Homosexual relationships cannot be marriages because they do not actually include sex nor produce children.
This excerpt comes from False Flag: Why Queer Politics Mean the End of America, available from Regnery Publishing for order now and everywhere books are sold June 18.
Like the social compact—citizens’ agreement to form a society that secures their rights—marriage works to secure citizens’ rights. Pertinent to our topic, the natural right to marry descends from the right to pursue happiness. As we have seen, marriage also contributes to developing the character citizens need for self-government. Thus “the founders held marriage to be not ‘arguably’ but indispensably necessary for the securing of natural rights,” [historian and Hillsdale College professor Thomas G.] West notes.
History demonstrates that blood ties tend to provide the most security and joy available in human life. They are the foundation of every culture and society. Societies emerge from family stability and expansion, as families grow into “clans” or “tribes,” which sometimes turn into nations.
Marriage also directs dangerous sexual energies into productive behavior, which benefits everyone in multiple ways. In the first place, it reduces jealousies and social controversies—what we might call “drama.” People who don’t cheat on each other or change sexual partners contribute to social peace.
Marriage also tends to improve the character of the spouses and the children their marriage begets. Due to an intimacy unlike any other, husbands and wives can learn how to love others more intimately than single people can. Children learn from their parents’ direction how to be less selfish, lazy, and cruel, and more kind, thoughtful, and self-disciplined. Parents tend to give their children close personal attention because they naturally love their children in a way that strangers and neighbors naturally don’t.
Marriage also reduces poverty. It legally joins two people who can work together to provide for the family they create. Poor people are more likely to violate others’ natural rights, either by stealing or by obtaining others’ property through welfare. And people who make children without first marrying are the most likely to be poor.
The Founders were less attentive to what people did naked behind closed doors than to the costs and penalties that their private sexual choices might impose on the public: children created without a secure legal attachment to the support, care, and protection of their biological mother and father. While laws in the Founders’ era criminalized premarital sex and homosexual acts, West notes that “they were hardly ever enforced except when behavior became ‘open and notorious.’” The Founding generation’s prime legal concern with sex was its potential either to damage or to secure others’ rights.
“A 1781 Maryland law embodies the founding orientation,” West explains “In this law, the cost of welfare for single mothers is the sole concern, not the act of fornication itself. The immorality that is subject to legal penalties is not the indiscretion of the individual, but harming the rights of others by bearing a child without adequate means of support.”
The Founders’ government paid close attention to marriage and sex because they naturally generate children. Not only does “a lasting community need[] children who will become the next generation of citizens,” “From the perspective of the social compact, the main purpose of the ‘union of the parents’ is the ‘common care’ of the children,” West writes. Because the best environment for the next generation of citizens to grow up in is a home headed by their married father and mother, the state has a strong interest in promoting robust marriage laws and penalizing breaches of the marital agreement such as abandonment and adultery.
Marriage cannot be a natural right for homosexuals because homosexual interactions cannot create a family. Homosexual relationships can never produce natural children, nor any of the family relationships that extend from procreative capacity (aunts, uncles, cousins, grandchildren, and so forth). This removes a key reason for government to acknowledge or preference homosexual encounters.
There is no government interest in a sexual relationship that has no capacity to produce children. It’s purely a private matter. Since homosexual activities cannot possibly produce a child, there’s no government interest in, nor a natural right to, those activities.
In contrast, the organic capacity to produce kids means that there are serious public consequences to any male-female sexual relationship. Even heterosexual couples using contraception can—and often do—make children together. Yet no homosexual interaction can ever generate children.
Sex is a scientific term for the procreative act. Homosexual relations are not—and never can be—procreative acts. Homosexuals can never physically unite in the way that a man and woman can, nor fulfill that physical unity in the form of a naturally resulting child. So homosexual relationships cannot be marriages because they do not actually include sex nor produce children; therefore, there is no natural right to those relationships that governments must affirm.
The public interest attached to marriage arises because lifelong marriages between one man and one woman are by far the most effective way of creating self-governing, competent, happy children as the next generation of citizens. No other form of sexual relationship improves on natural marriages, statistically speaking.
In fact, the vast majority of criminals are created by sexual relationships in which the parents fail to commit to each other for life for the good of the children. Lack of marriage between biological parents is also responsible for the vast majority of poverty, mental illness, suicide, and all other manner of deficits that seriously threaten citizens’ natural rights. Society and government have a strong interest in ensuring that as many children as possible are born into the homes of their married biological parents who stay committed for life.
Those who would argue that homosexuals’ pursuit of happiness requires state licensing of their relationships need to argue that those relationships have a public benefit. They also need to grapple with the Founders’ Aristotelian understanding of the word “happiness,” which is different from what it means today. Aristotle famously defined happiness as “an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.” The Founders understood happiness this way as well. So, to argue for erasing sex distinctions in marriage as a natural right requires a complete argument for sodomy and mutual masturbation as activities of the soul in accord with virtue. Answering that argument would require another book, or several, but suffice it to say that it’s not self-evident, and the Founders would never have accepted such an argument.
Absent a credible case for the positive virtue of homosexual sex acts, the fact that homosexual encounters cannot produce children should suffice to demonstrate that the state has no legitimate natural rights–based interest in such private behavior. Indeed, the fact that a high percentage of the population is now satisfying their sexual desires through encounters that cannot produce children creates an existential crisis for a nation, which will soon have no children to continue its existence. This is the direction of all Western, and Westernized, nations already.
Image Credit: Unsplash
Pullman’s article draws more from the idealism of some than from the Scriptures and reality. While she claims reproduction is the main function of people uniting, the Scriptures seem to attribute multiple main purposes to people uniting. Those 3 main purposes are, according to the Scriptures, to eliminate loneliness, to control sexual passions and behavior, and to reproduce. And those purposes are not necessarily in any order of importance. And we should note that reproduction takes a parents’s lifetime.
If reproduction is a Scriptural mandate for marriage, then what about childless heterosexual couples? If the heterosexual couple knew that they could not reproduce, do they have a right to marry? Also, should the Church and/or state require that its married couples reproduce? The answers to those questions would be ‘NO‘ to the first question and ‘YES’ to the second one if reproduction is the main purpose for two people uniting.
BTW, little can be found in the foundational writings of the Founders regarding sex and marriage. Look up not only The Constitution, but check out the Federalist Papers and both Madison’s and Yates’s notes on the 1787 Constitutional Convention and count how many times marriage was mentioned. Rather, the biggest influence for state and local laws that governed sexual behavior came from Christendom. After all, check out the sexual behaviors of some of our nation’s founders. Check out the sexual behaviors of some of our founders who were slave owners or read about how Ben Franklin behaved.
But let’s get to reality. Same sex behavior (SSB) can be found in over 1,000 species of animals–actually SSB can be found in around 1,500 species of animals. And in some species, SSB brings benefits to the members of those species such as by reducing the aggression in some of its members. However, the existence of SSB in so many species of animals brings up an important question. Is there something in nature that helps cause SSB. After all, we don’t attribute a sin nature to animals. And if there is something in the physical nature of animals that contributes to SSB, then why isn’t is possible, if not probable, that the same can be said of humans? We know that nature has fallen when Adam sinned because the Scriptures tell us that. And so why isn’t it possible for at least some people who have same sex attraction and thus have engaged in SSB because of what their own physical nature is telling them?
Also, if intimate acts between homosexuals can’t be considered to be sex because those acts cannot produce children, then should heterosexual couples who have passed the age of producing children be prohibited from being intimate with each other? Or what if heterosexual couples engage in the same kinds of intimate acts as homosexual couples do, can we call those acts sex. And if such acts cannot be called sex, then can the commandment that prohibits sex outside of a heterosexual marriage be applicable to them? Should we regulate the use of contraceptives to ensure that married couples will create children?
The trouble with us religiously conservative Christians is that we tend to believe that we can define things in and out of existence. And that causes fewer problems when we use those definitions on just ourselves. But those problems increase exponentially when we impose some of our realities on others. And that seems to be the intention of Pullman’s article.
You have no right to call yourself a “religiously conservative Christian” if you believe marriage is not just between one man and one woman. Here is what the Bible says about marriage:
Genesis 2:24, Proverbs 31, Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 7:2-4 & 11:9-11, 1 Timothy 3:1-13, Matthew 19:1-9, 1 Peter 3: 1-2 & 7, Titus 1:6 & 2:4-5, and Colossians 3:18-19.
Additionally, arguing that humans can act on same-sex attraction because animals exhibit same-sex behavior is absolutely abhorrent and contrary to scripture.
Using your logic, I am able to have sex with as many women as I want so I can spread my seed and do the same with men to assert my dominance over them simply because it is observed in animals. My own physical nature wants that, why should I not do this, Curt?
The above scripture states the design of marriage, the following verses describe what sex was designed to be for: Genesis 1:28 and 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 (which you rightly identified). It is absolutely true that sex is intended to be had for both procreation and pleasure in the context of marriage. These verses are written on the basis that sexual immorality includes all sexual acts that are not confined to the marriage bed (fornication, adultery, sodomy, orgies, polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality) and that Christians must not partake in it at all costs:
Leviticus 18, Romans 1:22-27, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21-23, Colossians 3:5, and Ephesians 5:3-5.
You must stop this foolishness and deception immediately.
Andrew,
I think that before reacting, you need to understand the context in which people are saying things. The context for my first comment is the article by Pullman. And so my first comment show what and why I disagreed with in her article.
And so I was challenging what Pullman said about sex and reproduction. I challenged her definition of sex and I was trying to point out that what is suggested, if not implied, by her definition of sex, then the commandment prohibiting adultery would not apply to homosexuals. I also challenged what Pullman said about how the Founders emphasized marriage but that was in conjunction with what Pullman said about sex.
My point about animals and SSB is this, with the number of species that engage in SSB, because we don’t attribute a sin nature to them, there is a physical, natural cause for their behavior. And if they have a physical, natural cause for SSB, then there is probably a physical, natural cause why some people have SSA and engage in SSB. I’m not justifying that behavior. I am simply saying that there could be a physical cause for that and that would call on us to mitigate how we share what the Scriptures say about marriage to those from the LGBT community. Remember that in my comment, I said that a physical cause for a person’s own nature causing SSA is due to the fact that nature fell when Adam sinned. Think about what that means.
My position on marriage is that marriage must be monogamous and heterosexual for all who claim to be Christians. But I don’t think that we are to impose the heterosexual standard on society. If we were to impose what the Scriptures say about marriage on society, then the law would prohibit 2nd and so on marriages for all whose partners didn’t precede them in death or who partners did not commit adultery. BTW, you will find rules for remarriage that are specifically designed for believers in what Paul wrote to the Corinthians.
Finally, heterosexual couples sometimes engage in what is commonly thought of as homosexual acts. And I don’t think that you will find any Scriptures challenge that. What was said about sodomy initially referred to the the partners involved, not the specific acts. The definition of sodomy has changed since Biblical times. The rest of what you listed has nothing to do with homosexuality.
I have complete understanding of the context in this case, and have for the last several months through observation of what you write, as well.
There is no conceivable way that you are here to engage in good faith, nor do your disagreements with Pullman’s articles provide any good fruit. This example you tirelessly bring up about animals is pointless. Animals are just that – wild beasts, not created in the image of God. Why should we care about their behaviors and what impacts it has on evangelism? That makes no sense, as we are clearly distinguished from animals in Genesis. Because male animals have sex with numerous females and males, does that impact evangelism? This example you bring up is a ridiculous throw-away scenario that should not be regarded with any seriousness.
For someone so concerned about evangelism, you apparently do not care about shaping society to please God.
With this, I am done here. I have to get back to work, I don’t have all day to sit around commenting on blog posts with a leftist agenda like you.
Andrew,
Your view of me is based on your antagonism to my views. There is no good faith in what I write? Note my comment to the article Boniface or Paul Or note my comments on the article about church music. Or note my comment to Dunson’s article on GOP anti-Semitism bill. Those comments are all positive reactions to those articles and there are other articles from the past in which I expressed substantial agreement.
The real issue is that you would rather accuse than deal with specifics. In your first response to me, you wrote as if I said something different from what I said.
And so do you think that Pullman is speaking more from the Scriptures than from idealism? Don’t Scriptures point out 3 main purposes of sex, not just one? And where in our nation’s founding documents is the view of sex and marriage held, monolithically, by the Founders. Didn’t slaveowners like Jefferson have sex with slaves? And what about Ben Franklin’s sexual practices?
And what about what we see in nature. Doesn’t that give evidence that there can be physical, natural causes to SSA and SSB and that certainly doesn’t challenge Christian sexual morality because nature fell when Adam fell. And if one’s personal nature is contributing to one’s sexual behavior, shouldn’t we take that into consideration in terms of how we tell the truth. I am not saying that it should affect how we determine the truth. It’s that don’t we want to avoid putting stumbling blocks in the way of people listening to the Gospel?
Romans 2-3 is an important part of the Scriptures that helps us balance how we address those who are caught in the sins described in Romans 1.
Terrible, disingenuous argumentation. That some couples are unable to conceive children due to the sin and corruption in the world in no way nullifies God’s commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” after instituting marriage in the garden. Postulating otherwise is ridiculous and disingenuous. As if we aren’t uniquely made in the image of God, both distinct from the animals and over them (Gen 1:26)? And are animals under the same law as we are? Malachi 2:15 reveals clearly what God seeks from marriage: “godly offspring”. Like Andrew said above, you have no standing to call yourself a conservative Christian while departing from the clear teaching of Scripture and how the Church has interpreted its teaching on sex and marriage for millennia.
Harrison,
So every married couple is to be fruitful and multiply? Is the Church and/or state suppose to punish all married couples who refuse to reproduce? Or did the situation have something to do with when that command was given? Right now, with the carbon footprint that some nations, like the US has, one could legitimately argue not having kids would not just be an open option because reproduction is not the only main purpose of marriage, but that it would be a good choice to take provided that not all take that choice.
Other than that, please read my response to Andrew. It addresses the rest of your concerns.
Hey Curt, Joy Pullman is right on target. Let me ask you this: Two of your three from paragraph 1 about “reasons for uniting” existed BEFORE the fall. In other words, rooted in godly perfection and goodness.
1) “The LORD God said, ‘It is NOT GOOD for the man to be alone. I will make a helper SUITABLE for him.'” (Genesis 2:18) God made THE suitable helper and SHE was the first woman, a perfect godly complement to the perfect, original man, Adam.
2) The second comes from the blessing God gave them: “So God created mankind in His own Image, in the Image of God He created them; male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be FRUITFUL/FERTILE AND INCREASE IN NUMBER; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Genesis 1:27-28) Procreation/reproduction are godly and perfect in their blessing.
The controlling lust part only came after sin entered the picture. Any imagined SSB you see in animals isn’t to gain a loving stable relationship to honor their Creator. It’s power and lust by animals NEVER imbued with the Image of God. What animals do… is because they’re lower than man. Man is not just a higher animal–he’s wholly other because of the Image of God. If people spent half their time applying Matthew 19:12 to a sex life and accept a way to honor God given their personal feelings/inclinations, by living in the blessing–not in the brokenness–the world would be a more God-honoring place.
Barb,
Yes, two of those reasons existed before the fall. But the command to be fruitful and multiply has already been carried out; there are over 7 billion people on the earth. And so for the sake of future generations, we need to aware of the impact that having children could have on the world. With the carbon footprint that exists for each person America, it seems that being fruitful and multiplying should not be carried out with the same vigor that it was carried out with by Adam and his immediate descendants. Or are you saying that couples who refuse to or cannot reproduce should be legally prohibited from marrying?
Excellent article.
Thoughtful and thought provoking article, Joy. Curt … great job at getting attention. But, my Bro, you seem to elevate people’s desires over God’s clear directives. I do not share this view and reject your advice.
Dave,
Good job at trying to discredit a view you don’t like. But if you really think that I am trying to get attention, why respond to my comments?
And no, I don’t elevate people’s desires over God’s laws. What some here want to do with laws, I think we should do with evangelism only. Then again, if you read my responses to the other criticisms of my first comment, you would not have said that I try to elevate people desires over God’s laws. What I did say is that what we see in nature should mitigate how we respond to certain sins with the preaching of the Gospel. Not that we compromise what the Scriptures say, but we should watch how we come across to others.
I grew up in a religious cult, and I’m now agnostic. I’ve had an unconventional life with many unique experiences and observations. I also follow economic and social trends, and I’m especially interested in how these trends affect children and our future. I’m not an academic or professional researcher, have no agenda or ulterior motive, and share most of the same values as Christians.
That said, I agree with this article. Traditional marriage and happy, healthy, and productive kids are the cornerstone of civilization and social stability. The fact that some couples don’t have kids or are irresponsible or bad parents, SSB in animals, the definition of sex, reference to marriage in founding documents, etc., is irrelevant.
What matters is we need kids raised by both biological parents who have an environment that gives them the highest probability of success, which is a truly free market, limited government, the rule of law, honest money, low taxes (abolish the IRS and implement The Fair Tax) and regulations, and a meritocratic society where family, community, and tradition are still valued.
Regarding gay couples, they are free to live and associate with whomever they choose and enter into a legally binding contract regarding property, health, and other legal issues. But they should not be officially endorsed or recognized by the government or considered equal to traditional marriage, and they should not be allowed to adopt. Surrogacy is another issue that should be evaluated based primarily on what is best for the child and ethical, societal, and scientific arguments. But this is not the place to debate this issue.
Summed up, what is best for the children and society should be the priority, not the selfish needs of adults or used as a political talking point or a tool to push a radical woke agenda.
Dino,
Why shouldn’t we treat homosexuals as equals? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to enjoy same-sex marriage? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to adopt? Note that here I am talking about how society should regard homosexuals, not the Church. Church must prohibit homosexuality among its members and do a better job at learning how to evangelized those in the LGBT community.
He explained clearly in his comment why they shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt.
Yes he did, Curt is exhibiting his standard reading comprehension issues.
I really don’t know what to make of him.
Gordon,
First, I was asking Dino for his opinion.
I know Pullman’s view. Sex is only sanctified and made worthwhile, or a contribution to society, by reproduction. But that is not a Scriptural view. And she fails to note that heterosexual married couples also engage in sodomy and mutual masturbation. The latter is sometimes engaged because of changes in life. Should impotence in a married partner mean the end of sexual relations for the couple?
Also, she assumes that Jefferson meant the Aristotelian concept of happiness. She also begs the question of what best contributes to self government. Hers is a particular religious view and the Founders didn’t incorporate religion in forming the government. One only needs to examine the notes on the Constitutional Convention and the words of The Constitution to understand what little, if any, role religion played in the forming of the nation as defined by its founding documents. After all, what words does The Constitution begin with? In addition, one only needs to take a somewhat close look at the sexual practices of some of the founders to know that she isn’t speaking from a past reality.
As I wrote in my initial comment, she is speaking more from an idealism than from the Scriptures or reality; her reference to Aristotle is evidence to that claim. Many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians will uncritically accept what she wrote because they agree with her moral standards. I agree that sex should only be practiced in a heterosexual, monogamous relationship. But she reduces the purposes of sex beyond what the Scriptures do. In addition, her article begs the question of a Christian entitlement based on moral superiority to impose our moral values on others. Romans 2 argues against that; and please note what Romans 2 follows.
I know you were asking Dino, and Dino clearly stated his reasoning in his comments.
Gordon,
Not on the question I asked. He only said that the government should not grant same sex marriage as something equal to traditional marriage.
But I will ask you a question based on his response: Why shouldn’t society recognize same sex marriage as being equal to traditional marriage especially if we want full equality for the LGBT community? The Church certainly should not accept same sex marriage. But then again, the Church is made up of believers, society isn’t.
Dino’s second and third paragraph answer the questions you posed in your comment. I don’t know why you keep saying he didn’t answer the question(s) you asked because he did, before you even asked it.
Gordon,
It really answer the question. Basically Dino begs 2 questions of having to choose the best kind of family situation for kids. It begs the question of the best family setting and it begs the question of allowing for only the best family situation for raising kids. If we are only going to allow the best family situation, then should we legally prohibit single parent families or families with unbelieving parents or families where there are significant marital problems?
See, he really hasn’t answered the question, his alleged answers beg more questions than they attempt to answer.
Gordon,
There is one other question to be answered by Dino. Why should childless same-sex marriages not be counted as equal to childless heterosexual marriages?
BTW, the first sentence in my last comment left out the word ‘doesn’t.’ That word should have preceded the word ‘really.’
Curt, you mischaracterized Joy Pullman’s post. She does not argue that “Sex is only sanctified and made worthwhile, or a contribution to society, by reproduction.” Instead, she argued, “There is no government interest in a sexual relationship that has no capacity to produce children. It’s purely a private matter.” Those are different. Impotence, infertility, as well as sins committed within a marriage are also private matters and outside the purview of the government.
She made her argument on grounds of natural law and biology rather than appeal to Scripture. It is incoherent to criticize her for holding a “particular religious view” and also to accuse her of not following Scripture.
JW,
Please read a little bit more of what she said:
‘Marriage cannot be a natural right for homosexuals because homosexual interactions cannot create a family. Homosexual relationships can never produce natural children, nor any of the family relationships that extend from procreative capacity (aunts, uncles, cousins, grandchildren, and so forth). This removes a key reason for government to acknowledge or preference homosexual encounters.
There is no government interest in a sexual relationship that has no capacity to produce children. It’s purely a private matter. Since homosexual activities cannot possibly produce a child, there’s no government interest in, nor a natural right to, those activities.‘
Now go think about how she goes from the last sentence in the first paragraph just quoted to the first sentence from the 2nd paragraph just quoted. Government is the one that is recognizing the value of sexual relationships by conferring rights of marriage on the couples involved while it need not be involved in the sexual practices of same sex couples. What logically follows what she is saying is that the government would have no interest in recognizing the marriage of heterosexual couples until they had children.
Not only that, did you note how the status of naturally childless couples who adopt kids compares with the status of same sex couples that do the same? According to what she said before that puts adoptive heterosexual spouses in the same boat as same sex ones in terms of government interest:
‘History demonstrates that blood ties tend to provide the most security and joy available in human life. They are the foundation of every culture and society. Societies emerge from family stability and expansion, as families grow into “clans” or “tribes,” which sometimes turn into nations.‘
Suppose what was just quoted is correct, then government has no interest in the marital status of naturally childless couples who adopt.
The problem is that marriage contributes much more to a society than just children for the future. That is if what she said about marriage before all of the above quotes are true:
‘Marriage also directs dangerous sexual energies into productive behavior, which benefits everyone in multiple ways. In the first place, it reduces jealousies and social controversies—what we might call “drama.” People who don’t cheat on each other or change sexual partners contribute to social peace.
Marriage also tends to improve the character of the spouses and the children their marriage begets. Due to an intimacy unlike any other, husbands and wives can learn how to love others more intimately than single people can. ‘
Doesn’t that quote apply to same sex couples as much as heterosexual couples? Please notice the benefits that marriage brings to the spouses. Those benefits do not just affect the spouses, but because those spouses are citizens, those benefits affect society. And yet she also says that it is only when we bring children into the world that a marriage contributes to society.
Her answer is ‘NO‘ because:
‘So, to argue for erasing sex distinctions in marriage as a natural right requires a complete argument for sodomy and mutual masturbation as activities of the soul in accord with virtue.
But if mutual masturbation and even sodomy, which can be practiced by heterosexual married couples whose sexual function are affected by age and/or health and such practices controls ‘dangerous sexual energies,’ doesn’t that become part of the benefits that marriage can bring to spouses as well as to societies in which those spouses live? And if it can do that for heterosexual couples, why can’t it do it for same sex couples? Is it because only reproduction sanctifies sex?
What we learn from the Scriptures is that marriage is not just a private relationship, it carries with it social and legal ramifications. And those social and legal ramifications don’t come into existence only after children are naturally born into families. Those social and legal ramifications start on the wedding day and end either when there is a divorce or death. And even after those two events, there are leftover legal and social ramifications.
In contradicting herself multiple times, she shows that reproduction is what justifies sex. For what is her intent here? Is it not to argue for a government recognized hierarchy of recognizing the relationships of couples based on their sexual practices? And if those marriages are not equal, then homosexuals cannot be regarded as being equal to heterosexuals because only heterosexuals can benefit society with their sexual practices while homosexuals cannot. In fact, it is not too much of a jump to go from Pullman’s position to a position that says that homosexuality is harmful to society and thus we must marginalize homosexuals. But lucky focus, Pullman contradicts herself multiple times.
Homosexual parents are not equal to heterosexual parents for countless empirically based reasons. Men and women each evolved with unique biological and psychological traits to raise healthy children that complement each other. Modernity and rapidly advancing tech have complicated this issue and created many challenges. But that doesn’t change what millennia of evolution perfected.
Rather than get into the weeds and debate this complex issue with strangers online, I prefer to ask the simple question, “What is best for the children?” I think I read that from Katy Faust. But it makes sense to me.
I’ve worked with kids for decades. As a driver for child protective services, driving instructor, model photographer, and media technician who toured 46 states presenting drug and alcohol shows in schools and other venues. And most of the problems I witnessed seemed to originate with people not putting the kids and their best interests first. And that was before legitimate concerns related to social media, technology, the current radical woke agenda, and worsening socioeconomic trends.
Lastly, decades ago, as a model photographer, all my male makeup artists were gay. One was even transitioning. I considered them friends and always treated them with dignity and respect. I didn’t care what they did in their private life, and back then, they never involved children in those activities and weren’t pushing a radical agenda. They were free to live their lives as any other American, and none ever expressed to me feeling unequal or oppressed. However, like me, many were deeply troubled and had traumatic childhoods.
Dino,
Consider Romans 1-2. After describing homosexuality and other sins in Romans 1, how does Romans 2 start and continue? Or what about Romans 3:9 where those mentioned in Romans 1 and Romans 2 are declared to be equal.
BTW, I don’t share your positive appraisal of the past. When was this time where we could see the perfected products of evolution?
BTW, regarding your makeup artists, would they feel free and not feel oppressed in a nation where there were Christian Nationalists? I am glad that they didn’t feel oppressed, but I know others who did. And we don’t have the ability to determine why some of them felt oppressed and why others didn’t. But how do you think they would feel in a nation run by Christian Nationalists?
First, I’m agnostic. My comments are not based on scripture but on my values, extensive life experience and observations, empirical evidence such as biology and evolutionary adaptations, and history that strongly suggests heterosexual marriage and family are the foundation for civilization and progress.
Second, I don’t know what you mean by positive appraisal of the past. I’m only stating that evolution furthers positive adaptations, and the rest die off. Those that continue may not be perfect, but they work better than anything else, and as a result, our species continues to thrive.
Finally, why do you make arguments based on what-ifs rather than reality? And you seem to suggest that we can prevent anyone from feeling oppressed. I’m curious, how do we achieve that? Throughout the last century, I think statist governments tried something similar with disastrous results, with over 150 million dead, untold suffering, and countless lives ruined.
Dino,
My observations have different results than yours have. And I would appreciate it if you would provide documentation for your empirical claims.
But here is the lines that I struggle with:
‘But that doesn’t change what millennia of evolution perfected.‘
And
‘What is best for the children?‘
I object to the first. line because I don’t see the perfection you see. I think worthiness of parents should determined on a case by case basis. That means that there will be some heterosexual parents who will be better than some same sex parents and vice-versa.
In addition, we haven’t given the time for evolution to have its effects on same sex parenting that we have given for heterosexual parenting. For example, in this nation homosexuality was just legalized a few decades ago in this nation. Why was that the case? It was due to the influence of Christendom, not evolution, on this nation and all of Europe as well.That means that the effects of past marginalization will still come into play for a while. And when those effects die off, then we can see what trial and error will take place. Please note the different conditions that the two groups you are comparing have faced. And yet, the single variable you have selected is the sexual orientation of the parents. Such is not a very scientific appraisal.
For the second quote, should we base our laws governing parenting on what is best for the children? If so, consider how many parents would face legal problems because they are not providing the best?
We see reality differently. But what-ifs are important too when we compare groups that have been treated regarded differently. Post Modernism’s views of religions like Christianity are based on historical realities. Should those historical realities determine the legal existence of those religions?
Frankly, I can’t follow the thread of your argument. It’s nonsensical. I will abandon this thread after this. I will just make a couple points.
You asked at one point: “Doesn’t that quote apply to same sex couples as much as heterosexual couples?” The answer is “no.” Why would it? Nothing she said necessarily applies to same-sex couples. She specifically writes of marriage, which excludes same-sex couples. I’m inclined to think that sodomy does not produce the same intimacy as marriage, given that one is in accord with God’s design and the other not.
Pullman argued that marriage itself “directs dangerous sexual energies into productive behavior.” That obviously does not include sodomy. Nothing in her argument means that she considers sodomy is part of the benefits of marriage. So, no, her argument does not require that reproduction sanctifies sex. Sodomy and sex are different.
One broader point: I can’t speak for Joy Pullman, but I would argue that heterosexual relations are sanctified because they are in accord with God’s design. That will be deeply connected with procreation, but in this fallen world various infirmities that sever procreation from sex do not invalidate the general principle.
JW,
I am not sure why you cannot follow the logic. I simply said that when what same sex couples practice is practiced by what heterosexual spouses practice, why don’t the benefits of those practices in a heterosexual marriage also benefit same sex spouses too? Consider the quote from her article:
‘‘Marriage also directs dangerous sexual energies into productive behavior, which benefits everyone in multiple ways.‘
Besides stating it is obvious, why can’t sodomy practiced in heterosexual marriages which benefits the spouses involved also benefit spouses in same sex marriages? Or, if sodomy is too much for you to consider, why can’t mutual masturbation practiced in heterosexual marriages also be beneficial to spouses in a same sex marriage? After all, mutual masturbation can be a substitute for traditional sex when age or health makes one of the partners unable to function sexually.
The issue here is consistency. Why can’t what sexual practices that benefit a couple in a heterosexual marriage also benefit a couple in a same sex marriage. For you, the answer seems to be it is obvious why. For Pullman, she defines homosexual sex and same sex marriages out of existence by being arbitrarily selective in her criteria for marriage and sex. And so, according to her, only sex that leads to reproduction has virtue and therefore only reproduction sanctifies sex–my original point. But while she applies the criteria of reproduction to sex in same sex marriages, she doesn’t apply that same criteria to all of the sexual practices that heterosexual spouses engage in, especially for those who either are unable to reproduce or refuse to. And so in there, she contradicts herself.
I agree that heterosexual marriages are God’s design. The scriptures are firm about homosexuality being a sin. But we also live in a society in which there is freedom of religion. And unless we want to violate the Establishment Clause, using a specific religious view to define marriage in society causes problems especially when not all who profess to be Christians agree. Here, I am talking about society, not the Church.
And so Pullman wants to make a non-religious Christian argument against government recognizing same sex marriage. But in her use of specially crafted definitions, she not only shows inconsistencies in her argument, she ends up denying realities that same sex spouses experience and enjoy. And so the government should not agree with her argument. And while evangelizing or talking about the subject we can’t afford to use her line of argument here against same sex relations and marriages because the weakness of her argument would destroy our credibility as witness to the Gospel.
Rather than follow her approach to the subject, we need to both be logically consistent and acknowledge the realities that same sex couples and spouses experience. But at the same time, we need to remain strongly faithful to what the Scriptures say about same sex relations and marriages. And we can do all of that by showing the tradeoffs that come with not following God’s design. Here we should note that because nature has fallen when Adam sinned, an individual’s own physical nature could very well tell that person that their homosexual longings are natural and thus right. And so instead of denying the origin and existence of those longings, we need to layout the tradeoffs that exist in going against the Scriptures. And while doing that, us heterosexuals can relate with homosexuals in that we have our own nature driven heterosexual longings that go against the Scriptures.
I said I was done, but your comment rankles.
Curt, I think you can be sure something has gone awry with your thinking when you are arguing that homosexual sodomy is good for society. Do you really want to defend that?
Maybe I’m dumb, but I still don’t get why you think she believes only reproduction sanctifies. A statement that only unions that have the capacity to procreate are true marriages does not mean reproduction itself sanctifies.
Here’s why acts in a homosexual union do not produce the same benefits as the same acts in a heterosexual marriage: homosexual acts proceed from intrinsically disordered desires and are purely self serving to satisfy base desires. Some acts in a heterosexual marriage may also be sinful and self serving, but they don’t have to be.
Sodomy in a heterosexual marriage is probably unhealthy most of the time, but Joy Pullman never said sodomy in any union is beneficial.
Let me try another tack to understand your point. If I understand correctly, your argument is that Joy Pullman must believe the following:
1-Marriage redirects sexual energy into productive behavior and benefits society
2-Sodomy and masturbation are part of marriage that redirects sexual energy into productive behavior
3-Sodomy and masturbation in homosexual unions has the same effect as in heterosexual marriage
Therefore sodomy and masturbation in homosexual unions benefits society.
Joy is inconsistent because she must believe 1-3 but rejects the necessary conclusion. Or she could reject 2 only if she believes sex is sanctified by reproduction. Is that your argument?
The problem is she could reject 2 and 3 and therefore avoid the inconsistency. She could reject 3 for the reasons I gave above. She could reject 2 if she believes sodomy and masturbation are wrong in marriage except for limited cases due to infirmity. No inconsistency there.
JW,
Didn’t she say that sodomy and mutual masturbation have to prove their worth while the only sexual practice that she recognizes as contributing to society and thus having virtue is sex leading to reproduction? If she did, then what logically follows is that reproduction sanctifies sex.
And so before focusing on homosexuality, let’s focus on sodomy and mutual masturbation and assume that it is practiced by a monogamous, heterosexual married couple. She stated that marriage benefits society because of its effects on the spouses and children. One of the benefits it bestows on the spouses is that it properly channels their sexual energies. Now if a heterosexual married couple practices sodomy and mutual masturbation and that contributes to their marriage and marriage benefits society, then hasn’t she contradicted herself when she says that sodomy and mutual masturbation have yet to prove its worth to society? And so her inconsistency is found not in what she could accept or reject, it is found in what she asserted to be true.
BTW, if you are going to lay out an argument, you need to know when to use hypothetical statements. In fact, if you go to her earlier statements, she says why reproduction in marriage is important to society. It is because of the importance of the continuity of blood lines. Besides the fact that that is possibly a racist statement, it implies that the government has no interest in couples adopting children, especially non-relative children. She also attributes attitudes about marriage and sexual relationships to the Founders that the behavior of some, if not many, of them seems to have contradicted.
Now we can ask why if sodomy and mutual masturbation can benefit a monogamous, heterosexual married couple, why can’t we ask the same for a monogamous, homosexual married couple. Here I added the word monogamous because the ill effects that our sexual practices have had on society are due to promiscuity, not sexual techniques. And promiscuity in our nation has been fueled by our natural desires, the sexual revolutions (there have been more than just one), and our consumer society. Consumer society has turbo charged our promiscuity because in a consumer society, personal significance is found in what we consume, how we consume it, and how much we consume.
I take it that you are in fact pro-homosexual sodomy. That’s weird.
You wrote: “Didn’t she say that sodomy and mutual masturbation have to prove their worth while the only sexual practice that she recognizes as contributing to society and thus having virtue is sex leading to reproduction? If she did, then what logically follows is that reproduction sanctifies sex.”
No. She also wrote that intimacy in a heterosexual couple also benefits society. And, “having virtue” is not identical with sanctification.
You also wrote: “Now if a heterosexual married couple practices sodomy and mutual masturbation and that contributes to their marriage and marriage benefits society, then hasn’t she contradicted herself when she says that sodomy and mutual masturbation have yet to prove its worth to society? And so her inconsistency is found not in what she could accept or reject, it is found in what she asserted to be true.”
She doesn’t contradict herself because she didn’t say that sodomy and mutual masturbation contributes to their marriage. That idea was supplied by you.
JW,
You take it wrong. I have the same reaction to homosexuality that have to the following of other faiths. I want a society in which those who follow other faiths have the same rights as I do. And so I want them to have the right to make choices that I don’t want them to take.
BTW, she never explicitly stated that heterosexuals spouses practiced sodomy or mutual masturbation. But below is a quote from her article only this time I am including more than just that line:
‘Aristotle famously defined happiness as “an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.” The Founders understood happiness this way as well. So, to argue for erasing sex distinctions in marriage as a natural right requires a complete argument for sodomy and mutual masturbation as activities of the soul which are virtuous or produce virtue. Answering that argument would require another book, or several, but suffice it to say that it’s not self-evident, and the Founders would never have accepted such an argument.
Absent a credible case for the positive virtue of homosexual sex acts, the fact that homosexual encounters cannot produce children should suffice to demonstrate that the state has no legitimate natural rights–based interest in such private behavior.‘
She first indicates that happiness and virtue are inseparable according to Aristotle. Then she claimed that the Founders embraced Aristotle’s view of happiness. Please note the sexual behavior of at least some of the Founders was very questionable. After all, many of the Founders were slave owners and many slave owners had sex with slaves as well as their own wives. And then there were the exploits of people like Benjamin Franklin.
It’s after that when she says that to eliminate sex distinctions in marriage, an argument has to be made showing that sodomy and mutual masturbation are virtuous. What does that suggest, if not implies, about who practices sodomy and mutual masturbation? And what comes after that is that a statement stating that not only has such an argument has not been made, but it would require one or more books to make it because the claim itself is not ‘self-evident.’ So obviously, she doesn’t believe that such an argument has so far been made. What follows that is her pronouncement that without a valid argument showing the virtue of sodomy and mutual masturbation, then there is no natural rights argument to be made for government having an interest in protecting those kinds of private practices.
At the very beginning, I said that she claims that reproduction sanctifies sex. It is reproduction’s contribution to society that merits reproductive sex’s virtuous standing. And it is its virtuous standing that determines whether government has a legitimate interest in protecting the right to practice such sex.
IMO, you are not arguing with me as much as you are arguing with some parts of her article.
If you don’t understand my comments, I’ll clarify them even more. In a free society, people choose how they live, which is influenced by human nature, and that almost always involves making some irresponsible choices and the inevitable personal consequences. Or, if they break the law or violate another person’s rights, they have to pay according to the law, criminally or civilly.
Regarding children, in a free country, stupid, irresponsible people are allowed to procreate, couples divorce for legitimate and sometimes selfish reasons, spouses die, and sometimes, like me, kids are raised in a cult by a loving single mom with the best of intentions. We can only focus on what is within our legal control, including our values, behavior, and choices. And for me, advocating for children and putting their needs first is the best choice for myself and society.
Dino,
We had a free society during Christendom? Many racial groups as well as the LGBT community would beg to differ.
BTW, regarding your second paragraph, what would seem to logically follow is that we require that those want to be parents to receive a government license before being allowed to procreate. The problem here is that parenting is an on-the-job training process where for the lifetime of the parents, they are being educated as to how to parent their children.
I’ve stated my opinion clearly, yet you still don’t seem to understand. Is it bias, my poor writing skills, or are you just being an agitator like most people I encounter online?
You seem to want to get into the weeds and split hairs. If an old lady, incapable of having children, gets married, does she lose favored status? How about a man or woman whose spouse dies? Or a married woman who has a miscarriage? Or a heterosexual couple who chooses not to have kids?
Or, if we wait long enough and allow children to be used in a woke social experiment (gay marriage), those relationships will eventually be normal and healthy, even though evolutionary changes and adaptions often take generations. etc.
Regardless, heterosexual marriage should be held in high esteem and supported throughout society whether you have kids or not, and the needs of children should ALWAYS be a priority.
Furthermore, perfection or equal outcomes don’t exist, which I never stated. Human nature always fucks things up! In theory, we should be equal under the law, have equal opportunities, trust in our institutions and elections, and have a shared language, cultural history, and values. But the system is broken and heading for a reset.
I believe in limited government and individual sovereignty, so no, I don’t think we need to get a license for marriage and countless other things, except perhaps for legal reasons and at the state level. That said, under our current system, the government and society should value and support heterosexual marriage and nurture a foundation for success and raising children.
Why? Because heterosexual marriage and families are empirically the cornerstone of civilization and a healthy society. Men and women are uniquely adapted and complementary to raising kids and furthering the human race. But it’s a numbers game because stupid, irresponsible people are allowed to procreate, and human nature will fuck things up. That’s why borders, language, culture, the rule of law, tradition, community, minimum cultural standards, virtue, etc., are vital for a stable, healthy society and provide a foundation for healthy heterosexual marriage and child-rearing.
Is it a healthy environment for children to attend a drag queen story hour, gay pride events, LQBTQWTF political events, etc, be taught from kindergarten graphically about masturbation, gay sex, and other taboo sex fetishes, or be exposed long-term to the typical gay lifestyle?
And what about the potential mental health issues from peer pressure, bullying, attending school events and other functions with two mommies or daddies, etc? Yes, heterosexual couples have issues, such as alcoholism, addiction, physical and sexual abuse, immorality, divorce, etc. But as free and sovereign individuals, they created their children naturally, and we have laws and social services to handle those issues. But we would never knowingly put children in those environments!
According to my criteria, a gay couple could enter into a legal contract with a surrogate and have a child. But I’m against surrogacy, which is complex and beyond this discussion here.
By the way, the law is always lagging behind technology, and just because we can doesn’t mean we should. This is where open and civil public debate and a healthy society are vital. But currently, we’re deeply divided and experiencing censorship, outright propaganda, gaslighting, and being force-fed a radical woke agenda.
What about behavioral mirroring, maternal bonding, natural breastfeeding (no need for toxic chemicals!), and countless other psychological and biological processes vital for healthy child development? Can a same-sex couple replicate that?
How about we err on the side of caution, put the needs of children first, and follow what’s worked for millennia? It’s not that complicated unless you’re trying to destabilize Western culture and values and promote a radical agenda that, like statism or modern monetary theory, has no historical and empirical record of success.
Dino,
What are you objecting to. I rhetorically asked if we had a free society during Christendom because many minorities and the LGBT community would disagree. Do you disagree?
Then I asked for clarification on your second because, as I wrote, what seems to logically follow is that we should require those who would be parents to pass some kind of test to get a license to avoid kids being brought up in not so good environments.
You stated that you rely on empirical evidence but have not provided any documentation. And your life experiences are not universal. For example, they don’t match mine.
You’ve claimed evolution has shown that heterosexual couples are better parents than same sex couples. Perhaps here it would be good for you to explicitly use an existential quantifier rather than imply a universal one in your claims. There are essential parts to parenting that both heterosexual and same sex parents can provide and they are more important than what either set of parents can exclusively provide. The stability of the relationship between the parents involved is one such important part to parenting that when missing, cannot compensated for by what heterosexual couples can exclusively provide. And again, you are basing the claims that you are making making on the principle of what is best rather than what is not good. Should we only allow those who can provide the very best home environments for children to be parents? Or should we also allow all of those couples who provide only good home environments to be parents?
What has really worked for the past 1,000 to 2,000 years and how do we measure that? If we measure successful parenting by the results, we find that something needs to change because we are constantly producing adults who strive to dominate each other regardless of the cost to others. It’s easy to say that for the past 1,000 years, heterosexual parents are better than same sex ones because many of those same heterosexual parents were busy marginalizing those from the LGBT community Is bringing up kids under that kind of environment healthy for them?
In addition, you don’t consider the different conditions in which heterosexual parents have worked under compared with the conditions in which same sex parents have worked under. To say that is not nit picking, it is identifying important variables that could drastically affect the results we observe. And the scientific process involves the detail work required to identify and isolate those variables. That is a necessary requirement in producing any valid empirical data.
Frankly, you’ve made scientific claims that you have yet to support with documentation. I understand when you speak from experience and I respect that. But don’t assume that your experiences and the lessons learned from them are universally shared. The difference experiences and lessons learned by others don’t disprove your experiences and what you have learned from them just as your experiences and lessons learned don’t disprove what other people have experienced and learned.
As for your questions about healthy environments, is it healthy to teach kids to look down on the LGBT community because of their lifestyles? Or is it better for young children to view those in the LGBT community as equals? Is it good to teach elementary school age kids about some of the basics of sex? Do you realize the average age of kids who are exposed to sex through the internet? Or I will speak from personal experience. I was propositioned by kids who were a couple of years older than me while I was of an elementary school age. Would we rather have responsible adults talk about sexual issues when kids are young or should we rely on peer education?
My concern with what you have written is that you have made a few claims that are either not supported with documentation or they are based on experiences that are not universally shared. As a result, you have begged some questions in your comments. So you could provide documentation for your claims and/or we could enter a give-take comparison of our life experiences and the lessons we have learned.
There are volumes of empirically based biological and behavioral data for men, women, and child-rearing and development (feel free to Google it), in addition to common sense, obvious conclusions through experience and observation. And there is data for same-sex couples and children that should cause concern. But much of it is censored and hard to find. Anyone attempting to study this issue could lose valuable grant money, be publicly demonized, have their lives ruined, and lose their career.
You asked how we measure what works. Refer to the above paragraph, plus thousands of years of history, and more specifically, the success of the United States, Western culture, the free market, and the unprecedented quality of life and freedom we enjoy today. And heterosexual marriage and families are the cornerstone of that success.
Do we have one historical example of a thriving culture where same-sex couples raised children, and we’re considered equal to heterosexual couples? Does the human evolutionary record have any examples?
Regarding sex ed, that is the responsibility of the parents, as well as controlling their children’s access to the internet, social media, and smartphones and protecting against external threats. There are countless resources to help parents deal with the complexities of technology and our rapidly changing culture.
The government has no business in our private lives or in how we raise our children.
By the way, in my unconventional and extensive life experiences, I’ve never met anyone who taught their children to look down on, hate, or disrespect LQBTQWTF. But they are not equal, just as different cultures and individuals are unequal. You can’t force people to accept you, how you choose to live your life and validate your beliefs. But that’s what the woke agenda is trying to do. It’s not enough to be free and live however you choose and be left alone.
As I’ve stated before, we need shared values, minimum standards, language, culture, the rule of law, a defined border, honest money, meritocracy, and limited government to thrive as a society. But instead of a society based on Judaeo-Christian values, as the Founders intended, today we have a tower of Babel dominated by identity politics, a radical woke agenda, apartheid against whites, a systemic Marxist-fueled narrative against Western civilization and its accomplishments, and a bloated corrupt government. And the radical LGBTQWTF, DEI, and green agendas are part of that narrative to destabilize and divide our culture.
No matter how clearly I state my case, you claim not to understand or that I lack empirical evidence. I’ve dealt with people like you my whole life, and it’s always futile. You are not genuinely interested in honest debate or truth. So, consider this my final response. I’ve already wasted too much valuable time here.
Dino,
You made the claim, you provide just a sample of documentation that you have read that leads you to those conclusions. And then you talk about censorship of a data that should be a concern. If you have found some of that, you can provide a sample of documentation supporting your claims instead of telling someone who asks you to provide some documentation to ‘Go Fish.’
Evolution hasn’t pointed to what you have said. Rather, 2 major religions have deeply restricted the development of same sex family life. Realize that\ these religions are based on revelation, not evolution. Take Christianity for example. Since some time during Christendom, homosexuality has been made illegal where Christendom existed and the LGBT community had been driven underground. That has been the situation for at least 1,000 years. And do you honestly believe that you can casually compare a community that has been living so marginalized with the heterosexual community that was highly praised and then claim that the variable that causes negative effects in the former group is sexual orientation?
If you want to look for where the LGBT lifestyles were respected in societies, why not look up the term ‘Two Spirit’ for the indigenous people of the Americas. Some tribes honored people who were neither male nor female. Their gender was defined more by the roles they lived out with either partners and/or the tribe than biology. And with greater diversity in genders also came same sex relationships. And those tribes thrived in the Americas until European colonization where Europe’s Christendom attacked and tried to purge that part of Native American life from the tribes involved (see https://www.hrc.org/news/two-spirit-and-lgbtq-idenitites-today-and-centuries-ago AND https://www.ihs.gov/lgbt/health/twospirit/ AND https://www.prismfl.org/post/homosexuality-in-the-pre-colonial-americas AND https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8KH0WGH/download&ved=2ahUKEwjukMi_j_GGAxU1D1kFHb6RDzIQFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2Ng2eyEexP_H-kXYjeqdSZ –see download for the last link). And one of the major reasons why Europeans were able to conquer the land was because of industrialization. Another reason was the number of Europeans and then born white Americans out numbered the tribes. In their own right, those indigenous people thrived on this continent until European colonization took place.
That you have never met people who have taught their children not to look down on those in the LGBT community is not necessarily the same for others. I still remember a time when homosexual acts were criminalized. I remember a news story on one of the 3 major networks at that time talking about homosexuality in negative ways. Even now, who is resisting equality for the LGBT community? It is the religiously conservative Christian community where some, if not many, of whom will call homosexuals ‘perverts’ and ‘deviants.’ When one teaches their children to refer to homosexuals in that way, do you think that one hasn’t already taught their children to hate such people?
Finally, we do need to values to unite culture around. But those values could include the acceptance of diversity, equality, and inclusion rather than the acceptance of traditional values on sex. One of the advantages of uniting around DEI is that it is far more inclusive than uniting around a particular moral view of sex. On the one hand, you are right in saying that you can’t force a person to accept you. But laws can prevent people who don’t accept you from abusing you. And for all of Christendom, those laws not only did not exist, but laws to harm those in the LGBT community did exist.
In addition, we could be proud as we want to be about Western Civ. But, logically speaking, we can only be that proud when we exclude the exploitations, abuses, and atrocities that have come with Western Civ.
Dino,
I just responded to this last comment of yours but it is being moderated. And so if it doesn’t show, I will try to respond again. But again I will note that what you attribute to evolution from your source of material is really attributed to influence of Christendom here and Islam in other places. And those religions are based on revelation, not in systematic studies.
And that civilizations that held to other views on sexual orientation and even gender identity thrived in their own right. One can check the ‘Two Spirit’ references that existed in some indigenous tribes in the Americas. Of course, Christendom attacked those views.
In addition to the self-evident evolutionary biological and behavioral traits of males and females uniquely adapted to raising children that predate Western civilization and Christianity and the wisdom and success of that symbiotic relationship, I’ve included several articles that provide further compelling arguments and counter your misguided support of DEI.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/06/checking_the_apas_findings_on_homosexual_parenting.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/momlessness_and_dadlessness_as_a_way_of_life.html
https://www.deseret.com/2006/8/17/19968957/thomas-sowell-gay-couples-misunderstand-intent-of-marriage-laws/
https://victorhanson.com/dei-cronyism-and-woke-grifters/
https://victorhanson.com/will-dei-end-america-or-america-end-dei/
https://victorhanson.com/americas-culture-in-collapse/
https://victorhanson.com/obamas-gay-marriage-evolution-deception/
https://www.wnd.com/2012/01/the-real-problem-with-gay-marriage/
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2008/04/24/an-argument-against-same-sex-marriage-an-interview-with-rick-santorum/
https://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/homosexual-surrogacy-violates-the-childs-need-for-a-lifelong-relationship-with-his-mother/
https://thefederalist.com/2023/10/25/the-west-is-killing-marriage-and-its-death-might-kill-the-west/
https://thembeforeus.com/study-studies-same-sex-parenting/
https://thembeforeus.com/harvard-confirms-what-we-knew-to-be-true-commercial-separation-of-kids-from-their-parents-is-harmful/
https://thembeforeus.com/dr-paul-sullins-refutes-common-same-sex-studies/
Dino,
Unfortunately I have to take a break in order to address some hardware issues. I will respond asap. Thank you for the links. I will go over them asap.
I did go over a few articles however and here is my take for now. When you say Evolution has proved this or that, you need to cite some scientific studies. I’ve only looked at a few articles and they are ideologically based, rather than scientifically based. And so like the APA claim about same-sex parenting, which part of the conclusion by Social Science Research was that more studies are needed to establish that point, it seems that your claim about evolution still lacks documentation support from scientific sources.
Again, I will look at all of the links and will get back to you asap.
BTW, If you don’t support DEI,
Dino,
Forgot to finish my last sentence.
If you don’t support DEI, how should those from the LGBT community be treated by society?
As I stated repeatedly, the success and wisdom of evolutionary adaptations are SELF-EVIDENT! Plus, volumes of peer-reviewed biological, behavioral, and societal studies also confirm the societal benefit of heterosexual marriage and child-rearing. Feel free to Google it.
Regarding the articles I provided, they are not solely ideologically based. They also cite studies, use critical thinking and common sense, and refer to biological and behavioral facts and history to support their arguments.
I don’t have time to hold your hand and go down the rabbit hole since this is one radical woke issue among many that are destroying Western civilization, and debating this issue from one article with a stranger who seems ideologically and emotionally motivated is not a productive use of my valuable time.
By the way, if you’re going to upend thousands of years of what’s empirically worked for something completely new with unknown consequences for children and society, the burden of proof is on you.
Finally, without DEI, you asked how should those from the LGBTQWTF community be treated by society. If you have to ask, you’re not paying attention. They should be treated like everybody else according to the U.S. Constitution and the law in a meritocratic society based on Judeo-Christian values, natural law, and heterosexual marriage. I’m agnostic and single with no children, but I’m free to live and love as I choose. And every LGBTQWTF person I’ve ever known, including their circle of friends, had the same freedom. And that was long before our current woke insanity and civilizational suicide.
Why is it never enough for people to be left alone and free to live their lives however they choose? Thomas Sowell and many others brilliantly address this issue. Instead, the radical left follows the playbook laid out in the book Rules for Radicals and other Marxist tactics to undermine and destroy society without offering an empirically based alternative with a history of success. They’re useful idiots for the State, lack integrity, are incapable of critical thinking, and seem to be ruled by their emotions, especially envy.
Dino,
You’ve provided no scientific documentation that backs your claim about evolution and same-sex parenting. None. To do so, you would first have to compare two groups of parents where the social conditions for both groups are the same. To compare one group that, because of religion, has been marginalized for over a millennium prohibits that kind of scientific study.
And it wasn’t evolution that caused the LGBT community to be marginalized, it was religious prejudices. That is why for centuries there has been a dominance of heterosexual marriages. To not recognize the role of religion in oppressing the LGBT community is disingenuous.
I’ve looked at the list of articles you provided. Most are just opinion pieces where the arguments are based on the pejorative use of labels and the sky is falling predictions. Of the real scientific studies, the conclusions are the same: more research is needed. But again, to isolate the sex of the parents as the variable that most affects the raising of children, then the social conditions for both sets of parents studies must be similar enough to rule out the effects of the social conditions.
You are making unsubstantiated claims regarding same-sex parenting. In addition, there is no scientific documentation that shows that same-sex married couples should not be able to adopt or have, through surrogacy, children. Even if you say that heterosexual spouses are better parents than same-sex spouses, your argument doesn’t hold. After all, just because a child tends to do better when living in a 2 parent home does not imply the necessity of prohibiting single parent homes.
Curt,
What you last wrote in reply to my comment was unintelligible, but I think you inverted Pullman’s meaning.
This thread shows the absurdity of trying to square progressive views on sexuality with biblical Christianity. You end up in bizarre positions.
Also, you mischaracterized Pullman’s views and argued against a straw man version of what she wrote. It behooves you to make more effort to honestly describe your interlocutor’s position.
Maybe spend less time commenting and more time thinking?
JW,
First, what’s so unintelligible about my first paragraph in my last response to you?
Second, I have never tried to square the progressive view of sexuality with the Biblical one. Note again what I wrote in the first paragraph of my last response when you wrote that I agree with pro homosexuality sodomy:
‘You take it wrong. I have the same reaction to homosexuality that have to the following of other faiths. I want a society in which those who follow other faiths have the same rights as I do. And so I want them to have the right to make choices that I don’t want them to take.‘
If I as a religiously conservative Christian don’t want them to choose other faiths or homosexuality, how am I for homosexuality or trying to square homosexuality with what the Scriptures say?
In addition, in a June 20th, 8:36 Am comment that I wrote to you, I said:
‘I agree that heterosexual marriages are God’s design. The scriptures are firm about homosexuality being a sin. But we also live in a society in which there is freedom of religion. And unless we want to violate the Establishment Clause, using a specific religious view to define marriage in society causes problems especially when not all who profess to be Christians agree. Here, I am talking about society, not the Church.‘
And so what is so bizarre about my position? Again, I clearly say that homosexuality is a sin. But the article isn’t about what Christians in the Church are allowed to do, it is about what unbelievers in society should be allowed to do. And so what is wrong with saying that society should allow its members to practice different sexual practices than what those in the Church are allowed to practice?
Finally, look again at what she said:
‘Aristotle famously defined happiness as “an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.” The Founders understood happiness this way as well. So, to argue for erasing sex distinctions in marriage as a natural right requires a complete argument for sodomy and mutual masturbation as activities of the soul which are virtuous or produce virtue. Answering that argument would require another book, or several, but suffice it to say that it’s not self-evident, and the Founders would never have accepted such an argument.
Absent a credible case for the positive virtue of homosexual sex acts, the fact that homosexual encounters cannot produce children should suffice to demonstrate that the state has no legitimate natural rights–based interest in such private behavior.‘
First she cited Aristotle’s view of happiness. Then she claimed that the Founders had that view of happiness. But I pointed out that her claim is contradicted by at least some of the Founders’ sexual behaviors. Some of the Founders were slave owners and at least some of them had children with their slaves. And that didn’t include Ben Franklin who was a known womanizer. What is so unintelligible about that?
Then I talked about what she said about sodomy and masturbation. I wrote:
‘It’s after that when she says that to eliminate sex distinctions in marriage, an argument has to be made showing that sodomy and mutual masturbation are virtuous. What does that suggest, if not implies, about who practices sodomy and mutual masturbation? And what comes after that is that a statement stating that not only has such an argument has not been made, but it would require one or more books to make it because the claim itself is not ‘self-evident.’ So obviously, she doesn’t believe that such an argument has so far been made. What follows that is her pronouncement that without a valid argument showing the virtue of sodomy and mutual masturbation, then there is no natural rights argument to be made for government having an interest in protecting those kinds of private practices.‘
Please identify what parts of that paragraph are unintelligible, inverts what she said, or uses a straw man. Or better yet, tell me how you would interpret the part of her article that I quoted.
It seems that your last comment is only full of accusations rather including any rational discussion. In addition, in an early comment you said::
‘I take it that you are in fact pro-homosexual sodomy. That’s weird.‘
At least you explained why you made that comment.
My guess is that you have some firm beliefs that you assume all Christians should have and that makes it difficult for you to understand what I am writing.
Curt, I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse and dishonest and your long, rambling comments are intended to distract from the substance. Nevertheless, I will persist and maybe, just maybe, you will reduce or improve your comments.
You espoused the progressive view of marriage equality for homosexuals. In criticizing Joy Pullman’s article you ended up insisting that homosexual sodomy is beneficial for the partners and society. That’s what I consider bizarre.
Here’s why your comment was unintelligible: you wrote, “BTW, she never explicitly stated that heterosexuals spouses practiced sodomy or mutual masturbation. But below is a quote from…” Somehow we are to infer from the quote something about the activities of heterosexual couples? And somehow I’m in disagreement with her? I don’t follow.
NB: the point of dispute was not whether sodomy or mutual masturbation occur in marriages, but whether they are beneficial. What she is saying in the quote is simply that the Founders would not have accepted the argument that sodomy and mutual masturbation are in accord with virtue and that argument is not self-evident. We could infer that she considers those activities not to be beneficial, i.e., the opposite of what you insist she believes.
The mischaracterization of her views is that you think she believes reproduction sanctifies sex and you use some version of that to claim she holds unscriptural views of marriage. That’s the straw man.
Also, why quote the article and change a few words?
JW,
Earlier you said the following about me:
‘I take it that you are in fact pro-homosexual sodomy. That’s weird.‘
And I replied:
‘You take it wrong. I have the same reaction to homosexuality that have to the following of other faiths. I want a society in which those who follow other faiths have the same rights as I do. And so I want them to have the right to make choices that I don’t want them to take.‘
But based on what I have written before, you should have never made that statement. Earlier I wrote:
‘I agree that heterosexual marriages are God’s design. The scriptures are firm about homosexuality being a sin. But we also live in a society in which there is freedom of religion. And unless we want to violate the Establishment Clause, using a specific religious view to define marriage in society causes problems especially when not all who profess to be Christians agree. Here, I am talking about society, not the Church.‘
There is no reason why you should not have been able to follow the logic of what I wrote afterwards. I followed her statements. But you added something she didn’t comment on. You earlier wrote without substantiation:
‘Here’s why acts in a homosexual union do not produce the same benefits as the same acts in a heterosexual marriage: homosexual acts proceed from intrinsically disordered desires and are purely self serving to satisfy base desires. Some acts in a heterosexual marriage may also be sinful and self serving, but they don’t have to be.
Sodomy in a heterosexual marriage is probably unhealthy most of the time, but Joy Pullman never said sodomy in any union is beneficial.‘
You start from that position. I don’t. We see in animals all kinds of SSB practices with some being beneficial to the species because it reduces aggression with a group of animals of the same species.
In showing how sex benefits society, she says the following:
‘Marriage also directs dangerous sexual energies into productive behavior, which benefits everyone in multiple ways. In the first place, it reduces jealousies and social controversies—what we might call “drama.” People who don’t cheat on each other or change sexual partners contribute to social peace.‘
It doesn’t take a research expert to know that some heterosexual couples engage in sodomy and mutual masturbation. And if such practices are part of how a heterosexual marriage directs dangerous sexual energies, then how is it that such practices don’t benefit society? And if such practices in heterosexual marriages benefit society, then why can’t they in same sex marriages?
The logic is simple unless one assumes what you have seemed to have assumed about both all instances of Sodomy in same sex marital relations and most in heterosexual marital relations. Then again, what you left out of the mix is mutual masturbation. If that is beneficial in heterosexual marriages, why doesn’t that practice, which she listed with sodomy, benefit society? And if that occurs with heterosexual marriages, then why not with homosexual marriages?
Curt,
I said you were pro-homosexual-sodomy because of your repeated arguments to the effect that homosexual sodomy and mutual masturbation benefit the couple and society. I think that’s hard to square with your claim to biblical fidelity and insistence that homosexual acts are sinful. If that’s not what you believe, feel free to state what you believe clearly and I will retract what I said.
You continue to assume beliefs of your interlocutors that they did not state. You wrote: “And if such practices are part of how a heterosexual marriage directs dangerous sexual energies, then how is it that such practices don’t benefit society?” Perhaps Joy Pullman doesn’t believe sodomy and mutual masturbation in heterosexuals are among the acts that that “direct dangerous sexual energies.” I don’t believe that and she didn’t say it. I suspect she agrees with me.
To be clear, I do believe, as you said, “both all instances of Sodomy in same sex marital relations and most in heterosexual marital relations” are unhealthy. You can add mutual masturbation.
In any event, the biblical position is clear from Romans 1. Homosexual acts are unnatural and lead to all sorts of problems: “God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.”. The empirical evidence is strongly against the gay lifestyle and promiscuity. Gay “marriage” is not good for the couple or society.
JW,
But I had previously said that homosexuality was sin and that heterosexuality was in God’s design. So you made your claim based on focusing on my advocacy for same-sex marriages in society while overlooking what I said about what Scriptures say. And the question is whether that overlooking of what I said about what the Scriptures say was deliberate or neglectful.
If Pullman believes that sodomy and mutual masturbation have never been a part of heterosexual marital relationships, perhaps she should do more research before writing on the subject. That would also apply to her claims about the Founders’ views on sex and virtue in light of the sexual practices of some of them with slaves and the lifestyle that Ben Franklin adopted.
Whether homosexual acts are unnatural are dependent on one’s definition of unnature. SSB certainly occurs in nature in well over 1,000 species with beneficial effects for at least some species. When Paul wrote about homosexuality in Romans, his objections was first to sex of the partners involved. He didn’t specify which acts were unnatural. In fact, not even Leviticus specifies which sex acts are unnatural. Leviticus is concerned about the biological sexes of those involved. You are assuming that they include all forms of sodomy and mutual masturbation. But regardless of what he referred to, to assume that they cannot be beneficial in the marital relationships of unbelievers in society is to ignore the personal experiences of those partners involved.
When the laws used your definitions of what was unnatural sex, not only could people be arrested for masturbation, it drove the LGBT community underground and made prohibitive the idea of same sex marriage. That directed many homosexuals from an institution that could have channelled their sexual energies away from promiscuity. Note that the health problems we see from sex is due almost solely from promiscuity.
And so doesn’t it make sense to conclude that if marriage reduces promiscuity, then it benefits society
BTW, the selfish label you reflexively attached to SSB can just as much be a part of sexual behavior that can lead to reproduction. And you need some documentation to your automatic attributing of SSB with selfishness.
Curt,
I think you are getting frustrated and not carefully reading what I wrote.
Also, your writing would be clearer if you studied the concept of subject-verb agreement.
JW,
I think that you are too busy making accusations. Instead of saying that I am frustrated, which I am not, state specifically where you think I misinterpreted what you wrote.
BTW, regarding subject-verb agreement, I need an editor for my writing.
(I find that argumentative, shape-shifting trolls are lonely and pitiable creatures of our isolating culture. I wish Mr Day well and let it go at that.) The hypothesis seems to be this: if a state has legitimate interests in marriage and family, then that state must also have legitimate interests in its definitions of marriage and family; for how will that state press its interests in those relationships if it cannot even say what they are, why they exist, or what the state’s interest therein is? But when Justice Kennedy delivered his ex cathedra homily in Obergefell, he effectively declared that the state has no further business defining the words “marriage” and “family” and that those words now mean whatever persons involved in any sort of marital- or family-like relationship need them to be to suit their peculiar definitions of “happiness.” It was a reckless utilitarian perversion of “the pursuit of happiness” ideal of the Founders. Nine years later, we have a Supreme Court justice who cannot define the word “woman.”
Peter,
It’s easy to dismiss people by saying they have some negative characteristics. But regardless of your accusations, their words still matter.
I think that you are misinterpreting Kennedy’s intentions and words. That marriage is a legally defined institution implies that the government already has a significant interest in marriage. The argument for Obergfell was based on the Equal Protection Clause from the 14th Amendment.
Finally, how is your writing about the ideal of the Founders consistent with their behaviors, actions, and racism?