Father Deeter and gay marriage

I spend Saturday as a wedding guest here in Perth at a lovely wedding of a relative of Loretta's. It turned out to be a perfect day, not too hot. The wedding was held at a beautiful Catholic cathedral made of stone in Leederville. It was short and sweet, not dragging on and on, like some do.

The priest was Father Tim Deeter. I've met him last year at the wedding of Loretta's oldest nephew. I mention this because I do like him. Father Deeter is an American, born and raised in Chicago. I'm not sure how he ended up in Perth, but he did. And he likes it here.

The thing I like about Father Deeter is that he has a fantastic sense of humor. He is very relaxed and easy going. He is a big MLB White Sox fan. I had the pleasure of being seated next to him at last year's wedding and got to taking to him about life back home. At that time, he was going to take business trip to southern California for a month or so. He had to fly coach to LAX (the Church apparently doesn't fly their priests Business or First Class), so I loaned him my Bose Noise canceling Headsets. He loved them!

The reception for scheduled for 6pm at the Sheraton Hotel. Everyone was seated by 6:30, except the wedding party. They were late. Us guests were sitting there at the tables with a wonderful plate of antipasto appetizer sitting in front of us. We waited, and waited, and waited, getting hungrier and hungrier.

I just simply started eating my food. I was not going to wait any longer. Loretta poked me in the ribs and told me that it was impolite to start eating until the wedding party was seated and grace was said. That started a debate at our table about what to do. I argued (a) no one told us that we couldn't eat, and (b) if they didn't want us to eat, then why did they put food on the table in front of us? My argument won the day, so we all dug in. This seems to have given the tables around us the permission to eat too. The stricter religious people at our table, *cough* Loretta *cough*, refused and just looked at their food.

Eventually, the wedding party came in, with Father Deeter, and got seated. Father Deeter went up the PA and announced that he was going to give grace. He cracked that some people had tipped him to the fact that a number of people in the room had already started eating. And they wanted to know what was going to happen to them. Father Deeter replied "We were all going to hell." But them he added "That s a bit harsh for a wedding party. So instead, I've asked God to just give us terrible stomach craps at 2am." Ha Ha.

The holdouts at my table all gave me smug and sanctimonious looks. I was a heathen sinner for eating my food... so I guess I am going to hell. Tell me something that I don't already know :-).

Father Deeter is staunchly conservative in his convictions, which I don't have a problem with. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. He does use the weddings to makes his feeling about marriage very clear during the ceremony. I have to hand it to him. He has the rare ability to deliver his thoughts and reasons with humor, which makes it palatable to the audience. He doesn't talk down to you, or make you feel bad if you disagree with him.

At Paul's wedding last year, he lambasted the ease in which people can get divorced, abandoning their spouse and oaths at any time without cause.

In yesterday's wedding, he attacked the concept of gay marriage. He got on the subject of the movie "Brokeback Mountain", and how it is trying to make the idea of gay marriage politically correct. He blasted the idea of gay marriage as absurd. "What's next?” he asked. "Make it legal for people to marry their pets?"

Well Father Deeter. There is where you lost me. He argues that allowing gay marriage is a slippery slope, which will then open the doors for other alternative marriages. My problem is where he decided to draw the line. He places it between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. He puts homosexual marriage in with the collection of clearly irrational marriage situations.

His "slippery slope" theory is absurd. If two rational and consenting adults love each other, wish to pledge to live together, to be faithful and to care for each other, then who are we to deny that? They key words here are "two rational and consenting human adults". An animal is not a human. An animal can not be rational or consenting. A child can not consent to marriage. An inanimate object can not consent to anything. Therefore, the idea that society would allow such marriages is absurd. To argue that gay marriage would allow this, is in itself, illogical and absurd.

Rather than using reason and logic to defend his arguments, Father Deeter used hyperbole and fear. That is a shame. He is a smart and articulate man. He shouldn't need to stoop so low.

The real argument against gay marriage is children. It opens up a big can of worms. Can we deny any married couple the right to have, adopt, or raise children? That is a difficult question. If this is Father Deeter's problem with homosexual marriage, then just say so. There is no need to go to ridiculous extremes and witty, but meaningless, quips such as "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve".

There is no doubt that the best homosexual couples would make far better parents than the worst heterosexual couples. So there is no fundamental flaw which renders them incapable of raising a child.

I think a lot of people fear that a homosexual couples are really pedophiles intent on "converting" young children to homosexuality. How on earth the terrible crime of pedophilia became connected to homosexuals in people's minds is beyond me. I've never met a homosexual who was sexually interested in children. I would be willing to bet that heterosexual pedophiles far outnumber homosexual pedophiles. Therefore, heterosexuals rank as a far greater risk to children then homosexuals do.

Also, there is the fear that homosexual couples will raise the children to be homosexual themselves. That is unsubstantiated bullshit. Chances are, the children will be heterosexual. Just because your parents are attracted to people of the same gender does not mean that you will be.

Personally, I wish that homosexuals who wish to be married should take a long term view and accept that they are not going to be able to overcome the child raising issue for a long time. In the meantime, they should focus on simply being able to marry their partner. If that means pledging or accepting that they won't have children, then so be it. They can save that battle for another day.