tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post114896060291977760..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: The Shadow of Equality LoomsDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1149025000089473212006-05-30T14:36:00.000-07:002006-05-30T14:36:00.000-07:00"Why won't you choose to refrain from heterosexual..."Why won't you choose to refrain from heterosexual activity for the rest of your life?"<BR/><BR/>Ah, if you were a real Catholic you would know the answer to this question.<BR/><BR/>Also, there are plently of "Catholics" who are hostile to the Church's fundamental teachings (see, e.g., Ted Kennedy). That you claim membership in the Church hardly immunizes you from being called an anti-Catholic bigot.<BR/><BR/>"Requiring the Catholic church to not discriminate in hiring practices doesn't interfere with the free exercise rights of anyone."<BR/><BR/>Really? So, if a school run by the Catholic Church doesn't want to hire an avowed homosexual to teach its Old Testament class that's not infringing on anyone's free exercise rights?<BR/><BR/>"I'm always surprised how people don't recognize arguments when their not spelled out with legal and ethical rhetoric."<BR/><BR/>I think you mean "logic."<BR/><BR/>"I'm arguing that grouping people and saying that what they do damages society and so their rights aren't important leads to atrocities"<BR/><BR/>I know exactly what you're arguing. The problem is that it's a silly position, Mr. Sweeping Pronouncement. What about grouping racists and saying that what they do damages society? How about pedophiles? Polygamists? Are you seriously suggesting that society should never identify a group of people who engage in certain behavior and declare such behavior to be detrimental to society? Surely not.<BR/><BR/>Also, exactly where do you derive the right to engage in homosexual behavior? From natural law? From a penumbra in the Constitution? I am dying to know the source of this cherished right.Steve Dillard (aka Feddie)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13456537815453248362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1149007529532863312006-05-30T09:45:00.000-07:002006-05-30T09:45:00.000-07:00Jack-All you've done is proven my point: Homosexua...Jack-<BR/><BR/>All you've done is proven my point: Homosexual behavior is against the natural design.<BR/><BR/>Also, the bigotry card can be played from my side as well. Demanding Catholic charities/churches to comply with anti-discrimination laws against gays is nothing but bigotry against Catholics. The Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years that homosexual behavior is gravely and intrinsically disordered, and now the state is going to force Catholics into acknowledging otherwise? Just who is being the bigot here? Oh, and last time I checked, the Free Exercise Clause protected my religious beliefs. I don't recall seeing anything in the Constitution about a constitutional right to engage in homosexual behavior.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and nice Hitler reference. I am surprised you didn't throw it out earlier. Well played.Steve Dillard (aka Feddie)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13456537815453248362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1149007072897284862006-05-30T09:37:00.000-07:002006-05-30T09:37:00.000-07:00Anon-I would disagree with your assertion that gay...Anon-<BR/><BR/>I would disagree with your assertion that gay marriage "doesn't harm anyone or anything else . . . ."<BR/><BR/>Indeed, I think the recognition of gay marriage will have a profoundly negative effect on the social fabric of our republic.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that you and many of the commenters here have bought into this notion of radical individualism, i.e., that nothing matters beyond our own personal desires and happiness. But that is a false and dangerous construct. Take, for example, the damage inflicted on society by no-fault divorce laws and widespread acceptance/use of birth control. The individual decisions people make in these situations (and with abortion, euthanasia, etc.) have a profound impact on society. No man is an island, right?<BR/><BR/>Look, I am actually quite sympathetic to some of the legal rights gay people seek, and I would be more than willing to sign off on some of them (e.g., hospital visitation). But with gay marriage, gays are not just asking for tolerance, they are demanding for their relationship to be treated as the equal of a traditional marriage, and I find that deeply offensive.<BR/><BR/>Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. As Professor Ely once remarked about substantive due process, "kind of like green pastel redness."<BR/><BR/>Marriage is what it is, notwithstanding the serious damage inflicted upon the institution by heterosexuals over the years. And gays are simply not capable of being married. It is against the natural design, and of no societal benefit. The fight for gay marriage is nothing more than gays demanding that society approve of their behavior, which, as the Church notes, is "intrinsically disordered." That is something I am simply not willing to do. <BR/><BR/>Gays don't need be told that what they are doing is acceptable. They need to be loving told that the behavior in which they choose to engage is harmful to both themselves and society.<BR/> <BR/>Recognizing gay marriage only permits gays to further delude themselves into believing that they don't need help, when they clearly do.Steve Dillard (aka Feddie)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13456537815453248362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1149005683333630052006-05-30T09:14:00.000-07:002006-05-30T09:14:00.000-07:00Feddie - think of it this way:Most people have a c...Feddie - think of it this way:<BR/><BR/>Most people have a career, whether it's homemaker, CEO, painter or somewhere in between. We all have a reason to get out of bed in the morning and go about our lives. Some might argue that the artist isn't really essential to continuing civilization or that his contribution is less important than the stay-at-home mom or the businessman. But would you argue that because it is less useful, the artist's choice of profession should be outlawed?<BR/><BR/>Gay marriage is a similar prospect. It really only benefits the gay community to allow it (just as art only benefits those who appreciate and create it). But it doesn't harm anyone or anything else - it simply allows for two people to take advantage of the same benefits (tax breaks, legal rights, etc.) as any other taxpaying heterosexual couple. So maybe the businessman and his homemaker wife contibute something more tangible to society (taxable income and healthy kids), but should that automatically make the gay man or the artist a second-class citizen? Should people be given rights based on how useful they are?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1148999592256631752006-05-30T07:33:00.000-07:002006-05-30T07:33:00.000-07:00Holly-Surely, you jest.Our collective fashion sens...Holly-<BR/><BR/>Surely, you jest.<BR/><BR/>Our collective fashion sense might be a bit duller, but civilization progressed quite nicely during the "closet" years.Steve Dillard (aka Feddie)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13456537815453248362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1148988307488122212006-05-30T04:25:00.000-07:002006-05-30T04:25:00.000-07:00David-Not all behavior is equally useful to societ...David-<BR/><BR/>Not all behavior is equally useful to society. Religion is unquestionably important to the social fabric (see, e.g., the First Amendment). Homosexual behavior is not.<BR/><BR/>Jack-<BR/><BR/>Unlike homosexual behavior, heterosexual behavior has a procreative function, which is kind of important to maintaining civilization. You can't really say that about homosexual behavior, now can you?Steve Dillard (aka Feddie)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13456537815453248362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1148969132373249772006-05-29T23:05:00.000-07:002006-05-29T23:05:00.000-07:00Why is this so difficult? Is it because the homos...Why is this so difficult? <BR/><BR/>Is it because the homosexual community is insisting that their "marriage" be religious as well? Is it because the homosexual community is pushing for the direct, compulsory involvement of their church?<BR/><BR/>Or is it just the churches doing their utmost (as they did in NZ) to prevent the recognition of any form of relationship other than the Christian version of marriage?<BR/><BR/>I do not know the legal situation in US at all.<BR/><BR/>In NZ a Hindu couple (as an example) could have their traditional wedding. <B>But that did not create a legal marriage</B> until they went to the Registry and undertook a "Statutory Marriage" which was entirely based upon the Christian marriage service. Two "ceremonies" to achieve one objective.<BR/><BR/>What happens with "custom marriages" in the US? Are they recognised by the State and by law?<BR/><BR/>Again in NZ, there are people (my son falls into this category) who choose not to have a Christian wedding, but who would like there to be official recognition of his relationship with his partner. At the moment, under the law that existed when I was 30 he would be "co-habiting" and would be described as having a "de facto" relationship.<BR/><BR/>What are the rights of a de facto couple, compared with those of a married couple? If the de facto relationship breaks down, is the law of marriage divorce applied, or do they just walk away?<BR/><BR/>Why is it so difficult that it seems impossible to have a secular recognition of the relationship between two people. Recognition by the community, by the state, and by law of that relationship leaving all and any religious baggage at the door?<BR/><BR/><B>Surely the "right" is being able to choose; not to have one or other or both made compulsory.</B><BR/><BR/>NZ has the "Civil Unions Act" which does just that.<BR/><BR/>So simple!The probligohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17882103150181414348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1148965967145363742006-05-29T22:12:00.000-07:002006-05-29T22:12:00.000-07:00Mark: Assuming the state was operating under the t...Mark: Assuming the state was operating under the typical "best interest of the child" procedure, I would vote to uphold such a law. Insuring that a child grows up in the best permanent loving home possible is the archeotype of a compelling government interest. There isn't an analogous interest in mandating marraige ceremonies.<BR/><BR/>Feddie: Fine, play it your way. I'm SURE you can think of an aspect of one's identity, which, while perhaps technically a choice (or at least a choice to engage in the activity), is integral to your conception of your own personhood and should protected from state-sponsored discrimination.<BR/><BR/>It's called religion.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1148963712657610802006-05-29T21:35:00.000-07:002006-05-29T21:35:00.000-07:00The comparison to racisim is just plain silly. Eve...The comparison to racisim is just plain silly. Even assuming that gays "are just born that way," the bottom line is that they still have the ability to choose (or choose not) to engage in homosexual behavior. Being black (or female), in contrast, is not a choice.Steve Dillard (aka Feddie)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13456537815453248362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1148962343282630542006-05-29T21:12:00.000-07:002006-05-29T21:12:00.000-07:00Uhm, David, you are aware that there were motions ...Uhm, David, you are aware that there were motions to force Catholic adoption agencies to place children with gay couples. How is that so different? <BR/><BR/>Don't get me wrong, I'm not willing to argue that the Catholic position is the correct one from a theological perspective ... but I'm curious ... would you as a judge vote to strike <I>that</I> down as a violation of free exercise?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10837999838469082203noreply@blogger.com