So much to say...
So little time.
First, the news briefs and some middle American op-ed:
Much is being made of the Anglican Church's announcement about the care of severly disabled infants. Personally, I think the characterization by my fellow pro-lifers is abhorrent. There is a vast difference between "killing" and withholding extraordinary measures. I'm not saying that I believe refusing treatment is the way to go but I can't call it "killing" either. We allow adults the option of signing a DNR order and we don't equate that with euthanasia. I don't see this as being much different as a legal matter. Personally, I don't want to be Terri Schiavo. Although I feel overwhelming sympathy with the parents and loved ones who struggle in the letting go.
The problem comes when we endow the government or doctors with the responsibility of defining the parameters of reasonable measures. Once those limits are legislated, it becomes impossible to reverse the decision, no matter how far medicine advances. That's part of the reason viable babies are being aborted in this country every day. Once the cat is out of the bag... and of course, the question becomes how far will we go in defining excessive aid? Will it eventually extend to all the disabled? The elderly? Anyone whose illnesses are a drain on public funds? Which leads to the tangential discussion of socialized medicine... which I'll save for '08 when Hillary runs. All in all, I think the decision is best left to the parents but, and this is a huge but, I appreciate the Anglican Church for addressing the issue and opening the public conversation. The only way to come to some consensus on public policy (or the decision not to have a public policy) is to start the discourse, and the Church of England certainly did that.
South Africa has made it legal for homosexuals to marry and while I have some fundamental objections to the whole government-defined marriage bit in general, there is one part of the SA law that I think bears mentioning. While the law allows for the unions, it does not require that all people who officiate in marriage services perform them. In other words, you can conscientiously object to performing a gay marriage if it goes against your religious beliefs. Already, that makes this law better than the Mass. response to devout pharmacists, who are forced to sell Plan B regardless of their beliefs on abortion.
Meanwhile, back at the Vatican... Catholic priests issued guidelines encouraging homosexuals to remain celibate to which Ellen DeGeneres is rumored to have said "You first." Okay, I made that bit about Ellen up, I admit it. Generally, I think the new guidelines are a reasonable response to the dilemma facing an increasingly gay-friendly Western world. They don't pretend to change any commandments but they do address the fact that homosexuals can be people of faith. After all, no one is barring adulterers or fornicators from sitting in church... I would argue that's the best place for them. For all of us. Of course, gay Catholics are not happy with the guidelines but let's face it, if you don't believe the Catholic church is teaching true Christianity, and you believe that they are wrong on fundamental points of doctrine, then you aren't really Catholic anyway.
On one point, the Catholic church appears to be ahead of science. The guidelines "acknowledge that gays and lesbians do not choose their sexual orientation". Wow. Even the human genome project couldn't do that. Although, since evidence shows that lesbians are very likely to have been victims of sexual abuse, I suppose that would be considered a serious limitation of choice. This, if you don't recognize the veiled sarcasm, is where I think the priests got it wrong.
Toys for Tots has refused to accept 4000 donated talking Jesus dolls that quote verses of scripture. I suppose some might to make an issue of this. Don't. It was the right thing to do. Toys for Tots is charitable organization run by the Marines and to blur the lines between state and church in this way would be harmful to all of us. America should be symbolic with religious freedom - which is precisely why good Christians love it here. We should never confuse Christian preservation with Christian predominance. The fight is to maintain fair treatment not to subjugate non-Christian believers or subordinate other faiths. That is the domain of another religion. Islam.
In cases where the courts are rewriting history to the exclusion of Christianity, I'm all for fighting. But when an agency that is going to hand out toys to needy children refuses to endorse an ideology, that's AOK. How would you like it if they handed out a doll that spouted verses from the Koran?
Sick people abound these days. Even so, amid the plethera of perversity, this report caught my eye. So here's this angry 22 year old guy who gets into a fight with his girlfriend, starts a fire in back yard and throws her 4 helpless kittens into the fire pit, burning them to death. Definitely a sicko. How cruel do you have to be to do something like this? Here's what caught my attention. The convicted cat-killer, Robert Tomlin, gets a year and a half in prison for aggravated animal cruelty. A year and a half. Not that he doesn't deserve it, but we have pedophiles on the street because they're too pretty or too short for jail. Apparently, all the judges with sense are busy ruling on animal cruelty cases...
And, for those who are interested in the personal issues...
The children and I are all feeling better and we are done with birthdays until January when we have 3 within a week. So things are returning to normal. Sort of.
It hasn't even been a week since my neice's husband was arrested and it feels like ages already. Over the weekend, I was sure my neice was slipping into the denial phase of the post-trauma period. She was ready to forgive him and recognized that he is a very sick young man. She was having a hard time coming to grips with the ugly future in store for the man she loved and married. Needless to say, I was getting worried about her because I feared any wavering or show of weakness would invite the state the remove her children from her.
Today, I believe my fears were laid to rest. He was arraigned. She sat in the courtroom through the process and from her retelling of the events, it appears that her emotions have stabilized and her resolve to make a safe life for her daughters is strengthened. She said he was barely recognizable to her. That he looked like a monster. She said that when the charges were read (something like 19 or 20 of them) the courtroom was filled with noise because people were sickened and outraged. The judge had to quiet those present.
I feel an overwhelming sense of loss for all of them. And I am afraid to to see him, in court or even on the news broadcasts. My sense of justice and my sense of mercy are battling it out right now. Thank goodness, I don't have to sit on this jury...
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
As for the personal issues; very glad to hear you are all doing better-tis the season-after all.
And on your other family issues. Be careful in assuming that your neice is doing well. It is a temporary phase that victems go through. She will become different when the reality of loniliness sets in when things have died down. I would hesitate to think that she sees him as a "monster". She probably sees him that way through the eyes of those around her at the time, but in the quiet moments when she realizes that her husband is not going to be around anymore, she will fold into herself and go through more emotions that are negative than most could believe possible. Watch carefully. You wouldn't want something worse to happen for the children.
Comment by — 2006/11/15 @ 06:17 AM — (Reply)
Glad to see you're back posting on the decline of Western civilization, particularly your ever-present misconception of homosexuality. You are correct that studies have shown that lesbians are more likely than hetero females to report sexual abuse. However, you draw the wrong conclusion to infer or imply that this might affect their orientation. Correlation is not causality, as you well know.
Other studies, following up on this data, have determined that the higher reported abuse rate appears to be related to the fact that lesbians are more likely to report traumatic events than heterosexual females. In other words, it is their orientation and related to that, their attitudes towards sexuality that leads to their higher report rate, and not vice-versa.
As an example, in cases of rape, lesbians tended to reject all males as partners, so any violation would be seen as assault. Hetero women were more likely to blame themselves for not being careful; teenage hetero often interpreted the rape as a compliment to their attractiveness.
Put more simply, lesbians are less likely to put up with b.s. sexual abuse that hetero women may tolerate.
The human genome project, as you also should have known, started by identifying what genes we have in common. Only now that this major part is complete, are researchers looking into the genetic differences, among which, there is strong evidence, particularly from the Mayo study on twins split at birth, that predisposition to homosexuality is genetic.
Finally, allow me this concession to you. There are many genetic predispositions: alcoholism, criminality, sexual abuse, homosexuality, intelligence, creativity. Some are beneficial, some are harmful.
The existence of a predisposition is not anything we can choose, so to that extent, the Catholic priests have it right, in my opinion. How we act, when we are aware of our selves, IS a choice. Sexual orientation is not a choice, but (as you are fond of observing) having sex is.
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/15 @ 08:32 AM — (Reply)
My comment about lesbians & molestation comes from admissions within the lesbian community - I'll look for a link but it's been a while since I read the study/survey. True, correlataion is not causality but when discussing molestation during sexual development or formative years it can hardly be ruled out.
If correlation is not causality then neither is predisposition predetermination. Either we have choice or we do not - which is it Michael?
Does our DNA determine everything?
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/15 @ 10:32 AM — (Reply)
When did you decide to become heterosexual? What age were you? What events happened in your past that might have led you to that fateful moment when you decided that you wanted to be a faithful married mother of four? Do you remember what day of the week it was when you made that choice?
Unless you have a startling bit of revelation, I suspect that you never consciously made the choice to BECOME heterosexual- you merely were. You came of age, found men to be more interesting in a certain manner, etc., etc. Of course, you made plenty of choices on how to ACT upon that sexuality- whether to wait until marraige, who you would date, who you would marry, etc. But if you actually made a choice to become straight, you are in a vast minority of individuals.
We all have a complex tapestry of tendencies and predispositions. Genetic, cultural, habitual... whatever the source- the choices come in 1) recognizing those tendencies, 2) evaluating the intrinsic value of those tendencies, 3) consciously acting out or suppressing those tendencies based on the moral evaluation.
If your faith structure tells you that homosexuality is bad, then in that structure, the decision to have homosexual relations is the sin. The tendency, though, is what our souls must work either with or against.
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/15 @ 12:37 PM — (Reply)
I'll say it again. The biggest problem with the raging need liberals have to validate homosexuality is evolution.
If we are indeed, little more than a complicated conglomerate of cells functioning within the laws of nature, then there is no way homosexuality fits into the scheme. Cells don't operate according to recreational desires, they operate based on functional design (or evolution). In other words, they fulfill the measure of their creation/design. If a man were not designed to insert sperm close to a woman's uterus, then something else would be shooting out of there. Last time I checked it wasn't K-Y.
And the body parts involved in sexual acts aren't called REPRODUCTIVE organs for nothing, my friend.
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/15 @ 05:20 PM — (Reply)
First off, if the only organs being used in your bedroom are your REPRODUCTIVE organs, then I really feel bad for you!! If all hubby is doing is injecting his sperm near your uterus, you two could use a few lessons. Pick up one of those Cosmo's sweetie...
Next, maybe you can explain the reproductive function of the clitoris? Or G-spot?
Cells may not respond to recreation, but it is absolutely certain that organisms, particularly higher-order organisms like mammals and birds, DO respond to recreation. More later- I gotta show my wife the bit we've gotten into about libraries/pornography. :)
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/15 @ 09:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/15 @ 09:14 PM — (Reply)
And BTW, all of those spots you mention respond by producing lubrication so that intercourse can take place, Michael...
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 06:52 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 08:31 AM — (Reply)
I thought you were going to change the subject, Cate!!!
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/16 @ 09:23 AM — (Reply)
The suspect was from Superior- which is actually across the border. Yes, the sicko was a Cheesehead!
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/16 @ 09:31 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 10:03 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/16 @ 10:46 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 11:11 AM — (Reply)
I thought you were going to change the subject, Cate!!!
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/16 @ 09:58 AM — (Reply)
Yes - animals have been observed having a wide range of sexual habits. This includes same-sex pairings, flying solo, groups, etc. However, the jury is still out on the interpretation of that behavior. To say it is "recreational" in the sense of purely pleasure seeking is IMHO a projection of human emotions onto these creatures. All indications at this point is that it is a function of timing, phermones, hormones, whatever.
Case in point: The much acclaimed "gay" penguins at the Central Park Zoo. The fact is that these animals paired together and then hatched and raised a chick. BUT same sex pairings of penguins (without a friendly zookeeper around to give them a real egg) are known to partner and to try to raise a rock. They will work to hatch and care for a stone. If the pairing had to do with pleasure and not parenting, why the stone in the nest???
Clearly these adorable creatures are none too bright and are driven by an instinctual need to procreate. Much has been made of the fact that some will not realign pairings when females are introduced into their environment - what can I say - they're too stupid to recognize a ROCK, do you really think they know they're doing "it" wrong?
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 06:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 06:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 08:45 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 08:49 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/15 @ 09:34 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/15 @ 12:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/15 @ 05:29 PM — (Reply)
Great comment Barry!
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/15 @ 05:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/15 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)
The same reason that buggery helped found the British Navy. For some folks, it's any port in a storm. It's improvising. It's the lone cowboy out on the trail who looks across the campfire with a new appreciation for his horse...
But you can hardly call prison life, or 18th century sailing vessels a "free market" for choice, now can you?
I really wonder about folks who see this "choice" as something that can seemingly be so easily turned on and off. Is sexual attraction so easily redirected for you guys? Do you check out folks of your own gender and think, "Boy... I'm not gay, but if I were--- Damn!"??
Maybe I'm in the minority here. It is nigh on inconceivable to me that I'd ever just consciously make that choice. Heck, a disappointment in college was discovering just how straight I really am. Guys just have zero appeal to me, frankly. Except Johnny Depp- he's dreamy.
Kinda like colors- blue has been always been my favorite color, and I just can't quite even imagine ever deciding that I'd make orange my favorite. Is it really that easy to conceive for you guys, looking back at yourself???
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/16 @ 09:00 AM — (Reply)
No brokeback mountain here.
I really wonder about folks who see this "choice" as something that can seemingly be so easily turned on and off.
It's called self control..a fruit of the Spirit according to Galations. Ever had the urge to knock someone's block off? Ever had the urge to lie, cheat or steal?
In James and in Romans it says that God will give people over to their desires, that their lust when it is nurtured will turn into sin. God also will not tempt anyone. For this reason I cannot fathom a gene that makes someone a homosexual as this would make God a liar. It's a choice because someone has nurtured those thoughts and eventually those thoughts take action.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 09:48 AM — (Reply)
Some people are just plain interested in sex - whoever the partner is. I'm not suggesting that homosexuality is purely a function of an insatiable sexual appetite - but when the casual sex movement 'liberated' us, gays were doing it like rabid animals in San Fran bath houses. They were dying in droves from AIDS.
It is only in the last few years that gay people are trying to present themselves as normal loving couples who fit into American suburbia. And the increasing acceptance of homosexuality has led to a rise in the numbers of homosexuals - a fact that can be proven. That being the case, what is your argument. That a biological switch just flips on in these people when Oprah makes gayness socially okay? Hardly.
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 09:57 AM — (Reply)
A more accepting society leading to more gays is your evidence for choice. "Evolutionary intent" (intelligent design?) is your evidence for choice. Prison shower scenes, your evidence for choice. Despite the mindnumbing obvious fallacies, I'll let you have them.
Observed homosexuality behavior in most mammal species and many birds is my evidence for instinct. Homosexuality observed in nearly all cultures, and across history is another piece of evidence for instinct. 50,000 homosexuals arrested in Nazi Germany and sent to concentration camps for the crime of homosexuality is my evidence for instinct.
And what would it matter anyway? Choice or instinct: either way, you would damn their acts as abominations to God and I would shrug unconcernedly.
I don't excuse homosexuality or justify it simply because it is an instinct. I just don't see it as the culture destroying virus that you seem to. That's where we have always differed substantially. This bit about choice versus instinct really is irrelevant, ain't it?
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/16 @ 10:45 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 10:52 AM — (Reply)
A recent study suggests that the sisters and maternal aunts of gay men have babies at a higher rate than other women. Since other studies strongly suggest that sexuality may be tied, in part, to a gene on the X chromosome, this would suggest that "gayness" may be spread on despite the gay men.
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/16 @ 11:31 AM — (Reply)
This is a theiry wrapped in a hope and sprinkled with a dash of propoganda...
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 11:42 AM — (Reply)
What do you care about the science, though, Cate?? You already have your answers written down for you. Go on believing what you want. Faith is wonderful, and I'm glad you have found one that provides all the answers you'll need. Just try not to mislead yourself into thinking that it's science.
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/16 @ 11:59 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 12:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 01:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 02:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 02:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 03:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/16 @ 04:15 PM — (Reply)
The fact that it has become totally acceptable makes me worry for our country. And no - I don't hate gay people. I just think it's totally wrong.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/15 @ 05:30 PM — (Reply)
Love the sinner, abhor the sin. That's what we want God to do for each of us.
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/15 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)
Love the sinner, abhor the sin. That's what we want God to do for each of us.
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/15 @ 05:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/15 @ 05:35 PM — (Reply)
Here's how I see it:
Throughout the Bible sterile people are considered to be suffering from a horrible adversity. In other words, it is like a trial of faith. Consider Hannah and Sarah.
I don't believe that God expects people to only have sex for procreation. I believe sex offers an opportunity for the kind of intimacy that you can only achieve when you are completely vulnerable with another person and is an important part of marriage. Christ said that the couple should be one flesh - and sex is part of that.
I believe that the responsibility for family planning is ultimately in the hands of the couple involved. There is a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth that hasn't been rescinded but no one ever specified a number of offspring...
I'm not opposed to birth control but I wouldn't do anything permanent because I might change my mind. I'd rather be careful and then let menopause force me out to pasture when the time comes
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/15 @ 05:52 PM — (Reply)
Michael no rape and homosexuality are not equal but the point is that the behavior is a choice. Your studies haven't proven anything yet. Until they do they're just excuses to continue in the behavior.
I don't believe in bashing anyone who is a homosexual. I would never physically hurt anyone or advocate any kind of violence toward anyone who is a homosexual. Do I consider a sin? Yes just like lying, adultery, fornication etc. God draws no distinction. In the book of James it says that if you fail in one law you have failed in them all.
The consequences of each sin is different. Can I as a Christian love someone who is a homosexual and not love their behavior. I think I can.
After all the libs support the troops but not the war.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/15 @ 07:20 PM — (Reply)
It sounds to me like you and I are in general agreement on the distinction between orientation and action. I don't seek to validate sexual orientation, anymore than I'd want to validate alcoholism. The alcoholic can not help their predisposition anymore than I can change my blue eyes. But they can, and should, manage those tendencies. They are accountable for what they make of the talents they are given (talents good and bad).
And if, as seems to be prevalent here, homosexual relations are seen as a sin, then it is to be expected that you (or maybe more accurately, God) would hold the homosexual accountable for their actions. To seek treatment for their sexual orientation.
I personally don't hold homosexuality to be a sin- no shock, I know. I believe that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic code, and his commandments to love God, and to love each other as we love ourselves makes manifest and complete the underlying purpose of the Mosaic restrictions. But that's just me, and I wouldn't dream of being able to argue the point with the more learned Christians here, nor do I want to. That is between you and God, and He will guide you as He will.
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/16 @ 09:18 AM — (Reply)
As far as the religious aspect homosexuality is addressed in the New Testament not just Mosaic Law. As you have said I am not interested in arguing this point because if you are in that lifestyle you'll look for justification from somewhere to validate that lifestyle. It might be science or religion or whatever. I would apply the same Biblical principles to other areas such as adultery etc. in seeking someones repentance. I seek to convey love to anyone caught up in either case and if the person is a Christian than as someone who is encouraged by the Bible to be devoted to them I'd try to lovingly convince them that their behavior is wrong.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 09:42 AM — (Reply)
I personally don't believe there is a mandate from God to have a lot of children. Although the trying is a lot of fun.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/15 @ 07:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/15 @ 07:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/15 @ 08:29 PM — (Reply)
So homosexuality is now based on targets of opportunity. Okay.
Try that as a man rule...it'll never fly.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 10:15 AM — (Reply)
Sexuality does not equal sex.
C'mon, EB- you were with me there for a while!
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/16 @ 10:51 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 10:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 10:54 AM — (Reply)
Are you fixing to call me a homophobe?
I haven't damned anyone Michael. In fact I just suggested by my other comments that I would reach out in love. It makes a difference if you believe the Lord forbade it, but I haven't even remotely suggested bashing gays or sending them to hell. As you mentioned that's for God to decide.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 11:01 AM — (Reply)
My "damnation" comment was really pointed more towards Dugg and to a much lesser extent, Cate.
I'm totally cool with your stand on things, and where we seem to agree, and where we seem to disagree.
Sexuality may not be proven to be biologically determined, but in my eyes, the preponderance of studies strongly suggest this. I suppose it's reasonable that someone else can critically look at the studies and come to the opposite conclusions, though.
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/16 @ 11:24 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 12:24 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/16 @ 11:07 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/16 @ 11:34 AM — (Reply)