregard of reality. God save us.

russedav on July 13, 2015 at 10:11 AM

I am done with this publication, HotAir. I found like-minded opinions when it came to federalism, monetary policy, and taxation, but I am deeply offended that the same, tired, and ignorant arguments are still being used against the LGTBQ community and other outsiders. You writers have a lot of maturing to do. You are offensive.
rowbear on May 5, 2015 at 6:53 AM

Grow up and abandon the ignorant, infantile bigotry. See “The gay invention” at http://www.touchstonemag.com and http://www.DrJudithReisman.org for how you’ve been brainwashed by bigoted sodomite lies like most as a useful idiots like in the old USSR.

If you were an adult vs a childish brat, typical for perverts & their harlotry, you would know being an adult with the First Amendment and the rule of law is NOT a right to not be “offended,” since that’s a mark of the infantile that shouldn’t be allowed outside without mommy to change the diapers, much less have a responsible position in society.
If you had a clue about the vile, lawless, fascist, diseased pervert people you’d know theirs largely cares nothing for others, rather selfish narcissist bigotry like 0bama to the core with multiple partners galore, not wanting real marriage that would cramp their profligate style but wanting to trash it for others in typical narcissist style. See C.S. Lewis’s frighteningly prescient “Perelandra Trilogy” for the hideous future that awaits us, God save us.

Today’s like the 18th century French & 20th century German Revolutions where perversion run riot eventually both destroyed itself after several years and brought in a ruthless dictatorship to clean up the mess as will happen here if God doesn’t spare us in answer to the prayers of His people. God save us.

russedav on July 13, 2015 at 10:23 AM