« Like Chauncey Gardiner, Obama is profoundly aloof. | Main | Contrary to what the President said, we've reached Armageddon thanks to him. »

June 27, 2011

Comments

George Pal

Plato having defined man to be a two-legged animal without feathers, Diogenes* plucked a cock and brought it into the Academy, and said, "This is Plato’s man." On which account this addition was made to the definition,—"With broad flat nails."
*Diogenes The Cynic
Diogenes Laërtius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers Book 6, The Cynics


The NY Times has already referred to ‘opposite sex’ marriages on a couple of occasions. You know of course where this is going. It will not surprise me if, in a year’s time or a decade’s, the State will rule that a man and woman may no longer marry as they do not meet the definitional requirements as discerned by the observable features of same sex and polygamous marriages.


"Bury me on my face," said Diogenes*; when he was asked why, he replied, "Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down."
ibid.

Mrs. P

We've seen the future and it is genderless :

"A COUPLE of weeks ago we were treated to a strange and startling story on the front page of this newspaper. A couple in Ontario, Canada, decided to rear their child as "genderless".

"Ironically, the unfortunate infant subject of this bizarre experiment has been given the name Storm. The parents' decision has not, in this country, been seriously discussed and is easily dismissed as the post-partum politically correct zeal of new parents.

"However, to dismiss it would be equally silly. It is no accident that this has happened in Canada. The former home of the lumberjacks is a hotbed of crazy minority gender politics, and its ultra-liberal approach to gay marriage and other sexual issues made it a template for lobby groups in other Western parliamentary democracies -- Australia being one.

"Province by province the laws have been changed and terminology altered to incorporate the gay political agenda into the human rights agenda. This is very similar to the human rights tactics that are being used in Australia to push gay marriage bills such as the state human rights bills and charters. The latest tactical manifestation is the introduction of the Greens-supported Territories bill.

"Canada has been in the forefront of this incrementalism. So, for example, partly to accommodate gay parenting in most provinces, with the backing of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the notion of parental gender has become redundant. Quebec was one of the first places where parents were not permitted to be identified on school records as mother or father but as parent A or parent B. Other provinces followed suit. But that is nothing to the legislative havoc wrought by the 2005 Civil Marriage Act that legalised gay marriage in Canada and provided that the term "natural parent" be replaced by "legal parent" in certain legislation.

"Baby Storm could be a rainbow warrior of the future. With the advent of gay marriage, the Canadians have accepted the idea of "genderless" parenting, so how strange is it to make the leap to genderless children? In fact, how long before we are all genderless? How far have we come already to instituting a social order that tries to suppress the natural duality of biologically determined sex ?

"Recently Canada tried to go even further in that direction, with the passage in the House of Representatives of controversial bill C389.The bill died with the election, but, with the backing of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, it proposed to add to the list of things to be protected by the Canadian anti-discrimination and human rights laws gender identity and expression. This bill would have provided Canada with far-reaching laws for transsexual and transgender rights. We have laws protecting such people in Australia. British Columbia's Human Rights Commission cited our laws when considering this issue

"However, C389's critics have pointed out that rather than extending human rights, the bill would only have added to the confusion surrounding human rights and possibly impinged upon the sex discrimination laws (aimed at women) already in place.

"Douglas Farrow, professor of Christian Thought at Montreal's McGill University, has pointed out that since sex is biologically determined, overturning that binary logic to include transsex and transgender people, who regard sex as a fluid social construct, may have consequences for the rights of women: "The word sex in our codes specifies the division of the species into male and female with a view to protecting the latter especially."

"Heartless right-wing wags dubbed the bill (along with a similar bill in Massachusetts) the "bathroom bills" because of the obvious problems associated with transsexual and transgender people. This may be drawing a long bow, but what is a very short bow are other more complex, delicate problems, which have started to crop up across the West, including Australia.

"There are all sorts of new and complicated rules for the public and for schools, business and government. That is why new interpretive institutions are springing up, such as the scarily named GenderKompetenzcentrum at the University of Berlin.

"Farrow has pointed out that the addition of "sexual orientation" into the human-rights catalogue has basically effected a transformation in our thinking about human sexuality. "Male and female have begun to give way to homosexual and heterosexual in the basic binary logic of sex . . . hence gay marriage".

"But the next step is more fundamental: "The addition of gender identity and expression carries the transformation even further by suppressing the binary logic (of sex) itself." In other words, a genderless world.

"Backers of bills like C389 make no attempt to disguise their extreme genderless world view. Hence this statement from the Canadian Labor Congress, quoted by the Ontario Human Rights Commission: "One of the great myths of our culture is that at birth each infant can be identified as distinctly 'male' or 'female' (biological sex), will grow up to have correspondingly 'masculine' or 'feminine' behaviour (public gender), live as a man or a woman (social gender) and marry a woman or a man (heterosexual affective orientation). That is not so."

"Phew. "But surely," you are thinking, "serious men and women cannot believe this . . . well . . . crap?" Think again, dear reader.

"In 2008, I was asked to appear on the ABC's Q&A show, on the day Pope Benedict arrived in Sydney for World Youth Day. I found myself the lone apologist for the Catholic view on sex. I was asked a rather arch Dorothy Dixer on the Pope's view of homosexuals.

"I was not surprised by the young audience's ignorance about Catholic teaching on sexual morality; that is very common. What did surprise me was that as
I prefaced my answer with the simple declarative statement that we are all born male or female, I was booed.

"Now, if one cannot begin to discuss sex with a statement of simple biology, then really, it does seems that baby Storm may indeed be a pioneer in his/her time, a rainbow warrior of the future."

The Ancient

Cross-posted from Athens and Jerusalem:

There is a middle ground that the Archbishop might take. He could say that just as any Catholic who has or participates in an abortion is automatically excommunicated from the Church, so too is anyone who violates or attempts to redefine by secular means a Holy Sacrament.

This has the distinct advantage of being arguably true.

(And he wouldn't even have to name names.)

Mrs. P

I like that.

You are so correct to point out that the Cuomos who once ran on Vote Cuomo, Not Homo and Papa C once said politics is a higher calling than the church have redefined a sacrament - which will lead to grave confusion among the flock. Catholic lay people do not possess that kind of power.

Like with abortion as you even more brilliantly point out - the excommunication is automatic - no formality involved. You are involved in one - you're out....

With the advances of Obamacare and no conscience clause allowed by design as for any health care worker like Ted Kennedy told the Pope there would be for Catholics, alone (great Catholic that Teddy)I expect to see growing concern and growing disgust with the Democrats among the Catholics about this. A traditional voting block for the Dems and with the African American aborting themselves out of existence - what is it? 69% in NYC alone, the Dmes need those Catholics. But the fact cannot be hidden that Obamacare was shoved through by a Democrat Catholic speaker of the House and Democrat Catholic Reps were the ones who gave the votes needed for Obamacare. Votes in return for bridge paintings. And I thought Esau was an idiot to trade his birthright away for a pot of red lentils.

Both President Obama and FLG have made wise cracks about opponents (conservatives) of Obamacare and Gay Marriage thinking it would lead to pandemonium (FLG) or the end of the world (Prez O). And to them it hasn't. But that's not how it works. It takes time for pandemonium to happen. Let's wait a few decades as we have with abortion. Remember a 69% abortion rate among African Americans in NYC? It's equally or almost as high in other cities. Uhm, that's pretty world ending. Before the end of this world came lots and lots of pandemonium. Pandemonium that was the natural by-product of the breakdown of the Black family. A breakdown that came as the result of a government program that was intended to strengthen it.

Interestingly,as a group, the African Americans remain the strongest support against gay marriage. They, who have had their marriages harmed the most, fail to see gay marriage as a Civil Rights issue. Of course they are right to see it this way. Not that the Democrats will listen to them.

This strong support of the African American community for marriage as it has been defined before there was a State to agree with that definition may be the real reason President Obama has not publicly supported gay marriage. He would lose a good portion of his most solid voting block. The way his presidency is going, he can't risk that.

The Catholic Church is not going to change a Holy Sacrament to accommodate a political party so the Dems have real trouble there. It will also be interesting to see how the long term voting patterns of Catholics, African Americans, and Hispanics (another group against gay marriage) trend in the next few decades as a result of recent legislative accomplishments by the Democrats.


S. Petersen

Another blogger has pointed out that most of us, until we learned and reformed, have contibuted to this mess of liberal redefinition by going along with divorce, contraception and other instances of sexual "freedom". (See Gomez-Davila on this.) This began with the Lambeth Conference (or with the Enlightenment or with Occam). The whole world is so infected with it now that a return to sanity before a cataclysm seems unlikely.

Mrs. P

It was studying Lambeth 1930 that made me realize I wasn't Episcopalian.

Mrs. P

Love these - must read him. Thanks! S. Peterson.

“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from indifference to the unique values which created it.”

“Total freedom of expression does not compensate for lack of talent.”

Nicolas Gomez-Davila

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

It Goes Without Saying

  • All original material published here is the property of the writer who penned it. Stealing is not only frowned upon but will be dealt with by strong-armed men trained in the art of legal jujitsu. The views put forth here are not the views of any employer we know which is most unfortunate.
Blog powered by Typepad