“Pregnant man” gives birth
According to ABC News yesterday:
Thomas Beatie, the transgender man who made headlines as the so-called “pregnant man,” gave birth Sunday to a healthy baby girl….
The birth, at St. Charles Medical Center in Bend, OR, was natural, according to a source, who added that reports that Beatie had had a Caesarean section are false.
“She’s really cute, really pretty,” the source [said]….
The source said Beatie was resting and the family was focusing its attention on the new baby….
Born a woman, Beatie, 34, who had had his breasts surgically removed and legally changed his gender from female to male, leaped to prominence around the world in April when the wispy bearded man revealed he was pregnant.
Despite years of taking hormones and living outwardly as a man, Beatie maintained that he retained his female sex organs because he intended one day to get pregnant.
“I actually opted not to do anything to my reproductive organs because I wanted to have a child one day. I see pregnancy as a process, and it doesn’t define who I am,” Beatie told Oprah Winfrey in April.
“I feel it’s not a male or female desire to have a child. It’s a human need. I’m a person and I have the right to have a biological child,” he said.
Beatie was caught on tape leaving the hospital. He was not carrying the infant.
A woman who appears to be a nurse carried a combination car seat-baby carrier with a white blanket over it. Beatie walked a few yards behind her. The new dad walked easily, although he appeared tired, and despite the warm weather he wore a white hooded sweatshirt along with sunglasses and black shorts. Someone opened the car door for him. [Click for link to video.]
Beatie was impregnated with sperm from a donor. His wife, Nancy, inseminated him at home with a device she said was like a syringe without the needle. They bought it from a veterinarian and it is typically used to feed birds.
[HT: proofreader Angela; photo of Beatie “carr[ying] out the time-honored American passion of maintaining a pristine lawn May 18,” courtesy of ABC News]
Read previous Stanek blog posts on Beatie here and here.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I wish they’d stop calling her a man.
“I feel it’s not a male or female desire to have a child. It’s a human need. I’m a person and I have the right to have a biological child,” he said.
Ya gotta love the sense of entitlement that people feel they have these days…I HAVE THE RIGHT!!!! Wonder if he stamped his little foot when he said this!
And why are they saying the baby is a girl? Maybe the baby doesn’t want to be a girl. She’s a person. She has the right to be a boy if she wants! Maybe they should hold off naming “it” until it decides what “it” wants to be when “it” grows up…
All I can say is “PHOOEY!”
Just watched the video…suddenly He/She is camera shy??????
What’s the baby going to call him/her?
Mommy?
Daddy?
Maybe a little of both:
Moddy? Dammy?
Children are a BLESSING, not a right. This poor baby wasn’t even conceived naturally, if you get my meaning.
Okay, so when did she become a father, at conception or at birth? ; )
OK, wow there are just so many issues here.
The first is the question of what exactly makes a man or woman. To me, lopping off your breasts and dressing like a man is negated if you want to want to be pregnant and give birth.
It seems to me a big like having his cake and eating it too.
While I understand that there are definitely desireable social constructs to being a man, it seems absurd that one would deny all aspects of her femininity save for the one thing that actually makes her female.
I have no doubt that transexualism exists. I’ve known several people who are struggling with the issue. The main difference between them and this person is that my friends are nearly horrified by the body parts they feel are wrong.
To me this person simply illustrates the part of our society that literally embraces the “you can be anything you want!” mentality. Think it sucks to live in society as a woman? Well you don’t have to!
I think this has much less to do with gender identity and much more to do with a sense of entitlement.
LizfromNebraska, you wrote: “Children are a BLESSING, not a right.”
Not a right? Do you mean that government should be able to forbid some of its citizens from having children?
Posted by Lauren:
save for the one thing that actually makes her female.
I hope you’ll be informing all those cancer survivors and any others who’ve had hysterectomies that they are no longer female.
SoMG,
Not a right? Do you mean that government should be able to forbid some of its citizens from having children?
No, it means that people don’t have the right to have children by any means.
Being pro life is not about the right to every women to have children.
It’s about the right of every child to have life.
If a woman is BLESSED with the GIFT of a child, then that child’s right to be born should be protected at all costs.
You’re confusing what “rights” we are fighting for.
Posted by Lauren:*
“…save for the one thing that actually makes her female.”
I hope you’ll be informing all those cancer survivors and any others who’ve had hysterectomies that they are no longer female.
*Lauren’s quotation clarified
Weird.
Congrats to him.
I don’t know what some of you are so up in arms about. He gave birth, he didn’t choose to abort. You should be dancing in the streets right now.
mk wrote:
“Being pro life is not about the right to every women to have children.”
So, all those forced sterilizations of the “mentally defective” carried out in the past are OK? (And you call prochoicers eugenicists?) And the government can put contraceptives in the water or force women to take them?
And it would be just fine with the pro-life side.
Thanks for clarifying the “pro-life” position.
..what people will do for selfish reasons. The media is really confusing the public by calling her a man. Men can’t deliver babies..
This entire thing is just bizarre, to say the least.
This baby is going to grow up under a set of high weirdness factor circumstances and God only knows how confusing it’s going to be for her.
“It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”
(echoes of those old margarine commercials from years ago…)
And I thought my hermaphrodite cat had issues….
So what? This guy had a baby. He didn’t have an abortion. Why do you care?
mk —
Ya gotta love the sense of entitlement that people feel they have these days…I HAVE THE RIGHT!!!!
lauren —
I think this has much less to do with gender identity and much more to do with a sense of entitlement.
Jasper —
..what people will do for selfish reasons.
These statements are absolutely hilarious coming from a group of people who feel totally entitled to tell everyone else in the world what they can and can’t do with their private parts.
And the fact that you’re all so upset over A BIRTH adds a whole ‘nother level of ironic hilarity. How can GIVING LIFE ever be called “selfish?”
“Children are a BLESSING, not a right. This poor baby wasn’t even conceived naturally, if you get my meaning”
What a coincidence! My sister and I were just talking about abortion last night and she said the exact same thing. She’s pro-life by the way as is the rest of my family.
Back to the story, I think it’s good that we have a baby being born into a family that must really want and love her. They went through so much, they risked so much, they faced so much angry opposition to have this baby if this baby isn’t loved to the fullest then I don’t know who is.
“So what? This guy had a baby”
this is not a guy reality. this is a women, men cannot have babies.
“Ya gotta love the sense of entitlement that people feel they have these days…I HAVE THE RIGHT!!!! Wonder if he stamped his little foot when he said this!”
Like this moo… I mean mother… in a grocery store got into a fight with a cashier because she was young, had five kids, was pregnant with another and was using food stamps. I guess the cashier said something to her and she yelled, “I wanted a big family, it’s not my fault my husband can’t afford it!”
Yes it is your fault. And you think if her husband couldn’t afford she would get a job too at some point. I think if you can’t afford to feed your child it is child neglect.
So many people today have kids and think everyone else should bow to them. Like those articles, “How much should a stay at home mom make.” Oh a SAHM is a chef, chauffeur, nanny… If these workers did their jobs half as bad as most of these SAHM’s do they would be fired in half a second.
When I worked at the daycare one mom who we called because her child was really sick said, “What are you calling me for call DSS.” That’s just disgusting.
Reality: No one is saying he/she,whatever, shouldn’t have had a baby. No one is “upset” that the child was BORN. It’s just the bizarre circumstances (and you’ve got to admit that they ARE bizarre)under which the birth took place and the “vessel” that birthed the child.
It’s not like this takes place on a daily basis.
This has nothing to do with abortion. He/she WANTED to get pregnant, and did.
You don’t find it the least bit ODD that this woman took hormones to be a male, had her breasts removed, grew a beard, then decided to get inseminated and give birth???????
Obviously in your “reality” this is perfectly normal.
This is nothing but a weird science project.
Mike everyone here is saying he was a woman. He had a uterus, everything, so I don’t get what’s so bizarre about it. I know plenty of manly looking women who have babies. Should they not be able to?
Jess: Do all these “manly looking women” you’re referring to grow beards, take male hormones, get their breasts removed, and then decide they want to be mothers?
I think not.
http://www.switched.com/2007/12/18/woman-forces-toddler-to-smoke-posts-on-myspace-gets-arrested/2
If you think Thomas Beatie shouldn’t have a baby then the woman in the above link certainly shouldn’t have one either. Yeah, your child is so going to take care of me in my old age… especially when they die at 34 of lung cancer.
Speaking of which I once saw a boy about 10 years old smoking a cigarette and a woman who looked like his mother walking down the street with him. Does anyone else think this is child abuse?
“Jess: Do all these “manly looking women” you’re referring to grow beards, take male hormones, get their breasts removed, and then decide they want to be mothers?”
Pretty close.
You don’t know many female bodybuilder do you?
http://usversusthem.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/female-bodybuilder.jpg
I think the huge burly biker dude who lives across the street from me may be preggo.
Do you know him?
No, probably not. Why, are you going to protest outside his house or something? Although I don’t know what you expect him to do now that he’s already preggers. Abort?
The media is really confusing the public by calling her a man. Men can’t deliver babies..
I agree, Jasper. Call her a woman and be done with it.
One of the points regarding this situation is that people with transgender issues are struggling with a psychological disorder. Unfortunately the majority in the field of psychiatry have caved in to homosexual activists and do not address homosexual activity and transgender issues as the disorders that they are for fear of being labeled “homophobic”.
Children are entitled to a stable home with a mother and a father. Instead they have become a commodity to be wanted or not wanted at the whim of misguided and confused adults. No one has a “right” to a child — they are a gift from God.
Doug and Jasper, don’t male sea horses give birth? Maybe she’s a sea horse? I wish I were a unicorn : (
“No one has a “right” to a child — they are a gift from God.”
Then why does God sometimes give these gifts to the worst people?
I don’t think babies are a gift from God, I think they’re little humans who grow in a uterus after conception.
Like this moo… I mean mother… in a grocery store got into a fight with a cashier because she was young, had five kids, was pregnant with another and was using food stamps. I guess the cashier said something to her and she yelled, “I wanted a big family, it’s not my fault my husband can’t afford it!”
Jess, Holy Crow…. I think the cashier was out of line there, if it was to the effect that, “you shouldn’t be using food stamps…”
I agree that people should not do what they cannot afford, but regardless of what the cashier might think, that’s not the time or place to be saying critical or embarrasing thing.
And to a customer, too – I’d think the cashier could get in big trouble for that.
Jess: If anything, he’s a high risk pregnancy: Chain smoker, morbidly obese, drinks like a fish and I doubt his body can sustain the strain…but I wish him the best.
Jess, you’re delightfully fanciful, and indeed – within the animal kingdom are some really gender-bending roles.
Beatie is still a woman, though.
You are all horrible people.
“He is WOMAN. Hear him ROAR”.
Does this sound like fun?
Male seahorses compete with each other to become pregnant for three weeks (during which time they cannot move around to search for the best food), go through 72 hours of labour and exhausting final contractions to release up to 200 baby seahorses. During this process the natural colour of the male seahorse drains from his body and he becomes white and pasty looking.
I think I’d be “pasty looking,” too, to say the least.
TVOR,
You are all horrible people.
ALL of us? Each and every one? Really? Imagine, we are all disagreeing here, and none of us has quite the same take on this story and yet you say we are ALL horrible people.
Interesting…
Dang… Mike, have to laugh – I was gonna do the “roar” thing too.
Eileen, you wrote: “Children are entitled to a stable home with a mother and a father. ”
So should the government ban divorce? At least for families with children?
OK…so I’m, a HORRIBLE person for finding it weird that this female homo sapien mutilated her body with surgery, hormones, and God knows what else, then tuned in to her “maternal instincts” (term used in the loosest sense possible)and had a child.
So stone me.
I’ll supply the stones.
PHYLO,
“Being pro life is not about the right to every women to have children.”
*
So, all those forced sterilizations of the “mentally defective” carried out in the past are OK? (And you call prochoicers eugenicists?) And the government can put contraceptives in the water or force women to take them?
Wow! That’s quite a leap you’ve made there. Hope you didn’t hurt anything…
Did you use mirrors to get from “Pro life is not about the right of every women to have children” to “therefore pro lifers are for forced sterilization”…cuz that was some trick.
All I said was that pro life was about preserving life. Respecting life. You never asked what I or anyone else thought about forced steriliaztions. If you had, I’d have told you. But I wouldn’t lump my views on forced sterilization under the heading of prolife.
That is like me saying that you are for choice and jumping to the conclusion that therefore you are for having sex with infants…what does one have to do with another?
I’m also against legalizing recreational drug use, but I don’t consider that a pro life issue.
“Jess: If anything, he’s a high risk pregnancy: Chain smoker, morbidly obese, drinks like a fish and I doubt his body can sustain the strain…but I wish him the best.”
Whose the high risk pregnancy? Are you saying people who would be high risk shouldn’t have kids?
I have to go right now but I’m interested in discussing this further. I’ll be back tonight to answer or respond to anything so if you want to write something I’ll read it later and respond. Happy Fourth of July!
“You are all horrible people.”
Is that the worst you can do!?
I am speaking of what should be the case but is not sometimes. We live in an imperfect world but can’t we try to aim for the good of the other and not just take for our own selfish ends?
My previous comment is for SoMG.
The only one who can settle this whole thing is Rosie O’Donnell.
I’ll defer to her opinion.
Eileen, that’s no answer. If “children are entitled to a stable home with a mother and a father” then government has an obligation to make sure they get one. That means government should ban divorce.
Banning divorce would provide a lot more children with stable homes with mothers and fathers than preventing gays from parenting ever would.
People’s lack of respect for Thomas Beatie is no surprise, but it still hurts my heart. Really, my life was pretty confusing growing up because there were no non-straight alternatives that I knew of until Sunday school told me that it was wrong. Confusion is not going to kill this child. The most important thing here is that this child is WANTED and LOVED. I’m struck by the fact that pro-lifers here are proving how little they care about that, only that this life wasn’t created in the way that they deem appropriate.
Maybe you should ask yourself why his life decisions unsettle you so much and invoke such hatred.
On EPSN about seven minutes from now – the Hot Dog eating contest from Nathan’s in Brooklyn, NY.
Joey Chestnut, Takeru Kobayashi, Sonya “The Black Widow” Thomas…
“Maybe you should ask yourself why his life decisions unsettle you so much and invoke such hatred.”
where is the hatred?
Jenny, actually, I think all children should be welcomed, not just “wanted”. Wanted implies that if they are one day “unwanted”, their value diminishes.
None of us pro-lifers have a problem with the child being born- at ALL. We’re, of course, very happy that the child is here.
However, the thing I have seen people express concern about is what kind of a life that child is going to be exposed to. Is there something really so wrong about that? I know that I have seen abortion proponents sometimes express concern over a child who is living in a fanatical religious household, saying “those poor kids are going to be brainwashed!” What makes this any different?
When we make these types of observations, this is not the same as saying that we think that the child should have not been born, or ‘should have been aborted’, or any of those things that pro-abortionists here seem to assume we do. We’re not like that. We have a totally different mindset than that, and our solutions are life-affirming.
If we were to do something to help, I think most of us would probably want to assist Thomas Beatie with some good counseling, love, support, because obviously she has some emotional issues from her past which need to be addressed. I do feel sorry for her.
Our solution to the problem would never be to have aborted the child, and we never say that we are expressing regret over the fact that the child exists. To say we do is to build a strawman argument.
I see, so we’ll tolerate those trans* freaks as long as they’re only being freaky in one way. The moment they insist that they have different motivations, it’s time to start the hate-on.
Gay people have always parented. So have single people. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and older siblings have stepped in when natural parents were either unable, unwilling, or deceased.
Children have been abandoned to their fate. They have been put on outgoing trains by starving mothers hoping they will be found and pitied.
Children have been shuttled to foster homes and survived orphanages that were hellholes. They have lived in abusive homes and with mental illness, alcoholism, drug addiction, and criminal activity. Good grief children were born in houses of prostitution and raised there.
Children were sold into slavery and indentured servitude. My grandmother and her sisters were farmed out as indentured servants because their widowed mother was to destitute to keep them. This was a common practice.
Children survived famines, war, and all kinds of turmoil.
Please give children credit, they have proved themselves remarkably resilient since creation.
I’m sure this baby will do fine. One thing we can never make assumptions about is how children will turn out and what their lives will be like.
Mike —
No one is saying he/she,whatever, shouldn’t have had a baby.
Oh right, you’re just saying that it’s “selfish” to have a baby, and “entitled” to have a baby, and that being pro-life is “not about the right to have a baby.”
But it’s not that Mr. Beatie shouldn’t have had a baby!! Heavens, no!
Please. What a pantload.
God Bless this family.
Mary, you’re right. Thanks for keeping it in perspective!
VIDEO “FACE THE TRUTH”
http://prolifeaction.org/truth/index.htm
Mike
Okay, so when did she become a father, at conception or at birth? ; )
Posted by: Doug at July 4, 2008 8:30 AM
She became a mother at conception, Doug.
@ MIke: love the roar comment. Sweet!
Bethany: I think all children should be welcomed, not just “wanted”. Wanted implies that if they are one day “unwanted”, their value diminishes. Excellent!!!
SoMG, I am afraid we are arguing from two different perspectives: I, from a philosophical one and you, from a pragmatic view. Government can not solve all of our societal ills.
Thomas Beatie is not the first “pregnant man.” He’s just the first one most people have heard about. Here’s a Village Voice article regarding a similar situation in 2000 and if you prowled around the internet you’d probably come across others. These children are very much wanted and very much loved, which should be the situation into which EVERY child is born. Of course, “pro-lifers” just figure as long as the kid is ALIVE they’re on top of the world. Unwanted, abused, neglected? Oh, no problem, they’ll get over it! Someone actually had the nerve to write that in a “pro-life” blog, which sickened me.
Biologically, yes, Thomas Beatie is a woman. Any transgendered person will tell you that. Legally, however, he’s a man and that’s what counts. Congratulations to the Beatie family on their new arrival.
“These children are very much wanted and very much loved, which should be the situation into which EVERY child is born.”
otherise what? they should be aborted? how loving…
Proverbs 14:12 “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”
To transgender oneself is simply rebellion against the Creator, full blown. It’s saying, “God, you made me a woman/man, I want to be a man/woman, I don’t trut you, you don’t know what you’re doing, I’ll make myself into my own image.” God therefore has no choice, apart from repentance, but to let that person have their way and abandons them, lost forever, alone. This is hell.
We cannot serve two masters.
I agree Jasper.
This is a sick situation in which to have a child. This baby should have been taken away from these two people. IMO, this is child abuse.
Biologically, yes, Thomas Beatie is a woman. Any transgendered person will tell you that. Legally, however, he’s a man and that’s what counts. Congratulations to the Beatie family on their new arrival.
Posted by: Trish at July 4, 2008 1:56 PM
What kind of reasoning is this? A person is a certain gender because they say so? Beattie is a woman. Period. She has the chromosomes of a woman. The fact that she chose to remove her secondary sexual features does not make her a man.
Jess: Then why does God sometimes give these gifts to the worst people?
That is a question that goes hand in hand with “why does God permit evil?” To bring about a greater good.
I struggled with your very question after I lost a baby to anencephaly and then could not get pregnant because of severe endometriosis. I finally came to know that God wants good things for everyone and that includes me. All I could do was to join my suffering with the Cross. His Will be done. We will have to wait for some questions to be answered in the next life. Once I was finally able to surrender everything, including my bitterness, God could give to me what He desired: a beautiful baby girl that we adopted almost 4 years ago. Jesus, I Trust in You.
Biologically, yes, Thomas Beatie is a woman. Any transgendered person will tell you that. Legally, however, he’s a man and that’s what counts. Congratulations to the Beatie family on their new arrival.
Could this guy be legally considered a feline, if he so chose?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/35580398_d5b7906ee4.jpg
Eileen, Beautiful!
Eileen, I am so sorry for your loss! What a powerful testimony you are…I agree with your thoughts exactly.
Bethany,
Yikes!!!
Janet, I wonder if I could fashion a shell, put it on, and change my legal species status to “turtle”?
That is a question that goes hand in hand with “why does God permit evil?” To bring about a greater good.
I struggled with your very question after I lost a baby to anencephaly and then could not get pregnant because of severe endometriosis. I finally came to know that God wants good things for everyone and that includes me. All I could do was to join my suffering with the Cross. His Will be done. We will have to wait for some questions to be answered in the next life. Once I was finally able to surrender everything, including my bitterness, God could give to me what He desired: a beautiful baby girl that we adopted almost 4 years ago. Jesus, I Trust in You.
Posted by: Eileen at July 4, 2008 3:06 PM
Eileen you are very advanced spiritually (not that I know because of experience, by any means!).
I wish I could achieve this – it takes a special grace! God bless you!
Bethany, Knowing your creative skills, you could do it in a flash! Lol!
Jill: Where are the Stars and Stripes for Independence Day???????
Speaking of Independence Day, I heard an interview last night with David McCullough and Milton Rosenberg on WGN AM 720 radio. He was discussing his book, “1776: America and Britain at War”. I’m not a huge history buff but his stories of battles and what a huge personal sacrifice each of these men made for their country and our freedom were truly inspiring. I have to read the book!
Patricia,
That grace is there for the asking — take time to pray every day. If you are a Catholic, partake of the Sacraments as often as possible: the Eucharist and Confession. God bless you too!
Eileen,
God-bless you.
Eileen: thank you for the encouragement. I am Catholic and do receive the Sacraments but it’s been a long hard haul lately! It’s easy to get discouraged. Sometimes I feel like God’s punching bag!
Janet; 1776! that’s the date I was looking for this morning when my 11 year old asked me when the US came into being! I couldn’t remember!
1867 is Canada’s birthday year!
Eileen 3:27: Patricia,
That grace is there for the asking — take time to pray every day. If you are a Catholic, partake of the Sacraments as often as possible: the Eucharist and Confession. God bless you too!
How true! We all need a reminder sometimes. That also reminds me of the beauty of visits to the Blessed Sacrament (Eucharistic Adoration). I may just go right now…. :)
ok – when I clicked on the video on this post I noticed this story about a 72 year old Indian woman giving birth to twins because they WANTED a male heir! This just gets more incredible all the time!
Here’s the link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ActiveAging/story?id=5309018&page=1
Janet; 1776! that’s the date I was looking for this morning when my 11 year old asked me when the US came into being! I couldn’t remember!
1867 is Canada’s birthday year!
Posted by: Patricia at July 4, 2008 3:37 PM
What are we going to do with you Canadians? (Just kidding!) I had no clue Canada’s birthday year is 1867, or the history behind it, nor have I ever visited, although I would love to. I bet 80% of American high schoolers don’t know the right answer either, but at least they know the important stuff, like the best brands and coolest styles of condoms.
I saw the story you mentioned from India, but didn’t look at the video. Is that the silliest example of narcissism ever? Maybe someone from India could explain the thought process of this couple.
I hope you are feeling OK. I’ll keep you in my special prayers. God bless you!
Hm,
I think a communications breakdown has occurred here.
I don’t understand the hostility towards her for choosing to have a baby from those here, but they seem to be religious reasons. I don’t think sexual orientation has any affect on parenting skills.
I think the reaction to “having children is not a right” has been overblown. I would rather say that it is not a “right” to have a child in the sense that a couple should not be guaranteed a child by the government because they want one. The opposition to his statement was not that anyone should be forced. My thing is that someone can feel free to undergo treatments to become pregnant but that is because it is a desire and not a “right.” It’s not a right in the sense that we all should be guaranteed one, but you can safely say it is a right in the sense that those who become pregnant or wish to become pregnant through their own means shouldn’t be stopped from doing so.
Does that make sense? I think the idea of “rights” is kind of complicated and it’s both a moral and often a legal thing too so we get into some weird territory.
I guess an easy way to say that is that we have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but we don’t have the right to “happiness.”
PIP,
I feel the same way. Which is what I meant by His/Her sense of entitlement. He/She WANTED a baby and by God He/She got one. Same with the 70 year old women that Patricia mentioned.
That said, once a pregnancy occurs no one has the “right” to stop it. They have that LEGAL right now, but they shouldn’t.
It should not now, or ever, be the governments right to aid a women to get pregnant, remain unpregnant or end a pregnancy.
Pro choice people complain that we want the government to force our beliefs on everyone, but it is actually their side that wants the governments blessing. They want birth control handed out for free, taught in public schools, abortions paid for in the military, for poor women…THIS, is the government getting involved.
WE are the ones that want the government to back off. Rape is illegal. But I don’t veiw the government as controlling “rape”. Making something that is harmful or deadly to a large segment of society is NOT forcing their beliefs on that society. It is protecting the weaker members of the society. Does anyone here honestly think that child rape should be made legal, because making it illegal was letting the government force it’s views on us???
Yeah the “legislating morality” thing is another messy trap. What is the definition of morality? Would things like rape be a moral issue? etc.
And oh yeah government money given to kill the unborn is a horrible idea–one of our primary candidates consistently voted against it (Biden). But as I support universal health care, I think things like prenatal care should be supported. For elective procedures like plastic surgery and in vitro, though, those costs should be independent of government interference.
I think you must legislate morality when someone is being harmed by a third party.
The reason abortion is so muddied, is that not every one agrees that the unborn is a person, or that even if it is a person, that it has the same rights as it’s mother.
If you think like a pro choicer then the mother is getting harmed. If you think like a pro lifer, then the baby is getting harmed.
When it’s rape, we’re pretty much all in agreement on who is getting hurt. Same with drunken driving, or murder. It’s not so clear with things like suicide, or drug use. It’s also why gay marriage has caused such a ruckus. It’s a purely moral topic, where no one is being physically harmed. The harm that is being done, or perceived to be done is very subjective. Contrary to what Doug says, most of humanity agrees that some things are objectively wrong. Like rape, incest, murder, etc.
So it really comes down to figuring out whether or not the unborn are truly persons, worthy of all the appointed rights that the rest of humanity gets.
PIP: it’s not so much the parenting skills I call into question, it’s the idea that a child needs a mother and a father.
Men and women are complementary – they are different but compliment each other in ways that the other cannot do.
As such, men as fathers and women as mothers offer their children different charisms that the opposite sex cannot fulfill, no matter how hard they try. Nature/God has designed it so.
I believe a child has the right to have a mother and a father. Obviously, this will not always be the case, but we should endeavour to see that it is the norm.
To deliberately place a child into a family so aberrant as Beatties, is completely wrong. I cannot fathom how this child will not grow up confused about her own gender and the role of men and women. To me, this is abusive.
I hope you are feeling OK. I’ll keep you in my special prayers. God bless you!
Posted by: Janet at July 4, 2008 3:55 PM
Thank you Janet. Still having some weird stuff going on, but I will try to keep my face to the Lord. Feeling better though, if that makes any sense at all! lol
What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom “to” and freedom “from.” ~Marilyn vos Savant, in Parade
Intellectually I know that America is no better than any other country; emotionally I know she is better than every other country. ~Sinclair Lewis
If you want a symbolic gesture, don’t burn the flag; wash it. ~Norman Thomas
ok MK; you stretched Jill’s blog wider!
Patricia,
ok MK; you stretched Jill’s blog wider!
mwahahahahah….I am the GREAT AND POWERFUL MK!!!!
(Pay no attention to the woman behind that curtain…)
are you bald and elderly too?
Happy belated Canada Day, Patricia. I know it was three days ago…….
Eileen at July 4, 2008 11:28 AM post — that’s what my point was about children being a blessing, what you said.
mk: 4:31: So it really comes down to figuring out whether or not the unborn are truly persons, worthy of all the appointed rights that the rest of humanity gets.
Amen! Love your photos!
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom “to” and freedom “from.” ~Marilyn vos Savant, in Parade
Interesting. Freedom of religion / Freedomfrom religion? Right now the most vocal liberals want freedom from religion. No balance there.
Gay people have always parented. So have single people. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and older siblings have stepped in when natural parents were either unable, unwilling, or deceased.
Children have been abandoned to their fate. They have been put on outgoing trains by starving mothers hoping they will be found and pitied.
Children have been shuttled to foster homes and survived orphanages that were hellholes. They have lived in abusive homes and with mental illness, alcoholism, drug addiction, and criminal activity. Good grief children were born in houses of prostitution and raised there.
Children were sold into slavery and indentured servitude. My grandmother and her sisters were farmed out as indentured servants because their widowed mother was to destitute to keep them. This was a common practice.
Posted by: Mary at July 4, 2008 12:43 PM
………………………….
Indentured or farmed out Mary? There is a difference. Working for one’s keep as long as they are living with a family is not the same as being contracted for a specific period of time to work for another. ‘Farmed out’ children could return to their families. Indentured servants could not until their contract was fulfilled.
Are you sure that your grandmother was indentured? What time frame and part of the country are we talking about here?
Sally,
This was at the turn of the century in Michigan. I don’t know if there was a formal contract or how these families were even found and the arrangements made. The families accepted the girls until the age of 18. It was not their option to return to their mother when they wanted or to refuse to leave their home and be placed in another home in the first place. They were to be provided for but were to work for their keep. My grandmother functioned as a domestic, my great aunt worked as a farmhand and domestic. She travelled with the family to Florida and worked their fields.
Sally,
This was at the turn of the century in Michigan. I don’t know if there was a formal contract or how these families were even found and the arrangements made. The families accepted the girls until the age of 18. It was not their option to return to their mother when they wanted or to refuse to leave their home and be placed in another home in the first place. They were to be provided for but were to work for their keep. My grandmother functioned as a domestic, my great aunt worked as a farmhand and domestic. She travelled with the family to Florida and worked their fields.
Posted by: Mary at July 4, 2008 7:12 PM
………………………….
I see. Grandma and sisters were basically fostered out. The girls were most likely sent to extended family and/or family friends. If great grandma had wanted them home, they could have gone home. If one had run off and married before the age of 18, the foster parents had no legal right to drag them back. They would have become their husbands property. Being indentured was another kettle of fish and was offically made illegal in the 1880s I believe.
Do you know what became of great grandma? How did great grandpa die? Did the family manage to stay in contact with each other? You mention your ancestors quite frequently. Are you interested in genealogy?
MK I agree! Oh and happy 4th everyone. Reminds me of Paul Simon:
We come on a ship they called the Mayflower
We come on a ship that sailed the moon
We come in the ages most uncertain hour
And sing an American Tune
Oh, well it’s Alright
It’s Alright it’s Alright
You can be forever blessed
Still tomorrow’s gonna be another working day
And I’m trying to get some rest.
That’s all I’m trying, to get some rest..
PIP, happy 4th… Simon and Garfunkel are great!
Sally,
No they were not fostered out. I know for certain these were not family members or friends.
They were not in a position to run off and marry and none did until after the age of 18. My grandmother married at 20, my great aunt at 18.
It may have been made illegal, but that didn’t necessarily stop the practice, especially when you had families in such desperate circumstances with very few choices. It was certainly not referred to as “indentured servitude” but in practice it was. My grandmother and her sisters were considered indebted to the families that helped them.
My great grandma worked as a domestic for 50 cents a day. My great grandpa committed suicide which put the family in such desperate straits.
I would imagine the family stayed in touch though my great aunt was working the farm of the family she was sent to in Florida.
Genealogy and history absolutely fascinate me.
“This is a sick situation in which to have a child. This baby should have been taken away from these two people. IMO, this is child abuse.”
Just like divorce is sick and unnatural? If it isn’t unnatural, then people weren’t meant to be monogamous. Do you realize how much abortion hurts children? If these two people who are obviously devoted to each other and their child should have their child taken away from them then so shouldn’t divorced couples.
PIP,
“And I dreamed I was dying
I dreamed that my soul rose unexpectedly
And looking back down at me
Smiled reassuringly
And I dreamed I was flying
And high up above my eyes could clearly see
The Statue of Liberty
Sailing away to sea
And I dreamed I was flying…”
The relationship of 2 lesbians who decided to make a baby by artificial insemination being lauded by MSM and Oprah as “a MAN having a baby” is the most despicable promotion of the homosexual agenda I have ever witnessed. They keep repeating this over and over that this is a man, this is a WOMAN.
I will recommend to any of you that are wondering whether it matters if people marry or why married mothers and fathers are important to children a book by Glen T. Stanton Why Marriage Matters ((Pinon Press). This topic has been researched for 50 years, the research is solid even by those who did not want to believe in the results and tried to disprove the benefits of marriage. If you really care about children and what is best for them you should read this with an open heart and mind (if you want look up the extensive bibliography in the back of the book). I want to offer this to every person who is pro-life and has struggled to understand why mothers and fathers in committed, stable marriages matter and to those who are searching for answers about why marriage. Then I want to ask you to examine the following questions. “Why is marriage under such attack in the United States?” Why is it so important to homosexual, lesbian and transgender people to destroy traditional marriage? Do you really think this is about honoring the institution of marriage? Do you understand that they will only be satisfied once marriage is meaningless, there is no moral code and nothing is off limits? Read The Homosexual Agenda by Alan Sears and Craig Osten (Broadman and Holman Publishers). God help our nation.
If these two people who are obviously devoted to each other and their child should have their child taken away from them then so shouldn’t divorced couples.
Posted by: Jess at July 4, 2008 11:09 PM
Nope. These two women, should have been discouraged from taking the course of action they did – with the turkey baster.
One of them is not well emotionally or mentally for that matter and appears to have some kind of gender-identity disorder for which she requires treatment.
BTW I’m with making divorce illegal too.
Mike- seriously, I think I may have dated you in high school. Where are you from?
Patricia- if your opinion of child abuse is a child being raised in a home full of love, where the parents are devoted to each other and their marriage, where that child was wanted so badly her parents risked their comfortable and private life to do so…well I think you are cold hearted. Yes, her life might be different than other kids’. Her dad looks like a dad, and her mom looks like a mom, so I don’t see how it is that huge of a deal in the long run. Perhaps the child will grow up…tolerant and accepting of others??
Jenny- love what you said
prolife L:
Of course the feminist strategy is to make marriage useless because of course, marriage is a patriarchial institution that enslaves women and gives them no self-autonomy.
If marriages between men, women, goats and trees can be accepted then really marriage isn’t anything special anymore.
Donald DeMarco predicted with the gay marriage issue that in the near future no one will be married and that church marriages will no longer be recognized either. I think he will be proven correct.
Her dad looks like a dad, and her mom looks like a mom, so I don’t see how it is that huge of a deal in the long run. Perhaps the child will grow up…tolerant and accepting of others??
Jenny- love what you said
Posted by: ali at July 4, 2008 11:29 PM
Excuse me, but her “dad” looks like a woman with a beard to me. Which is BTW, what she IS.
Secondly, I think this child will grow up confused about men and women. Her father has a uterus! You don’t think that is confusing. This is crazy beyond belief. If this couple wants to pretend like this, fine and dandy. But to bring a child into this situation is reprehensible.
Now, if you were like us Gallifreyans, this wouldn’t be a problem. You see, on Gallifrey we had what were called “Looms” which carried out procreation for us Time Lords. My culture was of the opinion that sex and pregnancy were obsolete and unnecessary and allowed us to have emotional attachments that were unnecessary and harmful to our sense of judgment and justice as we policed Time and Space as we travelled through Time.
All we ever had to do was donate a genetic sample at a certain age and the Council would take care of the rest- setting up a perfect genetic match to produce children from that sample who were then raised by the Academies instead of with their parents in order to eliminate emotions and empathy and to prevent attachments from being made which complicated our duties.
“BTW I’m with making divorce illegal too.”
That would sure be bad for you Patricia : (
Lol, I wonder how many of these men would choose jail over marriage?
“BTW I’m with making divorce illegal too.”
That would sure be bad for you Patricia : (
Lol, I wonder how many of these men would choose jail over marriage?
Posted by: Jess at July 5, 2008 1:21 AM
Nope. I think divorce is very harmful to the spouse abandoned and especially to the children. It’s up to the two adults to make it work out. Of course, if one isn’t really an adult then you have a problem….
Your last statement is nonsensical. Why would a man have to choose jail over marriage? He is free to marry, no one forces him. And BTW, it is women who do the majority of divorcing.
Patricia,
How would the child even know her dad has a uterus? And how do we know that Mr. Beatie will not, now that he has a biological child, finish the transformation sometime in the future?
Maybe looking through the baby books and photo albums(and reruns of Oprah)and seeing photos of “Daddy” carrying her while pregnant?
Ditto Carla
@JKeller:People like this just love to boast about how counter-cultural they are. I’m sure they will have no problem telling little Miss Beatie just what went on.
And if they do how will it affect her negatively? Perhaps her friends born of bigoted “traditional” parents will make fun of her and her family. Then it’s bigotry that will screw up her worldview, not her parents’ sexualities.
I would hope that this little girl and her family don’t get teased or tormented. One can disagree vehemently with their lifestyle and still treat them with respect and courtesy.
I grew up in a traditional family. My children are growing up in a traditional family. The only bigotry my children have seen is from non Christians friends who make fun of my children for loving Jesus.
Contrary to what Doug says, most of humanity agrees that some things are objectively wrong. Like rape, incest, murder, etc.
That doesn’t change anything, MK. It’s still suubjective opinion at work. It is that agreement that is operative.
That doesn’t change anything, MK. It’s still subjective opinion at work.
Is that your subjective opinion, Doug? ;-)
And if they do how will it affect her negatively? Perhaps her friends born of bigoted “traditional” parents will make fun of her and her family. Then it’s bigotry that will screw up her worldview, not her parents’ sexualities.
Posted by: JKeller at July 5, 2008 10:46 AM
Nope. It will be the confusion she has between what she feels and knows is right (according to natural law) and what she sees and knows is not right (her parents crazy whacked out ideas of mothers fathers and sexuality) that will screw this kid up.
They will do it all by themselves.
I grew up in a traditional family. My children are growing up in a traditional family. The only bigotry my children have seen is from non Christians friends who make fun of my children for loving Jesus.
Posted by: Carla at July 5, 2008 11:13 AM
Yes, well Carla, being Christian is the new ghetto these days. I mean, can you believe your kids are THAT stupid to believe all that Jesus crap you and husband feed them?
If being a Christian is ghetto these days, bring it on.
Jesus is Lord, the Savior, Rose of Sharon, Prince of Peace, Mighty Warrior, Immanuel, Messiah, Lion of Judah, Lamb of God…..
I’ll let Carla and Patricia and a few more names of the Son of God.
I love your post The Doctor. This is the direction our country and world is headed, a world full of heartless, immoral, disposible robots. No need for parents, families, morals, right or wrong like the Bible said “Each man did what he thought was right in his own eyes” Judges 17:6.
At this point I think we are where Paul said “For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly” Romans 1:26-27 WOW, how prophetic. Our prayers for our nation are critical. I think these lesbians did this to make a statement, how tragic for this innocent baby, to be a part of their experiment, when God’s word is backed up by the research (see my previous post at 11:23pm).
Doug, 12:00 PM — what is that agreement based upon but Natural Law?!
For those who think that it is a matter of gay people or people with gender disorder simply wanting to marry and raise a family like everyone else:
“A same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders. The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders.
And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50.”
This is from an interview of Dale O’Leary who was discussing things within the context of same-sex couples and adoption. But I think the info. is applicable to this discussion.
I can appreciate that there are people who want to be tolerant and we should love these people but to enable them in situations that are not mentally, emotionally or physically healthy is not real “love”.
Patricia, Read Judith 8:25-27. I hope it helps!
Prayers and blessings!
Nope. It will be the confusion she has between what she feels and knows is right (according to natural law) and what she sees and knows is not right (her parents crazy whacked out ideas of mothers fathers and sexuality) that will screw this kid up.
They will do it all by themselves.
Maybe the kid won’t be screwed up at all, but will learn to love people with all their faults. After all, we don’t choose our parents, so I think it’s more important to have a good relationship with them then point fingers at them for all the things they’ve done wrong, don’t you, Patricia? I’m sure you wouldn’t want your daughters pointing their finger at you saying how stupid you were for picking such a loser to marry and have kids with now would you? I hope God grants their child the grace he/she needs to love his/her parents despite whatever is deemed “wrong” with them.
“That doesn’t change anything, MK. It’s still subjective opinion at work.”
Is that your subjective opinion, Doug? ;-)
Heh, no, Bethany, it’s fact that people all over the world have opinions.
Eileen: what is that agreement based upon but Natural Law?!
Eileen, it’s based on common desires. With some things, there is enormous commonality of desire, and almost no disagreement, no sentiment to the contrary.
With abortion it’s not that way at all, of course – there there’s mucho disagreement.
…My Comforter, My All in All, My Rock, My Deliverer, My Strength, My Song, My Refuge, My Good Shepard, My Life, My King…
Elizabeth, how did you get to be so wise at such a young and tender and pretty age?
I’m amazed at all the arguing over this topic. For me, it just seems crazy to say that a woman who has altered herself physically is now a “man.”
Maybe the kid won’t be screwed up at all, but will learn to love people with all their faults. After all, we don’t choose our parents, so I think it’s more important to have a good relationship with them then point fingers at them for all the things they’ve done wrong
Right on – you never know. Obviously, Beatie has had some major conflicted feelings, but it’s not to say the child won’t have a good parent there.
I hope the parents are good to the girl. There’s tough enough times coming for the kid when other kids find out about all this….
My Strength, My Song,
Carla, I caught that out of the corner of my eye and thought it said, “My SoMG”…
Eileen: One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders.
Holy Fibonacci multiple, Batman!
.786 is the square root of .618….. awesome.
Bobby Bambino, are you out there….?
I’ll let Carla and Patricia and a few more names of the Son of God.
Posted by: HisMan at July 5, 2008 12:55 PM
My all time fav – Master!
Doug, 2:32 p.m.
Why thank you!
And while I’m not totally convinced this person is truly transgendered, since many of the transgendered people I have seen dread their natural bodies doing anything identifiable to the that gender like growing breasts or getting their period, I do believe this person is seriously confused about a lot of things.
Nobody’s parents are perfect, but I think that every child owes their parent the respect for the sacrifices their parent has made for them, and I do hope that this child feels loved by his/her parents and is strong enough to deal with the negative things his/her peers will say or do to him/her as a result of his/her parent’s choices.
Thanks Eileen. I read it and I agree that I’m being tested, but for 20 years?!!!
Heh, no, Bethany, it’s fact that people all over the world have opinions.
Heh, but Doug, isn’t it your subjective opinion that the fact that people all over the world have differing opinions makes those opinions subjective? ;-)
I hope the parents are good to the girl. There’s tough enough times coming for the kid when other kids find out about all this….
Posted by: Doug at July 5, 2008 2:32 PM
Yes, and that’s the tragedy. It need not be had the parents not been so selfish in the first place to set up such a situation. The child deserves better than these two parents.
Yes, and that’s the tragedy. It need not be had the parents not been so selfish in the first place to set up such a situation. The child deserves better than these two parents.
Yeah, my parents’ friend grew up biracial in a time where such a thing was not considered acceptable. His parents were so selfish to put him in that situation. They should have just kept their heads down and let other people’s racism dictate how they lived their lives, definitely.
Here’s a question: Christians often refer to feeling “persecuted” for their beliefs, having people laugh at them because they believe in Jesus, etc. Do you consider it child abuse to raise a child in a Christian household, just because some ignorant people around the children will laugh at them for it? Or would you agree that the reactions of people around you is not a valid reason to avoid having children?
It need not be had the parents not been so selfish in the first place to set up such a situation. The child deserves better than these two parents.
Patricia, you don’t know that. They may end up being great parents.
but Doug, isn’t it your subjective opinion that the fact that people all over the world have differing opinions makes those opinions subjective? ;-)
No, Bethany, you rascal.
It’s that morality is ideas and ideals, by definition things of the mind, not external to it.
Yes, and that’s the tragedy. It need not be had the parents not been so selfish in the first place to set up such a situation. The child deserves better than these two parents.
Yeah, my parents’ friend grew up biracial in a time where such a thing was not considered acceptable. His parents were so selfish to put him in that situation. They should have just kept their heads down and let other people’s racism dictate how they lived their lives, definitely.
To compare this travesty with a child who had TWO parents of different races is ridiculous. Your friend grew up in a home with a MOTHER & a FATHER. It was a stable family. The parents were normal, but of different races.
This child will NOT have these advantages.
Races of people are equal. They are not emotionally and mentally disturbed as this woman who is pretending to be a father likely is.
Patricia,
Who are you to judge how those people parent? They may have problems themselves, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be a good parent just because you have your own personal issues to deal with. I can think of a lot more worse “parents” whose gender may fit the norm, but they have screwed up their kids wayyyyy worse than these 2 would. I don’t know what kind of parents they will be, but I wouldn’t presume to know either. I guess that’s something we don’t have in common.
Patricia,
I hope you similarly condemn single parents, and parents who have anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, codependency problems, and passionate religious/political views that are different from your own.
I second Alexandra’s post.
Same sex attraction and gender identity disorder are psychological disorders. Why would you want to place a child in a situation like that? I submit that there are children who come from traditional — mom and dad — families that are dysfunctional but that is no argument for supporting these “non-traditional” families. Even Rosie O’ Donnell admitted publicly that her son wanted a “daddy”. Dale O’Leary has also cited a study in which a gay couple were raising a boy who wanted to buy a “mommy” after they had hired and fired several nannies because he was bonding emotionally with them. These men put the little boy in therapy. Now, tell me, who needs the therapy in this situation?!
Doug, if people are in agreement about the immorality of murder, rape, stealing, etc., it is their consciences speaking to them or Natural Law (placed in their hearts by their
Creator).
Patricia, that is a long time — hang in there!
Prayers and blessings to all.
Eileen, I didn’t say I wanted/didn’t want something. But last time I checked, there aren’t laws about who can be parents and who can’t be other than abusive/neglectful situations. Oh, and I’m pretty sure if we did decide to legislate who could/couldn’t be parents, we would see the abortion numbers go WAY UP, so how is that helpful?
P.S. The APA took homosexuality off its list of psychological disorders quite a while ago. Just as a heads up. But if you really want to include psychological problems with people who shouldn’t have kids…I have a lot of anxiety attacks and probably have a yet to be diagnosed anxiety disorder (going to the doctor next week for it), but I’m still a parent. And a pretty awesome one at that.
Dale O’Leary has also cited a study in which a gay couple were raising a boy who wanted to buy a “mommy” after they had hired and fired several nannies because he was bonding emotionally with them. These men put the little boy in therapy. Now, tell me, who needs the therapy in this situation?!
That is so sad. :(
Elizabeth,
I know that homosexuality was taken off of the list but only after homosexual activists within and outside of the profession intimidated and pressured the APA. Many psychiatrists still believe that it is but are afraid of being labeled “homophobic”.
As to your situation, I have a sister with the same problem and she is a good parent also. Psychological disorders vary in degree in regard to their effects mentally and physically. You are jumping to conclusions.
I’m not jumping to conclusions about anything, Eileen. If, as you believe, homosexuality is a mental disorder, than by your own explanation, they can still be good parents. Just as much as parents with depression, bipolar, anxiety, etc.
Elizabeth,
Exactly. How would this condemnation help lower the abortion rate?
I’m really not so sure, pip, but I’m SO glad you’re back! With Amanda and Rae leaving, I was worried I would be allllll alone. :(
Aww thanks Elizabeth :)
Why did they leave?
Lol, it’s a loooong story..you should facebook message them and they’ll tell ya. I don’t want to start something on here! Drama drama!
Haha wow. Must have been bad for them to have left.
Patricia,
Who are you to judge how those people parent? They may have problems themselves, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be a good parent just because you have your own personal issues to deal with. I can think of a lot more worse “parents” whose gender may fit the norm, but they have screwed up their kids wayyyyy worse than these 2 would. I don’t know what kind of parents they will be, but I wouldn’t presume to know either. I guess that’s something we don’t have in common.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at July 5, 2008 3:36 PM
ON the contrary I am not judging how they PARENT. It is the fact that a baby has been placed into a situation where there is a disturbed confused self-multilated woman pretending to be a father and another woman who has condoned this that is disturbing. The entire scenario has been presented as if this is NORMAL, WHOLESOME and LOVING. It is not.
It is aberrant and disturbing. It is in no way comparable to a normal family with a mother and a father.
What is worse is that the MSM is perpetrating this lie as if it were the most wonderful thing in the world.
It is aberrant and disturbing. It is in no way comparable to a normal family with a mother and a father.
What is worse is that the MSM is perpetrating this lie as if it were the most wonderful thing in the world.
Patricia, I agree. It is disturbing, and the fact that the MSM tries to normalize it makes it worse.
I don’t really see people trying to play it off like it’s normal at all, Patricia. I don’t think it would be getting any attention if it were the norm right?
And as far as loving, what do you mean? The parents loving the child or what? Does gender determine the amount of love one has for their child? I guess I’m not sure what you mean with that part of the statement.
Well Bethany, I think it’s part of the whole liberal agenda to prove that anyone can marry anyone/anything and that all that really matters is that the two people are self-fulfiled.
If these two people are happy why not? If Beatie decides next year she wants to marry her begonia, well that will probably be just fine too. If Beatie, Nancy and Harry the chimpanzee decide to marry that’s gonna be terrific for this kid too. She learn to love animals because she’ll have one for a parent!
Get it?!!!
Elizabeth, I’m really liking you today. Every time I read a post and get frantic (ex: Eileen still reading the DSM from 1970) you come right in and fight my fight!
I dont want to get more involved, after all I “quit” weeks ago- but I think we’d all benefit from increasing our opinion of what is “normal”- just saying, it comes off as muy judgmental when we deem things as bad because they go out of our boundaries of what SHOULD be. I was raised to be open-minded and I really thank my parents (one man, one woman, still married after 29 years) for that- hopefully this little girl will too!
I think we’d all benefit from increasing our opinion of what is “normal”- just saying, it comes off as muy judgmental when we deem things as bad because they go out of our boundaries of what SHOULD be.
Ali: this assumes of course that there is no normal. That we set what is normal and that what is normal for one person may not be normal for another. Just like right and wrong.
Sorry I don’t buy that. Our culture has demonstrated that the most successful way to raise children is with a mother and a father. It is the best way to produce good citizens, and caring loving emotionally mature and stable adults for the next generation. This is not my opinion – it has been shown to work for centuries.
I don’t intend to increase my opinion of what is normal. It doesn’t mean that I don’t think Beatie and her friend shouldn’t be respected as persons – just that they should not be passing themselves off as a married couple and they shouldn’t have kids.
Thanks ali! I do what I can, although I think I’ll be taking my leave from here as well pretty soon. All the hypocrisy is a little much for my taste.
Elizabeth: hypocrisy
I don’t think so. It’s called standing up for what is right and recognizing what is wrong.
This situation is wrong. Do you care nothing for the child? Do you honestly think this will be a healthy environment to raise a child?
Patricia,
You can say it over and over to yourself if that makes you feel better.
And yes, I care for this child, I pray this child is given the grace to accept and love his/her parents despite what is deemed “wrong” with them. Would you rather we forcibly remove children because you don’t agree with someone’s partner? You want laws to determine who can be a parent and who can’t? I bet you we’d definitely see the abortion numbers go up then, so good job for you!
And yes, if the parents are able to love and nurture the child to the best of their ability, then I think it’s a healthy environment. I can envision far worse circumstances than these that children are FORCED to live in.
Naturally, today of course, the child is not considered. In the narcissism of the day, the child who deserves a natural and normal family setting is instead intentionally given a psychologically speculative environment. Such a decision should warrant the removal of the child from such a parent on just those logical grounds: developmental and formative personality and indentity confusion. The world is indeed sick. It’s become a carnival sideshow with the soul death of our children.
Elizabeth:
Who are you to judge how those people parent? They may have problems themselves, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be a good parent just because you have your own personal issues to deal with.
Um, I think we already have the evidence before us as to just how these “folks” actually “parent”. If you haven’t noticed, the elephant is in the living room and he’s swinging by the chandelier!
KC, 7:03 p.m.
What in the hell are you talking about??
The world is indeed sick. It’s become a carnival sideshow with the soul death of our children
you NAILED that one!
A very wise and observant statement, KC.
How terribly sad but true.
LOL and true on your 7:03 post as well!
Well Bethany, I think it’s part of the whole liberal agenda to prove that anyone can marry anyone/anything and that all that really matters is that the two people are self-fulfiled.
If these two people are happy why not? If Beatie decides next year she wants to marry her begonia, well that will probably be just fine too. If Beatie, Nancy and Harry the chimpanzee decide to marry that’s gonna be terrific for this kid too. She learn to love animals because she’ll have one for a parent!
Get it?!!!
Crazy, I tell you, crazy. Sad, but true.
Thanks ali! I do what I can, although I think I’ll be taking my leave from here as well pretty soon. All the hypocrisy is a little much for my taste.
Could you help me understand what you are seeing as hypocritical? Hypocrisy, the way I have always understood it, is when you tell someone not to do something, even though you’re doing it yourself.
Where has anyone done that in this topic? If I’ve missed it, please show me.
As far as I can tell, we are all just expressing our opinions about what we feel is right and wrong about this situation. just like we always do in debate.
You are correct, Bethany. Not on this particular thread, but on the very first one is really what I was talking about with all the insult-hurling that Bystander got banned for and yet HisMan got to continue. I guess that’s what I mean..sorry it carried over into my comment on this thread!
That’s okay, Elizabeth..it happens! :)
If, as you believe, homosexuality is a mental disorder, than by your own explanation, they can still be good parents. Just as much as parents with depression, bipolar, anxiety, etc.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at July 5, 2008 4:24 PM
No, Elizabeth, there is a big difference between an anxiety disorder that can be managed with medication and a disorder in which a person is so unhappy with their sexual identity,which is an integral part of their person, that they have to surgically remove parts of their body. I hope no one ever treats this little girl cruelly or the women that are raising her but chances are she will grow up being confused about her own sexuality. Studies are being done that are indicating this but not much is being said in the mainstream because it is not in the best interest of the liberal agenda.
Studies are being done that are indicating this
Links please.
Elizabeth, I’m not very computer-literate yet but if you “google” Richard Fitzgibbons MD — it will lead you to an article, “When Boys Won’t Be Boys: Childhood Gender Identity Disorder”. Also try Susan Brinkmann who has written, “Gay Marriage: Who’s Minding the Children”. I will have to do more extensive searching because most of what I have learned was gotten from listening to the radio or TV so it will take some time to track down specifics.
“Aww thanks Elizabeth :)
Why did they leave?”
PIP,
It was a disussion about the transmission of HIV/AIDS.
Amanda and Rae left (and Elizabeth got angry) because we said homosexual (anal) sex was wrong and contributed significatly in the transmission of HIV. I mean, we said nothing about homosexuals themselves. So, they started calling us homophobes and gay bashers.
what can I say, many of us here have principles we don’t want to abandon. We love the sinner but hate the sin.
“Naturally, today of course, the child is not considered. In the narcissism of the day, the child who deserves a natural and normal family setting is instead intentionally given a psychologically speculative environment. Such a decision should warrant the removal of the child from such a parent on just those logical grounds: developmental and formative personality and indentity confusion. The world is indeed sick. It’s become a carnival sideshow with the soul death of our children.”
KC, excellent post.
Jasper, you wrote: “Amanda and Rae left (and Elizabeth got angry) because we said homosexual (anal) sex was wrong and contributed significatly in the transmission of HIV.”
I think Rae’s leaving had more to do with “Truthseeker”‘s insistance on the idea of de-novo creation of HIV by the male body’s reaction to another man’s sperm. I think she became convinced that there is no point in trying to educate you folks.
It’s almost always sad when someone gives up on something like that.
I once taught Statistics and Probability at a high school. As it turned out, the school required seniors to take either Calculus or S&P and I got the kids who were afraid of Calculus and hated Math. I don’t know why they thought S&P would be easier or less math-y than Calculus but they did, and every one of them chose my course for that reason. I clearly remember the moment when I realized, and accepted, the fact that none of them had the background or basic technical smarts or inclination to understand what I was supposed to teach them. It was very sad. To accept that a whole community is impenetrable by essential knowledge.
Jasper,
Were you and I even present in the SAME conversation?
I didn’t get angry about anything..if truthseeker wanted to throw around ideas that he had no way of backing up, FINE, like I care.
The point that I repeated over and over that you all seemed to have trouble comprehending WAS: that you can’t spontaneously get HIV if the person you are having sex with DOES NOT have HIV. That’s IT. I didn’t care that you said that being a homosexual male increases one’s chances of getting HIV. I DON’T dispute that because it’s TRUE, a PROVEN FACT, unlike ANY of truthseeker’s assertions that one can just magically get HIV if their partner doesn’t ALREADY have it.
And I NEVER called anybody a homophobe, but I do maintain the belief that spreading misconceptions about gay people CONTRIBUTES to gay-bashing.
Seriously, you could have emailed this to her, cause I’m SURE this will stir more things up, but I don’t want to be misunderstood because of people’s inability to read what I’m actually writing.
errrr, no I didn’t..but I understand the frustration that Rae and Amanda felt with TS who refused to acknowledge their points that specifically proved him wrong.
People, if you come across something you think is non-sense, ignore it, don’t engage in it.
You mean like your 11:32 p.m. post Jasper?
Okay.
well, if it wasn’t you, it was Amanda and Rae..and you were agreeing with them.
Okay, that’s it.
STOP LYING JASPER.
Elizabeth is right as to why Amanda and I left. SoMG is also correct on why *I* left. I can’t fully speak for Amanda, as I’m not Amanda- but I know my reasons and the ones you’re putting out there are FALSE.
Knock it off.
*scuttles away back into obscurity*
Yea!! my plan worked… I knew I’d get you come back Rae! LOL…
All,
Let’s drop what happened, I think we can all agree that HIV is not transmitted when the disease isn’t present. Elizabeth, I’m sorry if quoted you incorrectly about the “gay bashing’ comments…
Ok, Jasper, it’s cool.
Don’t let it happen again though. :)
Yes, and that’s the tragedy. It need not be had the parents not been so selfish in the first place to set up such a situation. The child deserves better than these two parents.
Posted by: Patricia at July 5, 2008 3:00 PM
Based on this principle Patricia, your advice to the Christian parent posting above would be to give up Christianity because their kids might be mocked for it, you know, those Christian parents are just being selfish thinking about their eternal salvation to set up such a situation. The child deserves……..
Oh yeah, was that the thread where TS randomly called me out and told me I was having anal sex? I think I did read that one.
And yeah, that was completely ridiculous. The first time I ever heard someone in the modern age dispute germ theory.
“She” is not now and never has been a “he”. She had her tits removed and took male hormones, that doesn’t make a woman a man. This publicity and attention were probably her goal from the beginning. No story here except maybe that a baby was born to a VERY unstable mother.
Oh yeah, was that the thread where TS randomly called me out and told me I was having anal sex? I think I did read that one.
And yeah, that was completely ridiculous. The first time I ever heard someone in the modern age dispute germ theory.
Posted by: prettyinpink at July 6, 2008 3:40 AM
Yeah pip, ouutta the blue but not outta the air. I remembered that you had hinted enjoying it on a orevious thread…may have just been joking though. It was a thread from a few months ago when IO first started posting on Jill’s blog. You might remeber the one where you posted those “hot” pictures of yourself. And I posted to you cause I cared about you and I remebered your previous post. I am glad to hear you DON’T though. :)
All,
Let’s drop what happened, I think we can all agree that HIV is not transmitted when the disease isn’t present. Elizabeth, I’m sorry if quoted you incorrectly about the “gay bashing’ comments…
Posted by: Jasper at July 6, 2008 12:17 AM
I don’t agree Jasper. But if you ALL want to agree that’s fine. I still strongly discourage any malke from ingesting or injecting another males sperm into his body. It IMO would likely lead to health problems. And if you don’t want a mouthfull then leave it at that.
errrr, no I didn’t..but I understand the frustration that Rae and Amanda felt with TS who refused to acknowledge their points that specifically proved him wrong.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at July 5, 2008 11:23
LOL G’sMom,
Rae had`some excellent points, but NONE of them proved me wrong. In fact didn’t she herself say that herpes is a disease that has it’s genisis in sexual intercourse? Go back and read the posts again G’sMom. Nobody refuted the rationality iof my posts. As far as I am concerned your acceptance of homosexual intercourse is leading people to sickness and death. Chew on that while you are whining in your “compassion”. HOMOS NOS EROS
OHH was that the thread where I said, ‘Sodomy is GREAT’ and my comment got deleted? I was referring to the broad definition of sodomy (anything that is not sexual intercourse) and I was being facetious (sp? it’s late). I don’t have sexual intercourse or anal sex, so I did think it was very random of you to post that. Next time, let’s just not jump to conclusions, just feel free to ask me, okay?
…hot pics? Don’t remember that one, either.
“I don’t agree Jasper. But if you ALL want to agree that’s fine. I still strongly discourage any malke from ingesting or injecting another males sperm into his body. It IMO would likely lead to health problems. And if you don’t want a mouthfull then leave it at that.”
TS, I agree to other health problems (there are many), but not HIV if one does already have it.
Patricia,
You can say it over and over to yourself if that makes you feel better.
And yes, I care for this child, I pray this child is given the grace to accept and love his/her parents despite what is deemed “wrong” with them. Would you rather we forcibly remove children because you don’t agree with someone’s partner? You want laws to determine who can be a parent and who can’t? I bet you we’d definitely see the abortion numbers go up then, so good job for you!
And yes, if the parents are able to love and nurture the child to the best of their ability, then I think it’s a healthy environment. I can envision far worse circumstances than these that children are FORCED to live in.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at July 5, 2008 6:51 PM
Well I’m glad you can envision far worse Elizabeth because this is probably one of the worst and it’s going to get alot worse.
We not only now have gay couples “having” children, we have transgender couples and even couples who are ridiculously elderly as in 70+ “having” babies simply because they WANT one. No consideration is being given to the child and it’s needs.
This is full-blown narcissism at it’s best.
Where will you draw the line Elizabeth and why? Will you allow pedophiliacs to have babies? If not, why not?
What about poly people, Elizabeth? If they can raise children in a loving “marriage” with 3 men and 2 women, why not?
What about a man and woman who practice bestiality?
Please don’t tell me these are people with illnesses or disorders. Because 30 years ago, homosexuality was considered a disorder too. And it’s now normal?
We need to stop this silliness for the sake of our children. Our children have become pawns in a huge social engineering project.
This child should be removed from the parents. If this was a heterosexual couple and the parents were mentally ill you can bet the social services would be involved. However because it’s a same-sex/attempting transgendered “couple” we don’t dare touch them. Of course Beatie can’t possibly be mentally ill. She’s just finding herself and being self fulfilled.
Elizabeth as long as we continue to support “anything” on the basis of self fulfilment and self-actualization we will have to support everything.
Elizabeth wrote:”And I NEVER called anybody a homophobe, but I do maintain the belief that spreading misconceptions about gay people CONTRIBUTES to gay-bashing.”
I am glad, because I’m not a homophobe. I believe homosexuality is a not normal,despite what these people maintain. I believe they should be treated with dignity, compassion and sensitivity.
At the same time I do not accept the changes homosexual activism has worked for in the area of marriage, adoption, social benefits as being legitimate nor benefical, nor do I accept that we should be encouraging them in their sexual behaviour which has been demonstrated to be highly unhealthy and burdensome to healthcare.
Oh mann, serrriously, I am so over this. I don’t get any enjoyment in repeatedly banging my head into a wall so this is just as bad I’m pretty sure. Have at it, folks. Anybody who wants to get hold of me can do so over facebook. I’m out. Peace!
Goodbye Elizabeth.
You are further proof that the liberal homosexual agenda has brainwashed you to the point where you don’t know what is normal and you simply can’t think for yourself.
The fact that you can’t or won’t answer the very valid questions I’ve posed here demonstrates this.
No doubt, these “parents” will be displaying the child in one of those stupid gay parades…where lewd behavior is thrust into the faces of everyone around and people applaud it.
And the stupid gay community, YES, STUPID, can’t figure out why they aren’t being “accepted”.
“Oh yes…let’s take our children to a gay parade…and they can see naked people simulating sodomy, displaying their body mutilations and every other perverse thing under the sun, and then we’ll all go get ice cream”.
Spare me.
I think part of the problem here is that by saying this couple won’t make good parents, some are thinking that means they won’t love the child. By the same token, stating that gay people (green people, tall people) can love the child just as well as anyone, implies that this alone will make them good parents.
Love, when used as a “feeling” does not insure good parenting.
Love, when used as a verb, is a whole different thing.
Who can say what kind of parents these guys will make. But I do have to agree with Patricia, that the ONLY clue we have as to what kind of people they are is that everything they have done, from changing sex, to keeping their feminine apparatus in working order, to going public, to producing a child, all appear to be selfishly motivated. And as a general rule, selfish people do not good parents make.
We won’t know till years from now however, so the point is moot.
Mike,
It is true that there is a faction of the gay population that goes overboard in furthering the gay agenda. But that is true in every group.
Muslim extremists, gay extremists and pro life extremists…all giving their group a bad name.
I think this is what Elizabeth was trying to point out to Hisman. By representing your “group” in an extreme way, you can give the whole group a bad name.
There is a group of homosexuals that are going to line the streets of Sydney and engage in endless kissing during World Youth Day…Extremists.
But I’d be willing to bet that MOST of the homosexual population is quietly living their own little lives, not making waves and just trying to survive like the rest of us.
It’s when we stop seeing individuals and focus on the loons that we making generalizations that are harmful to every one.
I strongly believe that homosexual behavior is wrong. But when I find myself sinless, and ONLY then, will I point fingers and slander an entire group of people. Until then, I’m willing speak my piece and pray for the people that are living in sin. Just as I do for myself, my own children, my friends and all of you.
But think for a minute. Many people on here have family members, brothers, cousins, friends…that are gay, and hearing them referred to as freaks must be very hurtful.
But think for a minute. Many people on here have family members, brothers, cousins, friends…that are gay, and hearing them referred to as freaks must be very hurtful.
Posted by: mk at July 6, 2008 1:41 PM
I agree MK. And these homosexual people are just that -people in the subjective – that is human beings deserving of our compassion and love and with a dignity like everyone else.
However, what I object to is their pushing homosexuality as NORMAL. And that two people of the same sex can have a “marriage” that is on the same level as marriage – defined as the lifetime committment between a man and a woman.
It is the constant distorting of reality and the acceptance that there is no objective right or wrong that bothers me to no end.
It is the acceptance that people have the right to be self fulfilled and have the right to attain this self fulfillment no matter what – divorce, polygamy, abortion, contraception, pornography etc.
This self -actualization philosophy leads to anything and everything.
What gets lost in the end is how this affects others as individuals, and society at large.
BTW – I think most proaborts believe anyone with prolife views are extremists -even the mother who sits at home with her family and who is quietly prolife. The label prolife=extremist and violent.
“You are further proof that the liberal homosexual agenda has brainwashed you to the point where you don’t know what is normal and you simply can’t think for yourself.”
You are further proof that the religious right agenda has brainwashed you to the point where you don’t know what is normal and you simply can’t think for yourself.
…see how ridiculous that sounds?
” I think most proaborts believe anyone with prolife views are extremists -even the mother who sits at home with her family and who is quietly prolife. The label prolife=extremist and violent.
”
Seems like you believe anyone with views contrary to yours must be brainwashed. How much better is that?
PIP: at least I can think and reason my way out of a paper bag.
All liberal proaborts do is parrot what the MSM feeds them.
It’s the liberal policies and social re-engineering that have turned society on it’s head to the point where babies are killed by the millions, and homosexuality is NORMAL.
Sorry but I’d much rather live in my world than in yours. At least there is a right and wrong in mine.
Pip, 2:17 p.m.
I know, right?
MK, 1:41 p.m.
Thank you, thank you, and thank you.
Patricia,
It is not up to me to allow or not allow something. A lot of pedophiles have children, did you not know that? Unless you’re planning on watching everyone who decides to have sex or make mandates about who can/can not have children, I really think your whole point is moot anyway.
And I’m really not going to compare 2 CONSENTING ADULTS with pedophiles and people who have sex with animals. That’s like comparing apples and oranges. (Well, to me anyway it is)
Now, I’m not saying that I KNOW these people will make great parents. I’m not presuming to know anything about them just because they have put themselves out there in the manner that they have. Many people will assume just because they read a couple articles about them, but I am not one of those people. I also never said I believed that what they were doing was right. I have doubts about whether or not this person is truly “transgendered,” anyway. Like I have said earlier in this thread, many of the transgendered people I have read about or seen specials on, DESPISE their body doing any of the functions that are attributed to the gender they were born with. There was actually a special on 20/20 about transgendered children not too long ago, and these children were truly traumatized by the very thought that there bodies were going to change during puberty by growing breasts, periods, etc. So the fact that this person is relishing in the use of the female body parts he/she was born with makes it a little suspect for me. I also don’t like the whole parading your child around for the media, but we don’t take away celebrities chidlren for doing this. BUT, whether I like it or not, this person has had a child and is now raising a child. Whether that child will have problems in the future is not for me to presume to know or speculate upon simply because I do not predict the future.
It is my hope that the child will be put into consideration when dealing with sexuality, gender issues, etc. when the time comes for that. I also hope the child will be provided with strong role models of EACH gender, because it is important.
I know that I am ALWAYS thinking of my daughter and how to make her situation easier for her and more understandable, because I know the world is not as understanding. My daughter may someday be confused about her race, or wish she belonged to one or the other, and I am doing everything I can now to show her that she is perfect just the way she is. As a parent, that’s all I can do. I can’t change the way the world thinks, all I can do is make it a little easier for my daughter to have to live in it. So I hope this child’s parents do the same for him/her. I also hope that the child is given the grace he/she needs to love his/her parents despite their flaws. It would truly be a more tragic situation if the child/parent relationship is strained or non-existent. We don’t get to choose our parents, but we do choose whether or not we accept our parents for who they are, and have a relationship with them.
I wish them all the best, because they will surely have a tough road ahead of them, but nobody gets out of life without trials and tribulations. I am certainly in no position to throw stones at these people, because like MK said, none of us are without sin.
“All liberal proaborts do is parrot what the MSM feeds them.”
What about you guys who parrot was religion and talk radio feeds you?
Everyone has standards of right and wrong. You’d just rather pretend yours is superior, and everyone else is stupid.
prettyinpink,
There is a little hubris on both sides but the information that is disseminated by knowledgeable people on Catholic radio and tv and by some in talk radio is much more accurate than than what you will find elsewhere.
Elizabeth:
You have missed the point of my post entirely.
The fact is the MSM is portraying this situation as it is NOT.
This IS a woman (NOT a man) who has mutilated herself, has a beard and is pretending to be a man in a father-role after getting pregnant and having a baby.
You and I both know that this is NOT normal. Beatie doesn’t even seem to be a “normal” transgender even by the opinions of some on this board.
It is not up to me to allow or not allow something. A lot of pedophiles have children, did you not know that? Unless you’re planning on watching everyone who decides to have sex or make mandates about who can/can not have children, I really think your whole point is moot anyway.
And I’m really not going to compare 2 CONSENTING ADULTS with pedophiles and people who have sex with animals. That’s like comparing apples and oranges. (Well, to me anyway it is)
Well, guess what Elizabeth? you better hope it is up to you to have a say in these things because it will get alot worse if you and I don’t.
Did you know for example that pedophiles BELIEVE and PROMOTE the idea that children can in fact give their consent to sex and that they ENJOY sex? Why is this situation any different that Beaties? If pedophiles (who largely remain anonymous today) want to openly have children, why should we stop them? What arguments make this situation different that Beaties situation? Because they are not normal? So is Beatie? You don’t answer these questions.
Did you know that people who practice bestiality also believe that animals can consent to this? The same questions apply here as above.
So you see, it’s not really like comparing apples and oranges. It’s like going down the conveyor belt with different apples, but they are apples, nonetheless.
I am not throwing stones at these people. I am saying that this is child abuse to allow these two people to keep a child in this situation. Why? Because this situation is NOT healthy for the child.
You yourself know already how hard it is for a single woman to raise a child. Your girl has a role model in you – you are a role model for how a woman is – what it is like to be a female in the world.
As a female role model, the Beatie child will have a lesbian and a very confused partially-transgendered woman as her role models of femininity? Do you honestly think this is in the best interests of the child? Do you really think this is in the best interests of the child?
When artificial insemination and IVF were first being promoted, opponents argued that these would be abused to bring children into family situations that are less than ideal. This has come to pass as this situation has shown and in the case of the 72 year old Indian woman who had twins because they wanted a male heir!
It is interesting to note that Beatie did her own home version of AI, no doubt because they knew she would be refused the normal route.
I’m sorry Elizabeth but I’m sad to say that we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
This situation is morally reprehensible to me and I feel for this poor child.
Eileen,
I despise the MSM. But really,people always get information somewhere.
Really, what I DESPISE most of all is the idea that everyone who disagrees with the religious ideals of the way things should be is automatically brainwashed by “the MSM” and not simply thinking for themselves. One could easily argue the other way around which shows how ridiculous those kind of statements are. Eileen, you can’t possibly believe that Elizabeth doesn’t think for herself?
PIP, Patricia, etc.
I think you both make sense. I know what Patricia means. Society as a whole is harmed when the family unit breaks down. So she, I and you are all affected.
I understand that once certain things are thought of as okay, then it opens the door for other things to become acceptable.
Just 60 years ago, contraception was illegal. Now they hand it out to 11 year olds. Adulterers were ostracized by society, now they become president. Being a Christian was a “good” thing. Now it makes you a pariah. Children were cherished, now they are dumped in garbage cans. Marriage meant something lasting, beautiful, desirable, now it means insurance benefits. “Bad Girls” slept around, now EVERYONE sleeps around and if they don’t they make a movie about. (The forty year old virgin). They even made a movie about a guy that gave up sex for lent and almost lost it!
So, yeah, it’s scary to watch the world that you grew up in, crumble and become a joke.
On the other hand, these changes are coming and like a freight train there isn’t much we can do to stop them. This frustration can lead to anger and lashing out.
There are days when I just weep for the world and what it’s becoming.
I say a rosary every day and my friends think I’m a religious fanatic. As Patricia says, just like the gay community or the muslim community, our cause is automatically associated with lunatics.
It’s hard. And sometimes we don’t always react very well.
But I don’t think Patricia or anyone else here “hates” homosexuals. They hate that a certain mindset, secular humanism, lack of morals, consumerism, violence, technology…are all robbing us of a chance to live our lives the way we think they should be lived.
Sure we can turn off the TV. We don’t have to buy nasty music. We can hide in our caves and cling to our pitiful faith and way of life…but is that fair? Why is it that the minority view is making it so hard for us, the majority, to live our lives.
You say gay and half the board defends homosexuality. You say Christian and you can hear the groans and eye rolls in China. You see?
This blog has taught me one thing, which I’m thankful for. I used to think being prolife meant being extremist, being someone who protests outside clinics and uses fear tactics and thinks that grotesque pictures of dead fetuses will help their cause. I’ve met a lot of people here who completely shattered that view for me. So yes, good stuff!
You say Christian and you can hear the groans and eye rolls in China.
I actually read an article about how the Chinese are turning more towards Christianity these days. It was in the Tribune I think. :)
It does seem sad, though, that the ones with the loudest voices are typically the ones with nothing real to say.
Everyone has standards of right and wrong. You’d just rather pretend yours is superior, and everyone else is stupid.
Posted by: prettyinpink at July 6, 2008 3:19 PM
I was responding to the above . I believe that Elizabeth thinks for herself but I also believe that it is easy to be mislead because not all of the facts are accurately reported.
At the same time, it’s not really fair to say that either side is simply spewing out what they’ve been spoon fed. We’re all here, on Jills right? That alone says that we are willing to learn.
PIP is also young (no condescension, I promise) and hasn’t had the same life experiences you and I have.
She can’t possibly know what it’s like to send her child off to school to be searched for weapons, or what it’s like to have your 5 year old have nightmares over a school shooting.
It’s different when other lives are counting on you to protect them.
But I do honestly think that PIP puts a lot of thought into what she says. And I think here willingness to become prolife says a lot about her character. She listened, weighed what she heard against what she thought she knew and changed.
I listened to her about evolution and learned a lot of stuff I had no idea about.
Look how easy it was for us to believe that Michelle Obama had been taped saying horrible things about white people. We can be duped too, right?
Everyone has standards of right and wrong. You’d just rather pretend yours is superior, and everyone else is stupid.
Posted by: prettyinpink at July 6, 2008 3:19 PM
NO. There is A right and A wrong. Either homosexuality, abortion for example are morally right or they are morally wrong.
What our post-modern world is trying to live out today is that there is in fact NO right or wrong. That right and wrong are determined by persons, circumstances etc.
An action cannot be right in some circumstances and wrong in others. This is an irrational position to hold.
The question is what is the TRUTH, PIP? Don’t you want to learn what is truly correct? I do!
BTW – I don’t listen to talk shows or watch them for that matter!
@MK: the homily today was AWESOME AWESOME! We had a military chaplain who grew up in this parish come home for a visit and he said Mass and gave the homily. He’s now on his way to WYD! Please pray for him – Father Jim!!!
Lizzie,
It does seem sad, though, that the ones with the loudest voices are typically the ones with nothing real to say.
See there? You just said what it took me two pages
to say, in one sentence! That’s why you’ve got to stick around. That and you don’t want me to take away the car for a month!
Patricia,
That’s wild because our homily was amazing today too.
It was a about a girls softball team and how the senior hit a home run but twisted her ankle and how the OTHER team carried her home, giving up their win and a chance at the playoffs.
The Gospel was so on the money for what’s been going on here this last couple of days. Humility.
even when and especially when, your right and the other side is wrong. I was grinning through the whole thing!
Gospel
Mt 11:25-30
At that time Jesus exclaimed:
It does seem sad, though, that the ones with the loudest voices are typically the ones with nothing real to say.
OH you MUST mean Somg?!!! lol
“An action cannot be right in some circumstances and wrong in others”
For most people this statement isn’t true.
For example, those of you who condone the death penalty, killing someone was wrong in the prisoner’s circumstances, but it is right in the prison’s circumstances.
Indeed, a beautiful gospel, MK. I haven’t seen you in like month! How are you my dear MaryKay?
Hey Bobby,
I can’t tell you how much I’ve missed you…Thank God you’re back.
I met Carder. She’s awesome. I think it’s time we meet, too…when are you and your family coming to Chicago? Jill and I are going camping in August. Want to jump on board?
I think you can depend upon Bill Bennett’s talk show, The World Over and Living His Life Abundantly on EWTN. The National Catholic Register is a good paper and National Review Online is good too.
I heard! That’s exciting.
Indeed we do need to meet. However, it is quite difficult for us to make it out of New Hampshire. Maybe I can find a math conference in the Chicago area in the near future?
PIP,
That’s the point. To a rapist, rape is right. To his victim it is wrong.
Patricia and I hold that regardless of subjective opinion, rape is OBJECTIVELY wrong.
Either Doug is right, it’s a moral free for all and we’re all screwed, or there is an OBJECTIVE moral right and wrong. Wisdom is knowing what that is.
We have courts and judges, because the answer isn’t always obvious. But it IS always there.
This is what we call Natural Moral Law. We believe that deep down inside men intuitively know right from wrong and have to actually have it dampened over time. We’re drawn to the glitter, to the easy, to the shiny, but we still “know” what we are supposed to do, even if we don’t do it.
People who honestly don’t know right from wrong are called legally insane.
We believe that deep down inside men intuitively know right from wrong and have to actually have it dampened over time. We’re drawn to the glitter, to the easy, to the shiny, but we still “know” what we are supposed to do, even if we don’t do it.
Okay, I can get this..but I CAN’T get that one thinks that being gay is actually the “glitter, the easy.” I mean unless we’re talking about musicsals and show tunes or something. hehe. Just kidding. But really, I don’t think someone being gay is because they’re attracted to the glitter, the easy..if anything, that’s WAYYYY harder than being straight. Hate crimes, bigotry, come on who really thinks THAT is easy?
So I just don’t see how homosexuality fits into that whole idea.
“It does seem sad, though, that the ones with the loudest voices are typically the ones with nothing real to say.”
Patricia: OH you MUST mean Somg?!!! lol
[snicker] Not even close.
Eileen: Doug, if people are in agreement about the immorality of murder, rape, stealing, etc., it is their consciences speaking to them or Natural Law (placed in their hearts by their
Creator).
Eileen, so you imagine, but we already knew that some people have such imaginings. Peoples’ desire explains it much more simply and rationally, without all the imagining that your way requires.
“It does seem sad, though, that the ones with the loudest voices are typically the ones with nothing real to say.”
Patricia: OH you MUST mean Somg?!!! lol
[snicker] Not even close.
Posted by: Doug at July 6, 2008 4:18 PM
OH Doug, you must have recognized yourself then? Don’t be sooo shy! Own up!
E,
I wasn’t even thinking about the gay issue, but when you think about it, which would be harder? Remaining celibate for your entire life or putting up with idiots?
Except in rare circumstances, I think putting up with the idiots would be easier. Not easy, mind you, but easier.
And the gay issue is definitely one of those things that is muddy. Our compassion for the person can get confused with our knowledge that sex outside of marriage is wrong…
Eileen, so you imagine, but we already knew that some people have such imaginings. Peoples’ desire explains it much more simply and rationally, without all the imagining that your way requires.
Posted by: Doug at July 6, 2008 4:24 PM
BTW, glad you think that natural law is “imagined”. [snicker]
True, MK, that’s why I have such an issue with the thinking that it’s so cut and dry like that I guess.
MK: Either Doug is right, it’s a moral free for all and we’re all screwed, or there is an OBJECTIVE moral right and wrong. Wisdom is knowing what that is.
That’s over-generalizing to a fault, MK. In no way is it a “moral free for all” with respect to many things, since there is such a commonality of desire with respect to them.
Wisdom is seeing that that applies with respect to some issues, and that it does not to others.
Bobby good to hear from you again!
Elizabeth: homosexual inclinations or feelings are not in and of themselves wrong. In the same way that anger is not wrong either. However, if the anger leads to murder, that is morally wrong.
As Christopher West states, all these problems (homosexuality, abortion, etc) result from our disordered view of sexuality and what our sexuality was designed for.
Christoper West is a well known speaker on the Catholic church’s Theology of the Body. I encourage you to read about it – many nonCatholics have read and understood this interesting work on sexuality and our bodies and personhood. I think you will find it interesting Elizabeth!
Why did they leave?
PIP, primarily – Amanda because gay-bashing was presented as part and parcel of the “pro-life” position.
Rae because there was such an insistence that the scientific method and observed facts “had” to take a back seat to dogma in the opinions of some people.
I don’t think someone being gay is because they’re attracted to the glitter, the easy..if anything,
Elizabeth, I agree with you there. They need compassion and healing. Has anyone heard of, I think it’s called “Courage”? It is a ministry for people with same sex attraction that was started by a Catholic priest — I can’t remember his name…
PIP, primarily – Amanda because gay-bashing was presented as part and parcel of the “pro-life” position.
I’ve never heard any prolife people I’ve known “bash” gays. Depends upon what you mean by “bashing”, Doug.
mk —
Patricia and I hold that regardless of subjective opinion, rape is OBJECTIVELY wrong.
I think PIP was talking about the action of killing people being “right” in some circumstances, according to some people on this board, and wrong in others. Which would run counter to Patricia’s claim that an action can not be right in some circumstances and wrong in others.
mk,
I don’t think you have delved really into what I was saying. Even Christianity realizes that some things are not always objectively and ultimately wrong in the same way in every situation.
Would you consider killing in self defense wrong?
In Aladdin, he lifts a loaf of bread to give to hungry children because he himself had no money to give. Would you advocate he lose his hand?
Why does the church make a stance between just and unjust war?
What about abortions that save the life of the mother?
Ethics courses deal with these kind of dilemmas all the time. There are times where there is not a clear answer, where what we see as clear “right” and “wrong” can seem hazy depending on circumstances. There doesn’t mean there isn’t a right and wrong, a set of standards to base all others off of, but to claim that circumstances don’t matter is leaving out the whole picture.
No, mk, I don’t have children. But I still think that I have experiences that many people here don’t. The worst thing about being young is that nobody wants to take you seriously. That is the most demeaning part of being an activist…when you are considered stupid for having well thought out principles and acting on them. I dealt with them A LOT in high school and while in many circles they like seeing young activists in many ways its hard to be taken seriously even as a college senior.
A lot of times even my own boyfriend doesn’t want to take me seriously. (There are some major problems there, another discussion for another day).
I applaud you all’s work in securing social justice for the unborn. I would never call any of you brainwashed. I just know there are different perspectives. I understand that you have different opinions on homosexuality. But when you accuse US of the down fall of society because we think homosexual rights are a civil rights issue, it is frustratingly condescending. Seriously, these accusations that supporting homosexuals is the same as supporting everything else that’s wrong with society is so short-sighted!
What about abortions that save the life of the mother?
The Church does not support that position. The effort to save the lives of both is to be made. Why must the baby be aborted? What about c-sections?
THere are some things that a always morally wrong: the taking of an innocent life is always wrong.
Rape is always wrong.
Would you consider killing in self defense wrong?
Obviously not. However, that being said, one cannot use more force than is justifiable. That is a person could not use deadly force if there was another alternative.
What about abortions that save the life of the mother?
Despite what Somg claims, abortion is not a method to save a mother’s life. It is morally permissable to save the life of the mother through a treatment as long as that is the intent of the treatment. If the child dies indirectly as a result of the treatment, this is permissible but not usually desired. However to kill the child directly as a means of treating the mother is not morally right.
There are some issues PIP which there are objective right and wrong.
Eileen,
It has been stated many times before here that everything that can be done would, even if that results in the death of the baby. The same idea holds for ectopic pregnancy. The goal is to save the mother, not kill the baby.
Doug,
Fine.
Doug: 4;28: MK: Either Doug is right, it’s a moral free for all and we’re all screwed, or there is an OBJECTIVE moral right and wrong. Wisdom is knowing what that is.
That’s over-generalizing to a fault, MK. In no way is it a “moral free for all” with respect to many things, since there is such a commonality of desire with respect to them.
Wisdom is seeing that that applies with respect to some issues, and that it does not to others.
This is a great all-encompassing definition of wisdom:
Wisdom is having gained knowledge, understanding, experience, discretion, and intuitive understanding, along with a capacity to apply these qualities well. (Wikipedia)
Most people realize they aren’t smart enough to have all the answers. When we can’t figure it out on our own, we can turn to this prayer as many do:
The Serenity Prayer
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.
Ectopic pregnancies are the exception because those babies can not survive. But since “to save the life of the mother” has been so loosely defined and used as an argument I wanted to clarify.
This slipped off the end of my last post.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will direct your paths.
Proverbs 3, 5-6
Patricia, “Theology of the Body”!!! Excellent!!!
Eileen,
sorry for the confusion. I wanted to make the point that sometimes things are not cut and dry.
Eileen and Patricia,
While I was in Halifax, I found this great Catholic bookstore and I picked up this book called “The Virgin Mary and Theology of The Body” which discusses JP2’s TOTB in the context of our Blessed Mother. It’s a collection of individual essays on the topic. I’ve only read a few so far, but it’s really quite fascinating so far. Lots of great stuff.
And Eileen, since you have obviously have a deep appreciation for TOTB, I think you would really enjoy this book even if you aren’t Catholic (I don’t know if you are or not).
Oh Patricia, have you read West’s latest book? I haven’t bought it yet…
PIP,
Not every thing is black and white, and not everything is a moral issue. But many are, and I think that these are what Patricia is referring to. Sometimes it seems that there is no absolute right or wrong, but there usually is.
In the case of homosexuality, it is enough in my opinion to let it be known that according to the Judeo/Christian God, homosexuality is a sin. But it is not up to me to police society on what would be considered personal sin (as opposed to sin like abortion, where someone is being directly harmed).
Patricia has a point tho, that when beliefs that we feel are intrinsically wrong are touted as “right”, and my children become influenced then I must speak up. Two gay men living together in a civil union? Whatever. Gay pride parades or Gay day at Disney…I start to have a problem. I’d have a problem with premarital sex day, or heterosexual parades that focus on the sexual aspect of heterosexuality too.
I’m not one of the people that has a problem with civil unions. I believe that those who insist on living in this lifestyle will face their maker one day and they can settle it. I only speak up, when it is called a “marriage”. Then it affects me and what I and most others believe marriage to be.
Not every one is Catholic, and even those that are trying to live a “good” life, are not in the same place on their journey that I am, so I cannot ask them to live by the same standards. I can invite them too, but that is all.
I am certainly not where Mother Teresa was or St. Francis or St. Dominic, but that doesn’t mean that I’m not trying to get there. I am sure that most people, in their own way, are trying to do what they believe is the most right thing.
When I was at my worst, I was still on my journey, and believed with my whole heart that I was a “good” person. Only in hindsight can I see how wrong I was. I assume that in 10 years I’ll look back on this day, and realize how far behind I am now…
But no matter how I perceived things, the truth was still there. I didn’t see it. I didn’t believe it. I changed. But the truth didn’t.
What was good 20 years ago, is good today, and will be good tomorrow. It is up to me to figure out what that is. Not to lower the definition of good to meet my standards, but to raise my standards to meet the definition of good.
I must change. And hopefully I will continue to grow and change, reaching ever higher, until the day I die.
“I only speak up, when it is called a “marriage”. Then it affects me and what I and most others believe marriage to be.”
I’ve come to the view that this is all one big misunderstanding.
They only want to be “married” because “marriage” is now understood as a contract mediated by the government. Marriage offers more rights than a “civil union” does now, and many gay people can’t even get a civil union in most states. The same discontent with the usage of the word “marriage” for gay people should be shared with the very fact that it is a contract, mediated by the government. It leaves out both God and covenant, and therefore athiests can be “married.”
It would be easier to make marriage only a religious institution and not out of the government. But, I still think we need to recognize that marriage is now understood as a contract and not a sacrament if in the right location. Noone is forcing Catholic churches to marry gay couples. If it is the simple basis of what the name refers too, then marriage as it is understood in religious context has been in trouble long before gay couples wanted to become a part of it.
MK, 6:34 p.m.
I must go ponder these deep thoughts you speak of. They are VERY important I believe.
Pip, 6:43 p.m.
You make some good points as well!
I have so much to think about. :)
PIP,
This is true, marriage has been in trouble. Which is why it is time to reclaim it once and for all.
I most definitely agree that all marriages outside of religious institutes should be called civil unions. But I’m afraid we missed the boat on that one.
If civil unions don’t afford the same rights that marriages do, then change the laws on civil unions.
Look if a dancer is called a dancer because he dances, does it make sense for a singer to call themself a dancer so that they can join a dance company even if they don’t intend to dance? Do we change the definition of dancer, so that the singer can call himself a dancer? Or did we insist that the singer learn to dance? After all, the singer won’t get all the rights that the dancer gets (insurance against bone breakage, special shoes, massages) unless he has the title dancer. Do we change the definition of the word, or will the singer have to change?
Elizabeth,
I must go ponder these deep thoughts you speak of.
Don’t hurt yourself…lol.
mk,
Then by doing so we must be consistent by saying that atheists should only be allowed civil unions.
Oh and PIP,
I never ever ever meant to imply that your age made you incompetent. But wisdom comes with age and experience. I have live 30 years longer than you and raised 6 kids. I have experience that you don’t. When it comes to morals and how they affect society, having kids really changes things.
This was not to imply that in your 20 some years you have not had experiences that I have not had, making you more qualified in certain areas.
But we were talking about society and morals, and really, being responsible for little tiny brains, makes you see things differently.
PIP,
I agree. I said that. Outside of religious institutions, I believe that “marriages” should be called civil unions. I know that won’t go over too well, but that’s how I feel.
To us, marriage is a covenant as well as a contract. Take away the covenant (especially with things like prenups) and you’re left with simply a legal document. A contract. That to me, is a civil union. Not a marriage.
Not that it will ever happen. And we will probably lose this fight too. But I must still make the attempt.
I fear we will be losing a lot more fights, before this is over. Again, the world makes me so sad.
Once you see and understand certain things, you realize that the world is very different than you thought.
Once you see things through the eyes of God, and look at how we treat ourselves and others…well, it can get pretty depressing.
On the other hand, there is so much good in individual people. So much joy. I cling to that, and never give up hope. But realistically? I think we are in for some rough times. America is a teenager as far as civilizations go, and we are going through those tumultuous years. How we will be on the other side, when we reach adulthood, remains to be seen.
But it is always a possibility that America will fall. There is no guarantee that we will last forever. It would be a shame, if we fell from within.
But mk, don’t you see that marriage in the legal sense is therefore just a civil union? As long as religions aren’t forced into anything, that would be all “marriage rights” really are.
also, MK,
That last post should have been addressed to everyone here, not just you. There have been posts earlier made by others to the effect that we have different views therefore the moral decay rests on our shoulders. That we should support bestiality, etc. So please don’t feel I was unfairly accusing you, it just gave me a chance to say something that I’ve been noticing a lot.
PIP,
As I said, I don’t believe we can stop a runaway train. I’m just saying that if I had MY way, non religious unions would not be called marriages.
I’m not going out there advocating it. It’s just my personal opinion.
I’d like to see “marriage” mean something special again, that’s all. And I don’t think diluting it yet again, by allowing same sex “marriages” is helping.
Remember when I posted about that woman that married a dolphin? Why should her marriage be any less legitimate? I realize there is a difference between a person and a dolphin, but the point is, if you change the definition to suit homosexuals, why can’t you change it to suit whomever? Where do you draw the line and say, “NO, this is what marriage means, and not that?”…
What’s the point of defining words if the meaning are mutable? The reason we define words at all is so that we can understand what we mean when we say something. But if red means one thing today, and another tomorrow, then what is the point of having the word red?
Eileen and Patricia,
While I was in Halifax, I found this great Catholic bookstore and I picked up this book called “The Virgin Mary and Theology of The Body” which discusses JP2’s TOTB in the context of our Blessed Mother. It’s a collection of individual essays on the topic. I’ve only read a few so far, but it’s really quite fascinating so far. Lots of great stuff.
And Eileen, since you have obviously have a deep appreciation for TOTB, I think you would really enjoy this book even if you aren’t Catholic (I don’t know if you are or not).
Oh Patricia, have you read West’s latest book? I haven’t bought it yet…
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 6, 2008 6:22 PM
Hi Bobby! So like TELL me the darn name of the book!
I forgot to tell you that there is a little bookstore there, Veritas, I think. It’s right downtown Halifax. They send me a newsletter every couple of months or so. When I went out to visit my brother I purchased a beautiful pieta statue (us Italians we love our statues!!!).
But mk, don’t you see that marriage in the legal sense is therefore just a civil union? As long as religions aren’t forced into anything, that would be all “marriage rights” really are.
Yes I do see this. You say so let them be called marriages. And I say, let them be called civil unions.
Saying that’s all marriage rights are, is exactly why I’m against it. Do you see? Just that statement shows how very diluted the word marriage has become. And how much more diluted it will be.
When I tell people I am married, it means something. It means I stood in a church, made vows to my husband, produced 6 children and will celebrate my 27th anniversary next month. It means that we gave ourselves to each other, no matter what. It means “SOMETHING”…
To say “that’s all marriage is” is demeaning to me. Because to me marriage is soooooo much more.
It’s what abortion does to motherhood. Turns children into commodities and makes motherhood a hobby or an entertainment. It takes away the sacredness. It becomes dispensable and insignificant. Want a baby? You’re a man? No problem! You’re 70? So what! Can’t get pregnant? Use a test tube or your sisters womb! Pregnant? Don’t want the baby? Throw it away!
You see? Motherhood has been reduced to the same status choosing shoes! Marriage is being reduced to the same status as buying a car… it’s just wrong to me.
I don’t understand the bestiality argument. There are just too many wrong things, the fact that animals are not truly capable of consent or love because they don’t have the facilities to engage in the kind of communication or reciprocal exchange of emotion that humans do. They don’t live like humans do, they can’t take part in a functioning family environment like humans do. They are completely separate species!
You say you realize that humans are different from other animals, what makes you think that wanting to let humans to marry other humans is the same as letting humans marry a dolphin? Why should we have to justify those actions of others?
“You see? Motherhood has been reduced to the same status choosing shoes! Marriage is being reduced to the same status as buying a car… it’s just wrong to me.”
I didn’t mean to offend you; I just think that since things already have 2 definitions, it’s hard to argue when these 2 definitions are already much different.
But I want to stress that I think that when two people love each other, marriage is not a commodity.
PIP,
There have been posts earlier made by others to the effect that we have different views therefore the moral decay rests on our shoulders.
I think the moral decay of our world rests on all of our shoulders. We all add to it.
When good men stand by and do nothing, or tolerate everything…this is when things start to fall apart.
It doesn’t even have to be the intention. But it will happen.
No homosexual, women having an abortion, or young couple living together is intentionally trying to destroy the world, lol.
But if you look forward far enough, you can see that we are headed to a bad place. It won’t be the first time, it might not even culminate in our lifetime. Civilizations have been going through these cycles since the beginning of time.
It’s just that some of us can see where we are headed. Yeah, we feel like that guy on the corner yelling “The world is ending…repent”, but nonetheless, we feel this way.
In the Catholic faith there are apparitions comin’ out the wazoo warning us, that we are pushing the envelope. Rwanda, Egypt, Yugoslavia, Japan, Poland…we’re in trouble. We’re being warned. But eventually the warnings will end.
PIP,
We are changing the definition of marriage because a small group of people wants us to. They are standing up and saying “This is what we want marriage to mean”…
Well, when that woman stood up and said I want to marry a dolphin, why should I be able to say “NO! That’s crazy talk!”
You give very reasonable arguments why humans shouldn’t marry animals.
I give very reasonable arguments why men shouldn’t marry men.
You think my arguments are wrong.
She thinks your arguments are wrong.
Marriage has lost it original meaning and now it can mean anything depending on who wants to use it.
One of our greatest objections to gay marriage is that the demand for it is coming from a “selfish” place…an “I want” place. And to us, marriage isn’t about “I want”, it’s about “I give”…
It’s like nuns stamping their feet and insisting that they should be priests because they WANT to become priests.
The very fact that they are “DEMANDING” to be made priests contradicts what it means to be a priest. See?
The very fact that the gay community is willing to change the definition of marriage to suit their needs, means that they have no concept of the definition of marriage…
I’m sounding much harsher than I mean to.
I feel sick that a gay man cannot have hospital privileges to visit his dying partner, because he isn’t “family”…that is so wrong! Or that insurance companies won’t insure a gay persons “partner”…I agree that that should be taken care of…fixed.
I’m just saying that using the term marriage, is not fair to those of us who have always understood marriage to mean a certain thing.
“So like TELL me the darn name of the book!”
Hehe, yeah I was hoping you knew cause I’m too lazy to look it up. But I did, and it’s “The Love that Satisfies.”
“I forgot to tell you that there is a little bookstore there, Veritas, I think. It’s right downtown Halifax. They send me a newsletter every couple of months or so. When I went out to visit my brother I purchased a beautiful pieta statue (us Italians we love our statues!!!).”
Yup, that was the one! They had JUST moved into a different location across the street, like 2 days after I found them. It’s a great bookstore. Very large, and they had a fine selection.
so mk, just to get this straight, you oppose legislation that prevents gay people from getting civil unions?
Look if a dancer is called a dancer because he dances, does it make sense for a singer to call themself a dancer so that they can join a dance company even if they don’t intend to dance? Do we change the definition of dancer, so that the singer can call himself a dancer? Or did we insist that the singer learn to dance? After all, the singer won’t get all the rights that the dancer gets (insurance against bone breakage, special shoes, massages) unless he has the title dancer. Do we change the definition of the word, or will the singer have to change?
In the dance world, we call these people, musical theatre majors.
hehehe.
PIP,
I would remain neutral. I would not try to stop civil unions. I would not fight for them.
But I think I would fight for certain rights, like visiting priveleges, or insurance rights…At least I’d speak up.
But no, I would not in any way actively oppose civil unions. And if asked, or forced to cast a vote one way or the other, I would probably vote to allow them. Especially, if by doing so, I would be preserving the sanctity of “marriage”.
PIP,
I also would not withhold a vote for a candidate because they were advocating civil unions, the way I would if they were advocating abortion rights.
Bobby
My bro just called and he told me Veritas moved. He said the store is much bigger now.
I found the title on Amazon you scoundrel! Looks good.
The other one on the Virgin Mary I’ve bookmarked – I still haven’t used the gift card the kids gave me for mother’s day.
Good grief.What to buy?
I read Sigrid Undset’s Gunnar’s Daughter today and yesterday read “The occupied garden” by den Hartog & Kasaboski.
I’m also reading Evangelium Vitae as bedtime reading!
I read there was a time when all marriages in Europe were civil unions performed by an official of the state. Religious institutions did not involved themselves in marriage initially. Unfortunately I don’t have the era when they began doing so.
OHH was that the thread where I said, ‘Sodomy is GREAT’ and my comment got deleted? I was referring to the broad definition of sodomy (anything that is not sexual intercourse) and I was being facetious (sp? it’s late). I don’t have sexual intercourse or anal sex, so I did think it was very random of you to post that. Next time, let’s just not jump to conclusions, just feel free to ask me, okay?
…hot pics? Don’t remember that one, either.
Posted by: prettyinpink at July 6, 2008 4:48 AM
pip, One was of you in your ballet outfit. And there was one other. I’ll see if I can dig it up but it was like probably more like six months ago.
I read there was a time when all marriages in Europe were civil unions performed by an official of the state. Religious institutions did not involved themselves in marriage initially. Unfortunately I don’t have the era when they began doing so.
Posted by: Mary at July 6, 2008 9:20 PM
………………………………….
I made the same statement some time ago and several people didn’t believe me. They insisted that marriage has always been a religious ceremony. I believe it was during the Middle Ages when the church got involved.
Next time, let’s just not jump to conclusions, just feel free to ask me, okay?
Posted by: prettyinpink at July 6, 2008 4:48 AM
Sure pip, next time I’ll ask sooner rather than later. At the time I was new to the blog.
Sally,
I think you’re right about the Middle Ages or maybe even later than that before religious institutions became involved in marriage.
Like I said, marriage was viewed strictly as a civil matter. People went to church and synagogue to worship, and went to the local official to get married. The two were considered completely seperate.
I remember weddings by the Justice of the Peace performed in my lifetime, which would certainly be a civil wedding. I don’t know if its different now. Would Vegas weddings, where my sister and niece went to get married be considered civil?
Mary,
I realize that what marriage IS and what I WANT it to be are not the same things.
I admit, that my definition is strictly a Catholic one, and acknowledge that there is no hope of bringing the world around to my way of thinking.
I was just giving my opinion, never actually believing it had any hope of being implemented.
But I do think that marriage has always been between a man and a woman (albeit sometimes a man and many women) and that protecting at least that definition would go a long way in preserving, as close as possible, the meaning of marriage as the Catholic church sees it.
I believe marriage in the Catholic context is marriage in it’s highest form, and anything that gets us closer, or at least keeps us from falling farther away, from that interpretation can only be good.
If everyone looked at marriage as the Church (not the members of the Church, but the Church herself) does, marriage would become something beautiful, lasting, mysterious and sacrosanct.
But I realize that is a pipe dream.
Obviously there have been sacramental marriages since the time Christ instituted the sacrament. It is up to the state to either recognize the religious ceremony or not. In the U.S. the state recognizes the religious ceremony. In at least some European countries (don’t know if all are now regulated together by the EU re: marriage licenses granted) the religious ceremony is separate and the civil “ceremony” is mandated for marriage license to be granted. You can then have it alone or with religious ceremony separately.
And no matter what the “emperor” says about his new clothes, marriage itself has already been defined for ages and to include something else within that definition is impossible logically…except through coercion by the state. The result, in reality, then is only “aping” the original, not equaling it.
But I think I would fight for certain rights, like visiting priveleges, or insurance rights…At least I’d speak up.
All of those can now be easily handled through legal means…just as is done for, say, a niece who is caring for elderly aunt, brother for brother, only friend caretaker for another, etc. There is minimum cost or could be done through legal help offered. The “civil union” course was always intended as only a first step towards recognizing particular “unions” so that they would then have the codified recognized first stepping stone toward further “rights” – attempting now to force the diminishment of the traditional rights of all those authentically considering themselves married couples with its own historically maintained definition. That’s what you should be fighting to maintain for you children’s sakes if nothing else.
KC: 9:01: And no matter what the “emperor” says about his new clothes, marriage itself has already been defined for ages and to include something else within that definition is impossible logically…except through coercion by the state. The result, in reality, then is only “aping” the original, not equaling it.
i’ve never heard the term “aping”. Can you explain?
KC,
I hear ya. That’s why I said I wouldn’t fight FOR it or AGAINST it. As long as it remains a legal union, I really don’t care. But if you change the name to marriage, or you start publicly flaunting yourselves, then I’m gonna have a problem.
I just don’t think we’re going to get very far. What I want and what’s going to happen are two very, very different things.
God help us this election. I fear America is going to “CHANGE” all right…
I veiw S & M as morally wrong. I wouldn’t waste my time campaigning against it tho. If two people want to engage in this activity, in the privacy of their own homes, whatever. But I do NOT want to have to explain what they are doing to my 8 year old. I don’t want it flaunted.
I don’t want to explain to my 8 year old why two men are kissing in the space mountain line. I don’t want to have to explain why that guy over there is shooting up heroin.
When there are issues that are morally reprehensible to the majority of the population, I just think they should be done in private and not on the streets like the Folsom Street Fair…
Janet,
Aping means mimicking. Copying. Not authentic.
This is from Mary Jo Anderson:
Neither a Marriage Nor a Civil Right
Mary Jo Anderson
Mary Jo Anderson
is a contributing correspondent for WorldNetDaily.com and a contributing editor for Crisis magazine. She is co-author of Male and Female He Made Them: Questions and Answers about Marriage and Same-Sex Unions.
Print Print Email E-mail Synopsis Synopsis
January 31, 2007
Our society is at a crossroads. After two hundred-plus years as nation in which marriage and family values were based on the weight of human experience, we
“It does seem sad, though, that the ones with the loudest voices are typically the ones with nothing real to say.”
Patricia: OH you MUST mean Somg?!!! lol
[snicker] “Not even close.”
Patricia: OH Doug, you must have recognized yourself then? Don’t be sooo shy! Own up!
I recognized that SoMG gives calm, rational posts, perhaps at times teasing you by presenting facts, but factual nonetheless.
Patricia: BTW, glad you think that natural law is “imagined”. [snicker]
It’s not just “thinking,” it’s fact that some people imagine it, just as it’s fact that there’s no proof it’s anything but imagination.
Outside of religious institutions, I believe that “marriages” should be called civil unions. I know that won’t go over too well, but that’s how I feel.
Right on, MK.
…..
But it is always a possibility that America will fall. There is no guarantee that we will last forever. It would be a shame, if we fell from within.
The destruction of the value of our currency is something that affects us all. If the country is “falling” then the odds favor it being via the financial markets, by far.
Patricia: BTW, glad you think that natural law is “imagined”. [snicker]
It’s not just “thinking,” it’s fact that some people imagine it, just as it’s fact that there’s no proof it’s anything but imagination.
Posted by: Doug at July 7, 2008 2:07 PM
That’s a new twist. Now you think natural law is a figment of our imagination? What planet are you on? I think you are the one in the imaginary world, Doug. You need help!
Janet,
Try this…
Doug,
Fine.
mk: hee hee.
Where did you post that list of definitions of female responses to males? That was hilarious. (One of my sisters says “fine” ALL the time!)
MK 8:16am
I hope you don’t think I meant any disrespect to you or your beliefs. I just found that an interesting historical fact and threw it into the discussion. You’ll note that otherwise I have stayed out of this debate:}
My mother was and is as Catholic as the pope and I was raised that any marriage outside of the church was null and void so you can imagine that I would find this historical fact quite interesting and surprising.
Patricia: BTW, glad you think that natural law is “imagined”. [snicker]
“It’s not just “thinking,” it’s fact that some people imagine it, just as it’s fact that there’s no proof it’s anything but imagination.”
Janet: That’s a new twist.
No, it’s been noted many times over many months here on Jill’s blog. If one maintains there is external morality, then the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.
What I am saying is that all the good/bad/right/wrong of morality is ideas, ideals, etc. They are things of the mind rather than from outside it. They fit the definition of “subjective” and do not fit the definition of “objective,” etc.
…..
Now you think natural law is a figment of our imagination? What planet are you on? I think you are the one in the imaginary world, Doug. You need help!
No, you need help in being logical. I am not saying it can be proven that there is nobody “higher” than us (earthly humans), be it a god or any other more-powerful, more-knowing beings. If there were, then their opinion could be said to be external to us here on earth, and at least that would be something, though their feelings would still be internal to their minid.
There’s no proof of the negative (of course) – it can’t be said that “there is no God” with any certainty, and I’ve never stated that. All along I’ve said there is no proof of external morality, nothing more than that.
You do imagine such a thing, do you not? You cannot prove it, but you do imagine it. It cannot be proven that such a thing does not exist, but as long as you can’t prove it’s anything more than imaginary then yes, it’s in your imagination. This is not saying you’re “crazy” or “bad” in any way, it’s just noting what can be proven as true.
Say what you like, I don’t recall you ever using the word imagination to describe morals or natural/objective truth, although I can imagine what you mean. Look up imagination, knowledge, wisdom, intuition, truth, on wikipedia. I don’t feel like getting into a huge discussion tonite, but they are not all the same.
The interesting thing about natural law is that is doesn’t need proof. It just is. If you disagree, well, fine.
All of you just gave me a headache.
Right on Eileen at July 7, 2008 1:13 PM. There is no such thing as “gay” marriage. Unfortunately, if Obama gets in office he will put in US Supreme Court justicies that will forced gay marriage down the throats of even the States that have passed constitutional amendmenats defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Obama also said in late 2003 that he was against repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. But he switched his view on that question early in 2004 and said he would work to repeal DOMA. Obama is against the proposed California state constitutional amendment.
Janet,
I don’t remember any more, but it was dead on, no?
Mary,
Of course not. I appreciate that bit of info. Makes me stop and think. Always good. Gives other people a chance to talk…lol.
Doug,
I have tried to explain that using the word magic, imagine or fantasy when referring to our BELIEFS will get you into trouble. We are NOT pretending. We believe. There is a difference, and once more let me say, that it is rude to refer to our faith as imaginings. Even if you do mean it in the strictest sense of the word.
Regarding the photo at the top of this thread, I find it extremely humorous that Beatie is shown holding a weed whacker…
Say what you like, I don’t recall you ever using the word imagination to describe morals or natural/objective truth, although I can imagine what you mean. Look up imagination, knowledge, wisdom, intuition, truth, on wikipedia. I don’t feel like getting into a huge discussion tonite, but they are not all the same.
Janet, I’d say it all comes down to being externally verifiable or not, existing outside of the mind or in it, objective or subjective, etc.
…..
The interesting thing about natural law is that is doesn’t need proof. It just is. If you disagree, well, fine.
I understand the concept, the fact is that there’s no proof for it, that’s all.
I have tried to explain that using the word magic, imagine or fantasy when referring to our BELIEFS will get you into trouble. We are NOT pretending. We believe. There is a difference, and once more let me say, that it is rude to refer to our faith as imaginings. Even if you do mean it in the strictest sense of the word.
MK, well, what terms would you say are good for it, then?
I hear you on “magic” and “fantasy” but beliefs are imaginings when they’re not externally verifiable, not represented by physical reality, etc. How is that any worse than saying “beliefs for which there is no proof,” or “that cannot be proven”?
mk: I have tried to explain that using the word magic, imagine or fantasy when referring to our BELIEFS will get you into trouble. We are NOT pretending. We believe. There is a difference, and once more let me say, that it is rude to refer to our faith as imaginings. Even if you do mean it in the strictest sense of the word.
Doug:1:58; MK, well, what terms would you say are good for it, then?
I hear you on “magic” and “fantasy” but beliefs are imaginings when they’re not externally verifiable, not represented by physical reality, etc. How is that any worse than saying “beliefs for which there is no proof,” or “that cannot be proven”?
You don’t have to believe something yourself to be able to use the word belief in a sentence. I don’t mean that sarcastically. Qualifying the word as “your beliefs” or “his beliefs” or “a religious person’s beliefs” is the perfect way to use the word and is not insulting. “Imaginings” sounds like the thoughts of an insane person, IMHO.” (No comment necessary on that last thought.) :)
Good comments, Janet, and I hear you.
And I guess “your beliefs” is a good way to say it. It’d be better if people presented them that way, rather than pretending that they apply to everybody, including those who don’t share those beliefs.
Irish twins for “pregnant man”
The world’s first so-called pregnant man, in actuality a half-sex changed woman, will appear tomorrow night on ABC’s 20/20 with Barbara Walters. According to On Top: The interview is the first [Thomas] Beatie and his wife [Nancy] have given since…