Commentary
Evidence of our senses tells us why there can't be gay marriage
By Deborah Savage
Deborah Savage is a professor of philosophy at the St. Paul Seminary School of Divinity at the University of St. Thomas and the co-director of the Siena Symposium for Women, Family and Culture.
In my mind, virtually none of the arguments we have heard so far have gone to what is really the heart of the matter in the marriage debate. Certainly our children deserve to be raised by a mother and a father; the simple fact is, children only come into being because they have both, at least somewhere along the way.
Despite the position taken (apparently) by some that there is "no difference" in measureable outcomes for kids raised by gay parents, there is plenty of evidence that children do best in an intact home with both a mother and a father.
But, as advocates of gay marriage point out, marriage as an institution is not exactly the exemplar of stability it used to be. The sad fact is that the same factors that have contributed to its fragmentation — a misunderstanding of the complementarity of men and women, the divorce between the procreative and unitive dimensions of the sexual act, promiscuity, etc. — are at work in the breakdown of traditional marriage as well.
At first glance, it may seem somehow mean-spirited to deny people who love each other the "freedom to marry." But the ubiquitous lawn signs insisting that we not "limit the freedom to marry" are really nothing but an appeal to people's emotions, even to a certain American patriotism, and do not reflect any truly substantive argument. No one has a "right" to marry just anyone; we already place legal limits on who can marry whom in perfectly understandable and — so far — indisputable ways.
This is not just another skirmish in the culture wars. Perhaps for those on both sides of the issue, but certainly for those who believe that marriage, by definition, is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, it is D-Day. Auguste Comte, the father of positivism, said that the only safe way to destroy something is to replace it. It seems clear that this is what is underway.
So, it is necessary to articulate what the stakes really are at this moment for our community. I believe that, no matter what side of the issue you are on, they are higher than you think. It is time to return to first principles, the self-evident truths from which human reasoning proceeds on the way to logical conclusions.
First principles that everyone agrees to are virtually impossible to come by these days, especially since the default position for most people is that such things are merely a matter of personal preference. But what is at stake in this debate is a first principle that has permitted human reason to pursue an understanding of the world and create conditions in which human persons can flourish for centuries.
It is a simple thing, really. We count on it from the moment we open our eyes: That which is, is. We might call it the "law of identity," otherwise known as "A is A." Its corollary is known as the law of non-contradiction: that something cannot be "A" and "B" at the same time. Whether we can articulate it or not, we count on these laws from the moment we are born and, in one way or another, every day of our lives.
The Catholic Church's position is grounded in such laws, in self-evident principles derived first of all from an encounter with reality itself, a world created by God and held in existence by him. It is a world that makes sense, inhabited by creatures with natures composed of both matter and form, soul and body — and headed toward some purpose. This is the basis of the church's position on same-sex marriage and a whole host of other issues: that the world as we encounter it is given to us, that it is intelligible — and that human beings can know it.
The "freedom" to marry is only secondarily a political freedom. Men and women have a freedom to marry that emerges naturally from the design of their bodies. Surely no one can dispute that they are designed for each other in a way that is clearly meant to be. I don't doubt for a second that homosexual persons can and do love each other. How they express that love is up to them.
At its heart, any attempt to make "gay marriage" legal, to pretend that homosexual persons are designed for the union that is at the heart of the marriage covenant, is to ask all of us to suspend the evidence of our senses. And to ask our children to accept that a man may marry another man is to force them — without their consent — into a world where nothing is as it seems. It is to ask them to suspend their capacity to judge the world around them and judge it truly.
I cannot ask my daughter to do that. If advocates of gay marriage would pause long enough to think first of the needs of children instead of their exclusively adult desires, they wouldn't ask them to do it either.
Comments (49)
What a load of Catholic crap this is. Catholic definition of marriage may be any part of this made up "reality" of an invisible and silent "God," however, most people in America and Minnesota are not Catholic. And therefore, the state has no interest, as decreed by the US Constitution in regulation & laws in the interests of religion. Marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion, and since their issuance is regulated by the state, then marriage as an institution is government controlled, not church regulated. There is no requirement that married people be able or interested in raising children. There is no state mandate saying two individuals must believe the bible is law. Therefore, denying marriage licenses to two people of the same sex or gender on the basis of sexual activity, procreation, and religious affiliation is wholly unconstitutional, and legislatures and courts finally agree regardless of what is popular among the devout. So, what is the purpose of marriage then, certain bigoted Catholics demand to know. It is to create a new family unit -- a designation of "next of kin" between two adults who are not already related. Married individuals are granted the ability to choose one other responsible adult unique access & decisions in health, finance, and legal matters -- in life and after death. If you have a problem with that, you are a hateful bigot. And Debprah Savage is chief among them wrapped in her finest golden arguments created by Catholic Pharisees.
How is it that Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is considered a very GOOD thing ... yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
Ever since Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to allow Gay couples to legally marry, hundreds of thousands of Gay couples across the United States have either gotten married or registered their civil unions or domestic partnerships. These are law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans who have made a solemn pledge to one another before family and friends.
The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to âtraditional marriage.â Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a âsea changeâ for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two persons in the relationship.
\\And to ask our children to accept that a man may marry another man is to force them â without their consent â into a world where nothing is as it seems.
And to ask a gay person to enter a straight relationship "is to force them â without their consent â into a world" of misery. Indeed a world of misery for the straight spouse as well.
Ms. Savage - Would you willingly enter into a marriage with a gay man, knowing they will never be attracted to you and that they are repulsed by the "design of your body"?
It seems to be the thing you ask. If you think such a marriage will result in a holy and fulfilled life together, I invite you to do some research. Discuss it with the people in this situation who got into it by trying to follow this unrealistic and misguided Catholic doctrine. You can start with me and my spouse. I can point you to others if you remain unconvinced.
This is one of the most intellectually weak arguments I've read. I can't image what possessed MPR to give a platform to this person.
She claims that children do better with a heterosexual couple. She cites no evidence or any facts. 'Facts' are rather pesky, cite your sources. On a human level, my girlfriend was raised by two women, guess what, she's fine! Loving, caring parents are what count.
The author states: "Men and women have a freedom to marry that emerges naturally from the design of their bodies. Surely no one can dispute that they are designed for each other in a way that is clearly meant to be." Does she accept that homosexuality is naturally found in nature too? Does she accept that being gay isn't a choice, what about that fact?
She states, "It is a world that makes sense, inhabited by creatures with natures composed of both matter and form, soul and body..." I feel sorry for the author, because clearly a world changing to more acceptance does not make 'sense' to her. For me, I know that love makes sense. I'm straight, but I know my gay friends feel love and care just like I do. That makes perfect sense.
I suspect the author is also fixated on freedom of religion. Guess what, the best way to secure freedom of religion - freedom for ALL religions is to not make secular law based on the most restrictive religious doctrine.
I hope the author comes to live with perhaps the ultimate irony for her of having her daughter be gay, then it all might make sense.
Such a verbose, unclear, and tiring article. Notice how all the arguments against gay marriage get so convoluted? The case for gay marriage is surrounded by simple messages of love, rights, and caring .... plus tons of very personal stories. You never really hear stories quite as convincing on the anti gay marriage side. When did the Christians get ownership of the word marriage by the way? Did God give you the word tissue too, but you decided we'll call it Kleenex instead so the commoners could use it too even though it's the same thing? The argument that you think gays are ok but they just can't be married because that's our thing is just bigoted. One thing this debate has revealed is that anti gay marriage supporters are either 1) truly convinced some ancient ghost named God wrote the definition of marriage down on some rock for us to discover and that it can't change (even though many words change meaning over time ...especially from ancient languages), or 2) they think gay people are disgusting and they hats us. How revealing.
This is an equally convincing argument against interracial marriage.
Our society has decided to grant certain benefits -- largely, but not entirely, financial -- to couples who are married.
By arbitrarily and rigidly defining who can and cannot be "married" to whom, our society systematically and unevenly grants and denies these various benefits which should be available to all.
Those who would make this either a theological or sociological issue miss the point entirely. On either side, theirs are the emotional arguments, which attempt to persuade through appeal to fear, among other things.
Whenever we, as a society, realize that we are systematically denying rights and benefits to some arbitrary class of people, it is our responsibility to right that wrong, even if it means adjusting long-held beliefs.
At a bare minimum, we have a responsibility to make sure that our organizing principles (as enumerated by our constitution) are not polluted with such clearly discriminatory clauses.
Please, vote no.
Premise not even remotely accepted. The Catholic Church has no real dog in this fight and what this woman offers is self importance, not wisdom, compassion or decency. Just because SHE accepts the Bible in a way that's convenient to what she wants to believe does not require anyone else to. Crap like this drivel is the reason the founders of this country called for separation of church and state. I am furious that I am expected to subscribe to these deeply immoral Christian beliefs.
This argument that "men and women have a freedom to marry that emerges naturally from the design of their bodies" applies equally well to anything anybody ever wants to do and finds they can do, ever. You might just as well say that man has the freedom to murder from the design of his body, or the freedom to steal things, or the freedom to desecrate churches, simply because his body allows him to do it. In particular, your argument applies equally well to homosexual marriage because homosexuals are physically capable of having sex. So you have to say what is so special about heterosexual marriage that distinguishes it from homosexual marriage. You haven't said this, and for this reason your argument isn't compelling.
How is raising children even remotely close to the heart of the matter in the same-sex marriage debate? Currently, homosexual couples raising children is legal in Minnesota. Same with single moms and single dads raising children. Grandparents, aunts, and uncles too. And foster parents. Are you proposing an amendment making it illegal for anyone but a mother and a father to raise children? That would be a different debate.
Furthermore, it's not even about whether same-sex marriage should be legal. If the amendment doesn't pass, nothing changes. Same-sex marriage will be illegal in Minnesota, as it is today.
To be clear, this amendment and this debate is about whether our representatives in the legislature should be prohibited in the future from granting the same benefits to same-sex partners currently enjoyed by heterosexual partners.
Moreover, if you're going to limit gays' legal freedoms just so that children won't be confused, then you're acting in vain. Gays will continue to be part of our communities, and they will continue to be depicted on television and talked about in the news.
Therefore the amendment can't do what you're asking it to do. But it can perpetuate the kind of problem you're trying to fight, because it sends conflicting messages to children. We tell them that we should care about everybody in our community, and that family is very important, but at the same time we single out a class of community members and tell children that these people shouldn't be allowed to have families or granted the same kinds of legal protections as others. I think that is harder to explain than it would be to just tell a kid that homosexuality exists.
Personally, I get tired of Men acting and looking Female and Women acting and looking like Men. Can't they use their own voices and gestures and still be "Who they are?" Without the Gay/Lesbian Dramatics? There are NO DO-OVERS IN LIFE. Once its decided... We all have to live as such.
I still believe in Men and Women in a marriage. I say Give them thier "Civil Union". However, I think alot still has to do with the true purity of marriage as stated in the Bible. Also, this will change the economics of Insurance Companies and other issues not necessarily spoken about.
One more thing: I'm embarrassed for the St. Paul Seminary School of Divinity, University of St. Thomas, that this type of empty "reasoning " comes from one of their faculty members. Her "arguments" evaporate at the slightest intellectual touch.
It is one thing to be able to write as if your argument is sound. There is no question that Ms. Savage writes well, and she might convince someone who accepts complex sentences as evidence of sound thinking.
But it is something quite different to actually create a sound argument, with premises which can be supported, and conclusions which derive logically from the premises.
That she would think this piece might represent some sort of critical thinking is, well, embarrassing.
I understand exactly what Professor Savage is stating. She is simply putting family and children first. Not the lusting/sexually driven relationships of the gay/lesbian movement. I believe in some ways the choices that are being made are from lack of self-knowledge - not knowing oneself and in some ways, insecurity and sexual addiction. Kids are having enough pressures growing up these days. Why place more unconventional ideas and behavior in front of them-when just "Growing Up" is truly hard enough. Let them have there pure innocence. LAST BUT NOT LEAST: YOU HAVE TO READ OR LISTEN TO THE THINGS THAT G&L DO NOT WANT TO HEAR. WE ALL HEAR YOU!! SO SHHH... LISTEN!
Some thoughts:
1. A state marriage license is not a covenant, it is a contract. Legal, binding, and not religious in any sense of the word.
2. "The Catholic Church's position is grounded in such laws, in self-evident principles derived first of all from an encounter with reality itself, a world created by God and held in existence by him." The simple fact is that not all people would agree with your "first principle" that all things are held in existence by your catholic god.
3. If Deborah Savage is a typical example of UST Philosophers, I am very glad my children did not go to school there. Her logic is far too flawed.
Ms. Savage,
Thank you for your well thought-out view. I see things differently, but I very much respect the insight you give in the middle of a very contentious issue.
My position firmly rests on the problems of legislating morality. I fully support ending the prohibition of gay marriage, but if anyone ever steps up and through legislation tries to force the Catholic church to honor or perform marriages that it sees as outside its world view I would not support that.
I believe that you should have the freedom of your belief, just like anyone else.
Ms. Savage fails to convince anyone but the gullible of her main argument. She mainly trusts her senses, and says her Churchâs doctrine is based on "self-evident principles derived first of all from an encounter with reality itself". My Senses and hers also tell us the Sun goes around the Earth. But the truth is the other way around. Gone is the time Ms. Savage and her Church could decree what is reality. No matter how much they protest Galileo was right. One would think Catholics who pioneered the university system would look past the superficial data of the senses, but they seem instead to cling unto decaying dogma.
People who oppose this insidious amendment can recognize that Marriage is a civil license to designate a Next-of-kin with whom one wishes to become a couple/family. Itâs a basic human need that she wants to withhold from a minority. Visit your University Library Ms. Savage you might find truths uncovered by human knowledge that contradict your immediate senses: the Earth is round, Ms. Savage, look it up.
I agree with what Ms. Savage is stating. It's quite clear that A=A not A=B.
However, everyone who thinks Gay Marriage is the only issue need to read Romans 1 again to see how God sees homosexuality. It is an abomination. We need to look at the root issue which is rebellion against God's truth. You can also read 1 Cor 6:9 or you can read about Sodom and Gomorrah. God is serious about sin. It doesn't mean he doesn't love everyone and that everyone can't have forgiveness but to force the world into swallowing Gay Marriage as a civil right is to force our society into a state of rebellion against God. In Lev 18:22-25 it states the result of defiling our land by allowing homosexuality to have approval. The sin of homosexuality will result in the land vomiting out it's inhabitants because it defiles the land.
God wants all people to return to His ways including those caught in the sin of homosexuality.
Well written, Ms. Savage; but still a ridiculous disguise for the bigoted and hateful "Vote Yes" position.
I am so tired of all of these religious extremists trying to defend a position that puts their peers as second class citizens based on their sexuality. No tolerance for anyone else or any other lifestyle that causes absolutely NO harm to them.
These people are your neighbors, your co-workers, your students, Ms. Savage, who want nothing but to be able to have their relationship with the person they love be recognized, as it should be.
And keep in mind while it may have religious meaning to you and your fellow believers, marriage is NOT a religious contract - it is a LEGAL one. So for ONCE could someone please try to explain why they are voting yes without bringing religion into it?
" No one has a "right" to marry just anyone...".
This argument is the most insulting of all.
Nobody wants to marry just anyone (it sounds so cheap and tawdry)they do, however, want to marry that someone special. We all search for that someone special, someone who we love for the rest of our lives.
But in the righteous world of the Catholic church- folks who believe that their Canon is actual law, you know like the laws of man, they feel compelled to instill this narrow view over actual law, you know, like the 14th Amendment.
I have looked for cogent argument from those opposed to gay marriage, and so far, I have only found bigotry, oh and homophobia driving much of their talking points, and once again, this author just reaffirms that narrow world vision. Maybe taking a cue from David Blankenfeld, who is one of the leading voices nationally on limiting marriage, who this past summer, decided his fight was over, he would no longer fight when the battle is so couched in anti-gay animus - food for thought Ms. Savage
This
@ Jay Johnson, first comment above: Thank you. I fully intend to lift statements from your insightful and concise rebuttal when I talk to "Yes" voters about this issue between now and Tuesday. You've said it so well, and with just the right amount of exasperation.
An argument based on the shapes of our bodies that says we shouldn't give into our adult desires is inconsistent at best. If this argument were valid, people shouldn't be allowed to get married if they don't plan to have children and single parents would have to find a suitable (opposite sex) spouse for their children to have the "best" life. We should support all families- love is what makes a family, you don't need just the "right" pieces- what you need to have a family is loving, caring nurturing relationships. That's real family values.
Vote "Yes". I don't feel I'm a bigot. Why is it so important to steal the term "Marriage" which was instituted for a man and a woman not just since the beginning of our country but since man was put on this earth. If it's government or other civil benefits that are wanted then work for some other name such as "civil union" to define it. I'd also like to see the Gs & Ls convince every loving unmarried man living with a woman to get married and show them the benefits. By the way, don't be so hard on religion, it's what our Government was founded on and what we need to get back to.
St. Thomas ought to be ashamed that a Professor of Philosophy from their institution would publish a paper of this caliber.
1) You don't need a mummy and a daddy. You need a sperm, and an egg.
2) There's also plenty of evidence that some children do horribly in homes with a mother and a father. I guess it depends on the mother and father in question, no?
3) Her understanding of divorce and its causes is, pretty antique...
4) Ha. Equality is an "emotional" argument. Well, even if it was, "traditional" marriage arguments (that turn out not to reflect actual traditional marriages) are "religious" arguments. So what?
5) Clearly. CLEARLY, the way we place limits upon who can marry whom is not "indisputable" - it is currently being disputed. And it was disputed in the 70's too.
6) This woman is nuts. The aim of marriage equality is not in fact to "destroy" (or even replace it) marriage, but simply to extend it to GLBT couples.
7) There are no "self-evident truths" there are only "truths *which we hold to be self-evident*" - at least the founding fathers were humble enough to recognize this.
8) First principles are relative. This is obviously so for almost every principle (especially principles tied to religion). Anyone who wants to pretend like they are not is simply not looking at the evidence the world provides.
8a) I found this phrase to be particularly meaningless:
"what is at stake in this debate is a first principle that has permitted human reason to pursue an understanding of the world and create conditions in which human persons can flourish for centuries."
So: marriage discrimination against homosexuals is now a fundamental heuristic of the rational mind?
8b) This one is good too, in which she goes from homo-rationality to homophobia:
"...That which is, is. We might call it the "law of identity," otherwise known as "A is A." Its corollary is known as the law of non-contradiction: that something cannot be "A" and "B" at the same time..."
9) I'll take ironic and irrelevant statements for 5000 Alex:
"...in self-evident principles derived first of all from an encounter with reality itself..."
BTW, if it is a "self-evident" principle, how is it to be "derived" from anything other than itself?
10) Are gay people, unlike straight people, not composed of matter and form? Does the Catholic church not believe that gay people have souls now?
11) "How they express that love is up to them."
Eeeeeexcept that is precisely what you are trying to negate by outlawing same-sex marriage.
Strained logic, to say the least, from a philosophy professor, and where are the cites to all these studies that show children do better with a mother and father? A serious academic should be expected to provide them. The studies I have seen show that children whose parents are of the same gender are not disadvantaged in any way. Finally, marriage in the United States has certain legal, financial, and societal benefits. Consequently, the United States Constitution must be the main reference point for examining this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment requires equal protection under the laws; now, either everybody's equal - or they're not.
The beauty of our country is that we each have the right to our own set of beliefs. If your instincts and your doctrines lead you to reject the idea of gay marriage, that's absolutely fine. I also don't believe that any church should be forced to perform a ceremony that contradicts their beliefs. That said, in this country, we are each entitled to live our lives according to our own sets of beliefs. Others have instincts and perhaps doctrines which don't match yours, and they should be allowed to live their lives according to their own choices. It is not anyones place to force their values onto other people.
What I got from this article is an argument structured like this: "heterosexual marriage is better because marriage is by definition heterosexual, and this truth is so obvious you can see it!"
I'm married to a man, but it's simply not the state's business who I want to share my life with. I don't understand how the same people who become irate at the idea of the state being responsible for the education of children become such strong proponents of the state's involvement in a personal decision like marriage. It's hypocrisy at its absolute worst.
Thank you, Deborah, for this great article. Although I'm not Catholic, I find myself agreeing with every word you wrote. Please keep up the good work!
Prof. Savage, since you seem to be so adamant as to force your definitions of gender roles on other people, may I suggest you do as your own St. Paul commands you to do and shut up?
"Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety."
--1 Timothy 2:11-15
As your own saint in your very own bible is telling you, you have no business attempting to teach men anything.
Deborah Savageâs opponents exude a lot of hate and little, very little, reasoning in their comments.
That is to be expected when the LGBT people that make up 2% to 3% of the population of America are making war on the other 97%.
Men and women have sex organs that fit together perfectly for producing children. That is why the sex organs are there. That is their purpose. From this fact flow moral laws.
Replacing moral laws with laws based on perversity and then having the perverse moral code become the law of the land will only destroy any society foolish enough to attempt it.
The master of the immoral law was Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade. The Marquis de Sade was big on perverse sex and he showed clearly in his writings and his life style how perverse sex readily morphs into torture and murder. He also showed how sexual perversions include a wide range of LGBT sex practices. Ranking equally acceptable as misuse of sex organs was the practice of coprophagia.
Coprophagia is simply another form of perverse sex. Today we are as a nation horrified by the practice of coprophagia. Yet just a short time ago we were a nation horrified by the perverse sex practices of the LGBT.
Yesterday in our schools LGBT sex was not mentioned much less taught as normal. Today LGBT sex is taught to our children as normal and it is encouraged. Today coprophagia is not mentioned much less taught as normal. By traveling on the morality path of LGBT same sex marriage tomorrow we will arrive where coprophagia will be taught to our children that it too is normal.
The exact same arguments use to sell our children and susceptible adults on the right and benefits of gay marriage can be used to sell them on right and benefits of coprophagia.
As a psychology professor at the University of St. Thomas, I would like to point out that professional organizations of psychologists and pediatricians in Minnesota are against the amendment because of the HARM it would do for children: http://www.mnaap.org/minnesota-marriage-amendment.htm .
There are so many flaws in the logic of this piece (many well discussed above). I assume that Dr. Savage is very upset with the limitations of the amendment since it allows divorce, doesn't mandate fertility tests for marriage licenses, and the allowance of fertile heterosexual couples to marry even if they don't plan to have children.
Where I really have issues with this piece is the Bible has many examples of polygamous marriages (I guess this should obviously be allowed since our bodies are designed to couple with various partners).
Lastly, looking towards the Catholic Church for guidance of how to think of the children first is sickening.
It disturbs me when people whose faith frankly and openly denies scientific reasoning when it contradicts what they have been trained dogmatically to believe attempt to utilize scientific reasoning to support their views. The author begins with an argument about foundational truths, and then injects God - an unnecessary, distracting step in the logical process - to support her view. Masking subjectivity as objectivity may fool some people, but others - like many of the people who have responded to this article - will see through the thin veil of reason to the prejudiced views lingering beneath.
The author of this article seems to reduce a marriage down to anatomical parts. Since my husband's male part fits into my female part, our marriage is acceptable. Here's the problem with that: my husband is impotent. His part never goes in my part. The author's argument that such a limited part of sexual coupling is the most important aspect of a marriage is, to me, wholly ridiculous. But putting aside my personal opinion, she offers no evidence for it at all.
âLastly, looking towards the Catholic Church for guidance of how to think of the children first is sickening.â
The Church sex scandal was a homosexual priests scandal. The sinful priest preyed on adolescent boys. The percentage of priest engaging in sinful pedophile behavior, a monstrous evil, was less than the percentage of pedophile men in the general population.
The mainstream media is notoriously anti-Catholic so it went on a campaign of deception, advertising âgayâ behavior as pedophilia behavior. Incidentally the MSM did not go hog wild about the Rabbis sex abuse of minors scandal, "Yeshiva" of Brooklyn also Guilty of Child Abuse. Why, because the MSM is not anti-Jewish.
The non homosexuals that back the gay marriage thing are grossly ignorant of normal homosexual behavior. The MSM never plays up the homosexual flagrant misconduct such as that of two lesbians, Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel. They adopted a young boy. They are now turning him into a girl by giving him drugs with the plan of a sex change operation on him.
People put yourself in this young boyâs position. The people he has grown to love tell him he should be a girl like them. They tell him he should have a vagina and not a penis. The sex change operation cannot be reversed.
You donât read about this and the many other homosexual injustices in the MSM. If more people knew what perverse sex leads up to they wouldnât make fools out of themselves backing the homosexual agenda.
I find it incredibly interesting that folks like Ms. Savage don't seem grasp the concept of the separation of church and state. Additionally, Ms. Savage and her ilk don't seem to grasp the concept of equal treatment under the law either. Frankly, if this ammendment passes, I fully intend to do whatever it takes to get ALL of the secular privileges associated with marriage removed from our legal codes. Perhaps such a demonstration might illustrate more fully this concept of what is the realm of church and what is the realm of state.
If the argument is really about what is best for children, then it is important for the author to know this: in my childhood, I would have better off being raised in a society that allowed and embraced same-sex marriage. This is because I am gay and no one should grow up feeling marginalized or second-class when it comes to who they love.
Law of Identity: A=A and A cannot equal B.
Light is both a wave and a particle.
The senses are not always correct as science has disclosed, Ms. Savage. Or, do you contest modern physics, also?
Cutting through all the Savage casuitry, catechismologicalisms and exigesis is a line from Billy Graham that I read long ago (but which Dr. Graham unfortunately did not allow to interfere with his own disapproval of gay marriage). He said, "Puppy love is real enough to the puppy." I say let gay and lesbian people follow their hearts into the rights, privileges and benefits of legal matrimony!
I see no logic in this argument whatsoever. This issue does nothing but propose legal discrimination on a group of people...plain and simple, I can't believe it's even an issue. Makes me truly sad that as a people we haven't risen above trying to push religious convictions on others. Separation of church and state!
MPR I am disappointed in you.
If you took out all the responses attacking this woman's reasoned commentary as 'hate' and 'bigotry' there wouldn't be much left.
Never before in history has there ever been an organized attempted to divorce marriage from reproduction. Now we're trying to cut it loose entirely and pretend it should have been that way all along. To the average person who still sees 1 man and 1 woman as the essential ingredients of marriage, for this is still utter nonsense.
Just sayin'...
Many comments had me laughing. But Nathaniel Frein, that was brilliant.
My only addition to the above: it is extremely hypocritical to close with such a (misguided) appeal to emotion after lambasting vote no signs for working on that same plane in your piece, Ms. Savage.
Whether you agree or disagree with this article, no one should be criticizing MPR for publishing it. If we pressure organizations to only publish what is popular, we eventually all lose in the long run.
Dr. Savage's assertion that "no one can dispute" what is "clearly meant to be" is a logical fallacy, commonly known as "begging the question."
The subtext, a.k.a. the "begged question," is this: "Can one party dispute that which is, to another party, clearly meant to be?"
The answer is, unequivocally, "Yes!"
Thank you, Dr. Savage, for presenting this gem of an article based on the clear thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. You have your haters and your opposition, as is clear from the comments, but it was Jesus Christ himself who said that the world would hate us. It was indeed an act of bravery on your part to write and publish this article in the lion's den of today's sexually sick society. And thank you MPR for presenting this well-written and well-reasoned argument, countering the viewpoint of most of your audience.
MPR: It is wonderful that you give people with a range of viewpoints a chance to be heard. This, however, this article was a jumble of the same weak, bland, and generic arguments which have been stated incessantly. The only thing new was that this package of nonsense was topped off with a logical fallacy bow.
My sense is that gay people are bad at raising children therefore they are bad a raising children (all recent scientific studies be damned). My sense is that the sun circuits the earth, it must be true!
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
