Monday, January 20, 2014

ND Grad Ryan Anderson Before the Judiciary Committee - Must See!


  1. This man presented the best arguments that people have against same sex marriage. That being said, his arguments are inconsistent and illogical and that is the reason he is losing this debate. For example, he debates that the purpose of same sex marriage is purely biological for the creation of children. He never addresses the issue of the elderly or infertile getting married or their rights to marriage. He also never acknowledges the fact that same sex couples do have biological children, and as individuals have as much reproductive capacity as anyone else of the same age or sex. He argues a great deal that children need a father for proper development, and supports that argument by statistics that are irrelevant to same sex marriage because they never study children raised by same sex couples. He also ignores that many of these couple are two men giving their children twice the number of fathers. How does this relate to his statistics? He also argues without any merit or science that redefining marriage will lead to more burdens on social welfare programs. This is pure invention on his part as his rationale is irrelevant to the same sex marriage debate. For example, what does the number of Hispanics or African Americans born out of wedlock have to do with same sex couples? Don’t forget these are people who are asking their government TO get married; it’s the crux of the debate. He then goes on the say that same sex couples getting married will lead to adoption agencies and other similar social welfare programs to close. Didn’t he just argue that there will be an increase of social welfare demands and that was very bad? Which is it? He also never mentions how much government assistance these programs get. If the American public is supporting these agencies then they need to play by American rules. I’m also disappointed that a poly sci doctoral candidate (not a ND grad as the title of the post suggests, he went to Princeton. He does not even live in Indiana, he said he resides in DC) would address this issue and never bring up the 14th amendment. So here is my counter-argument. Marriage is a civil, secular contract in America encourage by the government for economic reasons. Many people feel that religion is important in their marriage and that’s fine, but some don’t and no one prevents them from getting married as long as it is a heterosexual couple. Marriage has numerous benefits that LGBT are currently not fully enjoying in many parts of this country. More benefits than just hospital visitation or end of life decisions that this guy embarrassingly over simplified. Because we do have a 14th amendment in this country those against gay marriage cannot deny this right. It is simply un-American.

    Sorry about the length, there was just a lot to talk about. Thanks for the time. Tara

    1. I suggest you read "Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages" by Catholic Answers

    2. Why? I am not Catholic. I am a Lesbian and was married in 2006. I did not seek permission or advice from the Catholic Church then (or now) because I did not need to or want to. The Catholic Church doesn’t control marriage where I live, the government does. I am, like many others in the LGBT community, working to change the laws to allow for same sex marriage for the numerous protections and tax benefits it provides as well as to fully participate in the civil responsibilities associated with marriage.

      I realize this is a Catholic blog, but I was commenting on the political surrogate’s argument. Not on Catholicism and homosexuality

    3. This gentleman discusses the necessity of fathers in their children's lives. I agree that it is important for children to have two involved parents when possible and I think a large part of the downfall of our society is due to the ever-increasing number of single mothers and absent fathers. However, children with same sex parents would not be in the same position as children with struggling single mothers and absent fathers.

  2. Obviously the speaker can't be expected to answer every possible objection out there, but just for anyone interest, here is a catalog of failed arguments supporting same-sex barren mutual masturbation arrangements erroneously dubbed marriage:

    Failed argument 1. --There are other purposes of marriage besides procreation.-- Why it fails: Yes, there are other purposes of marriage, but they are secondary. The primary purpose, or telos of marriage is the generation of offspring. Any time one tries to deliberately exclude a primary purpose for a secondary, they are doing something disordered. I chose the word deliberately, because usually to support this, people trot out:

    Failed argument 2.--Elderly and infertile couples are allowed to get married, therefore homosexuals should be able to as well.-- Why it fails: Even if a man and a women married to each other fail to conceive, their marriage is still ordered toward procreation. Even if a football team loses every one of its games, it doesn't cease to be a football team because the primary purpose of the team is the playing and winning of football games. Same-sex "marriage" by contrast is like having all 22 players line up on the same side of the ball. Whatever they are doing, it's no longer football.

    Failed argument #3: Homosexual couples have biological children -- Why it fails: They can only have children by means of grave offenses against Chastity and the 6th Commandment either through IVF or fornication with a surrogate.

    Failed argument #4:--Not everyone is Catholic/Christian/Religious.-- Why it fails: The propositions about marriage are either true or they aren't regardless of what one believes. If they are true, then everyone is responsible for them. The arguments for same-sex marriage are only sustainable in one quasi-religious ideology: self-contradicting moral relativism encompassing a creepy idolatry of Americanism. If the speaker here is "loosing the debate", it is not because he is wrong, it is because the Republic is dying and decadence and error is being enshrined in law.

    1. I won’t bother responding to all your counter arguments one by one as the 1st 3 are essentially different aspects of the same argument of biology which has been rejected over and over again. Your idea of marriage’s “primary” goal may not be someone else’s. My marriage’s primary goal was for love and companionship. We happened to have been blessed with 3 children in our marriage, but that was not the primary goal (as a side note the children were not conceived with IVF or adultery). It sounds as if your marriage, if you are married, has procreation as the primary goal and that’s fine. But you are not allowed to dictate marriage’s purpose in this country, and nor is the Catholic Church. This issue is too big for the both of you. Also, the idea that a couple in their 60s or a marriage with a man who had to have both testicles removed is still “ordered” toward procreation is simply not honest, but good try. I do have a question however, if a wife has to have a hysterectomy does that automatically mean that the couple is no longer married? How does this work? These couples may not be allowed to marry in the Catholic Church, but no one is arguing weather or not these marriages deserve of the same marriage privileges as those couples who can and would like to procreate. It’s time to put this argument to rest.

      Your 4th statement was confusing to me but if I understand it correctly it seems that you mean there is a universal religious definition of marriage? Please correct me if I misunderstood. I will go ahead and say that this whole “changing the definition of marriage” issue is a straw man argument. Of course there are different definitions of marriage. Some countries today deny inter-faith marriages, allow for polygamy, and even allow for incestuous marriages. Is that a different definition of marriage than yours? Heck, you’ll find a different definition of marriage when you cross a state line in this country. In human history marriage has depended much more on when and where you wake up in the morning on Earth than on some singular ideological or religious truth. Your prose in this section is very gloomy, and I’m sure the world seems like a scary place, but the “quasi-religious ideology: self-contradicting moral relativism encompassing a creepy idolatry of Americanism” you are referring to is simply called the 14th amendment. It has existed before you were born, and God willing after all of us die. If you want to fight against gay marriage, I suggest you start working on changing the Constitution. Best of luck.

  3. It's not merely my idea of the purpose of marriage--the truth of it is affirmed by biology as you say, but also Scripture, Tradition, History, and simple apprehension.

    My marriage’s primary goal was for love and companionship. We happened to have been blessed with 3 children in our marriage, but that was not the primary goal (as a side note the children were not conceived with IVF or adultery).

    Yes, this is what we call the unitive nature of marriage, but the procreative nature is there first and the unitive part is arbitrary and meaningless without it.

    But you are not allowed to dictate marriage’s purpose in this country, and nor is the Catholic Church.

    I am no more dictating what true marriage is anymore than refusing to salute a crazy person wearing a funny general's hat is dictating who Napoleon is. That is what same-sex legislation is in essence: a legal decree that the naked emperor is wearing clothes.

    This issue is too big for the both of you.

    Truth is discernible to anyone no matter their station and easy to do if one hasn't buried their conscience under ideological bluster.
    Since I didn't use an example of a man with no testicles, it is simply unfair to accuse me of dishonesty. In a case where a couple is physically incapable of completing the sex act, then yes, a valid marriage could not be made. But that only proves my point--same-sex "marriages" cannot produce offspring even if both partners have fully-functioning sex organs. One might as well pass a law recognizing the rights of a person to gestate and lay chicken eggs.

    There may be differences in particulars regarding marriage across history and societies, but there is no disagreement on the essence: marriage is between men and women. Not even societies that were relatively tolerant of homosexual behavior like the Greeks ever went so bat-crap insane as to think two men in a mutual-masturbation arrangement made a marriage.

    Your prose in this section is very gloomy, and I’m sure the world seems like a scary place

    I'm not scared at all. Please don't characterize.

    but the “quasi-religious ideology: self-contradicting moral relativism encompassing a creepy idolatry of Americanism” you are referring to is simply called the 14th amendment. It has existed before you were born, and God willing after all of us die. If you want to fight against gay marriage, I suggest you start working on changing the Constitution. Best of luck.

    Bringing up the 14th Amendment reminds me of a discussion from elsewhere. After one person went through the usual failed arguments for same-sex "marriage" someone posed a hypothetical: suppose the government for the sake of "family diversity" decreed that heterosexual couples had to give up children for adoption to homosexual couples. Would he obey such a law? After much hemming and hawing and trying to change the subject, this person eventually admitted that he would obey it. The funny thing is that on the way to admitting it, he also admitted that he would have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 and would have returned an escaped slave to his master; saying he would countenance the lesser injustice of returning the slave to avoid the greater injustice of disobeying the law. Now exactly how returning a slave was the lesser injustice wasn't clear, but this insane idea that because it was the law of land it was therefore made the return of a slave morally good was clear. Let no defy a Federal law even if the heavens should fall. Supporting same-sex marriage is saying in essence, "We have no god but Caesar."

    1. romishgraffiti
      I think we’ve reached a cyclical point in our argument about biology. Your overemphasis on human reproduction reduces us to nothing more than breeding animals. I am comforted by the fact that many courts across the country are recognizing that American families of today are much more rich and complex, and deserving of protection, beyond the simple nuclear family. You have also have still not addressed the 14th amendment and how it applies to same sex marriage. You only went on a meandering rant and basically called for tyranny.

      I am confused about what you meant about when you quoted “there is no god but Caesar”. What are you quoting? Is this a play on words with the biblical verse of “there is no king but Caesar”? If so, I would appreciate it if you would not make a mockery of Jesus Christ’s execution, especially just to appease your messiah/martyr fantasies.

  4. I find it interesting, Anonymous, that, you state that the Catholic Church is "not allowed to dictate marriage’s purpose," when in fact it was the Catholic Church that first defined the 'ceremonial or witnessed' marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation which ultimately created the first documented valid marriage that could later be considered “legal” by governing bodies.

    "There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era."

    History of Marriage: How Marriage Has Evolved

    This act by the Catholic Church gave what today is the definition of marriage accepted by every person in this country. So if the Catholic Church initiated the requirement of "witnessed ceremonial' marriage for procreation purposes, what right has anyone else to alter that definition? Until the Catholic Church required witnesses and a ceremony, two people could simply say they were married and it was accepted by the people and the government. It was the Catholic Church that turned marriage into the legal requirements it is today…with witnesses and a presider. So the Catholic Church should be the only one with the right to redefine marriage. States can make legal statements regarding same sex unions, but only the Church has the right to redefine the true meaning of what a marriage consists.

    1. Patti, I don't think that Anonymous was proposing that the Church change its own definition of marriage. The Church did not create state-recognized marriage in this country. The government did, even though they adopted the concept from the Church. The government has the right to change its definition of what marriage is, but cannot force the Church to comply with those changes. You are essentially saying that the Catholic Church has the sole ownership of the name and concept of marriage. This is obviously not true

    2. Pattie,
      Are you suggesting that there were no weddings before the 1500s? I’m not great with the Bible, but wasn’t Jesus’ early miracles at a wedding with many guests. If is correct, than what you are saying is that the Roman Catholic Church was the 1st to allow for a government to control marriage. Either way, we are now 500 years later and living in a country where government controls legal marriage. Many individuals find great significance in getting married in the Catholic Church and living by Catholic principles, and I have deep respect for that. But, there are many different faiths in the US and all of which have the right of getting married. Even Atheists are allowed to get married in the country, and no one says anything about that. It’s because marriage is not strictly a religious institution, and if only Roman Catholics were allowed to create a universal definition of marriage (for the 1st time as there has never been a singular, universal “definition if marriage” let alone a redefinition) than many people and faiths would be alienated.

    3. Anonymous ‘B’, please take a second look at my original post. I never said ‘weddings’ or marriages did not take place before the 1500s. I said the ‘legalized’ STANDARD of a “witnessed ceremony” which is what we currently know of as a marriage, was not initiated until the Roman Catholic Church did so in the 1500’s. In every state of the union there is a universally accepted requirement for a marriage, a presider (judge/justice of the peace, minister, etc.) and at least one witness beside the couple are required. This type of legal “marriage”, generally recognized by all governments WAS started by the Catholic Church. Until the 1500s, the government allowed people to simply say they were married and that was acceptable. It was the Church who initially required “proof” that the couple had made a life-long commitment to each other in front of witnesses. And because this series of actions had many positive aspects, eventually governments required, much the same standards. When anyone ‘discovers’ a series of actions that others later use, the initiator of the series of actions is usually created as the inventor. Alexander Graham Bell is credited with the invention of the telephone because he was the first person to successfully utilize the series of actions that created a telephone. Likewise, the Catholic Church initiated the current concept of how a “marriage” is conducted so it should be considered the inventor of the “witnessed ceremony” we now come to know as the wedding ceremony of the legal marriage. It is true that the government uses the definition of marriage for legal purposes only, and the Church uses it to also create a sacrament. The Catholic Church cares only about a marriage being ‘legal’ in order to adhere to state law. The Church is far more concerned about the sacrament of marriage than the legal aspects. This is why when a marriage is found to be an “invalid marriage” according to the Catholic Church an annulment is granted while the marriage is still recognized as having been legal at the time of its inception, allowing any children from that union to still be legitimate. And as I pointed out in my earlier posting to Anonymous ‘A’, though a Catholic Priest can legally marry a person, he simultaneously presides over a ‘sacrament’ (an outward sign of an inward change). Since its inception, the laws of this country require ONLY a legally witnessed ceremony in order to be valid. For a Catholic priest to perform a marriage ceremony there must be a fulfillment of BOTH the legal and the sacramental aspect in order for it to be valid in the eyes of the Church. And because the U.S. Constitution allowed for freedom of religion when this country was founded, it has always been accepted that a priest could not be forced to marry two people…even if they were 1 man and 1 woman, unless one of them was Catholic…even today, two atheists cannot be married by a Catholic priest, but they can by a civil authority such as a judge. When a couple want ONLY legal validity to their marriage, they go to civil authorities for the ceremony as I agree that even atheists have the right to marry, but for a Catholic and for many Protestants too, not only a legal ceremony is required but a religious sacramental ceremony is required in order for their marriage to be valid in the eyes of God. But unfortunately because so many citizens of our country currently reduce the right to Freedom of Religion to a minimum, many Catholics (and some Protestants) doubt the government would protect a minister’s right to follow his conscience, and thus legally force him to choose to either perform same sex ceremonies or perform none at all if marriage included people of the same gender.

    4. Pattie,
      Gay marriage has been legal in this country for a decade. Where are all of these lawsuits against the Catholic Church? Divorce has been legal for over 50 years. Are Priests being forced to marry divorced couples? You yourself stated that atheists cannot be married in the Catholic Church. This is a slippery slope argument and it is illogical and unsubstantiated in America. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. Also, the religious freedom argument goes both ways. Many mainstream religious organizations now believe that it is acceptable to marry gays. Where are their religious freedoms?

      The only victims in this debate are the LGBT community and their families. It has widely been disproven that gays harm society or prevent heterosexual marriages. There is no evidence that gays harm children, or that children from same sex marriages have been affected negatively by their home environment compared to kids from heterosexual relationships. Gays and their families are constantly being overtaxed and under protected. I am gay, and even though I’ve only been married for 7 years I estimate that we have spent more than $10,000 extra in taxes, legal fees, and other expenses that I would not have been charged had I had a legally recognized marriage. If I die today, my children could be placed in foster care instead of with their own mother. My kids do not have a legal claim to their own parent’s property or social security. They do not have both parents on their birth certificate. If given “permission” by our government to marry, we would still have to go through the adoption process, at great expense, to adopt our own children that have lived with us since birth. Could you imagine the humiliation? This is only my personal example, there are millions of others. I have deep respect for your religious beliefs, but they cannot be allowed to subjugate and humiliate millions of people.

  5. The reason we should not have homosexual marriages, is because God says so in the Bible. There are 6 passages in the Bible that address homosexuality:
    Genesis 19 — the story of Sodom
    Leviticus 18:22 — prohibition of “lying with a man as with a woman”
    Leviticus 20:13 — law stating that lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination, punishable by death
    Romans 1:18-32 — Paul’s description of Gentile ungodliness, including “exchanging the natural function for the unnatural”
    1Corinthians 6:9-10 — Paul’s statement that “sodomites” (NRSV) will not inherit God’s kingdom
    1Timothy 1:9-10 — Paul’s statement that “sodomites” (NRSV) are among the “lawless and disobedient”.
    Just because someone is a homosexual doesn't mean we shouldn't love them - and I think people get confused when we point out sin, that we're saying we don't love the person. This sin is not any different from any other sin - gluttony (overeating), anger, lust, etc. God is holy, and requires repentance from sin and obedience. Some day we will all have to give an account.

    1. Kathryn, I wholeheartedly agree with your statements from the Bible as to why same sex unions are sinful. And you are absolutely correct that homosexual behavior may be no worse than other sins, and that we should love the homosexual but just not the sin. The problem with only stating this is that non-believers accuse believers of trying to force our religious views on others, something the U.S. Constitution forbids. Father John has helped me to realize we have to look at this issue according to how it would affect Christians, particularly Catholics and especially Catholic priests if the laws about marriage were changed. Our religious views are not going to have any effect on the view of those who think the Bible has been ‘misinterpreted’ or is out of date. We need to explain further why same sex marriage is detrimental to any nation just as the above video testifies. Thank you so much for defending the faith!! Your statements prove you would be an especially strong defender of traditional marriage once you expand your contentions in defense of traditional marriage. God bless!

    2. Hey Kathryn-- Don't forget about what else Leviticus has to say as well!

      Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
      Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
      Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
      Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?
      If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). I wonder if Dr. Laura would like that one to be enforced?
      If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
      If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
      If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). I guess you should kill the animal since they were willing participants. Are they crazy?
      If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
      Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
      If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
      People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
      Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
      Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

      One must wonder why there are so many people wanting to cite Leviticus for gay bashing, but they never mention these rules. How strange. It is common that a Christian will blow off these old rules with "Jesus came to change the laws, so these are outmoded, and we don't need them", but throughout Leviticus God states that these laws are to be followed forever. Hmmm.

      This is a classic case of cherry picking. It happens ALL THE TIME. I can't believe you and others elevate a murderer by the name of St. Paul to the same level as Jesus. You all believe that he performed miracles, raised people from the DEAD, did "exorcisms" &'s all a bunch of baloney.

    3. I really can't believe that people still use this argument about Leviticus. Here is a good article that lays this all out. It is really quite simple -

      The argument "Leviticus forbids shellfish" is so old and tired, and frankly it shows so little understanding of what Catholics actually believe and it is a bad attempt to reduce the Catholic argument in this discussion to a caricature.

    4. It just goes to show how ridiculously stupid your bible is and why it shouldn't be believed. I can't believe people actually believe the bible is true when there is so much nonsense in it. Then you have preachers and others that twist and contort the nonsense in the bible and come up with some sort of excuse as to why the nonsense is there in the first place. These passages above are a very small example of total stupidity.

    5. Well, that settles it. The Bible is stupid. Man I wish someone would have pointed this out before, then all the billions of people who have found hope in the Bible, who have found Truth, all the billions of people who built Western Civilization based on their belief in the Bible and the teachings of the Church, etc. etc. would have never had to go through the mess of founding western civilization and we could have just remained in the awesome swamp of civilization as it existed prior to Christianity.

  6. Anonymous ‘A’, therein lies the problem with the state changing the definition of marriage. If the government can change the legal definition of marriage then they CAN and most likely WILL force anyone who performs ‘1 man-1 woman ceremonies’ to also perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. If such a law passes, then even religious presiders would be forced to offer the same marriage services to all, otherwise it would be discriminatory to allow Catholic priests to opt out of same sex ceremonies. You see when a man of the cloth marries a couple, the priest performs both a legal AND a religious ceremony. Unlike a judge or justice of the peace, the priest cannot do one without doing the other. However the state would not likely take this into consideration and would instead require all those who perform marriages to offer it to all, whether a 1 man-1 woman couple or a same sex couple. And in order for a priest to obey such a law would cause him to break the moral laws of God as defined by the Catholic Church. The enforcement of the HHS Mandate in the Affordable Care Act which requires ALL organizations to provide abortifacient coverage to employees even if it goes against one’s conscience proves we live in a time when freedom of religious means little to the government.

    You mention that the Church “did not create state-recognized marriage in this country,” and that the state only “adopted the concept from the Church,” as if religion and freedom of same were not important in the initiation of state laws regarding matrimony or other duties of ministers. Founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson felt religious beliefs were paramount when it came to states making laws. Have you heard of the Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1803 where a portion of his letter is so often inappropriately quoted, “a wall of separation of church and state”? Do you know what that letter was all about? It was a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to the laws in states such as Maryland which required all ministers to be licensed, while the only ministers the state would license were Episcopalian ministers. So, for example, if a Baptist minister started preaching in Maryland, without the proper license, he could be arrested and put into jail. Thomas Jefferson’s letter wasn't written to keep the church out of government matters…IT WAS WRITTEN TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF CHURCH MATTERS!!