academic freedom Culture Intelligent Design

An open letter to Archbishop Jerome Listecki

Spread the love

Your Excellency, I humbly ask you to strike a blow for academic freedom, free speech and religious freedom, by publicly forbidding Marquette University from calling itself a Catholic university henceforth, and by revoking the mandate of theology teachers at Marquette University to teach theology. In this letter, I’d like to explain why I believe these drastic measures are necessary and justifiable.

Before I go on, I’d better introduce myself. My name is Vincent Torley, and I’m an Australian Catholic layman (now residing in Japan), with a Ph.D. in philosophy and several other degrees. Thanks to my years of study in an open academic environment where people were free to defend any and every point of view, I have a firm commitment to the values of academic freedom and unfettered free speech on campus, and I have defended these values on previous occasions (see here and here). At the same time, I believe that a university which calls itself Catholic should be free to propagate Catholic beliefs – such as the belief that abortion is wrong, or that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

What happened at Marquette University

Which brings me to my reason for writing this letter. Yesterday, I came across a report on Breitbart by Austin Ruse on a blatant attempt to suppress academic freedom and free speech at one of America’s top Catholic universities: Marquette University. After reading the report’s opening paragraph, I was dumbstruck with astonishment:

Marquette University has moved to suspend and then fire Professor John McAdams for backing a student who tried to defend man-woman marriage when a leftist teaching assistant shut the student down.

It appears that back in the fall of 2014, the teaching assistant told the student in no uncertain terms that he was not allowed to defend the traditional Catholic doctrine of man-woman marriage in the classroom. “You can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, and sexist comments will not be tolerated,” she said. [See here for a transcript of their conversation, which was published in The Atlantic in an article by Conor Friedersdorf.] When the student pressed her further, and asked: “So, are you saying that not agreeing with gay marriage is homophobic?”, the teaching assistant responded: “To argue that individuals should not have rights is going to be offensive to someone in this class.” (In fact, the Marquette Harassment policy prohibits “verbal, written or physical conduct directed at a person or a group based on… gender or sexual orientation where the offensive behavior… could or does result in mental, emotional or physical discomfort, embarrassment, ridicule or harm,” which means that if there had been a gay or lesbian student in the classroom that day, he or she could have legitimately complained of “mental or emotional discomfort,” upon hearing a student defend the Catholic position on marriage.)

When this incident came to the attention of Marquette University political science associate professor John McAdams, a tenured academic who has a Harvard Ph.D., he publicized the incident on his private blog, in an entry dated November 9, 2014. But after the teaching assistant in question complained of getting hate mail, McAdams was told that he would be stripped of his tenure and fired, even though McAdams had nothing to do with those hateful messages, and even though the teaching assistant had already been granted a tenure track position at another university. (Dr. McAdams was also subsequently criticized for naming the teaching assistant, but he broke no university rules in doing so, and as Dr. McAdams has pointed out, she was not functioning as a “student,” but as a faculty member, when she shut down a classroom discussion on the traditional view of marriage. For more on the university’s accusations against Dr. McAdams, see this comment below.) Since then, a “diverse” faculty committee has recommended to the university president that Dr. McAdams be suspended without pay from April 1 through the fall of 2016, and that he lose his job unless he admits his “guilt” and issues a grovelling apology expressing his regret at the “harm” suffered by the graduate student “within the next two weeks.” Specifically, Dr. McAdams must acknowledge that his original November 9, 2014, blog post was “reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University.”

Your Excellency, I submit that the behavior of the president and the faculty committee at Marquette University constitutes a clear-cut violation of academic freedom, and that the teaching assistant’s declaration that the Catholic doctrine of marriage was off-limits in her philosophy classroom was an equally clear violation of free speech, as well as a contravention of the religious freedom of a Catholic university.

How other academics and journalists reacted

And I’m not the only one who feels this way: an article in the Huffington Post by Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), titled, Free Speech on Campus: The 10 Worst Offenders of 2014 (March 2, 2015), listed Marquette University as one of the ten American colleges guilty of the most egregious violations of free speech during the past year:

Marquette University’s chilling campaign to revoke the tenure of political science professor John McAdams due to writings on his private blog ensures its place on this year’s list. McAdams criticized a graduate instructor for what he viewed as her inappropriate suppression of certain viewpoints for in-class discussion (one student’s opposition to same-sex marriage in particular), and the instructor came in for heavy criticism. Marquette then suspended McAdams without due process and abruptly cancelled his classes for the next semester. It also publicly insinuated that McAdams violated its harassment policy and was a safety threat to the campus, despite a complete lack of proof for either charge. Marquette’s disregard of due process and its incredible denial that its campaign against McAdams’s tenure implicates free speech or academic freedom in any way should frighten anyone concerned about faculty rights. Indeed, if the university succeeds in removing McAdams, free speech and academic freedom will lose whatever meaning they had at Marquette.

A more recent article by journalist Nico Perrino, on FIRE’s blog site, dated March 25, 2016, bears the title: Marquette Continues to Earn ‘Worst School’ for Free Speech Label With New Punishments for McAdams. Permit me to quote from one very telling paragraph:

As a result of Marquette’s complete disregard for McAdams’ right to free speech and academic freedom, FIRE placed the university on its list of the worst colleges for free speech in each of the last two years. With Marquette’s latest unjust actions against McAdams, the university seems to be angling for permanent residence on our list.

And here’s what the editor of The Academe Blog, the blog of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), wrote about Marquette University’s decision to fire Professor John McAdams: “This latest development is far more alarming. AAUP regulations, and Marquette’s own policies, explicitly prohibit what Marquette is now doing: punishing a professor for publicly expressing his opinions.”

Or as Professor McAdams himself pithily puts it: “Marquette is an intolerant, politically correct institution whose ‘Catholic mission’ is nothing but a marketing gimmick.”

Professor Anne Hendershott, writing in Crisis magazine, concludes her article, Protecting Students from Catholicism At Marquette (February 16, 2015), with a succinct formulation of the real issue at stake here: “Do faithful Catholics on Catholic campuses have the right to express their support for Catholic teachings on faith and morals? At Marquette, the answer seems to be no.”

What need to be done: disaffiliate the Catholic Church from Marquette University

Your Excellency, I am quite sure that you will concur with the foregoing sentiments regarding freedom of speech and academic freedom, so with your permission, I’d like to move on to the practical question of what should be done to discourage similar violations of students’ and academics’ freedom in the future by other Catholic universities in the United States.

The proper course of action, I believe, is a very drastic one: you need to cut Marquette University loose, by declaring publicly that it is no longer a Catholic university, and that consequently, its theology teachers can no longer be trusted to teach Catholic theology. I say “you” because you’re the only person who can do this, for reasons I’ll discuss below.

“Why take such a severe measure?” you may be asking yourself. “And even if the university has done wrong, shouldn’t it be given a second chance?”

No, it should not. The answer has to do with honesty in advertising. As a Catholic parent, I’d like to explain why.

Honesty in advertising: a story of a Catholic student

Picture the Catholic parents of an 18-year-old Grade 12 student, who will be going to college next year. The parents care deeply about passing on the faith, so they look for a Catholic university where they can send their child. They realize, of course, that many students question their faith in college, but they want to provide their child with a solid grounding in his/her faith – one in which every question posed by an inquiring mind would be competently answered by Catholic priests and teachers, and where intelligent arguments for the Catholic faith could be presented fairly and without distortion.

Now suppose that there were a university which publicly advertised itself as a “Catholic university,” but whose deeds did mot match its words: a university where arguments supporting the Catholic Church’s teaching on faith and morals could not even be discussed without violating its rules of conduct, and where skeptical questions would never be answered from a Catholic perspective, in the classroom. And suppose it was this university to which the above-mentioned parents chose to send their child, in the mistaken belief that their child’s Catholic faith would be nurtured in such an environment? Here’s my question, Your Excellency: what do you think the parents would say, when they finally learned the truth? “We were deceived!” That’s what they’d say. That’s certainly what I would say, if I were the father of that 18-year-old student.

Next question: who do you think those parents would blame, if the university in question were Marquette University? I’ll tell you: they’d blame you. Not the University’s President, Michael Lovell, but you. And they’d be absolutely right.

The buck stops with you, Your Excellency

Perhaps you’re thinking that the parents are being a little unfair, here. As you’ve argued previously, Marquette University is independent of the Archdiocese, and it makes its own hiring decisions. So why should you be held accountable for its un-Catholic behavior?

In order to answer this question, I’d like to quote from Father John Coughlin, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. In an interview with Zenit News Agency in 2006, Fr. Coughlin explained the essential characteristics of a Catholic university as laid out in canon law and in the 1990 apostolic constitution ‘Ex Corde Ecclesia‘:

From the perspective of canon law, a Catholic university must exhibit at least seven essential characteristics.

First, according to Canon 807, the Catholic university “promotes the deeper culture and full development of the human person in accord with the Church’s teaching office.”

Second, the majority of the faculty members consist of practising Catholics, as explained in Ex Corde Ecclesiae.

Third, Canon 810 states that the president and other officers of a Catholic university have the responsibility to ensure that faculty members are appointed who are “outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and uprightness of life.”

Fourth, the president of the Catholic university must make the profession of faith at the start of his or her term of office, according to Canon 833.

Fifth, the bishops’ conference and the diocesan bishop have the duty and right of ensuring that the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed.

Sixth, in line with Canon 812, theology teachers in a Catholic university must have a mandate from the local ordinary.

Finally, the use of the title “Catholic” is only with the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority, as outlined in Canon 808.

Your Excellency, you’ve repeatedly declared yourself to be the local ordinary of Marquette University (see here, here and here). That means you can revoke the mandate held by theology teachers at Marquette University, if you wish. Let me make it clear at this point that I’m not accusing the theology teachers of any wrongdoing whatsoever. My point is simply that in an academic environment where arguments in support of Catholic positions on faith and/or morals cannot even be aired, the orthodoxy of theology teachers is moot. If defending the Catholic position on morality contravenes university regulations, then those teachers can no longer be relied on to faithfully transmit Catholic teaching, no matter how orthodox they may be. Revoking their mandate sends a clear signal to parents of prospective students that their sons and daughters cannot expect to hear a cogent public defense of the arguments in support of the Church’s position on faith and morals at Marquette University. That is why it is important.

I’d now like to address the last condition listed by Fr. John Coughlin in the interview I cited above: the use of the title “Catholic” is only with the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority. Who is that authority? I believe it is you, Your Excellency. Permit me to quote a short paragraph from a popular Catholic pamphlet (written in 1992) titled, How to Keep Your University Catholic (The Cardinal Newman Society, Revised Third Edition, 2009) by Rev. Leonard A. Kennedy, C.S.B., Ph.D. (emphases mine):

In some diocesan universities the bishop is chairman of the trustees, in others simply a member of the trustees, and in others not a trustee. But is should make no difference. And it should make little difference whether a university is conducted by a diocese, a group of Catholic laity, a religious congregation, or a board of trustees set up by a religious congregation; for, according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, a bishop has the duty and right to see that the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed in all institutions of higher studies in his diocese which call themselves Catholic (canons 810, 814). He can declare a university to be Catholic or no longer Catholic (canon 808) and can withdraw from anyone teaching theological subjects the mandate to do so (canon 812). No doubt these powers should be exercised only after other means of dealing with difficulties are exhausted; these canons are first of all intended to ensure that a Catholic university will consult with the local bishop. Of course, if a bishop has a diocesan university, he could influence it more readily than otherwise.

According to Fr. Leonard Kennedy, a diocesan bishop “can declare a university to be Catholic or no longer Catholic.” Marquette University is located within the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, and you are the Archbishop of Milwaukee. Unlike you, Your Excellency, I have no expertise in canon law. However, I think I’m entitled to conclude that the “competent ecclesiastical authority” referred to in Canon 808 of the Code of Canon Law is you, Your Excellency. Canon 808 states: “Even if it is in fact Catholic, no university is to bear the title or name of Catholic university without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.” Your consent – not the President’s, or anyone else’s – is what is required for Marquette University to call itself Catholic.

I hope you can now see why the parents in my story would be fully justified in holding you responsible, if they sent their child to Marquette University and later discovered that it was Catholic in name only.

I’ll let Dr. McAdams have the last word (h/t M.D. Kittle, Watchdog.org, Can Opposing Same-Sex Marriage Get You Fired at Marquette University?, The Daily Signal, November 13, 2015):

“What’s happening at Marquette is what is happening everywhere, but that’s a shame because Marquette claims to be a Catholic university. For heaven’s sake, opposing same-sex marriage ought to be allowed at a Catholic university.”

The ball is in your court, Your Excellency. In Heaven’s name, do something.

Yours sincerely,

Vincent Torley

—————————————————

Postscript – How to defend the Church’s prohibition of “gay marriage” intelligently

The student at the center of this story who argued with his graduate instructor about gay marriage cited studies purporting to show that children raised in same-sex households fared poorly, when compared with children raised by opposite-sex parents. In a similar vein, Professor Anne Hendershott, in her article on the incident, refers to “the newest study by Catholic University sociologist Paul Sullins, which found that in a representative sample of 207,007 children, including 512 with same sex parents, children raised in same sex households were twice as likely to experience emotional problems than children with opposite sex parents.”

In my experience, this line of argument tends to backfire, badly. To put it bluntly, we don’t currently have the kind of rigorous sociological data required to substantiate the conclusion that children raised by same-sex parents fare worse than children raised by opposite-sex parents. The Sullins study, for instance, does indeed show that children who are brought up in same-sex households tend to have more emotional problems, but it adds that this is because they are not biologically related to one or both parents. By contrast, children brought up in opposite-sex households are usually the biological offspring of both their parents. To quote from the study: “Biological relationship, it appears, is both necessary and sufficient to explain the higher risk of emotional problems faced by children with same-sex parents.” Indeed, a gay advocate could argue that the trauma of adoption (rather than the trauma of being raised by same-sex parents) is what accounts for the poor outcomes observed in these children.

A better defense of the traditional doctrine can be made by pointing out that “same-sex relationships, by design, require children to be removed from one or more of their biological parents and raised absent a father or mother,” as a gay man, writing in The Federalist (April 28, 2015), put it recently (I’m Gay, And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, by “Paul Rosnick”). One could argue that such an arrangement creates and perpetuates an injustice, and “Rosnick” agrees: “That hardly seems fair.”

However, in my own humble opinion, the best way to defend the Church’s position on gay marriage is by arguing as follows:

(1) Marriage, by its very nature, demands life-long sexual fidelity on the part of the parents, for the successful rearing of children. (There have been societies which tolerated polygamy, in the past; but that in no way negates the fact that children thrive when raised by parents in a monogamous relationship.)

(2) Gay partnerships do not require life-long sexual fidelity: indeed, most gay couples reject the very notion as antiquated and repressive. (See The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren’t Monogamous, by Hanna Rosin, in Slate, June 26, 2013.)

(3) Therefore marriage is fundamentally different from a gay partnership.

The issue at stake here is a very simple one: sexual monogamy. Sexual monogamy is required in order to achieve one of the chief goals of marriage; however, sexual monogamy is not required in order to realize the goals of a gay partnership. The two are completely different. When a State legislates that gays can marry, basically it is saying that monogamy is not an essential or even a desirable ingredient of marriage. Cheating is OK; indeed, the very concept of “cheating” no longer makes any sense. This is the “brave new world” that gay marriage has brought us: a world where children in public schools can no longer be taught that they should be faithful to their spouse, as gay couples might find that offensive.

What Americans really believe, however, is something quite different: a 2013 Gallup poll of 1,535 adults found that only 6% approved of married men and women having affairs, while 91% condemned it as morally wrong. At the same time, the poll found that a majority of respondents (59%) considered gay relationships morally acceptable.

A skilled teacher of Catholic doctrine could then pose the following rhetorical question to a philosophy class: is it really consistent for someone to (a) condemn adultery for heterosexual couples; (b) approve of same-sex couples having affairs; and (c) insist that there is no fundamental difference between man-woman marriages and gay partnerships?

62 Replies to “An open letter to Archbishop Jerome Listecki

  1. 1
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    The problem here is that the Jesuits seem to have a limitless tolerance for evil. There is no hill of truth they will die on. Salt without savor…it’s all over but the trampling underfoot by the secular culture.

  2. 2
    CLAVDIVS says:

    1. 57% of American Catholics support gay marriage. And that percentage is growing.

    2. McAdams was not dismissed for “backing a student”; on the contrary, he was dismissed was for publishing student names on a website to deliberately target them for harrassment, against policy and despite repeated warnings.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    Excellent thread about thought and speech control in a FREE nations places of higher teaching.

    They are banning conclusions on certain subjects by defining them by terms/concepts that define evil or injustice or unkindness etc.
    WELL> the student just needs to say, to such dumb defining tactics, THAT THEY are offended by gay marriage. Further that this teacher offended them in saying gay marriage was not immoral enough to speak against.
    my point is that in censorship agendas hiding behind defence against abusive speech JUST NEEDS better lawyering to beat them.

    The truth is the moral right of a free people in important matters.
    Saying race/sex/gay conclusions are abuse/immoral/illegal MUST prove first they are abuse before any censorship.
    otherwise everyone/anyone can define when abuse has taken place. THEN people in power see their chance once more for dictaorship and to overthrow the hard fought freedoms of the anglo american world and mankind.

    Another thing is also to deny there are racist/sexist/homophobic motives in mankind.
    they got away with this entry level conclusions within the last century.
    All there is opinions/conclusions about subjects of which race/sex/gay identity re on the list.
    Right or wrong, good or malicious regarding them is not to be defined by these labels not consented to by the people.

    HEY the sTUDENT should of said IN MY COUNTRY we don’t allow censorship of conclusions anywhere and in oUR schools!!
    Then take them to court.

    hEY. if a creationist said it offended him to hear the bible/God/creationism as wrong or dumb or defeated OF to simply hear about evolutionism THEN why not say it makes him uncomfortable or abused or sad and THAT WOULD END all origin discussions???

    its just thought/speech control like in the old days.
    They are breaking the law these censors.
    They are promoting their beliefs in the universities without competition.
    its like they control what kids will be taught.
    better lawyering is needed these days to fight for right.
    Our forefathers left us the tools and so no excuse.

    great thread idea.

  4. 4
    vjtorley says:

    Hi CLAVDIVS,

    Thank you for your post. You write that McAdams “was dismissed was for publishing student names on a website to deliberately target them for harassment, against policy and despite repeated warnings.” I’m afraid that’s not correct.

    Commenting on the charge that he had been warned “on multiple prior occasions” not to publicize students’ names in his blog posts, Dr. McAdams’ lawyer, Rick Esenberg, responds:

    Dean Holz claims that Dr. McAdams has been “asked, advised and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with [his] blog posts.” Apart from the fact that there would be no basis for doing so – particularly with respect to a person that the university has placed in charge of a class – this is simply false. Some months ago, Dean Holz told Dr. McAdams that representatives of a Palestinian student organization had felt “intimidated” during an interview by Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz’ letter dated September 24, 2014 says that he “trusts” Dr. McAdams will be “mindful” of the need to be sensitive with respect to his questions and status as a tenured faculty member. (Dr. McAdams believes that he was.) The letter says nothing about not publicizing any students’ names – much less those that the university has placed in charge of courses.

    Dean Holz complains that Ms. _______ received nasty e-mails from unknown persons after her views were exposed. That is regrettable just as it is regrettable that Dr. McAdams and many others receive hostile – and often anonymous – criticisms in response to the positions that they take. But there is also no “heckler’s veto” exception to the university’s guarantee of academic freedom. Dr. McAdams has blogged on matters related to the university for many years, often sharply criticizing persons with whom he disagrees. None of these persons were ever subject to threatening e-mails. If this was the first time, the responses were “forseeable” only in the sense that, human nature being what it is, one’s views will sometimes elicit uncivil responses. Certainly Ms. ______, if she wishes a career engaged in public and academic discourse over matters of ethics, is going to have to get used to this. Judging from her personal website, she is certainly capable of fending for herself.

    (I have edited out the name of the teaching assistant – VJT.)

    Regarding the accusation of harassment, Esenberg responds:

    Finally, as to the comments reported in yesterday’s newspaper, spokesperson Dorrington is reported to have said that, in banning Dr. McAdams from campus, the “safety of our students and campus community is our top priority.” He adds that the university will not tolerate “abuse” or “harassment” of students. Tell me, is it the university’s position that disagreement with someone constitutes endangering their “safety? Is it the university’s position that criticism is tantamount to “abuse” and “harassment?” These would be extraordinary positions and hard to reconcile with Mr. Dorrington’s concession that “a professor would not be subject to a review of this nature simply for voicing an opinion.”

    …The University has publicly suggested that Dr. McAdams has engaged in an expression of “hate or abuse.” Spokesperson Dorrington has implied that his presence on campus would endanger students and this conduct somehow constitutes “abuse” and “harassment.” These statements are false and defamatory, and have aggravated the injury to Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz now says that Dr. McAdams has engaged in conduct that is dishonorable and irresponsible. If Dean Holz has repeated those words to any third party it would be a further act of defamation.

    And here is what Dr. McAdams says regarding the nasty emails the teaching assistant received:

    Holz blames us for nasty e-mails that _______ received after our post went viral and was picked up by several other outlets. We, in the wake of the post, got a variety of nasty e-mails too. All this is deplorable. But never before, in our ten years of blogging, have we gotten reports of offensive e-mails received by people whom we blogged about. It may have happened, but we never heard of it.

    But Holz, instead of blaming the people who actually sent the nasty e-mails, blames us.

    _______ has apparently now left Marquette to pursue a Ph.D. at the University of Colorado. Colorado ranks among the top 40 Philosophy Ph.D. Departments in the country. Where does Marquette rank? Barely in the top 100.

    (Once again, I’ve blanked out the assistant’s name – VJT.)

  5. 5
    vjtorley says:

    Hi CLAVDIVS:

    Re your claim that 57 per cent of American Catholics support gay marriage: what they actually support is allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. That does not mean that they themselves would necessarily regard those unions as marriages in the sight of God.

    Finally, the survey you cited made no systematic attempt to differentiate Mass-going Catholics from non-observant Catholics, or Catholics in name only.

  6. 6
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi vjtorley

    McAdams “was dismissed was for publishing student names on a website to deliberately target them for harassment, against policy and despite repeated warnings.” I’m afraid that’s not correct.

    The university stated in writing he was dismissed, *not* for backing a student as you claimed, but for fomenting the harrassment of students. So what I said is correct. It’s also a pretty serious charge against an academic.

    Whether its true or not I do not know – there are 2 sides to every story.

  7. 7
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi vjtorley

    Re your claim that 57 per cent of American Catholics support gay marriage: what they actually support is allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. That does not mean that they themselves would necessarily regard those unions as marriages in the sight of God.

    My point was a majority of US Catholics would likely support the Marquette Harassment policy prohibiting disagreement with gay marriage in class, because such disagreement could result in mental, emotional or physical discomfort, embarrassment, ridicule or harm on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Finally, the survey you cited made no systematic attempt to differentiate Mass-going Catholics from non-observant Catholics, or Catholics in name only.

    Yes it did. 50% of regular churchgoers supported gay marriage.

  8. 8
    CLAVDIVS says:

    “Nearly 1-in-5 (17%) American adults report being raised in a religious tradition but are now religiously unaffiliated. …
    Among Americans who left their childhood religion and are now religiously unaffiliated, about one-quarter say negative teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people was a somewhat important (14%) or very important (10%) factor in their decision to disaffiliate.”

  9. 9
    Silver Asiatic says:

    according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, a bishop has the duty and right to see that the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed in all institutions of higher studies in his diocese which call themselves Catholic (canons 810, 814).

    It takes a while but things like this Pontifical
    Catholic University Of Peru Stripped By Vatican Of Right To Call Itself
    Catholic

    do happen. As they should.

  10. 10
    Indiana Effigy says:

    This is not about academic freedom. This is about terms of employment with respect to behaviour. I don’t know who is right, but it seems to me that a professor has a certain duty of behaviour towards the students in a university.

  11. 11
    Me_Think says:

    Fidelity does not depend on sexual orientation- it depends on how much the partners love each other. By propogating thoughts like

    Sexual monogamy is required in order to achieve one of the chief goals of marriage; however, sexual monogamy is not required in order to realize the goals of a gay partnership.

    and

    When a State legislates that gays can marry, basically it is saying that monogamy is not an essential or even a desirable ingredient of marriage. Cheating is OK; indeed, the very concept of “cheating” no longer makes any sense.

    you are trying to demote gay people to second class citizen based on your personal prejudice. They have as much rights as heterosexual partners.

  12. 12
    Me_Think says:

    Even if the incident is considered a transgression of Ex Corde Ecclesiae , the Archbishop is not going to take any action based on this single transgression.

  13. 13
    vjtorley says:

    Hi Me_Think,

    Tank you for your posts. You write that “the Archbishop is not going to take any action based on this single transgression.” My response is that the issue at stake here is not one transgression, but rather, Marquette University’s policies regarding free speech.

    The Marquette Harassment policy prohibits “verbal, written or physical conduct directed at a person or a group based on… gender or sexual orientation where the offensive behavior… could or does result in mental, emotional or physical discomfort, embarrassment, ridicule or harm.” Effectively that means that it’s impossible to defend the Catholic position on marriage in a classroom at Marquette University, since the defense of the Catholic position could offend any gay or lesbian student who also happened to be in the classroom, resulting in mental or emotional discomfort.

    As long as the Marquette Harassment policy remains in effect, Marquette University will continue to be a university in which it is forbidden to publicly defend Catholic teachings on moral matters – in other words, an un-free university. If I were the parent of an 18-year-old child, I’d send them to a public university instead: at least they’re protected by the First Amendment. Private universities like Marquette are not.

    You also write: “you are trying to demote gay people to second class citizen based on your personal prejudice.” Rubbish. Look at the statistics:

    Over the last 20 years, the proportion of Americans who say they have ever cheated on their spouse has hovered at 20 to 25 percent of men and 10 to 15 percent of women, according to findings published in 2010 by Deborah Carr, a sociologist who is also at Rutgers. However, more recent data from the General Social Survey, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, has indicated patterns by demographics, she says. One of which is that the gender gap is narrowing among younger people. One quarter of men ages 65 and older say they have cheated, compared with less than 10 percent of their female peers. But among Americans ages 18 to 24, 12.9 percent of women have cheated, versus 15.9 percent of their male counterparts.

    So the percentage of husbands who have cheated on their wives is around a quarter. By contrast, if we look at gay couples, the percentage of gays who have had sex outside their “marriage” is over 80%. That’s a huge gap. And if we look at attitudes to infidelity, the gap is even more striking: only 6% of Americans approve of married men and women having affairs, whereas the majority of gay couples don’t have a problem with it.

    Don’t tell me there’s no difference between men and women who are married, and gay couples. There is. And yes, I do think that a relationship which tolerates infidelity is a second-class relationship. That’s obvious.

  14. 14
    vjtorley says:

    Hi CLAVDIVS,

    Thank you for digging up the 2014 LGBT Issues and Trends Survey published by the Public Religion Research Institute. On page 28, the report states that among Catholics who attend church regularly, 50% favor allowing gay and lesbian people to legally marry, while 45% oppose doing so.

    You argue that “a majority of US Catholics would likely support the Marquette Harassment policy prohibiting disagreement with gay marriage in class, because such disagreement could result in mental, emotional or physical discomfort, embarrassment, ridicule or harm on the basis of sexual orientation.” Let me get this straight. You honestly believe that most American Catholics think it’s right for a Catholic university to bar discussion of gay marriage in the classroom, even in philosophy classes?!?! Surely you jest. The data you’ve cited don’t support such a claim, and I have yet to meet a Catholic who holds such a bizarre view. Even if a Catholic were to argue on pragmatic grounds that the law should recognize gay unions as marriages, it’s another thing altogether to want to make criticism of gay marriage an illegal act.

    You also write: “The university stated in writing he [Dr. McAdams] was dismissed, *not* for backing a student as you claimed, but for fomenting the harassment of students.”

    The claim I made in my OP was actually taken from the Breitbart report I quoted. You appeal to the university’s written statement, but Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), finds the university’s grounds for firing McAdams utterly disingenuous:

    Marquette University’s chilling campaign to revoke the tenure of political science professor John McAdams due to writings on his private blog ensures its place on this year’s list. McAdams criticized a graduate instructor for what he viewed as her inappropriate suppression of certain viewpoints for in-class discussion (one student’s opposition to same-sex marriage in particular), and the instructor came in for heavy criticism. Marquette then suspended McAdams without due process and abruptly cancelled his classes for the next semester. It also publicly insinuated that McAdams violated its harassment policy and was a safety threat to the campus, despite a complete lack of proof for either charge. Marquette’s disregard of due process and its incredible denial that its campaign against McAdams’s tenure implicates free speech or academic freedom in any way should frighten anyone concerned about faculty rights.

    Since Dr. McAdams did not in any way encourage the harassment of students on his blog, and since he states that “never before, in our ten years of blogging, have we gotten reports of offensive e-mails received by people whom we blogged about,” I have to say that I find the university’s charge against McAdams to be baseless.

  15. 15
    J-Mac says:

    Who is this new Santa Claus?

    Yes, I didn’t read VT’s longgggggggggggge story,so I would have to check out the comments….

  16. 16
    groovamos says:

    Me_Think: you are trying to demote gay people to second class citizen based on your personal prejudice. They have as much rights as heterosexual partners.

    So can male couples can engage in matrimony? A consecration of sex, childbirth, and child rearing until adulthood which is sealed with vows of fidelity, for the good of the offspring?

    Of course male homosexual infidelity has no bearing on the foundationally crucial bedrock of all civilizations that we term matrimony, around for the duration recorded history. Because conception and child rearing does not depend on it to the same degree. And it is why male coupling can never be on par with matrimony. Sorry – it is what it is and there is nothing political about it. Except for the manufactured politicization to support this unprecedented experiment with Western civilization with government fiat by a handful of justices in our country two of which should have recused themselves.

  17. 17
    Origenes says:

    Archbishop Jerome Listecki should publicly forbid Marquette University calling itself a Catholic university. I despise the mentality and actions of the teaching assistant, the “diverse” faculty committee and the university president.
    That said, gay men and women are entitled to make their own choices — same-sex marriage included.

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

    21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and prudent and shrewd in their own sight!

    22 Woe to those who are mighty heroes at drinking wine and men of strength in mixing alcoholic drinks!—

    23 Who justify and acquit the guilty for a bribe, but take away the rights of the innocent and righteous from them!

  19. 19
    Robert Byers says:

    There is no way around it.
    If saying homosexuality is wrong and immoral and repulsive is prohibited then those prohibiting are saying its not wrong or immoral or repulsive and they said so and settles it.
    They can’t get around the truth , one way or the other, by saying the hurt feelings of the homosexual trump speaking the truth.
    The truth is the moral right of free men and recognized in free nations.
    Any interference is illegal.
    Take them to court.

    If everyone agrees to ban malice in words/expressions then thats okay.
    Even that is not legal but its society getting along.
    Stopping malice would preserve any ones dignity while no attacking others dignity of speaking important truths.
    NO TRICKS. Malice is not to be accused because of God and mans hostility to homosexuality.
    Its HURTING the feelings of those opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality to say they must not speak against where the issue comes up.
    The bad guys, like Al Capone, are using the law to get away with badness.
    The good guys must become better lawyers.

    UD rightly brings this stuff up but is too wordy and not making a winning popular case for freedom of speech.
    its about truth FIRST then frreedom to speak to GET the the truth.THEN freedom means putting up with others freedoms.

    The ABUSE tactic is used to silence speaking truth.
    oh brother. They shouldn’t get away with this. Yet Al Capone did.

  20. 20
    harry says:

    Human nature had a designer. The designer provided us with an owner’s manual, a section of which neatly summarizes the instructions for the proper, successful use of human nature; this section is referred to as the Ten Commandments. These are the minimum requirements; you have to study the whole manual to get the most from your human nature and to understand its true meaning and in what its fulfillment consists.

    When the owner’s manual informing us of the proper use of human nature is disregarded, as in the abuse of human sexuality by its use outside of its proper context, which is, of course, a marriage between a man and a woman, or in its abuse by preventing human sexuality from bearing fruit through the use of artificial contraception, there are terrible consequences.

    Billions of children, turned into mere “mistakes” by the contraceptive mentality and then “erased” before they ever saw the light of day, if they could, would testify to those terrible consequences. Countless children raised in same-sex parent homes will one day testify to the fact that human nature was intended to be nurtured in its youth by a mother and a father.

    Disregarding the owner’s manual for human nature is just as likely to have terrible consequences as is disregarding the owner’s manual for an automobile. You may think it’s your right to put molasses in the gas tank, but if you do you will find that your car no longer functions properly. So it will be with the contemporary rejection of God’s plan for human sexuality. Human society won’t function properly. The evidence for that is mounting every day and as most thoughtful people already recognize, a societal train wreck of some sort is in the near future.

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    Matt 6:22 The eye is the lamp of the body. So if your eye is sound, your entire body will be full of light.

    23 But if your eye is unsound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the very light in you [your [r]conscience] is darkened, how dense is that darkness!

    24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will stand by and be devoted to the one and despise and be [s]against the other. You cannot serve God and mammon ([t]deceitful riches, money, possessions, or [u]whatever is trusted in). [AMP]

    Eph 4:17 . . . this I say and solemnly testify in [the name of] the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the heathen (the Gentiles) do in their perverseness [in the folly, vanity, and emptiness of their souls and the futility] of their minds.

    18 Their [e]moral understanding is darkened and their reasoning is beclouded. [They are] alienated (estranged, self-banished) from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the ignorance (the want of knowledge and perception, the willful blindness) that is [f]deep-seated in them, due to their hardness of heart [to the insensitiveness of their moral nature].

    19 In their spiritual apathy they have become callous and past feeling and reckless and have abandoned themselves [a prey] to unbridled sensuality, eager and greedy to indulge in every form of impurity [that their depraved desires may suggest and demand].

    20 But you did not so learn Christ!

    21 Assuming that you have really heard Him and been taught by Him, as [all] Truth is in Jesus [embodied and personified in Him],

    22 Strip yourselves of your former nature [put off and discard your old unrenewed self] which characterized your previous manner of life and becomes corrupt through lusts and desires that spring from delusion;

    23 And be constantly renewed in the spirit of your mind [having a fresh mental and spiritual attitude],

    24 And put on the new nature (the regenerate self) created in God’s image, [Godlike] in true righteousness and holiness.

    25 Therefore, rejecting all falsity and being done now with it, let everyone express the truth with his neighbor, for we are all parts of one body and members one of another. [AMP]

    1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality [ –> the specific words denote active and passive male participants but obviously extend to all like forms of behaviour],

    10 Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.

    11 And such some of you were [once]. But you were washed clean (purified by a complete atonement for sin and made free from the guilt of sin), and you were consecrated (set apart, hallowed), and you were justified [pronounced righteous, by trusting] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God. [AMP]

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    John 3:19 The [basis of the] judgment (indictment, the test by which men are judged, the ground for the sentence) lies in this: the Light has come into the world, and people have loved the darkness rather than and more than the Light, for their works (deeds) were evil.

    20 For every wrongdoer hates (loathes, detests) the Light, and will not come out into the Light but shrinks from it, lest his works (his deeds, his activities, his conduct) be exposed and reproved.

    21 But he who practices truth [who does what is right] comes out into the Light; so that his works may be plainly shown to be what they are—wrought with God [divinely prompted, done with God’s help, in dependence upon Him]. [AMP]

    Rom 1:18 For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.

    19 For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

    20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],

    21 Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

    22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].

    23 And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.

    24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],

    25 Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it).

    26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

    27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another—men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [d]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

    28 And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,

    29 Until they were filled (permeated and saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, iniquity, grasping and covetous greed, and malice. [They were] full of envy and jealousy, murder, strife, deceit and treachery, ill will and cruel ways. [They were] secret backbiters and gossipers,

    30 Slanderers, hateful to and hating God, full of insolence, arrogance, [and] boasting; inventors of new forms of evil, disobedient and undutiful to parents.

    31 [They were] without understanding, conscienceless and faithless, heartless and loveless [and] merciless.

    32 Though they are fully aware of God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them themselves but approve and applaud others who practice them. [AMP]

    Rom 2:5 . . . by your callous stubbornness and impenitence of heart you are storing up wrath and indignation for yourself on the day of wrath and indignation, when God’s righteous judgment (just doom) will be revealed.

    6 For He will render to every man according to his works [justly, as his deeds deserve]:

    7 To those who by patient persistence in well-doing [[b]springing from piety] seek [unseen but sure] glory and honor and [[c]the eternal blessedness of] immortality, He will give eternal life.

    8 But for those who are self-seeking and self-willed and disobedient to the Truth but responsive to wickedness, there will be indignation and wrath.

    9 [And] there will be tribulation and anguish and calamity and constraint for every soul of man who [habitually] does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek (Gentile).

    10 But glory and honor and [heart] peace shall be awarded to everyone who [habitually] does good, the Jew first and also the Greek (Gentile).

    11 For God shows no partiality [[d]undue favor or unfairness; with Him one man is not different from another].

    12 All who have sinned without the Law will also perish without [regard to] the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged and condemned by the Law.

    13 For it is not merely hearing the Law [read] that makes one righteous before God, but it is the doers of the Law who will be held guiltless and acquitted and justified.

    14 When Gentiles who have not the [divine] Law do instinctively what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, since they do not have the Law.

    15 They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] [e]decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving [f]thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them]

    16 On that day when, as my Gospel proclaims, God by Jesus Christ will judge men in regard to [g]the things which they conceal (their hidden thoughts). [AMP]

    . . . there is a time for “it is (and stands) written . . . “

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    1 John 2:15 Do not love or cherish the world or the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him.

    16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh [craving for sensual gratification] and the lust of the eyes [greedy longings of the mind] and the pride of life [assurance in one’s own resources or in the stability of earthly things]—these do not come from the Father but are from the world [itself].

    17 And the world passes away and disappears, and with it the forbidden cravings (the passionate desires, the lust) of it; but he who does the will of God and carries out His purposes in his life abides (remains) forever. [AMP]

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    Jude: 3 Beloved, my whole concern was to write to you in regard to our common salvation. [But] I found it necessary and was impelled to write you and urgently appeal to and exhort [you] to contend for the faith which was once for all [a]handed down to the saints [the faith which is that sum of Christian belief which was delivered [b]verbally to the holy people of God].

    4 For certain men have crept in stealthily [[c]gaining entrance secretly by a side door]. Their doom was predicted long ago, ungodly (impious, profane) persons who pervert the grace (the spiritual blessing and favor) of our God into lawlessness and wantonness and immorality, and disown and deny our sole Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). [AMP]

  25. 25
    Me_Think says:

    vjtorley @ 13

    The Marquette Harassment policy prohibits “verbal, written or physical conduct directed at a person or a group based on… gender or sexual orientation where the offensive behavior… could or does result in mental, emotional or physical discomfort, embarrassment, ridicule or harm.”

    What’s wrong with Marquette Harassment policy ? It is based on real world concerns in a modern university. Are you sure no other Christian university has similar policy?

    So the percentage of husbands who have cheated on their wives is around a quarter. By contrast, if we look at gay couples, the percentage of gays who have had sex outside their “marriage” is over 80%. That’s a huge gap.

    You mean the 1970s voluntary questionnaire study by Pepper Schwartz ? There was no filter to weed out non-serious questionnaire responses. Even in the 300 personal interviews, adventurous gays (those whose sexual orientation is heterosexual but want to try out homosexuality for fun) were not separated from actual gays.
    The same Slate article that you quote has a 2005 study (“Relationship Characteristics and Motivations behind Agreements among Gay Male Couples: Differences by Agreement Type and Couple Serostatus”). If you look that up at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2906147/, you discover in the study’s Table 2 that Monogamous agreement is 45% (after ignoring Discrepant and No Agreement)- which is way off than what is suggested by the 1970 research. Even this study is not representative of gay community because they used convenient sampling method. Thus the study can’t be representative of the gay community even in San Francisco Bay Area (where the study was conducted between June 2005 and February 2007).
    Don’t go by media reports. Study the research article. Often you will find that they are not representative of the gay community, because they have used sampling methods which can’t be representative of the area under study.

  26. 26
    Me_Think says:

    harry @ 20

    Human nature had a designer. The designer provided us with an owner’s manual, a section of which neatly summarizes the instructions for the proper, successful use of human nature; this section is referred to as the Ten Commandments. These are the minimum requirements; you have to study the whole manual to get the most from your human nature and to understand its true meaning and in what its fulfillment consists.

    Every religion has their own designer. The instruction manual of Islam says polygamy is accepted. Are you okay with that? If you believe human nature was designed then Homosexuality too was deisgned.You seems to think gay/lesbians are deliberately deviant!

  27. 27
    Me_Think says:

    groovamos @ 16

    So can male couples can engage in matrimony? A consecration of sex, childbirth, and child rearing until adulthood which is sealed with vows of fidelity, for the good of the offspring?

    Would you exclude couples from marriage if they are unable to conceive for various medical reasons? Homosexuality is not deliberate.Gays are not out to destabilise the society !

  28. 28
    Me_Think says:

    Origenes @ 17

    Archbishop Jerome Listecki should publicly forbid Marquette University calling itself a Catholic university. I despise the mentality and actions of the teaching assistant, the “diverse” faculty committee and the university president.

    The student tapes the conversation surreptitiously, goes out and gives his side of story to Dr. John McAdams. McAdams puts that on the blog with Ms.Abbate’s name. Which sensible person would do that ?
    He failed to mention that the student dropped the class because he was getting a F-Grade (even before the incident) and that (as per university and not contested by McAdams) Ms. Abbate’s had a follow-up class discussion in which she acknowledged and addressed the student’s objection to gay marriage.
    What was McAdams trying to achieve by putting Ms.Abbate’s name? She received emails like
    you have committed “treason and sedition” and as a result will face penalties such as “drawing, hanging, beheading, and quartering.”
    Another note, delivered to her campus mailbox, told Ms.Abbate You must undo the terrible wrong committed when you were born. Your mother failed to make the right choice. You must abort yourself for the glory of inclusiveness and tolerance.
    Ms. Abbate feared for her personal safety. A Public Safety Officer had to be posted outside her classroom.
    This is not McAdams first posting of names. He has been warned on two earlier occasions against posting names in his blog. He thought tenure will save him. It’s about time professors find out that tenure is not a shield against malice.

  29. 29
    Origenes says:

    Me_Think: What’s wrong with Marquette Harassment policy?

    Does it prohibit to cite from the Quran or even Arthur Shopenhauer? How ridiculous.

    The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important.

    That said, what consenting adults do in their sex lives is their own business.

  30. 30
    Me_Think says:

    Origenes @ 29
    ….It is based on real world concerns in a modern university. Are you sure no other Christian university has similar policy?

  31. 31
    Origenes says:

    Me_Think,
    The Marquette Harassment policy is based on incoherent politically correct drivel. And no, I’m not sure at all that no other Christian university has similar policy.

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    MT (et al, attn VJT):

    What is a right?

    If not, a reasonable and responsible expectation and moral demand that one be respected in some way in regard to one’s proper nature as a human being made in God’s image? From which it follows, as night day and the next day that night, that one may not properly demand a “right” to do grievous wrong — or, perversion of purpose — to one’s own detriment and the harm of others, constituting the community, nation and world. On pain, of descent into the nihilistic horror of might and manipulation making “right” and “truth” and “law”, thence the shipwreck of justice, ruin of true lawfulness and the imposition of the outright mad law of the jungle that proceeds therefrom?

    Let us, then, be wary of the fire we play with here.

    Consequences of which are already increasingly evident.

    KF

    PS: MT, tainting the source cannot divert the force of the issue, nor the import of the underlying matter and the implications for our civilisation that are already increasingly evident on the twisting of law and the perversion of our understanding of the proper role of sex stamped into our genes and manifest in maleness and femaleness, sexuality, marriage and family. Worse, the undermining of freedom of conscience and expression through imposition of protected classes not to be “offended” on pain of administrative or legal sanction. Worst, the twisting of right and justice to fit such. Do we really, really want to go where such leads?

  33. 33
    Indiana Effigy says:

    KF, you are skirting the issue. An employer has the right to set behaviour guidelines for their employees.If an employee choses not to follow those requirements, they can be terminated. This has nothing to do with academic or religious freedoms.

  34. 34
    Me_Think says:

    KF,
    The reason for dismissal is given below. Judge for yourself

    … Had you exercised due care and standards of professional responsibility in keeping with University faculty, you would have found that critical information was stated falsely and/or omitted in your blog post. By way of example, you implied that as a result of the exchange you had recounted the student had dropped the class. You wrote as follows in your November 9 blog post:
    She went on: In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.” She then invited the student to drop the class. Which the student is doing.

    That is false. As you knew or should have known [redacted], the student told the University three days after withdrawing that he had done so because he was getting an “F” at mid-term. He further specifically agreed that his grade fairly reflected his performance and had nothing to do with his political or personal beliefs.
    Similarly, by leaving out any reference to Ms. Abbate’s follow-up class discussion in which she acknowledged and addressed the student’s objection to gay marriage, you created a false impression of her conduct and an inaccurate account of what occurred. You either were recklessly unaware of what happened in the follow-up class, or you elected not to include these facts in your Internet story.
    Likewise, when you criticized the Department Chair for not taking action, “The chair, Nancy Show [sic], pretty much blew off the issue.” you once again either were recklessly unaware that the student did not give Dr. Snow the same information he gave you -namely a tape of the conversation- or again you elected not to include these facts in your Internet story. Further, in asserting that the Department Chair “pretty much blew off the issue,” you either were recklessly unaware of, or you ignored, the fact that two days after meeting with the Chair, the student wrote to thank her and the Assistant Chair for their time and attention to his concerns:
    I would like to thank you for the time you devoted to my complaint on Tuesday, in both of our meetings. I would like you to know that I intend to heed your advice and stay enrolled in the course. Thank you again for your time, and I wish you nothing but the best of luck with your research. Please feel free to share this message with Dr.Luft.
    Moreover, you stated in your Internet story only that the College of Arts & Sciences “sent” the student to the Department with his complaint. Once again you either were recklessly unaware of, or you ignored, the fact that the student was expressly told he could come back to the College if he was “dissatisfied” with how the Department handled his concerns.
    For these and other reasons that follow you have done a great disservice to Marquette, its faculty, students and alumni….

    As applied in the current case, it is vital for our university and our profession that graduate student instructors learn their craft as teachers of sometimes challenging and difficult students. Great teachers develop over time; many benefit from experienced mentors who share hard-earned insights. Thus, graduate student instructors should expect appropriate and constructive feedback in order to improve their teaching skills.
    Multiple internal avenues of review were available to you if you believed a situation had occurred between a graduate student instructor and an undergraduate student that called for a corrective response. Instead, you chose to shame and intimidate with an Internet story that was incompetent, inaccurate, and lacking in integrity, respect for other’s opinions, and appropriate restraint.

  35. 35
    harry says:

    Me_Think @ 26,

    Every religion has their own designer. The instruction manual of Islam says polygamy is accepted. Are you okay with that?

    Muslims also believe they have to kill anyone who decides to renounce Islam and become, say, a Christian or an atheist. Are you okay with that? Islam is a perverse ideology of conquest disguised as a religion. They kill homosexuals. Are you okay with that?

    If you believe human nature was designed then Homosexuality too was deisgned

    Some people are born blind, but that doesn’t make being blind a legitimate alternative lifestyle.

    You seems to think gay/lesbians are deliberately deviant!

    I think it is possible that some people are born with the inclination to homosexuality. I think others develop that inclination by their own choices. Once someone’s sexual orientation is established, however that happened, the state of their orientation, whether it is natural (heterosexual) or unnatural (homosexual), is not what is immoral. Homosexual orientation is not sinful in itself anymore than is heterosexual orientation. What is sinful for both homosexuals and heterosexuals is fornication.

  36. 36
    kairosfocus says:

    IE, he who would snatch my means of bread without just cause would steal from me my life; he who would snatch my conscience, would steal and so damn — I mean that in its proper sense — my soul. There are moral, natural law — laws of nature and of nature’s God — limits to what an employer or the state may justly require, and the specifics of the case are less central than the principle that lurks here. It is the violation or utter disregard of that principle that flips a huge red warning flag. KF

  37. 37
    kairosfocus says:

    Harry, go back to the full original word, porneia, sexual immorality . . . which takes in any and all forms of specifically wrongful, perverted, irresponsible, evil and destructive sexual behaviours. The real question that lurks is, are we responsibly free rational creatures made in the image of God. That image is the only sound foundation for both reason and morality, and it is by dressing up destructive worldviews in the lab coat that both have been disregarded far and wide. And now we have sown the wind and will reap the ruinous whirlwind. KF

  38. 38
    harry says:

    kairofocus @ 37,

    Very well put. Choosing to persist in disregarding the Truth Himself or the truth about the human nature He bestowed upon us always has terrible consequences in this life and the next.

  39. 39
    vjtorley says:

    Me_Think:

    Let’s get one thing straight. This isn’t a post about Dr. McAdams. It’s a post about whether a university can continue to call itself Catholic if its harassment policy prevents its own staff (and for that matter, students) from defending Catholic doctrine on morality. It should be obvious that a university which muzzles people like that doesn’t deserve to be called Catholic.

    Regarding Dr. McAdams’s blog: personally, I don’t like the fact that he named a teaching assistant. (You’ll notice that I haven’t named her, and I really wish you hadn’t either; she has a life of her own, and she should be left alone.) I also agree that Dr. McAdams failed to mention certain pertinent facts regarding the student’s failing grades, which he could have and should have mentioned, as well as the fact that the teaching assistant subsequently tried to address his argument in class.

    However, none of these “offenses” warrants depriving a professor of tenure, let alone firing him. There’s no law against naming a teaching assistant in one’s blog. The claim in the letter you cited above that Dr. McAdams had received repeated warnings in the past is simply false: see my comment #4 above. The claim that Dr. McAdams “chose to shame and intimidate” is not only false but defamatory, as it ascribes to a tenured professor a malicious intention to encourage violence and harassment, despite his repeated avowals on his blog that he intended no such thing.

    Finally, there remains the ugly fact that the teaching assistant did say to the student in a recorded conversation: “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.” That was an ugly attempt to shut down discussion of a moral issue which, at a Catholic university, staff and students should feel free to discuss at all times. It is to the teaching assistant’s credit that she later allowed a discussion of the issue; but the fact that it was shut down, and that the university’s harassment policy enabled the discussion to be shut down, are the real issues here.

    Marquette University is an intellectually stifling environment, which I could not and would not recommend to any Catholic parent of a prospective student. Given the existence of such a hostile learning environment, Marquette University has long ago forfeited the right to call itself Catholic.

  40. 40
    vjtorley says:

    Indiana Effigy,

    Where are the guidelines for staff teaching at Marquette University, stating that they may never name students on their private blog, and that they face termination if they do so? And even if such guidelines existed, did they exist at the time when Dr. McAdams wrote his blog?

  41. 41
    ellazimm says:

    vjtorley #40

    Where are the guidelines for staff teaching at Marquette University, stating that they may never name students on their private blog, and that they face termination if they do so?

    Without their consent? Are you seriously asking that?

  42. 42
    vjtorley says:

    Me_Think:

    I’m utterly amazed that you continue to question my assertion that most gay couples are in open relationships. Gays themselves admit it. See this article in the Daily Beast (January 1, 2016) by Nico Lang:

    Over the past decade and a half, studies from San Francisco State University and Alliant International University have found that around half of gay relationships are open…

    I’d say that the Alliant and SFU figures are a tad low, at least for gays. I can’t speak for lesbian couples, but few queer men I know — including myself — are in relationships that are exclusively, 100-percent monogamous. Some couples occasionally invite a third into the bedroom for a night of play, while others independently arrange their own casual hookups. Some men might even have long-term partners outside their primary relationship.

    In a 2013 column for Slate, Hanna Rosin called non-monogamy the gay community’s “dirty little secret,” citing a study from the ’80s, which showed that up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people. That number sounds about right to me, but here’s the thing: It’s not dirty and it’s hardly a secret, at least if you know where to look.

    And here’s an article by Scott James, writing in the New York Times (January 28, 2010) on the :

    New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

    That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

    See? Gay couples really do have a different set of norms from straight married couples, regarding fidelity.

    How many heterosexual married couples do you know who engage in threesomes, seek casual hook-ups or even engage in long-term affairs, with the full knowledge of the other spouse? They’re extremely rare, and I wouldn’t call them married, anyway.

    Marriage is an exclusive sexual commitment. Please don’t try dragging it down to the level of a relationship that includes threesomes and other bizarre antics. I find that not only offensive, but also demeaning of the noble institution of marriage.

  43. 43
    vjtorley says:

    ellazimm,

    Yes, I am – especially when the student in question was also a teaching assistant, wielding power over the students in her charge. And I would add that as a matter of principle, reasons for termination, no matter how “obvious” they may appear to some, should always be stated in writing.

    Once again, I’m not defending Dr. McAdams’ decision to name the teaching assistant. But I do think that as a matter of law and as a matter of principle, his firing was unjust. The man, I might add, had taught for 40 years, and is now 70 years old.

  44. 44
    harry says:

    vjtorley @43

    I’m not defending Dr. McAdams’ decision to name the teaching assistant.

    A teaching assistant shouldn’t be doing or saying things in the classroom that they wouldn’t be proud to have made public.

    Regardless of what Listecki does, Marquette is no longer a Catholic university. Every orthodox Catholic realizes that.

    The real question is how long will the faithful take our radically secularized bishops seriously? They are dooming themselves to irrelevancy, at least in the eyes of genuine Catholics.

  45. 45
  46. 46
    groovamos says:

    Me_Think: Would you exclude couples from marriage if they are unable to conceive for various medical reasons? Homosexuality is not deliberate.Gays are not out to destabilise the society !

    This is really stupid. Really. Does the question really presuppose a government test of both partners for fertility before granting of all marriage licenses, no exceptions? Get real.

    Also you seem to skirt the conundrum of matrimony as it would apply to a male couple. You chicken out of the logical disconnection. And never mind the conundrum of leftists still verbalizing the male-male oral sex act in pejorative fashion when expressing outrage at other males, and the left-of-center males I know admitting of their continuing stiff aversion to other male homosexual practices. The whole scenario is bizarre, and children are to be raised in this bizarro environment.

    No question about it. Western civilization has embarked on a mission to inform the generations to come that marriage is something that it is not and never has been. In other words, vows are to be discarded. You guys were given the goodwill by many, myself included, to establish a legal category for same sex coupling with all of the privileges you could want. But selfishly you have put the culture into a risky experimental state, and there are plenty of us brave enough to point it out.

  47. 47
    tjguy says:

    Harry @ 44

    Regardless of what Listecki does, Marquette is no longer a Catholic university. Every orthodox Catholic realizes that.

    The real question is how long will the faithful take our radically secularized bishops seriously? They are dooming themselves to irrelevancy, at least in the eyes of genuine Catholics.

    Very true! At least it is good to have this fact out in the open. I hope that many Catholic parents will realize the danger of sending their kids to this university – at least the ones who care about this issue.

    I think most parents are a bit wary of the effect university may have on their kids. If they are not well prepared before they go, it is very difficult to stand up to the harassment and liberal lies the professors and educators will try to brainwash them with.

    I’m afraid though that the strategy of changing the world through university education is working quite well as every year the schools put out more and more liberal minded students. These students are less and less tolerant of opposing views and especially harbor ill will toward conservative views. I do not see this trend ending and I see it leading to America’s ruin if it does not end. I also see persecution coming for those who remain faithful to biblical views. Maybe not physical persecution, but ridicule, hatred, job discrimination, economic embargoes, etc. They are succeeding in ruining the US.

    We can no longer afford to be silent and ignore this stuff. I appreciate the professor for standing up for his beliefs and for freedom of speech.

    I think they should go after the people who sent the threatening e-mails as opposed to the professor who was simply standing up for freedom of speech and Catholic morals.

    One good thing is that sometimes, they come back to their roots later in life when they realize that what they have been taught at college just doesn’t cut it.

  48. 48
    harry says:

    tjguy @ 47,

    I also see persecution coming for those who remain faithful to biblical views. Maybe not physical persecution, but ridicule, hatred, job discrimination, economic embargoes, etc

    Yes. It looks like persecution is coming and to some extent is already here. Just ask the Little Sisters of the Poor. When we are persecuted, we must remember what Jesus said about that:

    Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.
    — Mt 5:11-12

    If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. It is to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without a cause.’
    — John 15:18-25

  49. 49
    HeKS says:

    I have to agree with vjtorley in being surprised that anyone is questioning the fact that gay relationships (particularly gay male relationships) are massively promiscuous. I don’t have the time or interest to re-find all the articles I’ve read on the subject, but I was looking into this a while ago and there have been numerous studies done on this issue since the 70’s, with several of those studies being done by gay researchers, and every one has shown a huge disparity between gay and straight couples in terms of monogamy. In some cases, I’d say that vjtorley’s numbers are actually low. As I recall, the finding of one of the studies was that of all the gay couples surveyed, either one or both parties engaged in sexual encounters outside the relationship in a high percentage of the couples right from the start, but after the 5-year mark, 100% of the couples had at least one person who had engaged in sexual encounters outside the relationship. In another case there was a survey asking about the number of different sexual partners a person had, with the highest bracket being several hundreds of partners. For numerous respondents in the gay community, this was not sufficient, and a request was made to have an ‘over 1000’ category added.

    Those are just a couple of examples. And again, many of these studies were initiated, conducted and put out by members within the gay community, and nobody was ashamed it, so it’s not like these were pieces of anti-gay propaganda or anything. From interviews I’ve read I’ve seen no evidence that the virtual non-existence of absolute monogamy among the gay male community is something that they are ashamed of. If anything, the attitude has seemed to be that the problem lies with anybody who thinks such a lack of monogamy is a problem.

    Anyway, again, I’m not going to bother to go find this stuff again, so people are free to believe it or not or post some kind of contradictory claims, but this is stuff I consistently – even universally – found when looking into this issue from multiple sources, including from gay sources.

  50. 50
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Vjt “Where are the guidelines for staff teaching at Marquette University, stating that they may never name students on their private blog, and that they face termination if they do so?”

    I am pretty sure that the guidelines also do not say that you can not force students to attend class naked, but I am sure that he would be fired for that.

  51. 51
    Indiana Effigy says:

    KF: “IE, he who would snatch my means of bread without just cause would steal from me my life; he who would snatch my conscience, would steal and so damn — I mean that in its proper sense — my soul.”

    If I wanted to hear a sermon, I would go to church. Your evasion and equivocation on the question are duly noted.

  52. 52
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Vjt: “I’m utterly amazed that you continue to question my assertion that most gay couples are in open relationships. Gays themselves admit it. See this article in the Daily Beast (January 1, 2016) by Nico Lang:”

    And blacks are violent, Scotts are cheap and Jews are evil. Any group of people from a group do not speak for the entire group. I thought that you would be aware of the danger of generalizations.

  53. 53
    Me_Think says:

    HeKS @ 49
    Everyone goes back to the 1970s voluntary questionnaire study by Pepper Schwartz and 2005 study (“Relationship Characteristics and Motivations behind Agreements among Gay Male Couples: Differences by Agreement Type and Couple Serostatus”). VJT had quoted articles in comment # 42 in which characters in the article again quote the 1970s and 2005 studies! There seems to be more anecdotal ‘evidence’ of gay promiscuity than actual research. As I have pointed out in comment # 25, these studies are not representative of Gays as the Sampling method used is definitely not random; there is also a massive difference of around 40% in ‘open’ agreement between these studies. It should be noted that even adventurous gays (those who try out gay relationship for fun for short period, despite a heterosexual leaning) are classified as Gays. AFAIK, no one has shown a single research which is not dated and which uses sampling method which represents the Gay population. I guess Tim Cook has to sponsor such a research.
    I want to emphasize one point again : Fidelity is not a by product of sexual orientation, it depends on how much a person loves and respects his/her partner, and sexual orientation is not a learned trait!!

  54. 54
    HeKS says:

    Me_Think

    I want to emphasize one point again : Fidelity is not a by product of sexual orientation, it depends on how much a person loves and respects his/her partner, and sexual orientation is not a learned trait!!

    The issue I have with this statement is that it implies there is parity of views on non-monogamy as “cheating” between straight and gay couples. Part of the point that has been made is that the drastic difference in “cheating” between straight and gay couples derives in no small part from a very different view about what constitutes “cheating” and the openness of the parties to their partner having sexual encounters outside the relationship. Loving and respecting your partner is going to have little impact on your sexual activities outside the relationship if neither partner views strict monogamy as a sine qua non of loving and respectful relationships.

    Also, I don’t recall saying anything about sexual orientation being a learned trait, so I’m not sure why you’re saying that to me. Nonetheless, the truth of your statement would be at least somewhat dependent on how much you want to scrutinize what someone’s “true” sexual orientation is vs. the orientation of a lifestyle they might live for an extended time but perhaps not permanently.

  55. 55
    HeKS says:

    Me_Think,

    By the way, when I was looking into this issue I found the same results from about a dozen different studies, articles and surveys spanning the last 40 years, and the two studies you mention were not among the sources.

  56. 56
    Aleta says:

    I know quite a few gay couples, and not one of them is in an open relationship. And I know quite a few – a lot – of heterosexual couples who have not been faithful to each other. My experience, anecdotal as it may be, is that there is not a difference in regards to commitment and fidelity between the two situations.

  57. 57
    Me_Think says:

    HeKS @ 55

    By the way, when I was looking into this issue I found the same results from about a dozen different studies, articles and surveys spanning the last 40 years, and the two studies you mention were not among the sources.

    I didn’t pick those studies- it is in VJT’s slate article link. The slate refers to the ncbi research as ‘The Gay Couples Study’. The Slate article in turn refers to gawker article, which again refers to the same ncbi article as ‘The Gay Study’ ! The only scientific study doing the rounds is this ncbi study. How many of those 12 studies that you found are scientific studies ?

  58. 58
    HeKS says:

    Me_Think

    I’m going from memory here, because I don’t have time to look this stuff up right now, but one of the examples I explicitly mentioned in 49 was a study done in the 80’s by psychologists who were a gay couple. The study included over 150 gay men in relationships from a year to a few decades. Only a handful of the couples (maybe 6 or 7) had monogamous relationships, and all of those couples had been together less than 5 years. For the couples who had been together longer than 5 years, 100% of the couples had some kind of arrangement in place for sexual encounters outside the relationship.

    In addition to the open nature of the relationships, another constant feature among gay couples surveyed in these studies was that this “cheating”, whether it was partner-approved or not, took place with numerous different partners per year, sometimes a dozen, sometimes more than a hundred. So again, it needs to be made clear here that when we’re talking about “cheating” between the gay and straight couples, it’s hard to compare apples to apples. We’re not talking about one person in the relationship at some point secretly carrying on an illicit affair (which might itself be called a relationship) with one other person outside a marriage (not that I’m in any way condoning that either). We’re talking about habitually having sexual encounters outside the relationship with a multitude of different partners per year, year after year, and often with the full consent of the partner, who is often doing the same thing himself.

    Now, someone might offer some anecdotal evidence that this doesn’t match their experience with their gay friends, but then, numerous sources touching on this issue have included statements from gay persons explicitly stating that they hide the open nature of their relationship from those outside the gay community, and that this aspect of gay relationships doesn’t really get discussed much, so I think the anecdotal evidence against the promiscuity of gay male couples may need to be taken with an even larger grain of salt than anecdotal evidence usually requires (and I could offer anecdotal evidence from people I know confirming the findings of these studies, but won’t bother).

    One could also try to assail the findings of these studies, and perhaps they could be correct to do so in some cases, but it would seem pretty odd that we should have such highly consistent findings from both academic and popular sources, and from both gay and straight sources, and spanning four decades, if this is all just some big misunderstanding.

  59. 59
    Aleta says:

    One factor to consider is that now, as opposed to the ’80s, it is easy for same-sex couples to be open with the rest of society about their relationships, and thus have a more normal experience in comparison to opposite sex couples.

    FWIW, I work in small rural town 30 miles or so from some larger cities. We have a number of people in known same-sex relationships (some married now that is possible) that are well known and prominent in town, and the city in general has been very accepting. I would think that this, as opposed to the opprobrium and need for secrecy in the past, would change the dynamics of their relationships for the better.

  60. 60
    Origenes says:

    VJTorley: However, in my own humble opinion, the best way to defend the Church’s position on gay marriage is by arguing as follows:

    (1) Marriage, by its very nature, demands life-long sexual fidelity on the part of the parents, for the successful rearing of children. (There have been societies which tolerated polygamy, in the past; but that in no way negates the fact that children thrive when raised by parents in a monogamous relationship.)

    (2) Gay partnerships do not require life-long sexual fidelity: indeed, most gay couples reject the very notion as antiquated and repressive. (See The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren’t Monogamous, by Hanna Rosin, in Slate, June 26, 2013.)

    (3) Therefore marriage is fundamentally different from a gay partnership.

    Let’s assume that the two premises are correct. I don’t see how one can conclude anything beyond: in general gay partnership isn’t monogamous and therefor in general unsuitable for marriage combined with raising children.
    However that is no basis to deny marriage to a gay couple who have every intent of life-long monogamy — sorry guys, we don’t believe you because …
    And then there are gay couples who don’t want to raise children.

  61. 61
    Me_Think says:

    HeKS @ 58

    In addition to the open nature of the relationships, another constant feature among gay couples surveyed in these studies was that this “cheating”, whether it was partner-approved or not, took place with numerous different partners per year, sometimes a dozen, sometimes more than a hundred. …….One could also try to assail the findings of these studies, and perhaps they could be correct to do so in some cases, but it would seem pretty odd that we should have such highly consistent findings from both academic and popular sources, and from both gay and straight sources, and spanning four decades, if this is all just some big misunderstanding.

    AFAIK (I don’t have any research to quote) Gays are super aware of HIV risk due to multiple partners so I am not sure if the research quoting 100 partners was done correctly.
    Being Gay was a rebellious stance in 1970 and 80s before HIV awareness spread, so it could be that heterosexual rebellious youth too were included in the old studies. Old studies would reflect the attitude of sexually adventurous individuals – not necessarily Gays.
    Recent studies should be given more weightage when studying Gays. Without analyzing the scientific studies, I can’t be sure if they truly reflect the attitude of Gays, but over the last few years many powerful and popular people are openly gay – this is the right time to carry out research on gays. I would be surprised if modern studies continue to show high open arrangements.

  62. 62
    HeKS says:

    Me_Think,

    As I recall, one of the studies was done in the period shortly after the threat of AIDS had really begun to sink in, and the recognition of this threat did have an effect on gay promiscuity as represented by the study, but not nearly so much as you might think. I believe that the finding was that in the wake of the AIDS epidemic, the number of average partners for gay males decreased from 70-75 to about 50.

    Also, some of the studies I was referencing in prior comments were done in just the past few years, and the comments I mentioned were made by gay persons about gay promiscuity and open relationships were also made in the last couple years.

    For example, here’s an excerpt from an article written on the subject by a gay man giving his perspective in 2013:

    No matter when a gay man enters into the land of all things boyfriend, one particular question never ceases to arise:

    Is it possible for two gay men to be in a long-term relationship and remain monogamous?

    The short answer? Of course it is. But for the frustrated but hopeful “monogay,” it often seems nearly impossible to find a homo couple who have surpassed the five-year mark without opening up their relationship in one way or another. [Heks: Notice how this coincides with the study I mentioned of over 150 gay men where after 5 years 100% of the couples had developed an open relationship] Naturally, each couple is different, complete with a brow-furrowing set of rules that they have constructed over the years. Whether its “playing” as a couple only or allowing for out-of-town flings or no-kissing-allowed or sexual-position-specific extracurricular hookups, one thing is for certain: Monogamy it is not.

    Assuming that most of these gay couples started out with at least the attempt of keeping it in their pants outside the relationship, why does monogamy appear to be so difficult for gay couples to maintain?

    There is no societal or religious pressure, no relationship archetype or historical expectation for a gay man to be monogamously coupled. Unlike heterosexual relationships, gay relationships form simply because two people want to be together. A heterosexual union may be rooted in religious and cultural bylaws that reinforce monogamy long after the excitement has left the bedroom. Straight couples are forced to push past the immediate gratification of sexual desire and find more meaningful forms of pleasure and release. If they give into the carnal pleasures of sex outside monogamy, they risk the chance of losing their coveted place among the moral elite.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....78177.html

    Now, of course there is going to be the occasional exception to the rule, but the percentage of gay male couples that remain strictly monogamous after the 5-year mark appears by all accounts, from both straight and gay sources, to be vanishingly small.

    Furthermore, I believe there was a video posted on this site a while back of a lesbian activist who gave a speech to a large crowd of LGBT activists on the issue of gay marriage in which she said something like: ‘I think it goes it without saying that gay people should be able to get married. But I think it also goes without saying that the institution of marriage shouldn’t exist.’

    Hearing the audio of this was much more instructive than simply reading it, because when she said that it goes without saying that gay people should be able to get married, the crowd was largely silent, but when she said that the institution of marriage shouldn’t exist the crowd broke out into loud applause and cheering.

    Of course, having said all this, I want to make it clear that I have no opinion one way or the other on the politics of gay marriage. I have an opinion on the morality of the practice of homosexuality (not on the orientation of homosexuality) in the same way I have an opinion on the morality of the practice of heterosexual premarital sex (but not on the desire for it), but I have zero interest in trying legislate my moral views or force anyone else to live by Biblical standards. That is a choice every individual has to make for themselves. I say this to make it clear that I have no reason to attempt to marshal false evidence against the potentially destructive nature of a homosexual lifestyle, because I’m not attempting to argue for some political position or the enactment of some piece of legislation, and because my views on the moral status of practicing a homosexual lifestyle is not based on this kind of secular evidence.

Leave a Reply