Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often referred to as the swing vote on the Supreme Court, said during the hearing on Prop 8 that he’s worried about the children when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. But not in the way you might think.
Despite several studies indicating that the children of homosexual parents don’t fare as well as children of heterosexual couples, Kennedy didn’t seem to be taking that into account.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s conservative-leaning swing vote and the author of two major decisions in favor of gay rights, appeared to be on the fence in the controversial case. Early in the arguments, he suggested that the estimated 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California might be harmed by their parents’ inability to wed. “They want their parents to have full recognition and full status,” Kennedy said, saying he worries about the “voice of the children” in the case.
My goodness, what leftist utopian legislation will ever be accomplished again without blaming the children?
The only good news is that Kennedy also did pose a question about the legal standing of those bringing the case against Prop 8.
Nobody has any clue whatsoever what the court will do. But the court has been pretty darn fickle and not all that into that whole Constitution thingie so my hopes aren’t high. But don’t worry, it’ll be for the children so what could possibly go wrong?
March 28, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Mr Steurmer, it is you who have made ad hominem slurs, not I. Keep to the issues. Marriage has an objective meaning, independent of what you or anyone else may want it to mean. Marriage is lifelong union between a man and a woman with preparedness to raise any children which may be the fruit of it. Marriage is the basis of all family, and society. It is a natural, necessary phenomenon prior to and independent of all states or man-made law.
March 28, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Lynda,
I take it you agree with the following:
1. When gays choose to take up marriage, they are agreeing to the social norms of monogamy and fidelity.
2. Marriage is an act of unselfishness. When you marry someone you agree to devote your life to that person.
3. Marriage is also an agreement to reject sex outside of that union.
4. When gays have children, even by technical means you disapprove, they have as much right to raise them as you have to raise your children.
Given that it is the right of a person in a gay relationship to raise their own children, I'm still unclear about whether you are saying that the children would be better off having never been born.
Can you clear this up with me? Thank you.
PS. If something can be measured by a robot with the appropriate instruments, then that would be an objective fact. Like the voltage on your car's battery.
Regardless of disagreements between us, I am sure you can see the difference then between objective facts and opinions.
March 28, 2013 at 9:24 pm
I have been repeating myself, but because of this Holy Season, I will take these questions at face value, and then leave it. There is nothing I can do if you choose to deny objective truth. The truth is the truth whether I assert it or not. Opinions are irrelevant. There is not only material truth, e.g. biological, but moral and philosophical truth, involving the whole nature of man, marriage, etc.
1. Two persons of the same sex cannot marry each other. That is an impossibility.
2. Marriage is a lifelong exclusive union between a man and a woman with commitment to nurture together any children which result from that union. Clearly it involves love and sacrifice for the other.
3. Marriage is exclusive – one man, one woman. Sexual intercourse is proper only to marriage. It is the marriage act.
4. Two persons of the same sex cannot procreate. They must either procure a child, the offspring of another man or woman; or one of them only is the biological mother or father who uses another third person for their gametes to produce a child, but denies the child that mother or father. Both scenarios are objectively immoral, and deny the child his dignity. The child is innocent and sacred like all persons no matter whether they were conceived morally or not. A child ought not to be conceived in a laboratory or as a result of rape, but all children are precious however they were conceived. No person has a "right" to have a child. Noone ought to deliberately put a child in a home with two persons of same sex engaging in intrinsically immoral sex acts. If one is the natural mother or father to a child and one cannot or won't live with the other parent to raise the child, one must either cease to engage in homosexual relationships to raise one's child properly as his natural mother or father, or give the child to good married couple who will become his adoptive mother and father.
I have been as patient as possible but there is no good in my saying more. It is for you to accept or reject the truth. Happy and blessed Easter.
March 28, 2013 at 6:19 pm
Response to Walter's red herrings, straw men, and failure to address the questions that poke holes in his positions.
Walter writes:
"Can you make someone gay by your will? Then I doubt you can make them heterosexual either. Do you suppose that Dick Cheney wanted this for his daughter? He did not. But could he accept her as a human being and one of God's creations? I dare say he does.
That is what compassion looks like. That is what truth looks like. That is what Jesus teaches us."
__________________
An objective analysis and study of the reality of homosexuality reveals that many people are recruited into the homosexual lifestyle. It is not by will that one person can make another homosexual, but one can be encouraged and persuaded to become one and engage in sinful homosexual actions, especially at the adolescent age when confusion about sexuality and so on may come into play. The homosexual community knows this, and so many of them engage in targeting adolescents for recruitment, and it also motivates many of them to seek to reduce the laws regarding the age of consent for sexual activity.
The red herring comment about Dick Cheney and his daughter is simply a straw man as it has nothing to do with the reality that there is no such thing as a gay gene, which is necessary to prove that people are simply made that way. As for accepting people as God's creations, this is a given, but note how Walter purposely avoids the real issue here involving the behavior of people. It is because of love that sinful behavior must not be encouraged or promoted by people,…if we truly love them. Advocating that they engage in sinful activity is a lack of true love.
Also note Walter's intellectual cowardice in not taking up the other challenges to his overridig claim that "God made them that way," so I repeat the challenges of an earlier post in the hopes that Walter (and others of similar mindset) will either rise to the challenge and answer them honestly and directly, or admit that his position is based on a false understanding of God's creation of people that would permit all kinds of sinful behavior under the silly notion that "God made them that way," which is indeed a denial of free will:
1. If you believe that God simply makes people the way they are in terms of behavior or inclinations (which also is a denial of free will) will you freely allow and defend a kleptomanic's "right" to steal all of your money? Why or why not?
2. Will you freely give an alcoholic as many drinks as he or she may want, because…"God made him/her that way"? Why or why not?
3. Will you defend the "right" of a perpetrator of violence to physically harm anyone, because "God made him/her that way"? Why or why not?
4. What about God's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah? Clearly He made the people there as well. Why did He condemn them and their actions as he did? Did He not love them as well?
To be sure, love without truth is simply emotion at best, and tolerance of Evil at worst. Tolerating and promoting the objectively evil actions of homosexual activity is not love; it's evil.
By the bye, did St. Paul manifest a lack of love for people in his condemnation of homosexual actions?
If you truly love, then do not promote sinful behavior in the name of "love."
God Bless!
DB
Omnia Vincit Veritas
March 28, 2013 at 6:20 pm
Donna,
Thank you for relating your unfortunate experience. I am sorry "Josh" said things that made you uncomfortable, and obviously I can't vouch for this person's opinions!
I hope you found it valuable that I pointed out how gays seem to be fitting into at least some of the social norms that I am sure that we both share.
As I am sure you are aware, gay people have revealed themselves ("come out") who are writers, architects, scientists, politicians (perhaps a bad mark!), teachers, engineers, artists and businessmen.
Though you may not approve of their being gay, I hope at least you can appreciate that they have toughed it out to get through college, made something of themselves, and make contributions to society through their work.
I hope then that you can see the wisdom of these same people choosing to commit themselves to monogamous relationships, devoting themselves to a person other than themselves, in sickness and in health. And to reject sex outside that union.
An issue which I believe has been raised here is whether persons who are gay should be allowed to raise their own children.
I would be skeptical indeed of any effort to refuse a parent this right, so long as that parent is providing food, shelter and education to their children.
Would you like the government to come to your door and take your children away from you?
I hope we can both agree would be intolerable.
I am not myself gay, so I have nothing to gain from this, but I have always been moved by the parable of the good samaritan. It is in that light that I cannot stand by while others savagely attack this unpopular group.
March 28, 2013 at 6:35 pm
Dear Anonymous,
Are you saying that Dick Cheney's daughter was coerced or bullied or corrupted into becoming gay? Of course I have no direct knowledge of what home life was like for the Cheney's but I find this assertion absurd.
I am not gay, but I have heard persons who were respond to your taunts. They say: "You think I choose to be gay, with the bigotry gays have to face, and not uncommonly, violence?"
I find their argument definitive. Again, your assertion is absurd.
Would you want to be gay? Would you choose to be gay?
Now, let's explore the world in which you are correct. That's not this world, but some hypothetical parallel world.
In a world where some persons choose to be gay, they would still have the right to live their lives. They would still have the right to seek out someone to love.
They would still have the right to commit themselves to a lifelong monogamous relationship to the person they love. And they would still have the right to raise their own children.
Wishing you all the best.
March 28, 2013 at 6:38 pm
To Whom it may concern:
Is there anyone here who disagrees with the following?
1. When gays choose to take up marriage, they are agreeing to the social norms of monogamy and fidelity.
2. Marriage is an act of unselfishness. When you marry someone you agree to devote your life to that person.
3. Marriage is also an agreement to reject sex outside of that union.
4. When gays have children, they have the right to raise them.
I wish you all the best!
March 28, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Yes, I DO!
Quit blowing soap bubbles!!!…..GOD could never abide with them!…IN A UNION AS "CO CREATORS OF LIFE"….just not in the DNA!!!……or did you forget that teeny, weeny little point???….
March 28, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Dear Donna M,
I wish you could compose yourself, at least enough as to make your position clear.
Your reply to my question "Do you agree… when gays choose to take up marriage, they are agreeing to the social norms of monogamy and fidelity?" is ha, ha, ha?
Well that response must come in handy. When someone asks me if Donna is capable of abiding with monogamy and fidelity, I will just say "ha ha ha ha!"
Your second response is even less clear. Is it in response to the assertion that marriage is an act of unselfishness?
Or is it a response to the assertion that when you marry someone you agree to devote your life to that person?
Is it a response to the assertion that marriage is also an agreement to reject sex outside of that union?
Or is it a response to the assertion that when gays have children, they have the right to raise them?
If you are rejecting assertion 4, you might be the monster here, not gays. At least they don't want to take your children away from you!
You are scaring me here.
March 28, 2013 at 9:54 pm
Dear Lynda,
It appears that you have objective truth and objective falsehood confused. There are many same sex married couples already.
Same sex married couples exist just like homosexuals exist. The question then is what to do about them.
I propose we treat them as human beings. As human beings, they have certain rights. And a right to find someone to love, and to commit themselves to that one person they love are among those rights.
You cannot deny them that.
Two persons of the same sex cannot procreate. However, one gay person can procreate with a willing partner of the opposite sex.
A gay person who is also a child's mother or the child's father has as much right to raise that child as you do.
You cannot deny them that.
We know that gays exist and we know that they engage in sexual behaviors with one another. Surely, it is better for them, and better for the rest of us, that IF they choose to have such relations, that they conduct it in a monogamous relationship. Which is why they want to marry.
Lynda, I fear your hatred will lead you to propose taking child from parent. I fear your hatred will destroy you.
Find room in your heart to admit that gays are not monsters.
Be well, Lynda.
March 28, 2013 at 11:12 pm
Greetings to Donna M and Lynda:
I joined you in efforts to provide a better understanding of the truth to Walter and his fellow travelers, and perhaps others as well, but all of us have been treated to Walter's intentional and uncharitable mischaracterizations of our positions, purposely ignoring our direct questions (he never even tries to directly answer the ones I set forth), and his ongoing setting up of straw men arguments.
It is indeed wise to no longer engage him since he intentionally avoids an honest conversation, all the while accusing us of having attitudes toward homosexual people as people that we simply do not have. Let us pray that Walter finds the spiritual courage to engage others honestly in pursuit of the truth, which is what our Lord declared about Himself as well.
All the Best, God Bless, and Happy Easter.
DB
Omnia Vincit Veritas
March 29, 2013 at 12:45 am
Dear Anonymous,
You never told the truth here.
Mendacium est gladius tuus.