Skip to main content

Details, Details

 My delightfully nuts internet friend Aaron “The Rat” Nelson posted a sign from Lima, OH that oddly enough said, “No child has two moms. No child has two dads.” With rainbow colors, just to apparently stick the rhetorical knife in.

Now, I am 46 years old, unemployed, crippled, and I already had a big mouth, so my first reaction was, “Tough cookies, you cowards. That’s true.” But I figured an explanation was in order. Especially given the fact that I 1. Arguably hate no one, besides arguably John Kerry, for being astonishingly self-important, being inarticulate, and being wrong about everything important anyway. 2. Have no malice I am aware of involving ordinary people who practice homosexuality, and 3. Have no plans in any case to set up Rainbow Gulags or any similar thing in the happy event that I become Dictator of Jasonistan, formerly known as the United States of America.

Now that all the foregoing is established, I explain thusly: People are created when a man and a woman have coitus. Obviously not every time, but I assume most people know—absent the use of technology—where babies come from. The very outline of our bodies indicates design and purpose. Ears hear, eyes see, hands touch, and so forth. The plants and the animals know what to do, and that’s not an accident. Everything has an end it’s supposed to reach: humans and all nature. If people design tools or bridges or cars, no one laughs at the idea that some engineers made those things to serve an end. Of course not. To borrow a phrase from Patrick Stewart, we understand the creations of our genius.

What if human sexuality creates obligation? We sort of know this. Our courts (imperfectly and arguably unjustly) punish parents who fail their children, biological or adoptive. What if children have the right to be raised by their parents? Suppose it’s written in the universe itself. How do you feel when the kid from Angels in The Outfield watches his Dad sign away his parental rights and responsibilities? Is that someone you admire? It would be different if a man got sick or injured and couldn’t do Dad things, we might understand him deputizing someone else. But a man that simply leaves? What’s your moral intuition about a mother who murders her children? We might hope she’s really sick and didn’t know what she was doing. I hope so. But there’s absolutely no doubt that something awful has happened. And you don’t need a Bible to figure it out.

I once had a friend named Arman, who thought Almighty Science could answer any question, and that only conscious people had rights as people. He got really tangled up when “natural law” came up; he seemed to think it was nothing more than a survival instinct of a more evolved animal. Somewhat understandable, I suppose. But natural law as understood by one person is the moral law, accessed by reason alone, by a free being whose purpose is to honor the Creator. Setting aside the Christianity of the two men for a moment, Aquinas and his predecessor Augustine believed and affirmed a natural desire to see God. That is, even if the Creator had not chosen to reveal Himself, people would naturally want to thank Him for everything they had that they did not create themselves, and probably for the ability to create that He had given them.

The smartest of the ancient Greeks knew from philosophy/reason that a God must exist. And not multiple, because humanity can’t give themselves totally between many gods. Socrates wasn’t an atheist; he died for saying that many gods couldn’t exist.

Back to the point, look at the actual data on the impact of divorce. It’s horrible. Catastrophic. Unimaginable. It peaked for Gen X, and has come down a bit. But at least for male homosexuality, I’m gonna say, “Probably was sexually abused and/or didn’t have two parents who stayed together.” 50 percent of marriages do not end in divorce; 50 percent of second (or more) marriages end in divorce. 

At the risk of being impolite and reactionary, maybe a bunch of damaged people aren’t a good guide for morality anyway. No Bibles were thumped, or progressives harmed, in the writing of this post.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...