how does gay marriage harm society?

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

InSearch, let me just preface what I’m about to say with this: I think you’re wonderful, a great human being who keeps to his/her convictions with a passionate intensity. I admire that and respect it.

But. You don’t do yourself any service by quoting pseudo-Freudian pop-psycho-babble claptrap. It is very difficult to take Trayce Hansen, PhD seriously when the majority of her assessment is based on stereotypical notions of masculine and feminine paired with stereotypical notions of fatherhood and motherhood. It is simply laughable. Surely defenders of the sexual complimentarity argument against homosexual unions can come up with something more convincing than this–something that doesn’t totally hinge on opposite pairs of genitalia being around and which might go some way towards competently explaining how masculinity or father qualities, for instance, *find no purchase in- and are totally and utterly alien to human beings who are born without phalluses. *That’s the complementarity argument. And making it rationally and convincingly is a tall order–and it’s not going to be filled by relying on silly stereotypes of masculine and feminine, motherhood and fatherhood.

And to follow up all of that hyper-earnest silliness with an appeal to the slippery slope argument. I mean. Wow. It just becomes clear that perhaps Hansen does not wish to be taken seriously in any way at all.

I’m sorry, InSearch.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

a heterosexual child has a right to the best home situation possible. And that is going to be provided by a heterosexual couple.

So you *do *believe in making a distinction between heterosexual children and homosexual children? Are you assuming that the needs of a heterosexual child are fundamentally different from the needs of a homosexual child? Should a homosexual orphan child be placed with homosexual parents? And how do you propose to tell the difference?

I can’t understand why you keep making this distinction between heterosexual children and homosexual children. Perhaps because I can’t understand how it is that a child can be asked to display or can be observed to display sexual desire that in any way correlates with an adult understanding of their sexuality.

But maybe by making the distinction you’re making known your desire that all children grow up to be heterosexual, or grow into their sexuality in such a way that they recognize the signs of their sexuality to be heterosexual signs? That’s a totally fine desire, I guess. But I don’t see how homosexual parents could stop a child from growing up heterosexual when heterosexual parents can’t stop a child from growing up homosexual…

Why is it so hard to talk about the needs of human children as opposed to hetero or homo children? Shall we speak now of the needs of republican children, poor children, socialist children, Irish children, etc.? How absurd do we want to get?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Deo Volente

So you do believe in making a distinction between heterosexual children and homosexual children? Are you assuming that the needs of a heterosexual child are fundamentally different from the needs of a homosexual child? Should a homosexual orphan child be placed with homosexual parents? And how do you propose to tell the difference?

Is there a way to tell the difference? I doubt it. The benefit of the doubt goes to the heterosexual parents.

I can’t understand why you keep making this distinction between heterosexual children and homosexual children.

I don’t make a distinction. I assume all children are heterosexual. They certainly aren’t all homosexual.

Why is it so hard to talk about the needs of human children as opposed to hetero or homo children? Shall we speak now of the needs of republican children, poor children, socialist children, Irish children, etc.? How absurd do we want to get?

In a couple of day revisit that sentence and have a good laugh at your own expense.

 

[Big_Charles_D]

Charlemange…you assume that a hetero couple is the “best” couple to raise a child

can you please provide evidence to support this claim proving that a hetero couple is always better than…not just equal to…but superior to every:

single mom
single dad
homosexual couple

else your claim is at best that they are equal and then your argument is null.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace & Peace!
…
You don’t do yourself any service by quoting pseudo-Freudian pop-psycho-babble claptrap. It is very difficult to take Trayce Hansen, PhD seriously when the majority of her assessment is based on stereotypical notions of masculine and feminine paired with stereotypical notions of fatherhood and motherhood. It is simply laughable. Surely defenders of the sexual complimentarity argument against homosexual unions can come up with something more convincing than this–something that doesn’t totally hinge on opposite pairs of genitalia being around and which might go some way towards competently explaining how masculinity or father qualities, for instance, *find no purchase in- and are totally and utterly alien to human beings who are born without phalluses. *That’s the complementarity argument. And making it rationally and convincingly is a tall order–and it’s not going to be filled by relying on silly stereotypes of masculine and feminine, motherhood and fatherhood.

And to follow up all of that hyper-earnest silliness with an appeal to the slippery slope argument. I mean. Wow. It just becomes clear that perhaps Hansen does not wish to be taken seriously in any way at all.
…
Under the Mercy,
Mark

So when a licensed psychologist, a clinician and forensic practitioner at that, disagrees with same-sex ‘marriage’ and ‘parenting’, it is psychobabble? I would say Dr. Hansen spoke the plain truth with the use of common sense, and pointing to professional research and studies. See the list of references at the end of another article, Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children. Read the foreword, as it is interesting.

Dr. Hansen is right. Compassion is easy to market, and homosexual activists did a good job in marketing compassion for THEIR needs, not the needs of children.

I know you will not agree, but she points to existing research on children reared by homosexuals as not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves. According to Dr. Hansen, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.

As one of her source materials, Dr. Hansen listed this paper, Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change? American College of Pediatricians - March 2009, which had the following abstract:

Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was “no.” Within the last decade, however, professional health organizations,1 academics, social policymakers and the media have begun asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.

Read the rest of the document, Mark. Don’t forget to review the 44 references!

Oh, about the slippery slope argument that you guys love to bash: when a chain of logical relationships can be reasonably foreseen with an action (in this debate, the institution of gay ‘marriage’), you cannot argue it is a fallacy.

I refer you to the eloquent Mr. Robert George, professor of Jurisprudence in Princeton University, who wrote in a Wall Street Journal Opinion Section in August 2009:

“In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.”

Mr. George is an illustrious, intelligent, very well educated gentleman, and there are many of his caliber with this view, who are not silly at all!
,

 

[cyejbv]

I couldn’t get through the many posts.
Forgive me if this has been addressed in one form or another, but amidst the many lengthy and sometimes insightful… sometimes dubious…posts, I shall be pithy and defer to the wisdom of my husband a man of few words. What follows is War and Peace for him.

I asked his thoughts and after about half a second, he observed thusly, “If the cavemen had all been vegetarians they’d have starved. It was wooly mammoth or nothing. Had they all been homosexual, we wouldn’t be here to debate it.”
(‘it’ being the OP)

Isn’t that the crux: that homosexual sexual behavior can never result in reproduction, and so cannot by it’s nature *nurture * or sustain a society? The harm therein is extinction, no?
The OP wasn’t about homosexual behavior but the assumption about marital relationships goes without saying.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Big Charles

**Charlemange…you assume that a hetero couple is the “best” couple to raise a child

can you please provide evidence to support this claim proving that a hetero couple is always better than…not just equal to…but superior to every:**

God’s plan. Nature’s too.

Throw in a handful of common sense while you’re at it.

Would you prefer to have been raised by two sodomites as opposed to a mother and father, or even a single mother or a single father?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

So when a licensed psychologist, a clinician and forensic practitioner at that, disagrees with same-sex ‘marriage’ and ‘parenting’, it is psychobabble?

No no. When a licensed psychologist, etc. presents an argument that’s based on little more than rehashing stereotypes and tropes and wraps it up in language that would not seem out of place in a cheap new age self-help book championed by an Oprah wannabe…it’s psychobabble. A degree and a job do not prevent one from stumbling into idiocy every now and then…

I would say Dr. Hansen spoke the plain truth with the use of common sense, and pointing to professional research and studies. See the list of references at the end of another article, Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children. Read the foreword, as it is interesting.

I respect your opinion of Hansen, PhD. I must admit to a particular bias against people who attempt to speak “plain truths” and “common sense” in their professional jargon. It strikes me as cloying, less an attempt at articulating a truth, more an attempt at situating what they perceive their audience already believes within a context of specialized authority–little more than an attempt to win favor or influence by dressing up a bit of “folk wisdom” in an ill-fitting white coat, or pinning a degree on an argument characterized more by emotion than reason. As such, it strikes me as cynical.

Moreover, if what is important about Hansen’s rhetoric is that she says it with a PhD, with an assumed authority, let’s continue along these lines and ask: who takes her seriously? What acknowledged and reliable professional body of psychologists listens up when Hansen, PhD, starts talking? Arguing for the rightness of her words based on the authority of her degree does not necessarily get us anywhere particularly useful when we subsequently attempt to situate her authority among her psychologist peers.

Anyway, I may not be able to muster the strength to read this new article today, InSearch. I fear that it’s just more of the same. But with footnotes. (Puts me in mind of that thought-provoking saying, “history is fiction with footnotes.”)

Dr. Hansen is right. Compassion is easy to market, and homosexual activists did a good job in marketing compassion for THEIR needs, not the needs of children.

I don’t know that compassion is, in fact, that easy to market. Not real compassion, at any rate. If it were so easy, the world would be a better place. (Beware of cheap imitations!)

I know you will not agree, but she points to existing research on children reared by homosexuals as not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.

Does she enumerate the ways in which they’re flawed? Whether or not I agree is beside the point–if the facts in context are actually objective and incontrovertible, my agreement is immaterial.

This seems logical to me, though: if in a couple’s household (be they heterosexual or homosexual) there are factors present which will* necessarily* destroy or injure a child, then clearly that child should not be placed with that couple. I do not believe, and the evidence does not suggest, that homosexual parenting *necessarily *constitutes injury to a child. I think the fact that we’re human and as such, prone to fail, throws a definite wrench into the proceedings and all but guarantees some level of dysfunction, but I think the same fact of our humanity is what allows for the possibility of real brilliance here, of love, compassion, forgiveness, etc.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]

According to Dr. Hansen, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.

How does the good PhD explain homosexual children coming out of heterosexual non-“permissive” households?

As one of her source materials, Dr. Hansen listed this paper, Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change? American College of Pediatricians - March 2009, which had the following abstract:

Read the rest of the document, Mark. Don’t forget to review the 44 references!

I glanced at the document, InSearch, and also did some research on the ACPed. They’re not a credible organization–and there are a few writers and authors upset at them for taking their research and writings out of context. The American Academy of Pediatrics has complained that at least one of their reports is “non factual.”

What Hansen, PhD, is to psychology, the ACPed is to pediatrics.

Oh, about the slippery slope argument that you guys love to bash: when a chain of logical relationships can be reasonably foreseen with an action (in this debate, the institution of gay ‘marriage’), you cannot argue it is a fallacy.

The problem with the slippery slope is that it tends to replace possibility (however remote) with necessity.

I refer you to the eloquent Mr. Robert George, professor of Jurisprudence in Princeton University, who wrote in a Wall Street Journal Opinion Section in August 2009:
“In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.”
Mr. George is an illustrious, intelligent, very well educated gentleman, and there are many of his caliber with this view, who are not silly at all!
,

I don’t agree with Mr. George’s view of unassailability. You can string together some “if-then” statements to make it look inevitable, but the inevitability is just not naturally there.

But regardless, if we’re on this slippery slope and destined to slide down it into polyamory or marrying our office supplies, the trigger is not gay “marriage.” Just one or two centuries ago, marriage was radically re-defined: I should have the right to marry the person I love. Before this change seeped into the cultural consciousness, gay marriage wasn’t a thought in anybody’s head. Now it is. To move from gay marriage to polyamory, you need a similar re-definition: I should have the right to marry everyone I love, all at once. I don’t think that re-definition is inevitable. But then, in the 19th century, I might have been scandalized to learn of young people “marrying for love.” Who knows.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Is there a way to tell the difference? I doubt it. The benefit of the doubt goes to the heterosexual parents.

Is “benefit of the doubt” here code for “child?” What an odd way to say it!

I don’t make a distinction. I assume all children are heterosexual. They certainly aren’t all homosexual.

You don’t make the distinction, but you do make an assumption. Hrm.

I suppose my difficulty lies in this: is a heterosexual child of more value than a human child? I don’t see why either the distinction or any sort of assumption needs to be made in the first place… But apparently, for you, the need to assume that a child is heterosexual adds value to the child’s humanity, a value which would be lacking if the assumption were not made. Is that right?

In a couple of day revisit that sentence and have a good laugh at your own expense.

Charlemagne, I’m not quite sure how to take this remark. Is it cynicism? Is it pessimism? Is it just something to say? I don’t know. But I suppose if it makes you merry, Charlemagne, I should be happy!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Deo Volente, I will answer your questions later. I have been busy yesterday and will be busy most of today, but I will get around to responding, and appreciate that you took the time to investigate the quotes and refer to them individually in your replies. Certainly a contrast to those who categorize (and dismiss) posters who have a stand in opposition to theirs as 'filled with hate."

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Deo Volente

I suppose my difficulty lies in this: is a heterosexual child of more value than a human child? I don’t see why either the distinction or any sort of assumption needs to be made in the first place… But apparently, for you, the need to assume that a child is heterosexual adds value to the child’s humanity, a value which would be lacking if the assumption were not made. Is that right?

Again, strange logic and question in blue.

You call yourself the will of God, Deo Volente, but I doubt it. I do not think God planned for his children to be reared by a pair of sodomites.

Your logic grows increasingly absurd the more you speak.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
When a licensed psychologist, etc. presents an argument that’s based on little more than rehashing stereotypes and tropes and wraps it up in language that would not seem out of place in a cheap new age self-help book championed by an Oprah wannabe…it’s psychobabble. A degree and a job do not prevent one from stumbling into idiocy every now and then…

I respect your opinion of Hansen, PhD. I must admit to a particular bias against people who attempt to speak “plain truths” and “common sense” in their professional jargon. It strikes me as cloying, less an attempt at articulating a truth, more an attempt at situating what they perceive their audience already believes within a context of specialized authority–little more than an attempt to win favor or influence by dressing up a bit of “folk wisdom” in an ill-fitting white coat, or pinning a degree on an argument characterized more by emotion than reason. As such, it strikes me as cynical.

Moreover, if what is important about Hansen’s rhetoric is that she says it with a PhD, with an assumed authority, let’s continue along these lines and ask: who takes her seriously? What acknowledged and reliable professional body of psychologists listens up when Hansen, PhD, starts talking? Arguing for the rightness of her words based on the authority of her degree does not necessarily get us anywhere particularly useful when we subsequently attempt to situate her authority among her psychologist peers.
…

How does the good PhD explain homosexual children coming out of heterosexual non-“permissive” households?

InSearch, and also did some research on the ACPed. They’re not a credible organization–and there are a few writers and authors upset at them for taking their research and writings out of context. The American Academy of Pediatrics has complained that at least one of their reports is “non factual.”

What Hansen, PhD, is to psychology, the ACPed is to pediatrics.

Yes, homosexual children come out of heterosexual homes. But that is not what Dr. Hansen is refuting with her position on placement of children with adopting same-sex parents.

Because sexuality is pliant or sexual orientation is not fixed, especially in the formative years, what the ‘good PhD’, to use your thinly veiled sarcastic term, is saying is that adopted children (who more than not would have a heterosexual inclination without environmental factors yet at play) are necessarily exposed to homosexual pairing at home if placed with same-sex adoptive parents. Homosexual pairing would appear to be the norm to a growing child. So, why stack the odds towards non-heterosexuality for a child? Would this not be tantamount to an easy way, in effect, to propagate acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual behavior?

In an interview of Dr. Hansen, she explained gender-identity issues that manifest with children parented by same sex: girls grow up more masculine than feminine, and boys grow up more feminine than masculine. She also brought up sexuality problems where children in their adolescent years are more likely to experiment with bisexual / homosexual behavior than those parented by heterosexual parents.

Will your reaction be: What’s wrong with effeminate boys and masculine girls? And what’s wrong with experimenting with or experiencing bisexual / homosexual acts in adolescence? If so, we can stop this circuitous debate as there would be very little on which we can agree on the issue of gay ‘parenting.’

Look, Mark, I am not surprised you’re no fan of Dr. Hansen. You obviously resent the appeal of her arguments, but I would not call her arguments merely based on ‘folk wisdom,’ which is erroneously interpreted by some snobbish intellectuals as stupid. She earned her degrees (BA, MA and PhD) from accredited universities and made expert level with ProCon (you can Google it).

It is not surprising that pro-gays criticize her views because she and a group of other medical and mental health professionals have bucked the direction to which the now completely pro-gay influenced APA has gone.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
The problem with the slippery slope is that it tends to replace possibility (however remote) with necessity.

I don’t agree with Mr. George’s view of unassailability. You can string together some “if-then” statements to make it look inevitable, but the inevitability is just not naturally there.

But regardless, if we’re on this slippery slope and destined to slide down it into polyamory or marrying our office supplies, the trigger is not gay “marriage.” Just one or two centuries ago, marriage was radically re-defined: I should have the right to marry the person I love. Before this change seeped into the cultural consciousness, gay marriage wasn’t a thought in anybody’s head. Now it is. To move from gay marriage to polyamory, you need a similar re-definition: I should have the right to marry everyone I love, all at once. I don’t think that re-definition is inevitable. But then, in the 19th century, I might have been scandalized to learn of young people “marrying for love.” Who knows.

Well, let me say your use of hyperbole (such as ‘marrying our office supplies’ in the above post) is unnecessary. About your denial of the inevitability of polyamory or polygamy as a natural progression upon legalization of gay ‘marriage,’ and your thinking that it’s only a hypothetical if-then statement, read American Thinker’s The Polygamists Make Their Move.

Mormons in Utah are watching closely what’s playing out in Canada which is a bit ahead of the U.S. with gay ‘marriage,’ where a Canadian judge is now considering a landmark challenge to his country’s ban on polygamy as unconstitutional. Utah’s Attorney General is paying close attention.

*Once the trail has been forged by homosexuality activists, polygamy is nothing but the next logical step. Paul McCormack, a law professor at the University of Utah, confirms that if the Supreme Court takes up the question of same-sex marriage, it will open the door to other forms of personal sexual preference. “That would resuscitate the interest in polygamy,” he stated.

In light of all this, I simply ask those who support the legalization of “gay marriage” how they plan to deny marriage rights to those who advocate for polygamy? This has now gone beyond a “slippery slope” hypothetical question and has entered the realm of reality.
*
[emphasis added]

Make note of the author’s last sentence:
Before we uproot our culture’s moral barriers, we might want to pause long enough to consider what awaits us on the other side.,

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Again, strange logic and question in blue.

You call yourself the will of God, Deo Volente, but I doubt it. I do not think God planned for his children to be reared by a pair of sodomites.

Your logic grows increasingly absurd the more you speak.

Charlemagne, it looks like we’ve finally starting talking completely past each other.

And that’s fine. But here’s a last ditch attempt to sort things out. Let’s just say that, for me, labelling a child heterosexual doesn’t do anything to enhance or augment their value as a truly human and love-worthy child. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe otherwise–that you believe heterosexuality adds value to a child’s humanity (otherwise why even make the distinction?). That seems strange to me. It looks like that seems strange to you, too. Which is, indeed, a puzzler.

Re: calling myself the will of God, never have I done so! Deo Volente means, “With God willing,” or, more colloquially, just “God willing.” If I remember correctly, it’s an ablative constuction, using the gerund form of the verb “volo” (to will). It’s a reminder, to me, that I must seek and lean on God’s will. The Latin for “the will of God” is “Voluntas Dei”–voluntas here is the nominative noun form modified by the genitive form of Deus. Or so my recollections of high school Latin lead me to believe (if I’m wrong, someone correct me!). All of which is to say and confirm–I’m not claiming in the least to call myself the will of God, wretched, ignorant and sinful as I am.

(re: sodomites, for a proper understanding of sodomy, see Ezekiel 16:49–“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” With that in mind, I don’t think those sorts of sodomites make terribly good parents, either!)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Deo Volente, I will answer your questions later. I have been busy yesterday and will be busy most of today, but I will get around to responding, and appreciate that you took the time to investigate the quotes and refer to them individually in your replies. Certainly a contrast to those who categorize (and dismiss) posters who have a stand in opposition to theirs as 'filled with hate."

I look forward to discussing with you, Elizabeth. I hope you trust me when I say that I do not in the least believe that you or InSearch or Charlemagne or anyone else who disagrees with me and who, moreover, is seeking to explicate their understanding of Roman Catholic teaching is in any way filled with hate. (My conversation with Charlemagne seems to be getting surreal…but hate-filled? Not at all!)

What I hope for in this conversation, and others like it, is that the friction between opposing ideas will produce more light than heat, that we can learn something about the opposing viewpoints, and that we can all walk away in the end as friends (in the spirit of Blake’s dictum “Opposition is true friendship”) who are not afraid to challenge each other and speak their minds to each other in charity.

Thanks, Elizabeth.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace & Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
InSearch, and also did some research on the ACPed. They’re not a credible organization–and there are a few writers and authors upset at them for taking their research and writings out of context. The American Academy of Pediatrics has complained that at least one of their reports is “non factual.”

Oh, I bet. When American College of Pediatricians (ACPed) comes up with a contrary position with American Academy of Pediatrics which has aligned itself with the gay agenda directed lifting of prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples, is it really a surprise that ACPed is labeled as not credible?

As ACPed has posed, lifting prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples has a far-reaching, generation-changing impact; hence there should be supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive that children are NOT being harmed by exposure to the homosexual lifestyle of adoptive gay couples. In fact, ACPed, in review of researches and studies, asserts that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle are placed at risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm. Adopting homosexual couples don’t like to hear that! Let’s see, what else did they not want to hear – that they can’t marry!

Followers of parenting issues can check the ACPed page site that deals with the subject here.
,

 

[John21652]

The problem with the slippery slope is that it tends to replace possibility (however remote) with necessity.

This is patently wrong. Slippery slope arguments are based on probabilities and therefore are inductively based. Conversely, deductive logic results in necessities. The ‘inevitability’ you refer to is probabilistic and is based on experience. That’s why you don’t stick a screwdriver into an electric socket.

But regardless, if we’re on this slippery slope and destined to slide down it into polyamory or marrying our office supplies, the trigger is not gay “marriage.” Just one or two centuries ago, marriage was radically re-defined: I should have the right to marry the person I love. Before this change seeped into the cultural consciousness, gay marriage wasn’t a thought in anybody’s head. Now it is. To move from gay marriage to polyamory, you need a similar re-definition: I should have the right to marry everyone I love, all at once. I don’t think that re-definition is inevitable. But then, in the 19th century, I might have been scandalized to learn of young people “marrying for love.” Who knows.

You need to connect the dots. Already the notion of “person” has been radically redefined. So, if the consistency that is required in moral arguments is to be maintained and underlying moral principles found, as is required in moral discourse, then the changed notion of "person’ will inevitably lead to a further altering of marriage once the connection between man/woman is broken. To paraphrase you, “I should have the right to marry the person I love, so why can’t I marry my dog?” By the way, you wouldn’t have been scandalized by young people marrying for love. It’s what most people did. Most people did not have to worry about political alliances and the protection/inheritance of vast estates. Most people just married the boy/girl next door. Even the next village was a long way away for those who never had a horse.

 

[GraceSofia]

… About your denial of the inevitability of polyamory or polygamy as a natural progression upon legalization of gay ‘marriage,’ and your thinking that it’s only a hypothetical if-then statement, read American Thinker’s The Polygamists Make Their Move.

Mormons …,

And the Muslims are watching and waiting for the chance to bring in a little Sharia.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Grace & Peace!

Thanks for those quotations, Elizabeth. I wonder if you can help me make sense of them?

Lacking in the presence of both male and female genitalia, sure. I can see why the inclusion of the word “biological.” What is meant, here, though, by “anthropological”? I can’t quite suss that one out. If they’re referring to the history of marriage in society, “historical” would be a better word.

Again I thank you for the rational discussion devoid of name-calling; most refreshing.

No, anthropology is not being used here to refer to history, and
No; genitalia is merely one of the external manifestations of an inward, organic sexual identity. Maleness is not just a penis, of course! Maleness is a whole, integrated ontological reality. And just like “femaleness,” maleness has certain common characteristics. (Femininity can be a sociologically charged word, pro and con, as can masculinity, so I would prefer to restrict descriptions to gender and not ‘degrees’ of gender ‘authenticity’ so to speak).

The genders are radically different: psychologically especially. In the very rare occurrence of physiological gender confusion (such as the intersexed, etc.), a person can experience a true crisis – prolonged suffering. That’s how profound our sexual identity is. And that has nothing to do with sexual attraction. Gender is a primordial anchor of our very being, our self-knowledge, our harmonious functioning, our sense of integration and spontaneity. Just because we are not conscious of its prominence and essence most of the time, does not mean that gender is not essential to us, to how we understand ourselves, express ourselves, and how others understand us, receive from us.

The paradox is that being fully human is tied to apprehending the ‘wholeness’ of humanity: that neither man nor woman, alone, represents the completion of humanity, and that our striving to reach fullness (an inner drive, really – regardless of belief or lack of belief) is tied to the task of the ‘union’ of the sexes – the interrelationship of them, even non-genitally…so that when children observe and internalize this dynamic, from adults modeling it for them (a male parent and a female parent), it helps their unconscious integration into full personhood.

Men and women learn, teach, communicate, receive, cognate, perceive, and respond completely differently from each other. Is there no carryover? Indeed there is, as presented in the seminal book, Brain Sex, which discusses and illustrates a spectrum of “male” traits and “female” traits, with some people undeniably on one extreme end of the spectrum or the other, but nevertheless with a core commonality to each that is essential and not bridgeable. And again I refer here to organic tendencies tied to brain orientations, rather than to societal gender roles – a completely different topic. So there are three very different concepts here:

Gender identity
Gender attraction
Gender roles

One of the cruelest things, even subconsciously & unintentionally, parents can do, is to express disappointment in whatever spectrum of “maleness” or “femaleness” that is organic to their child, because the child has no control over that. That manifestation of maleness or femaleness is biological, unique to that person, valid, and should be affirmed. But that unique configuration does not necessarily predict attraction, control attraction, limit attraction. And certainly it does not convert a female into a male, not ‘sort of’, not by proxy, not by ‘playing-house’ when grown-ups, etc. It can, however, influence sexual attraction if the child is rejected (or psychologically abandoned) for his or her unique expression of gender, by a parent or both parents.

We all probably have many examples of heterosexually married couples we know who are comfortable with “reverse role models.” Often the father is the comforter, the mother the authority figure in the family. (They may gravitate toward ‘opposite’ roles unconsciously, and without a problem.) But that does not mean that mother and father are interchangeable, even superficially. Nor is either superfluous in a household.

That’s all for now. It’s late, and soon I should sign off.
Peace,
Elizabeth