Townhall.com Janet M. LaRue December 22, 2006
Homosexuals continue to push for marriage equality but ‘resist’ polygamy.
In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the “repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.” So why aren’t homosexual activists leading the battle to legalize polygamy?
Maybe they’re smart enough to understand the visceral reaction most of us would feel if we knew their goal and playbook. Maybe the rest of us would get our backs up if we stopped believing it’s just about equal treatment of “two loving and committed same-sex couples.”
Alejandra Aguilar (L) and Antonieta Jimenez take part in a symbolic homosexual matrimony in a public square in Concepcion city, some 500 km (319 miles) south of Santiago, October 28, 2006. Gay rights activists gathered at the square to demonstrate against discrimination and to demand equal rights for homosexuals. REUTERS/Jose Luis Saavedra (CHILE)
Related Audio:
Maybe a whole lot of us need to care more about morality and the greater good of society and children in particular than we do about our self-centered obsessions about how “fair” and “loving” we’re perceived to be.
Consider just a few tidbits from major players:
At a [1999] conference at the University of London called “Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: A Conference on National European and International Law,” one of the main themes of discussion was whether marriage should exist at all. The attendees laid out strategies to circumvent each nation’s democratic process via the judicial system to force governments to sanction and accept same-sex marriage. There was open talk about ultimately abolishing marriage so adults could be free to pursue any sexual relationship they want with no legal restrictions whatsoever. (Alliance Defense Fund, “The Homosexual Agenda: Excerpt 2”: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/traditionalfamily/default.aspx?cid=3483).
It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us. (Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30).
“Generations of radicals have imagined a world in which the norm-making rules of matrimony are suspended. … Down the road, we might see groups of people sharing the custody of children. …” (Richard Goldstein, “The Radical Case for Gay Marriage,” Village Voice, Sept. 3-9, 2003, p. 34).
. . . more
With such people it’s useful to remember they are *not* after what normal couples have, they don’t want them to have it. This is not a ploy for “equality”, it is an attempt to abolish marriage. It’s the season for creche scenes, and this is a dog in the manger. Misery loves company. They want to share all they have.
Dear Bob:
First, sex is personal, it derives from ones’ own personal, mental gymnastics; beyond that, it becomes civil. In Europe and its extended civilization marriage is a civil contract first and than religous ceremony second. This is a construct from Roman law; there were many religions competing within the empire but only one law. One man and one wife marriage was considered for the progeny it bequeathed to the empire. The law applied to its citizens but many noncitizens followed suite to conform. Homosexuality and bisexuality existed but for the sake of the law they married a wife.
‘He was every woman’s man and every man’s woman.’, guess who; he was considered a great worrior and a great hetrosexual lover and could have been an emperor.
There are more cohabitating couples than married couples in the US, is that the new paradign? We also have the Common Law marriage for those who for some reason won’t go to the court.
Since we live in a elected democracy the majority rules, so go out and campaign for your beliefs. If the law legalizes abuse it is our own falt as it is now with the revised rule on Habeas Corpus.
J R Dittbrenner
Correction to JR –
The ‘extended civilization’ you mentioned did not extend to Russia and the East. In Russia, for example,
There is the famous scene in Anna Karenina when one of the protagonists has to go to Confession in order to get married. There was no civil marriage in the Russia of the Tsars. So he has to go, even though he is an affirmed athiest, there is no way around it. So he goes, and his encounter with a priest sets him on the road to returning to the faith.
In any case, in Russia and most Orthodox lands, there was no concept of marriage as a some kind of civic sacrament. The church owned marriage completely, just as it had in the Catholic West prior to the Protestant Reformation. Lots of common law arrangements were possible, but marriage itself was only for the church to dispense.
Glen-
If the U.S. adopted such a system, where marriage itself was only for churches to dispense, would you consider that to be “an attempt to abolish marriage” or a strengthening of marriage?
It would be the ideal for marriage. The state only adopted a role in marriage because of religious pluralism. If the state had no role in marriage, than this whole debate over ‘gay marriage’ would not exist.
Courtesy of the Reformation, the church and civil society were weakened to the benefit of state encroachment into formerly private (non-governmental) affairs.
I would prefer no state involvement in sacraments dispensed by the church. Just as the state can not dictate who receives the Eucharist or baptism, so would I prefer that the state had no business in marriage.
As Father Hans has pointed out, the current religious pluralism in the U.S. seems to dictate that the state play the role it has since the Reformation. If the state did not adjudicate marriage and divorce, then there is the problem of how to settle lawsuits arising from property disputes and child custody. These once were handled by Ecclesiastical Courts, which are now non-existant in ‘Christian’ countries.
I understand this, but still would prefer if Orthodox Theologians with a more libertarian bent would spend time exploring optional modes of organization for the only sacrament in which the government plays a role. Given the mess that our current arrangement has made of marriage, perhaps it is time for the traditional churches (Orthodox and Roman Catholic) to start pushing back and demanding more autonomy.
“It would be the ideal for marriage. The state only adopted a role in marriage because of religious pluralism. If the state had no role in marriage, than this whole debate over ‘gay marriage’ would not exist.”
Well, it would exist within churches, perhaps, but it would be irrelevant at the state level if there were no state marriage.
It almost sounds as though abolishing marriage and strengthening marriage can be accomplished with the same action(?)
Note 5. Glen writes:
What do you mean by this, Glen? Are you arguing that the state has no interest in the civic culture? I think it does and it has a necessary (although certainly proscribed) role regarding marriage. Given the prevalence of the victim mentality, any group can clamor for the “right” to marry given that in their way of thinking the absence of the legal sanction constitutes discrimination.
What am I missing here?
I can’t follow any of the comments in this thread, it reminds me of a bad Saturday Night Live routine. If I were you Father, I’d be tempted to wipe the whole thing out and start over. Gracious.
Michael writes: ” . . . I’d be tempted to wipe the whole thing out and start over.”
I would be interested to know how you would start over, and how you feel the discussion should proceed. Marriage is an area in which the interests of the state and church intersect, and which has a history extending from the Old Testament unto today. How would you start the discussion? I’m not trying to pick an argument here; I just want to understand your position.
Its not the topic, its the bizarre, twisting, disjointed comments from people who are normally reasonably articulate. Maybe that just reflects the sorry state of understanding and consensus on the whole topic. I’ve looked several times to see if there was anything to be said, but in the context of the thread as it exists, any attempt would only make it worse. So I say with the Queen of Hearts, Off with their heads!
Michael writes: “So I say with the Queen of Hearts, Off with their heads!”
Ok, heads are off, the floor is yours. Now what? I’m interested. Speak thou.
Father and Phil –
The traditional model in Orthodox nations was that marriage and family law were the exclusive domains of the Church. The state took no role other than to support the church in its endeavors. Marriage began to weaken precisely when this model was abandoned and it became possible to wed in a civic fashion devoid of any involvement with religion. This was a direct result of religious pluralism.
From the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives, this was a tragedy. The state never should have been involved, other than to support the rights of the Church to administer family life. To give some examples, the state did not play a role in marriage in Russia until after 1918. Cyprus did not initiate civil marriage until 1923. Lebanon still does not have civil marriage, a situation which is supported by the majority of Orthodox Christians in the nation.
How about Greece?
Civil marriage was introduced into Greek law in 1982.
This is not to say that the state does not have a compelling interest in strong families and happy marriages. This is only to acknowledge what the Orthodox world already knew, but seems to have forgotten. State sanction alone is powerless to bless a marriage. Without the religious underpinning provided by sacramental union, marriage is practically meaningless, as the statistics on divorce make clear.
Orthodox in the United States, and increasingly Orthodox everywhere, seem to be embracing the model which believes a marriage is valid because the state says so. This is a false model. A marriage is valid because God, acting through His church, says so. The involvement of the state in administering marriage is not the ideal condition. Rather, the involvement of the state in marriage is a direct result of religious pluralism. And this involvement is proving increasingly onerous, as the current problems with ‘same sex’ marriage and plural marriage clearly attest. Now that the state thinks it has the sole right to solemnize a union as ‘marriage,’ we are witnessing the state flexing its muscles.
This is not something to be celebrated. Rather, it is something we should be striving to correct. In a non-religiously plural environment (Serbia, Romania, Greece), the Orthodox Church should be strongly opposing the granting of marriage by the state and should be vocal in returning to the traditional methods of family law.
In religiously mixed states such as the U.S., the Orthodox need to keep sight of our past and understand that our current cultural anarchy is not to be celebrated as some kind of ideal, but rather is a condition we should be striving to correct.
I will write more later (have to take my daughter to school) but I have a different take on this. Marriage exists within the order of creation, that is, it precedes even the establishment of the Church. The Church recognizes, affirms, teaches, sanctions, etc. this divine ordering, but marriage itself is woven and written into the fabric of creation. It is not that outside of the Church marriage does not exist, but that the Church — the Gospel really, reveals the true nature of marriage. Marriage, IOW, goes back to Adam and Eve.
Dear Glen:
You are right, I did not include the ‘Orthodox Countries’.
The Roman Empire extended to the Maramures-northwest Romania-in the year 101 under the Emperior Traian. That left Russia out, so to speak. There were no Christians in that area at the date. The Roman marriages would predate the comming of Christianity; therefor the contract.
Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner
The real problem with societal approval of homosexual behavior does not lie so much with the behavior itself but the deeper question of the nature of humanity. We are unmistakably physical. Sexuality is an integral part of our physical nature–the desire for union an integral part of our spiritual nature. That does not mean that all expressions of sexuality or desire for union are equivalent or healthy. Those pressing for societal approval of homosexual behavior have as one of their assumptions that all behavior is equivalent. Egalitarianism is not a philosophy that leads to stable, growing cultures. It leads to tyranny and anarchy. For a culture to be strong and vital it has to have a hierarchy of values that are generally accepted within the culture and enforced either by law, by societal pressure or both. Homosexuality even from a utilitarian standard produces no good for society, it is a violation of the basic form of our bodies, and from a spiritual standpoint is quite damaging to the soul. I fail to see any reasonable criteria by which homosexuality should be given any kind of societal approval.
Any hierarchy of values means that certain people who choose not to abide by that hierarchy will be “marginalized”. There is nothing wrong with that per se. It is simply part of the order of society. That can and should be changed when that order can be shown to be injurious to the society itself or a direct violation of fundamental humanity. The argument for placing homosexuality in such a category is founded upon the assertion that not only is sexuality in general an intrinsic part of being human, but homosexuality specifically is intrinsic to the fundamental humanity of those with homosexual desires. Again, I find no reasonable criteria by which such an assertion is true. Once the assertion is made for homosexuals and begins to be accepted, however, it does not take long to get to the idea than any and all forms of sexual expression are intrinsic to personhood and therefore ought not to be curtailed or “marginalized”.
Society has a fundamental right to establish and regulate human sexual expression, even heterosexual expression. The question should be to what extent and by what criteria such judgments should be made and how they should be enforced. Without such an understanding and agreement any discussion of what constitutes marriage is sure to degenerate into the type of muddled mess illustrated by earlier posts in this thread.
Note 15- “Those pressing for societal approval of homosexual behavior have as one of their assumptions that all behavior is equivalent.” / “Once the assertion is made for homosexuals and begins to be accepted, however, it does not take long to get to the idea than any and all forms of sexual expression are intrinsic to personhood and therefore ought not to be curtailed or ‘marginalized’.”
Without getting into a long and drawn-out discussion about the politics of sexuality and homosexuality per se, I wanted to clarify your use of the terms “all behavior” and “all forms of sexual expression.” Would you acknowledge that the vast majority of homosexuals and the vast majority of those on the left would only go so far as to say that “all consenting behavior between persons” is equivalent?
I think it was Malcolm Muggeridge who said that sex was the sacrament of the materialist. It’s a wise insight. Sexuality, because it’s an integrative dynamic, that is, it integrates body and mind (physicality, psychology, emotion, even — and especially — the spiritual dimension although the materialist is often blind to this), becomes the locus of self-identity when only the self is the final reference for purpose and meaning.
That’s where the idea that sexual “orientation” is a cornerstone of self-identity comes from, and one of the reasons why some divide society into homosexual and heterosexual camps.
Phil, unfortunately I have to answer no. A majority is probably accurate, but a “vast” majority at least for those to whom it is poltically important is not at all accurate. There are many who fail to see that sex with children is harmful. Look at all of the sexcapades in the schools. Just because the victim is a young male, often the rape is not considered to be a crime. Fr. Hans has written eleoquently on the sexualization of our children. It will only get worse and more heinous with homosexuality added to the mix.
From I Loved A Girl by Walter Trobisch
…
Homosexual sex can never be a giving it is simply impossible. It is always a taking no matter what other emotions are or are not involved.
Note 17-
I’ve come to understand that you use “materialist” not just in the colloquial sense of “a person focused on acquiring worldly goods” but a person who believes that everything can be explained in terms of physical phenomena. It seems that materialists could also be criticized for _trivializing_ sex and sexuality, e.g., “casual sex” and the notion of “friends with benefits.”
The Orthodox, on the other hand, assign a great deal of importance and value to sex. For example, vegetarianism or “espousing vegetarian beliefs” could be said to be against natural law, but one seldom reads essays decrying the place of vegetarians in our culture. Conservative Christians may say that homosexual sex will lead to the downfall of civilization, but the average gay couple is wont to say, “We’re pretty much just like anybody else, except for the sex part.”
It would seem more accurate to say that materialists view “sexual orientation” as an innate part of identity which should be treated as inconsequential, whereas Orthodox/spiritualists view sexual orientation as either a core part of being (a man must cling to his wife) or as a personal challenge (a man who is attracted to another man must at all costs avoid acting on that attraction).
It’s not that religious non-materialists don’t believe in sexual orientation, it’s that they think everyone has, or should have, the same one. To test that theory, go to fifty high schools, colleges, and military bases and tell a thousand random Orthodox Christian men that you think they’re gay. If you’re lucky, they’ll correct you and tell you that they’re straight. And “straight” is the most common sexual orientation, in almost anybody’s book.
A materialist believes nothing exists beyond the material dimension of life. What you can touch, see, taste, etc. is all there is. When you die (when the body ceases to function), that’s it. You essentially slip back into nothingness.
Materialism then, necessarily elevates the body. After all, what is there besides the body if nothing exists except what you can taste, see, smell, and in this case feel? Again, since sexuality is an integrative dynamic, that is it incorporates the physical, emotion, psychological, etc., it becomes the most powerful way a materialist can assure himself he is human, something higher than an animal. (The desire for assurance is actually a longing of the soul but the materialist remains blind to this.)
“I rut, therefore I am” has become the materialist creed. Sex takes on a (misplaced) religious dimension. Hence Muggeridge’s comment that for the materialist, sex is a “sacrament”.
Note 21-
Do any materialists concur with this “reading” of their beliefs, or is this an entirely other-directed interpretation?
I think your understanding of their focus seems off, because a materialist doesn’t necessarily believe that they _must_ believe what they do; rather, their materialist views seem to them to be the most likely explanation of the facts at their disposal. So, whereas someone who follows the Orthodox faith is driven to believe what they do because they also believe they could be damned or punished if they don’t, the materialist has no such supernatural incentive.
You suggest that something must necessarily be elevated to “compete with” the supernatural in their worldviews. I don’t see evidence that that is really the case.
Take a look at the definition and explanation at Wikipedia (it’s pretty good):
Not exactly. I am saying that the assertion that the universe (and thus man) consists only of matter doesn’t make it so. Man has a soul (an assertion that materialists disparage as “idealism”) whether or not he recognizes it. His behaviors and choices are driven by deep longings and desires resting in the soul — the foundation of which is ultimately a longing for God.
From a philosophical standpoint, materialism can be both a philosophy and a non-philosophy, and there are no “requirements” that materialist philosophy must be universally applied. You treat it like it’s an alternate religion, but in truth, there is no consequence for a materialist who believes that the universe consists only of matter, or one who believes that the universe behaves as if it consists only of matter because supernatural forces choose not to intercede.
For the Orthodox, on the other hand, the philosophy is supposed to be all-encompassing. So, it doesn’t always work when you draw parallels between materialism and Orthodox beliefs. Where Orthodox Christians believe that they must hold their beliefs on pain of a fate worse than death, materialist beliefs can be held casually, fervently, half-assed, partially, etc. A materialist could believe only in things that have been thus far proven to exist, but hold out for the possibility that his views could change based on new information. An Orthodox Christian must maintain his beliefs in the face of new information (unless a miracle occurs), because nothing can “disprove” the existence of the soul, God, angels, hell, etc.
Phil writes: “From a philosophical standpoint, materialism can be both a philosophy and a non-philosophy, and there are no “requirements” that materialist philosophy must be universally applied.”
Or applied at all. Terms such as “materialism” can be useful in broadly categorizing certain kinds of beliefs. But that doesn’t entail that certain people with beliefs falling in that category function only within a materialist viewpoint.
Most people operate without consciousness of any particular worldview. For example, homosexual couples who want to marry are faced with a number of mundane and practical issues — Social Security and retirement survivor benefits, end of life decisions, estates, taxes, property rights, etc. — which are more or less automatically taken care of for married people, but for which same sex couples have to make special provision, when that is even possible. Obviously, for these people, some of whom have been together for years or decades, marriage would make everything a lot easier, and would legally clarify the existing reality of their situations.
But Fr. Hans wants to make this a battle of the worldviews, materialism vs. Christianity, secularism vs. religion, and so on. Rather than looking at the mundane practicalities involved, he wants to transact this issue in the highfalutin’ currency of worldview and philosophy.
Phil: “An Orthodox Christian must maintain his beliefs in the face of new information (unless a miracle occurs), because nothing can “disprove” the existence of the soul, God, angels, hell, etc.”
Well, yes, and this also extends to social issues. Here is a simple question for the Orthodox and other religious right folks who hang out here: what evidence would you accept as showing that same-sex marriage was in fact not damaging to society? Imagine, for example, that a major Western country legalized same-sex marriage, and that over a period of 50 years the birthrate didn’t drop, the divorce rate remained constant, the economy did well, the crime rate didn’t go up, and in general, nothing bad happened. Would THAT be sufficient evidence?
Jim, you give utilitarian examples and expect a utilitarian response to a question that is ontological or at least should be. It is unhealthy for a culture to have an ontology that is radically different from reality–such disease will likely result in negative utilitarian outcomes. We can in fact see many of those negatives as a result of the bad ontology already active in our culture that posits sexual restraint and monogamy even for heterosexuals as either unhealthy or impossible. Here we return to the idea of sex as sacrament prevalent in the modern mind.
Mankind’s sexual nature is removed from its proper context and function becoming an end in itself. Based upon such a flawed ontology we see marriages failing, the sexualization of children both from an activity standpoint and as permissible sexual objects, abortion, the increase of abuse against women because they are so devalued as persons, the list goes on and on. The push for homosexual “marriage” is just a logical extension of an already existing flawed ontology. Whether such an extension in and of itself will further the erosion of our culture or speed up the negative effects already existing, no one can tell. If it does not, such a lack does not provide any evidence that the ontology that supports homosexual “marriage” is correct.
Orthodox ontology prohibits the possibility that homosexuality is not corrosive to both those who practice it and the culture at large if it is given societal approval. Orthodox ontology began with the Incarnation and continues through the teaching of the Apostles and the living spiritual experience of the saints for over 2000 years. It is not man-made doctrine that results in a rule that must be followed. It is an integral part of the God/Man, Jesus Christ.
It is part of the function of the Church to proclaim and live by such wisdom applying that wisdom in love and mercy. Apathy to activities that are spiritually deadly is not Christian but results from a hardened and darkened heart. The Church and those in her do not always live up to our calling. Such human failing does not change the truth.
But what you’re saying is that Orthodox ontology presupposes that homosexuality is harmful to its practitioners and the culture, and that no new information could change that belief.
Materialist beliefs can be changed or proven wrong if new information or evidence arises that conflicts with previously held beliefs. Note that this new information need not be wholly materialistic: I, for example, would convert immediately to Orthodox Christianity if I were to observe an indisputable miracle which illustrated to me the Truth of such doctrine. Something outside of my worldview could persuade me to change it. I could also change my beliefs about punctuated equilibrium if new fossil evidence, or even a new logical interpretation of the evidence, were to surface. So something within the confines of materialism could also persuade me to change my beliefs.
What you’re saying, Michael, is that your worldview is true because it is true. So where I, and so-called “materialists,” can examine our beliefs from the perspective of “What if this weren’t true,” I get the impression that you don’t even think you’re allowed to consider whether your beliefs are untrue. They are true because they are true. That’s fine, but why should a state base its policy on such reasoning?
This is not to say that your beliefs are necessarily wrong. I happen to think that some of them may be, but I don’t support a state policy that would prevent you from holding your beliefs, stating them publicly, or marrying according to them.
You make a false prediction: that homosexual marriage will lead to the corrosion of society. It’s false because even you don’t really believe that there will be a consequence that everyone will be able to perceive. You acknowledge that even if there are no indicators that support your prediction, you will still maintain that it was “corrosive” in ways that cannot be observed. It is corrosive because it is corrosive, not because of any other factor.
You point to a happy couple and say they are not happy. Evidence to the contrary matters not. They might claim to be happy, and they might have no observable reason to be unhappy. They might, in fact, be very much in love with each other. But that information is immaterial to you. They are not in love because they are not in love.
If you were married, and someone told you that you did not love your wife, and that she did not love you, because that’s not love, you would probably think that person to be colossally arrogant.
I think Phil and Jim are missing the point. Phil writes:
When Michael, myself, and others speak of materialism, idealism, the soul, etc, we are not talking about a system through which data, experience, etc. is analyzed. We are talking about the foundational assumptions (beliefs really, and yes all knowledge is predicated on belief about how the universe is ordered, who God is and is not, what is means to be human, etc.) that shape and inform that system, be it materialist, “idealist”, whatever it may be. Don’t confuse materialism with rationality. They are two different things.
As for the discourse on homosexual love and happiness, all the promises from the 1960’s onward about personal and societal bliss that would result when traditional sexual mores were jettisoned have exacted a terrible cost. Why should we believe yours?
Sounds more like political correctness than clear thinking to me.
Unprotected: Sexual freedom is damaging to students
Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids
Homosexuality and the Corruption of a Culture: San Francisco is only the beginning
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
Note 25. Jim writes:
One idea is confused here and another needs clarification.
First off, the question underlying homosexuality is anthropological, ie: what is a human person, what constitutes normal and abnormal sexuality, what constitutes family, is family merely a sociological definition or does the psychology of the developing child require a stricter definition, etc. etc. Asking the culture to jettision a two thousand year moral tradition because gay partners have a few bureaucratic hurdles to jump to get their inheritance and hospital visitation issues worked out doesn’t make much sense. Sentimentalized notions of love don’t cut it either. We need a bit more reflection on this question that what we find on Oprah.
Secondly, I have no problem with gays wanting to establish legal contracts that secure inheritance, visitation, whatever. We don’t need to legally redefine marriage to grant this however.
BTW, parents, understand that if gay marriage becomes legal, the next step is to introduce safe-sodomy sex education in the schools. Sound alarmist? It shouldn’t. The goal here is the moral legitimization of homosexuality, and the courts will compel every tax-payer funded institution to comply with the pro-homosexual agenda.
Note 24. Phil writes:
You don’t understand the point so let me try again. First of all, forget the term universe. Look instead within yourself. If a person does not believe that anything supernatural exists (forget God for the moment), then the only thing that is “real” is the material (matter), ie: the things you can touch, taste, smell, feel, etc.
Materialism, IOW, does not mean rationality, or the scientific method, or any other such thing. It means that the way a person determines what is true, what his values should be, what constitutes beauty or goodness — in short all the constituents that separate man from the animals — has no referent, no source, outside of himself.
The strongest material thing a person possesses is his body. The body is matter, a person “lives” inside it so to speak. And, since the body is the strongest material possession, what the body feels becomes the ground of a person’s self identity. Further, sexuality, because it is such a strong and integrative dynamic that is experienced within the body, is seen then as the dominant determinant of self-identity.
If you really want to understand this further, read Robert P. George’s Clash Of Orthodoxies: Law Religion & Morality In Crisis, especially the first chapter. It’s a dense read, but if you struggle through it, you will understand these questions better than you do now.
Are you making the claim, then, Jacobse, that all homosexual couples are unhappy? That all homosexual couples are unhealthy? What is the broad, sweeping generalization that you’re trying to make here?
I recall making no personal claims to you in the 1960s, and while I don’t advocate that all persons should engage in premarital sex, I also don’t think it should be criminalized. It seems to me that the push for legal homosexual marriage is, at heart, a conservative movement. Gays and lesbians in America realize that, like every other human being in the country who is in a committed relationship, they would be happier if they commit to their partner, if they give themselves fully. The protections that our society affords marriage protect far more than just the children of a marriage (as you’ve heard many times, we permit infertile couples to marry). Marriage itself is a strong disincentive to promiscuity. As we age, health care issues and death issues become important.
And what about children? No one is suggesting that married homosexual couples be allowed to break into the homes of heterosexual couples and steal their kids. And I have yet to hear you suggest any kind of legislation making it a crime for unmarried people to become pregnant, or to get someone pregnant. So we’ve got a country where, yes, some gay couples are raising children. What is it that you think is best for the child being raised by two lesbians? Should they be ripped from their home and given to heterosexuals? Isn’t everyone agreed that marriage is good for children?
So, if you’re really concerned about sexual morality, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, and the welfare of children, you would be vocally supporting legal gay marriage: it lends stability to relationships, and it provides protections for actual children.
Note 31.
No, I am saying that your discourse on love is not a sufficient apologetic for jettisoning the moral tradition given the price people have paid in other areas where that tradition has been attacked, ie: teen sex, marital fidelity, etc. Read the links I provided.
Why would you make this a crime? Social taboos would work, but unfortunately those taboos were attacked and destroyed from the 1960’s forward resulting in an epidemic of fatherless children. Hardly a sign of progress if you ask me.
How this relates to homosexual marriage is a bit unclear though. I am not arguing that homosexual coupling be criminalized, just not legalized as a marriage.
No it doesn’t. All it does is undermine traditional marriage even further.
Smoking Gun: The Netherlands Shows the Effect of Same-Sex Marriage
Note 32-
You posted this link as if it means something:
Now, I tend to think that posting links in the middle of an online discussion is a tactic used by people who can’t support their own claims. (See above–did you really think I should read Danielle Crittenden’s book to understand your blog post?)
But I read the article by Stanley Kurtz, which is a strange and fallacious justification for same-sex marriage opposition.
First, as Kurtz acknowledges, the Dutch passed a registered partnership law in 1997 (well, 1998, but at least he was close.) This was a marriage compromise–it did not give same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, and, importantly, it allowed heterosexuals to enter into “registered partnerships.” Those heterosexual registered couples who subsequently had children are included in Kurtz’s statistic of “out-of-wedlock births.”
Further, Kurtz ignores the fact that the Netherlands’ rate of out-of-wedlock births increased faster before same-sex marriage was legal. As the following link explains, the rate actually doubled between 1982 and 1986. Now it rises, as Kurtz claims, at a rate of 2.5% a year.
http://www.marriagedebate.com/2006/06/smoking-gun-or-misfired.htm
Could we examine that data and conclude that same-sex marriage helped slow the rate at which Dutch couples had out-of-wedlock births? We could, but then we’d be guilty of the same cockamamie “post hoc proper hoc” fallacy that Kurtz employs.
So, Jacobse, do you really believe Kurtz’s argument, or were you just posting that so that you and I could join together in making fun of what a poor writer and morally bankupt individual Stanley Kurtz is?
Phil: You say:
You imply that I believe what I believe simply because I am a mindless, naive, automaton. In actuality, I question my beliefs everyday. I have found that the Orthodox Church encourages such questioning. Mary herself asked, “How can this be?” I arrived at my acceptance of the fundamental reality revealed in the Church after 20 years of testing, experimentation, contemplation and experience. Twenty years later, I am still doing essentially the same thing by attempting to penetrate the mystery of our existence and God’s love for us within the Church. During those forty years, I have tested, by thought experiment or actual involvement, many of the major classical heresies plus the mind of modernity and the perversity it offers. When I compare the results with the testimony of the saints, the rationality of the Patristic writings and their penetrating wisdom–what is outside the Church comes up wanting and not just by a little bit.
Twenty years later (twenty years ago), I became a bride of the Church. In the twenty years that have followed, I have not always been as faithful as I should have been–that is called sin. However, the reality of it is that I always return because of the beauty, grace, forgiveness and transformation that I find in the Church.
I have found the teaching of the Church to be authentic because I have said, “What happens when I pray the way the Church teaches”; “What happens if I attend and participate in the official sacraments of the Church with a prepared and open heart”. I find that the results of my experiments are congruent with those described in riveting detail by the saints throughout the ages. Although since the ingredients in my experiments are not as pure, the results are not identical.
All rational thought begins with assumptions, i.e, beliefs that are true because they are true. The question is if one follows what develops from those assumptions what are the results. The 2000-year testimony of the Church is that if one follows the Church with consistency and effort, goodness is the result and the promises are fulfilled. By the same token when compared to the results achieved by any line of thought outside the Church promises are unfulfilled, and the results are dismal. Does it not mean at least something to you that Orthodox anthropology has thrived essentially unchanged for 2000 years despite constant attempts by worldly philosophers, oppressive tyrants, and ordinary human fraility to defeat it?
I am sure you will disagree, but I have a strength you do not appear to have. I have tried both. The difference is not one of mind or philosophy; it penetrates to the very core of being where communion with God is eternal and love of others is actually possible, not self-serving love, but genuine kenoticism. There love is not mere sentimentalism or the commitment of will, but shared being. Such dimension is beyond the thought and the limited reality of the merely human mind. They are depths that I have occasionally touched in the most outermost of their extent but touched enough to know they are there. It is not a journey I embarked upon lightly, it is a rough and painful one at times.
Those same depths are available to anyone who wishes to follow the map to where they lie. It is a narrow, rocky road and it is all too easy to loose one’s way without the proper map or to be lured into seemingly nice wayside inns where one is beaten robbed and raped, I know this because both have happened to me, especially the lure of the inns. There are many counterfeit maps.
Those who refuse to begin the journey, mocking all those who do set out with jeers of “You are on a fools errand” will never know. Far worse are those who start in hope, but with one of those counterfeit maps and go astray. They return to the world, beaten, scared and bitter vowing never to try again. They cry out in the anger of their pain to all those on the way what fools they are for they too will end up maimed and disillusioned. These are also wrong, and their wounds will not heal until they find a good map and follow it once again.
All states reflect the prevailing understanding of humanity in society that most of its citizens share knowingly or unknowingly. Change the prevailing anthropology, the policies will change. Without a change in anthropology, no amount of well intentioned public policy will be anything other than a band aid at best and will often become a destructive device. Simply advocating even appropriate policy without also communicating the anthropological understanding that acompanies it does no good.
It is my contention that the sexual politics of the last 40 years have gone along way to destroying the traditional anthroplogy upon which the good things of our culture have been built. A policy that recognizes homosexual “marriage” is one more step in the total destruction of that anthropological foundation. The results will not be pleasant.
The trouble with your reasoning, Phil is that it attempts to juggle effects without ever once considering genuine causes. A philosophy that is oreinted solely or mainly to the physical will go no deeper, will never uncover causes but be trapped forever in the ever changing universe of effect, a universe with no permanence so that it will always come down to what will allow me to survive a day longer must be right.
Note 32: Phil writes:
I post links for three reasons: 1) to show that many of the ideas you presented have been debated elsewhere; 2) to save time by not having to unpack many of your assumptions, and 3) to recommend good articles to readers interested in the debate. And no, I don’t think you need to read Crittenden (although it might help), but you should be familiar with the arguments. Reading a review or two would introduce you to them.
As for Kurz (noticed you posted a link, BTW), he responded to the critique but I can’t find it (read it but did not book mark it). In any case, look up his exchanges with Andrew Sullivan. Same debate, same ideas. Things are not as certain as you want to hope.
I believe Kurtz’s argument. Legalizing gay marriage will just weaken marriage. This notion that gay marriage will reduce gay promiscuity and strengthen traditional marriage, well, just strikes me as foolish.
BTW, Kurtz is an accomplished writer. As for “morally bankrupt”, why charge him with this? Is it because he disagrees with you?
Phil writes: “But I read the article by Stanley Kurtz, which is a strange and fallacious justification for same-sex marriage opposition.”
In my experience and observation, the right-wing “real-world” arguments against same-sex marriage don’t pan out. I’ve been in the data analysis business for over twenty years, and a lot of this right-wing stuff is just nonsense. It’s bad analysis, and it typically shows up in the Wall Street Journal, Heritage Foundation, National Review, or Focus on the Family, and is intended for the consumption of the Faithful. It’s so bad that no one else will publish it. It virtually never shows up in peer-reviewed journals. As you mention, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies are common. It’s propaganda, intended for people who don’t know any better, designed to give the right-wing arguments a patina of legitimacy.
Phil: “Materialist beliefs can be changed or proven wrong if new information or evidence arises that conflicts with previously held beliefs. Note that this new information need not be wholly materialistic . . . ”
Yes, yes, yes. I am not a “materialist.” But where religious beliefs are tested against the material world and found wanting (history, for example) the religious belief needs to take that into account. An appeal to “faith” is not enough. When people go to the doctor, they want evidence. When their cars are in the shop, they want evidence. When they hire a plumber, they want evidence. We shouldn’t carve out a special exception for religion.
Michael writes: “In actuality, I question my beliefs everyday. I have found that the Orthodox Church encourages such questioning.”
I’m confused here. As I understand it, in order to be a member in good standing, and in order to participate in the eucharist, a person has to have a number of very specific beliefs about both social and theological issues. Even in this venue, certain people are called heretics and apostates because they don’t have the “right opinions.” In many discussions, the ultimate trump card and argument-winner is to exclaim that someone’s understanding is “not orthodox” — even for those who are members of the Orthodox church. In what sense does all of this constitute “encouragement” for asking questions? If keeping your head down so it doesn’t get shot off is encouragement, then I guess there is encouragement.
And this to me is the reason why Orthodoxy will never be a significant force in the U.S. In my observation of Orthodoxy, one has to accept the Whole Package. I mean Everything. There is no room for doubt. There is certainly no room for dissent. So Orthodox believers are either
1) those few who meet those belief requirements, typically enthusiastic converts, or
2) those who have no problems because they don’t think about the issues anyway. In other words, a marginal Christian who accepted everything in Orthodoxy because he never thought about anything would be a member in good standing, but Albert Schweitzer would be rejected because he had the “wrong beliefs.” Something wrong with that.
Notes:
Albert Schweitzer: 1875-1965. He was an ‘elsässischer evangelischer theologe’. ‘Evangelischer’ is in Germany a ‘high church’-for the US-Luthern. Some of his writings: “die Mystik des Apostels Paulus”-’62, “Christentum und die Weltreligionen” and “History of the life of Jesus”. His beliefs would have a correlation to the Orthodox.
‘Safe Sodomy’-in the lower bowel there are a series of valves-Valves of Houston- that only work downward. When forced to move backward-upward in the track- they tear and bleed. This was the reason how the virus was propagated. I was working in the General Hospital in San Francisco at the time of the onset of HIV & Aids. After the destruction, I guess, the track is wide open.
Theology is the meditation and study upon belief., that is why we have such activity in the church.
Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner
Note 36. Jim, let’s pretend all your points are true, ie: moral conservatives are neanderthals, Christians are ignorant, intolerant, etc. etc. — you know the drill.
These are still not reasons to legally sanction gay couplings. So far the only reasons you and Phil have provided is that because they “love” each other the law should be rewritten to grant them marriage status. IOW, marriage is nothing more than question of civil rights. But again, a polygamist claims the same right. Should we grant it? Why not? What about a brother and sister?
There are several reasons that gays should be allowed to marry in this country, among them:
1.) Current law discriminates based on gender. A man in this country has a right (to marry a woman) that no woman enjoys, and vice versa.
2.) Current law discriminates based on genetics. Although most people are born XX or XY, many people exhibit external characteristics of their non-genotypic gender. Further, many Americans are born XXY or XXXY. This chromosomal difference is used, without basis, to legally deny some people rights enjoyed by others with different chromosomes.
3.) Current law discriminates against couples based on sexual orientation. Two hypothetical pairs of individuals, all four of whom have had their genitals obliviated by land mines, could be indistinguishable in every legal way except that a straight couple can marry and a gay couple cannot. That is, even if you physically eliminate every meaningful difference between all four individuals–if circumstance were to eliminate a woman’s uterus, her breasts, her vagina, and every sex characteristic of three males as well, the law would still allow one couple to marry and forbid the other.
4.) Current law creates legal confusion and obstacles as some couples engage in interstate travel. Because the legal definition of “male” and “female” is set by the state, a small but not insignificant number of couples will have their marriages voided if they move to a different state. The “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution was intended to eliminate just such confusion, but was contradicted by Congress with the “Defense of Marriage Act.”
Gay and lesbian persons and couples are citizens. They pay taxes which currently support a system which discriminates against them to the benefit of other couples.
Further, it can be argued that:
A.) In the event of legal discrimination, the burden of proof is on the discriminator. So, in the event of a law which holds that “Women may not be granted driver licenses,” the onus is not on women to prove why they should be allowed to drive, it’s on their opponents to prove why they shouldn’t. A law which holds that “a woman may not marry a woman” cannot deem it self-evident why a woman should be denied a right that a man holds; a rational basis must be presented for the law.
As regards polygamy and incest (and let’s bring up bestiality while we’re engaging in slippery-slope fallacies, why not?), it is a stretch, at best, to suggest that gender is no different than quantity or family relationship.
The purpose of civil marriage is not “the joining of souls,” that is left to the individuals and their church. The nature and purpose of marriage is not solely to raise children; rather, a marriage provides an automatic legal answer to a number of questions. Many of these questions involve children, and many of them do not. They include: Who shall care for my children if I die or become incapacitated? Who shall inherit my estate if I die? Who shall make legal decisions for me if I become incapacitated?
In the U.S., other questions that marriage provides an automatic legal answer to include: Who is considered to be legally connected to me such that they cannot be compelled to testify against me in some cases? With whom can I pay taxes in conjunction? Who can I divorce if my marriage becomes problematic?
In the case of a polygamous marriage, the answer to all of these questions is unclear. The marriage does not provide an answer for the aforementioned list of questions.
Thus, the failure of the state to provide a legal structure for polygamous unions is not parallel to their failure to allow men to marry men, for example. Currently, the state provides a legal structure for couples to marry, and some individuals are prevented from marrying another particular individual based on gender, and _only_ on gender. Nothing else. The state provides no such structure for multiple-partner unions for any citizen in the country; in that sense, they are treating all citizens equally.
The case against brother-sister unions is an interesting one. The state argues that incestuous relationships create greater potential for birth defects, and while that is persuasive, it could also be disproven. It can also be argued that family members already have a recognized legal relationship (brother and sister), which the state recognizes and which supercedes a marital relationship. A marriage contract can be dissolved, but a brother-sister relationship cannot be ended legally.
Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States has held, and most citizens believe in their hearts, that marriage is a fundamental right. A law which creates a distinction based on a trait, be it gender, sexual orientation, or genetics, must meet a standard of “reasonableness” to be a fair law. There are no compelling, rational, legal reasons to bar same-sex couples from marrying.
Fr. Hans writes: “Jim, let’s pretend all your points are true, ie: moral conservatives are neanderthals, Christians are ignorant, intolerant, etc. etc. — you know the drill.”
I don’t think they are neanderthals or ignorant. But they have a system of belief in which in most cases no evidence could ever change a belief. When they try to make a case with data, it doesn’t help if the analysis is of poor quality. I agree that rationality isn’t everything, but it is important, and I believe it is wrong to exclude important beliefs from rational considerations.
Fr. Hans: “These are still not reasons to legally sanction gay couplings. So far the only reasons you and Phil have provided is that because they “love” each other the law should be rewritten to grant them marriage status. IOW, marriage is nothing more than question of civil rights.”
Recently, a friend told me about a conversation that he had with his 23 year old son. They were talking about various moral and political issues. At one point the kid said “Abortion is a hard issue, and will always be around. But dad, when you and your generation have died off, gay marriage will not be an issue.”
When I was growing up, I don’t recall ever hearing about homosexuality. It was never discussed anywhere. The only thing was Liberace, but I just thought he was funny and flamboyant. Where I grew up homosexuals weren’t in the closet; they simply weren’t. No doubt there were homosexuals, but they were so far underground that they essentially didn’t exist.
There is a growing concensus in the country that homosexual behavior is not wrong in and of itself. Today knowledge of homosexuality is common, and homosexuality is frequently in the media. I have gay and lesbian coworkers, and no one thinks anything about it. Nobody I know thinks that homosexuals intentionally “choose” to be homosexuals. Personally, I don’t know what causes it, and I don’t understand it, but to me it is no more of an issue than someone being left- or right-handed.
In short, other than sexual orientation, homosexuals seem to be in every way like everyone else. So it seems strange to me that one of my gay or lesbian coworkers could be in a committed relationship for years, and if one partner were in the hospital the other partner might legally have no more relationship to that person than any bum walking in off the street. Or if one partner died, the other might not be able to receive the balance of the deceased partner’s pension. And so on.
Perhaps such things do not bother you, but for me it is a simple matter of allowing my neighbor to have the same benefits and options that I have.
Note 39. Phil writes:
and responds with the argument that it is just not fair that gays can’t get married. Well, they can get married, but not to members of their own sex.
Sexual orientation apparently nullifies this argument. But should it? Does the two thousand year tradition posting that marriage should be open to members of the opposite sex derive from some discriminatory impulse only recently discovered, or are the other reasons?
Clearly the most compelling reason is that marriage is for the raising of children, and children need a mom and dad. I’m not going to go into an elaborate defense of traditional marriage here since this is self-evident to most people, especially parents, as the overwhelming resistance to gay marriage by the electorate reveals. Most people recognize something intrinsically wrong with the gay arrangement that all the arguments about discrimination just can’t reach.
Nature tells us something too here. Homosexuality is biologically closed to the creation of new life, and no amount of sophistry (or technology) changes this elementary fact. And, if biology is not as removed from notions of personhood and self-identity that gender neutralists would have us believe, this biological reality also conforms to notions of masculinity and feminity that lie deeper within us. Perhaps this explains some of the viseral reaction against homosexuals attempting to replicate heterosexual unions by those who don’t experience same sex attraction. (It would be interest too to find out how many non-politicized homosexuals really think it is a good idea.)
It’s unfortunate that the gay rights lobby hitched their wagon to the black struggle for equal rights because it ultimately diminishes the nobility of the Civil Rights Movement. Many Blacks resent the connection as they should. But, today you can make a civil rights case against almost any law that discriminates between people as the homosexual marriage crowd, the polyamorphous crowd, the Nambla crowd, etc. all reveal.
The law of course does not arise in a vacuum. Law draws from culture and the moral narrative that informs it. And clearly, that gay marriage laws are imposed on culture by civil bureaucrats or judges and then uniformly rejected by the populace shows that the law is being manipulated in order to force gay marriage on a society that does not want it.
All the arguments about fairness, equal rights, discrimination, etc. just don’t speak to the moral unease people feel about homosexual marriage. While most people won’t object to a homosexual partnering when they encounter it, sanctioning that partnering as socially favorable and on a moral and cultural par with traditional marriage is something that deep down, does not fit. Nor should it.
Jim writes:
No one is arguing this. Anyone should be able to take care of anyone else. Marriage, however, should remain only for opposite sex couples.
Note 41-
Actually, that’s not really what I said. I even numbered them conveniently so that you could respond. Argument #3 deals with sexual orientation of couples, not individuals. The rest of the arguments dealt with gender, genetics, and legal quagmires, not with sexual orientation.
Also, I’m not saying that a gay man is being discriminated against because he doesn’t have the same rights as a straight man. I’m saying a gay man is being discriminated against because he doesn’t have the same rights as a woman. And that a person who is XXY has questionable rights (on that note, aren’t you a man well-versed in theology? Can you shed some light on your church’s teachings and rules for people of indeterminate gender?)
You respond by saying, basically, that gay rights is not a civil rights issue, because the people who opposed mixed-race marriages for religious reasons were wrong, and the people who oppose same-gender marriages for religious reasons are right.
And then you say that gay marriage shouldn’t be legal because lots of people find it icky.
There isn’t an argument there. It’s a lot of prose about our culture and moral narrative.
Fr. Hans writes: “Anyone should be able to take care of anyone else.”
The problem is that, with respect to caring for another in a long-term relationship, marriage is the only thing that does that. Marriage automatically confers a large number of rights and benefits, only some of which can be accomplished by private legal efforts.
Fr. Hans: “Marriage, however, should remain only for opposite sex couples.”
I have absolutely no doubt that this will be the case for the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and for many other churches. To the extent that these churches can bless couples who meet the right criteria, those couples will indeed be blessed. And I mean that sincerely.
My wife and I are monumentally in love with each other, to the point that we love each other’s defects and problems. We were not married in a church, but we are nonetheless married, and happy for it.
My support of same-sex marriage is derived from the belief that same-sex couples can experience the same happiness. Same-sex couples experience the same disappointments that all of us experience. Like us, they grow old. Like us, they struggle. Like us, they become disabled. Like us, they die. Therefore, let us see them as we see ourselves. Let us grant to them the same rights and benefits that we have. True love of the neighbor demands nothing less.
Phil writes:
My point exactly. Gender-neutrality (actually gender confusion) at its finest. Biological distinctions and the concomitant notions of distinctive masculinity and femininity are obliterated to be replaced by amorphous notions of love (Oprah, call your office). Gay men are subsumed under the category of womanhood, with sexual orientation as its justification. Wrap it up in the package of civil rights and it seems oh so progressive.
Now, you want me to believe that this is the best environment for raising children?
No, I am saying that the acceptance of mixed-raced marriages, while a cultural shift, does not violate the moral tradition. Same sex marriage does.
No, I am saying that your civil rights rationale doesn’t address the gender confusion that many people sense lies at the heart of the effort to force compliance with the same-sex marriage agenda. This sense lies deep. Attempts to obliterate gender distinctions violates something fundamental about personhood.
Look, let me put it in blunt biological terms you might understand. Sodomy, the act of inserting the penis in the anal canal of another male, is fundamentally an act of nihilism. Depositing the seed that creates new life into an excretory chamber of a same-sex partner is not synonymous with heterosexual intercourse (heterosexual misbehavior notwithstanding). The first is open toward life, the latter emphatically denies life. And the fact that some people might desire this type of sexual practice does not negate the nihilistic impulse it expresses.
People sense this confusion, this elevation of pleasure at the expense of psychological and (dare I say it?) spiritual order, even if they cannot articulate it as well as they might want to.
Oh, but there is. Human beings are complex creatures and subsuming that complexity to a two dimensional discourse on civil rights can’t do justice to the complexity. That’s why you have difficulty understanding why the rejection of gay marriage is so uniform when regular people (non-judicial and bureaucratic elites) get a say in the matter. They’ve heard the arguments. They just know (yes, know) that these arguments don’t touch the heart of the matter.
You don’t like links, but you really ought to read this one. It goes to the heart of the confusion you are trying to mainstream.
Malcolm Muggeridge The Great Liberal Death Wish
(BTW, literature reaches deeper than logic.)
Note 45-
You ignored the part about people who are born intersex, again.
It’s okay to say “I don’t know” if you don’t know.
Note 46. No, actually I ignored it because there is really no such category as “intersex”. The sexual organs failing to develop properly is an anomalie, a tragedy really, just like any other physical malady that sometimes afflicts people. Bringing this kind problem into the discussion and having to argue that “intersex” is not a “third category of sexual being” (however you may have phrased it), seemed unseemly in a way. Frankly, I don’t think people who suffer with this should become fodder in social reengineering schemes.
Some problems are better handled privately, Phil. But then, I think masculinity and femininity extend beyond the biological, while you don’t. Thus, even in situations where the physcal malady occurs, a person is still either male or female.
Father, you say to Phil, “But then, I think masculinity and femininity extend beyond the biological, while you don’t.”
That is the crux of the matter which makes it really difficult to communicate on even the most basic level let alone agree.
As Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his 1978 address to Harvard graduates:
Note 48. Read Solzhenitsyn’s entire essay: A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978
So is color-blindness, but we allow those people to marry, and we don’t allow them to be fighter pilots. We make rules for everybody. Everyone is born different, and some bodies don’t form in the same way as the average healthy human body. Some children are born blind or deaf, and our culture acknowledges that they are worth just as much as other human beings.
I was speaking in the abstract, not pointing at a particular child and saying, “What about them?” We don’t need to ignore people just because they’re different. And it’s patronizing and a little ludicrous to suggest that their problems shouldn’t be discussed because they’re “unseemly.”
And who decides? You? The Church? Their parents? Or is that a situation where you agree that an individual is best suited to figuring out who they are?