Prager on “Why a Good Person Can Vote against Same-Sex Marriage”

Dennis Prager has a good post called:

Why a Good Person Can Vote against Same-Sex Marriage
Changing the definition of marriage is bad for society.

By Dennis Prager

I love this paragraph:

The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be; what Professor Thomas Sowell calls “Stage One Thinking.” That explains, for example, the entitlement state. It sounds noble and seems noble. But the long-term consequences are terrible: economic ruin, a demoralized population, increasing selfishness as people look to the state to take care of their fellow citizens, and more.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Prager on “Why a Good Person Can Vote against Same-Sex Marriage”

  1. wmeyer says:

    Stage one thinking is a hallmark of our current society. Most people do not look beyond the immediate impact of a decision or action. Hence we get presidents who “save” 10,000 jobs through a tariff, with the result that 60,000 jobs are lost to the secondary effects.

    The very thin and excellent Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt should be required reading in all high schools–the lesson is essential to rational adult decisions.

  2. chantgirl says:

    Our culture doesn’t know how to handle suffering, and can’t abide tough love. That’s why we are obsessed with youth, and toying with euthanasia. It’s why we tolerate abortion in difficult situations, why we silently condone homosexual behavior, why we do prenatal testing to abort the imperfect, why we do not go to confession, why priests don’t preach about hell, and why we tolerate research on embryos. It’s why we are speeding toward a debt meltdown and can’t stop spending. Our modern culture lacks the ability to make sense of the Cross, and certainly lacks the will to carry it. We cannot apply a remedy that will be painful. We are ultimately running away from correction, from reality, from death, from judgment.

  3. The Masked Chicken says:

    Yea, Chantgirl!

    “We are ultimately running away from correction, from reality, from death, from judgment.”

    …but neither Nature nor God can be fooled. There will come a (w)reckoning.

    The Chicken

  4. Elizabeth R says:

    The link is opening the default National Review page

  5. joan ellen says:

    Yaaay to all of the above…
    Professor Thomas Sowell calls “Stage One Thinking.” = No thinking except sense thinking or feeling thinking, rather than thought thinking.

    wmeyer: “Most people do not look beyond the immediate impact of a decision or action.” = souls falling apart…disintegrating.

    chantgirl: “We are ultimately running away from correction, from reality, from death, from judgment.” = That all requires thought.

    chantgirl: “…but neither Nature nor God can be fooled. There will come a (w)reckoning.” = The unbaptized and unconfirmed do not have the gifts that we have. It won’t be their reckoning, but rather our reckoning if we are slothful in this mess. Just sayin.

    Needed: the re-building and re-vitalizing of souls for conversions.

    It’s what the Blessed Mother asked for at Fatima…Pray for the conversions of poor sinners everywhere.

  6. joan ellen says:

    Should be Pray for the conversion of poor sinners everywhere.
    Also, the New Evangelization maybe means a new effort/emphasis at helping others (and ourselves) in conversion. It should be easier using the old methods – question/answer catechisms.
    These question/answer methods cause us to think about now and then. Life now and Eternity.

  7. frjim4321 says:

    Though similar statements could be used to justify slavery, even quoting this morning’s first reading for support.

  8. Southern Catholic says:

    Though similar statements could be used to justify slavery, even quoting this morning’s first reading for support.

    Did you even read what Dennis Prager wrote before using that red herring?

  9. frjim4321 says:

    SC – You don’t think that proponents of slavery predicted that the disruption of the social order and downfall of civilization would result from abolition?

  10. SKAY says:

    Race,slavery and the black civil rights movment = SSM frjim? Proststant Bishop Jackson in the video in an earlier post by Father Z does not agree with you. In fact he resents it as an African American.

    The preacher who spoke at Obama’s inauguaration now equates not voting for Obama to racism and hatred. Do you agree with that?
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/31/Obama-benediction-2008-white-people-go-to-hell

    He needs to look in the mirror.

  11. dominic1955 says:

    Obviously you didn’t read it or didn’t pay attention. Race and sex are two vastly different things. To enslave someone or to consign them to a sequestered existence based on the color of their skin is immoral because it raises an accidental quality to a false negative importance. There is nothing objectively that makes a black person objectively different from a white person or anyone else. It is not like blacks and whites are even like horses and donkeys, two closely related but not quite creatures that produce a useful (to us) but defective offspring.

    A black man or woman and a white man or woman meet all the requirements for natural marriage and for sacramental marriage assuming all the canonical things are in order. Their sexual relationship is at least potentially ordered to reproduction. Thus, there is nothing other than an emotional aversion to seeing the races mix standing in the way of legitimizing inter-racial marriage in the eyes of society. Its always been fine in the eyes of the Church, objectively speaking.

    Two men or two women (of any race) never can meet those requirements. The sexual relationship they have in their faux-marriages are nothing but objectively sinful and un-natural to boot. The relationship obviously cannot even potentially produce offspring. There is rightful aversion to this unnatural union as sodomy is still and always will be a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. People do rightfully regard such behavior as shameful and objectively speaking, such unnatural sexual license subjects the person who engages in it to so many more diseases and medical issues than even fornicating heterosexuals who practice natural sex.

    Lastly, it seems to me that while there are a few gays who want to “settle down”, the more general gay culture is one of serial promiscuity, at least it is not seen as a problem even if one chooses not to engage in it. The real push for gay “marriage” has nothing really to do with “fairness” or “equality” or “rights” or none of that stuff. It has to do with the radical push to alter society. Those who push for these things want a non-gendered world of people and parents, not men and women or mothers and fathers. They want societal approval for all the sexual enormities they care to practice.

    Any petty bourgeoisie conventions that stand in the way of their Brave New World must fall. I don’t even think this is some grand conspiracy or that there is some mastermind or ruling cabal somewhere. I think people just do not excercise their ability to actually think. Too many folks go through life feeeeeling and feeeeling that they’ve forgoten that feeling and thinking are not the same. So now, we have to let the radicals and sexual deviant have their way because to do otherwise would create anger and sadness and those are bad feelings that make us feel bad and we don’t like to feel bad.

  12. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    SC – You don’t think that proponents of slavery predicted that the disruption of the social order and downfall of civilization would result from abolition?

    Of course, that did happen in the South. The economy and social order collapsed. I think it was Jefferson who said that slavery was like having a wolf by the ears: A bad idea, but letting go would create huge problems. All in all, a grand example of Providence.

    Further, slavery deprives people of natural rights–to property and to marriage (individual members of of families were sold). Same sex “marriage” is against the natural law–there can be no natural right to it.

  13. Sissy says:

    “Though similar statements could be used to justify slavery”

    You progressives are in a trick box. African-Americans are insulted and incensed about the homosexual lobby making this bogus analogy to the Civil Right’s struggle. Whom to pander to: racial minorities or gays???? You’d better be careful; the coalition built on identity politics just might break apart.

  14. Maltese says:

    It’s inevitable that gay “marriage” will be the law of the land here in the US, and throughout the world, soon, just as abortion is (unfortunately, we set the trend for such things).

    But what will never change, and can never change, is that true marriage is a Sacramental bonding between a man and a woman first and foremost for procreation.

    So, they can call it what they want, but it is not a Sacrament.

  15. wmeyer says:

    You’d better be careful; the coalition built on identity politics just might break apart.

    We pray that it does, and that morals and reason may prevent its resuscitation.

  16. Gail F says:

    Interesting that we have come to a point where he has to title it “Why a Good Person can be against…” Interesting too that he says we must admit that not allowing same-sex couples to marry is not fair to them. Both are accommodations to a culture that is obsessed with fairness and goodness without knowing what either one are. It is NOT unfair that same-sex couples cannot have the benefits of marriage, but I can see why in many cases it would be best to concede that point — same-sex marriage proponents are defining “fair” in a different way, and you cannot have a discussion without agreeing on definitions. They mean that any two people who love each other and want to be married should be allowed to marry and and have the benefits of marriage. Their case is bolstered by the fact that, in our country and at this time, nearly all marriages are based on love (not at all the case in much of the world even today) and that we largely grant the benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples who choose to live together without marrying. But the latter is a problem — only people who actually do marry should have the benefits of marriage, and only people who are eligible to be married should be permitted to marry. There are many other lifestyles one could choose, and our society accepts them now more than at any other time. But one of the consequences of choosing such a lifestyle — which, again, is NOT marriage — should be that you do not receive the things that are proper to marriage.

  17. Sissy says:

    wmeyer, it will certainly be to the benefit of racial minorities and those in the lowest economic strata if that coalition finally snaps. These are the cohorts who would be most benefitted by Republican policies, for instance, school choice.

  18. acricketchirps says:

    Oh I can still remember the stories my great-great uncle’s stories of those awful days–long days–in leg shackles–under the whip–forced to pick cotton patterns and fabrics for drapes and ottomans, while the others–the unlucky ones–were sent out to choreograph dance numbers under really tight deadlines.

  19. dominic1955 says:

    That’s the other problem, people think marriage is a contract that comes after the luv feelings last for a while. We also need to define what exactly “love” is-looking to Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Deus caritas est is most helpful.

    I might “love” a line of coke or stabbing people, but that’s an abuse of the word. The proper outlet for love between two people of the same sex has always been and will always be philos-friendship or brotherly love. Eros, or romantic/erotic love is properly ordered towards procreation.

    Even someone as crass as Madonna figured out the simple fact that love does not equal sex and sex does not equal love.

  20. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Actually, it was well-known, even in antiquity, that slavery was an economic trap for the slavers. It was enslaving huge numbers of war captives that ultimately destroyed free Roman farming and other important parts of Republican society, and it was slavery that locked Rome into needing to expand so much and created the empire.

    Of course, it was high taxes from various imperial needs that ended up enslaving huge segments of poor free men and women for service on the huge latifundia plantations, thus ironically providing Rome with fewer taxpayers. So taxes was part of it, too.

  21. frjim4321 says:

    The preacher who spoke at Obama’s inauguaration now equates not voting for Obama to racism and hatred. Do you agree with that?

    No, I would not take it that far. However I would be inclined to agree with commentators who suggest that racism is more of an issue in 2012 that it was in 2008. And I am sure that racism is not the only reason people will vote for Romney. I do believe that racisim is a factor driving some Romney voters, but it is clearly not the only reason. I know people who are voting for Romney who are not racists.

    re: slavery/racism . . . I was not referring to race, I was referring to slavery … two different issues.

  22. The Masked Chicken says:

    There was a paper just released claiming that when on is empathetic (i. e., a “liberal”) the analytic (i.e., conservative) network in the brain shuts off and visa-versa.

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/31/1851243/empathy-represses-analytic-thought-and-vice-versa

    The Chicken

  23. Imrahil says:

    People think marriage is a contract that comes after the luv feelings last for a while.

    Because it… erm… is.

    I’d advise against putting asunder what by the will of the Creator belong together, and the feeling of love and the virtue of love quite obviously belong into that category. Forgive the pathos. We may distinguish them; we might discuss at length which one is better (I’d advise against that because it’s so very trivial); we might even think of injecting words as Latin forma and Latin materia into the discussion. Naturally, many have pointed out (I think of C. S. Lewis) that we may force ourselves to love one form whom we do not feel sympathy. But while doing so if necessary is good and obligatory, still anyone will see that this love is… well… defective. And if we really do force ourselves to love, normally the feelings will at least come after.

    On the other hand, the basical outline of the problem is that they want us to call marriage what is not marriage, what, coming to think of it, even in all decadency of the modern times they would not even themselves call marriage save either colloquially or when just in the action of pursuing their political agenda. And, of course, they want the benefits of marriage; which, given that they were meant for marriage, is a quite clear case of cum enim par habetur honos summis et infimis, ipsa aequitas iniquissima est (Cicero, De Rep. I 53, though he was talking of not precisely the same thing); not to say theft, or worse.

    Still, the problem is not solved by tipping out of the bathtub the baby together with the water (as we say around here). An accurate analysis from orthodox background of what their feelings precisely are would be interesting; maybe remains to be done (there are just aberrations, but I guess that’s not all there is to say here); but simply disregarding the authentic and glorious feeling of love gives away the very thing that is to be defended, I surmise.

  24. The Masked Chicken says:

    should be
    …when ONE is empathetic..

    not when empathy is turned to the on position.

  25. wmeyer says:

    However I would be inclined to agree with commentators who suggest that racism is more of an issue in 2012 that it was in 2008.

    In my region, whites are generally oblivious to skin color. On the other hand, many blacks here will vote for Obama, simply because of his color. Apart from the liberal news people and nationally known black preachers whose livelihood depends on keeping the notion of racial discrimination alive, I observe few white people for whom race appears to be an issue in everyday matters.

  26. chantgirl says:

    FrJim4321- I doubt very much that we have become more racist as a country in the last four years. The people who wouldn’t vote for Obama based solely on race would not have voted for him in 2008. The fact that support for Obama has dropped in the last four years speaks more to the disappointment that many voters feel over Obama’s performance as President. The votes he has lost over the last four years are not because we have suddenly become more racist. Assigning motives to vast swaths of people that you don’t know in order to avoid accepting that people could possibly disagree with the President on his policies is uncharitable.

  27. Sissy says:

    “re: slavery/racism . . . I was not referring to race, I was referring to slavery … two different issues.”

    Nice try at changing the subject, Father Jim. You’re an educated man, so you are well aware that race and slavery in this country are very much connected. And African-Americans do not take kindly to having their long struggle for equality conflated with homosexuals’ demands for special privileges.

  28. wmeyer says:

    frjim4321: I would refer you to the CCC:
    2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

    Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

  29. Sissy says:

    frjim4321 said: “I do believe that racisim is a factor driving some Romney voters”

    Do you have any evidence for that harsh accusation, Father Jim? I think wmeyer makes a good point above about refraining from rash judgement.

  30. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Chicken,

    sorry, but if you equate (supposedly cold) analyticism with conservativism and empathy with (English-language) “liberalism”, my conclusion would be that the conservative cause is being given away.

    Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. (Chesterton, Orthodoxy III).

    On an aside, what still upholds some religion in our society as it is, is an aversion against the coldness of what is supposed to be logic.

  31. acardnal says:

    Getting back to the immorality, i.e. mortal sin, of same sex marriage (the subject of this post) and the grave sin of homosexual activity, priests and bishops need to start exercising their office and preaching the hard truth from the pulpit! If they don’t, then the laity will believe the errors of the secular world and media and go to hell. Priests and bishops will be held responsible by the Almighty for their timidity and love of this world.

    Today this was posted on ChurchMilitant.tv:
    http://gloria.tv/?media=354259

  32. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    .I do believe that racisim is a factor driving some Romney voters, but it is clearly not the only reason. I know people who are voting for Romney who are not racists.

    I’ll bet there are more people voting for Obama who are in favor of murdering the unborn than there are racists voting against him.

  33. frjim4321 says:

    I’ll bet there are more people voting for Obama who are in favor of murdering the unborn than there are racists voting against him. – r b

    Hmmm. Are you saying that being pro-birth and being racist are mutually exclusive ?

    Think I might dispute your premise.

  34. frjim4321 says:

    rb – tho on further review you seem to have opened a rabbit hole and I fell right into it . . . this post had nothing to do with “murdering the unborn.” Guess you go me.

  35. frjim4321 says:

    go = got

  36. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    I’ll bet there are more people voting for Obama who are in favor of murdering the unborn than there are racists voting against him. – r b

    Hmmm. Are you saying that being pro-birth and being racist are mutually exclusive ?

    Not only did I not say that, I said nothing that can be rationally construed that way.

    I simply said that if there are people who are voting against Obama because they are racists, there are at least an equal number of people who are voting for him because they are pro abortion.

    And it’s not a rabbit hole. If someone wants to do a worst case analysis of why people vote against Obama, it’s relevant to do same on why some vote for him.

    And nb: Abortion on demand, same sex unions, and racism all offend the civil order. Only the first two, however, are official positions of both a party and its Presidential nominee.

  37. chantgirl says:

    Honestly, I think that the Church’s wise opposition to same sex “marriage” is the least understood part of the Church’s view on sexual morality by the public. JPII’s Theology of the Body does a great job of showing why God’s plan for sexuality leads to true liberation and happiness, and explains the loving concern behind the “no’s” of the Church’s teaching. Each and every person, no matter whether they experience heterosexual or homosexual attraction, will be a slave to their sexual feelings or the master of them. Either their sexual feelings are in concert with God’s plan for them, or they are pulling them away from God and away from the happiness God wants them to have. Even the happily married have to struggle to be chaste. JPII was dead-on when he said that sex is the battleground between love and lust, selflessness and selfishness, gift or use. In this one act is contained the choice between the true love that God offers and the twisted, empty illusion of love that the devil offers. God’s gift is a foretaste of Heaven while the devil’s deception is a foretaste of hell, to which anyone who has ever fallen into serious sexual sin can attest. As a teenager I struggled greatly with sexual sin and I personally know the emptiness and shame, and the absence of God’s presence in my soul that a person feels after committing serious sins. I also thought at the time that the Church’s teaching on sex was rather arbitrary and impossible to live out, and so frequently felt despair. The Theology of the Body, along with confession, liberated me from this. If we truly love those who are struggling with sexuality, we will offer them compassion and the truth. Only when their sexuality is used according to God’s purpose will they be happy and free of the very real chains that come with the choice to abuse God’s gift. We need to push the message that our God-given gift of sexuality is a precious thing to safeguard, and if we use it in accord with it’s intended purpose, will bring us great joy.

  38. wmeyer says:

    Each and every person, no matter whether they experience heterosexual or homosexual attraction, will be a slave to their sexual feelings or the master of them.

    Exactly. And likewise for every impulse any of us may feel which could lead us to sin. Temptation is an urge, not a controlling force. We have free will, and must choose to follow right action, not based on urges and temptations, but on a well formed conscience, in accord with Church teaching.

  39. acardnal says:

    Short video from Gloria.tv using Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to remind us that homosexual acts are an abomination to God. Perhaps VP Biden, Pelosi and others should be required to watch this by their bishops.

    http://gloria.tv/?media=354358

  40. catholicmidwest says:

    And yes, I know what the Church teaches, and no amount of human nonsense can change that. But that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking whether we will recognize that and take our lumps or whether we will try to put it off again.