Yesterday, a spectacular day weatherwise, my family attended a wonderful Christian celebration of marriage, held on the Diocese of Providence grounds overlooking beautiful Narragansett Bay. Hundreds of wonderfully diverse families attended (est. 500-600 people) and the highlight of the day was a renewal of vows, with a specific Catholic renewal ceremony, followed by another ceremony for other Christian denominations.

Outside the gate of the Aldrich Mansion were protestors who were looking for attention. So where do you think every major media reporter focused? That’s right – the protestors.

One could talk about the many positive reasons to celebrate marriage and families, particularly nowadays when divorce rates are high, marriage rates decreasing and out of wedlock births are rampant (more than 40% in some areas).

No – all major stories were about marriage “equality”. In other words, the focus wasn’t really about those married families attending, but mostly about the ones outside the gate. You can tell from the news headlines:

• Same-sex marriage supporters protest vow renewals
• Rhode Islanders Debate Definition of “Marriage”
• Protesting for same sex marriage
• Celebrate Marriage and Family Day in Warwick draws protests

So was this all just political theater?

The event was put on by National Organization for Marriage – Rhode Island, which is politically opposed to same-sex marriage efforts. With Rhode Island as the only New England state that does not legally recognize same-sex unions, this event declares a political message. However, it seems to me that drawing attention to heterosexual marriage and expecting the media to be friendly to the cornerstone of our culture is downright suicidal.

So the coverage was political, but the young, progressive news reporters all missed (showed disdain for?) the real major story – our families. Instead, most irresponsibly conveyed shallow, incendiary stories, with quotes like this one from the Associated Press:

“We’re not going to let them have events that exclude LGBT people,“ said Brian Chidester of the Providence Equality Action Committee, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

I’m sure Mr. Chidester has more substantial material, but given that at least one TV station actually lead their video with a photo of one same-sex couple renewing their vows outside a restricted area, it’s apparent LGBT’s were not excluded from the event, and as far as I know, the couple wasn’t harassed for being there.

Still, my question for Mr. Chidester, and those who think like him: Why do people need your approval to hold events that might exclude LGBT people? This particular event was heavily Christian in nature throughout the celebration. Shall we lay aside our moral, religious convictions as you demand?

Who, then, is advocating controlling the choices, beliefs and activities of others? Isn’t this the very charge which you accuse us of holding?

The sole basis for your committee’s approval is gender orientation. Do you grasp the full role marriage plays in our culture?

Should the majority heterosexual population define marriage around the idea of marriage as a binding of affection between partners?

Do you fail to see that legal recognition of marriage is not about recognizing partnerships of affection, but encouraging promising, procreative partnerships which tremendously impact the public and are essential to us all?

Here’s the ideal of Christian marriage upon which Western civilization was primarily built :

Childbearing is a natural process requiring the successive overlapping of morally pure environments from one generation to another. The union of one virgin chaste man and one virgin chaste woman is the ideal for childbearing. To avoid harmful diseases mothers and fathers must remain morally pure and physically virgin until married, then, for the success of subsequent generations, they must remain morally pure until physical death.

Joined at the altar, those chaste virgin couples demonstrate with their very lives, through a whole-hearted commitment to their posterity, that they hold society’s successful natural long term propagation in the highest esteem. Society approves of this serious, on-going commitment by calling pure marriage between one chaste man and one chaste woman greatly unique, beneficial and thus ‘very good’. This is the core of the marriage covenant, showing approval of this union to everyone to ensure the ‘life’ of society. The chaste couple is esteemed as a model to follow. As it naturally stems from our two sexes for procreation, the marriage relationship cannot be arbitrarily redefined, because no other model provides this unique, natural family.

With marriage, society rewards the overwhelming sacrifice on the part of the chaste heterosexual couple who prepared for childbearing and childrearing with unique rights and benefits. At the same time, and with the same ideal relationship, society shames individuals who do not enter into the pure marriage covenant which holds the potential for producing new generations. Valid exceptions to this shame are made, but they must always be due to mercy or great personal sacrifice, which maintains social moral integrity.

The consummation of the marriage covenant promises, but doesn’t always produce, society’s greatest joy – children, and society awards more benefits to the growing family. like a cell dividing, with every new generation, society grows.

Society’s concern regarding marriage then, is to secure it for this public effect. So the state, while not hampering the affections of individuals, must always guard against an immorality that would substitute non-ideal models of marriage that fail to produce or even promise, the continuity of society.

- from “The Kids are Watching”

And that’s the real story that was missed.

It’s about something unimaginably greater than our unions – it’s about something so pure and wonderful, so natural, and yet beyond any affection we might show to the other. It’s something only God, in His divine grace, bestows.

It’s about a certain transcendent commitment – a covenant: a promise of life.

During the Catholic vow renewal, my wife and I noticed 2 small children scurrying about their parents legs as the couple looked deeply into each other’s eyes, with occasional glances down, followed by short bursts of laughter, and angelic, divine beaming faces shining up at them.

The pure joy that comes from two becoming one flesh.

We weren’t debating anything.

We came to declare in a single unified voice, that promise of Life: To our pro-created families, to the generations who would look back upon their ancestors and say – they loved each other by their marriage commitment, and in so doing, they loved us, unconditionally.

Morality, Relationships same-sex-marriage

Last night, while searching through a “sister to sister” directory created by our church’s women’s ministry, I noticed that not one man’s name was mentioned. All the married women had anonymous spouses. Their children’s names were listed, but not the husbands.

When I mentioned that to my wife, Donna, she wrote it off to the editor keeping the focus on the “sister to sister” relationship. That quick explanation struck me as being wrong, not because it might be true, but that such behavior isn’t apparent cause for concern, even within a fairly conservative church that upholds traditional marriage of the unity of one man and one woman.

Call it a feminine blind spot.

So this morning’s news reveals British scientists are creating sperm cells from human embryos so they can treat infertility.

In another article, related to the Mark Sanford affair, Gallup finds that the most morally objectionable behavior in the United States is “married men and women having an affair”.

So we have a case of husbands ignored by women within a church, the male physiological function being replaced by scientists using the human offspring of other males, and the most reprehensible behavior is marital infidelity, while divorce is more morally acceptable than wearing fur coats.

Most women can’t see the problem. My own wife doesn’t see it, despite long discussions on the topic.

Again, from today’s news: even when a female author gets most things right – she still doesn’t see the problem.

Can you see it?

And to be fair – many men can’t see the problem either.

Morality men, Relationships, woman

Found a great comment on Yourish.com from David Foster that made so much sense. Progressives (liberals) view morals as properties of objects and not people. So for instance, nuclear weapons are immoral, but not people who seek to use them. Guns are immoral, but not people who shoot others. Bombs are evil, but not those who employ them.

Fascinating theory.

How would this apply to abortion?

The answer is obvious, but it took me a moment, because I don’t even think like that.

The immoral “object” is the baby.

Wow. I’d love to test this out with a survey.

What do you think – does it fit real-world observations?

Morality abortion

William Saletan of Slate addresses a growing concern – but it’s not what you think.

Morality birth-control, demographics, socialism

The culture war is a war against ignorance and insanity. Some gratefully label themselves ignorant while others repeatedly prove they are within their own moral universe through delusional denial and semantic sophistry, such as exhibited by Colmes and Obama. No matter how irrefutable the evidence of crimes against human beings, both pre-born and born, personal denial is always sought.

They escape into the darkness of their own souls, cowering from the truth.

The only correct response is to have compassion and mercy upon the living victims and even upon the criminals.

In a world where loving-kindness is rare, Christ had it right – love your enemies until the day they are judged by Him. May the Lord have mercy upon them in his wrath.

No matter how blind others are to the truth, we can never be blind to the injustices inflicted upon the innocent, nor stop our efforts to defend and protect them. So it rages on.

Morality abortion, compassion, mercy

The cultural understanding of the purpose of marriage has been destroyed over the last 40 years because almost all sense, reason and respect has disappeared in public discourse.

Serious discourse on weighty culture-altering matters is practically non-existent, beaten down by drumbeats of obnoxious self-centered demands. For many, debate over the deep issues of life counts simply as a sideshow distraction from other forms of amusement. Most simply argue with a great unwillingness to get past their own ignorance and educate themselves, choosing instead to accept the shallow and trivial moment and every position that supports their own desires.

As a nation, we suffer terribly from a lack of rational imagination to foresee long-term consequences.

The California judicial fiat is only a spasm in the death throes of the Republic of the United States. The Cold-War era idea that relaxing laws on contraception could eventually lead to a devaluation by society in the sanctity and purpose of marriage seemed so incomprehensible as to be laughable. Yet we see the destruction all around us, some more aware of the source than others.

We try to interpret specific court rulings as though spotting a bullet in mid-flight without trying to understand the trajectory; without comprehending the pattern and result. You never see the one that hits you.

Those who believe that this ruling has few long term consequences upon families completely overlook the power exerted by a particular lobby towards manipulating judicial and public opinion in complete disregard for the natural order of things. To say that this particular power will not be exploited shows an ignorance of the degenerate state of man.

Forty years from now, the unexpected consequences will be known.

Those consequences simply won’t be a joyous matter, any more than people take joy in divorce, having an abortion, fearing for their lives or struggling with an incurable or life-altering disease contracted through promiscuous relations.

As we descend into darkness, it’s inevitable that the Lord shines brighter. So it must be.

Morality same-sex-marriage

or Illumination of Ideas

This is a continuation of my last post Adam Hamilton’s Color Theory.

I want to be fair to Adam, because in my prior post I stated he’s assuming both sides can agree on 7 points:

1. Legitimate concerns of both sides
2. Life of mother exception
3. Decrease is desirable
4. Universal birth control access and info
5. Pregnancy duration & moral complexity
6. Coercion
7. Safety

The single thread running through these is a concern, perhaps love, for other humans. His illustrations reinforce this idea of a single dimension.

Yet I hope my extended illustration showed we can’t always assume others see things in common with us, even though we’re using the same language and words, and appear to have the same desire.

My prior post was about seeing, and that’s critical. Adam clearly sees himself as pro-life, while others see him as pseudo or perhaps semi pro-life. As I pointed out, how we perceive ourselves within the context of the problem is an essential starting point. Do we truly understand the common element? That light – absolute transcendent Truth, must be at the core of our being and we must willfully be obedient to it. If we’re not intellectually, emotionally and spiritually honest with ourselves, then there is little hope we’ll be honest with others. If two sides cannot agree about this truth, then there is no common ground at all.

The conflict between abortion-choice and pro-life is a clash of two distinct world-views about truth. The metaphysical grounds aren’t the same – it’s multi-dimensional yet primarily a spiritual contest. If you want to talk about a single continuum, you’d have to address how each individual views life itself, and what they truly believe when it comes to their own origin, meaning, morality and destiny.

Adam has an incredibly powerful and moving testimony about his own origin which places him firmly within the context of the problem, giving him a legitimacy and a voice as one who was redeemed.

But how does Adam see the meaning of his life? What about his morality, and destiny? How has this origin shaped his view of others and is that viewed through the light of absolute transcendent truth? Does he see a cohesiveness, an intrinsic quality that declares his being as a whole – as a human being? Do others see him with the same intrinsic meaning?

It is not enough to believe we hold the truth, we need to constantly pursue it and we need to know it’s a true light and not merely a reflection.

Adam’s mother loved him dearly and was willing to sacrifice her life for him. In other words her focus was not on herself, but on another – specifically Adam.

She saw something that transcended herself, that went beyond her immediate situation. Through love, she caught a glimpse of Life, the Light of the World himself. In doing so, she sought the illumination of an idea she joyfully called Adam, a man who is still pursuing the Truth.

For those who are in the dark, whether it is origin, meaning, morality or destiny, only a glimmer of light can be revealed at a time, because too much light revealed at once would be blinding.

Yet every agreement starts with the smallest perceivable amount of light, and that is sufficient to say we have something in common, even if it’s just a shade of gray.

Morality abortion, intrinsic-value, moral relativity

or there’s more to gray than meets the eye

Steve Wagner of Stand to Reason is soliciting comments regarding Adam Hamilton’s interview in Newsweek, which Adam discusses on his own blog.

Steve’s a very thoughtful and considerate guy, so when he notes someone besides himself is looking for common ground in the abortion debate it’s worth a closer look. Prior to opening the discussion, Steve is taking his time to reflect on the solutions described by Adam.

Okay – I admit, I didn’t reflect for so long, because simply browsing the chapter revealed some thinking that needs some immediate clarification, and it has to do with reflection. I may think differently after a more thorough read.

I think Adam’s quote, along with his book illustrations summarizes what I see as essential to understanding his discussion:

I believe that number could be halved if people might be willing to see enough gray to work together with those who view this issue differently than they do.

Adam needs a little lesson on color theory, because he’s forgetting that how you morally proceed is based entirely on your perspective of God and the nature of man – in other words your foundational world-view.

Here’s a nice gray metaphor – are we paper or are we a dark computer screen?

The additive color model is distinctly different from the subtractive. One adds light, while the other removes it. For instance, starting with a white page, dark spots added will remove the light reflection from the surface to arrive at gray. Conversely, if you are starting with a dark screen, you must add light to arrive at gray.

So is the substrate light or dark to begin with? In other words, is man currently good or evil? The substrate governs how we procede. But what is added, the procedure, also is crucial.

Clearly abortion is a moral procedure, but is it light or a dark spot? You can’t answer that question without knowing if the substrate is dark or light.

So Adam’s prescription for working towards middle ground makes an assumption that cannot be made – at least in a world of black and white, or more aptly, in a world of truth and light.

Because if the intention is to move towards gray, two opposite models will lead you there from two distinct directions, but only one fulfills God’s will.

He assumes the substrate is the common ground, or a single dimension, which it isn’t.

Only the light is the common element.

If we are called to be salt and light to this world, then our every move should reveal Christ to illuminate the darkness we face.

Morality abortion, moral relativity, Steve-Wagner

In the abortion debate there is a line of argument that goes like this:

The fetus is not a moral sentient being because it doesn’t think, therefore it’s not a person and can be killed.

Such arguments are known as body/self dualism.

As you can see, those who argue this believe a human body exists, then later a “person” inhabits that body. The premise is non-sensical and needs to be shown as such.

Using that logic, how can one demand bodily rights when one doesn’t view their body as intrinsic to their person? Since the origin of their personhood is doubtful, evidence must be produced that they are in fact valid and rightful owners of said body, the body they are claiming ownership over, for how do I know I’m not dealing with a “person” who’s using a stolen body? In fact, how do I know if there’s not more than one person in that body?

Sounds foolish? Yes – but that’s what they are arguing: that human beings aren’t intrinsic. They demand we treat them as intrinsically valuable human beings, while arguing that the fetus is not.

Take the proverbial advice and never argue with a fool – because people might not know which one is which.

Morality abortion, dualism, flesh & blood

…which one of these is this woman to you?

Recently, I visited a site where some men were learing over a photo of a young French woman, complete with lewd comments.  The source for the article was how this beauty pageant winner had lived outside the rules of the pageant.

When men consider a woman outside of a close personal relationship, the transition to a sex-object
is very easy.  A later comment indicated the girl apparently worked as a porn model, in violation of the rules. Even the French, who seemingly have no moral bounds, stop when it comes to defining role models.  For this young lady, she apparently forgot about who she was, and might be, or was not valued for being a sister or daughter.

Morality discrimination, misogyny