Tuesday, January 27, 2009

On the celebration, commercialism and narcissism of same-sex parents

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/12-for-bootees-5-for-bib-30000-for-a-baby/2009/01/23/1232471590759.html

Also in Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herod was a front-page article on a pair of sodomites, Mr. Trevor Elwell and Mr. Peter West, who are buying—yes, quite literally buying, virtually custom-made—twin baby girls from India. (Not that this represents any kind of commodification or commercialisation of human life or anything, of course! Perish the thought!) The article was interesting, firstly, for indicating just how well what would only recently have been widely regarded as (and, as far as I’m concerned, still is) a seedy counter-culture has now established itself in polite mainstream discourse. Not only was the article on the front cover, in the centre, with a large photograph of the sodomites shopping for baby paraphernalia (more on this picture in a minute), but also not once did the article use words like ‘homosexual’, ‘gay’, ‘same-sex’, whatever, to describe the pair; one might have thought that a specific denotation would have been appropriate for what is at least an unusual, and therefore noteworthy, relationship. So the Herald seems not to think that there are any moral and ethical problems with a sodomite-catamite parental pairing in addition to the problems already inherent in what is really an international market for human beings. Here we see that the so-called gay culture has succeeded in becoming just another identity in Australia’s ‘multicultural melting-pot’, as the sodomite activist Prof. Dennis Altman noted (presumably with delight) in a recent book review in The Weekend Australian.

The accompanying photograph was remarkable for how alike the two sodomites looked: both were portly fellows with close-cropped brown hair and tidy little goatee beards. Is this not more evidence of the narcissism of the so-called gay lifestyle? Does this not give the term 'self-selecting' new meaning?!

Certainly one can detect narcissism’s consequence, self-absorption, in the pair’s flagrant disregard for the grievous injustice that they are inflicting on these poor children by depriving them willingly of their natural father during their formative years and depriving them willingly of their natural mother forever (or of any mother, for that matter):

Only the genetic father's name will appear on the birth certificate. "[Says Mr. Elwell:] But we're a family unit and that's all that matters. Our children will know where they came from and who their father is when they are old enough to understand and we are determined to include their Indian heritage in their upbringing. My mother is already planning a mural of an Indian elephant for their room."
I suppose that that’ll make two elephants in the room then, boys: one painted garishly (like everything else in the so-called gay culture) on the wall, and the other THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ROBBED TWO CHILDREN OF THEIR PARENTS AND IMPRISONED THEM IN YOUR OWN MORAL SQUALOUR!!!!!!!!! Surely I was not the only person in Sydney to react with righteous anger and deep disgust at what will amount to a permanent state of child abuse?

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. John Chrysostom, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 2009

27 comments:

matthias said...

Your eminence ,I refer you to bill muehlenberg's latest opinion re Religious freedom in this country. The day will come when all churches and denominations that do not have female priests and gay clery will be penalised. oh well that let's the Anglicans and the UCA off the hook

John Carter said...

Dear oh dear, does Sydney really allow people like you to freely walk it's streets? I have never read such a disgusting article filled with so much hatred. As a member of a church group I would have expected more from you but alas it just goes to show how bigoted the church community is. You have no idea who these people are or how they live their lives and yet you have the nerve to clearly comment on something that you know nothing about. "THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ROBBED TWO CHILDREN OF THEIR PARENTS AND IMPRISONED THEM IN YOUR OWN MORAL SQUALOUR", has it occured to you that as this is a surrogacy that one of the gentlemen may infact be the biological father? You should at least think of all possibilities before spouting your vileness. I am not a religious person, nor am I homosexual and count my lucky stars that I do not have to adhere to dangerous and such misguided beliefs as you do. If you are brainwashing people with information such as this and instilling hated and intolerance towards your fellow man you should be prosecuted for it. These are clearly 2 gentle people who wish to live together, love each other and raise a family. We should be rejoicing that such kind hearted people still exist in this world.

matthias said...

What a nice tolerant person John CarterNotice that he says "you should be prosecuted for it",my my and I thought people were allowed to express their opinions. The Card's piece did not incite violence, but rather was an expression of his opinion regarding same sex parental families. We did not fight WW2 just to have freedom of expression removed. I have gay friends,lovely people,but that does not mean I agree with their choices. Johnny if you read a book by Phillip Yancey entitled "So what 's amazing about grace",you will see how he had tio deal with his best friend's- an advisor to Jerry falwell-coming out. By the way Johhny,litigation is the last refuge of a mug..... and you do not sound like one of those,just nice and tolerant,the tolerance however that is intolerant of other opinions.Read the life of Sophie Scholl and get a reality check.By the way John i am not religious either-just a Christian and there is a BIG DIFFERENCE

matthias said...

And further more I have a goatee and balding,and am a bit round in the middle but i am not gay. By the way Your Emminence ,John sounds like he wants to get the new secret police -the GayStapo(thanks to someone over at Bill Muehlenberg's blog) onto you

Louise said...

Dear oh dear, does Sydney really allow people like you to freely walk it's streets?

Behold! The totalitarian speaks!

their Indian heritage
Wasn't their also surrogate egg donor? Was she Indian?

This is multiculturalism and consumerism run mad.

Poor babies.
:(

matthias said...

No Louise you have got it wrong-he is a tolerant person-(more rant than tolerant) who just likes the world to be the same as him-gentle, non-religious therefore not bigotted-except against those who hold religious views and or a morality that has been a mainstay of our civilisation for 2000 years (Is that land of hope and glory you are singing Louise?) I allow John his views but when he starts talking prosecution in the face of opposing views then we know what side of the track he comes from,and it is the track that eventually leads to dictatorship and destruction.
Gosh i have really (tole)ranted)

Louise said...

I sit corrected, Matthias. But no, I am singing "Faith of our Fathers."

BTW, Pole, wrt such things as "gay marriage," do you know if there is anywhere a push to reverse the disastrous no-fault divorce laws, which have lead to this point?

Cardinal Pole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cardinal Pole said...

Mr. Carter,

Welcome to this blog. Now you say that

"Dear oh dear, does Sydney really allow people like you to freely walk it's streets?"

Thank you for providing a bit of evidence for what I think is the universal sequence of moral decay: first requests for tolerance, then requirements (with legal consequences for dissent) for tolerance, then requests to 'celebrate the diversity', then requirements (with legal consequences) for declining to 'celebrate the diversity'. Don't worry, I'm sure that within twenty or so years people like me will all be locked away and the rest of you can splash about merrily in the moral cesspool that you have made for yourselves.

You say that I

"have no idea who these people are ..."

They are people who think that inflicting violence on other people's backsides is a way of showing love. That is simply sick. They also think that children are commodities to be bought and sold:

"A baby carried by an Indian surrogate can be bought for as little as $30,000"
(from the article)

That is also quite sick.

Then you ask

"has it occured to you that as this is a surrogacy that one of the gentlemen may infact be the biological father?"

I found this question quite amusing, because up until the final paragraph I had indeed presumed that one of the sodomites was the biological father! But, silly me, then I got to the final paragraph, where it speaks of an unspecified "genetic father", so one would reasonably infer that neither of the pair is the genetic father.

You also say that if I am

"brainwashing people with information such as this and instilling hated and intolerance towards your fellow man [I] should be prosecuted for it."

But whom am I 'brainwashing'? And is it hatred towards my fellow man, or hatred of the unspeakable things that he does to others of my fellow men? In fact it's the latter, but I don't expect you to understand that since, like other apologists for the Sodomites' League, presumably you refuse to distinguish between sin and sinner. It would be bad enough if the sin were just kept between the two sinners, but when they try to bring children into that environment then that calls for the harshest of rebukes.

Finally: you say that:

"These are clearly 2 gentle people who wish to live together, love each other and raise a family."

They are two people who wish to sodomise each other and acquire children as accessories for their escapades. They deserve the harshest of condemnations.

Cardinal Pole said...

[Firstly let me just note that the deleted comment was mine, deleted because at one point I wrote 'intolerance' when I meant 'tolerance', with it re-posted in corrected form in the next comment.]

Louise,

You asked about

"Wasn't their also surrogate egg donor? Was she Indian?"

According to the article, Indian ova can be bought for $30 000, and South African ova for an extra ten grand.

Regarding the possible reversal of no-fault divorce laws: no plans for it as far as I know, though if I'm not mistaken it is a policy of the D.L.P.

Cardinal Pole said...

Matthias,

Note that I wasn't mocking anyone for looking a particular way, but, rather, just pointing out the striking similarity between the two men, which I have also noticed in other same-sex couples. If they had both been, say, tall, long-haired and clean-shaven I would have pointed out that similarity too.

matthias said...

No problem Your Grace, i was talking tongue in cheek .
.Friend of mine who is gay,and a Catholic,when i asked why he did not worship at the Metropolitan Community Church ,said "with those poor sad people? you have to be kidding me".
Yes Louise "Faith of Our fathers ," much better than the one i suggested ,although in the light of what we have been discussing perhaps Blake's "Jerusalem" would be better especially
"Against those dark Satanic mills"

Anonymous said...

you are a complete idiot.....have you ever sat down with anyone to find out what the gay community is like. Is this not an illegal thing to insult and preech lies??? Sit down with these two gentlemen...and gentle is the word, and you will find they are like any other person out there...unlike the catholic religion, these two men are more stable parents than most "hetrosexual" couples I know.

Louise said...

Anonymous, doesn't it strike you as just *little* incongruous to be preaching about the two gentle gay men (do you know them personally?) while denouncing Pole as a "complete idiot"?

I know the gay "community" is like and it ain't pretty, even if many of the people in it are no worse than the average human being and one or two are exceptionally nice.

Which are Pole's lies?

Finally, what does

unlike the catholic religion, these two men are more stable parents than most "hetrosexual" couples I know

actually mean? It appears not to make any sense.

Cardinal Pole said...

Louise, I've responded to your earlier questions in this post:

http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2009/02/on-traditional-socio-political-doctrine.html

Cardinal Pole said...

"Which are Pole's lies?"

Good question Louise. Where did I speak falsely, Anonymous?

And it's strange, isn't it Louise: Anonymous calls me a "complete idiot", then says "Is this not an illegal thing to insult and preech lies". As for it being illegal to insult, I don't think so, otherwise the Police would have to shut down the annual Sodomites' Parade because of the vicious parody that it makes with its 'Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence'. But it's always one standard for the degenerates and another for the rest of us, right Anonymous?

And how can you know, Anonymous, how 'stable' the pair in the article was? Given the high turnover of same-sex relationships, I wouldn't be too confident about predicting that they'll be in it for the long haul.

Anonymous said...

I do not think starting off by mocking the way someone looks is helpful to Cardinal Pole or his argument or calling people who are gay sodomites. I do know the gay couple in the article, and I have found them to be no different to other couple’s apart from the issue of sexuality. They have been together for a great many years longer than most marriages do. I have found them to be kind and loving people who help the community and their neighbours.

Further one is the biological father. All the long term studies on gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated that there is no damage to children despite what I and others might otherwise have thought. I was worried about the children of gay parents but I got to know some of them and found it was all in my head. The children were fine and the parents were to. I saw no damage and the studies back this up. I was shocked. I had to accept I was wrong.

I do not see moral decay however I am confused. If someone is a victim of abuse by the Catholic Church, then the Catholic Church hides and often seeks to punish the victims by covering things up as happened in my sister’s case. It appears to me the Catholic Church will accept paedophiles, and cover up for their sins, but go out of its way to punish people who are gay or lesbian. Indeed I have known of over 20 active homosexual priests but cannot help wonder if they all came out who would run the Catholic Church. I am told the bible says we should slaughter a cow on a full moon, but few do that. I guess we choose to accept what is a sin based on our own predisposition. I have many gay friends and know the children of gay parents. I have found a great amount of love in gay people.

Louise said...

Anonymous, the first thing which must be said, is that all good Catholics (or at least, normally functioning Catholics) are sickened and appalled by the sexual abuse of children by some clergymen and the subsequent cover-ups.

I am truly sorry for your sister, her suffering and the suffering of your family. The Pope has publicly apologised to all victims of abuse by clergy here in Australia. I sincerely hope for the full healing of your sister and all who love her.

As for the Bible - do be careful with it - there are lots of interesting things in it.

Anonymous said...

Dear Louise,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments about Catholics and my sister. I have worked for Catholic Charities and know of the many good and wonderful people in them. Not all agree with some of the current doctrine coming from the Pope. My sister’s problems are with the upper management of the Church and the way it continues to hide and make things difficult for victims of abuse.

I think it says a lot about someone to pick on others due their physical appearance, and then to go on and judge them so harshly whilst hiding in this forum. I do not think name calling and giving commands to people from either side of the debate is at all helpful to anyone. If Jesus found the compassion to kiss the foot of a prostitute although not accepting her way of life, I think we all must find the strength not to be so harsh and ready to judge people whose lifestyle we do not agree is for us.

Louise said...

Not all agree with some of the current doctrine coming from the Pope. My sister’s problems are with the upper management of the Church and the way it continues to hide and make things difficult for victims of abuse.

Dear Anonymous, I can only reiterate that any cover-ups or difficulties created for victims of abuse are completely unacceptable. I'm sorry to hear that this is the case. Does the diocese concerned have a new policy? Some dioceses (such as Hobart and Melbourne and presumably Sydney) have a definite policy/program to deal with these issues and which ought to be available to read, so that if things are not going as they should, there is some kind of guideline to judge these things by.

In most dioceses these days, victims are actively encouraged to seek the help of the police so that things can be properly investigated. Indeed that should really be the first thing a victim does when such a grave injustice occurs; the law exists to protect the innocent and to dispense justice.

As for the doctrine of the Pope, I will only say that it's the same it's always been and there are good Catholics who believe our catechism (ie what the Pope teaches) who are also appalled at these abuses. I am sure Pole, for example, is one such Catholic.

Louise said...

Anonymous, I know Pole's rhetoric is strong, but he is right to be pointing out the injustices of children being deliberately created in this unnatural way and then being brought up in a home with no mother. This is a different kind of injustice to a child than what happened to your sister, but it's an injustice nonetheless.

Nobody minds the victims of injustice speaking out strongly, with strong rhetoric, against those who have wronged them and that is what Pole is doing here on behalf of the little child in this story. Maybe we could confine ourselves to addressing that issue, if you would like to continue the discussion?

God bless you.

Anonymous said...

Dear Louise,

Pole picked on these guys because of there’re physical appearance in a really viscous way. He has shown he is not so interested in an intellectual discussion but rather raw anger at the lifestyle of these two gentlemen. Jesus did not attack the prostitute in such a vile way; he demonstrated compassion that is sadly lacking in the vitriolic attack on two people who are venerable members of our community. Jesus I am sure did not want his faith represented by hate. Let us think of his life and what he did.

Cardinal Pole said...

Anonymous,

You say that you

"do not think starting off by mocking the way someone looks is helpful to Cardinal Pole or his argument or calling people who are gay sodomites."

I pointed out their appearances only because of the striking resemblance between the two of them, not the appearances in themselves. Did you not read my response to Matthias?

As for calling them sodomites: that's what they are! Calling them homosexuals would be an insult to same-sex attracted peoplew who do not give in to their disordered appetites.You seem to think that I mean 'sodomite' as an insult, when in fact I mean it as a description of their behaviour.

"All the long term studies on gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated that there is no damage to children despite what I and others might otherwise have thought."

?????? Citations, please.

"I saw no damage and the studies back this up."

So why, as I note in one of my new posts, do same-sex couples themselves acknowledge the need for a stable first-hand experience of role models from both sexes? If they acknowledge this then why do they not acknowledge that the mother-father pairing is superior? (If you wish to discuss this point further then you might want to bring it up in the more recent post.)

You have my sympathies regarding your sister's case, and let me say this: I think that paedophiles should face the harshest--and I mean the harshest--punishments, and that their enablers should be punished in proportion to their degree of co-operation.

"I am told the bible says we should slaughter a cow on a full moon, but few do that."

Chapter and verse, please. Keep in mind, though, that there is a distinction between the moral law and the ceremonial law, what St. Thomas called the natural law and the Divine law, respectively. The sacrifices of the Old Law finished with the Sacrifice of Calvary.

"I guess we choose to accept what is a sin based on our own predisposition."

A sin is an offence against reason, not against one's subjective 'disposition'.

"I have found a great amount of love in gay people."

The proof of love is in the works. What they do to each other gives no proof of love.

"and then to go on and judge them so harshly whilst hiding in this forum."

Well, I hardly need address the accusation of 'hiding', given that you yourself are 'hiding', and the earlier call for my prosecution demonstrates the wisdom of adopting a pseudonym. As for the judgement part: there are some sins that are intrinsically evil, that is, they are always evil, regardless of the other circumstances. Two such sins are sodomy and the sin of setting out with the intention of depriving a child of a mother.

"He has shown he is not so interested in an intellectual discussion but rather raw anger at the lifestyle of these two gentlemen."

Why can't there be both?

And I won't even touch your attempt at a 'What Would Jesus do?' sophistry.

Louise said...

Anonymous, if I saw it that way I would agree with you, but did not Pole clarify his purpose in drawing attention to their appearance? I thought he was just pointing out that they look alike, not that they look in any way detestable.

After all, Matthias himself looks like these gentlemen (as he told us) and Pole has no quarrel with him!

Amani said...

One of the fathers is the genetic father. They just choose to not tell anyone who the genetic father is.

They are both beautiful lovely people.

As for sodomy, did you know 40 percent of gay males don't have anal sex, yet 80 per cent of the heterosexual community has tried it. You are therefore assuming they are sodomites.

It's none of your business anyway what a couple does in the privacy of their own home. As for carrying on about the way people look, how superficially pathetic of you.

Does the Bible not teach you to not sit in judgement of other people?

Cardinal Pole said...

Amani,

Welcome to this blog.

You say that

"... They just choose to not tell anyone who the genetic father is."

Imcluding their daughters?

You also say that

"As for sodomy, did you know 40 percent of gay males don't have anal sex, yet 80 per cent of the heterosexual community has tried it. You are therefore assuming they are sodomites."

Firstly it's interesting to note your apples and oranges comparison--you speak on the one hand of what gay men are doing, and then on the other hand you speak of what heterosexuals have merely tried.

But more importantly though: eighty per cent of heterosexuals have tried sodomy?!? Citation please! Same with the unsubstantiated figure you quote about homosexuals. I would expect the figure to be much higher; I think of A.B.C. T.V.'s series last year on the rise of the A.I.D.S. epidemic in Australia; one person interviewed spoke of how difficult it was to persuade gays to substitute other pseudo-sexual practices for sodomy.

"It's none of your business anyway what a couple does in the privacy of their own home."

Including, say, domestic violence? Because sodomy, or whatever these indivuals are doing to each other, is just consensual domestic violence. There's also the question of what happens when this private activity has public consequences, e.g. when they turn up at hospital emergency departments with anal fissures, or when they contract any of the various gay diseases.

You say that

"As for carrying on about the way people look, how superficially pathetic of you."

How many times do I have to explain this? Once more: when two people who could pass for twins pair up, one has to wonder how deeply narcisstic they must be.

Finally, you say that

"Does the Bible not teach you to not sit in judgement of other people?"

Chapter and verse, please. I cannot send a person to Heaven or to Hell, but certainly I can judge the moral quality of a concrete act.

Louise said...

Good Lord! Who knew there were so many blogs on surrogacy?