Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Matthew Yglesias pause to watch the Pope and his entourage go by in the great carnival that is the human parade, and their jaws drop in disbelief, and they are moved to fits of rage--or, in Matthew Yglesias's case, to accusations of "shoddy thinking" (which is as close to rage as he gets to rage):
Electrolite: Rag:: Rag: I'm not actually back home yet, but some things leave one too agog not to blog. In this morning's New York Times, here's the Vatican fulminating over the idea of granting gay people the same legal rights as anyone else:
The Vatican document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,'' sets out a plan for politicians when confronted with proposed legislation granting homosexual couples the same rights as married heterosexuals.
It also comes out strongly against allowing gay couples to adopt, saying children raised by same-sex parents face developmental "obstacles'' because they are deprived of having either a mother or a father.
"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children,'' it said.
Yes, you read that right--letting children be raised by gay couples who love them would "actually mean doing violence" to them. Unlike, you know, raping them and covering it up. Definitely, these guys are just brimming with authority on the subject of "doing violence" to kids...
Matthew Yglesias: Gay Adoptions: Here's a bit of shoddy thinking from our friends in the Vatican:
The Vatican document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," sets out a plan for politicians when confronted with proposed legislation granting homosexual couples the same rights as married heterosexuals.It also comes out strongly against allowing gay couples to adopt, saying children raised by same-sex parents face developmental "obstacles" because they are deprived of having either a mother or a father.
"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children," it said.
So, kids who are adopted by gay couples would be deprived of having either a mother or a father. That makes good sense to me, except for the fact that kids up for adoption have neither mothers nor fathers to raise them — that's why they're up for adoption. In the real world, child welfare agencies have an incredibly hard time finding suitable homes in which to place most kids — older ones, children of color, children with medical problems. You can believe that being raised by a gay couple is worse than being raised by a heterosexual couple if you like, but you need to be pretty crazy to think that having two mothers and no father is worse than having no parents at all.
It is indeed remarkable that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith claims that my friend M---- and her significant other E----- are "doing violence" to their adopted son J---- by raising him in a lesbian household, and that God hates this.
Those who work for and assist the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are truly lost in a dark wood in the middle of their lives--threatened by panthers, lions, and she-wolves, with no Virgil to guide them back so that E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.
Posted by DeLong at July 31, 2003 11:38 AM | TrackBack
Good Inferno quotes, and apt. I saw his grave in Ravenna last month.
Posted by: John Isbell on July 31, 2003 12:45 PMAt least in American context, the latest blast from the old men in Propaganda Fide (aka the Holy Office) may be a promising thing. Look at the positions that the Official Church supports, and one can consistently see that their pronouncements correlate well with social and political developments going the other direction. This isn't just true of "conservative causes" (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.), but seemingly "liberal ones" too -- (anti-death penalty, anti-war). In short, it seems that if the Church pronounces on a controversial topic of social and political interest, that's a good sign that things will go (or have already gone) the other way in the United States.
And on a bigger scale, can one imagine a worse predictor of future developments than the Syllabus Errorum in 1864?
Hmmm.... would a very devout follower of the Church agree, and then argue all that this shows is that the Devil really is in charge in the secular world, nowadays?
Posted by: PQuincy on July 31, 2003 12:48 PMM & J have nothing to fear from God. Nada. Not a thing. Anyone who says they do speaks only for themselves, not God (as if anyone could actually speak for "God." How absurd.)
As for the Devil ---- same deal, although with Bush in the White House, I'm inclined to believe the Devil part more readily than the God part. This Congression bunch are just some more Christian (not really, but they think they are)Looneys. Or as we used to say in the Last Millenium: SNAFU
Thank you for your time.
David Winn
dwinn@austin.rr.com
no quotes from Canto XV and XVI?
Posted by: maciej on July 31, 2003 02:28 PMLuckily the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is no more the Church than the White House Office of Communications is the American people.
Gaudium et spes, y'all.....
Posted by: Davis X. Machina on July 31, 2003 03:25 PMIsn't the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith essentially the fine group of people that once were called 'The Inquisition'?
Or are they the fine people who tried Galileo for heresy, because he came to believe, correctly, that the earth was not the center of the universe?
I don't know but they don't seem to have all that good a batting average!
.
Posted by: heavenhelpus on July 31, 2003 05:13 PMI am not sure I fully understand the logic behind the push for same sex marriage. I admit I'm still having trouble understanding why a man who thinks he's woman isn't considered to have mental problems. As I understand it, the mental health community believes the person is otherwise happy.
Understanding the risk of bad analogies, would we use the same principle for someone who thinks he is a dog? Would an arsonist be considered OK as long he/she only burns things in his/her back yard?
What is the purpose of marriage? Is it to bestow legal rights on a partner? Can I marry my brother/sister? I love them and want them to have insurance and a good home. What about multiparty marriages? Mormons appear to love their children too.
To cool off the some of the likely invective, please be aware that I believe that we all have problems. I'm simply confused about why we are asked to embrace homosexuality and officially condone same sex unions. I really don’t understand the mental health rationale, nor am I clear on why same sex marriage should be state sanctioned.
Posted by: Stan on August 1, 2003 07:18 AMI wonder if the vatican will try to outlaw divorce as well, or having illegitamate children. They seem to have given up on these things... which create many homes with one parent of one sex, which would be logically worse than two parents of of one sex.
All this engergy could be better put to combating child abuse (in all homes). *Real* violence against children is all too common.
Posted by: mrkmyr on August 1, 2003 09:05 AM"I admit I'm still having trouble understanding why a man who thinks he's a woman isn't considered to have mental problems."
Gay men aren't men who think they're women. Gay men are men who (and this is a loose definition) like to fuck other men. There is a difference.
Posted by: Reuben on August 1, 2003 09:25 AMUm, tell me again which organization is moralizing about the evils of rape and pedophelia? Um, which one? Eh? Maybe I'm having a hard time hearing you. I thought you said the Catholic Church. Must get my ears cleaned...
Posted by: vachon on August 1, 2003 09:54 AMUm, tell me again which organization is moralizing about the evils of rape and pedophelia? Um, which one? Eh? Maybe I'm having a hard time hearing you. I thought you said the Catholic Church. Must get my ears cleaned...
Posted by: vachon on August 1, 2003 09:58 AMThe Vatican is right. There are serious problems associated with lesbian couples raising children. For instance, in one case I know well, the couple split up after adopting two children. Really upset the children. Oh...but that's the same risk that children of...oh...never mind...
Posted by: K Harris on August 1, 2003 11:00 AMReuben, I acknowledge that it is difficult to be too precise on web forums. My own posts are hardly above reproach. I believe, however, that your post uses loose terms to define away the problem.
It is still a question of the biology being wrong for the desired action. What they want to do they cannot do. Both actors will have to engage in other actions or serious surgical work will need to be performed to make anything approaching it possible. You may call it the same thing but it isn't. Acting like a billionaire is a sign of mental problems if you aren't in fact a billionaire. As far as I can tell there is no difference here.
This sexual gratifaction definition hardly makes the argument for same sex marriage more compelling either. Apologies in advance but if we come up with a way to determine consent from sheep, are our friends in New Zealand going to start sanctioning interspecies relationships?
In hindsight my dog analogy might seem offensive. Like the sheep example above, I only meant to convey the idea of a biologically different being. As genetic science is showing men and women to be quite different, I think the basic idea is accurate.
Posted by: Stan on August 1, 2003 11:32 AM"Poi si rivolse, e parve di coloro
Che corronno a Verona il drappo verde
per la campagna; e parve di costoro
quelli che vince, non colui che perde."
Inf. XV, 121-124.
"Then he turned, and he seemed of those
Who run the green flag at Verona
Through the countryside; and he seemed of those
Ones who win, and not the one who loses."
Dante on his mentor Brunetto Latini, under the rain of fire.
Posted by: John Isbell on August 1, 2003 11:41 AMStan: Suppose that Man A likes to get fucked up the ass. Suppose Man B likes fucking someone up the ass. To me, it sounds like if they meet, the biology works out perfectly.
Posted by: Walt Pohl on August 1, 2003 02:57 PM>>Isn't the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith essentially the fine group of people that once were called 'The Inquisition'? <<
Yes. It is the Bureaucracy Formerly Known as the Sacred College of the Universal Inquisition
Posted by: Brad DeLong on August 1, 2003 06:51 PMThe several comments above reducing the lives of gays and lesbians to a desire for certain sex acts are unfair, and are adding to the misinformation and misunderstandings surrounding these issues.
Would you say of hetero men that their ONLY interest in women is 'pussy' or say of hetero women that their ONLY interest in men is 'pricks'? I know some hetero people seem to think this way, but the large majority of would find this 'sex-act reductionism' appalling, and would say that what they want is long-term romantic relationships with members of the opposite sex. And homosexuals are no different, except they want their long-term romantic relationships with members of the same sex.
Sex acts themselves are only a small part of romantic life, hetero or homo; romantic life includes companionship, support, nurturing, shared goals, communication, trust, living together compatibly, touchy-feely things short of sex acts, and so on.
Those who have been in long-term romantic relationships also realize how much less and less a role the sex acts play as time passes, anyway! Hot and heavy lovemaking often gives way, over time, to cooler companionship in many people's romantic lives, straight or gay! So again, to say that what gays and lesbians want all reduces to sex acts is a false reductionism that just gives bullets to the enemies, and caters to an instinctual revulsion some people have to some sex acts.
The Pope and others against gay marriage focus solely on the sex acts (procreation vs sodomy) and ignore all the other parts of what people (hetero and homosexual) want from their lives, to the detriment of those struggling to have their life-plans recognized as legitimate (or even as private). Broaden your view about what it is gays and lesbians are asking for from life, and you'll find it's not much different from what straight people want.
(And this post is from a straight guy, FYI)
tjallen
Posted by: tjallen on August 1, 2003 07:49 PMI have difficulty believing that Stan is not a troll. Those are really astonishingly ignorant comments to make. On the off chance that Stan is not a troll, but is simply wildly uninformed, I offer the following:
Gay men are people who are sexually and emotionally attracted to members of the same sex. They are not usually transsexuals or transvestites, although there is some overlap between all three groups.
Gay men have absolutely no problem working out the "biology" of their "desired actions." The "desired action" varies from man to man and from couple to couple. Nonetheless, they all have no problem making it work.
The reason that mental health is a non-issue is that gay men and women have been studied for several decades now and no mental health problems have been discovered. It is not that they are "otherwise happy," it's that there is absolutely nothing wrong with them.
Gay men and women are as varied as straight men and women are, but for the most part, tjallen gets it exactly right.
Other than bigotry, there simply is no good reason to deny the relationships of gay men and women the same status and privileges granted to those of straight men and women.
Stan, the question is not whether homosexuality is a malfunction of the psychologically normal sex drive -- of course it is (and since I'm gay, I doubt I can be accused of bigotry for saying so). The only relevant question is whether it is immoral -- and if you think that homosexual behavior is immoral even if it does absolutely no harm, then you're faced with the obvious next question: just how immoral is it? As immoral as murder? As stealing $5000? As stealing one cent? And -- in any such case -- why?
Put that way, the answer is obvious: homosexuality that does nothing to actually harm anyone else is not immoral at all, and neither is gay marriage. Homosexuality is undeniably AESTHETICALLY repulsive to a great many heterosexuals (even those trying to be tolerant) for reasons that are biologically hard-wired into their brains -- but then, physical deformities are also aesthetically repulsive to people for exactly the same reason, but no one accuses the physically deformed of being immoral. So, where homosexuality is concerned, let's stop confusing aesthetic repulsion with moral repulsion.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on August 2, 2003 07:00 AMBruce wrote: "Stan, the question is not whether homosexuality is a malfunction of the psychologically normal sex drive -- of course it is"
No, actually, I don't think it is, primarily because of the loaded terms you're using. How about if I use this example:
"The question is not whether lefthandedness is a malfunction of the psychologically (or physiologically, if you prefer) normal handedness -- of course it is."
The words you chose imply a judgment that our current science does not support.
I appreciate the honest responses. I am still inclined to view homosexuality as a mental problem. While PaulB accuses me of astonishingly ignorant comments, I believe his claims are not supported.
Acknowledging that U.S. society has been historically brutal to its homosexual population, I understand that there are much higher rates of other mental problems such as depression among the world's homosexual population. The difference is generally ascribed to treatment by societies at large, hence the recent creation of a homosexual only school in NY. I am sceptical. I believe we are simply telling sick people they are well. I don't believe there is any way to get around the biological differences problem.
Bruce, I tend to think it is immoral because it is bad for you and your partner. I believe the problems being seen are more directly related to the basic physical incongruities. I don't believe society should be excuriating you for this problem, but I do not agree that society should be condoning you either. I am in no rush to judge anybody either way. Who am I? I do not believe that I am infallible.
Posted by: Stan on August 8, 2003 02:34 PM