Yes, liberals value family , but not enough to recognize that a broken family is a tragedy. Divorce is actually worse than death as far as the grieving process goes- especially when there are children, custody battles, parental support, and alimony involved. And homosexuals raising children? That is tragic, not something to be celebrated. Maybe if we'd *recognize* that a broken family is a tragedy we would be more willing to say, pay taxes for WIC so that the single mother working a minimum wage job actually has the ability to choose life. Maybe we'd have more men willing to stick around and help raise the children they cause because the condom broke while they were stupidly using sex only for recreation. Maybe, just maybe, we'd be raising men instead of a generation of cowardly wimps who choose homosexuality and suicide over real life. Suffering and tragedy is valuable- but only if we recognize that it exists.
Comments
I am sorry that the blogger had a bad childhood and no male model to look up to. But it doesn't matter whether his mother married the other woman or not. Their marriage would not have changed anything. How many people surveyed who were raised in traditional families would not come up with bad experiences as well. It's just not enough data to make the government prohibit gay marriage.
By that I mean the one thing that always puzzled me about secular humanists; they always choose ethics that harm humans.
You are correct that there isn't enough data there to prohibit gay UNIONS- which shouldn't be illegal to begin with, and should be a model for secular heterosexual unions for a wide variety of types.
But to make the jump to gay MARRIAGE- to the special union that supports the creation of new citizens from natural conception to age 18- is a logical leap too far.
Having said that, I think homosexual activists have unwittingly done the rest of us a huge service. We're actually having conversations about not only child welfare, but homelessness, discrimination, survivorship, and the right of property ownership because of it. All of these are most certainly side issues- but they are IMPORTANT side issues, none of which require actual discrimination against anybody.
Saying that a child is best off with both a mother and a father and parents who are sexually mature, as opposed to the sexual immaturity shown in the more promiscuous subcultures, is not discrimination, it is simply fact.
Saying that a gay couple should not be allowed to rent the apartment or house next door to you IS discrimination and SHOULD BE OPPOSED.
Do you understand the difference?
You see no objection because you no longer understand the difference between men and women; thus two men raising a child is equal to two women raising a child is equal to a man and a woman raising a child to you; when in reality, these are three very different and unique scenarios of child development.
Two of which are so rare that the data is not statistically significant- which *should* indicate caution and a high risk of confirmation bias.
The ironic thing about this is that teaching celibacy for gays is INCLUSIVE. It presumes that they have the moral capacity to obey the rules sufficiently enough to be included.
You can't tolerate what isn't a sin.
That's not going to happen because Catholics want to impose their morality and no one else wants it imposed on them.
I know I didn't want it imposed on me. Then over time, over and over, mere consequences of action banged it into my head that what the Church taught, was actually *RIGHT*.
The church actually IMPOSES nothing. The Church *offers* the wisdom of the ages, ignore that wisdom at your own peril, and you don't have to wait for hell either. The long term consequences of sin always outweigh the short term gains, and the destructive nature of sin always catches up in the end, especially when government has to get involved to protect other citizens from the ignorance.
That is a pretty bad conviction rate if the purpose of your court is convictions, but the purpose of the Inquisition was to bring justice to a system that was previously handled by direct royal fiat and vigilante justice.
Even Galileo was let out from his house arrest to go to church.
Why was he under house arrest in the first place?