Thursday, October 27, 2016

Love & Fidelity Network & their message of intolerance


Click to enlarge
Love & Fidelity Network is a campus activist group. Tomorrow LFN begins its conference titled Sexuality, Integrity and the University 2016 at Princeton University. The event will be live streamed. While its outward appearance is secular, it is clearly rooted in orthodox Catholic ideology. Its advisory board (click to enlarge) should resolve any doubts. We have three of the original board members of National Organization for Marriage: Maggie Gallagher, Robert George and Luis Tellez who is an Opus Dei numerary. The remaining board member, Patrick Fagan, works for Family Research Council, a designated anti-LGBT hate group.

Basically, they are demonstrating a commitment to the losing arguments in opposition to marriage equality. It is the same hypothetical and theoretical spew that we saw from the likes of Robert George in amicus briefs pertaining to Obergefell v. Hodges. What is more idiotic than moronic arguments is repeating moronic arguments that have never worked. These never worked but they are still insulting to the gay community and the healthy, happy children they raise. They are devaluing gay people and relegating us to second-class citizen status which is their goal.


For example:

What is marriage?

Marriage is the lifelong, exclusive union of one man and one woman. It is based on the reality that a man and a woman are necessary for reproduction and that children need a father and a mother. Marriage brings together a man and a woman to be committed to each other as husband and wife and together committed to their children as father and mother.
And;

What are the consequences of redefining marriage?

Redefining marriage hurts children. Research shows how children suffer from the absence of a mother or father, whether from unwed childbearing or divorce. Mothers and fathers have important and distinct roles to play in their children’s lives. Redefining marriage renders either the mother or the father as disposable, and shifts attention away from the child’s wellbeing, favoring the emotions of adults over the needs of children. Redefining marriage also has two significant consequences. As children suffer from a weakening marriage culture, welfare programs will grow and government will intervene more in families. Redefining marriage also jeopardizes the religious liberty of those individuals, businesses, and programs that hold more traditional views on the family.
Let's go through this BS. What the research really shows is that children raised by gay couples are as healthy, happy and successful in development as children raised by heterosexual couples. It is the quality of care that matters in contrast to gender. Furthermore, they are merely assuming that same-sex marriage has weakened the marriage culture. I can make numerous arguments in opposition including the value that the gay community has placed on marriage.

The welfare argument is simply absurd. It is entirely unsupportable because it assumes that children in nontraditional families are suffering. Children in nontraditional families are not suffering. Religious liberty at risk? Nonsense. There exists no valid reason for refusing service based on sexual orientation. Vendors will do just fine without expressing their disapproval of people by refusing service. Their display of discontent is irrelevant. It changes nothing except their legal bills in certain locales.

What these folks are teaching young college-aged people is that same-sex marriage is invalid and that gays are not equal to straights. This in spite of the fact that there is no legal difference between the two. As a matter of public policy it is just marriage regardless of the genders of the participants. But there is so much more:

Shouldn’t same-sex partners get the same marriage benefits as others?

We do not need to redefine marriage in order to address questions of social benefits. These concerns can and should be addressed through specific policies.
The Supreme Court disagrees and their opinion is the only one that counts. What is the point of this? The issue has been settled.

Are you saying gay parents can’t love and provide for a child?

Gay parents are capable of loving a child unconditionally and providing for that child. But however much the gay couple loves that child, it is still denying that child of either a mother or a father. And children have a right to know and be known by the mother and father whose love brought them into the world, and they do best when raised by their married mother and father. There is no substitute for this fundamental need.
This “they do best” argument is from a comparison of intact heterosexual couples to single parents — not gay couples. It is dishonest rhetoric.

What does the research say about what’s best for a child?

Children do best when raised by a mother and a father who are committed to each other in marriage and who are together committed to the children their marriage produces. The research demonstrates this for a variety of different outcomes: emotional health, physical health, economic stability, educational achievement, avoidance of risky and delinquent behaviors, etc. Research on same-sex parenting is a matter of ongoing debate, and should not have a disproportionate effect on our treatment of marriage.
The research of children raised by gay couples does not confirm any of that. Little wonder why there are no cites in this garbage. I confess that I do not understand the last sentence. After claiming that a controversy exists, are they then conceding that the research demonstrates that gay couples do a fine job raising very normal kids?

How would the marriage of a same-sex couple affect that of a man and woman? What’s the harm?

Marriage is a social institution. Redefining marriage affects everyone because it teaches that marriage is about the emotional attachments of adults as opposed to the well-being and needs of children. Children benefit from a strong marriage culture. Men and women, husbands and wives also benefit from a strong marriage culture because it reinforces the value of the promises they made to each other.
They are simply repeating nonsensical gibberish. These things never start out with “In Massachusetts” because after more than 12 years no so-called traditional marriage has been affected in any way whatsoever. There is no evidence to support their claims.

Has the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges settled the marriage question?

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges has not settled the marriage question anymore than Roe v. Wade settled the abortion question decades ago. The Supreme Court should have ruled to preserve the right of the people to vote on marriage policy at the State level. The meaning of marriage remains a highly debated question over which the country is deeply divided. Five unelected Supreme Court justices should not decide marriage policy for the entire country, silencing the great number of people who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
“The Supreme Court should have ruled …” according to whom? Some possibly celibate Bishop? They can bitch all they want but the issue is settled and challenging Obergefell, even if the composition of the Court became more conservative, would be extremely difficult. Even if they got past Article III standing, which seems impossible, they still have to answer the question of who has been injured by marriage equality.  The teachings of the Catholic Church are not relevant.

Moreover, the country is not deeply divided. Most people do not care. A deeply divided country would be the result of some states recognizing same-sex marriage while other states do not as these folks propose. They are intent on inflating a controversy that, by consensus, no longer really exists.

One more from a different page:

Why can’t I decide the meaning of sex for myself?

Every action we make has two fundamental aspects. There is the intent behind the action, and there are the objective qualities of the action itself. We can intend whatever we want, but we cannot change the objective nature of sex. Sex has a meaning and purpose that is dependent on its physical reality, which we cannot change.
In other words because the Church says so. At least if they called this the Catholic Purity League they would be more intellectually honest. Activism in the service of bigotry on college campuses seems like a very bad idea.

Related Content:




No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.