Katy Faust – the woman raised by her father and his girlfriends, her mother and her same-sex partner and her grandmother who is now against gay marriage

 

Lance  (Group Sects) writes…

During several media appearances in Australia,  US anti-gay marriage campaigner Katy Faust has been repeatedly described as having been ‘raised by lesbian parents’.

That’s partly true but mostly false.

Her father also raised her,  but her relationship was better with her mother and her mum’s same-sex partner than with her father.

Ms. Faust detailed her true family history in a US Supreme Court submission in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case which resulted in gay marriage being legalised in all US states.

“[pg. 7] SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

….. Katy Faust split time between the home of her
father, and the home of her mother and mother’s
partner, from the time she was 10 years old. While
her mother and her mother’s partner offered her love
and stability, her father had a distinct and
irreplaceable impact on her development…..
…..B.
Katy’s Story
My parents struggled, valiantly I would say, to
keep their marriage intact. But ultimately they
divorced when I was 10. Contrary to what some
might assume, their marriage did not dissolve
because my mother was a closet lesbian. It was, like
most divorces, complicated. I am devoted to my
parents completely and strive to honor and respect
them in the telling of my story. I will do my best to
honestly share my thoughts without revealing
sensitive information about them. The most
important thing that you need to know about them
is that I love them.
My parents’divorce was the beginning of several
transitions in my life. Immediately following their
announcement my mom moved to a rented room at a
nearby house. My father then purchased his own
place and my mother returned. She then fell in love
with her first and only partner who moved in with
us. My father also had a live-in girlfriend that came
into their relationship with a child. Three years
later, after my father had moved again and had a
new woman in his life, I moved out of state to live
with my grandmother for a year. Despite splitting
time between two houses, both of my parents strove
to stay connected with me and involved in my life.
While they wisely did not expect me to treat their
partners as my parent, there were certainly changes
in house rules and dynamics with the arrival of a
new adult.
In my mother’s home, I was part of their
community of women. I attended their soccer games,
parties, and cheered on the marimba band that my
mother and her partner lead. For the past 28 years
both my mother and her partner have been involved
in my major life events including graduations, my
wedding, raising my children, and holiday
celebrations, and my Fulbright year of study in
Taiwan.
While I wouldn’t say that I had “two
moms,” I accepted my mom’s partner as an
important part of her life and member of the
household. I now consider her my friend.
If childrearing were just about providing stability
by any two parents regardless of gender, then my
mom and her partner would have been everything
that I needed in life. They cared for me. I cannot
remember major strife in their home stemming from
their relationship with each other or with me. But
that was not enough.
My father and I have traveled a rockier path. We
love each other and, like every girl, I longed for his
affection. But there have been challenges that we’ve
had to overcome to remain in relationship with one
another. Despite those challenges, I can honestly say
that there is a big piece of me that simply would not
exist without my father’s investment and love.
It’s not just because an adult took an interest in me, it’s
because HE took an interest in me. A man cherished
me from birth to adulthood. Interacting with him
made me confident and calm when I was around
other men. He thought I was beautiful and told me I
was smart and strong.
My mom and her partner said the same things as I grew, but there is a distinct filling of the heart when those words come from your
father. And to this day, very little can compare to his
words of approval. He is an imperfect father loving
his imperfect daughter and his role in my life is
irreplaceable.
Some might object that my story does not qualify
in this discussion because I am not completely the
product of gay parenting, rather, I am the product of
divorce……”
Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Katy Faust – the woman raised by her father and his girlfriends, her mother and her same-sex partner and her grandmother who is now against gay marriage

  1. “I will continue to think that its unnatural and rather sad for a person to not be attracted to the same sex. Its just silly and strange and makes no sense.”

    But it’s obviously not silly or strange. It’s basic biology.

    I asked this to the only gay person I know once. Have you not ever once been attracted to the opposite sex? And they admitted they had.

    Listen i’m still learning and listening. So if you can say that you’ve never in your life felt sexual feelings / or romantic feelings for a woman, then I’ll accept it. But, you just have to admit from all we see in nature and the plain way reproduction works that it’s obviously NOT natural.

    If you want to say that being in the minority doesn’t make something wrong from a moral sense, then I can accept that. People can argue morality all day long. But males mate with females obviously.

    And I do feel sorry for you. That probably irritates and angers you. But, if I were an atheist who believed in evolution tomorrow, I’d say the same thing. It’s completely unnatural for a male to have no sexual interest in females. The cause I don’t know. IF you say God made you that way, then that’s your valid opinion. But, why?

    But don’t bother answering. There probably isn’t any point – not dissing you. On the contrary, nothing I say would change your opinion, so I won’t waste your time. Thanks for answering point seven though.

    Like

  2. “7. I will continue to think that its unnatural and rather sad for a person to not be attracted to the opposite sex. Its just silly and strange and makes no sense.”

    I think that beautifully sums up what’s at the heart of the issue.

    I will continue to think that its unnatural and rather sad for a person to not be attracted to the same sex. Its just silly and strange and makes no sense.

    Like

  3. OK Mr Groupsescts. Here it is … sure proof that a literal interpretation of the following verse is true, correct and fitting:

    “..Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her?” 1 Cor 11:14.

    Like

  4. Bones,
    Now that’s maybe the answer.
    Might head off to an island.
    Coconut cream pies and Mary Ann and Ginger.
    If you kept your views to yourself you could be the professor and keep my internet running.
    And give me vaccine shots.

    Like

  5. The way things are going it’ll be you guys on the small island with the anti-vaccers and anti-Copernicus group. Maybe one of those affected by the non-existent climate change.

    And what’s wrong with eating raw tomatoes?

    Like

  6. sorry

    11. I would much rather spend a weekend with a bunch of hysterical homosexual hirsute whores than the hideous hateful hounds of hell habitating hillsongchurchwatch.com

    See what I did with the ‘h’s there!

    kind of cheated with “habitating” though….

    I don’t think it’s a word. Thought i better mention that in case any of Mr Bone’s students are reading.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. After much thought on this issue, here is my conclusion.

    1. Which ever way you look at it, homosexuality is completely unnatural. You can argue that you see two male monkeys fooling around, or some female fish rubbing each other – but, it’s not for life, and it’s not the way babies are made, or our bodies are made. It’s simple. It’s just unnatural.
    And that’s why 90% of the world aren’t gay. Hardly anyone is.
    And most people aren’t overjoyed when their son tells them he’s gay. Its simple. And most of us won’t think a real man is tough if he says he’s gay. Simple. John Wayne would look ridiculous if after shooting Liberty Valance he started kissing Jimmy Stewart and dressed in a bra back at the ranch. It’s nuts.

    2. Some people however are like that. Why? I have no idea. For some it MIGHT be because of their parents or their early experiences. And for some it just might be the way they are. Like how some people like weird things. And some people are only attracted to old people or young kids. I don’t know why. Maybe they were just born that way.

    3. It’s ridiculous to argue that the Bible condoned homosexual sex or marriage. Of course it didn’t. No matter how much scripture bending you do, David wasn’t having sex with Jonathon. Jesus didn’t stay silent on it because he thought adultery and greed and killing were sin, but kept silent on other stuff because he was okay with incest, bestiality, homosexuality and nude photos of Pilate.

    4. If you want to argue that we aren’t in bible days, and we now see the world differently and know that homosexual behaviour is okay, and the world isn’t flat and the earth revolves around the earth – all this because we have vastly more info and live in completely different societies and cultures – then I understand. Everything is up for grabs, and Christians have got lots of things wrong over the centuries.

    5. No gay is going to be convinced by me that gay marriage, or even gay sex is wrong. So there isn’t much point bothering. Kids are taught that its all okay, so in a few years, those thinking that gay sex is sinful or that gay marriage is fundamentally wrong will be a very small minority – unless there is a huge Christian revival or some major change in the medical/scientific community.

    6. I think churches and any religion should have the right to preach their views.

    7. I will continue to think that its unnatural and rather sad for a person to not be attracted to the opposite sex. Its just silly and strange and makes no sense. But I don’t understand a person taking drugs and eating raw tomatoes and spending everyday watching steeplechases either.

    But I’m kind to any person who says they are gay and would have a beer with them, talk to them, wouldn’T insult them. and I’d be nice to their kids too if they had them with their gay partner.

    8. I realise that there are many gay people who have better relationships with their lovers and are nicer people than straights.

    9. Yeah, that’s about it. Oh, if it were my job to take photos or bake a cake for a gay wedding I would probably in the same way that I would if I had to do it for Hugh Hefner and his latest wife. (sorry if he died already). But I’m against forcing ministers to marry gays in church. But I’d be against forcing a cleric of some religion marrying me if they thought according to their religion that incredibly handsome blue eyed men were demonised or something. I’m for freedom of religion even if the religion is silly, and most probably are.

    10. Still, if I had it my way, I’d put gays and muslims, and Justin Bieber on their own little island somewhere.

    That’s where I’m at today anyway. lol

    Bones – don’t reply. lol Actually in #10 I was going to put you on the island too, but I’m so loving and kind these days that I don’t want to offend anyone.

    Did I offend anyone?

    I think not….

    lol

    Like

  8. 1) “Christ’s birth, life, miracles, death, resurrection and ascension were all ‘contrary to nature’”

    RESPONSE: Yes. This is why they were recognized as miracles.

    St Paul who spoke about the validity of Natural Law recognized that God is above this and miracles including the miracle of the resurrection is evidence of this:

    “12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. .

    2) “…A myth is a myth… Santa Claus (a myth) has now been incorporated into many Christian church services at Christmas (another myth). The truth of something in Christianity is based on whether it’s .. well… true. If the concept is false, then it’s false for everybody who borrows it”.

    RESPONSE: Not too many Christians assert Santa as a Truth. Your point is nonsensical..

    3) Code of Hammurabi

    “RESPONSE: The Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest extant collections of laws (c. 1780 bce), does not mention male-male sexual practices.

    However,..

    ‘…Ancient Assyria (1450–1250 bce) punished sodomy with castration: “If a man has lain with his male friend and a charge is brought and proved against him, the same thing shall be done to him and he shall be made a eunuch.” Under the Vendidad (c. 250–650), the Zoroastrian collection of laws, male homosexuality was understood as an effect of demons: “The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is the man that is a Daeva [demon]; this one is the man that is a worshipper of the Daevas, that is a male paramour of the Daevas.

    4) Planes, Trains and Scuba Diving

    RESPONSE: Of course, Naturally (occurring) Laws are used to over come the limitations Natural Laws. I see Lexus may have invented the hoverboard. Nothing immoral with that.

    http://www.popsci.com.au/?src=redirect

    5) The word I used is ‘pastor’.Local church leaders have no idea about this stuff.

    RESPONSE: Do not underestimate the level of training in ancient history, languages and comparative philosophy in an orthodox seminary.

    https://www.luthersem.edu/catalog/2015-16_Academic_Catalog.pdf?v=7.27.2015

    Like

  9. Natural Law has been used as a basis for everything from the Holocaust to slavery to the imprisonment and castration of homosexuals like WWII hero Alan Turing for ‘unnatural acts’.

    It only seems to raise it’s ugly head to keep a group of people down or justify bigotry.

    If we truly live by Natural Law then we should be living by the code “survival of the fittest” and eliminate the weakest of our species.

    I seem to remember the outcry from Christians and like-minded humanists when Dawkins used Natural Law to call upon the abortion of Down’s Syndrome babies.

    It seems we only want to follow some aspects of Natural Law.

    Like

  10. “For now, let’s just keep the issues of 1) ‘Natural Law’ and 2) the length of hair (1 Cor 11:14) separate on the basis that it is debatable as to whether St Paul was in the latter scripture appealing to ‘natural law’ or a more general ‘nature of things’.

    Christ’s birth, life, miracles, death, resurrection and ascension were all ‘contrary to nature’.

    “Natural law” was not a Christian teaching at that time, but only existed (not in name, but in concept) among Greek pagan philosophers and those Jewish philosophers who were trying to harmonise Judaism with Greek philosophy.

    Paul was incorporating the specific Greek philosophical concept of physis/nature into his writings to the extent that when he was saying ‘does not physis/nature teach you…’ he wasn’t introducing a new teaching or concept to the church at Corinth, but was reminding them of what they already knew to be true of the reality of ‘physis’ as defined by philosophy.

    To Paul, physis/nature was a living, functioning reality, subservient to God.

    The general term ‘nature of things’ was a dumbed-down translation of physis first appearing in the NIV in 1978,

    “However, does this mean that natural law is invented or owned by the pagans?

    Many concepts and laws have been discovered or rather articulated outside Judeo-Christianity religious or cultural frameworks. This does not make these concepts false.”

    A myth is a myth.

    Santa Claus (a myth) has now been incorporated into many Christian church services at Christmas (another myth)

    The truth of something in Christianity is based on whether it’s .. well… true.

    If the concept is false, then it’s false for everybody who borrows it.

    “The Muslims and Indians ‘discovered’ many natural mathematical laws and concepts including statistics and probability. This does not make these concepts false or pagan – rather these principles are properly owned and adopted by all people groups.

    Natural mathematical, economic, and scientific truths are ‘natural laws’ that are self evident and apply to all who exist on the planet regardless of faith, culture or time.”

    It is self-evident that a human flying at 40000 feet will experience certain death as a frozen popsicle.

    Unless they do it in a pressurised, heated machine with sufficient oxygen (an aircraft)

    It is also self-evident that it is contrary to physis/nature for a human to dive to great depths in the ocean without life-supporting equipment.

    Physis/nature tells us that humans naturally function at ground/sea level.

    There is a strong case to be made in philosophy for aircraft flight and deep sea diving to be banned as a defiance of ‘natural law’.

    Or do reason and logic not always lead to wisdom?

    (‘Awwww, but you can’t ban scuba diving, it’s fun.’
    Stiff shit. The human body was not designed to be underwater. It’s a misuse of the natural)

    “Similarly, the natural ‘moral’ law that St Paul was referring to in a number of his writings was embedded within Greek philosophy (as you say).

    However, the natural law is moral truth that is’ self-evident to all men’ (of good conscience) and it has been embedded in the moral codes and legal frameworks of all cultures since ancient times.”

    Behold, the Code of Hammurabi written before the Old Testament.
    Homosexuality – unregulated.
    Heterosexuality – heavily regulated.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

    “3) You’ll never hear a pastor acknowledge the pagan philosophical under-pinnings of these ideas in ‘scripture’ .. but it’s the hard truth for today’s Christians.

    I have to disagree on this point. A quick search of the Internet has many Christian sources that credits early articulation of ‘natural law’ concepts to the Greeks.”

    The word I used is ‘pastor’.

    Local church leaders have no idea about this stuff.

    Like

  11. Bones – you need to looky harder….

    “…They argue that the natural-law tradition puts much too much confidence in the capacity of fallen man to know the moral truth. They worry that the first people to use the expression “natural law” were the Stoics, who were pagans. Finally, they suspect that the God of natural law is not the God of the Bible, but the God of Deism—a distant Creator who designed the universe, wound it up, set it running, then went away. The answer to the first objection is that the Bible itself testifies to the reality of the natural law; though it does not use the term natural law, it alludes to all four of the Witnesses. The answer to the second objection is also biblical. The Apostle Paul did not blame the pagans for not having the truth about God and his moral requirements, but for suppressing and neglecting it. In the Proverbs, the main complaint about “fools” is not that they lack knowledge but that they despise it. As to the third objection, it is true that the first philosophers to use the term natural law were pagans, but the biblical testimony to its reality came earlier still. Besides, if God has made some things plain to all human beings through the Four Witnesses, should we not have expected some pagan thinkers to have admitted some of them? As to the fourth objection, the God of natural law is not different from the God of scripture—it is an incomplete picture of the same one. Nature proclaims its Creator; scripture tells us who he is. Nature shows us the results of his deeds in creation; scripture tells us the results of his deeds in history. Nature manifests to us his moral requirements; scripture tells us what to do about the fact that we do not measure up to them…”.

    http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-13-number-3/natural-law-what-we-naturally-know

    Like

  12. I dont see anything in those articles that say anything about natural Law and the Greeks. Just more apologetic claptrap.

    Like

  13. Groupsects, I acknowledge that you have written a great post and have provided food for thought.

    I do find that you argument is credible, however it is one-sided in its logic and it fails to acknowledge a broader, more holistic picture.

    For now, let’s just keep the issues of 1) ‘Natural Law’ and 2) the length of hair (1 Cor 11:14) separate on the basis that it is debatable as to whether St Paul was in the latter scripture appealing to ‘natural law’ or a more general ‘nature of things’.

    There is a much in your comment and I will break down my response in to bite-sized pieces.

    With regards to ‘Natural Law’, you make the many assertions. I will focus first on addressing the following three points:

    1) ‘Natural law’ is a pagan concept popularized by the ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato.

    This is true to some degree. The Greeks, particularly the Stoics are known to have articulated the concept of natural law within their philosophical framework.

    However, does this mean that natural law is invented or owned by the pagans?

    Many concepts and laws have been discovered or rather articulated outside Judeo-Christianity religious or cultural frameworks. This does not make these concepts false.

    The Muslims and Indians ‘discovered’ many natural mathematical laws and concepts including statistics and probability. This does not make these concepts false or pagan – rather these principles are properly owned and adopted by all people groups.

    Natural mathematical, economic, and scientific truths are ‘natural laws’ that are self evident and apply to all who exist on the planet regardless of faith, culture or time.

    Similarly, the natural ‘moral’ law that St Paul was referring to in a number of his writings was embedded within Greek philosophy (as you say).

    However, the natural law is moral truth that is’ self-evident to all men’ (of good conscience) and it has been embedded in the moral codes and legal frameworks of all cultures since ancient times.

    Romans 2:14-15: “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.”

    St Paul did not condemn ‘the world’ for having or adhering to natural law – rather he criticized society for suppressing it and not recognizing its divine source.

    2) And it’s no surprise that Paul was heavily influenced by philosophy as Tarsus was one of the great centers of philosophical learning, ‘surpassing Athens and Alexandria in its love of philosophy’.

    Again you are correct, St Paul was influenced by Hellenistic thinking – he was also a Pharisee.

    St Paul was articulate and well educated and this is why God selected ‘the right man for the task’ (albeit a murderer and the worst of sinners) of writing most of the New Testament and advancing the cause of Christianity to the peoples outside Israel.

    3) You’ll never hear a pastor acknowledge the pagan philosophical under-pinnings of these ideas in ‘scripture’ .. but it’s the hard truth for today’s Christians.

    I have to disagree on this point. A quick search of the Internet has many Christian sources that credits early articulation of ‘natural law’ concepts to the Greeks.

    Some of these will include:

    http://www.christianbook.com/philosophical-foundations-for-a-christian-worldview/william-craig/9780830826940/pd/26947?event=AFF&p=1011693&

    http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-13-number-3/natural-law-what-we-naturally-know

    Like

  14. Whilst I am drafting my formal response – I have a question …

    “Why do so many Lesbians have short hair?”.

    Like

  15. Touche, Lance.

    Your argument is good, albeit misguided by way of a type of anachronistic lopsided logic – I have not time to respond at present.

    “I will be back” -The Lionfishermenator 🙂

    Like

  16. “Her entire viewpoint was based in the requirements of ‘natural law’.”

    ‘Natural law’ is a pagan concept popularised by the ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato.

    It it based on the idea developed within philosophy of a human-like consciousness, below that of God, which orders the universe (known as nature, or ‘physin’)

    The Apostle Paul, incorporated this pagan concept into his own writings.

    In 1 Cor11:14, he uses pagan philosophy to mount a ridiculous argument about the disgrace of men having long hair (if it’s so para-physin/against nature, then why is hair designed to keep naturally growing unless it’s unnaturally cut?)

    ‘Does not nature itself teach you..?’

    No, Apostle Paul. ‘Nature’ is a philosophical concept, not a reality.

    Paul uses the same pagan philosophical argument (popular with Jewish writers at the time like Philo who was trying to harmonise Judaism with Greek philosophy) in Romans 1 when he writes that homosexuality is para-physin/ against ‘nature’.

    (That is, against the philosophical concept ‘nature’, Not as gay theologians have mistakenly interpreted it as being people ‘acting against *their own* nature’.)

    Paul again acknowledges his belief in the pagan concept of nature when he writes that God himself acts para physin/contrary to ‘nature’ .. when grafting the Gentiles into the Body of Christ.

    And it’s no surprise that Paul was heavily influenced by philosophy as Tarsus was one of the great centres of philosophical learning, ‘surpassing Athens and Alexandria in its love of philosophy’.

    You’ll never hear a pastor acknowledge the pagan philosophical under-pinnings of these ideas in ‘scripture’ .. but it’s the hard truth for today’s Christians.

    Pagan Greek philosophical writings remained popular among the early church fathers through Thomas Aquinas and beyond. Greek philosophy also influenced early Islamic thinking, such was its cultural and academic popularity through the centuries.

    ‘Natural Law’ is an ancient pagan myth which became criminal law and helped turn the church for centuries into an ISIS-style terror group..

    Crimes ‘against nature’ migrated from church law into common law and were still on the books in Australia until the late 20th century. In many other countries they still are.

    I will no longer be held hostage to the ideas of Plato and Aristotle or the dim-witted Katy Fausts of this world who unwittingly channel the ideas of the Greek pagan myth-makers and their modern day followers.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. A lot of kids don’t have a father in their lives.

    Some have no parents at all.

    Are kids better off with no parents or two gay parents?

    Some would be better off with one parent than two.

    Get over it.

    I find her argument to be hypocritical. I thought her lesbian parents did well. Would she have been better off with a single parent?

    Studies have shown that kids of gay and lesbian parents re no worse off and in some cases better off than children from straight parents

    https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/same-sex-parented-families-australia/childrens-wellbeing-same-sex-parented-families

    And you don’t need to be married to have kids.

    She said herself she had no problem with it until she became a born again type. So she had to be told her Mum was evil (but not her Dad). Her basic argument is she’s against gay marriage because Bible,

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Lance on Q&A, she did (as far as I can recall) mention that she was raised by lesbians. Her entire viewpoint was based in the requirements if ‘natural law’.

    I think she presented both well and with integrity (unlike those on either side of her).

    Like

  19. She is misrepresenting herself, and allowing her to be misrepresented on shows like Q & A and Lateline as, the woman raised by two mums who’s now against gay marriage…because that suits the right-wing Christian groups promoting her.

    She is more accurately described as ‘the woman, raised by her father and his girlfriends, her mother and her same-sex partner and her grandmother. who is now against gay marriage.’

    “The article underscores the need of a young girl to gave a father in her life.”

    She *did* have a father in her life, but she is making out in her media appearances that she didn’t.

    I found her true family history, posted above, buried in her Supreme Court submission.

    She’s tweaked her history since then and is no longer mentioning how she was raised by her father as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. The article underscores the need of a young girl to gave a father in her life. She is very open about her qualification (or lack thereof) to represent children raised in gay parent families. Respectfully, I fail to see your point.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s