Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Ms Tom on so-called gay marriage

In her column in last Saturday's edition of The Weekend Australian, Ms Emma Tom, herself a supporter of so-called gay marriage, refuted the argument for it from the behaviour of brute animals:
News that animals can be as queer as folk has -- understandably -- been seized on by activists as indisputable proof that homosexuality is as "natural" a human state as heterosexuality.

But while such studies are an essential counter to the homophobic observer bias previously found in that alleged bastion of objectivity known as science, extrapolating from animal to human behaviour is precarious.

[...] No, fascinating and thought-provoking as they may be, animal sexual habits are like Rorschach inkblot tests: squint hard enough and you'll see whatever you want.

The argument that natural occurrences automatically have moral worth is also suss. Rape, infanticide, snuff sex and necrophilia are all common in the animal kingdom yet no one's agitating for more humans to hop into these unattractive practices.

In truth, biological determinism can't be used to determine anything except that animals and humans are biologically exuberant and highly resistant to sexual pigeon-holing.
Ms Tom went on to offer some pro-'gay-marriage' arguments, but they were so weak that I will not refute them here. Instead I will state, as succinctly as possible, why so-called gay marriages are invalid, in response to Ms Tom's assertion that "the case against simply doesn't stack up":
Marriage, in the most general sense of the word, means to unite two complementary parts into a whole. Given this, it is not necessary to provide a full definition of matrimony; it is sufficient to point out the mode in which the spouses are joined in matrimony. Now as any supporter of so-called gay marriage will acknowledge, marriage is not just some kind of Platonic union of two friends; it is the conjugal union of two lovers. And since two persons of the same sex are incapable of consummating a conjugal union, they are incapable of marrying. That proves the invalidity of any 'gay marriage', and its illegitimacy as a simulation of real marriage is proved from the fact that the manner in which same-sex couples simulate (though as you know my preferred verb is 'parody') genuine conjugal relations is an abuse of the faculties involved and is therefore, by definition, intrinsically evil (and of course the evil can never be the object of a right).
Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, A.D. 2010


Vincent said...

As a perfect example of how much (or how little) we can expect from most Australian "conservatives", here's the "conservative" Andrew Bolt wittering in praise of sodomites and daring to denounce Tony Abbott for lack of enthusiasm toward them:

If I were Bolt's wife I'd be very, very worried.

Anonymous said...

Most "conservatives" are just secularists a bit behind the progressive wave, so we can't expect too much from them.

Bolt has done a backflip on euthanasia now that he can see how evil it is, so you know, there's hope for him on this other issue.

Given this, it is not necessary to provide a full definition of matrimony; it is sufficient to point out the mode in which the spouses are joined in matrimony.

Well said, Pole.

Vincent said...

I didn't know that Bolt had done a backflip on euthanasia. This is interesting, and a relief, to hear. Of course since he rejects religion (let alone Catholicism) as an ethical and philosophical code superior to himself, it's not clear how his views can spring from anything more than whims.

Anonymous said...

True for all secularists, Vincent. They blow about with the wind...

Anonymous said...

His backflip was announced pretty recently - see if you can find his post.

ACE Soft said...

Nice blog for new generation

Kolkata Web Design Company

Quasi Seminarian said...

How does appealing to animals support or negate homosexual attraction.

Humans are not animals we are seperate beings in possession of reason and will.

That being said, I suppose the atheistic world is still looking for a system that makes sense of everything. It would be nice if the took care of themselves in a similar fashion to some of the main protagonists of attempts at such a system. I say this in love.

Cardinal Pole said...

Thanks for your comments everyone (except ACE Soft!) and sorry for my delay in getting back to you all--my internet access is still, for technical reasons, sporadic.

Vincent, were these the columns by Mr. Bolt to which you were referring (warning: There's a lewd picture at the first link)?

I suppose that we shouldn't be surprised, though, when even Australia's leading 'conservative' blogger Tim Blair supports so-called gay marriage:

"[He] support[s] gay marriage, sure. But [he] resolutely oppose[s] gay divorce [boom-tish]."
[My square-bracketed interpolations,
and also cited more recently (mid-2009) and in almost the same words here (though the link is broken):
Wedding song plays for gays, but it's no music to Rudd

When that sort of thing passes for conservatism, you know that there's not much left worth conserving.

(An interesting perspective on Mr. Abbott's mention of feeling "threatened":

"Seminary moment

"TONY Abbott's line about feeling a bit "threatened" by homosexuality continues to weigh on some minds. Adding his head-turning two bits to the discussion on ABC1's Insiders was our own Glenn Milne: "I don't want to give away confidences here on the program, but here you go. I don't think this has got to do with social values, I think this has got to do with Tony's experience in the seminary when he was a trainee priest. I think that . . ."

"Host Barrie Cassidy: "You think that or you know that?"

"Milne: "I know that . . . I think that what he saw there and what he felt . . . I think he was speaking in a personal sense." [...]"
[Bold type in the original,]
One of the many horrors of being a seminarian in the Novus Ordo in the mid-1980s, I imagine.)

Cardinal Pole said...

"How does appealing to animals support or negate homosexual attraction."

Good question, Quasi, yet pro-sodomite types don't hesitate to do just that; I've dealt with one such instance in the past: Go to

and search the name "Victor Marsh".

At the root of the 'homosexuality/sodomy/so-called gay marriage as a natural thing' fallacy is the failure to discriminate properly between 'natural' in the sense of 'non-artificial' and 'natural' in the sense of 'suitable to the nature of a thing'. The good can only be the natural in the latter sense, since there are some artificial things, e.g. medicine, which no-one would dispute are good, and some non-artificial things, e.g. disease, which no-one disputes are bad. Yet every so often one sees someone trying to argue that since homosexuality/sodomy/whatever is natural in the sense of occuring non-artificially then it must be good.