FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 6, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)
"I would be happy to meet with Tyler Clementi's mom and dad to try to move forward and go beyond the highly charged rhetoric that doesn't help anyone." — Dr. Morse, Ruth Institute —
San Diego, CA — Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, President of the Ruth Institute issued the following statement today: "The media and activists groups are mischaracterizing my remarks, in which I urged students to befriend gay students, and also urged them all to adhere to the traditional standards of sexual morality. I believe that engaging in uncommitted sex hurts people of both genders and all sexual orientations. I would be happy to meet with Tyler Clementi's mom and dad to try to move forward and go beyond the highly charged rhetoric that doesn't help anyone. I don't think the Clementis know me or what I believe or think or said. Reaching out across lines of moral difference in a spirit of love is my mission. In the meantime, I would invite anyone to come to the Ruth Institute website and listen to the entire podcast for themselves."
The entire audio of Dr. Morse's remarks and the subsequent Q & A can be heard here.
###
To schedule an interview with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, contact please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Jen Campbell (x145), jcampbell@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
12 Comments
"Engaging in uncommitted sex hurts people of both genders and all sexual orientations."
Marriage equality creates commitment. As for the "all sexual orientations" part: Morse has in the past denied the existence of any orientation besides heterosexuality. Keep carting her out in front of legislatures. You're making our case for us!
Earth to Clark: Nonsense. Not to mention a typical leftist trait: wishful thinking.
Jennifer Robach Morse may actually have more hate in her heart than Maggie Gallagher, if that's possible!
Is Jennifer backtacking???? meh---no one cares about her or her "opinions"
I do care about Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse's scientific opinions and facts, so Mr./kid Flanoggin is proven incorrect.
Dr. J. is the type of highly knowledgeable scholar the SSm crowd won't "tolerate", though pretending to be "tolerant". Get real, tolerant does not mean "spousing" (no pun intended).
Anyway, I heard the audio recording of her speech reported on this Nomblog post, and it is elucidating rather than problematic.
Bottom line: The SSm crowd wants us to adopt (not children) their personal philosophy of what sexuality is. They, who include the people of homosexual persuasion, of all people, giving us lessons in sexuality. . . They would take our scientific philosophy of sexuality, and replace it by a non-scientific emotional idea of what, not only marriage, but science says about sexuality. Plus, some of them blame us for anyone committing suicide. The majority is to blame. Yep, that's Minority Politics.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is attacked with groundless arguments only because she dares to speak out what social sciences and economy concludes; But I really recommend listening to her lecture, part 1.
Clark, you used a quote, "uncommitted sex", but then switched to a nonsexual commitment. Why did you do that?
Same-sex sexual behavior is not a legal requirement for those who'd SSM. So it appears that you understand that SSM does not make committed sex. The lack of a legal requirement is definitive, according to those who have argued for SSM.
Marriage, on the other hand, entails consent to the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity and for integration of the sexes. That sexual basis is the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery/divorce, and so forth. It is a two-sexed, complementary-sexed, sexual basis that is foreign to all one-sexed scenarios -- sexual or not, committed or not.
The mischaracterizations are errors.
Those who knowingly push such such errors do not gain the high moral ground but rather stoop very, very, very low.
Supposedly those who criticized Dr J did so for a concern for increased clarity and greater understanding and more authentic friendship. [see note]
On the surface, at least, that is the common ground they share with Dr J as per her Question and Answer session at that link. Beneath the surface there are differences, of course, but those differences are not accurately representing by the errors that have produce the mischaracterization of Dr J's remarks.
* * *
I say, supposedly, because while some are sincerely basing criticisms on second-hand reports, others are clearly engaging in propaganda for the sake of gay identity politics and have no real interest in accurately portraying Dr J's remarks. They'd rather inject into her remarks their own political agenda.
Chairm: you must be dizzy from all that spin. If gay people exist and gay people form partnerships, it follows that allowing them to marry strengthens their commitment to one another. It's really quite simple. Except apparently for you.
Clark, deal with the actual disagreement.
You do not dispute what I said. There is no legal requirement for same-sex sex sexual behavior for those who'd SSM. We are in agreement on that point, surely.
SSM does not create committed "gay" sex.
You do not dispute the lack of a legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior. Nor can you dispute the lack of a requirement for gay identity for those who'd SSM. These lack of requirements amount, at the very least, to the fact that SSM does not create committed "gay" sex.
There is no dispute between us on these points, surely.
In your latest comment, you switched from "creates" to "strengthen". So now SSM would strengthen what it did not create. This makes your initial comment more absurd.
The closest you have come to referring to same-sex sexual behavior and a supposed same-sex version of "committed sex" is your mention of the gay identity group: "gay people exist".
Gay is not a sexual orientation. It is a socio-political identity. At the top you had complained regarding "all sexual orientations" but now you have emphasized an identity group instead.
Why did you think that Dr J was referring to the sort of nonsexual commitment you had in mind when you quoted "uncommitted sex" in your opening comment?
Partnership does not mean committed sex. But I supposed you imagine that adding "gay" to the word "partnership" is an acceptable euphemism for "committed gay sex" or some such. If so, why must the commitment have anything to do with sex if there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior, much less for a socio-political identity?
Zilch, apparently, given your switches in this brief exchange..
Clark (Kent):
I would take you up with your first phrase: "If gay people exist" (and if you don't just mean happy people). .
I like your hypothetical, but so-called 'gays exist' is a premise, not a conclusion.
You might feel 'gay', but that is not a scientific statement. It is an emotional statement. Or worse, it could be pathological. No offense, but another explanation is you could be going crazy, and not know it. (I mean, if we are trying to be logical.)
So, perhaps 'gay' people exist because they have been brain-washed into thinking other 'gay' people exist, but perhaps, in reality, all people have the potential of behaving somewhat 'gay', thereby dispensing with the notion of 'gays exist'. If we are all 'gay' it refers to no subset. After all, we must not forget about the bisexuals
who think themselves 'gay' one day, and not so another day - or they feel 'gay' some days.
You said: "IF gay people form partnerships. . ." (that's fine)
Friendships have commitment too, and without the necessity of marriage. Friendships are not regulated, so that strengthens their commitment over time. Marriages, on the other hand, divorce a lot.
I agree it is simple. 'Gay' partnerships are just like close friendships, with inherent commitment (that's what friendship is), and they are so committed, they don't even need to get married. Why spoil a good thing? Marriages that are also close friendships do well. But not because they are married, but in spite of it. They might get married because, if they have children, the government is going to regulate them, anyway. Government even regulates singles with one or more children.
It's really that simple.
Clark was your initial comment spin?
If you think not, then, perhaps you might clarify: do you think that a «gay sex» date between an older man and an unstable and emotionally vulnerable 18-year-old Is some sort of «committed gay sex» that does no harm. Apparently it was meant to be some sort of initiation in a way of campus life.
Perhaps you think that the 18-year-old intended to SSM, which would have strengthened the commitment of the older man's relationship with him? Was that the kind of «partnership» you had in mind? That older man exists. What was his influence during the days leading to the youth throwing himself off the bridge? I mean, why use a shared dorm room for this initiation, do you think?
I suspect that you agree with Dr on the ground level and that is difficult for you to acknowledge without first taking swipes at strawmen of your own making. Is that spin? Maybe yes and maybe no. You can explain yourself. Is there really an norm that comes with SSM which serves to constrain «gay sex» to «committed gay sex» or is that a fiction posed as a fabricated «gay» version of what Dr J (and perhaps you) had in mind?
Friendship is very significant during all stages in the life of human beings. Sexualization distorts the good of friendship. Uncommitted sex is sex outside the marital relationship of husband and wife. Living the core meaning of marriage starts before entering one's own marriage. In fact, chaste living begins in young adulthood and continues throughout marital life -- both within one's marital relationship and outside it with friendships with men and with women. Chasity is a natural preparation for the maturing young person's growth into the marriage lifestyle. The marriage idea presents this as normative even where the hook-up culture has undue influence on youth on campus. The compare and contrast is possible only when the marriage idea is not obscured by those who'd take advantage of vulnerablities. Falling into other unchaste behaviors sharply contrasts with the marriage lifestyle; that is made more obvious in contrast with the far too common hook-up initiations that lead to non-marital lifestyle choices.
SSM is such an alternative lifestyle choice. Non-marital in form and function. Sexualization of friendships among youth is the norm among the role models of the gay identity group. SSM in whatever form is a marginal practice within the adult homosexual population. I suppose one might rejoice that the non-gay youth have been taught to become more and more like the gay population in such things, rather than the other way around. That would be the basis for the false equivalency your comment, Clark, had invoked.
You might best explain by unpacking your comment yourself.
Clark?