11.02.2008

Life and Liberty


22 comments:

Anonymous said...

This stirs things up.

Doom said...

Yes, I see the Church taking a stand. It risks far more than the eye can see by doing so. But, and I am glad to see the Church noticing, doing nothing risks more than mere property, small political powers, or even life. Doing nothing risks souls in more ways than one. The Church would, otherwise, not be involved because McCain simply does not warrant it. Now, I hope, Catholic politicians may begin being held accountable. That would put me at ease, even if the cost is high.

I would gladly lay down my life in order that His name be known and that His truth not be denied. Gladly, I fail Him in so many other ways. But I do not think it will come to that. So, we are probably just stuck being sinners. :p

K9 said...

the church does not bend to the fashion of the day. my sister taught me that. the church holds the line. cynicism finds fault as reason to disparage her but the word in not corrupt as men. good post. and xo from the forest

Bird said...

hmmmm... didn't know the country was founded on catholic values.

but by all means, vote your conscience.

i voted mine.

voted FOR families, FOR the sanctity of marriage, and AGAINST discrimination (yes on 8 here in california). voted to bring someone with intellectual breadth, rigor, curiosity, and superb analytical and operational skills to the White House (and he can read and talk good too ;).

now i'll cross my fingers and see how it goes.

catholic politicans held accountable? to the church?

hmmm... if a Muslim was in office, would you abide by that Muslim being held accountable to the Koran?

politicians in the US are accountable to the citizens of the US and the US Constitution, not the Pope in Rome, not the Bible, not the pulpit.

i'm sure you got out to vote today Aunty Belle - if you hadn't already. Hallelujah to that!

fishy said...

Sadly, if 67 MILLION (!) Catholics had voted in accordance with Catholic teachings Obama would NOT be a presidential candidate.

Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...

Thanky Pup! Ya said it true.

Well, Bird Beauty!! Howdy, long lost jewel of the air.


(program note: The rest of ya'll ought noit read this--it is fer Birdy only)

Bird Beauty , Ya' got some thangs a wee bit confused. The country was not found on "Catholic values" but on Christian values--ya heard of the Pilgrims I'se sure even out in San Fran. that's why our rights is *Inalienable*--because they DO NOT come from a state, but from God. SO the framework of God's moral laws (10 Commandments) in national policy IS the foundation of the country.

Doan fall fer the leftist rhetoric on the Church "telling" politicians what to do--it doan, never has, an' will not.

What the Church do say is that a public person--politicians fer example--who promote slaughter of unborn babies, like that hyena Pelosi, Biden and Kennedy-- cannot parade themselves around as Catholics-they can be one or the other--iffin' they bow before NARAL, thas' their own bidness, but it ain't Catholic.


Bein' Catholic ain't no club or ethnicity. Nobody can jes' say "I'se Catholic" because if they live against the precepts of the gospel and the teaching of the Church they is ipso facto, NOT Catholic. I once heard a man refer to a professor as a "Catholic atheist."

How silly. The nitwit was usin' "Catholic" as if it were a race, like "a chinese atheist." An' bein' raised Catholic ain't no qualifyer, an knowin Father Whoisit ain't a qualifier, going to Catholic schools with the sisters is not a qualifier--nope, all those is elements that might hep one become or remain Catholic but those thangs do NOT mean one IS Catholic. Bein' so means livin' so, or at least intendin' to live so despite some serious slippage onc't in awhile.


See the difference a'tween what ya said an' what I'se drivin' at heah?

Ya cannot be a faithful Catholic, or call yoreself Catholic, iffin' ya do that thangs Pelosi, Biden Kennedy an such do. All of them is apostates. All the pope is sayin' is that they can be one or the other, a faithful Catholic, or pro-abortion, but not both. They make a choice.

They's still free Americans voting their conscience, BUT, Catholics are to FORM their consciences accordin' to the gospel, not accordin' to the finger in the air to see which way the wind of political fortune be blowin'.

Doan fergit, they ain't no San Francisco and no America in heaven. The Church's job is to remind you that there is a judgment and an eternal consequences for the choices made. So the BIG decision fer the hyena an' her ilk is which is more important--her political future or her eternal future.

Now surely, youse seein' how that works--iffin' a Muslim American politician espoused gay rights, the Muslim Imams would say,
"Thas' a politician with a muslim background, but that ain't no muslim."

It is an old bigotry, Birdy, against Catholics to claim that Catholic politicians take direction from Rome--utterly false. What the Church can say is who is and who is NOT a faithful Catholic.

You voted yore conscience, Sugar, but ya did not vote for life or marriage. We have very different views, as we already know. I ask myself, "Ever wonder about folks who wring they hands over sea turtle eggs, but can't spare a tear for a child? What does that REALLY say about "compassion"? I dona want folks wif' that viewpoint makin' no decisions in mah name.

On marriage, I know this is very sensitive, but I woan duck it.

(First, let's us'uns agree that we all have fabulous friends or family members whose relationships is atypical. We want them to find happy, fulfilling lives--this is a given.)


What adults do by their own volition is a matter of their freedom, their decision, and not mah bidness. But they cannot redefine marriage.

Politicians can pretend, but they have no power to change the meaning of marriage any more than they can redefine sunrise or the speed of light. It is above their pay grade, shall we say?

Marriage has a very specific biological, psychological and social meaning. When ya monkey with these, the human gets mangled. The society gets itself in a decline.

Some folks think they can change the meaning of a human reality by the stroke of a pen. Horsefeathers.

The male and female of the species is DIFFERENT, an' no politician can change that, Birdy. Those differences have such significance that ever'time that significance is ignored, great upheavals come upon the nation that tries to do the ignorin.'

You can say east is west, but it does not make it so, and cannot make it so.

This is not to say that any particular persons should be deprived of any reasonable benefits of friendship--want hospital visits at time of death? A lawyer will draw up the papers. Want inheritances? make a will.

But those who disrespect and disparage marriage --by attempting to redefine it or pretend that any intimate affection and commitment equals marriage--are not serving society's best interests.

Whew, I'se tuckered out--too tired, too long of a day. But iffin' I din't luv ya Bird Beauty, I wouldn't go to the trouble. I remembers how ya was raised, thas' why I took all this time. I ain't lookin' to persuade ya to mah view, youse perfectly free to hold to thangs as ya prefer.

But I did wanna take a moment to make the distinction that I reckon will help ya feel better that the Church shure ain't tellin' nobody how to vote. They's only telling folks who is and is not faithful Catholics.

Aunty Belle said...

Fishy, hey hey!

...youse right. Woe those who voted on the economy rather than on morals.

Aunty Belle said...

For the Bird:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8480

Interview with Archbishop Burke:

3. In your country an election is about to take place in a couple of days. Archbishop Chaput says Obama is the biggest supporter ever of abortion rights, in a presidential candidate. Should Americans be concerned if he becomes president?

My fellow citizens of the United States of America should be deeply concerned about any candidate for the presidency who supports legislation which permits the destruction of human life at its very beginning, the killing of babies in the womb, or legislation which violates the integrity of marriage and family life. The safeguarding and promoting of human life, from the moment of its inception, and of the integrity of marriage must be the fundamental planks of any political agenda. A good citizen must support and vote for the candidate who most supports the inalienable dignity of innocent and defenseless life, and the integrity of marriage. To do otherwise, is to participate, in some way, in the culture of death which pervades the life of the nation and has led to so much violence, even in the home and in educational institutions.

4. In a recent interview you were quoted saying the Democratic Party is fast becoming "the party of death". Is this a fair statement, when you consider that the Republican administration has become involved in an unpopular war?

It is not my intention to engage in partisan politics. I wish that both of the major political parties in the United States of America were more coherent regarding the right to life. The Democratic Party, however has, over the years, put forth and defended a political agenda which is grievously anti-life, favoring the right to procured abortion and "marriage" between persons of the same sex. One can legitimately question the wisdom of the decisions taken in the war in Iraq, but war in itself is not always and everywhere evil, as are, for example, procured abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, and the so-called "marriage" of persons of the same sex. Engagement of the nation in a war cannot be placed on the same moral level as the nation making laws which permit the wholesale killing of the unborn or the artificial generation of human life or experimentation on embryonic human life or "marriage" between persons of the same sex.

5. By emphasizing the issue of abortion, are some of the US bishops taking single issue politics too far, when the world's economies are in financial meltdown, obviously a product in part of government policies?

Procured abortion is the fundamental moral issue in the safeguarding and fostering of human life. To make economics or the environment the fundamental political issue, when life itself, in its most innocent and defenseless form, remains unprotected is morally irresponsible. Yes, the government of the United States must address a number of critical issues, including the current and most serious economic crisis. But it must address first its duty to promote the common good by defending the life of every human being, from the moment of its inception, and by safeguarding the integrity of marriage and the family.

Bird said...

no confusion on my part, AB. i'm not saying the country was founded on catholicism - and yes, even we heathens out here in sanfrancisco know about the pilgrims.

i was commenting on the irony of your post.

we don't need to redefine marriage and that's not what folks want anyway. we want equality under the law - and when you deny civil marriage to a group of people - that's not equality.

if any religion wants to forbid certain folks from marrying in that religion - i have no problem with that at all. but to deny civil marriage to one group of people is discrimination. and no, as you might argue, our laws don't provide for those couples - not completely. without civil marriage - those couples are always at risk and do not have the same civil benefits as same-sex married couples.

but we know full well AB that you and i disagree on this point completely and always will.

my problem is that this issue (and many others) is argued as a religious issue - and no matter that we have a christian background in this country - we are not a religious state and should not govern ourselves as such.

but happy nov. 5th to you ab. and don't worry too much - the country will not go to hell in a handbasket under obama.

and sooner or later, gay rights will be accepted. all it takes is time.

Aunty Belle said...

Ah Bird, I admire yore efforts heah.

Fuuny, we ackshully agree on somethin'--marriage ought not be a religious issues, an fer me it ain't.

Marriage is marriage. As I done laid out, it is not somethin no gubmint can re-define, re-configure any more than they can redefine the spoeed of light. It is what it is.

It ain't a civil rights or discrimination matter either. All adult in America can marry freely under the same set of rules: marry someone of the opposite sex, marry someone of age, marry someone who freely consents. No one is stopping homosexual persons from marrying. They choose not to.

If that doan appeal to ya' ya cain't try to use the muscle of the gubmint to change nature or meaning of a reality. Thas the liberal agenda--to use gubmint muscle to change a reality they wish were not a reality.

They choose same-sex relationships. Okay, dandy. They's free to do so. Nobody is stoppin' them. But, it cannot be construed as marriage. Marriage means something entirely different. Marriage requires the two haves of the human species, joined in a manner that gives the whole of the human experience to the pair. This is a fundamental emotional and biological design that is immune to tinkering. No other design works well enough to insure stability of communities.

Thang is , Bird, the gubmint needs marriage, but marriage doan need no gubmint. Ain't no nation in a few years if they ain't marriage. Marriage is the bedrock of the nation. Wifout it, the nation doan NEVER survive. THis is why gubmint has seen that it is to its benefit to give encouragement to marriage.

TROLL said...

I'm wondering if there's an apatheid of thought along with a physical apartheid between "hispanic" and "white" Catholic Churches in America.

If for every "reverend" Jerehmiah Wright there is a corresponding "father" Jose Hernandez de-emphasizing personal morality and the beauty and wisdom of the Bible and instead preaching leftist politics from the pulpit.

And I wonder if the still overwhelmingly "White" Church Hierarchy is too timid to take on the "father" Jose's.

There's certainly a HUGE and growing divide in voting patterns. "White" Catholics were about 53/47 Pro-Freedom in yesterday's election. While "Hispanics", especially those of Mexican ancestry, were overwhelmingly Pro-Dictator.

There's also considerable evidence that Hispanic Catholics, especially those of Mexican background, are abandoning personal morality. Out-of-Wedlock births, and abortions have SKYROCKETED for that demographic.

While 20 years ago, Hispanics had slightly fewer out-of-wedlock births and considerably fewer abortions than Whites.

Aunty should investigate this and suggest a course of action to her Bishop or whatever the Local Big Cheese is called.

Aunty Belle said...

Troll, them's good questions, an' here's some answers:

Illegal is a mind-set. Thus, remember that those who violate laws to enter this country illegally are already wif'out much in the way of morals.

Mexican's are no different than Americans or Zimbabweans--that is in every group some is good some is bad most is lukewarm.

Doan assume Mexicans is all or mostly Catholic no more--millions is pentecostal and baptist especially those who come to the US with the help of pentecostal agencies.

Cuban Catholics as a rule are far far more orthodox-

As fer white Catholics--I done explained how it is that that hyena Pelosi and Biden are apostates. Jesus had Judas, an American Catholics have Pelosi, Biden and Kennedy. So so Protestants who are more pro-abortion than Catholics. What's this about?

How can Christians be in favor of an abortion president?

Because they care more about the economy than life. THey automatically distance themselves from Christ.

Funny thang is Troll, in 1899 Pope Leoe XII warned against "Americanism". Thas' a heresy that would think that yore religious values is subject to a democratic model--of course, we cant vote on what God commanded. It is not optional.

But many Catholics --indeed Christians of all stripes--is lukewarm, an subject to divine regurgitation.

Anonymous said...

whoops. knew this would be a s--- stirring.

Big Shamu said...

Just a wee bit of a correction. I cannot choose to be straight anymore than Aunty can choose to be gay. It's what I am and what I will always be. I was born this way. Just as straight people were born straight. What's funny is I would never try and convince a straight woman to choose to be gay.

Aunty Belle said...

Big Shamu!! I'se so glad--relieved!-- you came by an' is addin' to this discussion.

I knows you musta figgured I hesitated to wade into this for fear of offendin' ya'...an' I really, really ain't meanin' to do that. Ya knows I is so fond of ya!!

Big Shamu, Sugar, Aunty doan propose that ya make another choice. Aunty ain't lookin' to change nobody. An I wish ya nothin' but happiness.

The point I'se makin' is not about any persons at all, but about keepin' language to the reality of what it is meant to express. That marriage is a specific word,with a specific meaning that does not include all models of intimate affection. The elements and substance of what marriage is not found in any other arrangement.

Notice this is NOT to say anything against other arrangements. Other arrangements will have their own specificity.

It is not a matter of discrimination, since marriage is something that not all folks want, even if they could legally do it. You could get married, but ya doan choose that, ya choose another arrangement that is suited to yore life, an youse free to do so wif'out interference from no gubmint.

I know some gay men who do not want the model of marriage to invade their culture because the elements that make marriage marriage are elements
they find too confining.

Mayhap ya recall some years back thar was somethin' makin' the rounds called "open marriage" --which ain't marriage at all.


I doan mean to be flippant, but an analogy might show what I'se tryin' to communicate.

If there are ball players who play football, others who play soccer an each has chosen the kind of ball they prefer to play. But nobody is thinkin' to call both sports football. Football and soccer each have their own particular and specific rules and skills. Players from each sport are "ballpayers" but each is not football players or soccer players. There is a difference.

(yeah, weak analogy, but the outline is clear)

Thanky so so much for stoppin' in Big Shamu--I would not hurt ya fer the world--please know that.

Big Shamu said...

I'm not sure I follow your "It's not discrimination" argument. Let's say instead of a ban on gay marriage Prop 8 was a ban on interracial marriage. Are you saying it wouldn't be discrimination because not every white man would want to marry a black woman? Just because some choose not to marry doesn't allow others to lose the right to marry whom they want to marry.

I guess I have to say I don't understand the fear of homosexuals having the same legal rights as other humans in the united states. You want me to call it something else, ok, it's all just semantics as long as my legal rights are the same as if I married a man.
Please explain to me how I, this human being writing these words, am a threat to the people who voted for Prop 8? How would it change those peoples lives if I married a woman?

Aunty Belle said...

Big Shamu, hey. Thank you for comin' by an' continuin' the exchange. I appreciate that more than I can say.

What is hurtin' me heah is that I want to make mah points in the objective, (avoiding the personal) but I know that it is hard for ya to hear them other than the subjective. I jes' need to say onc't again, Sugar, I would not hurt ya fer the world.

I'se trustin' that we can both see that when folks, of genuine good will toward each other, have opposite views of an important matter, it is a good thang to explore the points.

Interracial marriage is not an analogy. The interracial marriage ban *was* discrimination. It was based on color or ethnicity. Color or ethnicity did not effect the elements of marriage which is the male/female bond.

The opposition to gay marriage is not discrimination because

1. you can marry if you choose to under the same conditions applied to all citizens regardless of color or ethnicity. (that you do not chose to marry under those conditions is your decision, but it is not a burden the law places on you.)

2. Marriage is inherently a male/female structure. All who want to participate in this structure are legally allowed to do so, whatever their other attributes (assuming they are of age).

Other models lack this specific elemental structure. Hence, they can be called liaisons or partnerships or unions, as these connote intimate affection and make a public declaration of that affection.


Marriage remains open to all who choose it based on its inherent structure and is therefore not discriminatory.

Because they do not want marriage as it is inherently structured, the lesbi/gay community seeks to change the structure under the guise of "discrimination" claims. That is, in fact, a discrimination against married people for it seeks to redefine the state they specifically sought under specific conditions. A married man and woman is not analogous to a same-sex pair. It i a quite different union.

To try to make it so is discrimination against the married persons--for then the term "marriage" would indicate any sort of pairing.


The heart of the matter is biological. Male and female are not interchangeable. The lesbi/ gay community tries to make the case that male/femaleness is a social construct. It is not, rather, it is definitively biological, and this is so right down to each cell. Examine a strand of hair, a skin cell, a blood cell, and it is male or female.

For social or political reasons some want to ignore the design of the human body and its attendant emotional/ psychological particulars.

The terms "Male" and "Female" do not indicate only external sexual characteristics, or preferences in roles or profession or styles of dress--or any surface observation that indicates "female" or "male."
(even with sex-change operations and hormones, the cells remain as at birth.)

What the male and female do with and for each other is beyond sexual acts but includes a deeper psychological union that is not possible outside the lifelong commitment that is marriage--the high divorce rate preceded the social ills we suffer now precisely because it was assumed that the bond could be broken with little consequence. Nature has chemical and psychological means of cementing the bond between men and women, and to break it causes serious injury to the pair.

This is not meant to be a dissertation, though if you'd like more info I'll email it to you--information that includes long term studies on the emotional well being of divorced persons and their children and extended families--there are PHYSICAL/ Chemical reasons why the male/female bond is supposed to be
inviolable.

**Those chemical markers in the brain are not present for same-sex pairs--yet another proof that nature meant her design for marriage to be specifically a male-female bond.**

Why? Because male female sex is fecund, it is productive. The whole point of the state attaching benefits to marriage is because marriage is the future of the nation. Marriage renders an irreplaceable service to the society/to the nation, one that same-sex pairs cannot render.

Same -sex pairs in small numbers can adopt (though they should not, in my view) or in some cases use donors or surrogates to achieve a child that is biologically the child of one person in the same-sex pair. But the child is not "theirs" and the primordial nature of the human is to be a child of its own parents. Whenever this is not the case, emotional psychological and dysfunction is very high.

We cannot and must not use children as a social experiment to "prove" we can remake the nature of nature.

Children need to live with and see both sexes at work, at play, at love. Female infants as young as 4 weeks old have a different response to a male voice. Male children are closer intellectually to their mothers than fathers. It is a binary world. Both the female and male child need to learn how to relate to the other sex--this is done in homes where a married mother and father innately relate as male to female. In this manner a child or either sex learns how the binary world operates. The male teaches things no female can teach, and vice versa.

One example: The male child learns risk taking from the male, he learns expanded horizons and physical bravery as well as analytic skills. From the female the male child learns relationality, intuition and builds emotional intelligence. He learns that relationships are not quantifiable.

There are volumes more--deep research that the media will not open to the general public--but is there for those who value pure science, not ideology as science.

The problem stems from a desire to help same-sex pairs feel at home in an essentially heterosexual world.

What we have to find is a method to do that without assaulting nature's basic premise:
Male and Female are the building blocks of the future of the species, and both mothers and fathers are necessary not only for procreation but for a genuine adult adjustment and apprehension of the way things work in the world of human interaction. (for this reason, the lesbi/ gay lifestyle cannot be taught as the "same as" marriage)

Without this,(As the massive divorce rate and more single parent households shows) society implodes: first by dysfunctional children who become dysfunctional adults; by the second generation less generation (procreation) occurs because most dysfunctional people are incapable of the self sacrifice required to build a stable family or society--and they compensate for their dysfunction with a focus on hedonism, rather than the building of a society.

This is far too long. A summary would simply be that marriage is a male/female structure by nature's design. Wherever we violate an elemental pillar of nature, we suffer. We are not free to redesign nature without unleashing nature's consequences.

If the goal is insure that there is no discrimination against any group of persons, whatever their orientation, that can be done by social policy that does not assault the specificity of marriage.

As for benefits, what if we turn the question around. Why shouldn't any cohabitating pair receive benefits? Why shouldn't two college roommates or a father and son living together get taxpayer perks? Because they do nothing to earn it.

Married persons make a real, quantifiable contribution to the state that others do not make. In exchange, the state favors the institution of marriage.

Where benefits can be designated for any pair that do not draw from the taxpayer--great. You can name your partner as a medical surrogate,give them power of attorney, include them in your will, etc. Many employers allow same-sex pairs to cover their other on insurance forms. Very few benefits remain marriage specific.


Those who defend marriage are not bigots or discriminatory, they are not anti-gay persons. Those in states like Florida, Arizona, and California who voted to preserve the natural meaning of marriage are not causing harm to same-sex pairs, because you are still perfectly free to declare your relationship, to celebrate it, to live it. You have a means of having almost all of the public benefits that married persons have.

Why not acknowledge that the nature of same-sex pairing is not the same as married persons and
"vive le difference"?

Big Shamu said...

I hope any who might be following this discussion understand that I know Aunty means me no harm and that I can talk with someone whose perspective and beliefs are very different than my own without resorting to hurtful name calling and rage. I think the one thing we could both agree on is that we are passionate women whether that involves who makes the best fried chicken or the rights and liberties that the citizens of the United States exercise in their daily lives.
That being said, your response brings up a point which must be made. You speak of the abstract in these matters while I cannot but speak of personal experiences.
You say that the interracial analogy is wrong but I did not bring it into the discussion to lay claim to discrimination, I brought it up to underline the point that because one choses not to do something does not mean they forfeit such right to ever do so. You continue to insist that I still have the choice to marry a male therefore retaining all the rights of a straight couple. Are you suggesting I live a lie? My personal ethics and morality most certainly cannot allow me to do that, therefore I have no choice to make.
I do think it's interesting that you want to deny gay couples the right to marry considering their fight to make marriage relevant. I think I would take the anti gay marriage folks a little more seriously if they worked just as hard to make divorce not as prevalent. You speak of studies and biology applying to lesbians and gays but speak of heterosexual couples in glowing emotional terms. I can only assure that commitment, love, and honor most certainly occur in gay couples whether you want to admit it or not. It happens despite the fact the gay marriage is not recognized at the federal level and not recognized at the 48 state levels.
As for the building blocks of the future, heterosexuals will always outnumber homosexuals. Again why the fear? It's like saying Left-handedness is inherently wrong, forcing a child to use their right hand when Nature has chosen them for left handedness.
As for benefits you'll have to explain to me how a straight couple would make different contributions to the state than a gay couple. Let's see, we work, pay taxes, raise children, go to church or synagogue and contribute to society. We try and serve our country in the armed forces as long as we live a lie. So, again I ask, how do straight couples contribute MORE than a gay couple? Why should I settle for marriage lite? Why should I jump through so many more hoops to attempt to receive the more than 1000 benefits that a federally recognized marriage allows?

And again I ask, what is the fear? What could gay marriage do to the institute of marriage that divorce, gambling, pornography, greed, addictions, and unfaithfulness hasn't already done?

Aunty Belle said...

Hey Big Shamu--thanky SO much fer clarifyin' that we's two ladies perfectly willin' to engage the discussion an' mean no disrepsect a'tall fer each other.

When I say that youse perfectly free to marry under the same conditions all citizens have, I DOES NOT mean that you should do so much less that you should live a lie---I mean that the standards apply to all adults, and discriminates against none.

You CAN do it, you choose NOT to do it. Because you can, youse not discriminated against. That you choose not to is your choice. (and wisely so since it is not yore preference.)

you say, "I think I would take the anti gay marriage folks a little more seriously if they worked just as hard to make divorce not as prevalent."

Well, I'se not anti-gay iffin' by that ya mean anti-gay persons. I oppose extending the legal term "marriage" to same sex-pairs because it is not the same type of relationship that marriage means. It means a wholly other type of relationship an' it ought to have its own designation as a legal contract.

But I agree wif' ya' a thousand percent that the pro-marriage folks ought to spend equal if not greater time on making divorce less prevalent..in fact, the divorce rate is going down percentage -wise of the married population.

You wrote, "I can only assure that commitment, love, and honor most certainly occur in gay couples whether you want to admit it or not."

I *DO* agree that love honor and commitment can occur in lesbians and gays. Mah point, Sugar, is not that it does not happen, but that, despite that, children raised in that model do not fare well. Children need to learn how both sexes relate and deal with life (see my examples in comment preceding this one). When children are deprived of the natural male/female model, they have difficulty later in life.

I am a strong proponent for nature's way. Nature designed children to come from and be raised my a male/ female pair in a permanent bond. Tinker wif that an' trouble follows.

This point is not jes' applying to same-sex couples--it is true in single parent households too. In short, children were intended to have both a mother and a father whose characteristics are sex-specific an' not interchangeable.

Ya make a very fine point wif' this comment:

"And again I ask, what is the fear? What could gay marriage do to the institute of marriage that divorce, gambling, pornography, greed, addictions, and unfaithfulness hasn't already done? "

Exactly! Marriage is under so much stress an' assault that adding another model of marriage adds to the assault--how?

Simply because various models of marriage dilute the actual meaning of marriage. It communicates the idea that you can engage in a "design it yoreself" attitude toward marriage--sorta like what I said above about the 1970s 1980s
"open marriage" trend.

We have years or studies world wide that show that stable marriages create stable communities with productive members of society. Our culture should work hard to reestablish marriage as a serious commitment.

A fer lesbian or gay couples and benefits--the benefits are very few--joint income tax filing. All others can be arranged . You can have your partner as a medical surrogate, as the beneficiaary of your will/ insurance. You can have a tenants in common property with the rights of the survivor protected...

The reason married people have tax breaks is that they raise children, educate them and foster their participation in community for the benefit of the nation. Same-sex pairs do not have the numbers or the stability in family forming to render this to the state.

( I know there are exceptions,
but the bulk of families formed with same-sex pairs do not survive past 5 years in those nations --Holland for example--where same-sex marriages have been legal for years.)

Big Shamu, I cannot express how relieved I am that you shared your thoughts here.

It is SO IMPORTANT to me that folks of different ideas can enjoy each other's *other* topics, have fun wif' each other an' know that at the end of the day, whatever our differences, we have more in common that is worth celebratin'! Big Shamu is my bloggin' friend an would not seek to offend her.

Aunty doan look at folks accordin' to their orientation--I'se interested in folks' work, ideas, sense of humor, hobbies and stories. Their private life is theirs jes' like mine is private.

This topic was part of a thread brought by Bird-another blogger--not a thread I meant to have. But now that we have had it, Aunty needs ter make shure ya'll ALL (readers and commenters) understan' that it is NOT my purpose heah to convert or persuade anyone to mah way of thinkin'. It jes' ain't what I'se about.

Folks make their own way through the world: they think, read, experience and reflect on life to come to their own conclusions. I'se for that.

Mah purpose is not to persuade, but to offer a look at a difficult matter from another angle.

Too many lesbian and gay folks git hurt feelin's an feel discriminated against because some of us doan take the time to articulate why we's opposed to legalizin'gay-marriage.

Folks wif' mah thinkin' have to try harder to make it clear our objection is not a negative--not against anybody or any group, rather a positive support *for* natural marriage which we see as the bedrock of our society. We doan wanna harm anyone. I am anxious that mah lesbi/gay friends know I am not anti any person based on their orientation.

Thank you Big Shamu.

Big Shamu said...

It's obvious we disagree that marriage as an institution in the U.S. is so sacred to all citizens of this country that it should be kept separated from the minimal effect that gays and lesbian would bring to it. We will have to agree to disagree that discrimination is in the eye of the marriage certificate holder.

As for the children of gays and lesbians, you can site as many sources as you want. Sadly I can site just as many if not more studies of poorly raised children of straight parents. Do I think it's their sexuality that has corrupted their upbringing? Of course not, not any more than I think gays and lesbian's sexuality corrupts their kids. Something to keep in mind, while there is a baby boom of gay and lesbian parented children going on in the U.S., the gays and lesbians themselves, for the most part, were children of straight parents. Do you fault their methods of child rearing? Will you be banning straight people from the institute of marriage because they could possibly produce a gay child? Seems kinda silly to me. Will you be banning alcoholics from marriage if they ever plan to have kids? How about drug abusers? Gamblers? Child molesters? Adulterers? All your arguments of nature and the need for a "natural male/female model" are being dismantled even as we speak. Gays and lesbians are raising strong, healthy, smart, loving children. I know, I get the photos at birthdays and Christmas, as well as the goofy Halloween photos. Will there be children raised by gays and lesbians who are going to have troubles in their lives? Of course. But I would also bet that statistically it's going to be the same percentage of straight people's kids who have problems and issues.

As for the benefits, there are many that no will or insurance can address. Social Security Benefits for the survivor. Joint income tax. Inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate). Joint parental rights of children. Medicare. Estate and gift tax benefits. Shall I go on? Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs. "Same-sex pairs do not have the numbers or the stability in family forming to render this to the state." Then I assume you will be relieving non-child producing married couples of those benefits? Once they start producing children, then we'll reinstate ALL those federal benefits that gay marriage bans see fit to deny gays and lesbians. Good luck with that. Did you not see the couples who finally got to exercise their right to marry their intended in California? Couples who had been together ten, twenty, thirty years, just waiting for that moment. Here again, we disagree, lesbians and gays are no more or no less susceptible to the stresses of long term relationships than straight people.

I thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I don't believe you are trying to convert me to your position because we both know that's not possible anymore than I can convince you that my marriage to the girl of my dreams would not cause your marriage any harm. That we can speak as we have been is a beginning and perhaps an ending.

One last thought and I'll let this post fade into the the archives. If you think you can save the institute of marriage by banning a whole class of people then I would suggest it's already too late.

Aunty Belle said...

Hey Big Shamu,
Happy to see ya again.

May I ask ya to keep in mind that Aunty has no trouble wif ' ya makin' a legal declaration? Please keep this in the front of the discussion so ya knows that mah position ain't discriminatory in the sense of deprivin' anyone of a way to live their own lives.

An' lemme ask ya this, does ya see any difference in the way husbands and wives relate to each other compared to same-sex pairs?

Iffin' male and female are NOT interchangeable meanings and designations then the relationship between them is different than same-sex couples. This is logic.

I mention logic, cause I hope to keep mah comments as impersonal as possible so ya knows fer shure this whole exchange is NOT directed at you or anyone in particular but to the objective reality instead.

What ya propose --"married" same-sex pairs is not a marriage. In cookin' we sometimes say a marriage of oil and vinegar makes vinaigrette.

What this bespeaks is an elementary understandin' of the union of different essences to make a whole new thang. Oil does not equal vinaigrette, and vinegar doan either, but these two DIFFERENT thangs makes somethin' completely new from what either is alone.

The framework defenders of marriage have is to protect a specific human institution. Iffin' ya' want a new model, that calls fer adding a new term to make clear the differences in the models.