De-Mythologizing Left and Right

The comment string on Saturday’s post went down a rabbit trail on Barney Frank’s foolishness and/or sexualtiy and wound up in a briar patch of mythology. Most of the trouble any culture gets mired in is created by people acting on false assumptions, so let’s look at where these communications are not communicating.

Let's take a look at the last post, by Gergle, linked above.

You might be a redneck,…..If you worry a lot about Barney Frank and his houseboys…or perhaps a bit repressed or latent says Dr. Freud. What is it with Republicans and sexuality? They spend great deals of time and money prosecuting and hiding it.:)

This actually jumped off of a comment I made in the string of the March 20 article that included the following:

Anybody who could watch the behavior of Barney Frank (of brothel fame), or Chris Dodd, or Robert Gibbs this week, or Barney Frank ever in the last five years (“There is no soundness issue here…”), or Sheila Jackson Lee (“can the Mars Rover go to where the astronauts landed?”), or, (OH MY WORD how many others?) and find these people shameable must have psychic powers beyond normal human comprehension…
What turned that comment, intended as a humorous jab at Stephen Daugherty, into a comment about Barney Frank's sexuality? Could it be that liberals ASSUME conservatives are, as Rush Limbaugh says, "homophobes"?

Maybe we should look at Gergle's question and rephrase it to “What is it with the accusations Democrats fling at Republicans about sexuality?”.

Over the course of my college years I had two college roomates who were gay. They were both fine people. One of them, my best friend, died of AIDS in 1984 (couched in a euphemistic diagnosis common to the day- "died of complications of bacterial pneumonia"), as did at least a dozen of my other friends over the course of the ’80s and ’90s.

Though I am opposed to gay marriage because the framing of the debate is obviously NOT innocently intended to provide a stable legal framework for monogamous sexual relationships but, rather, to undermine the principally religious institution evolved across human civilizations for the rearing of children, I am highly supportive of establishing a statutory civil framework for such monogamous households.

I attended Methodist colleges, expecting to continue on to a career in Methodist ministry. My experience with my roommates caused me to question much of what I had been taught growing up. In theological papers I addressed the issue of the supposed “evil” of homosexuality, per se, arguing that, to the extent one’s sexual orientation is imprinted by nature (and in later theses even by experiences imposed upon a person, but not of the individual’s making) the attractions they feel are a part of God’s will for that person.

I personally believe what is abhorrent to God (speaking here as a believer rather than in the civil context of a political commentator) is not sexual orientation, nor even whether one will take up the mantle of sexual experience with one of the same sex, but the use of another person as a toy, an interchangeable, de-personalized tool for pleasure. My personal conviction extends into my understanding of civil matters. I see that dehumanization as instrumental in all forms of evil, from Ponzi scemes, to exploitation of illegal immigrants, to larceny, to robbery, to rape, and to murder.

It is telling that the activist gay community has not taken this argument to heart. Instead, they have insisted that gay promiscuity itself should be a legally recognized, legally protected lifestyle of choice. To that my answer is “NO”.

So what is the key difference here between liberal and conservative views? The conservative philosophy I espouse is the sacredness of the human individual, whereas the liberal view appears to be that the individual is supposed, at best, to be a subservient cog in the larger society's wheel and, at worst, (as in activist gay, and other sexual industry, arguments) merely a tool, even a plaything for the whims of that society. This is a philosophical point the left frequently tries to cover with images of sexual innuendo and prudishness on conservatives part. OK, we're fallible and fall short of our ideals, but the left's cure to their own similar human failings seems to be that they really HAVE NO IDEALS.

But what of Barney Frank? Read what I said before. Was it really about his being gay? No. It was about his being a poor judge of character and a poor judge of situations. It was about his seeming ability to weave a fantasy world he mistakes for the real world. When he acts upon the fantasy, his mythological world view, he does harm in the real world.

The left can misdirect all they wish from the foundation of bigotries they have for what the right supposedly believes. Barney Frank’s unfitness for his powers has nothing to do with with his sexual urges. It has to do with his capacity for sober judgement. As we have seen most recently from his proclivity for precipitous action in the AIG situation, he simply does not have the capacity to be deliberative and steady in his use of power.

Contrary to the assertions of liberals conservatives do not think Barney Frank is dangerous because he’s gay.

He’s just dangerous.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at March 24, 2009 11:14 AM
Comments
Comment #278420
Though I am opposed to gay marriage because the framing of the debate is obviously NOT innocently intended to provide a stable legal framework for monogamous sexual relationships but, rather, to undermine the pricipally religious institution evolved across human civilizations for the rearing of children, I am highly supportive of establishing a statutory civil framework for such monogamous households.

Oh, you used ALL CAPS when making a bald-faced claim. Then “obviously” you have proven your point.

I care about my friends, and I wish that they had the same rights I have. It has nothing to do with tearing down your religion or any other religious institutions.

Why resort to vanity? Why is it that others cannot seek rights for themselves without you viewing it as an attack on you?

It’s not about you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 11:53 AM
Comment #278421
the framing of the debate is obviously NOT innocently intended to provide a stable legal framework for monogamous sexual relationships but, rather, to undermine the pricipally religious institution evolved across human civilizations for the rearing of children

Where do you get this stuff? Since when does it matter whether marriage is performed in a church or at a justice of the peace? I am a very religious person and was married by a justic of the peace, as have been many of my family. Since the government has used marriage as a basis for some laws, it has taken that away from the church. It is not necessary to be married in a church to have a legal marriage, and has nothing to do with the raising of children as you seem to claim.

Kudos to you for the “my best friend” is one. How trite.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 24, 2009 11:59 AM
Comment #278423

Lawn Boy,

No, it’s not about me. It is about an effort to preserve a “principally religious framework for the raising of children” as a specific, legally recognized, entity we know as marriage.

A society that really believes in the sacredness of the individual will act to preserve legal and religious structures designed to foster the development of healthy, self-sufficient individuals.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2009 12:02 PM
Comment #278424

womanmarine,

Kudos to you for the “my best friend” is one. How trite.
Explain…

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2009 12:05 PM
Comment #278427

Lee,

Go ahead and keep your personal religious framework for raising your children.

Just don’t pretend that you have to deny rights to others in order to do it, or that the reason people want to have basic rights is to rip on your religious ideas.

There’s a legal concept of marriage, and there are many differing religious concepts of marriage. Your attempt to couple the legal concept to your personal religious concept is sad and transparent.

A society that really believes in the importance of the individual will act to preserve legal structures designed to foster the development of healthy, self-sufficient individuals. It will not try to tie those positive structures to parochial concepts that were not designed with such goals in mind.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 12:10 PM
Comment #278429

Lee,

Since I seem to be the focus of the first paragraph of your thread, please allow me to explain my point, and put it to rest.

My point wasn’t just about Barney Frank. You brought up the “brothel thing” and I merely used it as an example of of the way that rumour and innuendo are used as a club to discredit people, and the truth of the matter is often thrown out the window as a result. The Clintons and Vince Foster’s death come to mind.
The “right wing pundits” use this tactic with a nod and a wink, and when taken to task for it often fall back on the “it was only humour” gambit.
Humour or not, I personally find this tactic deplorable, as when something is repeated often enough it becomes, if not the truth, a reasonable facsimile of the truth, and people without curiosity merely accept it at face value.

My intention wasn’t to label you personally as a homophobe. If that was the way you took it I apologize.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 24, 2009 12:21 PM
Comment #278434

Rocky-

I don’t think the “right-wing pundits” have a monopoly on that tactic. Olbermann, Maddows, and Stewart have made TV careers out of that sort of stuff.

Posted by: George at March 24, 2009 1:01 PM
Comment #278435

“My best friend is *******” Used by folks to claim non-prejudice when words and actions indicate the opposite.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 24, 2009 1:05 PM
Comment #278437

The Republicans are reliant on techniques that flood the media and the discourse with all the stories they’ve been told. But what I’ve seen of most of their stories is that they’re more mythology than fact.

It’s become a cocoon for Republicans sensibilities, to the point where they can’t see how unreasonable it seems to bring up something like that “brothel” story, a story from a lifetime ago, in the context of an economic situation in the here and now.

I think the Republicans have taken the expedience of saying what they need to say to win the political fights to such an extreme that it’s eroding people’s ability to stay sympathetic with them, and increased their reputation for both rhetorical foul play, and generally unsympathetic belligerence.

The question has become, what won’t the Republicans say to stun, browbeat, and bludgeon people into getting them what they want?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2009 1:15 PM
Comment #278441

Lawnboy asks; “Why is it that others cannot seek rights for themselves without you viewing it as an attack on you?”

Perhaps you will find your answer in the following which is just one example of many instances of the real agenda of “gay rights”. Perhaps you would care to defend this outrageous attack on individual rights.


Firefighters forced to participate in ‘Gay Pride Parade’ win heated legal battle
ADF-allied attorney receives favorable verdict on harassment charge against city of San Diego on behalf of firefighters
Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 8:25 PM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Comments


SAN DIEGO — An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney representing four San Diego firefighters received a favorable jury verdict Tuesday in a lawsuit against the city. The San Diego Fire Department disregarded the firefighters’ objections to taking part in the city’s “Gay Pride Parade” celebrating homosexual behavior and retaliated against them for later complaining about the harassment they endured during the event.

“Government employees should never be forced to participate in events or acts that violate their sincerely held beliefs,” said ADF-allied attorney Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director of the Thomas More Law Center. “We are pleased with the jury’s verdict recognizing the firefighters’ right to abstain from activities that they consider morally offensive and that subject them to harassment.”

After being forced to participate—despite numerous objections—in San Diego’s 2007 “Gay Pride Parade,” four firefighters from the SDFD were sexually harassed through lewd cat calls and obscene gestures at the event, which was replete with sexual displays and graphic images. The firefighters then suffered harassment and retaliation after complaining to superiors about the parade. The city was well aware of the firefighters’ objection to participating in the parade because of its lascivious nature exhibited in past years, including unwanted sexual comments and gestures from participants and spectators.

“Many people may mistakenly think the ‘gay pride’ parade is merely a ‘fun’ event,” said ADF Senior Counsel Joe Infranco, who is co-counsel in the case. “They never would have imagined the crude sexual harassment these firefighters were forced to endure. But in truth, …the goal of homosexual behavior advocates is to undermine society’s long-held values. They continue to seek this, whether by demanding participation in ‘gay pride’ parades or by trampling the democratic process to redefine marriage.”

After the lawsuit Ghiotto v. City of San Diego was filed in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, the fire department changed its policy so employees will no longer be forced to participate against their will.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Posted by: Jim M at March 24, 2009 1:42 PM
Comment #278442

Perhaps homophobia can be hidden in twists of linguistics? If I scout around this issue and put as much blame on ‘liberals’ as I can, maybe no one will notice the little jabs and pokes?

My best friend was a Republican until he choked on the word ‘liberal’ and asphyxiated…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2009 1:42 PM
Comment #278445

womanmarine,

Your objection to the use of the term “friend” does not merely assume but rather posits directly my use of the term is a lie. This goes directly, of course, to the point of the article. You are simply illustrating my point.

I am a conservative. Therefore, my own background in theatrical design and performance (I met Bob while in a one-act play competition when we were both seniors in high school.) could not possibly have any bearing my experience. Could it?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2009 1:58 PM
Comment #278447

I don’t object to your use of the word friend. But your homophobia just illustrates what used to be used against blacks or other types. Just substitute the word gay.

My best friend is gay so I’m not prejudiced against gays.

It’s old as the hills.

Your posts indicate otherwise.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 24, 2009 2:11 PM
Comment #278449

womanmarine,

Your error is classic. You equate discernment on differences of behavior with judgementalism directed at individuals. Because I disdain murder I must hate everyone who commits murder, would be an example.

This is not true. Thus it is that many churches have outreaches to prisons- and to the gay community. If your definition of acceptable “gayness” insists on careless promiscuity and casting people-toys away when they become boring then for your definition you might have a point. My definition does not so insist.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2009 2:21 PM
Comment #278450

Excellent point Jim. Liberals are never happy just telling you what they believe, they want to force you to believe the same thing. The whole purpose of so-called gay rights is to undermine what conservatives (especially Christian) believe. They are not happy with civil unions (which would satisfy any legal concerns), it must emulate and be accepted as legitimate Christian marriages.

A very interesting statement was made by S. Daugherty in the post “The Best and Brightest”. He stated that liberalism protected America from socialism. While in the process of proving this point, he made this statement: “The message is simple: either moderate, or be moderated.”

This is the beliefs of true liberal socialists, either conform or we will force you to conform. Now this is scary. This is why it is so important to control Americans through activist judges. They would gladly pass by the legislative system in order to force laws upon us by the judicial system.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 24, 2009 2:26 PM
Comment #278451

>Excellent point Jim. Liberals are never happy just telling you what they believe, they want to force you to believe the same thing.
Posted by: Oldguy at March 24, 2009 02:26 PM

Hmmm…I believe gays should have the ‘right’, under our constitution, which guarantees equal ‘rights’ to all. If Christians believe in adherence to the Constitution, i.e., “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto the Lord…” Should you not be able to accept gay marriage while worshiping your God?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2009 2:41 PM
Comment #278455

Jim M,

You highlighted this quote: “…the goal of homosexual behavior advocates…” as though it were meaningful. It’s not.

It’s just a quote from the lawyer for the people who just lost a legal battle. His claims as to what the “goal” of gay-rights advocates has no bearing on reality. You really expect anyone to be convinced that an argument is valid simply because it’s expressed as the spin of someone who has a vested interest in having you believe it?

There’s also the general fallacy that you are saying that the real reason that people want to have the right to be married is that then they can force firefighters to march in parades. How many jumps, assumptions, and fallacies do you have to accept in order to convince yourself of that?

So, what’s the motivation behind the lawsuit? Not being treated like second-class citizens seems like a reasonable possibility to me, but I’m not sure. After all, all you gave is an excerpt from a press release by the losers presenting their spin and assumptions.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 3:25 PM
Comment #278456

Marysdud:

Your trying to play a mind game with me.

“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s”

Now the question is, to whom do I render first? Since I am a Christian, it would stand to reason I render unto Caesar unless it differs with that which I render to God. And since I am a Christian, I believe the Bible and what it has to say about sin.

What constitutional rights are gays missing when in a civil union rather than a marriage?

“Should you not be able to accept gay marriage while worshiping your God?”

Your premise is that my beliefs as a Christian would force me to accept the activities of gays as a pre-requisite to worshipping God. But as a Christian, we are to love the sinner, but not the sin. Therefore I feel the same way as God about homosexuality, it is an abomination against God.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 24, 2009 3:32 PM
Comment #278461

Oldguy,
Well, don’t run out and join in a gay pride parade then. But don’t bother trying to cram your warped “morality” down the throats of folks who enjoy the same equal protection of the constitution that you do. Or, should enjoy anyway.

Posted by: steve miller at March 24, 2009 3:53 PM
Comment #278463

Lawnboy writes; “all you gave is an excerpt from a press release by the losers presenting their spin and assumptions.”

Rub your eyes, clean your glasses or whatever so you can read that ADF won the jury verdict.

“SAN DIEGO — An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney representing four San Diego firefighters received a favorable jury verdict Tuesday in a lawsuit against the city.”

“Lawnboy asks; “Why is it that others cannot seek rights for themselves without you viewing it as an attack on you?”

Would you care to address the firefighters “rights” or do they have none? That you don’t see a violation of rights in this case is sad.

That homosexuals had a permit to march was their right. That city employees were forced to participate is indefensible…unless you care to make a case for that here.

As I recall, nowhere in the article was it said that those homosexuals marching were in danger of catching on fire. Surely, in all of San Diego, a few willing firemen could have been found if it was deemed necessary to have their participation to put out fires. Why do you suppose that only unwilling firemen were selected for this duty?

Posted by: Jim M at March 24, 2009 4:13 PM
Comment #278464

Marysdude,

Should you not be able to accept gay marriage while worshiping your God?
Here you are stumbling into the vicinity of a good argument. Every major religion sanctions marriage in some form. Some individual congregations are breaking with their mother churches by sanctioning either outright marriage or some other form of sactification of a lifelong joining. This, coupled with civil regognition of familial rights consistent with those recognized in marriage could render that status indistinguishable from marriage. Voila! A distinction without a difference!

How do you get some significant religion to go along en masse? There’s the rub… It seems the activist’s approach is to cram it down their throats with governmental fiat.

What you really want is a way to communicate peacefully from one set of foxholes to the other without starting a shooting war.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2009 4:19 PM
Comment #278465

Hmmm, I’m being unclear above. Every major religion sanctions heterosexual marriage…and some congregations are sanctioning homosexual marriage or joining

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2009 4:22 PM
Comment #278466

I’ll stand with you Oldguy in our common belief that God really meant what was recorded in the Bible of His view on homosexuality. I wonder how many of those supporting this behavior will, on their deathbed, proclaim a denial of God’s existence and word? As the old saying goes…”there are no atheists in a foxhole”.

Posted by: Jim M at March 24, 2009 4:23 PM
Comment #278467

Oldguy said:

The whole purpose of so-called gay rights is to undermine what conservatives (especially Christian) believe. They are not happy with civil unions (which would satisfy any legal concerns), it must emulate and be accepted as legitimate Christian marriages.

That is not true at all. The goals of the equal rights movement is to make any long-term monogamous relationship equal in the eyes of the government, not for homosexual relationships to “emulate and be accepted as legitimate Christian marriages”. I have never heard of anyone in the mainstream equal marriage movement calling for this. Same-sex marriage has been and always will be about ensuring that all monogamous couples have access to the same certain rights and privileges that the government grants to married couples today (inheritance, visitation, insurance coverage, etc…)

LawnBoy, I suggest you reread Jim’s story.
Apparently, this socially conservative advocacy organization won a lawsuit against an isolated individual fire chief who acted inappropriately; not a bunch of people complaining after losing a lawsuit

Jim M,
OK, so a socially conservative advocacy organization won a lawsuit against an isolated, individual fire chief who acted inappropriately. By no means are the actions of one person endorsed by the equal marriage community. Also, according to this,

Days after the parade, San Diego Fire-Rescue Chief Tracy Jarman apologized to the firefighters and created an interim policy on participating in parades.
The policy was changed by the time of the 2008 gay pride parade to state the department would staff parades with volunteers.
So I guess that the Fire Chief quickly realized the mistake had been made and then corrected it so there would be no problems in the future.


PS Oldguy, I believe that God considers it an abomination to consume shellfish or pork, does this mean that myself and a group of like-minded people can pass legislation prohibiting the consumption of these sorts of foods? (provided that I can assemble a majority of the electorate of course)

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 24, 2009 4:26 PM
Comment #278469

Oops. They won instead of losing. I misread. That doesn’t change my point about it being spin from an interested party who shares your opinion about the group being discussed.

If firefighters are required to participate in any march as part of their job, then it’s reasonable to say that they shouldn’t be able to opt out of this particular one. Perhaps they shouldn’t be required to participate in any marches; I don’t know. However, if their job description includes participating in marches, then it’s reasonable that they not be allowed to pick and choose.

Would you support firefighters being allowed to opt out of marches in support of particular ethnic groups or religions? If there were a march for some part of your identity about which you felt strongly and the fire department were involved, would you want participation to be optional or mandatory?

I don’t really care what the answer is, as long as the policy is consistently applied across groups.

Why do you suppose that only unwilling firemen were selected for this duty?

I have no idea why anyone was selected, and I don’t even know that such a claim is true. Were “only” unwilling firefighters involved? Or were many firefighters involved who were happy to participate, but there were a few homophobes in the midst?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 4:33 PM
Comment #278470

Lee,

It seems the activist’s approach is to cram it down their throats with governmental fiat.

How is the desire to have the law recognize gay marriage cramming anything down any religion’s “throat”? Laws enabling gay marriage often (maybe always) have clauses which specifically state that churches and other places of worship are not required to perform gay weddings if they don’t want to.

This follows normal precedent. Even though I’m straight, I couldn’t use any legal means to force a Catholic church to host my wedding because I’m not Catholic.

Your religion is fully free to be as anti-gay as it wants. Why do you again confuse a desire for secular recognition and rights with something focused on you and your religion?

Again, it’s not about your or your religion. You haven’t been listening to enough Carly Simon, apparently.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 4:38 PM
Comment #278471
I wonder how many of those supporting this behavior will, on their deathbed, proclaim a denial of God’s existence and word? As the old saying goes…”there are no atheists in a foxhole”.

You don’t have to wait that long - I don’t believe in God. So please stop trying to force your interpretation of 5,000-yr-old tribal rituals on modern Americans like me.

It may be an old saying, but it’s wrong.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 4:43 PM
Comment #278472

Warped
Old Testament YES. New Testament NO, it is not an abomination to eat pork or shellfish. But it is an abomination in both Testaments about Homosexuality. What I see here is a PRIME example of the left trying to force their ideals on everyone. What happened in California is another PRIME example of the left not getting their way and throwing a tantrum by destroying property and harrassment, WHICH WAS A REAL GOOD WAY TO GET PEOPLE TO ACCEPT A WAY OF LIFE.

Posted by: KAP at March 24, 2009 4:44 PM
Comment #278473

Lee writes; “…and some congregations are sanctioning homosexual marriage or joining…”

True enough. As an Episcopalian we are facing this issue with a number of diocese already breaking away and joining the Anglican Church. That some have different interpretations of the bible is undeniable. Can they all be correct? Doubtful. God has shown repeatedly throughout the bible that His word is not flexible and is not dependent upon man’s current whims and wishes.

Man, in his arrogance can rewrite God’s word, deny his existence, and act as they wish being given free will. Many refuse to believe that there are consequences for actions. There will be final judgment for all. If I am wrong, what have I lost? If I am right, what have they lost?

Posted by: Jim M at March 24, 2009 4:45 PM
Comment #278474

WR

What rights do married couples have that civil unions do not also have? If they have the same rights, then why the insistance on the rest of us recognizing a gay marriage ceremony? The overall goal is to make what Christians believe of no effect. The very term “Homophobe” is meant to degrade our God given right to believe the Bible. I’ve never seen liberals trying to tell muslims what the Koran says about conquering the world.

“Same-sex marriage has been and always will be about ensuring that all monogamous couples have access to the same certain rights and privileges that the government grants to married couples today (inheritance, visitation, insurance coverage, etc…)”

Let me try this again: do civil unions have these same rights?

PS: Actually, God told the Apostle Peter in the book of Acts that any animal He has created is good for food and not to be called unclean, IF it is received with thanksgiving.

We did not pass laws concerning the deffinition of a marriage, they were placed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights by a Godly group of founding fathers. Now that deffinition can be changed, providing you can get a majority.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 24, 2009 4:55 PM
Comment #278475

Lawnboy, I didn’t want to link to all the similar examples of homosexual behavior that are in violation of individual rights believing one example would suffice. That one example is trashed by you why would I believe that 100 wouldn’t?

If you are truly seeking information about more infringements please follow this link;

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx

Posted by: Jim M at March 24, 2009 4:56 PM
Comment #278476

lee

i believe that if the gay, lesbian agenda was truely about equal rights it would not revolve around the word marriage. while i have no problem with two people of the same sex having equal protection under the law ie estate, tax, and the other things heterosexual couples have, i have to wonder what the true motive is when it all revolves around a term.

it is my opinion the true agenda is not equal rights, but the forcing of acceptance of thier life preferences on the general public. if they’re given equal treatment under the law, then there is no seperate but equal issue. after all if i market a cola based beverage, and have equal access to all markets, and outlets for the sale of said beverage i still can’t call it coca-cloa. nor should my product get preferential treatment by the gov’t, either state or federal.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 4:57 PM
Comment #278477

It’s all about liberal socialists using the government to ram this stuff down our throats.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 24, 2009 5:02 PM
Comment #278478

It’s all confused semantics. Wedding/marriage is not just a religious word. Otherwise only churches would officiate. Don’t even try to tell me that my marriage, not performed in a church but by a JP is not a marriage. It is.

It is only for convenience of argument that you all claim that marriage is a religious entity. It is not.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 24, 2009 5:04 PM
Comment #278479
If I am wrong, what have I lost? If I am right, what have they lost?

Wow. Pascal’s Wager. How sad. Pascal’s Wager fails in every way, it’s a false dichotomy. It ignores other possible religions, it ignores other heavens, it ignores other hells. Also, if there is no God, the hours that you’ve wasted are infinitely valuable since this is the only life you get.

Man, in his arrogance…

I’m sorry that you perceive as arrogance the decision not to accept ideas that are not logically defensible. In contrast, I see it as extremely arrogant to presume that the entire universe was built for your own species, that the creator of the universe found you personally to be important enough to suffer death for, and that the creator of the entire universe cares about what you individually think and want.

I guess it’s a difference of perspective.

But this is getting too religious and personal for a political blog. I’ll stop calling you arrogant if you stop calling me arrogant, ok?

I didn’t want to link to all the similar examples of homosexual behavior that are in violation of individual rights believing one example would suffice. That one example is trashed by you why would I believe that 100 wouldn’t?

If your belief is that firefighters shouldn’t be forced to participate in events they don’t like, then your beef isn’t with homosexuals but instead with the San Diego Fire Department.

You’re right, if one example of misplaced anger and biased quoting isn’t going to convince me of anything, than 100 won’t.

Godly group of founding fathers.

Wrong. Many of the founding fathers were deists, and they specifically set up a secular republic.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 5:07 PM
Comment #278480

BTW:

since barney frank was brought up ifind it completely distasteful, and unbecoming of a US congressman to go on gay internet forum and publicly refer to justice antonin scalia as a homophobe. if tom tancredo went out and publicly refered to jusice ginsburg as a comunist all hell would break loose.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 5:10 PM
Comment #278481

dbs,

Your cola analogy fails because Coke actually owns the trademark for Coca-cola. In contrast, religion doesn’t own the word “marriage”. It’s both a secular concept and a religious concept, and there are hundreds of different versions of the religious concept.

In response to the many asking why civil unions aren’t enough, there are a few answers. For some, it’s enough. For some, “separate but equal” is never equal. But the whole confusion caused by religions trying to own the secular concept is leading more and more legal thinkers to propose that government get out of the “marriage” business entirely. Have all legal unions, gay or straight, be civil unions, and just let religions keep the word.

Then, legally, there would actually be equal treatment (unlike one group having a “marriage” and another a “union”), and religious groups wouldn’t have to worry about their concept of the word being tarnished.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 5:11 PM
Comment #278482
they were placed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights by a Godly group of founding fathers


Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 24, 2009 5:18 PM
Comment #278483

womanmarine,

A better point about why his statement was wrong than mine :)

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 5:20 PM
Comment #278484

lawnboy

if it were simply an issue of seperate but equal, then the term would not matter so long as both terms were given the same treatment, and protections under the law. that is what makes my analogy valid. why then was the attempt to protect the WORD marriage under law ie trdemark if you will met with such fierce resistance? by your same logic i should be able to use the womens restroom even though i have been provided with an equal facility. it’s about forcing acceptance of a lifestyle as normal on the general public, even those who don’t agree.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 5:27 PM
Comment #278485
The benefits of marriage to society, apart from any religious concern or duty, include the following:

* Procreation
* Known, or at least presumed, paternity
* Child and spousal support
* Stability in family life
* Survivor’s rights

Not all of these require marriage. There is no secular need for marriage to have procreation, for example. But without marriage, paternity could be difficult to discern, making child support difficult to manage. Note that this list is not exhaustive, and the list shows only the benefits of marriage to society, not the benefits of marriage to the individual. The benefits the individual feels can be quite subjective.

These two segments of society, religion and government, have common reasons for encouraging marriage. This creates two kinds of marriage: secular and religious. Generally speaking, in the United States, when one is married in a religious setting, the civil marriage also begins. A church is not required, however, for civil marriage. The stereotypical visit to a justice of the peace, marriage license in hand, joins two people in civil marriage. The ability to be both religiously and civilly married at the same time is a convenience.

One other form of marriage has existed and continues to exist in some states. Common law marriage recognizes a de facto state of marriage when there has been no actual ceremony in a religious or civil setting. Common law marriage is marriage for all civil purposes, but it has a “waiting period.” In a common law marriage, a couple is assumed to be married if they have lived together for a certain period of time. The concept of common law marriage is mostly historical - most states no longer recognize new common law marriages, and the number of those that do is dwindling.

They are all marriages, emphasis is mine.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 24, 2009 5:30 PM
Comment #278486

dbs,

Prop 8 had only two options: full marriage rights or nothing. You act as though it were a trilemma with the additional option of civil unions on the ballot. It wasn’t there.

You act as though gays have full rights to civil unions, and that by pulling marriage from them, the only thing that they lose is the word. That’s simply not true. When Prop 8 passed and gay marriages were once again prohibited, they went from equal rights to no rights.

As I said, there are some who just want the rights and don’t care what the word is. There are some who want full equality, but rights and word. The important thing (for me) is the rights, but having full legal and semantic equality is the ideal.

There are very few states that offer even the compromise of civil unions. You’re essentially arguing against the ideal on the premise that the compromise exists. But it doesn’t.

I still haven’t heard a single cogent explanation of how gays having the same marriage rights takes anything away from you or forces anything on you. If gay marriage is legal, it doesn’t force you to accept or like it, it forces the secular law to treat your fellow citizens equally. There are lots of legal things I don’t like; their legality doesn’t force anything on me.

They want to get rights. If you don’t want to practice the potential right of a gay marriage, then don’t have one. It seems pretty simple.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 5:37 PM
Comment #278487

womanmarine:

“The benefits the individual feels can be quite subjective.”

So the real reason for a word called “Marriage” is to justify the sinful relationship of the gays. They want to FEEL accepted for what they are even if it is a forced acceptance by those who hold other beliefs.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 24, 2009 5:45 PM
Comment #278488

Lawnboy writes; “I’m sorry that you perceive as arrogance the decision not to accept ideas that are not logically defensible. In contrast, I see it as extremely arrogant to presume that the entire universe was built for your own species, that the creator of the universe found you personally to be important enough to suffer death for, and that the creator of the entire universe cares about what you individually think and want.”

I wonder if Lawnboy would describe the “Big Bang” theory of the creation as “logically defensible”?

Never let the belief in a creator God for thousands of years by billions of people stand in the way of your modern enlightened thinking. That man has made many errors in his belief about his world is common, however God’s laws of physics are never broken, bent or improved upon. Atheists would have us believe that they just happened, no reason or lawgiver necessary. The universe in all its intricacy is happenstance, good fortune, Mother Nature.

That Man is God appeals to some despite the fact that it requires a belief system that is illogical.

Posted by: Jim M at March 24, 2009 5:46 PM
Comment #278489

LB:

“There are lots of legal things I don’t like; their legality doesn’t force anything on me.”

Wasn’t Prop. 8 passed by the voters? So evidently Prop 8 is legal. Oh, sorry, it was legal until the ones who wouldn’t accept a majority voted law, appealed to activist judges to deny a legal majority their law.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 24, 2009 5:53 PM
Comment #278490
I wonder if Lawnboy would describe the “Big Bang” theory of the creation as “logically defensible”?

Umm… I’m right here. You can use the second person voice.

But yes, scientifically defensible notions that are the result of logical analysis of evidence are logically defensible. The Big Bang is one of those notions.

Never let the belief in a creator God for thousands of years by billions of people stand in the way of your modern enlightened thinking.
Thanks for your permission, but I was already intending to avoid the argumentum ad populum fallacy, even without your say so.
God’s laws of physics are never broken, bent or improved upon.

If by “God’s laws of physics”, you mean the laws of physics, then we’re in agreement. Which is striking, because the miracles you claim to believe in violate them.

Atheists would have us believe that they just happened, no reason or lawgiver necessary.
Sure. Why not? I don’t understand why you think I should assume there’s a cause.
The universe in all its intricacy is happenstance, good fortune, Mother Nature.
Not exactly. The existence of the overall universe isn’t understood, and it might be random or it might be intentional - we may never know. I’m comfortable with not knowing the answers to big questions - why invent a bigger, less understandable concept to place over those questions in a futile attempt to be able to ignore them?

The reason I said partially is that while we don’t know the cause of the overall universe (perhaps random), it’s incorrect to say that everything within the universe came about by random happenstance. You betray a major misunderstanding of both physics and biology in making that claim.

That Man is God appeals to some despite the fact that it requires a belief system that is illogical.

Sure. But that has nothing to do with either of our beliefs, does it?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 5:57 PM
Comment #278491
Wasn’t Prop. 8 passed by the voters? So evidently Prop 8 is legal. Oh, sorry, it was legal until the ones who wouldn’t accept a majority voted law, appealed to activist judges to deny a legal majority their law.

Three responses:


  • I’m curious how long it will take for the “decision I disagree with == activist decision” meme to disappear. It’s just silly.

  • The California constitution says that the voters have the right to pass some types of laws and amendments but not others. It’s a valid constitutional question whether this particular referendum passes muster. I personally find it very odd that a constitutional amendment can itself be found unconstitutional, but that’s the system in place. However, you additionally seem to be annoyed that the role of the judiciary is to make sure that laws pass constitutional muster and that the majority does not overstep the constitution. Well, welcome to America.

  • Prop 8 changed the law to something I didn’t like. So, I support changing the law. However, you don’t find me arguing that it’s unfair that I’m forced to accept a philosophy I don’t like. Gay-rights opponents are trying to set up an equivalence in terms of suppressed rights: either someone’s right to be married is suppressed, or your right not to be offended is suppressed. Sorry, but there’s not a right not to be offended, and it definitely doesn’t outweigh the tangible harm caused by your position.

    Your argument essentially boils down to “my side should have its way because I have the right not to live in a society where I don’t get my way.” Sorry, that’s not how it works.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 6:12 PM
Comment #278495

The trouble with the bare mention of gay marriage in an article about anything else is that it inevitably becomes the focus of the responses to the article.

The article was about something much less inflammatory than gay marriage- Whether a conservative can think Barney Frank is a dangerous influence regardless of his sexual orientation. Now, from the vitriol of this discussion it becomes obvious why it is so difficult for people to be calm about the broader issue of facing gay citizens, straight up, as, simply, citizens.

People obviously do feel gay marriage is being shoved down their throats. I look at the discussion and think a really wise person would not try to anaesthetize an open burn with a hot branding iron. None the less this seems the approach of gay activists.

Don’t know why… Just an observation.

On the other hand, it seems many in religious communities seem determined to take an all-or-nothing approach to admissions of the love of God. Is it no worse in a Christian’s eyes for a gay person to go down in endless debauchery, being eaten up like a piece of meat in a cesspool than it is that they should be encouraged to live as a real person with a real person who cherishes them for something more than their sexual prowess? I am deeply troubled by the notion that there are no degrees of what appears evil in such believer’s eyes!

If real love is the Christian’s aim we can’t abandon the love the creator has for the creation, even when we perceive through admittedly imperfect eyes, that the creation has set itself apart.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2009 6:44 PM
Comment #278496
Don’t know why… Just an observation.
My whole argument has been to question your premise that not getting your way is an unjust shoving of something down your throat.

Is it possible for you to consider that you might be oversensitive on the issue without having your reaction be feeling further put upon?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 6:53 PM
Comment #278497

Rocky Marks,

My intention wasn’t to label you personally as a homophobe. If that was the way you took it I apologize.
I took no offense, and was really much more alarmed at the idea you thought I had abandoned fact for purely opinion-based commentary.

You comment here because you believe what you say. Honestly saying what you believe is the only way people who believe as I do get to see and respond to another world view. We are all negotiating the culture of the future here. It is a mighty and awesome sort of work when you think about it.

I appreciate your contributions here even when (and perhaps I ought to especially when) they are temporarily irritating.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2009 6:58 PM
Comment #278499

Lawn boy,

Pehaps you ought to read Jim M’s comment above again. There is, in there, a description of blatantly inappropriate and degrading behavior

Why is such a thing necessary for people who are supposedly trying to gain acceptance of their equivalent human dignity?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2009 7:04 PM
Comment #278500

lawnboy

prop 8 has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. but since you went there. the voters in california passed a referendum back in the 90s saying only the marriage of a man and woman would be recognized. it was passed in order to define the term legally under cal. law as a union between a man and a woman.

the will of the voters was overturned by the courts, so the only option was to amend the state const., and thats just what happened.

the legislature in california is dominated liberal democrats. they could pass a law legalizing civil unions anytime they please, and i guarantee arnold the spineless would sign it. the law may already exist, but i’m not certain of it. i lived there all my life so i’m very familiar with the goings on in cal.

this is all about terminology and nothing else. the gays and lesbians in cal. could put a measure on the ballot declaring civil unions legal and subject to all the same rights as a marriage. it would probably pass, so long as the term marriage was not used.

the problem is that the gay and lesb. comunities are more interested in forcing acceptance of thier lifestyle on those who don’t accept it then just garnering equal rights under the law. in other words they feel the need to get in the faces of those who disagree with thier life style, give the religious right, and those with trditional values the proverbial middle finger, and in doing so they stirred up a hornets nest.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 7:05 PM
Comment #278501

I say, if you got the votes, go for it.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 24, 2009 7:06 PM
Comment #278502

lawnboy

“My whole argument has been to question your premise that not getting your way is an unjust shoving of something down your throat.”

it would be nice if it were that simple, but then you would have to ignore centuries of mainstream american culture, and values. in many countries it is acceptable to have sex, and marry a 13 year old girl, or have multiple wives, but that is not part of traditional american culture. what you are arguing for is the rewiring of american culture through force of gov’t, and it won’t work.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 7:15 PM
Comment #278503

Lee,

Jim’s anger over that case is misplaced; he’s mad that firefighters were forced to participate in a an event that they didn’t want to see. However, it wasn’t the external group that forced them to participate, it was an institutional policy that required participation.

The only homosexual connection is that gays were likely the first group to encounter enough prejudice in the ranks for the policy to matter. Would the ADL have taken the case if it were Muslim firefighters not wanting to participate in an Easter parade? Somehow, I doubt it, even though the principle is theoretically similar.

However, they’ve changed the policy so that Jewish firefighters no longer have to participate in Christian parades, racist firefighters don’t have to participate in ethnic parades, etc.

But were you referring to this:

sexually harassed through lewd cat calls and obscene gestures at the event, which was replete with sexual displays and graphic images.sexually harassed through lewd cat calls and obscene gestures at the event, which was replete with sexual displays and graphic images.

If so, then I guess you’ve never been to Mardi Gras in New Orleans or to a big Spring Break beach party. Because if you had, logical consistency would require you to be calling for the prohibition of heterosexual marriage in protest of the blatantly inappropriate and degrading behavior that we straights engage in.

Saying that another group shouldn’t have basic rights if you don’t like the behavior of a subset of the group is extremely dangerous.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 7:15 PM
Comment #278504

Thank you dbs, you were able to say what I, evidently, was not able to say.

It’s all about justification. It’s all about forcing us to accept their lifestyle. I don’t care what they do to each other, just don’t ask me to say it’s okay.

Lee, I’m sorry the post went this direction, but it was destined when the name Barney Frank was envoked. Like I said before, majoring on the minors.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 24, 2009 7:16 PM
Comment #278505
what you are arguing for is the rewiring of american culture through force of gov’t, and it won’t work.

It worked 40 years ago when antimiscegenation laws were struck down, so why not now?

And it doesn’t need to be government changing culture; it’s government changing government.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 7:17 PM
Comment #278506
I don’t care what they do to each other, just don’t ask me to say it’s okay.

I don’t care whether you say it’s ok; just don’t have the government stand in its way. It’s a pretty simple concept.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 7:19 PM
Comment #278507

dbs,

Are you saying that you would support civil unions that would give all legal rights and benefits to gay couples that straight couples have?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 7:23 PM
Comment #278508

lawnboy

the gov’t is a representation of the people who elect them, so i would have to argue that gov’t changing gov’t is essentially the same thing.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 7:26 PM
Comment #278510

dbs,

I reject that argument. The request is for laws to be changed so that the rights one groups has are available to other groups. That’s a legal issue that’s within the domain of the government.

That’s doable. However, you stated that the scope of the requirement was to change the entire culture, which involved changing all the people and all of the non-governmental institutions.

Yes, there’s a relationship between government and culture, but not in the way you claim.

Also, the culture is changing. Public support for gay rights is increasing throughout the country, and it’s particularly strong with younger voters.

The culture is making the change without the government’s lead.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 7:30 PM
Comment #278511

lawnboy

“Are you saying that you would support civil unions that would give all legal rights and benefits to gay couples that straight couples have?”

not a problem for me. how people choose to live thier lives is none of my business. would i accept it as normal? no. IMO it isn’t, but if someone wants to file a joint tax return, or have estate or joint property rights ( you get the idea ) i don’t have a problem with it. just don’t force alternative lifestyle classes in public schools, and on the children of those who don’t accept it.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 7:33 PM
Comment #278512

Lee,

If you don’t want a thread to be about gay marriage, then don’t make an incendiary claim about gay marriage in your article. That really cuts down on the odds the conversation will go that way.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 7:34 PM
Comment #278513

dbs,

Just to confirm that I have this correct, you don’t mind full gay rights, but semantics bother you? You’re fine with gays having all the secular rights of marriage as long as the secular term “marriage” isn’t used to describe it?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 7:36 PM
Comment #278514

lawnboy

“The culture is making the change without the government’s lead.”

yes, but the gov’t is a reflection, and representation of the values of mainsream american culture. after all WE elect THEM.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 7:45 PM
Comment #278515

But the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection precedes us all.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 7:50 PM
Comment #278516

lawnboy

“Just to confirm that I have this correct, you don’t mind full gay rights, but semantics bother you? You’re fine with gays having all the secular rights of marriage as long as the secular term “marriage” isn’t used to describe it?”

is this a serious question? or is this meant to be rhetorical? if you were a gay activist would you be glad that i was willing to support giving you equal rights under the law, or would you alienate me by making comments like this one, IE insulting me. if so you would be your own worst enemy, and by doing so risk the advancement of your own goals.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 7:58 PM
Comment #278517

Oldguy,

What rights do married couples have that civil unions do not also have?

What difference was there between the railroad car Homer Plessy was legally required to sit in and the railroad car that he actually sat in?
Your argument sounds like Justice Henry Billings Brown, who stated, “We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority “
In any case, I think the word the government uses to describe monogamous relationships doesn’t have to be “marriage”. They can call it “domestic partnership”, “civil union” or whatever else, they just need to use the same term to describe all such relationships. That way, no one can say later on that there should be a legal difference between the two (which is what happened with Plessy v. Ferguson)


KAP,
You have your interpretation of the New Testament and I have mine. Keep in mind that Judaism does not consider the New Testament to be the word of God.

My question still stands if Orthodox Jews (and other people who believe consumption of these food is an abomination) made up a majority of the electorate, should they have the right to prohibit the consumption of what they consider unclean foods?

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 24, 2009 8:05 PM
Comment #278518

warped

i would say no, but all you need do is look at the laws on the books that make the use of transfats in restaurants, or the use of marijuana illegal, while allowing alcohol, and tobacco use, to know things aren’t always as they should be. kap has a point though. people can some times be there own worst enemies, or the proverbial cutting off of ones nose to spite thier face. thats exactly what the gay comunity in california did.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 8:34 PM
Comment #278520
is this a serious question? or is this meant to be rhetorical?

I was trying to clarify your position to make sure that I won’t be addressing a straw man.

Is my description wrong? Is it phrased a way you don’t like? What’s wrong?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 8:39 PM
Comment #278522

Warped
I figured you would come up with something like that. If you want to eat a pork chop go ahead and if you don’t that’s up to you. We are not talking about pork chops. We are in fact discussing liberals jamming their ideals down our throats. The problem is, is that you liberals won’t accept the will of the majority. You have to find some liberal judge to legislate from the bench to get your way. Like I said you liberals throw a major tantrum if you don’t get your way.

Posted by: KAP at March 24, 2009 8:50 PM
Comment #278524

KAP

“The problem is, is that you liberals won’t accept the will of the majority.”

that is of course unless the majority agrees with thier will.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 9:04 PM
Comment #278526

KAP,

“We are in fact discussing liberals jamming their ideals down our throats.”

So what you’re saying is that the sayings;
all men are created equal, and Liberty and justice for all, and equal rights under the law were merely suggestions, not ideals.

It seems that you also have decided to usurp your God’s job in judging just who is and who isn’t a sinner.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 24, 2009 9:08 PM
Comment #278527

Here in lies the crux of the problem:

LB asked dbs this question, several times:

“Just to confirm that I have this correct, you don’t mind full gay rights, but semantics bother you? You’re fine with gays having all the secular rights of marriage as long as the secular term “marriage” isn’t used to describe it?”

And dbs answered several times to the dissatisfaction of LB.

Then WR came up with this comment:

“In any case, I think the word the government uses to describe monogamous relationships doesn’t have to be “marriage”. They can call it “domestic partnership”, “civil union” or whatever else, they just need to use the same term to describe all such relationships. That way, no one can say later on that there should be a legal difference between the two”

It’s not enough for conservatives to say give them the same benefits. We have to recognize their union as a legitimate marriage, equal to a heterosexual couple’s marriage, no matter what it is called. It’s not about rights and the left is lying when they speak of rights. It’s about watering down our personal convictions to match theirs.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 24, 2009 9:12 PM
Comment #278528

lawnboy

“I was trying to clarify your position to make sure that I won’t be addressing a straw man.”

i think i made my possition pretty clear. you asked me a question, and i answered it honestly. i think people should keep thier sexuality to themselves. that being said allowing people of the same sex to take advantage of the perks given to heterosexual couples would benefit everyone not just those whos unions are based on a sexual preference. two siblings, or friends could purchase a house together and be able to leave it as part of thier estate to the other without having to pay estate tax, or they could share the mortgage interest deduction etc.

what strawman?

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 9:18 PM
Comment #278530

I’m very confused. I asked what I thought was a clarifying question, and I’ve had two responses. One person got really mad and thought I was insulting him. Another person decided to tell me what I was really asking by my question and tell me that I’m lying.

How on earth are we supposed to get anywhere when these are the reactions to a question? How does my asking a question become a lie?

The mind boggles.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 9:23 PM
Comment #278531

KAP,
Do you mean like how judges “rammed their ideals down our throats” in Brown v. Board of Education? Or how about Lawrence v. Texas?

The process of Judicial Review, as I see it, is the process of comparing the law with respect to the Constitution and any judicial precedent that may be relevant. The will of majorities of the electorate is only indirectly relevant in the decision: the adoption of the Constitution/Amendments and the nomination and confirmation of a Judge.

The reason for this is to protect minorities, otherwise any majority could prohibit any activity they found objectionable. (As I showed with my pork/shellfish example).

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 24, 2009 9:24 PM
Comment #278532

There’s always the blue column:)

Posted by: Oldguy at March 24, 2009 9:26 PM
Comment #278533

The strawman would have been what I would have been arguing against if I didn’t actually understand what you were saying. I’m not saying you were using a strawman - I was trying to ensure that I wasn’t.

Apparently my summary was wrong. The reason I interpreted it that was is that before you said that you had no problem with gay rights, you objected to the use of the word “marriage”.

Is that correct? If so, how is my summary incorrect? Perhaps I misunderstood you on one of the statements above.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 9:30 PM
Comment #278534

lawnboy

yes i support protection of the term marriage as a union between a man and a woman. yes i support allowing same sex couples the same benefits that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples. is that better? sometimes the written word is not as clear as the spoken word, because voice tone, body language, and other factors are not there to determine the demeanor of the individual posing the question. my appologies.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 9:35 PM
Comment #278535

Warped
Protect minorities? So if a minority wants something that will hurt the majority, the majotity has to give in? NOT!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at March 24, 2009 9:35 PM
Comment #278536

Lee,

At the risk of being accused of hijacking this thread, and pushing my Liberal socialist agenda, I thought that now would be as good a time as any to answer your question from the previous thread.

As chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services Barney Frank is first and foremost a member of Congress, and if I read the articles on google right he can’t really do anything without the authorization of Congress but call people into hearings and ask questions that people can take the 5th on.

As far as being powerful, I suppose, but without the support of Congress it would seem he is rather impotent.
The danger would only be if he could convince enough members of Congress to see things his way.

I am sure that his constituents in Massachusetts, who have continued to elect him since 1981 are still happy with the job he is doing.

Other than bitching about him I don’t really see much I can do about him as I live in Arizona, and I am quite sure that the folks that elected him don’t give a rat’s a*& what I think about him.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 24, 2009 9:45 PM
Comment #278538

Rocky
I am all for equal rights, liberty and justice for all. But even that has it’s limits. What may be good for a minority group may not be good for the majority. That is why when we vote on an issue MAJORITY VOTE WINS.

Posted by: KAP at March 24, 2009 9:48 PM
Comment #278540

dbs,

Thanks for trying again with me :)

My opinion, as I said above, is that full equality in both rights and name would be the ideal. However, I think the important part is having the equal rights. So, the rights are the sundae, and the name is the cherry on top.

What I don’t get, though, is why you “support protection of the term marriage as a union between a man and a woman”. What is the importance of that term?

I think the answer will be something along the lines of the history of that term in religious use. However, since I’m a secular humanist, that explanation doesn’t make much sense to me. Marriage wasn’t invented by any particular religion (it exists independently in the independent cultural traditions), so I don’t see that any religious group has ownership of the term.

Further, even within the most common cultural tradition in the US, Judeo-Christianity, the definition of marriage has changed repeatedly and greatly over the centuries, from David having hundreds of wives, to marriage being formalized only for contract purposes amongst the nobility (and informal amongst the people), to marriage meaning that the wife is property of the husband, to wives having no rights to property or jobs, to marriage being only within an individual race, to the definition of marriage today.

So, with the concepts of marriage existing both within religion and without, existing in multiple religious and cultural traditions, and being extremely malleable over time, I don’t see why this redefinition and expansion of the term now causes such heartache.

Can you help me?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 9:51 PM
Comment #278541

KAP,

“What may be good for a minority group may not be good for the majority.”

Oh, come on.
Truly, how does two men or two women committing themselves to marriage affect you personally?

How does it truly affect the majority?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 24, 2009 9:52 PM
Comment #278543

Rocky
It don’t affect me one way or the other. I don’t like Obama but I RESPECT the will of the majority.

Posted by: KAP at March 24, 2009 10:09 PM
Comment #278544

lawnboy

i think we get back to culture and a belief in traditional values, and the belief that those values are under attack. lets be honest, in tough times sometimes those values, and beliefs are all that is left, and bring comfort. when they are taken away there is nothing else to hold on to. i believe that marriage is a union sanctioned by god for the joining of a man and a woman in order procreate, and create a family structure, and many in this country feel the same way. there is really no way to explain it in an analytical sense. if i was willing to concede you all the other things, would you then be willing to concede me that one comfort?

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 10:24 PM
Comment #278545

KAP,

If it doesn’t affect you one way or another than what exactly is the point.
The majority isn’t always right. The majority thought that “separate, but equal” was right. That was changed, and that is why we have the system we have.
Gay folks are now second class citizens merely because of the way they have sex.

I am very glad though that we seem to have gotten past “the gays recruiting children to be future gays” thing.
I am also glad to see that we seem to have gotten past the “gay marriage will lead to bestiality, polygamy, dogs and cats sleeping together, the end of civilization as we know it” thing as well. That became rather tiresome.

Someday soon perhaps, we as a society, will be more enlightened.

My hope is that it is sooner rather than later.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 24, 2009 10:28 PM
Comment #278546

dbs,

I know this is really harsh, but I can only concede that you think you find comfort in that; I can’t concede that it’s actually a useful or tangible comfort.

Part of my problem with the idea of “i believe that marriage is a union sanctioned by god for the joining of a man and a woman in order procreate” is that we don’t really use that as our operating definition now. I’ve had a vasectomy; if that definition were under effect, I wouldn’t be allowed to remarry if my wife died. Do you agree with that? My wife’s grandfather (a Lutheran minister) remarried in his 70s after his wife of decades died; why should that be allowed? If the idea you expressed were true, then neither he nor his 70-something second wife should be allowed to marry.

We’ve already as a society separated marriage from procreation or child-rearing. And except for societies where women were beaten and divorced if the couple were infertile, that separation has I think always been there.

And if you ask me to concede to you that comfort, why wouldn’t you concede the comfort of marriage (in word and rights) to a lesbian couple who have been together for 40 years?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2009 10:44 PM
Comment #278548

lawnboy

“I know this is really harsh, but I can only concede that you think you find comfort in that; I can’t concede that it’s actually a useful or tangible comfort.”

tangible is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2009 11:16 PM
Comment #278551

LawnBoy, I think we’re going to diverge here.

I can understand dbs’s sentiment here, perhaps its because I am a Theist. dbs, and others feel that marriage is God’s gift to humankind in order to ensure our continued propagation. Of course many people may marry without any possibility of creating children, but they do this in spite of God’s wishes. Therefore the word marriage is a sacred term for him. It may be illogical(the word he really should be concerned about is נישואין), but its his right to believe in whatever creed he wishes to.

Perhaps the best solution is to purge the word marriage from our entire legal code and transfer all the rights/privileges to some new word, perhaps “civil union” or “domestic partnership” (or something else). That way we we can let people preserve whatever ideas they connect with the word marriage while avoiding legal inequalities between couples of different sexual orientations.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2009 12:00 AM
Comment #278552

Lee,

Wow, I made your headlines! Lol. I was just using specious argument in a way that I thought you were doing. Using a false argument about Barney Frank’s personal life as something to attack him. I used an equally specious argument to attack your motives behind your post and the Republican agenda to control the sex lives of others.

Both arguments are equally stupid, in my opinion.

Outlawing sexual promiscuity doesn’t work. Period. Men still cheat on wives, wives still cheat on husbands. Happens whether you are gay or straight. As to evaluating someone’s judgment, I think Barney getting reelected year after year, speaks well of his judgment. I really don’t care about his personal life. Why do you? I don’t always agree with him, but then I really don’t follow his opinions either.

I once had a discussion about Elton John’s music with my sister. She wasn’t bothered that many of his song’s were actually about homosexual relationships, but when I told her he actually never writes lyrics, but uses Bernie Taupin’s lyrics to write music around them, she decided she no longer liked him. I, frankly, don’t get either argument. Knowing how sausage is made doesn’t make it less tasty.( Sorry, but I can’t help the homoerotic imagery in this discussion. The whole thing makes me laugh.)

You see deeply personal choices as attacking your institutions. Most don’t. I’ve known some very butch men that are actually gay, and no one has a clue. Some even take anti gay positions. I think there was a guy from Colorado who took a wide stance on the issue. That is part of the reason Republicans are out of vogue.

Posted by: gergle at March 25, 2009 12:05 AM
Comment #278564
tangible is in the eye of the beholder.

Sure. I don’t believe that God exists, so I thus think that any comfort derived from the belief in God is self-created. You disagree on both counts.

As I said, I’ll concede that you think it’s comforting, but I don’t concede the basis premise.

Of course, I also don’t concede the idea that secular law applied to all Americans should be based on the comfort an individual derives from his personal faith.

Warped,

You accept that the word “marriage” is sacred to dbs and others because that word has a meaning within his religion. I think I get where you come from there. The problem for me is that I also see that “marriage” is a term that has independent meaning not only in nearly every other religion, but also outside the context of marriage. In a secular, pluralistic society, how do we accept a single religion owning the definition of a word when every other religion and the society as a whole have different understandings of it? Once we are talking about public policy, we have to define concepts and words as they apply to all, not just to individual religions.

I mentioned the idea of getting the government out of the “marriage” business. I don’t know that I necessarily agree with the proposal, but I think it has some merit, and perhaps it would solve the conundrum.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2009 8:25 AM
Comment #278567

Lawnboy,
Let me start by addressing this:

If you don’t want a thread to be about gay marriage, then don’t make an incendiary claim about gay marriage in your article. That really cuts down on the odds the conversation will go that way.
Here you address a point about which I was actually more careful about wording than usual:
Though I am opposed to gay marriage because the framing of the debate is obviously NOT innocently intended to provide a stable legal framework for monogamous sexual relationships but, rather, to undermine the principally religious institution evolved across human civilizations for the rearing of children, I am highly supportive of establishing a statutory civil framework for such monogamous households.
The “framing of the debate” is an important phrase in that sentance, not just something I tossed in there to show I’ve been to college. Beneath all the bickering we see in culture today, though there appear to be many flashpoints, there may be as few as two fundamental issues. I would identify the first of these as the tension between society and the individual. The second is related to the first. What is the role of culture?

The most basic elements of human culture, when they exist across cultures and survive separation from the groups in which they first formed, are extremely likely to be serving an essential function. The persistence of language and art, of religious orthodoxy, and of heterosexual marriage would appear to indicate these serve vital functions. These four things are more universal even than formal government.

I believe that the human institution of societally recognized and enforced heterosexual marriage persists because it is the best means society has for raising happy, secure, socially interactive, and productive human beings.

The “framing of the debate” on homosexual marriage casts marriage (and, by extention, all of culture) as an institution fundamentally directed toward the enjoyment or fulfillment of adults. On the basis of my firm belief that a culture designed around the pleasure of adults is unsustainable I reject the notion that marriage directed at raising children and lifetime monogamous joinings (by whatever name)should be legally the same thing.

People on both sides of this site have gotten upset with me because I draw no distinction bewteen childless heterosexual unions and homosexual unions but, from a purely secular, logical, point of view, they are the same thing. They are focused on the fulfillment of adults.

If we want real clarity in this debate, and the loudest voices really don’t, we will be discussing what marriage is FOR, not just who gets a piece of the secular marriage pie. If we continue to equate childless lifetime unions with childrearing unions we have clearly diminished the importance the society places on successfully raising the next generation of adults.

That then leads to a discussion of what you asked dbs,

Just to confirm that I have this correct, you don’t mind full gay rights, but semantics bother you? You’re fine with gays having all the secular rights of marriage as long as the secular term “marriage” isn’t used to describe it?
There should be more than a semantic difference between a lifetime monogamous joining and a “marriage” intended to be society’s platform for childrearing. In clildless situations I have no problem with the differences being irrelevant. Not so with real, childrearing, marriage.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2009 10:08 AM
Comment #278568

Warped Reality,

I tried a word search on the Hebrew word you showed above (ישואי) and it came back as “Jesus”. (Yeshua, he will save) Did the search get it wrong?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2009 10:26 AM
Comment #278570
framing of the debate

I still reject your claim. You insist that I and my allies are “obviously” trying to undermine a religious institution. How many times do we need to point out that there’s more than one religion involved? Or that the institution isn’t principally religious? Or that even within individual religious traditions the institution has changed?

You’re assuming a fallacious basis of your argument, and then trying to tell me that my actual goal isn’t what I think it is, but is really just a way that I’m trying to hurt you.

Your basis is wrong, your conclusion is wrong, and you use invalid means to get from one to the other.

Not so with real, childrearing, marriage.

Then Lee, will you answer the questions I asked dbs here and have asked you previously?

I’ve had a vasectomy; if that definition were under effect, I wouldn’t be allowed to remarry if my wife died. Do you agree with that? My wife’s grandfather (a Lutheran minister) remarried in his 70s after his wife of decades died; why should that be allowed? If the idea you expressed were true, then neither he nor his 70-something second wife should be allowed to marry.

Does the answer matter if my existing children survive my wife’s death? What if they survive? Would you say that I should be allowed to re-marry post-vasectomy because the marriage would still be about child-rearing? If so, then why should I be restricted only to marry a woman to help raise my children? If you allow for non-procreative marriages that involve child-rearing, why shouldn’t I be allowed to marry a man to help me raise my children, if I think the man is the best partner for me and for raising the children?

I know lots of gay couples that are raising adopted children. By your logic, those are real marriages, right?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2009 10:32 AM
Comment #278571

Gergle,

The point is not that outlawing promiscuity doesn’t work. People still commit murder, do they not? Will you despair of outlawing that?

We don’t make laws to eliminate bad behavior. We do it to minimize bad behavior and encourage good behavior.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2009 10:35 AM
Comment #278573

In the event anyone is still involved in this string. Here is my view which I believe is shared by many people in flyover country.

Gays are no more special in our society than anyone else and should not be elevated beyond that.

American society has been tolerant of gays for a very long time and still is; few rational people are carrying any guilt around with them on this. In contrast it is the policy of many governments, past and present, in the world to confine and even execute gays.

Marriage in our society and across the globe is the formalization of a relationship in support of child rearing. If it makes gays feel better about themselves to be “married”, fine. But neither side of that arguement has any right to impose their viewpoint on any one, any group, or upon society as a whole.

Posted by: Indiana Oracle at March 25, 2009 10:45 AM
Comment #278574
If we continue to equate childless lifetime unions with childrearing unions we have clearly diminished the importance the society places on successfully raising the next generation of adults.

This is just so much bullshit. Maybe in your mind only this is true.

So childless couples have to what, get divorced? Not be called a marriage? What??

Posted by: womanmarine at March 25, 2009 10:47 AM
Comment #278575

Oracle,

“But neither side of that arguement has any right to impose their viewpoint on any one, any group, or upon society as a whole.”

Yet you do with this comment;

“Gays are no more special in our society than anyone else and should not be elevated beyond that.”

The gays I am associated with don’t want to be elevated, they merely want to be “equal”, and equal means equal.

1 a (1): of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent b: like in quality, nature, or status c: like for each member of a group, class, or society.

I don’t know how much clearer it could be.

As I wrote to KAP, the belief that “all men are created equal” wasn’t a suggestion, but an ideal. The fact that some barbaric civilizations (and I use that word loosely) executed gays has no bearing on the ideals that this country was founded on.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 25, 2009 11:00 AM
Comment #278577

LawnBoy,

You claim I have reached a fallacious conclusion in the comment above. That is false. I was dealing with the framing of the debate. I didn’t reach a conclusion.

The ancient institution of marriage (which in the comment above I dealt with in secular terms to avoid the religion issue) has always existed around the assumption that people would marry to have sex and children would be inevitable. We are faced with a world in which maintaining a population per se is not a problem any moreand marriage itself is falling into flux.

This has led to, in some cases, real disdain for children. My brother’s in-laws told him and his wife in no uncertain terms they must abort the second child they had together because they didn’t need “it”. Fortunately she is now a high school junior and honor student. This deep disparagement of childrearing is a fact of life in much of our intellectual community.

This is the conflict we should be facing. Do we cherish childrearing? If so does childrearing deserve a special, protected environment? Over the long run societies have said it did. Marriage, as we have known it, was the result.

What should the structure of marriage be, then?

My personal CONCLUSION is that we should have something (called “marriage” if necessary) that is legally equivalent for all childless monogamous unions. There would be additional legal protections added for couples raising children and for parents who remarry. There is nothing simple about this and I can see many ways it could go wrong right off the bat.

In any event, right now we are arguing about the wrong things. We won’t solve the problem of monogamous relationships, childrearing, etc. until we start addressing the underlying issue.

What is marriage for?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2009 11:15 AM
Comment #278579
The ancient institution of marriage…has always existed around the assumption that people would marry to have sex and children would be inevitable.

No it hasn’t. Please answer my question about whether I should allowed to remarry post-vasectomy and whether my wife’s grandfather should have been allowed to remarry in his 70s to a most-menopausal woman.

Your premise is invalid.

The conclusion I was describing as wrong was your claim that my goal is to destroy a religious institution. As I said, both your premise (that it’s a religious institution) and your means of getting to your conclusion (assuming my motives) are incorrect. Your argument is both invalid and unsound.

What is marriage for?
The purpose of marriage varies depending on the participant. It always has. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2009 11:27 AM
Comment #278580

Lee, I think you only copy/pasted the middle three characters and left out the letter “nun” at the beginning and the end (nun is a vertical line at the end of the word and sort of like a backwards L at the beginning). Try this search

LawnBoy

In a secular, pluralistic society, how do we accept a single religion owning the definition of a word when every other religion and the society as a whole have different understandings of it?

This is a tough question. I’ll need to think about it for a while and I have a class that starts in half an hour. I’ll give you a more complete response later today, but to give you a little preview: I think it boils down to the fact that the association of marriage with child rearing is widely pervasive in our societies and many many others. Over half of humankind follows some sort of Abrahamic Relgion, and our country is a successor to many traditions that originated with Western Europe tradition (this country was founded by Western Europeans). Western European culture and tradition have been closely influenced by Abrahamic Faith for at least the past 1500-2000 years. I know this may be grasping at straws, but as long as Christians maintain a significant amount of the voting electorate, we won’t see any equality in marriage until we decide to respect their faith.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2009 11:33 AM
Comment #278581

LawnBoy,

Your comments speak to why we both need and despise lawyers, and why the vast majority of philosophy is burdened with discussions of the meanings of words.

I’m glad you’re here- honestly.

I have to go teach a class so it will be a while before I can get down to fine tuning my argument to suit your high standards.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2009 11:35 AM
Comment #278582

Rocky,
Understand what you are saying, but it illustrates my point.

It has never been clear to me how this can be resolved, how its resolution can be measured, where this dissatisfation leads.

Am off this string.

Posted by: Indiana Oracle at March 25, 2009 11:35 AM
Comment #278585
we won’t see any equality in marriage until we decide to respect their faith.

I might generally agree (not out of principle but out of pragmatism), but unfortunately, there are many ways that “respect” can be interpreted in this context.

My personal feeling is that I will grant Christian traditions the same respect I grant any other religious tradition: I disagree with you, but I would object to any roadblocks put in place that would prevent you from worshiping as you please. Feel free to define as you wish the institution of marriage within your places of worship (although I honestly can’t say that it’s universal - I opposed the forced polygamous pedophilia of the FLDS).

In my eyes, that’s respect.

However, I have the feeling that others won’t see that as respectful. The opinions expressed here by many seem to say that anything short of being able to define the terms for all of society is insufficient respect.

Am I right? Are they right? Is it somewhere in the middle?

This comes back to what Lee just said. We have to have specific meanings of words in order to be able to communicate freely.

And Lee, I’m not a lawyer, and have no interesting in becoming one :)

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2009 11:47 AM
Comment #278586

This subject is about played out. The libs are activly pursuing this subject to advoid discussing the real problems.

I might suggest a couple of links for someone to post on, since I do not have the ability to post a subject. These are interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164440/Brown-plays-rift-Bank-England-tries-sell-economic-recovery-plan-U-S.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/EU-presidency-US-economic-apf-14737788.html

Posted by: Oldguy at March 25, 2009 11:51 AM
Comment #278587

The point of these links is that even in England (a bastion of liberality), they recognise the problems and the remedies. Bho’s plan mirrors Brown’s.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 25, 2009 11:54 AM
Comment #278588

I will try to send this link again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164440/Brown-plays-rift-Bank-England-tries-sell-economic-recovery-plan-U-S.html

Posted by: Oldguy at March 25, 2009 12:00 PM
Comment #278598

Lawnboy writes; “I guess you’ve never been to Mardi Gras in New Orleans or to a big Spring Break beach party.”

Yep…done both willingly. No one forced me as part of my job. That police are there to control crowds is something I understand. That firemen are there is not understandable. That a parade in celebration of a lifestyle should subject the unwilling participants to those displays is unconscionable.

Lawnboy writes; “I don’t see why this redefinition and expansion of the term now causes such heartache. Can you help me?

We, the people support that which we value. We support our churches by not taxing them. Why is that? We support our charitable organizations by not taxing them and giving tax credits to those who qualify and contribute. Why is that?

We pledge allegence to our flag as we value what it symbolizes. Why is that? Those in our armed forces salute. Why is that? Every congressional session begins with prayer to God. Why is that? We give tax breaks to homeowners that we don’t give to renters. Why is that? We give tax breaks to those saving for retirement that we don’t give to everyone. Why is that?

Lawnboy…those with religious values see marriage between a man and a woman as having value. Why is that?

I will tell you why I don’t condone or accept homosexual marriage…I see no value in it.

Posted by: Jim M at March 25, 2009 2:36 PM
Comment #278599
That a parade in celebration of a lifestyle should subject the unwilling participants to those displays is unconscionable.

And as I’ve said, your beef here is with the policies of the San Diego Fire Department. Homosexuality is a red herring.

Unfortunately, your string of “Why it that?” comments didn’t enlighten anything for me, and it doesn’t answer my preceding question.

I will tell you why I don’t condone or accept homosexual marriage…I see no value in it.
Then don’t have one. But that’s not a reason to disallow them for the people for whom it would have value. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2009 2:41 PM
Comment #278603

Lawnboy writes; “Then don’t have one. But that’s not a reason to disallow them for the people for whom it would have value.”

Of course it is Lawnboy, for the same reasons American’s value those things which I stated. When enough American’s value the homosexual lifestyle then things will change. It is your job to convince enough American’s of the value.

When prohibition became the law of the land it was because enough American’s were convinced of the value of the prohibition. And it was undone the same way. Where was the “it’s my constitutional right to drink” argument that prevailed at that time?

We cherish, protect, and sometimes subsidize that which we value. Enough American’s don’t cherish, and therefore don’t wish to protect with laws, the homosexual lifestyle. Really very simple.

We cherish and protect our children, our churches, our flag, our charities our senior citizens, and many other aspects of society and favor their existence by nurturing them with special recognition.

When the homosexual lifestyle gains favor with enough American’s then we will reward that behavior with the benefits now given to traditional marriage. That homosexuals are unable to convince enough American’s to favor their behavior is just…tough shit. Enough American’s agree that it is right for me to pay huge taxes on tobacco. Tough shit for me!

Homosexuals are not denied equal rights of marriage. All they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. Renters aren’t denied the tax benefit of home ownership…all they have to do is buy a home. Illegal aliens aren’t denied voting rights, all they have to do is become a citizen. Non-farmers aren’t denied crop subsidies, all they have to do is become farmers. See how simple it is?

Posted by: Jim M at March 25, 2009 3:38 PM
Comment #278605
Of course it is Lawnboy

No, it isn’t. I’m asking why you should want to impose your preference on another when their free choice doesn’t hurt you. Your response explaining the workings of democracy doesn’t cut it.

Yes, I know that you (with enough others) can strip others of their rights. But why do you want to? Why do you think it’s a useful value to hurt others in a way that in no way helps anyone?

That homosexuals are unable to convince enough American’s to favor their behavior is just…tough shit.
No. It just means we have work to do. You’re on the losing side of history on this one. Eventually, America will recognize these rights. That we don’t yet isn’t justification for maintaining that position.
Homosexuals are not denied equal rights of marriage. All they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex.

Do you even buy that? Do you really think that they have equal rights to marry when they are prohibited from marrying the people they want and love?

How ridiculous.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2009 4:24 PM
Comment #278608

Jim M,

“the homosexual lifestyle”

There is no such thing. This is a canard, a falsehood, a lie.
The only difference in lifestyle between you and a gay person is the way they have sex. Sex is not a lifestyle.
Most gays are exactly like you. They sell insurance, and realestate, they’re policemen, firemen, doctors, lawyers, etc… They pay their taxes, and they live their lives just like you do.

You see a few activists are horrified, and equate all gays with them. The gay activists are a minority within a minority.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 25, 2009 4:40 PM
Comment #278622

Rocky…that’s nonsense to say there isn’t a homosexual lifestyle. One might as well say there is no difference between the following lifestyles;

Married or single
Rich or poor
Educated or uneducated
Big city or rural
Thin or fat
Active or inactive
Religious or non-religious
Active or inactive

Well…you get the point.

Posted by: Jim M at March 25, 2009 7:10 PM
Comment #278623

Jim M

When the homosexual lifestyle gains favor with enough American’s then we will reward that behavior with the benefits now given to traditional marriage.

Does this mean you oppose any federal attempts to prevent Massachusetts from allowing same-sex marriage? Polls show a majority of Bay Staters support the status-quo and a proposal to amend our Constitution failed to obtain the support of 25% of the state legislature?

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2009 7:11 PM
Comment #278629

Warped…I believe that each state should make their own laws regarding same-sex marriage with the approval of a majority of voters in that state. However, I do not believe that any other state has to recognize that sham-marriage.

I am a strong states-rights person and believe our federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority in many areas regarding the individual states.

Posted by: Jim M at March 25, 2009 7:44 PM
Comment #278630

Jim M,

You seem to believe that gays are a sub-species.

Gays are included in all of the life styles you mentioned, except 1;

“Married”

Despite your attempts to single out gays from your species they do still exist, and they do deserve to have all of the same rights the rest of us enjoy.

And that should include their choice of who they choose to marry.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 25, 2009 7:45 PM
Comment #278631
The ancient institution of marriage…has always existed around the assumption that people would marry to have sex and children would be inevitable.
No it hasn’t.
The overwhelming majority of human marriages have been about having children. Virtually all human marriages ever previously recognized as marriages have been between one man and one woman- unless you want to venture into the gathering of harems and the concubinic partnerships people of great wealth have maintained because they couldn’t threaten the business partnerships represented in their marriages. I consider those situations degrading to women, reflecting their status as chattel in ancient times, so I am biased against considering them.
Please answer my question about whether I should allowed to remarry post-vasectomy and whether my wife’s grandfather should have been allowed to remarry in his 70s to a most-menopausal woman.
I did answer this in the previous post with the following:
My personal CONCLUSION is that we should have something (called “marriage” if necessary) that is legally equivalent for all childless monogamous unions. There would be additional legal protections added for couples raising children and for parents (raising children) who remarry. There is nothing simple about this and I can see many ways it could go wrong right off the bat.
By this I mean, of course, a civil form of union.

We are in “what ‘is’ is” territory here. I made a statement about human marriage as practiced across cultures in every corner of the Earth. The practice of marriage throughout the Earth, and across the globe is, in the vast majority of cases, essentially similar.

It is on these grounds that people say of efforts to make marriage open to homosexual unions that they are efforts to “redefine” marriage. Merely making the assertion that marriage is not as most people describe it does not forge new territory to which the name can be applied.

The conclusion I was describing as wrong was your claim that my goal is to destroy a religious institution. As I said, both your premise (that it’s a religious institution) and your means of getting to your conclusion (assuming my motives) are incorrect. Your argument is both invalid and unsound.
Religious institution… Religions are, for most of the people on Earth, reality. To be clearer they are the common, culturally held image of reality. As a matter of fact most atheists have a view of their own unbelief indistinguisable from religious faith, in as much as they haven’t really probed the philosophical foundations of unbelief far enough to deal with the relatively sophisticated defenses of faith used by those with good seminary training.

When people all over the world, in primitive and relatively sophisticated societies alike, get married the ceremony is usually officiated by an official of the faith in which their image of reality is founded. They virtually all see the marriage as being sanctified by the spirit(s) of their religion. For that reason it is irrelevant whether we see the institution as descending from the Judeo-Christian God, or from Zoroaster, or from the spirits of my fathers.

Human beings have an instinct for religious thought (my opinion) and the societal, cultural, or organic forces that have preserved marriage across cultures seem to have attached the institution as we know it (and as it can be evidenced by anthopological study) to that religious sensibility.

That is what I mean by the “religious institution”.

As to your motives, again, I was not addressing YOUR motives. I was addressing the “framing of the debate”, in as much as the debate centers around significantly altering something we think we know the meaning of when we say the word “marriage”.

What is marriage for? The purpose of marriage varies depending on the participant. It always has.
Wrong. This debate is not about marriage from the perspective of the individual. It is marriage from the perspective of the society. We make laws about things because we have societal goals for those things. Minimize murder. Maximize investment, etc. for all those things we are addressing something society recognizes as SOMETHING. We need to get a grip on what we mean whe we address the thing we call marriage.
This comes back to what Lee just said. We have to have specific meanings of words in order to be able to communicate freely.
Does this mean I scored a point?
And Lee, I’m not a lawyer, and have no interesting in becoming one :)
Nor am I, and the world is better for it. Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2009 7:46 PM
Comment #278632

the previous post was directed at LawnBoy. Sorry.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2009 7:48 PM
Comment #278636

Lee,

What I’m basically getting out of this is that it doesn’t matter how many counter examples you see, no matter how much of the history of marriage you learn, no matter how many ways you are shown that the definition of marriage varies across time, place, culture, and individual, you will always insist that marriage must mean what you want it to mean because marriage has always meant what you want it to mean.

That’s not a convincing argument, especially in light of all the ways history disproves the notion.

the debate centers around significantly altering something we think we know the meaning of when we say the word “marriage”.
No more than has been done many, many times over history, as recently as 40 years ago for antimiscegenation. All your handwaving ignores those changes and avoids my question from earlier about why this change causes so much heartache when the institution has always been malleable.
Wrong. This debate is not about marriage from the perspective of the individual.
That’s your claim and desire, but it’s not necessarily true. And claiming that the debate needs to be on a high-minded level doesn’t work when there’s not a legitimate high-minded reason to deprive others of rights. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2009 8:45 PM
Comment #278641

LawnBoy,

Antimiscegination was illogical, and the example proves nothing for your point. There is no such thing as “race”. That MEN and WOMEN of different “races” can join in marriage and have healthy children capable of reproduction themselves proves the point.

What you’re talking about is a fundamental transformation- man and woman for tens of thousands of years- to whatever you or anyone else can imagine it to be in an historical heartbeat. Why not polygamy again? Why not three people, or six? Why just people? There is a logic conjoined to the word by its heritage. Those who argue for the fundamental transformation of the institution in its entirety would disconnect that logic. If it can mean what you want it to mean it has no meaning at all. That leaves nothing to sanction in law.

What you’tre talking about is not “malleability”.

It’s alchemy.

As to the point about my “claim and desire”, the right you claim is inapplicable to the rest of culture. Marriage as a concept has a virtually universal meaning cross-culturally. It is a very specific meaning, like, say the word “homicide”. The word has a legal meaning because of that, as does the word homicide.

You can’t just decide, because a lot of people want to extend the protections of laws against homicide to chimpanzees, that the killing of a chimpanzee is homicide, regardless of your assertion of your, or their, rights.

Essentially what you claim is that no logic counts in this argument. The “right” you claim knows no bounds. That is an interesting= statement of faith.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2009 10:40 PM
Comment #278643
Antimiscegination was illogical, and the example proves nothing for your point.

Sorry, you’re going to have to do better than that.

Your claim of logical vs. illogical rests on the assumption that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. However, centuries of law, cultural precedent, and countless counterexamples show that it’s simply not true.

Your argument rests on a tautology, that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals because marriage is restricted to heterosexuals. It’s not sufficient.

And using slippery slope fearmongering isn’t a cogent argument, either.

Marriage… is a very specific meaning
No, in fact, it isn’t.
Essentially what you claim is that no logic counts in this argument.
That’s completely the opposite of my position and apporach. I’ve tried when possible to distinguish between sound vs. unsound logic, valid vs. invalid logic, point out specific logical fallacies, and tease from Jim’s “evidence” the actual logic of his complaint.

I’m waiting for a single cogent argument that doesn’t rely on the tautology I mentioned above. It’s not my fault you don’t have one.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2009 11:01 PM
Comment #278658

LawnBoy, you might want to check your link.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 26, 2009 12:11 AM
Comment #278691

Thanks, WR. I meant the link to be this. Further support for my point comes from an external source, which points out that the earliest European marriages “required no specific government or religious approval.” Lee’s claim that marriage is historically religious doesn’t match actual history.

Lee,

I want to revisit my objection to your claim that I wasn’t using logic. In my defense, I pointed out how I was trying to use logic. I don’t want to give the impression that I’m arrogant enough to think my logic was infallible - I’m no more a professional logician than I am a lawyer.

However, there is a very simple logic to my position:

Marriage is an institution of and for humans. Marriage is for us, and we are not for marriage. Since marriage exists to improve and serve the human condition, if there’s a way to modify marriage that would have a benefit for humanity, then we should make that change (similar to the many, many other changes to the institution over time). The proposed change to marriage that I support has a tangible benefit for a large portion of society. In contrast, maintaining the status quo has no tangible benefit for anyone. Thus, there’s no real reason not to improve the human condition by modifying one of our institutions to serve us better.

The only benefit you seem to be able to produce for maintaining the status quo is the maintenance of tradition. For me, that’s not really a benefit.

This is one of the foundational differences between liberals and conservatives. For liberals, change that can be a benefit is good. For conservatives, conserving tradition is a good on its own. These are axiomatic values on which you and I disagree. You’re very unlikely to convince me to maintain tradition for tradition’s sake, and I’m very unlikely to convince you that people trump tradition.

So, perhaps we’re at an impasse.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 26, 2009 8:47 AM
Comment #278696

LawnBoy,

Your argument rests on a tautology, that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals because marriage is restricted to heterosexuals. It’s not sufficient.
A tautology in matters delineated by human terminology, as opposed to the example of pure mathematical logic, is impossible. I have made no such assertion.

Murder is only murder because we human beings ASSIGN a value we call life to beings we perceive and define as being like ourselves. It is logically possible to challenge this assignment of a value on a number of grounds, however. By your assertion if I can show that there is a logical fallacy inherent in this assignment of similarity (and I can) the whole argument for maintaining prohibitions to murder collapses.

Your challenge goes to the heart of the capacity or right of human beings to make non-universal value assignments at a cultural or societal level. It is a clever argument, but not a good one.

Your secondary assertion, that variations WITHIN THE FRAME of male + female marriage negate the validity of the frame itself, is also weak for essentially the same reasons. This is not unlike the argument 19th century anarchists tried to make for bringing an end to formal government. The established order contained inherent evils, they claimed. Not having an established order would be inherently better.

No one, however, has demostrated the advantage of disorder. Anarchy, as a movement, has died away.

Anyone can see that is a non-tautological argument all the way around. It is possible to make qualitative and quantitative contingent arguments for the benefits of order, but assertions provable “in every case” are not possible.

In as much as you have founded your argument in semantics (I have claimed the use of “logic” and then supported my statements with non-tautological [contingent] arguments) let’s examine your own use of, well, whatever it is you claim as persuasive force. In essence it is this: Something that has never been termed or formally recognized as marriage is like marriage in (X) way, therefore it is marriage.

OK. Dr. Naismith designed the game of Basketball so that it could be played indoors in cold weather. Modern stadia make it possible to play Baseball indoors in cold weather. Therefore Baseball is Basketball.

Now, talk your way out of that without falling into the trap you attempted to lay for me.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2009 9:44 AM
Comment #278699

Lee,

I was using the rhetorical meaning of tautology: “repetition of meaning, using different words to say the same thing twice, especially where the additional words fail to provide additional clarity”

And your argument, that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals because marriage is restricted to heterosexuals, fits that description.

No one, however, has demonstrated the advantage of disorder.
This argument by analogy doesn’t work.

If you really think that gay marriage would bring about disorder, you easily have ways to validate your belief with evidence. Civil unions and even marriage by name have been available to homosexuals in many European nations for up to 20 years now (civil unions in 1989 in Denmark, 1993 in Norway, 1995 in Sweden and Hungary, etc., and full marriages starting in 2001 in the Netherlands). Have these changes caused disorder? Perhaps for your rhetoric, but not in reality. Denmark, the land with the longest history of gay marriage, was recently found to be the ‘happiest place on earth.’ Is it so happy because of gay marriage? Probably not, but 20 years of treating homosexuals as equals hasn’t shown the disorder you fear.

There is no evidence that expanding marriage to homosexuals brings about disorder.

You have yet to present a single tangible advantage to maintaining the status quo, yet I’ve discussed specific tangible advantages to making a change and shown that the change itself doesn’t cause harm to the societies that embark on it.

Are we really down to the point that you care more about your own rhetorical purity than about the condition of your fellow humans? If so, that’s pretty sad.

I’m not making the logical fallacy you claim with your basketball analogy. I’m not saying that gay couplings are marriages because they share a characteristic with some straight marriages (well, I did say that once, but I was being silly). What I’m saying is that your justification for denying marriage to homosexuals is based on an assumption about the nature and purpose of marriage that is demonstrably untrue. We don’t require married couples to be fertile or to procreate, so excluding gay couples solely on the basis that they aren’t fertile as well isn’t valid. You need to have a better reason to do so, and you don’t have one (besides “tradition”).

There’s a tangible advantage to expanding marriage to include them, and there’s not a tangible disadvantage to it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 26, 2009 10:24 AM
Comment #278706

Lee,

The point is not that outlawing promiscuity doesn’t work. People still commit murder, do they not? Will you despair of outlawing that?

We don’t make laws to eliminate bad behavior. We do it to minimize bad behavior and encourage good behavior.

Bypassing for the moment the comparison of non heterosexual marriage to murder,( or the fact that many murders occur within marriages:)),your argument must mean,therefore, you completely agree with registering and restricting gun ownership, outlawing religious zealotry, and outlawing political campaign contributions? All these things are associated with bad behavior.

Posted by: gergle at March 26, 2009 11:17 AM
Comment #278722

LawnBoy,

You are persisting in picking nits I don’t present. Your example above talks of civil unions. I have not contested civil unions. Your example above talks of calling such unions “marriages”. I’ve TWICE stated society could even use the word “marriage”. Where, then, is your issue with me?

It appears to be exactly where you said it was not. The only significant difference between your position and mine is my affirmation of a special protection for families raising children.

We’ve been through lots of subtle reasoning over religious foundations going back tens of thousands of years versus assertions of European civil marriage dating back a few hundreds at most, all of which proves nothing. Neither does it matter which form of tautological violation I may be guilty of, given that marriage will only be, as legally defined and protected or priviledged, what society says marriage is.

What matters is whether there is a legally protected special family unit for bearing and raising children or not. You can call that unit kangaroo nubbling for all I care.

It is that concept and institution I wish to preserve special protections for and you can’t persist in this debate without admitting such special protection is exactly what you wish to undo.

Gergle,

Is the advancing of specious arguments a form of bad behavior?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2009 1:50 PM
Comment #278725
Where, then, is your issue with me?
It’s what comes next:
It is that concept and institution I wish to preserve special protections for and you can’t persist in this debate without admitting such special protection is exactly what you wish to undo.

I don’t appreciate being told that my goal is something other than what I claim it is or what I think it really is.

Otherwise, in re-reading some of the receding debate, I see that I was misdirecting my arguments when pointing them at you. I’m sorry.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 26, 2009 2:06 PM
Comment #278738
The only significant difference between your position and mine is my affirmation of a special protection for families raising children.

Protection? What the hell protection are you talking about?

Posted by: womanmarine at March 26, 2009 3:30 PM
Comment #278761

womanmarine,

One of the legitimate issues in the gay rights agenda is the matter of certain familial rights being extended between members of a family unit. Husband and wife have automatic visitation rights, communal property, etc. Additional incentives for the family unit with children to remain a nuclear family are appropriate given the statistical advantages, particularly to poor children, of being raised by both a father and mother.

At present there are tax and other disadvantages to marriage with children, especially for the poor.

Let me, for a moment, anticipate what I have experienced as a knee-jerk feminist response that encouraging marriages to stay together only preserves bad marriages and increases abuse of women.

I would challenge someone taking that stance to show that abuse of women has been statistically reduced in the years since the long slide in marriage percentages began in 1960. I would further challenge them to show that there has been a decrease in incarceration in the most vulnerable populations. Then I would challenge them to show benefits to minorities in percentage employment in minority-owned companies, etc., etc.

I would submit an idea that could make a career for an enterprising sociologist: That wives raising children are the principal civilizing influence on husbands, and that the example of men and women working through their competing interests in a lifelong committed relationship is a powerful socializing influence on the next generation of adults.

Hmmm…bet it would be hard to get those studies funded.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2009 5:22 PM
Comment #278768

Rocky wrote; “You seem to believe that gays are a sub-species. Gays are included in all of the life styles you mentioned, except 1;

Thank you Rocky for agreeing that homosexuality is a lifestyle. That many lifestyles can be practiced by the same person is not in question. A persons complete lifestyle can consist of hundreds of parts to make the whole.

God does not differentiate between straight and gay in His love for them any more than between rich and poor, white and black or any other lifestyle. That some practice a lifestyle that is against His supreme nature is not unusual…it’s called sin. Since I attempt to follow God’s laws, and many times fail, nevertheless, I find sinful what He finds sinful in myself and others.

Mankind in general has found value in God’s laws and we find His laws codified into man’s laws in many nations. At this time, in this country, the majority of voters have not found value in homosexual marriage and thus do not wish to codify it into our law.

Posted by: Jim M at March 26, 2009 5:41 PM
Comment #278791

Jim M,

“Thank you Rocky for agreeing that homosexuality is a lifestyle.”

This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read in my 5 years of visiting and posting at watchblog.
Spin it anyway you want but I do not now, nor will I ever agree with you that merely being gay is a lifestyle.

Gays are rich and poor.
Gays are educated and uneducated.
Gays live in big cities and rural counties.
Gays are thin and fat.
Gays are active and inactive.
Gays are religious and non-religious.
Gays are active and inactive.
Gays are single.
Gays are involved in every form of business, and every way of life that straights are involved in.

Unfortunately due to folks like you they do not enjoy the same rights you do.

Point of fact, the only difference between you and a gay man is the way you have sex, and sex is not a lifestyle.

The majority is wrong.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 26, 2009 7:56 PM
Comment #278792

Rocky,

Pardon me, but gays have exactly the same rights we do. They find those rights inadequate.

Beyond new marriage rights, discussed ad nauseum above, they also require special work place rights specifically aimed at giving them special status as well as special status in cases amounting to prosecuting people for the nature of their THOUGHTS.

It is not at all unreasonable to be concerned at the nature of some of the complaints of the gay community.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2009 8:19 PM
Comment #278793

Lee:

How did you get from gay marriage to abuse of women?

Your over-collegiate rhetoric has lost me. Perhaps if you simplified what you post instead of trying to dazzle us with your education?

What disadvantages are you referring to? And what does that have to do with gay marriage?

Are you suggesting that married couples with children should be granted more legal advantages, so as to again distinguish them from other married people?

Posted by: womanmarine at March 26, 2009 8:23 PM
Comment #278799

womanmarine,

Here, let me turn my dazzle down so I can see what I’m doing. :)

I was referring to the normal rights of family units, next of kin, and such in the first paragraph. For the life of me I can’t understand why states would not allow for next-of-kin rights for people wishing to declare and perhaps license themselves as life partners. There are rational limits, of course. It ought to be at least inconvenient to extricate one’s self from such a partnership, as it is in marriage.

That’s one thing. But raising children is way more involved than just keeping house. My wife and I kept house for eight years before we had kids. Then we went another seventeen months before we had a second child and found to our shock what the word difficult really means.

We now have four children. Two adults and two still at home. (They keep needing parents even when they think they’ve grown up, by the way.) Everything about raising kids is hard, and all the more so if one takes that job as the most important thing one has in the world. It is, or should be, easily that. So the answer to the question in your last paragraph is “yes”.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2009 8:53 PM
Comment #278806

Lee,

“Pardon me, but gays have exactly the same rights we do. They find those rights inadequate.”

Gee, would you find your rights inadequate if you were denied the right to marry the person you choose?

” they also require special work place rights specifically aimed at giving them special status as well as special status in cases amounting to prosecuting people for the nature of their THOUGHTS.”

Proof please.

Why do you guys continue to lump the vast majority of gay people in with a tiny minority of gay activists?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 26, 2009 10:01 PM
Comment #278810

Rocky
Remember California after the elections? Seems to me the minority within the minority is making it bad for them. Just like the minotity within the Republican or Democratic parties makes it bad for them. People like to lump the whole group for the indiscrections of a few.

Posted by: KAP at March 26, 2009 10:20 PM
Comment #278820
I was referring to the normal rights of family units, next of kin, and such in the first paragraph.
And if your claim is that gays have the same rights, you are wrong. Let’s see:
Pardon me, but gays have exactly the same rights we do.
Yep, that is your claim. You’re wrong.

Gays don’t have right of next of kin, because they are not allowed to specify their first next of kin. They are not allowed to make medical decisions about their partners. They are not (in many cases) allowed to share insurance. They are not (in some states) allowed to adopt. They don’t have the same inheritance rights heterosexuals have. These are just some of the hundreds of “normal” rights that they don’t have.

What are you talking about when you say they have the same rights we do? Because they very clearly don’t.

When they ask for the same rights that we have, they are not asking for “special status”, they are asking for the same rights and status that you and I already have.

And having the same rights as you have wouldn’t persecute your thoughts. Again with the ALL CAPS when you try to pass off unsupported and unsupportable claims as bald statements?

my affirmation of a special protection for families raising children.

I’d like to return to my hypothetical. If my marriage ends and I am looking for someone to love and help me raise my children, what if I’m deciding between a man and a woman? If everything else were equal, should there be any reason that the potential rights should be something I should have to consider? Do you think that I should be entitled to all of the same protections, rights, and responsibilities if I were to be in a gay couple or a straight couple?

Because if you really were concerned about maintaining the special protections for families raising children, then either coupling would qualify equally, and you would want me and my future husband to have all possible rights my future wife and I would have.

If not, then you need to figure out what your real motivations are.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 26, 2009 10:49 PM
Comment #278830

Lee,

Nice way to avoid the inconsistencies in your own arguments.

I suppose you were wanting to outlaw your own column.

I used a specious argument to point out your own. In the same way you brought up murder to avoid the fallacies of your clearly completely circular arguments, I asked you about things that don’t fit in with your rather twisted logic.

It’s quite clear you have no justification for your position other than “that’s the way I think it should be.”

Bravo. When you are anointed king, you may get your perverse way.

Posted by: gergle at March 27, 2009 12:08 AM
Comment #278838

Lee,

On the subject of monogamy I wonder if you’ve ever considered why it may exist?

The sexual habits of animals is an interesting study. Many social animals have very similar behaviors to humans.

I offer a couple of links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_monogamy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/exposed-secret-sex-life-of-the-female-decievers—genetic-fingerprinting-techniques-have-exposed-monogamy-among-birds-as-a-myth-fostered-by-the-victorians-scientists-say-that-adultery-is-commonplace-and-a-deliberate-survival-strategy-steve-connor-reports-1566073.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shere_Hite

While these are only some easy google links on the subject, as someone who’s been around a while, I can tell you there is something to Shere Hite’s idea that monogamy is a bit of a farce in heterosexual couples. There is something to the game of having a “stable relationship” which also becomes the base by which other relationships occur out of sight. Women often see marriage as simple a means of elevating their own status among other women. Which could be interpreted and sexually more desirable. What daddy doesn’t know won’t hurt him. Scientific data on this is pretty hard to nail down. People are great liars.

While it gives some comfort to feel they are cementing the cornerstone of civilization to protect “marriage”, the irony is that they may be simply dupes to their own situations.

I guess we could always keep ‘em barefoot and chained to the kitchen sink…but then blacksmiths were said to do a boom business with chastity belts and extra keys.

I’ve never been exactly sure what people think they are protecting, except some dogma.

It’s always seemed to me more about hatred and jealousy.

Posted by: gergle at March 27, 2009 1:04 AM
Comment #278857

Lee,

If marriage is so “sacred” why is the divorce rate at 40%?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 27, 2009 9:05 AM
Comment #278863

Lee:

Well, I’m done with you. Your obfuscation reveals more than it hides, particularly about your “ideals” and intent.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 27, 2009 10:36 AM
Comment #278864

Gergle,

Argumentative and definitive circularity is everywhere. It is simply a fact of life. What is time? Really, I’m serious. Look it up in as technical a venue as you can find. It is defined in relation to motion and space, each of which are defined in relation to time.

The law does the same thing in dealing with many concepts like marriage. I challenge you to clearly define your alternative to my definitions without resorting to similar circularities. That is what makes your argument specious.

Circularity is inherent in dealing with the concept.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 27, 2009 10:37 AM
Comment #278892

Lee,

It’s all well and good to talk about the inherent difficulties of definition. That’s true. However, it seems to me that you’re using that as a dodge to avoid hard questions.

When there are two possible definitions of marriage, and one has tangible harm and one doesn’t, why support the one with tangible harm?

If my marriage ends and I am looking for someone to love and help me raise my children, what if I’m deciding between a man and a woman? If everything else were equal, should there be any reason that the potential rights should be something I should have to consider? Do you think that I should be entitled to all of the same protections, rights, and responsibilities if I were to be in a gay couple or a straight couple?

Postmodernism helps you divert attention from these questions, but it doesn’t really enable you to avoid them.

womanmarine’s observation about your obfuscation has merit.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 12:42 PM
Comment #278902

Are you suggesting that married couples with children should be granted more legal advantages, so as to again distinguish them from other married people?
Posted by: womanmarine at March 26, 2009 08:23 PM

Isn’t that the case now WM with our taxes? What else is a “child credit” on a tax form if it isn’t a “legal advantage”. That our society has chosen to value the rearing of children is reflected in our laws. That our society has chosen not to value homosexual marriage is also a value judgment and has nothing to do with “rights”.

If a person chooses a same sex partner that’s his/her business. If a person chooses multiple same sex or opposite sex partners that is their business as well. If a person chooses no partner that also is their business.

We neither reward or punish those folks for their choices.

This may sound silly, but perhaps homosexuals should use legal adoption to gain the “rights” they insist upon. John or Mary could adopt Pete or Sally. Would that provide rights of inheritance, insurance, medical issues, etc. I don’t know…just asking. Or perhaps some sort of “Power of Attorney” might suffice. Do we have any lawyers on this blog who could address this?

Posted by: Jim M at March 27, 2009 1:16 PM
Comment #278908

Jim M,

Some of the rights that heterosexuals have can be obtained through legal contracts and powers of attorney, but it is far from all the rights.

And even for the rights that can be obtained, why should one group get all those rights automatically by signing a single simple contract while another group has to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to piece them all together?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 1:36 PM
Comment #278914

Lawnboy asks; “why should one group get all those rights automatically by signing a single simple contract while another group has to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to piece them all together?”

As answered above, because society places a value on heterosexual marriage and adoption that it doesn’t confer upon homosexual marriage and non-adoption.

Posted by: Jim M at March 27, 2009 1:51 PM
Comment #278922

As explained above, this isn’t an answer to the question. I don’t want to know how rights can be withheld from a group. I want to know why rights should be withheld from the group.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 2:30 PM
Comment #278925

LawnBoy,

When there are two possible definitions of marriage, and one has tangible harm and one doesn’t, why support the one with tangible harm?The thing is , is the harm as tangible as you think, or is it simply perceived.

This argument drives Daugherty crazy, but the fact of the matter is that forces of natural selection are at work in social structures all the time. We tend to look at today as the triumph of the good in culture over barbarism, but I can assure you that in ancient tribal social structures there have been numerous instances of tribal recognition of monogamous homosexual relationships. Why did they not develop with equal authority over the 40,000 years we have been cognitively modern and social creatures?

There are forces at work we just can’t see that are destructive to homosexual marriage. You can fly in the face of the selective dynamic that designed the human brain if you like (That especially galls Stephen.) but it seems to understand things you don’t.

The imminent logic that favors this development may have counterbalances we are too smart to see.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 27, 2009 2:59 PM
Comment #278926

Lee:

The only circularity is in your posts.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 27, 2009 3:07 PM
Comment #278927

Lee,

Those are a lot of empty words to avoid the question.

Assuming that there are hidden unknown forces that support your goals is not a valid argument.

Please try again.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 3:09 PM
Comment #278930

As explained above, this isn’t an answer to the question. I don’t want to know how rights can be withheld from a group. I want to know why rights should be withheld from the group.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 02:30 PM

You are mistaken about your definition of “rights”. Liberals continually find “new rights” buried in our constitution. They have founds new rights for the poor, for example, which require taking from someone who is not considered poor. That our society finds value in helping the poor comes from societies values, not the right of the poor to demand that government take from others.

That we all enjoy guarantees of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness does not imply that one part of society must provide those to other part. It means that one can not deny the pursuit of those guarantees. If homosexuals wish to copulate no one denies them that opportunity…we just don’t reward it with special recognition as we do marriage.

You find “new rights” where none exist. Only when society decides to value homosexual marriage will those who wish to enter such unions be given the same benefits as homosexual marriage.

That taxpayers with children receive special consideration at tax time, that some farmers and some other businesses receive subsidies, and many other examples does not confer some kind of constitutional right upon them, it merely means that we, as society, have decided to reward them for behavior we find valuable. Would you argue that the constitution demands we give to the poor, subsidize corporations, give tax breaks to families with children or to folks who own a home?

If and when society finds value in homosexual marriage they also will receive the favor of special benefits of that behavior. You’re confusing “rights” with favors granted by society upon those actions we believe have value.

Posted by: Jim M at March 27, 2009 3:43 PM
Comment #278932

Fine, Jim, I’ll play your semantic game.

I don’t want to know how favors can be withheld from a group. I want to know why favors should be withheld from the group.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 3:45 PM
Comment #278942

I don’t want to know how favors can be withheld from a group. I want to know why favors should be withheld from the group.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 03:45 PM

Lawnboy…the answer to your question is so simple that it might embarrass you by repeating it, but here goes;

Are you ready?

Are you sure your ready?

Answer; because society does not value homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage is not a right and is not valued by a majority of society and consequently is not granted favor by society.

Homosexuals must convince the majority of society of the value of granting them the same favors as enjoyed by heterosexual marriage to be successful. The benefits of heterosexual marriage that you would advocate for homosexual marriages can be taken away at any moment that congress wishes which is proof positive that they are not constitutional “rights”.

It requires positive action by society. The burden of proving the value of their desired action is upon them, not upon society.

Perhaps when organized homosexual groups can, with evidence, convince the majority of society that those unions are useful and to the benefit of the majority of society then we will see a change.

Please don’t read this in a way not intended but let’s briefly take a look at “animal rights”. One could not successfully argue that our constitution provides for animal rights. And yet, society has perceived a value in granting such limited rights to animals and thus, such laws against the abuse of animals have been codified into law. I have no problem with that and support those laws. But, it doesn’t mean that to not follow such laws is unconstitutional. It merely means that society has chosen to protect that which it values.

When you finally understand that homosexual marriage is not a right, but rather a status conferred upon it as it’s consequences are conceived as beneficial to society, you may wish to achieve the result you desire using different tactics. Convince the majority of society of its value and you may just achieve your goal.

Posted by: Jim M at March 27, 2009 4:54 PM
Comment #278948
Answer; because society does not value homosexual marriage.

And once again, you dodge the question.

I’ve asked you maybe a half a dozen times why you personally want to obstruct tangible benefit for others in a way that provides tangible gain for no one. And each time you blame your position on “society”.

Let me know when you’re ready to take responsibility for your own position and beliefs.

Until then, I’m just going to laugh at the ridiculousness of “I want to hurt a group because it’s a popular thing to do.”

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 6:02 PM
Comment #278956

It would seem that Lawnboy keeps wanting me to answer his questions until he gets the answer he agrees with. Sorry pal, that just isn’t going to happen.

Now, instead of societies answer he would like my personal objections. Simple, like society, I see no value either. Please give me reasons for changing my view.

Lawnboy, putting your words in my mouth, “I want to hurt a group because it’s a popular thing to do.” is rather silly, isn’t it?

Posted by: Jim M at March 27, 2009 6:52 PM
Comment #278959

Jim,

It’s not that I want you to give me the answer I agree with; in fact, I strongly suspect it would be something with which I strongly disagree. I just want you to give an honest answer. I’m sorry that’s so difficult for you.

Simple, like society, I see no value either. Please give me reasons for changing my view.
The value is in making a change that improves the lives of your fellow citizens at no cost to you or anyone else. Why are you opposed to that? What is the active value to you in preventing benefit to others?

I’m sorry I had to paraphrase your argument in a way you didn’t like. However, when you refuse to put your own words into your mouth, someone else is bound to do it for you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 7:04 PM
Comment #278974

Lawnboy writes; “The value is in making a change that improves the lives of your fellow citizens at no cost to you or anyone else.”

Well that’s not true. There are costs. Are there not tax implications as well as costs to employers? I and society don’t see the value in increasing the cost to us to accommodate something which we don’t favor or wish to nourish with our taxes or by placing additional burdens on the nations employers by force of law.

Please tell me Lawnboy why it is that most of our states do not favor homosexual marriage? Do you think we are punishing folks for their preferred sexual orientation? Hardly…I don’t know of a single state that has laws against same-sex copulation. I am not in the punishment business…that’s the governments purview. That I don’t reward behavior that I don’t value is not punishment, it’s just common sense.

Many states don’t allow casino gambling, my county does not allow the sale of alcohol by the drink except for certain cases. It’s not because those states or my county wish to punish anyone. Society in those states and this county have decided not to favor these activities. Would you say my constitutional rights are being violated?

Posted by: Jim M at March 27, 2009 7:49 PM
Comment #278976
Are there not tax implications as well as costs to employers?

Once again, you’re engaging in misplaced anger. You oppose the tax and employer costs of marriage and take that anger out on the only group that has never been allowed to take advantage of those benefits.

If you’re opposed to employer and tax benefits, then work to eliminate them. If you’re just opposed to their being used by a particular group, then you’re just using those costs as a smokescreen to cover your prejudice.

Please tell me Lawnboy why it is that most of our states do not favor homosexual marriage?
For the same reason that so many states prohibited inter-racial marriage 40 years ago; backwards traditions hadn’t yet been overcome.
Do you think we are punishing folks for their preferred sexual orientation? Hardly…I don’t know of a single state that has laws against same-sex copulation.
Actually, laws like that were on the books in several states until they were thrown out just six years ago. If not for gay rights advocates, those laws would still be in effect today. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 8:04 PM
Comment #278985

lawnboy

it seems you’re hell bent on convincing jim m that his beliefs are wrong, when he has repeatedly told you what his opinion of gay marriage is, and why society has not seen the need to find the value that would warrant confering special rights to these relationships. it seems your time would be better served convincing society why these relationships should be honored with prefered status, and how that would benefit us all as a society, rather than trying to convince those with whom you disagree that they’re wrong.

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2009 9:37 PM
Comment #278986

Lee,

You are wrong because you are. Happy now? That is the substance of your argument. Let’s all have some Duck Soup. Heeeey, Abbott! Who’s on first?

Posted by: gergle at March 27, 2009 9:49 PM
Comment #278988
it seems your time would be better served convincing society why these relationships should be honored with prefered status, and how that would benefit us all as a society, rather than trying to convince those with whom you disagree that they’re wrong.

Basically, instead of doing A, I should do A. Not particularly helpful advice.

And equal status doesn’t mean “preferred status”.

You’re right, Jim won’t be convinced. It’s particularly hard to try to convince Jim when he won’t own up to his objection to my perspective. All he says is he disagrees because he doesn’t value my position, and he doesn’t value my position because he disagrees.

You’re right, it’s a waste of time.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 10:30 PM
Comment #278990

lawnboy

IMO, it don’t think it’s that he doesn’t value your position. it’s that he sees no value to society or himself in your position.

“Basically, instead of doing A, I should do A. Not particularly helpful advice.”

i think i said doing B may yield better results.

this all seems to revolve around the term marriage. it seems that it is you who are unwilling to make a small compromise in order to make a large gain. if you insist on all or nothing, most times you’re going to get nothing. just an observation.

“You’re right, it’s a waste of time.”

only if you’re not willing to take the small victories when you can get them, and instead insist on ALL or NOTHING.

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2009 10:52 PM
Comment #278991

Semantics, semantics.

Bullshit, bullshit.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 27, 2009 11:04 PM
Comment #278992
i think i said doing B may yield better results.

Unfortunately, though, your B == A.

Instead of trying to persuade those who disagree with me that my position is correct, you suggest that I should try to persuade those who disagree with me that my position is correct. There’s not really a difference.

I guess you’re saying my style offends. Perhaps it does. But as I said, since Jim doesn’t give anything more than a circular argument in defending his position, I don’t see that anything else would be more successful.

this all seems to revolve around the term marriage. it seems that it is you who are unwilling to make a small compromise in order to make a large gain. if you insist on all or nothing, most times you’re going to get nothing. just an observation.
And I’ve said a couple of times that the rights are what I care most about (the sundae) and the term marriage is the ideal (the cherry on top).
only if you’re not willing to take the small victories when you can get them
What small victory? Jim doesn’t either accept my main goal or my ideal. Once again, someone is acting as though gays have the full civil union rights and are overreaching by asking for the term marriage. In almost every state, they have neither.

It’s dishonest to act as though I’m rejecting a compromise; none is being offered.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 11:07 PM
Comment #278993

lawnboy

“It’s dishonest to act as though I’m rejecting a compromise; none is being offered.”

as i recall i did offer a compromise. granted i can’t speak for others, but then this was just you and me having a discussion. your response to me was to infer that what i refered to as a comfort really wasn’t. rather than realize i was willing to compromise you chose to micro anylize my personal feeling about the situation. you had the “sundae” but refused to eat it without the “cherry”. thats not my fault.

as i also said at least in california, you could probably get the “sundae” if you quit throwing the “cherry” in everyones face. it also might be helpful to refrain from sexually oriented parades. marching down the street in nothing but leather chaps ( especially if you’re not a cowboy ) or a loin clothe ( if your not tarzan ) would go along way to advancing you objectives. putting your sexual orientation in peoples face is not helpful. it would be best to let the more level heads prevail, and tell the others to simmer down you’re not helping yourselves.

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2009 11:35 PM
Comment #279047

Lawnboy,

Lee,
Those are a lot of empty words to avoid the question.
Assuming that there are hidden unknown forces that support your goals is not a valid argument.
Please try again.
You have asserted that there is an obvious advantage conferred to society by the instituting of gay marriage. I’m simply saying there is no proof it exists, in spite of the obvious opportunity for the “inherent” advantages of parallel forms of marriage to express themselves.

I’ve been reading through this month’s Scientific American Magazine and two major stories in there deal with the absence of evidence versus evidence of absense, while one, on color vision, deals with how a subtle difference in the transmission of a gene for different color sensing pigments swept away all competing genetic variants.

It seems New World primates have an old mechanism for sensing color the workings of which make technicolor vision like ours possible only for two-thirds of females and no males at all. A mutation allowing two similar genes encoding different pigments to exist on the same X chromosome made technicolor vision available to both males and females (and explains male colorblindness) in Old World primates after contact was broken between the continents of Africa and South America 40 million years ago. The trait is so powerful an advantage that all the Old World species showing the trait that remains in New World primates became extinct.

Yeah, the mechanisms of social evolution and genetic evolution are very different. Mechanisms that provide advantages to given cultures, though the advantages are hard to understand, like production of alcohol, tend to be preserved. Those that confer no competitive advantage to the culture may persist but they often won’t. Those that die away may not have had no merit, but that’s all you can say.

LawnBoy, after 40,000 years of human social and cultural development you can’t say there is a definitive advantage to all of culture in gay marriage.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but it clearly is absence of proof.

OMG! That’s circular, too!

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 28, 2009 3:30 PM
Comment #279129

Lawnboy writes of my arguments; “All he says is he disagrees because he doesn’t value my position, and he doesn’t value my position because he disagrees.”

That’s a very thin reading of what I have said. That society places more value on certain things than others is not something I can explain. However, I can perceive the reality of such value decisions.

You can not deny that society has expressed its value of heterosexual marriage by granting it certain favored treatment. You then ask me to explain why society has not discovered the same value for homosexual marriage. You will have to find someone else to explain that to you as I can’t.

Perhaps because I was raised in a heterosexual environment I favor that and wish to see it encouraged. I have first-hand knowledge of the results of such a family arrangement and find it appealing. I have seen the disadvantage of my friends who were raised in single-parent families. Since I have no first-hand experience with families consisting of same-sex parents I have no understanding of them nor am I seeking it. Please tell me why I should?

I was raised in a small rural town in the center of Wisconsin in the 40’s and 50’s. I was not exposed, on a personal basis, to blacks or any other non-white group until I was drafted in 1963.
I mowed lawn for the one Jewish family that resided in my town but other than them everyone I knew was a Christian.

And yet, I harbored no fear of non-white’s or non-Christians. When I became friends with non-white’s in the Army it just seemed natural to me and I fully supported the civil rights actions taking place.

Lawnboy seems to wish to find some sort of anger in me that shapes my view of homosexual marriage. It’s not anger Lawnboy, and what these folks do in private doesn’t concern me. When groups of homosexuals wish to parade and have the proper permits that’s OK as well as no one forces me to attend. That these groups sometimes insist in flaunting their sexual persuasion in public doesn’t help them win favor with the majority of society any more than nudists would win favor as a special class by staging nude parades.

Perhaps if homosexual groups would find community service or something else of value to participate in, and consequently, show society that they are about something other than demanding marriage, they would have more success in showing value to the community. I don’t know. And frankly, I don’t spend my time devising strategies for their success. They will have to do that for themselves.

I am convinced that homosexuals will not advance their cause by just pissing off heterosexuals with lewd and lascivious displays.

Posted by: Jim M at March 29, 2009 3:18 PM
Comment #279138

Jim M,

Perhaps because I was raised in a heterosexual environment I favor that and wish to see it encouraged. I have first-hand knowledge of the results of such a family arrangement and find it appealing. I have seen the disadvantage of my friends who were raised in single-parent families. Since I have no first-hand experience with families consisting of same-sex parents I have no understanding of them nor am I seeking it. Please tell me why I should?

Just to let you know where I am coming from, for a good portion of my life I was raised by a single parent (my Dad). He brought me up in a Unitarian Universalist Church where I interacted with many of peers who were being raised by same-sex parents. I can tell you that two same-sex parents offer things to parenting that one parent just cannot do. There are profound benefits for adopted children that can be realized if the rest of the country follows Massachusetts’ lead and moves into the 21st century by adopting same-sex marriage.

I am convinced that homosexuals will not advance their cause by just pissing off heterosexuals with lewd and lascivious displays.

Could you elaborate here? I have known and spent a great deal of time around myriad of gay people, but I have never been a witness to “lewd or lascivious displays”. They are just normal people like you and I, the only thing different happens when the go home to sleep with their partner.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 29, 2009 5:35 PM
Comment #279141

Jim M,

You have hit something important, something I had missed completely, on the nose.

The left consistently accuses the right of making choices out of anger. We choose not to embrace what we see in black neighborhoods, so they say, out of anger. We choose not to embrace what we see in homosexual relationships, so they say, out of anger.

It’s just not so.

The two gay roommates I had, and their friends, struck me as being unhappy, pained, people. Yeah, it affects me that, by the time I was forty they were nearly all dead, but even having grown up among angst-filled teenage thespians these people seemed to make angst an art. It is not hard not to want that for my firends.

That’s not to say I haven’t known happy homosexuals. I have. They built their lives around lifelong, secure, monogamous, quiet relationships and even in stoggy southern religious bastions like Huntville, Texas and Shreveport, LA nobody wanted to know about their private lives. One of them was a high school assistant principal in the ’40s ’50s, and ’60s.

I WANT that happiness for them. I’m really not sure the polarization I perceive to be inherent in the gay marriage furor would get them that.So I am eager to support civil unions and ambivalent about gay “marriage”.

Likewise, though I have a good relationship with the black community in Huntsville, having worked hard to tell the story of some of the area’s black educational pioneers, I see elements of black subculture that significantly damage that community. Further, I see policies promoted by the left that assume the inferiority of black people and destroy the black family. I can’t help but see these policies as racist, but if I express opposition to these destructive processes people say I and being prejudiced.

Assinine. There is no anger involved in my opposition to these policies. There is, however, a good deal of frustration with what I perceive as people leveraging the pain of human beings for their own political gain.

I can get angry over that.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 29, 2009 6:06 PM
Comment #279143

Warped Reality,

Could you elaborate here? I have known and spent a great deal of time around myriad of gay people, but I have never been a witness to “lewd or lascivious displays”. They are just normal people like you and I, the only thing different happens when the go home to sleep with their partner.
I, unfortunately, have seen many such displays. That may come from my particular experience with theater gays and the Montrose district in Houston. On the other hand I have known of the more familial types you know of. It is easy to understand the overexposure of the lewd types biasing the general population.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 29, 2009 6:12 PM
Comment #279146

Warped writes; ” I am convinced that homosexuals will not advance their cause by just pissing off heterosexuals with lewd and lascivious displays.

Could you elaborate here? I have known and spent a great deal of time around myriad of gay people, but I have never been a witness to “lewd or lascivious displays”.

Somewhere above I cited just one example of a parade in SF that involved city firemen being abused by the parade participants. Since I don’t attend gay parades I rely upon the internet to inform me of what is sometimes lewd and lascivious behavior. A little effort in an internet search by you could yield many results of such behavior.

Posted by: Jim M at March 29, 2009 6:28 PM
Comment #279153

Since marriage is a civil union according to the laws, and is legally called marriage, for legal purposes it should be called marriage for gays also. If your religion wants to refer to it as a civil union and/or not recognize it, fine. I am sure it is fine with the gay community also.

What is going on here is the folks who feel marriage is religious based somehow feel their religious marriage will somehow be diminished. Hogwash.

Government has taken over the term marriage to enumerate various laws. Accept that and lets get on with it. What you do in your religion is an entirely separate thing.

This seems to go back to the separation of church and state. Marriage is a civil matter which can be done for convenience and religious reasons in a church, but it is not a requirement by any means. Those married outside the church are also called marriage and have always been.

If you feel you or your religion are threatened somehow by gay marriage being called marriage, that’s your problem. Oh, ye of little faith.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 29, 2009 7:53 PM
Comment #279155

Guys,
I think the bottom line here is that gays are humans too, and as such deserve the rights everyone else enjoys, especially here in America where we tout our freedoms to the rest of the world.

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 29, 2009 8:33 PM
Comment #279161

Jim M,
If I have to search for examples, then they aren’t commonplace, now are they? Homosexual lewdness and lasciviousness occur no more often than heterosexual lewdness and lasciviousness. Another reason I might experience less of these sorts of things is that I live in a region where homosexuals are pretty well integrated, so they have less of a reason to do anything radical.

In any case, searching the internet on google for the terms homosexual lewdness lasciviousness yields hardly any results. I tried again with gay pride parade lewdness lasciviousness and got few results except for the SD case you cited earlier. I’m starting to suspect that this was merely an isolated event that was blown out of proportion and spun around the right-wing media sphere in order to rouse homophobic sentiment. I hope I’m wrong about the intentions of that civil liberties organization you cited.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 29, 2009 9:47 PM
Comment #279208

Warped,
Since the vast majority of the population can’t spell “lascivious” a simple google search of “gay pride lewd” seemed a better indication of the situation. Most search engines target the first three words of a search term anyway.

35,000 returns.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 30, 2009 9:58 AM
Comment #279209

Lee and Jim:

Sorry, one parade in one city doesn’t compare with lewd and lascivious as portrayed at things like spring break, advertised videos for “girls, girls, girls” and many other heterosexual lewdness. No freaking difference.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 30, 2009 10:12 AM
Comment #279219

Since the vast majority of the population can’t spell “lascivious” a simple google search of “gay pride lewd” seemed a better indication of the situation. Most search engines target the first three words of a search term anyway.

35,000 returns.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 30, 2009 09:58 AM

Thanks Lee. No matter how many times I write about “new rights” being found almost daily in our constitution by folks wishing to get special treatment while society disagrees, some will never get it.

If homosexuals want the same favored treatment as that enjoyed by heterosexual marriage it will be up to them to convince society to grant that favored treatment.

Posted by: Jim M at March 30, 2009 11:59 AM
Comment #279323

If you have read through all the comments founded in screaming about gay marriage let me, for a moment, reprise what I thought was a key paragraph in my article, which was not about gay marriage.-

So what is the key difference here between liberal and conservative views? The conservative philosophy I espouse is the sacredness of the human individual, whereas the liberal view appears to be that the individual is supposed, at best, to be a subservient cog in the larger society’s wheel and, at worst, (as in activist gay, and other sexual industry, arguments) merely a tool, even a plaything for the whims of that society. This is a philosophical point the left frequently tries to cover with images of sexual innuendo and prudishness on conservatives part. OK, we’re fallible and fall short of our ideals, but the left’s cure to their own similar human failings seems to be that they really HAVE NO IDEALS.

I don’t think that is true of people on the left but it is certainly the image projected by the people they often follow.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 31, 2009 2:32 PM
Comment #280738

How can religion be left out of the issue? It’s a religious issue! By the way I’m against it.

Posted by: Aaron Hughes at April 21, 2009 4:17 PM
Post a comment