Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZooGirl2002
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Men and women will continue **as they always have. **
Given the decline of family life and the proportion of children deprived of either their mother or father, what does “as they always have” even mean?

Very little in the past 50 years is “as it has always been,” so your claim means what, exactly?

The fact that you leave children completely out of consideration is, itself, telling.
 
It’s a rather simple proposition that apparently is hard to accept in our society.

Human beings exist (we have the being in “human being”).

How do we come to exist? Through the union of a man and woman. No other union can give a human being existence.

Is it good for human beings to exist? I happen to think so. How about you?

If something is good, is it worth protecting?
For instance, if it is good for a human being to exist, and I see you drowning, should I act to protect you? Should I help feed you to keep you alive?
What if I say “no, it is good for me to look the other way”. Am I deceiving you? Yes I am. It is not good that you should suffer or die needlessly if I can help you, so I should protect you. Our society proclaims in many ways that it is good to keep human beings alive, to protect our very existence. (We are also negligent, so there is deception going on.)

If:
it is good for human beings to exist,
and
marriage is the singular way that existence happens,
and
it is good to protect that existence…
why would I accept a deception like “gay marriage”, which cannot, by definition, be the same thing as “marriage”?

The problem with gay marriage isn’t (just) that couples practice disordered sexual acts in the privacy of their own homes. If that was it, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. The problem is that the concept is a deception, and that deception detracts from a fundamental good… human existence. That’s a bad thing for society.
Very well said. When a substitute for something is offered as exactly the same as something else, you can’t have it both ways. The reality of marriage contains certain fundamental ingredients, the substitute contains other ingredients while claiming to be just the same. That does not follow.

To protect the fundamental good, the deceptive substitute cannot be accepted as a good.

Best,
Ed
 
Given the decline of family life and the proportion of children deprived of either their mother or father, what does “as they always have” even mean?

Very little in the past 50 years is “as it has always been,” so your claim means what, exactly?

The fact that you leave children completely out of consideration is, itself, telling.
The reason I leave children out of the argument is because they are irrelevant to the argument. Not everybody wants to raise children. But many will. Whether they be biological parents, or by some other means. Children don’t have anything to do with the same-sex marriage argument, despite what the opposition loves to say.

What I mean by “as they always have” is that same-sex marriage isn’t going to suddenly stop procreation from happening all over the planet. Does that sound silly? It does, I know. And I agree. Yet that is something that is implied all of the time, especially on this forum.
 
The burden of proof now lies with the opposition. Gay couples have already successfully proven how civil marriage benefits them. The opposition has yet to prove how a gay couples civil marriage harms them. The ball remains in your court.
Well, no, actually, it is revisionists calling for change. It is up to revisionists to make a case for why change SHOULD occur.

No matter, the case IS made in the video by Ryan Anderson. At least show good faith by listening to it before dismissing it.

The ball is back in your court.
 
Again…same-sex couples have already successfully argued why and how they benefit from civil marriage. The burden of proof lies with the opposition, and the opposition has yet to prove anything 🤷
 
My Christian values remain intact. It is my **Catholic upbringing **that is now in question.

If you want my personal opinion, I think that the bible was written at a time before homosexuality was well understood. That is why there is hardly any emphasis put on it, and when it is brought up, the response to it is questionably harsh. Humanity just wasn’t there yet.
Where did your Catholic upbringing depart from Christian principles?

Before homosexuality was well understood?? Has it not been a feature of the human condition for millennia? What understanding is it that enables a conclusion that same sex sexual acts are moral?

What we do find in the Scriptures in reference to same sex sexual acts is not favourable. And we do not read a single word that reflects positively on a same sex sexual relationship or act. If the Scriptures are inspired by God - God’s word - how can this be?
 
Again…same-sex couples have already successfully argued why and how they benefit from civil marriage. The burden of proof lies with the opposition, and the opposition has yet to prove anything 🤷
There’s no reason for it. That’s it in a nutshell. By enshrining gay sex as gay marriage in a law by fiat, it is just a novelty. Those who want reality to suit their desires do not need to argue with anyone. Just convince a handful of judges and politicians and you can get what you want. Why the voters were even bothered with this is puzzling. This legal fiction changes nothing. No one needs my permission to live how they want and no one is in a position to tell me how to live. If benefits are all that is desired, why call this marriage? It is not equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Once legalized, little kids in public schools are given propaganda story books promoting gay marriage. Why? And why without the consent of the parents? Who funds that? No one needs my permission to live how they want but leave kids who do not have the intellectual or emotional capacity to understand this social experiment alone.

This is a Catholic forum. Your desire for approval or affirmation from Catholics is not required. You know that.

Ed
 
You will get no disagreement on the above from me, although “how it used to be” with reference to marriage is a tad undefined to warrant anything like agreement.

I am a little wary about agreeing to something when I am not clear what it is that I am agreeing to.

Achilles Heel and all that.
Marriage used to primarily be about children and property (to give to said children. It was a carefully considered business deal which was used to ensure financial stability for the benefit of the parents and the children. Children also helped contribute to the financial stability by being profitable by 10.

People either waited for marriage until they had sufficient assets to be able to form their own household or lived with their parents until they had obtained said assets.

There were to major steps before they were considered married, there was the marriage of course, but there was also the betrothal. The betrothal was the more lavish affair of the two, it was where the couple plighted their troth and the terms of the marriage were hammered out. The husband’s side brought real property to the marriage whereas the bride’s family brought personal property such as furnishings

Marriage was based upon children and property. The way it was done provided stability to society and to the couple. People largely derived their emotional and physical intimacy from their friends and only sexual intimacy was restricted to the spouse. Not only did they largely derive their emotional intimacy from their friends it was also considered possible to love a spouse too much to the point of sin (idolatry).

Marriage was basically a permanent business arrangement and as such was built to endure. The higher age of marriage than usually believed draws parallels with modern society as young people are taking much longer to attain sufficient assets as to be able to form their own household.
Marriage and especially preparing for marriage, involved a well-defined process. This process is now forgotten, distorted or abandoned. However, it is sound and must be taught.
  1. Attraction.
  2. Dating, which may or may not lead to more dates. But after attraction, how the person behaves decides for both parties if there is a desire to spend more time together. A moral compass is required.
  3. Courtship. This occurs after a series of dates where both parties get to know each other, and realize that their desire to be together is not based on just looks but on a sincerely felt compatibility and - get this - simply enjoying each other’s company.
  4. Engagement. This happens if both want children and a commitment to each other. It involves practical matters. Both should meet each other’s parents. Traditionally, the man would sit down with her father and announce his intentions. The father, having been his age once, ‘gets it.’ He will ask the practical questions, assess this man’s character and be on guard for his daughter. Sexual intercourse only occurs after the ceremony.
So, what has hindered the process? Single parent families, divorced parents, and a constant propaganda campaign that makes marriage and a lifelong commitment sound too demanding or hard or unnecessary. In spite of this, there are good parents, with a moral compass, who are willing to honor their commitments, but where’s the media fun in that? “Marriage rates increase.” “Successful marriages have become the norm.” Divorce, without cause, is ignored entirely. “More couples reject artificial contraception.”

content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2132761,00.html

“Abortion rates decrease as more women say killing a child in the womb is wrong.”

The above would just “Ruin” everything. “More college age couples reject cohabitation in favor of marriage.”

Oh, the beauty. The beauty.

Ed
That view is only a couple centuries old.
It all sounds too sensible, too realistic, too understandable. And children have been properly represented in the process. While the biological underpinnings of “attraction” are connected with procreation, our marriage-directed behaviour is not solely about a plan to have children. In fact the Church does not require that children are a goal, only that you do not, by intent or deed, exclude them as a product of your marriage.
The problem is that children are such a small part of it that it can easily be removed from it which then brings us to marriage being about love with procreation irrelevant and then we wind up with gay marriage.
40.png
clem456:
I am so glad that children are never born outside of marriage.
 
So your metric for “serious repercussions” is whether or not the sky has fallen?

That formally places into doubt your capacity to appropriately assess the possible ill effects of redefining marriage.

Tell you what, I will “seriously" engage with your post if you “seriously" address the “serious repercussions” raised by Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson and Robert George in these three videos.

winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/what-is-marriage-a-lecture-with-sherif-girgis-ryan-t-anderson-and-robert-p-george/

You can even choose to limit your comments to the points made by Mr. Anderson because he specifically identifies three harms to traditional marriage which will result from the redefinition.

If you can articulate what those three harms are and attempt to answer them, that would restore some credibility in terms of your ability to recognize potential harms to marriage as identified by those who seriously defend a traditional view of marriage.
I was planning on reading your entire post, but at this point it seemed to become entirely incoherent.

Robert George:
Well-connected scholar and professor with anti-gay ideology

Facts

– Decried the NY marriage vote by looking back to a time when being gay was “beneath the dignity of human beings as free and rational creatures.”

– Argued that gay relationships have “no intelligible basis in them for the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence.”

– Suggested that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo shouldn’t be considered a Catholic because by signing marriage equality into law, “he has made it clear that he simply does not believe what Catholicism teaches about sexual morality and marriage.”

– Said marriage equality is “about sex,” not about love, commitment, and responsibility. Admitted he believes gay relations to be immoral: “The idea that is antithetical to those who are seeking to redefine marriage is that there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife—something that is absent in sodomitical acts and in other forms sexual behavior that have been traditionally—and in my view correctly—regarded as intrinsically non-marital and, as such, immoral.”

– Calls for “national rebellion” against marriage equality in the United States

– Drafted the Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto signed by Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical leaders that "promised resistance to the point of civil disobedience against any legislation that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same-sex marriage.”

– Says he and his allies will defy “man-made law” that conflicts with their view on “God’s law”

– Said anti-gaysoldiers are now suffering under their own version of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

– Diminished trans kids and their need for protection; contrasts trans girls with “real” girls and frames equal access/nondiscrimination laws as blow to responsibility and respectability

– Sits on the Board of an organization that supports and funds anti-Islam extremists.
 
Before homosexuality was well understood?? Has it not been a feature of the human condition for millennia? What understanding is it that enables a conclusion that same sex sexual acts are moral?

What we do find in the Scriptures in reference to same sex sexual acts is not favourable. And we do not read a single word that reflects positively on a same sex sexual relationship or act. If the Scriptures are inspired by God - God’s word - how can this be?
Scripture also mentions slavery which existed for thousands of years and in fact sees it as normal and even desirable. In Leviticus 25:44-46, it says:
As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.
But we now know that slavery, even though mentioned favorably in scripture and supposedly inspired by God, is not a good thing. So human understanding of the morality of owning other human beings as property has changed and evolved and almost no one would now support it. Conversely, our understanding of homosexuality has also changed and evolved. Whereas it was once condemned in scripture (just as slavery was approved), many people now see it differently.
 
What I mean by “as they always have” is that same-sex marriage isn’t going to suddenly stop procreation from happening all over the planet. Does that sound silly? It does, I know. And I agree. Yet that is something that is implied all of the time, especially on this forum.
I think you are missing the argument.

It isn’t a question of whether gay sexual encounters or cohabitation will stop procreation, it is a question of protecting the unique conjugal relationship that is the only means by which new human beings can be created, nurtured and raised in a loving, caring, nurturing, long term family relationship supported by society and both their mother and father.

To redefine that relationship to include any long term “friendship” means essentially that the uniqueness of parenthood as an institution will be eroded and trivialized. The natural parent - child bond and relationship will have absolutely NO support from our culture nor the legal system because the institution of marriage as the ground for family as a unique entity will no longer exist.

I would challenge you to come up with a revised definition of “marriage” that includes gay couples but does not exclude – on non-arbitrary grounds – a host of “friendships,” sibling relationships, polyamourous groupings and aging parent-child relationships to name a few.

Go ahead, draft a definition that you believe ought to be a legally binding definition of ”marriage” and we’ll put it to a legal test. We’ll see if it doesn’t also “discriminate” against those it excludes. You have no idea the Pandora’s Box you are opening.

There are many right now getting in line to challenge the revision before it even gets entered into the books.

My argument is that marriage is a coherent and unique entity.

The rights and benefits gay couples are requesting need to be argued on their own merit, not by attacking an already vulnerable institution – the health of which is absolutely necessary for the survival of any culture.
 
Scripture also mentions slavery and in fact sees it as normal and even desirable. In Leviticus 25:44-46, it says:

But we now know that slavery, even though mentioned favorably in scripture and supposedly inspired by God, is not a good thing. So human understanding of the morality of owning other human beings as property has changed and evolved and almost no one would now support it. Conversely, our understanding of homosexuality has also changed and evolved. Whereas it was once condemned in scripture (just as slavery was approved), many people now see it differently.
Yes, we are so insightful today and they were so terribly dull back then. They had absolutely no clue. We are so moral today we think nothing of dismembering and disposing of unborn human beings if their mothers don’t want them and we can’t be wrong about that, but gasp back then they allowed SLAVERY. How awful!

Or, just perhaps they were able to make subtle distinctions about slavery or property that some of us, in our new-found wisdom are just too simplistic, unable or unwilling to make. Perhaps, we are the ones, who, in our blind exuberance to embrace “license,” just don’t get those subtle distinctions.

Oh no, that CAN’T be right because we CANNOT possibly be wrong.
 
…The problem is that children are such a small part of it that it can easily be removed from it which then brings us to marriage being about love with procreation irrelevant and then we wind up with gay marriage.
The part children play in the motivation for marriage may vary with the social and economic realities of the time. It’s a fact I don’t “need” a tribe of subsistence workers to form a viable family unit, or to deliver assets to the next generation to enable their viability (though actually, in the modern economy, I do need to be concerned about passing on some assets…!)

The fact that a couple can choose to give effect to a view that they won’t have children is of much larger concern to the nature of marriage and families than the inclination to children they may feel at the beginning.
 
I was planning on reading your entire post, but at this point it seemed to become entirely incoherent.

Robert George:
Well-connected scholar and professor with anti-gay ideology

Facts

– Decried the NY marriage vote by looking back to a time when being gay was “beneath the dignity of human beings as free and rational creatures.”

– Argued that gay relationships have “no intelligible basis in them for the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence.”

– Suggested that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo shouldn’t be considered a Catholic because by signing marriage equality into law, “he has made it clear that he simply does not believe what Catholicism teaches about sexual morality and marriage.”

– Said marriage equality is “about sex,” not about love, commitment, and responsibility. Admitted he believes gay relations to be immoral: “The idea that is antithetical to those who are seeking to redefine marriage is that there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife—something that is absent in sodomitical acts and in other forms sexual behavior that have been traditionally—and in my view correctly—regarded as intrinsically non-marital and, as such, immoral.”

– Calls for “national rebellion” against marriage equality in the United States

– Drafted the Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto signed by Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical leaders that "promised resistance to the point of civil disobedience against any legislation that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same-sex marriage.”

– Says he and his allies will defy “man-made law” that conflicts with their view on “God’s law”

– Said anti-gaysoldiers are now suffering under their own version of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

– Diminished trans kids and their need for protection; contrasts trans girls with “real” girls and frames equal access/nondiscrimination laws as blow to responsibility and respectability

– Sits on the Board of an organization that supports and funds anti-Islam extremists.
So you won’t address his points, merely engage in personal attacks from the point of view of assuming he is wrong on all points. Not even allowing the possibility that you could be wrong on some of the above points, merely assuming that he is.

Aren’t you also presuming that it is merely sufficient to snatch the moral high ground in order to win the argument?

No need to actually present arguments, just have the unmitigated gall to presume that you somehow have the “right” view and that will be sufficient to show he is wrong on all fronts.
 
Marriage used to primarily be about children and property (to give to said children. It was a carefully considered business deal which was used to ensure financial stability for the benefit of the parents and the children. Children also helped contribute to the financial stability by being profitable by 10.
In your imagination, perhaps.

Aren’t you assuming that because parents and children sought each other’s financial stability, that that was all the commitment they had to each other?

You are missing that they may have sought each other’s financial needs BECAUSE they loved and cared for each other. Did you ever consider THAT possibility before you go on giving a narrative that you can only presume to be the true?

Oh, I am sure you can dig up some document somewhere that showed someone in some past time ONLY cared for their parent’s money or ONLY had children to be cared for in their old age, but that is far from establishing it as the norm, not in the least because the vast majority of parents didn’t leave that kind of documentation for the simple reason that they were far too busy looking after their children to keep detailed diaries on the matter.
 
So your metric for “serious repercussions” is whether or not the sky has fallen?

That formally places into doubt your capacity to appropriately assess the possible ill effects of redefining marriage.

Tell you what, I will “seriously" engage with your post if you “seriously" address the “serious repercussions” raised by Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson and Robert George in these three videos.

winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/what-is-marriage-a-lecture-with-sherif-girgis-ryan-t-anderson-and-robert-p-george/

You can even choose to limit your comments to the points made by Mr. Anderson because he specifically identifies three harms to traditional marriage which will result from the redefinition.

If you can articulate what those three harms are and attempt to answer them, that would restore some credibility in terms of your ability to recognize potential harms to marriage as identified by those who seriously defend a traditional view of marriage.
I will seriously address Robert George, as Princeton is petitioning to severe all ties with him. From the petition:
"
Princeton Professor Robert George is a malicious anti-gay bigot.

His noxious political influence around the country has resulted in fathomless suffering for countless innocent gay human beings. George is on record as beng against sexual orientation anti-bullying protections in schools, because he deems them “subterfuges” for, as he labels it, acceptance and/or encouragement of “LGBT lifestyles.” In an era when finally, society has some glimmers of a more enlightened attitude towards gay adolescents, Princeton Professor Robert George with his militant ignorance seeks to crush the self-esteem of young gay people. Without question, the force of Princeton University Professor Robert George’s political gay-bashing around the country drives gay adolescents to despair and even to suicide.

Princeton Professor Robert George believes gay intimacy should be illegal. He also thinks that marriage equality should be illegal. That is to say, he doesn’t believe that gay people should ever have gay sex, and that if they do, they should be thrown in jail. Professor George intends to see all currently married gay American couples have their marriage recognition ripped away from them. He disguises that cruel intent behind a pretension of doing what in his estimation is good for society. In that, he is a sadistic anti-gay bully, operating at the national level and enjoying an unwarranted prestigious association of his malicious ideas with the Princeton University name.

At Princeton right now, Professor Robert George is training another generation of malicious anti-gay bigots. His notorious gay-bashing article “What is Marriage?” published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, was co-authored by Princeton Ph.D. candidate Sherif Girgis and notes that George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton. In that article, Professor George says that gay people may not be married for the same reason that a woman may not marry an inanimate object.

Gay human beings are not inanimate objects. Here is the American Medical Association’s position on marriage equality: “Our American Medical Association: (1) recognizes that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is discriminatory and imposes harmful stigma on gay and lesbian individuals and couples and their families; (2) recognizes that exclusion from civil marriage contributes to health care disparities affecting same-sex households; (3) will work to reduce health care disparities among members of same-sex households including minor children; and (4) will support measures providing same-sex households with the same rights and privileges to health care, health insurance, and survivor benefits, as afforded opposite-sex households.”

Princeton University Professor Robert George does not know better than the collected minds of the American Medical Association. You, the Princeton University Board of Trustees should note that the AMA formulated its position on gay human beings without Professor George’s reference to an inanimate object.

We now call on you to take a stand against Princeton Professor Robert George’s insidious, ignorance-fueled, corrosive anti-gay bigotry. The Princeton University brand is contaminated with the foul stain of Professor George’s mean-spirited anti-gay dogma. Until you publicly repudiate Professor George’s anti-gay bigotry, we will most vigorously endeavor to educate society against donating to, attending or in any other way enabling Princeton University in its promotion of Professor George’s virulent anti-gay bigotry."
 
ah, the militant homosexual finally comes out of the closet. thank you for your honesty, that was a long wait.
 
ah, the militant homosexual finally comes out of the closet. thank you, that was a long wait.
Yes, Mr. George is a very militant anti-gay bigot. Do you agree with his views? Which ones? Please elaborate. Do you agree with some or all of his views?
 
Scripture also mentions slavery … But we now know that slavery, even though mentioned favorably in scripture and supposedly inspired by God, is not a good thing. So human understanding of the morality of owning other human beings as property has changed and evolved and almost no one would now support it.
I have an understanding of what slavery meant in modern times, but none about biblical times, so I can’t address the subject. Was all slavery the same? Did the term always refer to an evil? I don’t know.
Conversely, our understanding of homosexuality has also changed and evolved. Whereas it was once condemned in scripture…**many people **now see it differently.
Who is “our”? Do you mean “yours”? How has “our” understanding of homosexuality changed?

“Many people” is indeed the extent of it. In fact, your own Church does not teach that same sex sexual relationships are now newly understood as good. If one reads relevant documents of the Lutheran(ECLA) Church (eg. the Social Statement on Human Sexuality), it is apparent that your Church takes the position “we have no agreement” - “different people hold different views”. So I think it is grossly misleading of you, to say:
  • “our understanding of homosexuality has also changed and evolved. Whereas it was once condemned in scripture…”, *as though a fundamental new truth has been revealed. Your Church is clear that we are not there! And my Church is certainly clear that we are not.
Your statement would suggest that you hold that same sex sex acts have always been good actually, it’s just that in biblical times, this was not understood, but now “our” understanding has grown (how? to what?) and we now know that it is good. It that’s what you are saying, let’s be clear that that is no more than your personal opinion, absent any support in Scripture or in the teachings of your Church.
 
I will seriously address Robert George, as Princeton is petitioning to severe all ties with him. From the petition:
"
Princeton Professor Robert George is a malicious anti-gay bigot.

His noxious political influence around the country has resulted in fathomless suffering for countless innocent gay human beings. George is on record as beng against sexual orientation anti-bullying protections in schools, because he deems them “subterfuges” for, as he labels it, acceptance and/or encouragement of “LGBT lifestyles.” In an era when finally, society has some glimmers of a more enlightened attitude towards gay adolescents, Princeton Professor Robert George with his militant ignorance seeks to crush the self-esteem of young gay people. Without question, the force of Princeton University Professor Robert George’s political gay-bashing around the country drives gay adolescents to despair and even to suicide.

Princeton Professor Robert George believes gay intimacy should be illegal. He also thinks that marriage equality should be illegal. That is to say, he doesn’t believe that gay people should ever have gay sex, and that if they do, they should be thrown in jail. Professor George intends to see all currently married gay American couples have their marriage recognition ripped away from them. He disguises that cruel intent behind a pretension of doing what in his estimation is good for society. In that, he is a sadistic anti-gay bully, operating at the national level and enjoying an unwarranted prestigious association of his malicious ideas with the Princeton University name.

At Princeton right now, Professor Robert George is training another generation of malicious anti-gay bigots. His notorious gay-bashing article “What is Marriage?” published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, was co-authored by Princeton Ph.D. candidate Sherif Girgis and notes that George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton. In that article, Professor George says that gay people may not be married for the same reason that a woman may not marry an inanimate object.

Gay human beings are not inanimate objects. Here is the American Medical Association’s position on marriage equality: “Our American Medical Association: (1) recognizes that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is discriminatory and imposes harmful stigma on gay and lesbian individuals and couples and their families; (2) recognizes that exclusion from civil marriage contributes to health care disparities affecting same-sex households; (3) will work to reduce health care disparities among members of same-sex households including minor children; and (4) will support measures providing same-sex households with the same rights and privileges to health care, health insurance, and survivor benefits, as afforded opposite-sex households.”

Princeton University Professor Robert George does not know better than the collected minds of the American Medical Association. You, the Princeton University Board of Trustees should note that the AMA formulated its position on gay human beings without Professor George’s reference to an inanimate object.

We now call on you to take a stand against Princeton Professor Robert George’s insidious, ignorance-fueled, corrosive anti-gay bigotry. The Princeton University brand is contaminated with the foul stain of Professor George’s mean-spirited anti-gay dogma. Until you publicly repudiate Professor George’s anti-gay bigotry, we will most vigorously endeavor to educate society against donating to, attending or in any other way enabling Princeton University in its promotion of Professor George’s virulent anti-gay bigotry."
This is truly frightening since it reduces discussion on moral issues within academia to bullying and coercion. Dissenting views are not tolerated but persecuted and forced to compliance.

How would anyone “know” the AMA is incorrect if they will not even allow critique of their views.

Welcome to the dictatorship of the stupid.

Just as YOU have shown no effort at all to counter points using reason but merely to attack, impugn and destroy the credibility of persons holding opposing views so that they will be disbelieved, not because they do not have valid points but merely because the individuals dissent from your view.

I hope you will be happy with your intolerant liberal cohort when they force you to comply with their views on some issue because they have “decided” based upon sheer force of will and mob rule that your view will no longer be tolerated because sound reason, itself, will not be tolerated.

The statement, "Princeton University Professor Robert George does not know better than the collected minds of the American Medical Association…” is an awful joke and should be seen as ridiculous.

It is never about the number on one side or the other, but on the truth of the matter. Professor George could, in fact, be correct and it is up to the “collected minds” of the AMA to demonstrate that they have the correct view by showing where he is incorrect, not by forcing his compliance to their views by threats and bullying.

If the AMA wishes to educate, they need to do so using sound logic and reasoning not issuing threats.

Wake up, folks!

This is truly insane
and reduces rational discourse to incoherent bullying, babbling and mob rule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top