Growth continues

Tatsuya Ishida has done it again. In this surprisingly poignant Sunday strip, he has made clear just what the costs of the sexual revolution have been, to both men and women. He may think it only applies in cases of sex trafficking, but it really does apply to all extramarital sex. And I very much doubt he recognizes that it's contraception that supports and supercharges our sex obsessed culture of death.

the Doom of DOMA

I could have put this post up at Capes 'n' Babes, but that's not what Chris Flick's website is for, and he'd have every reason and right not to post it. He has the site mainly to sell his artwork, and my countercultural Catholic argumentation could reasonably alienate his customers. I couldn't wish that on him. I'm going to ask my two readers not to go and gunk up his site with a flamewar, either.

But as to why that's not good, I think we could learn from the lesson of Chesterton's Gate -- the idea that, before we go to reform an institution, we ought to understand why it is the way it is. I don't think gay marriage advocates have any understanding of why marriage was the way it was. Nor have they found or built any structures to do what marriage was originally meant to do.

The function of marriage has historically been to protect the children which are its natural result. It provides them with a bond with their father, and a incentives for him to protect them. If your spouse dies, then finding and marrying a replacement can be better for your children than staying a widow/er, which is why it's reasonable to allow people to remarry after the death of a spouse. Even if a woman has aged to menopause, it's easy to see how her entering marriage can be good for any children involved.

The giant blows against marriage were contraception and divorce. Divorce especially does grave harm to children, and remarriage is very hard on them, probably far harder than in cases of widowing. Much worse is when Mom just shacks up after divorcing Dad. Children are at greatest risk of sexual assault from mom's live-in boyfriend.

Homosexual marriage does not naturally result in children. Its advocates, like those for divorce and contraception, seem to either not consider the harm that their pet project does to children (which would include being in denial about it), or may actually hate children. Their arguments against these concerns vary from "What could it hurt?" to "Shut up."

I really don't think the SCOTUS considered these things when they struck down DOMA. I think there's compelling government interest in protecting marriage -- doing so gives children the best chance going forward that they can have. In addition to affirming DOMA, they could consider doing away with contraception (which promotes infidelity, which is ALSO very bad for the children) and divorce (which is the result of contraception, and even worse for children). They are far more important than the easy access to the benefits of marriage for gays (and to which they have alternative means of access).

Blogrollin' on Real and False Marriage

Salute to Mark Shea, and his readers: 

VEGANS FOR FOOD EQUALITY
Inspired by the success of Catholics for Marriage Equality, a new group has formed: Vegans for Food Equality. Here is what they say:
After generations of silence, we Vegans are finally speaking out. We ourselves are devout believers in the virtue of fresh fruits and vegetables, but we see no reason to consider them superior to other foods.
We are ashamed that less enlightened Vegans have made disparaging remarks about deep fried chicken, corn-fed beef and creamy chocolate pies. We have family members who secretly eat those “forbidden” foods. They have been made to feel guilty when they stop for a fish taco or a Big Mac.
Now is the time to end all discrimination. One food should not be considered “better” than another.
To combat long-standing prejudice, Vegans for Food Equality will open a new Vegan restaurant in Seattle. Side by side with traditional vegan favorites, we will offer Denver omelets, chili dogs and real milk shakes.
Finally we appeal to our fellow Vegans to vote for a new law which will expand the meaning of “vegetable.” From now on vegetable will include anything you place in your mouth and swallow. This new law will not prevent old-fashioned Vegans from referring to carrots and broccoli as “vegetables.” It will simply expand the definition of vegetable to include sirloin steaks and cheddar cheese.

In case you missed the point (and it ain't subtle for us Catholics), what the homosex activist movement proposes to do to marriage is analogous to what  "Vegans for Food Equality" plan to do to vegetables.

Prophecy

Written in 1968:

It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.

Published in 2010:

The notion that Playboy turns women into sex objects is ridiculous. Women are sex objects. If women weren't sex objects, there wouldn't be another generation. It's the attraction between the sexes that makes the world go 'round. That's why women wear lipstick and short skirts.

Telling the Truth

John C. Wright posts about Christopher Stasheff, the only SF author who had the guts to put the truth about chastity into the mouth of one of his characters. Go and read it, as it is an EXCELLENT explanation of the spiritual dangers of fornication.

Let Your Voice Be Heard

Salute to Fr. Z, who posted this on the 28th.

So, in association with a story about how the bishops don't want to place orphaned children with unmarried couples, the NYT posted an online poll, asking if the government is trampling on religious rights, and MSNBC posted it here. I said that they were.

Halleluja, We're Being Attacked!

Read the American Papist's most excellent story here.

tl, dr? A couple of gay billionaires are spending millions of dollars to undermine the Church's teaching on marriage, family, and sex. They give it to organizations like Dignity, New Ways Ministry, and the like -- basically anyone who'll say, "We're Catholic, and it's time for the Church to deny truths she has guarded under the power of the Holy Spirit for millenia!"

Why is this good news? It means we're actually having an effect.

Make no mistake, though, we oughta be mad as hell that Catholic-haters are trying to remake Holy Mother Church into their own image.

Same Sex Marriage -- Why Not?

Salute to Mark Shea, who only posted the first of these videos on his blog. I'm going to post all 4, which is nearly an hour of video, strictly on the strength of his recommendation; I have yet to watch them through.

For the Children!

It's really easy for me to discount anyone who claims that they are working "for the children!" It's a favored battle cry for people that all too often appear more interested in disassembling families, and deconstructing family structures, than of people who actually love children.

And yet, that is EXACTLY for whom Defense of Marriage Advocates are working. Read the article.

For that matter, so are those opposing Artificial Reproductive Therapy.

You aren't going to find anyone that loves children more than the Catholic Church.

On CE Today

First, The Origins of the Red State/Blue State Divide, which actually explores three paradigms of family over the course of history, and what has historically led to the adoption of each. It's really good stuff, go read it. The implications regarding how government intervention in society winds up affecting overall societal morality, are important for liberty.

Second, an article discussing The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency. Read the article, read the book.

Rectification of Names

"A is A," as Mark Scott used to say. Much of the immorality being advocated today is promoted by one of two lies:

"A is not-A": "A human zygote/ embryo/ fetus is not a human being. Using taxes to reallocate wealth is not theft. An incestuous marriage is not immoral. Self-defense is not a legitimate use of a gun. Licensing is not rent seeking. The Catholic Church is oppressive. Women are the same as men."

"not-A is A": "Homosexual marriage is marriage. The pregnant man is a man. Government health care is free. Minimum wages protect the poor. Abortion is a right."

Both lists could go on, and on, and on, and on. This is one of the topics that the Western Confucian regularly posts about -- The Rectification of Names. Some have suggested that Rectification of Names proposes that if you get language right, all else will follow, but that's not right, any more than saying the Confucian Rule ("Don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you") is the same as the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). Rather, the Rectification of Names proposes that if language is wrong, then nothing else can be right.

A Backhanded Admission

I've been going through the archives at Stuff White People Like, with the occasional bit of amusement. Then I come to the post on Difficult Breakups.

Prior to engaging in divorce, most white people train for it by engaging in a series of long term relationships that end very poorly.

There it is, in a nutshell: the admission that "going steady" and "long term relationships" are training for divorce. The more breakups you've had, the more familiar (and thus, in its own sick way, the more comforting) divorce will seem.

Divorce is a scourge. Don't practice for it. Don't set up patterns of thought that will lead you to it. Don't date. Don't go steady. Don't enter long term relationships. Don't swap keys. Don't move in together. Don't give your whole self to somebody else, and then try to get it all back. You can't. Enter courtship and get married.

More on Hatred

It's not enough to note that Carrie Prejean is now better-known than she would have been as Miss America; she also has new opportunities. She can be one of the foremost spokesmen for Defense of Marriage Activists worldwide, probably for as long as she likes, particularly given how charitable she has been in her response to Mr. Hilton. Solid formation on the Church's doctrines regarding same-sex attraction can only help, as they are far more nuanced and compassionate than the Church is ever given credit for being.

On the Counterproductivity of Hatred

It is interesting to note that, thanks to the bitter, bilious vitriol of Perez Hilton, I now know far more about Carrie Prejean than I do about the last three women to win the crown of Miss America.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot, dude.

Blogrollin' again

On the supposition that there are people who would prefer my blog to Bill Donaghy's, what's wrong with you?

I never come up with fabulous stuff like this.

Condoms and HIV

Anyone, regardless of which side they take in the debate about whether condoms are the best prophylactic against HIV, should start by reading the plethora of links in this post. There is a LOT of information to be had there.

Kudos to Fr. Longenecker

I want you to go and read this excellent post by Fr. Dwight Longenecker, explaining and defending Christian Patriarchy. It's really long, but the payoff is most certainly worth it.

Kudos to Eegah

EEgah, Inc. has produced a supremely timely post about the culture of death. Who would have thought so lousy a film as Cherry 2000 could be so prescient?

The End of Feminism

This post, on Catholic Exchange, is just chock full of interesting insights. The author, Genevieve Kineke, makes this point:

The National Organisation for Women (NOW) has tipped its hand in this debate since the success of Sarah Palin in the national arena. Truly, she seems to have embodied their long-standing mission statement, “Our purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in society-sharing equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities with men, while living free from discrimination” This ripe claim worked as long as Hillary Clinton was in her ascendancy, but the reality of applying it to the Republican vice presidential nominee rankled NOW to its core, and their keyboards must have overheated.

The result was a hot new mission statement, parading down the feminist runway: “NOW works to end discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society, secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women.” This new creation — wobbling on shaky syntax and wrapped in a hasty cobbling of goals — nevertheless reveals the feminist view of men, who discriminate, impregnate and otherwise harass women as a matter of course.

In other words, modern feminism is not so much about freeing women as it is about hating men. Nor is she alone in this observation. Rush Limbaugh has been saying so for years. But I have to say that where he goes with this -- ridicule and mocking -- is counterproductive. Those women who hate men do so because they have been grievously hurt by them, and what they need is authentic Christian love.

Population Control

Population control and eugenics are inseparable. They are two sides of the same coin. If you want to breed people like sheep, you must be able to control who reproduces and who does not. If you wish to limit population growth, somebody must decide who breeds and who doesn't. There is no escaping the truth of these statements. You can try to hide their truth, but they remain true and their truth will describe what is actually done when anyone seeks to implement population control and eugenics, regardless of which of the two goals actually motivates them.

Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler both sought eugenics. (See The Truth About Margaret Sanger.) Hitler sought to use guns to eliminate those he didn't think should breed. Margaret Sanger preferred the Big Lie to convince them not to breed, and to get them to pay her and Planned Parenthood to keep them from so doing. Otherwise, their evils are comparable.

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood