To answer your questions:You said that children have a right to a mother and a father ....Or did you say more: children have a right to a mother and a father who love one another, and children are a fruit of their love?In any case, I'd like to know what makes a "right"? We have gay couples saying that they have a right to marry.Another component of rights are accompanying duties. We see Bush working to form a conscious clause for medical health professionals to refuse abortions, sterilizations, contraceptives. But if abortion is a "right," there ought not be conscious clause, right? Because there is a duty to provide it, with no exceptions because it is a "right"...... yes?And if children have a right to a mother and a father, why then do we not see more legislation to "cement" this right with accompanying duties? I don't know what that legislations would be, or do we have legislation in place that protects the right of the child to a mother and a father?Also, what's your take on the gay marriage agenda, and what we can do to protect marriage between a man and a woman?
Natural law is what makes a right.
Natural law is not the same as a law of nature.
A law of nature is something like the speed of light in a vacuum or gravity, etc.
A natural law is an honor accorded to a person by God through the fact that the person IS a person.
So, I have the right to exist as a person in my body because God has given me both my personhood and my body.
No one has a right to attempt to deprive me of either, because the gifts did not come from them, these came from God.
So, since no person can come into existence except through the union of sperm and egg, and since sperm and egg are biologically bound to and derive from the persons of the mother and father, every person has a right to a mother and father.
Marriage exists in order to procreate and protect children, and through those actions, to build up society.
It simultaneously serves to sanctify the spouses through sacrificial giving towards the children they conceive and towards one another.
Because of its primary purpose, as long as there is a possibility, however remote, of sperm and egg uniting through the natural coition of the couple, marriage can exist.
A man and a woman who together suffer from some natural defect of fertility have the ability to marry because God has the power to heal natural defects in fertility, thereby granting the gift of children to the couple. Whether or not He will choose to do this in any specific case is not our concern - we know of several cases where He did in Scripture, so that is sufficient.
Homosexuals cannot enter into marriage because men cannot procreate with men under ANY circumstances, nor can women procreate with women.
Thus, they cannot fulfill the primary purpose of marriage even on a theoretical level.
No one has a right to take the life of an innocent.
Indeed, I have a right to be free from the influence of anyone who would attempt to force me to violate an innocent's existence.
Children, especially embryonic children, are innocent.
Thus, abortion - deliberately taking of the life of an innocent - is not a right and never can be a right.
There is a difference between secular (civil) law and natural law.
Secular law is what human persons together puzzle out and agree to abide by, generally with the intent to create an harmonious society.
Natural law, since it honors our personhoods, is what actually will create a harmonious society, if people were to live by it.
Because men are fallen creatures, with darkened intellects and weakened wills, we do not (a) always fully recognize the natural law or (b) even when we know what is the right thing to do (natural law), we cannot always bring ourselves to do it.
So, the actual harmony present in the society depends on how closely civil law matches the natural law.
Civil society often fails to cement natural law because our leaders (and we who elect them) tend to be venal, self-serving creatures who do not wish to fully recognize, much less honor, each others' personhoods.
There is currently no legislation that protects a child's right to a mother and a father.
In vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and similar technologies all violate this right, and all are perfectly legal in civil society.
In order to safeguard these rights, we must recognize human personhood from the moment of conception and honor that personhood from that moment.
Marriage must be recognized as primarily intended to build up society through the procreation and care of children, not primarily as a journey of personal fulfilment. The law should recognize that personal fulfillment may well happen during marriage, but that this personal fulfillment is not its primary purpose. Consequently, in order to protect children's rights, no-fault or simplified divorce procedures should be abolished, men and women should be counseled strongly on the primary purpose of marriage before entering into it. Each person should recognize that the marriage vow places the person making the vow under obligation to serve (a) the spouse and (b) any/all children engendered by the union, it is NOT an obligation for the spouse to "serve me."
Hospitals exist in order to protect and nurture patients, not to protect or nurture doctors and nurses.
Armies exist in order to protect and nurture nations, not to protect and nurture soldiers or officers.
Governments exist to protect and nurture societies, not to protect and nurture government officials.
Similarly, marriage exists to protect and nurture children, not to protect adults or nurture adults.
Insofar as adults receive protection or nurture through the offices of marriage, those perquisites are the result of the duties the adults have towards children - they enable the adults to carry out their duties towards present and future children. If there (a) are no children and (b) is a definite refusal to permit children to enter, then there is no particular reason to bless married adults with special protections. Marriage is a hospital, a security force and a form of government, all oriented towards children.
The homosexual marriage agenda is a humbug created by a lot of people interested in increasing the general disharmony and violence of society.
Once people realize these things, the rest should be easy. :)
22 comments:
The homosexual marriage agenda is a humbug created by a lot of people interested in increasing the general disharmony and violence of society.
Very narrow thinking.
Historically, active homosexuals have always been used as shock troops, because they fight with suicidal ferocity, having nothing to live for but pleasure.
They have also historically been the most violent, disease-ridden and shortest-lived segment of society.
Look at any current medical statistics and you'll find this is still true.
Even if the American Psychiatric Association refuses to recognize it, homosexuality is a mental disease that causes immense psychological and physical harm to the people afflicted with it and to those with whom they interact.
You are really nasty, Steve.
I think you are fighting off gay tendencies, Steve.
Well, the facts are nasty.
If a doctor told you that you had cancer, herpes, genital warts or AIDS, would you call the doctor nasty for pointing out the fact?
I am most assuredly a happy man, yes.
But the funny thing about homosexuals is this very childish tendency to ascribe things.
When a child is called a stupid-head by another child, for instance, if the first child is not too quick on the comeback, he responds by saying "You are too!" or "You're a bigger stupid-head!"
Homosexuals do exactly the same thing. When their nasty life habits are pointed out, as in this post from me several years ago (http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2004/03/vulture-culture.html) or this one (http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2003/09/homosexuality-should-be-accepted.html), the response from homosexuals and their co-travellers is "You must be one of us."
Apparently because only a homosexual understands how incredibly nasty the homosexual lifestyle is.
I've got a newsflash for you: you don't have to be a member of the SS or a prisoner to recognize a concentration camp.
Steve, do you have any compassion at all when it comes to gay people?
First, let's get one thing straight.
Gay means happy.
Gay does not mean homosexual.
Homosexual people are not happy, so calling them "gay" is a complete misnomer.
Now, that having been said,
I love happy people.
I very much care about homosexuals - if I didn't, I wouldn't bother to point out that they are killing themselves with their lifestyles.
It's like writing a column about the dangers of drunk driving, and then being attacked for hating alcoholics. If I really hated alcoholics, I would let them kill themselves on the roads.
I have worked with homosexuals in the past and work with some right now. Everyone carries a cross - homosexuals, pedophiles, alcoholics, etc., carry a more public cross than most. They need care just like everyone else. I very much dislike the fact that the APA seems to hate homosexuals, as it refuses to endorse treating their disorders. That's malpractice.
Second, let's get another thing straight.
Plenty of homosexuals (okay, I'll use your language to avoid a debate on the language front) are happy. Steve, the majority of homosexuals do not choose to have sexual attractions to people of the same sex.
And don't you dare pull out the pedophile or alcoholic argument.
Two consenting homosexuals are not hurting our society, period. Rather, people like you who are determined to call them sick and nasty are hurting THEM.
You are the bad guy here, but you cannot see that. And in response, if you choose to respond, you will undoubtedly pull apart some subtle thing I'm saying here and focus on that without regard of any sort of acknowledgement that indeed you are contributing to the pain and suffering of homosexuals.
It is not your job to go around and declare homosexuals to be sick and nasty. Who the hell are you, Steve?
Leave the crap arguments about choice out of this.
Choice about one's inclinations has nothing to do with it. Everyone has the choice to act on inclinations or to not act on them.
If you want to argue that homosexuals suffer from such overpowering inclinations that they MUST have sex or they'll die/incapacitate/etc., then I don't see why homosexuality isn't an addiction and treated as such.
If you are want to argue the inclination is NOT that overpowering, then they make the choice.
Two consenting homosexuals certainly do present a threat to society. I have to pay the insurance premiums that result from the increased rate of disease which results from the homosexual deathstyle.
Now, you claim that *I'm* hurting homosexuals by pointing out they suffer from a much higher disease rate, a much higher substance abuse rate, a much higher rate of violence (homo on homo, btw), and a much lower average age of death than the general population.
You call ME nasty and don't worry about MY taking injury at the name-calling, but I'm supposed to be deeply worried about whether or not a homosexual gets upset when I call THEM nasty.
Why the double standard?
If calling actions nasty is wrong, then - in order to be logically consistent - you should keep your mouth shut when I point out how evil the homosexual lifestyle is, lest you contribute to the general evil.
You're just trying to force me into silence and pretending to be morally superior. In fact, you're nothing but a hypocrite, using the same tactics against me that you claim I use against others - the difference being, I can back up my claims with facts, and you can't back yours up at all.
Steve, it's NOT an argument. And given that, YOUR arguments FALL APART. And you know it. And that's why you so strongly state, up-front in your reply, to leave the "choice arguments" out of this.
No, Steve. I will not do that. Because it is NOT a choice. Attraction to member's of one's own sex is not a choice. Why would anyone want it? Why would 10% of the population want it? The truth is that do not want to be this way, but that they are biologically this way.
To expect them to ignore their human need for sexual contact is not something you have any right to ask of them.
Homosexuals are as addicted to sex as you are.
What if you were expected to stop having sex. Could you do it?
Also, you don't have facts. You have assertions. Learn the difference.
Also, stop with the cutie comments such as the homosexual "deathcycle."
Steve, have any relatives who smoke? Be sure to refer to their own "deathcycle" in their faces.
How about being a man and stopping the cutesy language you use. It's very unflattering and I suspect it holds you back in life -- sincerely. Think about it.
What I meant about leaving "choice arguments" out of it is this: there is no more evidence that homosexuality is an in-born trait then there is that alcoholism is an in-born trait. It doesn't matter whether homosexuality is in-born or not - that's not relevant to the discussion.
We prosecute people for being drunk on the road - ill on the road - regardless of whether or not alcoholism is an illness or a choice because we recognize that the traits which (may) lead to alcoholism are acted upon by CHOICE.
Sex, like smoking, or any other human activity, is a choice. They choose to have sex in dangerous ways.
This is not just me asserting it, the fact that the homosexual death-style is dangerous is an established scientific fact. Do a google search on "homosexual morbidity mortality" sometime. Or try "homosexual early death norway". The evidence is there - homosexuals die 20 to 30 years before their time because their activity renders them diseased in multiple ways.
People can choose to be celibate. Celibacy works. People can choose to be close to a member of the opposite sex - it's called "marriage" and it extends your life when you do it monogamously.
Homosexuals choose their death-style.
And, honey, aren't you concerned that you are damaging my psyche by questioning my manhood simply because you don't like my language? Aren't you being judgemental? LOL.
Got any other semantic tricks up your sleeve in your attempts to shut the truth out of your life? Homosexuality is a disease and it should be treated like one. The fact that it isn't demonstrates that science in this country has been in regression for the last forty years.
Steve,
I just finished reading this - along with the two prior blogs you referenced. Might I encourage you to do something? These three are potential foundation stones to what I suspect would be an excellent article (potentially a multi-parter) that explains the roots of the issue (Church teaching and the biblical background), the impact of same sex attraction on the individual and the impact on society.
Anon seems to miss the point - whether same sex attraction or opposite sex attraction is naturally ingrained or not is irrelevant. Even if they are somehow naturally engrained, choices are still involved. Just because I am attracted to persons of the opposite sex doesn't mean no choice is involved in with whom I copulate, and that some such choices (e.g., with any random stranger) have much higher physical risks, not to mention moral ones.
We should prosecute people for being smug assholes. And then you, Steve, would be behind bars.
You are a hateful human being and probably homosexual yourself, deep-down.
You change your arguments against homosexuality as little too often... you are trying a little too hard...
Anonymous, not only must I compliment you on your backbone in signing your name, I must also compliment you on your incredible choice of epithets.
I never would have thought to put the phrases "smug asshole" "homosexual" and "behind bars" together in the same sentence. :)
ROTFL! :)
Man, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. God bless you!
It is interesting that when homosexual defenders lose an argument they decide to just jail their opponents and then claim their opponents are secretly homosexuals themselves. So, logically, they wish to jail homosexuals? That's a rather interesting way to reason. The power of the Internet!
Patrick, there wasn't one thing logical in what you just said...
Good, that makes two of us.
Oops, I forgot to check the send email to follow-ups.
From a post of mine on the topic of "nature."
http://www.thoughtsongod.com/?p=723
The relationships ARE NOT EQUAL.
Let me make it as simple and clear as possible;
1.Within the nature of atoms is the potentiality to form molecules. (not that they will)
2.Within the nature of letters is the potentiality to form sentences. (not that they will)
3. Within the nature of heterosexual relationships is the potentiality to reproduce.(not that they will)
4. Within the nature of homosexual relationships is the potentiality to…. oops! Does not work!
This is a Macro Qualitative Distinction that we find between the natures of these two relationships. It’s what makes them not “just as good,” “the same as,” or equal.
Now, a Gnostic Liberal sees this as well, but chooses to create a “second reality” based in Utopian Speculation that is in constant friction with the ground of being as given. This is the “Intellectual Swindle” I mentioned in the post.
Out of their frustration caused by this friction with reality, they will do whatever it takes to avoid the arena of ideas,and hurl personal insults, (my writings are “scribble” and my web page is wrong) or derail into some other topic. (how they are a victim of oppression)
It’s basically I, Me, Mine, Now, like I said. Theirs is not a search for Truth, nor a desire for Justice, but rather an insisting on having things their way regardless. pluralism infected with narcissism and reductionism.
Show me that I am mistaken, please.
Post a Comment