OpinionTue Aug 27, 2013 - 12:30 pm EST
How to lose the fight over gay ‘marriage’ in one easy step
ROME, August 27, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Since the push for "gay marriage" started, people who opposed it have absolutely refused to engage in discussions about the moral liceity, or even the physical and psychological consequences of homosexual behaviour. Have you noticed? The one thing no one in the argument seems to want to do is really to talk about what we’re talking about.
In the case of the Catholic Church, this has become a nearly universal policy, from the CDF on down. We have been informed that it was official. When the issue started gaining speed, bishops and national conferences told priests they were to talk exclusively about the glories and wonders of marriage, and never, ever breathe the slightest hint about all that other icky stuff.
Indeed, so appealing was the Catholic Church’s line to UK Prime Minister David Cameron – note: Conservative Party leader – that he actually used it to bring "gay marriage" into Britain, the little gift that he now wants to keep giving to the whole world. So, good work there, guys, thanks.
A very, very small number of people, including LifeSite, a couple of pro-family groups and maybe a handful of bloggers have been willing to say out loud that this policy is going to backfire. We’ve been the only ones to reject the disclaimers, evasions and excuses that nearly all the “conservative” world has embraced in order to sell the message. And for our troubles, we’ve had people, mainly these same “conservatives,” screeching at us like Pod People ever since.
We said that the arguments against "gay marriage" that start with the nice warm-cuddlies and go pretty much no further, are going to be ultimately incoherent. They won't move out any further than the borders of the conservative discussion bubble. Certainly, the average TV watching Regular Person, we said, is going to hear that line, shrug and say, "Well, OK, if marriage is so great, we should let everyone do it." Then he's going to flip over to the next episode of Glee.
Ultimately, we predicted, these “conservative” politically correct arguments are going to be so weak, that even the people holding and using them will eventually be forced to abandon them and join the throng themselves. Aaaaand guess what? This week, the US “conservative” political world is all in a tizzy over the column by Joseph Bottum, former editor of the kind-of Catholic magazine First Things, who said he’s not got any arguments to make against the change. (Yes, I’m going to keep using the scare quotes; deal.)
Lately we are increasingly being told, by everyone, that universal “gay marriage” is “inevitable”. To this, we at LSN and other assorted wacky hold-outs-to-reality, can really only say, “Yes, we told you that”.
We have been saying for some time that the Sexual Revolution isn’t over, that it’s an ongoing process that has as its aim the total abolition of any recognisable social structure based on objective biological realities, starting in the 70s with no-fault divorce, artificial contraception and abortion and moving on to the outer stratosphere of the weird.
We have also said that the language and processes of political conservatism, especially when they are applied to religious institutions, are inadequate to our immediate or long-term needs. That the political model, once summed up for me by a Canadian bishop as “the art of the possible,” isn’t going to be enough to provide the solutions to these big questions that people are looking for.
This political approach is the one that has bishops, and their “conservative” followers, around the world promoting the compromise of homosexual civil unions, a phenomenon that I think psychologists have called Stockholm syndrome. But I have bad news for these churchmen: that crocodile isn’t going to eat you last.
We have said that you can’t separate the moral law from politics. That the creation of a divide between “social conservative” and “fiscal conservative” is fatuous and a grave error that will result in the total elimination of any opposition whatever to the global socialist culture-wrecking agenda.
Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.
But we were nuts, weren’t we? And we were “nuts” again when we followed the logic one or two steps further and said that once you’ve separated – in the words of a noted Italian pundit – the procreative ends of marriage from the unitive, you’ve pretty much opened the field up to anything at all. Meaning that the logic will take you very rapidly indeed from “gay marriage” to polygamy, paedophilia, incest and whatever else human concupiscence can come up with.
Logic is like math, people. Don’t shoot the messenger who insists, against all political fashion, that two and two still equal four.
Well, I've got to say that the least fun part about Cassandra Syndrome is saying "I told you so."
So, I’m going to change it to “Soooo, you don’t want to talk about the nasty, politically incorrect, squelchy stuff? You want to keep the discourse ‘civil’ and polite and friendly?
“How’s that workin’ out for y’all?”
Legal recognition of same-sex relationships around the world *:
Andorra – civil unions
Argentina – same-sex “marriage”
Australia: – civil unions
· ACT, NSW, QLD,
· TAS, VIC
Austria – civil unions
Belgium – same-sex “marriage”
Brazil – same-sex “marriage”
Canada – same-sex “marriage”
Colombia – civil unions
Czech Republic – civil unions
Denmark – same-sex “marriage”
Finland – civil unions
France – same-sex “marriage”
Germany – civil unions
Greenland – civil unions
Hungary – civil unions
Iceland – same-sex “marriage”
Ireland – civil unions
Isle of Man – civil unions
Israel – same-sex “marriage”
Jersey – civil unions
Liechtenstein – civil unions
Luxembourg – civil unions
Mexico – same-sex “marriage” and civil unions
Netherlands – same-sex “marriage”
New Zealand – same-sex “marriage”
Norway – same-sex “marriage”
Portugal – same-sex “marriage”
Scotland – civil unions
Slovenia – civil unions
South Africa – same-sex “marriage”
Spain – same-sex “marriage”
Sweden – same-sex “marriage”
Switzerland – civil unions
England & Wales – same-sex “marriage”
United States – same-sex “marriage”
· CA, CT, DC, DE,
· IA, MA, MD, ME,
· MN, NH, NY, RI,
· VT, WA, and 5 tribes
United States: – civil unions
· CO, HI, IL, NJ,
· NV, OR, WI
Uruguay – same-sex “marriage”
Venezuela – civil unions
* I won’t list the countries – Italy for one – currently thinking about legislation and I won’t take the trouble to look up those jurisdictions that, when putting the new sexual paradigm into law also made it illegal to dissent – though the Republic of Ireland springs to mind as an especially ironic exemplar.
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.