A video of the talk given Nov. 9 from the RamCatholic Youtube channel.
Ad
Ryan T. Anderson is a Princeton-educated, well-known speaker who has written books, been cited as part of the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court during the 2015 ruling on gay marriage and appeared on CNN to debate his views. Monday night in the Lory Student Center, he gave a speech that was billed as “Redefining Marriage.”
But, not all CSU students felt comfortable with his presence on campus, and some held a protest.
One of the lead students who helped organize the protest is Nicholas Delgado. He feels that Anderson’s presence on campus is contradictory to some of the standards set forth by the Lory Student Center.
“When I heard about this guy coming to campus, I knew we needed to do something about this because this is not OK,” Delgado said. “And, the fact that it is being held in the building, the building even says that any event corresponding to discrimination based on sexual orientation or religion, will be prohibited.”
The event was held by RamCatholic, an on-campus ministry at CSU whose website says the organization supports the spiritual development of students during a critical, transitional time in their lives.
“RamCatholic seeks to boldly communicate to faculty, staff, and students of Colorado State University the social, humanitarian, moral and spiritual teachings of the Catholic Church,” wrote Leanne Tracy, the associate director of Campus Ministry at CSU, in an email to the Collegian. “Dr. Anderson fits this goal.”
Tracy said she wanted to make clear that this event is not meant to be discriminatory in any way.
“We understand that this topic is emotionally charged and very personal,” Tracy wrote. “We are not homophobic, and most of us have loved ones who have homosexuality in their lives. We are merely seeking to communicate the teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the definition of marriage.”
Delgado mentioned that Anderson’s well-known belief of conversion therapy, a form of therapy aimed at converting homosexual individuals into heterosexuals, is particularly offensive and in violation of this policy. The Lory Student Center website policy page states that, “Colorado State is committed to providing an environment free of harassment and other forms of discrimination based on race, age, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, veteran status, and/or disability.”
Ad
“It doesn’t feel fair because I see this, and so many other students see this, as a problem,” Delgado said.
The advertisement for the speech contains a picture of two people holding hands without any indication as to the gender of either individual, and Delgado felt that this was misleading to students who viewed the ad.
“What made me angry too was seeing how they advertised it — it was very misleading, because the cover picture is just two genderless people who are holding hands and it just says ‘Redefining Marriage,'” Delgado said. “I feel like someone who looks at it from the surface could just be very mislead about whats really going on.”
Delgado and the students planning the protest are not protesting the event, but rather, trying to stand up together for their ideals and provide a safe haven for students who do not feel comfortable with Anderson’s speech.
“We are trying to create an area of safety on campus while this event is going on,” Delgado said. “We just want to be able show students what this event is actually about, and also to address that having an event like this on a campus with such a large variety of people can alienate a lot of people. It’s not fair to have something so hateful on campus that excludes so many people.”
Despite the backlash RamCatholic has incurred by Anderson’s presence, Tracy said they do not plan to shy away from bringing in controversial speakers in the future.
“It is our goal to equip students with the knowledge of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and why it holds those beliefs,” Tracy wrote. “In the future, we will continue to invite speakers who effectively communicate these beliefs.”
Collegian Reporter Luke Scriffiny can be reached at news@collegian.com or on Twitter @LScriffiny.
strike_echo • Nov 19, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Was there ever going to be an article about the talk itself? I’m still curious and it’s been 10 days
CSU Collegian • Nov 20, 2015 at 1:09 am
Thank you for checking in.
We actually never planned to write a separate piece, but we did, in fact, plan on adding to this article in a much timelier manner. However, sourcing and finding information has been unusually difficult. While we did add the video, we are still hoping for more and will add that to this article as we get it — it has not been for lack of trying.
Matthew Pouliot • Nov 10, 2015 at 9:49 pm
This article appears to have been posted before Dr Anderson’s speech even took place. So these thin skinned false assertions are a bit offensive. America was built upon open and respectful civil discourse in the public square. There was no hate speech that went on. Much of what was said was based on historical fact, and natural law, that transcends many religions, not just Catholic Christianity. Maybe this author should’ve showed up for the speech, he might have learned something!
CSU Collegian • Nov 10, 2015 at 10:03 pm
Hello Matthew,
Thank you for voicing your concerns.
This piece was intended to run as a preview to the event that was focused on the protesters while still providing input from RamCatholic about the event. For that reason, we published the article before the event occurred.
We will have a response from people who attended the event soon.
strike_echo • Nov 19, 2015 at 8:07 pm
Are you still working on that response? It’s been 10 days since you published this.
CSU Collegian • Nov 20, 2015 at 1:06 am
Thank you for checking in. We have acquired a video of the talk that we placed in the post, but otherwise, it has been unusually difficult to find sources and information for the follow up. We will add more to this article as we get it — it has not been for lack of trying.
Tori Green • Nov 10, 2015 at 7:10 pm
Luke,
I appreciate the coverage of the protest that accompanied Dr. Ryan Anderson’s “Redefining Marriage” speech held Monday evening in the LSC. I think it is important to highlight the voices of students, especially when it comes to emotionally charged issues of diversity and discrimination. I respect that many of my fellow students stood outside and voiced their concerns about inequality and it is disturbing to hear that any of them felt that hatred was the purpose of this event.
For this reason, I also felt the need to speak out. Although you quote Delgado stating, “’We just
want to be able show students what this event is actually about, and also to
address that having an event like this on a campus with such a large variety of people can alienate a lot of people.’” Your coverage does not address the actual content of the talk, but relies on what protesters assumed. Nowhere in his presentation did he discuss his own beliefs on homosexuality or “conversion therapy,” yet these points were highlighted in the reason for the protest. Instead, Anderson’s talk discussed why government cares about the institution of marriage from the perspective of children. To do so he cited social science studies, such as this one(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3091824/), that conclude children are set up for the highest level of success when a child is raised by both a father and a mother. Additionally, Anderson blamed both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike for causing the deterioration of the permanence and exclusivity of marriage.
I am extremely disappointed that students chose to boycott the event on assumptions of the content.
As members of an academic institution, and in our civic responsibility, we are expected to encounter and question ideologies that we do not agree with. I think many students would benefit by taking the time to listen to other perspectives and challenge the points they find disagreeable.
As a journalist, you have a responsibility to check into the validity of the claims your sources make. As Devyn stated, posting your original article online before the talk discredits many of the points you make about Dr. Ryan Anderson.
Thank you for your time
CSU Collegian • Nov 10, 2015 at 10:02 pm
Hello Tori,
Thank you for voicing your concerns.
This piece was intended to run as a preview to the event that was focused on the protesters while still providing input from RamCatholic about the event. For that reason, we published the article before the event occurred.
We will have a response from people who attended the event soon.
Tori Green • Nov 18, 2015 at 6:34 pm
No response was ever posted. I realize this topic is no longer timely, and therefore probably no longer newsworthy, but I would have preferred a more transparent response instead of an empty promise.
CSU Collegian • Nov 20, 2015 at 1:07 am
Thank you for checking in, Tori. We have acquired a video of the talk that we placed in the post, but otherwise, it has been unusually difficult to find sources and information for the follow up. We will add more to this article as we get it — it has not been for lack of trying.
Devyn Fontana • Nov 10, 2015 at 6:59 pm
“Posted by Luke Scriffiny on November 9, 2015 at 6:37pm” The event STARTED at 7pm on November 9th. Luke, as a journalist it is your responsibility to be as knowledgeable about a topic as possible. This means that if you are going to write a bold piece about the discriminatory talk that took place last night, you should actually GO to the talk before writing your article. This would greatly aid in the misinformation that is plaguing this article. Just as a food critique must taste the food before critiquing, so must you (as a journalist) go to the talk before writing about said talk.
CSU Collegian • Nov 10, 2015 at 10:02 pm
Hello Devyn,
Thank you for voicing your concerns.
This piece was intended to run as a preview to the event that was focused on the protesters while still providing input from RamCatholic about the event. For that reason, we published the article before the event occurred.
We will have a response from people who attended the event soon.
Marleb • Nov 10, 2015 at 4:35 pm
For the readers of this article that did not attend the talk and because of this poorly explained article that brings up doubts the author even attended the talk for anything more than a picture, let me explain what Dr. Anderson talked about.
This event, though sponsored by ramCatholic, had NOTHING to do with either homosexuality or religion. The topic being discussed was simply “What IS Marriage”. Dr. Anderson spent the time looking at the societal construct of marriage and the four “walls” that make up that construction and definition. He elaborated on the idea that once you take down one “wall” of definition, how easily one can objectively tear down the other three. The MAIN POINT that he discussed was the governments role in marriage and how marriage has been a government construct throughout all of history and how the redefining of marriage (not necessarily homosexual relations but also divorce, children outside of a married couple, 3+ people couples, and infidelity in marriage) is impacting society. He also spent a great deal of time talking about what is best for the children of a married couple and how more people should be looking into what the best option of marriage is for the children involved. In no way was this debate anything that I could personally see as offensive– Dr. Anderson was incredibly well spoken and backed each of his points many times in many different ways.
tb03 • Nov 10, 2015 at 9:16 pm
with all due respect there needs to be more honesty here. Dr. Anderson has traveled the country for years giving this same speech and argument against the legal recognition of SSM, so there was no new material presented here that has not been spoken in many youtube videos or several books written about this very argument and issue. Also, it’s a bit misleading to say that this isn’t about religion or homosexuality when the lens used to view marriage as for the purpose of procreation is clearly Catholic and never has been a part of civil marriage. Remember, this argument has been used time and time again to defend state bans on SSM without success. Even rulings that upheld SSM bans did not recognize the procreation argument as convincing.
Anderson has spent a great deal of time skimming the surface of social science with the sole purpose of distorting the effect of SSM on child rearing and society, but I would advise a bit more critical thinking. Has there ever been objective evidence linking SSM to infidelity, divorce or polygamy? If marriage is supposed to be complementary geared toward procreation, and religious freedom is necessary for the defense of marriage, why is it SSM that will lead to polygamy and not “traditional” marriage? I mean, the best arguments for polygamy are natural law arguments, religious freedom, and the common presence of polygamy in human history. It would seem that traditional marriage makes the argument for polygamy far better than understanding marriage as between equals. Also, the social science that Anderson has used to support effects on children in SSM has been proven to be factually incorrect and purposely designed to reach a prescribed conclusion. The presumption that male/female biological parents is the best arrangement for children sentimentalizes biological parenting without bothering to separate out issues of abandonment, poverty, educational opportunities, racism, sexism, ect. He also oversimplifies humanity into buckets of “male” and “female” and then arbitrarily assigns exclusive roles to these genders even though the roles assigned are not exclusive to male or female. He doesn’t even recognize that in the real, natural world every human does not fit neatly into the category of male and female since intersex people exist. He then presumes that these gender role preferences are what makes male/female biological parenting the best structure for children, which is not supported by experts in the field of child psychology, sociology, medicine, ect. It’s clear that he misunderstands the definition of male and female, does not grasp fundamental concept on what a family is, why they are a family and what makes a family important to children. Ironically enough it’s the inability to grasp the definition of male, female, and family that then leads to his incorrect definition of marriage.
Marianne Leber • Nov 11, 2015 at 9:33 am
Before you argue with me on this matter, I suggest that at the soonest possible time, you get your hands on a recording of the talk that occurred the other day. Dr. Anderson did not in fact talk about homosexuality and did in fact, as I previously stated, talk about marriage in terms of a societal construct of a governmental institution.
What vexes me most about your reply is that he supposedly “misunderstands the definition of male and female.” The dictionary definition of male is “the physiological sex that produces sperm” and female is “an individual that bears young or produces eggs as distinguished from one that produces sperm.” I don’t know what misconstrued definition you’re looking at for these two words, but I am positive that Dr. Anderson certainly would agree with the definitions I found. I am speaking of a fundamentally medical and scientific definition, not one formulated by the changes in society since yes, I’m aware that the societal gender “norms” are changing.
tb03 • Nov 11, 2015 at 11:25 am
He didn’t talk about homosexuality? Quick question, what was his definition of marriage? Did it include same sex couples? Arguing that he didn’t use the word “homosexual” or anything similar means he wasn’t talking about homosexuality is a bit misleading when we all know “redefining marriage” has become a type of pseudonym in conservative circles for same sex marriage. Why not just be more transparent?
Well, I’ll just quickly say that gender norms have always changed and always will. That is nothing new, but I mostly want to address your definition of male and female. So, if a male is defined by sperm production what of the man who cannot produce sperm (which happens for a variety of reasons like genetic issues, diseases or trauma)? Is he no longer a man? What about a woman after a total hysterectomy, is she no longer a woman? Anderson has said that children need a male and a female (moms and dads) for proper development. What is it about sperm production that makes a good dad, or what’s special about ovulation that makes a good mother? I guess my complaint about your response is similar to my objection to Anderson’s argument. This is overly simplified terminology skimming over the depth and meaning of what it is supposed to represent, the meaning of human and the meaning of a parent and even the meaning of marriage, and then warped to fit what it’s desperate to justify.
Marianne Leber • Nov 11, 2015 at 12:35 pm
I never said that he never mentioned the word “homosexuality”, he did but not discuss the matter in the context that you’re getting so riled up about. The topic of “Redefining Marriage” was not about literally re-defining it, but simply looking at the basis of the definition or marriage. Through the years the term “marriage” has gone from “a man and a woman being joined legally to each other for the rest of their lives and the possibility of children being produced from that union” into something more like “two people that mutually love each other and will the good of another are joined together.” This is not about same-sex marriage, but about the affects of divorce, infidelity, and children not being produced from the union and looking at what the breakdown of the “traditional” definition can lead to: polygamy, adoption and the situations in which those children would be raised, and yes, homosexuality. Same-sex marriage is a LOGICAL conclusion to the breakdown of the traditional definition of marriage.
And those definitions of male and female were not my own definitions, merely the first definition I saw when I Googled the words “male” and “female” since I wanted to produce something as unbiased as a literal dictionary definition. I absolutely do not believe that if something was to occur to those gender-specific genetalia that the person would not be a man or a woman anymore. I agree with you that gender roles have changed, do change, and will change again–most of the time for the better too. But I believe that there are certain traits that are distinctly male and female. How else would you explain the behaviors of male and female animals? They are certainly not told by any authority or society how to act, yet males TEND to be more assertive, aggressive, domineering, and physically stronger while females TEND to be more nurturing, gentle, and diplomatic. Please take note that I said “tend” and am referring not just to humans but all species. I agree with Dr. Anderson when he states that children deserve to be raised in the best possible environment. Some of the most well-rounded people I know were raised by same-sex couples and some of the most erratic people I know were raised by a heterosexual couple. Dr. Anderson, in the talk on Monday, spent more time talking about single mothers raising their children than on a same-sex couple raising their children. Children deserve to grow up with a parent that is stereotypically “motherly” and another parent that is stereotypically “fatherly”. That usually TENDS to come from a heterosexual couple, but can most certainly come from a same-sex couple.
tb03 • Nov 11, 2015 at 8:19 pm
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I’ll try to be brief because I believe the point I have to make I’ve already touched upon in my initial reply. I understand Anderson’s argument hinges upon the definition of marriage. My counter argument is that there is a misunderstanding of the people involved in marriage, and therefore the understanding of marriage is incorrect. When you understand people as being different, maybe different sexes but certainly different people with their own unique strengths and weaknesses but inherently equal then it’s easier to understand what marriage is. Marriage is not based on some arbitrary belief of what “motherly” or “fatherly” is or who can be motherly or fatherly, these beliefs are basically personal preference and essentially useless for public policy. Marriage for a long time was not understood as between equals, but as a man who rules over a woman or women. Many times these women were abandoned and left with no defense or way to make a living. This was very problematic and some ancient tribal leaders (think Moses) even created a system of divorce in hopes that women wouldn’t be abandoned but able to go through a divorce process that would keep her within the tribe with family, maybe she could even possibly remarry. Over time laws improved and civil marriage was created as a record for inheritance, property, define next of kin, ect. to create more accountability. To create even more equality. The marriage may involve children, but primarily the contract is between the married couple. Civil marriage is not a man and woman who will become parents, but it is a contract between 2 people to help ensure accountability between each other and society. Even though this is unromantic and dull it’s the definition of civil marriage. Our government is involved to help protect rights of participants, children included but not exclusively protected. Also, even though it’s unfortunate, government is involved in marriage because it often needs to intervene if there is a divorce. On a more positive note it is good for government to encourage marriage as married couples tend to be more economically productive.
This is important to understand because it is more useful for grasping the real issues that are breaking up families. Divorce is problematic for sure, but divorce adultery, out of wedlock childbirth are a symptom of the real issue destroying families which can usually be traced back to some form of inequality. Blaming single parenting on the hook up culture is pretty lazy analysis especially in light of massive income inequality and poverty, sexism, racism, a broken criminal justice system, and on and on. It’s also frankly creepy to describe civil marriage as meant for procreation, as if our children are some sort of purebred dog or cattle meant for our consumption. No, this cannot be true. And what’s more troubling is that Anderson’s definition of marriage distracts us from what threatens us the most.
Anyway, I’ve gone on for far to long… Good night.
Marianne Leber • Nov 11, 2015 at 9:47 pm
You have no idea how happy I am to say that I agree with probably 99% of what you just said because, frankly, I’m exhausted with trying to argue on this topic.
I share your feelings on the inequality of women, and I actually just lead a Bible study on that yesterday that–had you been there–would have probably enjoyed and heartily agreed with. On the counts of divorce I also strongly agree. My dad was abusive and unfaithful to my mother, and I thank God every day that we were able to get out of that situation. She raised me as a single mother and I, nor do many other people, blame single parenting on the hookup culture. The hookup culture does, obviously, lead to more pregnancies, but there is so much more to single parenting than just that. Divorce can be a great blessing in many, many circumstances so long as it’s not a “Kim Kardashian”-abused-priveledge type deal.
You’d probably be shocked to find out that what you just stated is actually a strong Catholic belief too. We believe that marriage is a union where children TEND (there we go with the capital letters again) to be produced. Marriage is not just for procreation of children, that would indeed be creepy! Children are a logical cause of procreation and people usually save having kids for when they are married.
I hope we have reached a civil impasse here seeing as though at this moment we both agree with each other. I thoroughly hope that if you didn’t know much about Catholicism that I’ve cleared up some misunderstandings that you may have believed and would love to answer anything else you have. Media and society misconstrue and selectively pick out the things about the Church that they dislike and can argue with, when really the Church–while trying to stick with our beliefs–tries to love people where they are and to serve the people of the world with Christ-like love. I know that SO many people are weary about Christians, no thanks to the preachers on the plaza, but they most certainly do not represent all Christians. On behalf of anyone that has given you any distasteful thoughts about Christians, I deeply apologize and hope that before believing that anything is “hate speech”, to find out what a Christian’s idea about it is!
Have a wonderful rest of your evening!
tb03 • Nov 12, 2015 at 5:56 pm
Thanks, I’m not Catholic but I do know that Catholics view sex in marriage as both unitive and procreative which is a fairly recent departure from their original view of sex only for procreation. Protestants, however, have a different view and see the primary purpose of sex in marriage as unitive and children as a blessing in marriage not a command, so there is no basis to require sex to be “open to procreation”. This belief combined with the more recent understanding that LGBT people are born LGBT, and being queer is not pathological so the label of intrinsic disorder is untrue. To paraphrase from Catholic theologian James Alison “God does not despise his creation, but loves His creation as He created them.” These basic understandings have been the major contributor to some mainline Protestant acceptance of SSM. Gay sex is unitive the same as straight sex, and not pathological but healthy in loving supportive marriages. When we hear arguments like Anderson’s and cancel out common denominators shared between same sex and opposite sex marriage all that is left is sexual procreation that some OS couples can accomplish. Unfortunately, you have to argue the creepy procreation argument because that’s the only difference.
I appreciate your apology, but I do know that opinions against SSM vary among religions. I would advise fleshing out your understanding beyond religious and philosophical and look more at the reality that SSM bans had on families, especially children. Thousands extra spent on taxes, limited access to medical benefits/immigration benefits/social security/property rights, and I could go on. Most importantly I would read up on the affects on their children and the extra vulnerability and humiliation of having a parent erased from their lives. I have yet to understand how coercive morality laws such as sodomy laws and SSM bans were beneficial. The only explanation I’ve hear were theoretical (frankly illogical) slippery slope excuses.
Went on for far too long again, sorry. And thanks for the discussion.
Marianne Leber • Nov 16, 2015 at 10:52 am
Here’s the link for the talk so you can see for yourself what this whole thing was about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79gHEYkgY-k
CSU Collegian • Nov 10, 2015 at 10:03 pm
Hello Marianne,
Thank you for voicing your concerns.
This piece was intended to run as a preview to the event that was focused on the protesters while still providing input from RamCatholic about the event. For that reason, we published the article before the event occurred.
We will have a response from people who attended the event soon.
strike_echo • Nov 10, 2015 at 3:24 pm
Did he actually talk about gay marriage or just the Catholic teachings on marriage? I think it would be good to know what he was saying!
Marleb • Nov 10, 2015 at 4:36 pm
I would recommend reading my comment to this article
CSU Collegian • Nov 10, 2015 at 10:03 pm
Hello,
Thank you for voicing your concerns.
This piece was intended to run as a preview to the event that was focused on the protesters while still providing input from RamCatholic about the event. For that reason, we published the article before the event occurred.
We will have a response from people who attended the event soon.
strike_echo • Nov 10, 2015 at 10:35 pm
Next time, be sure to use the correct tense at least. The phrase “Monday night….he gave,” while true, is misleading in regards to the author’s knowledge of the subject matter. It should have been clearer that this piece was intended to be a preface to the talk and the events that happened before it.
benaaker • Nov 10, 2015 at 11:13 am
What did he speak on? You never actually said.
Marleb • Nov 10, 2015 at 4:35 pm
I would recommend reading my comment!
CSU Collegian • Nov 10, 2015 at 10:03 pm
Hello,
Thank you for voicing your concerns.
This piece was intended to run as a preview to the event that was focused on the protesters while still providing input from RamCatholic about the event. For that reason, we published the article before the event occurred.
We will have a response from people who attended the event soon.