Catholics Oppose Gay Marriage

Big news there, I suppose.

They have a website though, now.

Their points, in order.

Natural marriage is the foundation of a civilised society.

My tendency here is to simply add the suffix [citation needed] to the text. The foundation of our society, last I checked, was freedom. Freedom of the speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly ... that sort of thing. The Taliban have marriage. The Vikings had marriage. Soviet Russia had marriage. Marriage - whether forced, voluntary or some combination thereof - has been around for a long time and I don't know of any correlation between its prevalence and level of civilization a society has.

Same-sex unions, as pseudo-marriages, involve gravely sinful acts that are never defensible, and the very assimilation to marriage damages marriage itself.

We're just going to ignore that "pseudo-marriage" phrase, as you're assuming your conclusion here. (i.e. see above, [citation needed]). Gravely sinful acts? I direct you to read your bible for all of the other "gravely sinful" acts. Like eating lobster, crab, oysters or clams. Or weaving two kinds of fabric together. Or sewing two different crops in the same field. Or accidentally seeing your father naked or your wife while she's menstruating.

Also, I think you're using the word "assimilation" incorrectly. Good try, though. Big words can sometimes be impressive.

The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behaviour.

True that. You're 1 for 3, quite respectable in major league baseball. The law should serve as a guideline for ethics by, for example, demonstrating that everyone has equal rights and that one group of people can't force their morality on another unwilling group.

Government-backed same sex civil unions would encourage and normalise homosexual behaviour, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves.

That's a lot of claiming you're doing there.

Yes, it would normalize homosexual behaviour. Why is that bad? What we've seen, with celibate priests for instance, is that making sex forbidden can cause some pretty harsh overreactions and perversions. I'd rather have gay people feel normal, not just for those reasons, but because there's really no reason for people who engage in consensual sex to feel bad about it.

Also, I'm living in Canada. We've had Evil, Gay Sex Marriages for years now and there's no evidence that it's destroyed or harmed Holy, Opposite Sex Marriages. Perhaps you could provide evidence.

And yes, the adopted kids of gay people turn out just fine.

The law should promote behaviours that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive.

Did you read the link above? The study is pretty clear: "...the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence."

You'll have to explain how the Evil, Gay Scourge is destructive.

Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions.

Therefore, nothing. None of your points above were accurate depictions of reality. Therefore, your conclusion is unsupported.

Meanwhile, take off that shirt. I believe you're wearing a shirt made of two types of fabric woven together and - while your god is explicitly in favour of bigotry and brutal punishments in that vein - he really doesn't like clothing made of two fabrics woven together.

Recommend this Post

Sex Education in Ontario

Saw this one in the paper today:

Schools Shouldn't Teach Sexual Orientation

Here's the exciting stuff:

In its Facts about Youth pamphlet, the U.S. pediatricians college states that most students (more than 85 per cent) with same-sex attractions will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged.

It further states that "declaring and validating a student's same-sex attraction during the adolescent years is premature and may be personally harmful."

Wow! I didn't know that "validating" same-sex attraction was harmful. What a weird thing to say. The only way you would say something like that is if, well, you thought homosexuality was harmful.

Say. Who are the "U.S. pediatricians college" anyway? That sounds very official. Let's check them out.

The writer is actually talking about the "American College of Pediatricians". That sounds like a real group, doesn't it? Let see what other things they write ... oh, good god ...

Abstinence only is a good idea
How to make gay kids straight
Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt

You can read the rest of their "Position Papers" if you want. It's a basic list of the right wing's wishing-makes-it-so version of scientific studies.

Even the 85% number they quote - the one L.M. Small quoted - refers to a 1992 study that showed that 26% of 12 year old boys weren't sure about their sexual orientation. Yet only 2-3% of them turn out gay later! If only we could have bombarded those last 2-3% with how evil it is to be gay, think how much better everything would be! No more of teh gayness!

Yes, well.

I didn't find any fault with the actual sex education curriculum that the government was planning on implementing. The earlier that you can teach kids the words "penis" and "vagina", the better off we'll all be. But apparently, if you're a religious nutcase, all it takes is a word in their ears and they'll turn in to crack whores.

Recommend this Post

Vatican: Bait and Switch on Gayness

A resolution has been introduced at the United Nations to ask all member states to decriminalize homosexuality.

The relevant portion of the text is very simple. It reads:

We ask the Human Rights Council to request a universal abolition of the so-called "crime of homosexuality", of all "sodomy laws", and laws against so-called "unnatural acts" in all the countries where they still exist.

What it means is: stop killing and imprisoning people for consensual sex acts.

Nothing complicated or objectionable, unless you're the pope, in which case it's the beginning of a slide in to damnation. Then you're afraid that this would:

"add new categories of those protected from discrimination"

Yes. That's the whole point. We want to stop discrimination - especially the kind where you kill someone for being different. We hate to have to drag you all the way up to the middle of the 20th century, but the whole world is moving toward "not killing people for being different."

Also, this resolution:

could lead to the decline of heterosexual marriage

Yes, that's the whole point. We want to stop having sham heterosexual marriages because one of the partners is entering it under duress to cover up for the "crime" of having homosexual tendencies. Those are the only marriages that could cause a "decline". Is that what you're worried about? People around the world won't be making themselves miserable in order to follow your doctrine?

Now we come to the bait and switch. Now the Vatican, the pope and their spokesman, will outright lie and attribute to the resolution things which are plainly not in it.

... states which do not recognize same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an object of pressure

Read the resolution. Where does it say this? All that is says is stop treating gays like criminals. It's not a long resolution. It's not like you could have misread something.

No, pope, you are your followers are just lying. But that's nothing special for your bunch, is it? Why don't you just go back to shuffling around the pedophiles you shelter, nurture and create? That's about your level.

There is nothing in this resolution that would harm anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. The only ones harmed are those who will have to deal with the fact that homosexuals exist and that the rest of us are no longer able to pretend they don't exist by having them jailed or killed.

As for the rest, it's typical right wing fear mongering, trying to convince you that a law or resolution against discrimination is somehow going to force gay marriages upon their churches or anal sex upon their sons.

h/t to Canuck Attitude.

Recommend this Post