It's Mike Huckabee's win in the presidential straw poll at this past week's Value Voters' summit that's drawing the headlines. But this is every bit as interesting:
Abortion ranked first among issues of concern to straw-poll voters, getting 41 percent of the vote, with protection of religious liberty second with 18 percent.Emphasis is mine. These are not the tea-partiers, who have a libertarian bent. This is a forum, rather, sponsored by the Family Research Council, an organization which continues to insist that homosexuality is curable and to link it to pedophilia. But the actual attendees at the forum -- religious conservative activists from around the country -- just don't seem to be all that riled up about the prospect of two men getting married.
Opposition to same-sex marriage was third at 7 percent.
This is not to suggest that these voters have become pro-gay marriage. If any of them was spotted in leather chaps at Remington's after the event -- it was not, I assure you, to show solidarity for their gay brothers and sisters. But the last time this poll was conducted, in October 2007, gay marriage was the top choice of 20 percent of the attendees. That's quite a decline, particularly given that gay marriage has been more in the news than abortion for the past couple of years.
Public opinion is moving toward acceptance of gay marriage. But it is doing so very slowly, at a rate of perhaps a point or two per year, and has at least a few years to go before it is the majority opinion. In the near term, the more relevant dimension may be 'passion', or depth of feeling. It used to be that the conservatives were ahead on passion -- they were strongly opposed to gay marriage, whereas liberals were, at best, lukewarmly in favor of it. Increasingly, that dynamic seems to be reversing.
174 comments
I agree...A positive dynamic. (We could all use some good news right about now.)
Protecting religious freedom from what?
What am I missing here? The two polls didn't ask the same questions. In the 2007 poll there was no option for 'protecting religious freedom'. Seems to me that right now that option is very much associated with gay marriage, because if gay marriage, as noted by their own propaganda, this will be the death of religious freedom.
... because if gay marriage is legalized, ...
A couple of observations:
1. Abortion is still a magnet for
the religious right. And now they're embracing teenage pregnancy.
2. Kos polled Maine's "people's veto," which would overturn the state's gay marriage law, and found the measure leading 48-46%.
While gay marriage is still rather unpopular, it doesn't stir up the emotional veins like abortion.
Obviously it's a very sad day in America when the evangelical winger's at a Value Voters' summit er Family Research Council can only muster 7% concern over the gay marriage issue. (1) word: recount!
Indeed the party of No! who is usually 100% against minority rights is quickly losing steam as it's increasingly more difficult to get their young people to hate! even evangelicals, gasp!
btw, why am I never invited to a value's summit ;) hopefully they didn't invite Vitter, Ensign, Sanford, Joe Wilson, Ted Haggard, Craig, etc. OK, if they couldn't invite any hypocrites/sinners to their summit ...
Do the value/evangelical folk realize how insignificant and what a joke they have become politically speaking?
When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there who put forth the proposition, that you can petition the lord with prayer ...
Abortion has always been the lead issue for "values voters." Mass killing draws more concern than the threat of courts redefining marriage for obvious reasons.
Also, the latest reversal of a judicially fabricated "right" to same sex "marriage, this time by deep blue California's voters, reduces the apparent threat of the this movement spreading. A heavy majority of states now have constitutional amendments reestablishing the definition of marriage to keep their courts from committing similar mischief.
Unless Kennedy goes off the constitutional reservation when the CA amendment is reviewed by the Supreme Court, same sex "marriage" will be a cultural oddity limited to a handful of northeast states.
So, explain this to me:
Last year this time, Barack Obama was actively courting the GLBT community, and we were actively forking over the ca$h.
In June (Pride Month), The DOJ under President Obama compared Equal Marriage to incest and child-rape. The GLBT community staged a minor kerfuffle by persuading major donors to not attend a White House fundraiser honoring Joe Biden, who stated his fervent opposition to Equal Marriage during the VP debate last fall.
Last month, the DOJ again affirmed that it will defend DOMA in the courts-even though the President now regrets earlier comparisons to child-rape and incest. For some odd reason, Barney Frank leaps for joy-its a sign of progress that Obama no longer considers us to be child molesters, but still won't let us get hitched?
And all across the blogosphere, liberals beg for us to be patient... just wait till the second term before we give you any rights... and keep the money flowing, okay?
And here's the kicker... they ostensibly keep running away from us because... 7% of conservatives still oppose Equal Marriage?
You mean to tell me you'd rather lose all the donation money from our community because you're terrified of 7% of conservatives?
WTF?????
Read the article. It's not that only 7% of these values voters are opposed to gay marriage. It's that 7% of them find it to be the *biggest* issue of concern. The poll was not multiple choice, so reading it as a simple 7-93 split, as many of the above posters seem to be doing, is terribly off the mark.
Abortion is the number one issue of religious conservatives. Period. Among that community is verges on heresy to argue any issue is even remotely as significant as abortion. I imagine that when gay marriage was so prominent on a national stage it may have been closer to the top of people's minds, but when push comes to shove abortion will always be issue #1.
I also think you're wrong about the Tea Party folks - they most certainly are not socially liberal enough to entertain acceptance of gay marriage. I'm not sure why you would think that - nothing in their performances so far suggests they are sympathetic to any lifestyle but their own.
@Neil,
Agreed. Couldn't have said it better. This polls doesn't mean that conservatives suddenly <3 gay marriage. It just means it's not the biggest issue to them anymore.
Just wondering, how statistically relevant are these numbers? In that Washington Post article I read that there were about 600 people who voted in the Presidential straw poll. Admitting that you are not looking at a "representative" sample of the country as a whole, is 600 a large enough sample size even to say something about the "Value Voting" population?
The Obama Administration has already proven to be NO 'champion' for the GLBT community. Heck, its not even a 'supporter' at this point. Instead, Candidate-Obama feigned minor-to-moderate support during the primaries (to garner votes?)...and has ignored all GLBT concerns ever since. If the GLBT community is looking for their warrior, look beyond the Oval Office. For Obama is certainly NOT 'it'.
Liberty and justice for 'all', indeed. /eyeroll
EmonOkari, political capital is a very delicate dance. Right now, if Obama's doing anything that isn't healthcare, it's very minor stuff in comparison that won't distract from the healthcare fight. It's sometimes a matter of what issues to tackle in what order: economy got first priority, healthcare second, cap/trade looks to be third.
He makes a move on gay marriage at the moment, he sucks the wind out of it all, someone probably uses it as a weapon- 'you support gay marriage and I vote no on healthcare'- and there are Congresspeople that will absolutely do that and not even think twice about it.
GLBT is correct to press the issue. They should. They need to. Obama, however, probably isn't going to be able to join you for a little while yet.
See if you can get him to wedge you in alongside the cap/trade fight. That's likely your next opportunity.
The teabaggers aren’t really libertarian because all of them seem to fervently support the kooky positions of the neocons. For instance, a true libertarian wouldn’t give a crap about whether Obama was born in the US—his focus would be on the size of government and its infringement on personal liberty.
Same is true of gay marriage. Why should a libertarian care? If he cares about marriage it should be to oppose the government recognizing marriage at all, since it is a religious rite and thus should be none of the government’s business.
Tomorrow’s big news should be this faceoff.
mtvcdm:
You are correct to a point, in that politically it's still a very dangerous issue.
However, Democrats have always believed in supporting civil rights issue not because of political expediency, but because it is the right thing to do.
On the night Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 he is said to have acknowleged that he'd just cost his party the South for at least a generation. In fact if anything he was overly optimistic when he said only a generation.
However that was not a reason for him to not sign the bill, nor is it a reason for Democrats to not support equal rights for everyone in society.
I'd like to think that there are still some politicians out there who support concepts like civil rights and full legal and societal equality of gay people because they are right, not because of any political calculus.
We as Democrats must not support gay marriage because it is politically advantageous, or because of some clever arguments, or because we want the votes and financial support of gay people. Rather we must support it because, and only because, supporting it as a civil right is the RIGHT thing to do.
This is not a time or an issue to be timid about.
Family Research Council, an organization which continues to insist that homosexuality is curable and to link it to pedophilia.
There is a link. They are both bizarre aberrations that should not be tolerated.
I don't think they have forgotten about gay marriage...
TRUE TOLERANCE: COUNTERING THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MARRIAGE: WHY IT'S WORTH DEFENDING AND HOW REDEFINING IT THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Redefining marriage poses serious threats to the religious liberties of people who continue to believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. This understanding of marriage is an important religious belief for many Americans, but the freedom to express it will come under growing pressure as courts, public officials, and private institutions come to regard the traditional understanding of marriage as a form of irrational prejudice that should be purged from public life. This briefing will focus on policy and legal developments, as well as how to communicate the link between marriage and religious liberty.
THE NEW MASCULINITY
Feminism has wreaked havoc on marriage, women, children and men. It is time to redress the disorder it has wrought and that must start with getting the principles and ideals for a new "masculinism" right. Such a "masculinism" will have its dovetailing counterpart in a new "feminism" for they mutually define each other and, in nature, are meant to be complementary. This panel will begin this exploration.
Its because of the win in California that its not a front-burner issue.
If a few other states were to legalize it over the course of the next several years, it'd go back up in their polling.
Meanwhile, "domestic partnerships" will be what the gay community will have to use until it goes to SCOTUS and you end up with another "separate but equal" decision to let gays marry (and it might take more than one time in front of SCOTUS before you get it..).
juvanya…
You’re right, both the Family Research Council and pedophilia are bizarre aberrations and should not be tolerated.
Lidian Mike…
Let me guess—you’re a white guy, about 55-60, and you live in the South. Correct? Mostly it has to do with the incoherence of your rant and the use of all caps to make your angry points.
An update on the Olson/Boies same-sex marriage federal suit filed this year in California…
Pragmatus
Umm... no. That was a direct quote from the Value Voters' Summit schedule.
Pragmatus, honey, I believe Lidian & Mike was (were?) quoting a wingnut, not actually being wingnutty themselves.
Of course, he was on top of that already.
I'm also with Neil - it's not a leading concern, but it doesn't mean that it's not #2 or #3. And the omnibus "religious freedom" concern - which concerns whether they're able to educate their kids according to the Bible, whether they'll be forced to sell things that they're morally opposed to, and - yes - TEH QUEERS MARRYING ONOES.
There is an interesting point, though, that's anecdotally present here. Gays are getting fired up after the entire Prop 8 debacle. (Seriously, did we really need to give Europe any more reasons to cluck their tongues at us? Yes, I do care about what the cheese-eating surrender monkeys think, sue me. No, I don't think you're all cheese-eating surrender monkeys on the continent, that was a joke.) You haven't seen nearly as much of an uproar over Iowa as you did California. Vermont quietly legalized same-sex marriage. New York has a law pending, I've heard.
Lidian & Mike…
A thousand pardons. It’s not always clear who’s saying what on these comment forums.
SnW
I'm with you on Obama's complete failure to stand up for the GLBT community.
However, if he'd just get rid of DADT I'd be a lot more forgiving on DOMA, which would require actual legislation.
I'd like to think this is also due in part to a greater understanding among religious conservatives that there is no mechanism whereby the government could require a church to marry a same-sex couple against its own doctrine. I hope I'm not giving them too much credit.
To offer anecdotal evidence, as a left of center Democrat and young (straight but not narrow) voter, I have to say I am passionately in favor government recognition of same-sex marriage. Though, I agree with movement leaders that the more important issue is passing anti-discrimination laws and making sure that crimes against individuals based on sexual orientation are recognized as hate crimes. Many of my contemporaries feel the same way. I would even go so far as to say that many of the most conservative students at my alma mater recognized that sexual orientation is not a choice. I'd say that's progress.
Bart DePalma said...
Unless Kennedy goes off the constitutional reservation when the CA amendment is reviewed by the Supreme Court, same sex "marriage" will be a cultural oddity limited to a handful of northeast states.
~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, there were polls, which you obviously live your life by BDP, right after voters approved Prop 8 by 4.5 pts., 600k votes, indicating next time this Prop is on the ballot denying minority rights, it would be overturned, as again older bigoted voters keep passing and younger voters keep registering to vote.
So no you're wrong again re: the threat to evangelicals, regardless of Kennedy, the Prop will be overturned next year in CA.
And hey, it took African/Americans 300/400 years to attain equal rights in America, Gays are on a much faster track having recently come out of the closet.
BDP, one must be exasperated being wrong on every single issue recently and your never ending battle to deny minority rights in America. btw, believe Prop 8 was one of the first times a ballot issue was used to deny minority rights already attained by political legislation and state courts.
It would be like Brown vs. BOA being overturned by a vote of U.S. citizens across the nation.
Gays will have equal rights in the immediate future. Be afraid, be very afraid party of No!
hmm 2012, let's be conservative ;) re: minority voters
African/Americans ~ 96/4 Dems
Hispanics ~ 80/20 Dems
Asians ~ 75/25 Dems
Jewish ~ 70/30 Dems
but, but, but
southern white guys ~ 54/46 Reps
take care
Brown vs. BOE
carry on
"A very delicate dance?" "Can't make a move?" The Obama administration has already made a number of questionable moves proving itself to be more of an enemy to the GLBT community than any actual friend. If this is their 'dance', they need to learn new steps.
Meanwhile, millions of American citizens continue to be denied even the chance at equal justice. My own mother received a phone call from her long-time boss with the question, "Was that lady who visited you at work today your partner?" She responded, 'yes'. Fired the next day. She now constantly lives in fear that her co-workers/boss in her new job ever find out. My own sister was suspended from school and ordered to attend 'counseling', simply for standing up to three schoolmates that incessantly bullied and abused her based on 'rumors' she was gay. The vice-principal seemed most intent on trying to get her to admit to her [quote] 'condition', so she could 'get help'. Meanwhile, the bullies were 'sent home for the day.'
The time to bring-to-light this kind of blatant denial of liberty and justice across our land is always NOW. Not a year, or decade, or generation down the road. NOW. Yet nothing will happen until the rest of us straight folk open our eyes to the grievous discriminations that our minority GLBT friends/family/fellow-citizens still face on a daily basis. We can no longer let them stand alone. We must join shoulder-to-shoulder beside them. We must make their fight...OUR fight. Not because of political calculations. But because, in the end, its the right thing to do.
The day we stop treating the gay community as some 'cultural oddity', and rather as actual human beings who are being denied the same rights, liberties, and respect the rest of us take for granted...is the day REAL justice takes one more step forward in America.
This is based on the false assumption that if you think one issue is really important, another issue is therefore less important. Dumb article.
EmonOkari,
I agree with you 100%.
How do we accomplish it?
@ juvanya
Family Research Council, an organization which continues to insist that homosexuality is curable and to link it to pedophilia.
There is a link. They are both bizarre aberrations that should not be tolerated.
OK,juvanya,I'll bite.How should homosexuals be handled? Stoning,castration,put to death,life imprisonment? What do you recommend?
It's neat that 18% go for a phony issue... "Protecting religious freedom".
Actual freedom of religion is in no danger. I suspect what they really want is freedom to make other people conform to their codes. They view a failure to promote their religion as an attack on their religion.
I don't think this is really indicative of support for gay marriage as of the fact that Fox is screaming about abortions that could be funded by the health care legislation going through congress. Move along, nothing to see here...
@Smitty
EmonOkari,
I agree with you 100%.
How do we accomplish it?
Do nothing, and it will happen of its own accord within a few decades. For expedited progress, we do have a two party system...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-outperforms-kerry-among-virtually.html
@Smitty: That's the difficult thing. I'll be straight up - the discrimination against gays isn't as blatant as racial discrimination. And it's not quite as pervasive - for example, a gay man can "pass" as straight.
And that's the problem - since homosexuality is a sexual preference and expressed through our actions, people think that it can just be hidden away and made irrelevant. The problem is, heterosexuality is widely accepted - I bet if Emon's mom's partner had been a man, she'd still have her job.
Hell, a sizable portion of the populace thinks you can stop being gay. I'd venture to say that in 1959, no one thought you could stop being black. Or 1709, for that matter.
I'll stop now because I'm tired and I'm afraid I'll say something even more stupid.
In 2012, if gay marriage becomes more mainstream, you will start to see a trickle (if not a stream) of Hispanics and African American coming back to the GOP. These voters tend to be more culturally conservative and would frown upon legalization of gay marriage.
As for the religious freedom .. that is not such a phony issue as it sounds. Just look at some of the awful legislation that has passed in the last 9 months.
NJ_Moderate said...
In 2012, if gay marriage becomes more mainstream, you will start to see a trickle (if not a stream) of Hispanics and African American coming back to the GOP.
~~~~~~~~~~
Actually no, whereas many African/Americans regrettably voted for Prop 8 in CA, at the same time they voted for Obama even though he's for civil unions which is a distinction w/out a difference when talking gay marriage and politics.
(1) issue voters are a thing of the past, if they truly ever existed in the 1st place.
And again, NJ moderate er Republican, keep hoping for a switch back to the party of No! re: gay marriage as the times indicate otherwise.
And nationally, Obama has no worries re: his own race concerning gay marriage or any other issue in 2012 as Rep talk radio and politicians continues its hate speak re: all minorities ie immigration, Sotomayor, Obama etc.
This is the Rep's political reality as they remain clueless!
take care
p.s. where have all the Reps gone lol as no one will admit to being one at 538!
I wonder if the real conclusion to draw from the poll is that social conservatives perceive 'life' to be under more threat when Democrats are in control than when Republicans are in control? I personally wouldn't draw any conclusions re gay marriage on this one at the moment.
The fear amongst social conservatives is that 4 years of an Obama administration, with a possibility of 2 or 3 fresh SCOTUS justices will put back any hope of over turning Roe vs Wade for a generation. Abortion is the issue for a lot of social conservatives.
i am gay and so's my mom and gay marriage is at the bottom of my agenda too. i am glad obama is tackling the economy and healthcare first. in fact, i wish the gay community had been organizing around single payer this whole time instead of gay marriage. they say things like health care are a big reason why they need marriage equality, but of course marriage equality would only bring health care to very few gay people - middle class coupled gay people whose jobs have health benefits they can share with partners and children. marriage would not bring more benefits to the millions of gays who are single, unemployed, homeless, etc. single payer on the other hand would help every single gay person across the board. there are lots of liberal-but-straight sites like this that think dealing with gay politics = dealing with gay marriage. not so. inside of the gay community, marriage has been a very divisive issue with lots of people questioning why it should soak up so much of the community's time and money when there are lots of other issues that are just important if not more so. it's also a big change, historically, for the gay movement to no longer be pushing for *sexual liberation* and instead pushing for the right to be "normal" "just like everyone else."
here's an article that is critical of gay marriage from a gay perspective - much more representative of how this debate has played inside the queer community, rather than always focusing on how it plays out between gays and straights:
http://feed.belowthebelt.org/2009/07/nomorepotlucks-dump-gay-marriage-now.html
personally, based on my experiences as a queer person, and my experiences growing up in a lesbian-headed household, i am *against gay marriage* because i am *against the state having any involvement in our sexual/romantic lives* meaning *i am also against straight marriage.* i think if people want to get married in their churches, whatever, that's great and they should do it. but what business is it of the state's if i'm married or not? and who came up with the horrible idea of distributing social benefits that everyone should have on the basis of relationship status? the triumph of gay marriage represents the ultimate taming and co-optation of the gay movement, the origins of which are quite radical and were supposed to be about changing sexual norms, not slightly expanding them the tiniest little bit to accommodate the most privileged members of the gay community.
i realize saying this will totally confound many heterosexual readers, and draw the wrath of certain gay readers, but i promise you i am not alone in this, and every (EVERY) queer organization i know of, every marriage-related event i've been to, in the backstage scenes there is considerable disagreement in the gay community about whether marriage is worth the time and effort and lots of acrimony over the specific messaging that has been used to fight this battle.
check out also the following links that speak to the disagreements within the gay community about this issue:
http://www.nathanielturner.com/isgaymarriageantiblack.htm
http://contexts.org/colorline/2008/11/12/racism-and-other-issues-among-gay-marriage-supporters/
http://www.affirmunited.ca/english/ClaudettePresentation1extracts.pdf
William said...
Protecting religious freedom from what?
School boards in heavily GOP districts, for one. Although I suspect the majority of those that answered that on that poll more likely hand in mind fighting to maintain the ability to impose their own religious views on others. School boards here in Texas and other states along the gulf coast (including FL panhandle) being prime culperts.
Although the Bible does occationally take an authoritarian whooping, too. For example scroll down to the Virginia Jail item.
Freedom of religion is deeply connected to the gay marriage issue, as many have noted here. I live in Canada, and I can assure you that this is not a false issue. We, and the Europeans, have a lot of "human rights" totalitarianism, enforced by commissions who tend to take promoting gay acceptance as their job number one (or two, right after promoting tolerance for Muslims). These fools have dragged old people before their kangeroo courts for writing letters to the editor against gay marriage. They have forced churches to rent out their halls to gay couples. They have forced businesses to print tee-shirts promoting the gay agenda. They have even investigated a Catholic bishop for an anti-homosexuality sermon.
Now, the US is more libertarian than Canada (thank God), but if you think it couldn't happen there, think again. Lets not forget that, to Massachusett's undying disgrace, that states forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption business because it refused to place children with gay parents.
While a lot of what Jeff was talking about was more to do with the right to incite violence and extreme hatred (which doesn't have the same pressure on it in the US as Canada), there is a point in there that a big boogieman among Christians that as they slip demographically enough that:
1) they'll face what they've been dishing out.
2) they'll actually have to see something that they don't like and they won't be able to expulse it from their sight
Bart De Palma writes:
Unless Kennedy goes off the constitutional reservation when the CA amendment is reviewed by the Supreme Court, same sex "marriage" will be a cultural oddity limited to a handful of northeast states.
Bart,
Your use of quotation marks around 'marriage' is offensive. The marriages performed in those "northeast states" (extending all the way to Iowa) are real marriages in every sense of the word. Or perhaps you are using quotations (incorrectly) to express emphasis, as in the attested:
"Fresh" fish for sale!
or
"Broken" faucet
Gregory
Gregory…
How about “intelligent” discussion on 538 from a conservative?
Pragmatus--
Yes, that would be the correct use of quotation ("scare") quotes.
Gregory
As gay marriage becomes the status quo in more states, more people are realising that it does not impact their lives as married heterosexuals.
This is what's happenned in other countries where gay marriage is not accepted - there was a great deal of huffing and puffing in advance, but once the change is made, no one cares.
Oops. Should be "now accepted," instead of "not accepted."
Bart de"Palma"
How about “intelligent” discussion on 538 from a conservative?
Having a "discussion" insinuates multiple parties exchanging words/ideas. Very little of the things you or most of the other liberal posters on here could be considered intellignet, and it is liberal posters who dominate every thread by a wide margin. Ergo, there may be a lack of intelligence in the discussions on 538, but that's hardly an indictment of the intelligence of conservative posters.
Fifi…
Well, seems to me if you spell “intelligent” “intellignet” you don’t have much room for critiquing your opponents.
But I like your arguments. They certainly are short and to the point—
“Arf! Arf! Grrrrrrr Arf!!”
Dwight,
What are you talking about. No, none of these cases had anything to do with "inciting violence".
And why, pray tell, are Christians "demographically" doomed. They actually reproduce at might higher rates than athesist. As do Muslims and religious Jews. Secularists tend to embrace familiar and cultural oblivion in greater rates (witness Europe).
NJ_Moderate
what legislation are you talking about that stops anyone from practicing their religion - except PR campaigns of linking any Muslim to being a terrorist?
To equate getting religion out of politics and public facilities an attack on religious freedom is a stretch at best.
In fact, legislation that takes religious symbols out of the public tax payer funded areas INCREASES the religious freedom, as you are not forcing someone to follow a single religion. Instead, you're allowing EVERY religion to be ok.
How would the "Values Voters" like it if the country was a majority Buddhist, or muslim, or jewish, or athiest citizens, and THEY wanted to put THEIR religious texts and symbols all over public property? How would the "Values Voters" react if it was not their religion being forced on them? They would be crying out for equality...like every other religion is doing now.
Taking the 10 commandments out of a legal house does not equal telling someone they can not believe the 10 commandments are the word of their god. It is instead allowing those other people who believe something else to have just as much validity. That means Christianity is an EQUAL partner...hence freedom of religion.
Well, seems to me if you spell “intelligent” “intellignet” you don’t have much room for critiquing your opponents.
Guess you don't konw the difference between a misspelled word and transposed letters, but whatever. You might not want to be so picky over such an innocuous detail as a watchful eye will easily pick you apart for similar careless mistakes. You don't want such "intelligent" discussions to come to that, do you?
Jeff…
“Christian” families don’t necessary produce only mindlessly rightwing children, the same way they don’t always produce heterosexual children. If we can believe research statistics then one in ten of their offspring are gay, most of whom, if they develop any semblance of self-respect, will reject the sort of piously oblivious thinking that condemns them for their very existence. Then it naturally follows that they would question all rigidly mindless conservative thinking too.
Fact is, you don’t even have to be gay to contemplate alternatives to the two-faced “morality” of people such as these.
Let's not forget that gay marriage, with a couple of New England exceptions, has everywhere been imposed by the courts. That is certainly true in Iowa. Recent poll: do you agree with court decision imposing gay marriage? 26 yes, 43 no, 30 don't care 'much'. Big gap inenthusiasm. If the amendment to ban gay marriage passes, it will need almost all of the "indifferent" vote (which it won't get).
Statler N Waldorf writes:
In June (Pride Month), The DOJ under President Obama compared Equal Marriage to incest and child-rape.
Funny how this bizarre distortion got accepted as gospel truth so quickly. What they actually argued was that states have always had the power to set widely differing definitions of legal marriage, without those definitions being seen as forcing recognition either by the Federal government or by other states.
If you are going to term first cousin marriage (the actual example used) "incest" then you are saying that the laws of most nations in the world and, indeed, a very large number of US States condone "incest." Similarly, if you are going to say that every jurisdiction that allows marriage at an age younger than the state you happen to reside in (again, the actual example raised by the DOJ lawyers) allows "child rape" then you are almost certainly smearing the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, the whole of South America, Mexico etc. etc. etc. as nations that encourage "child rape."
The DOJ is not supposed to pick and choose which federal laws it defends. The defense it offered was deliberately distorted in order to drum up political pressure on Obama. I suppose all's fair in love and politics, but you should try to keep track of the difference between truth and politically convenient fiction.
Fifi…
You are either a teenager or, worse, someone older who has yet to experience enough life to learn alternatives to acting like an adolescent.
Anyone who can scream (repeatedly and endlessly) about killing people who disagree with him on a political discussion forum will never be taken seriously. (And please don’t give me that childish shit about “I only did that for a short time”.) I’m sure your childishness extends to the real world as well—hard to keep that much immaturity corked up in every situation—so a picture emerges of someone pretty pitifully underdeveloped mentally.
You’re not capable of intelligent discussion because you have never evolved out of the anal-retentive state, where all you can see is what’s yours and your primary motive in life is seeing that nothing is ever taken away from you for any reason.
Jeff said...
Dwight,
What are you talking about. No, none of these cases had anything to do with "inciting violence".
Links, just to make sure I read your opaque references correctly.
And why, pray tell, are Christians "demographically" doomed.
They actually reproduce at might higher rates than athesist. As do Muslims and religious Jews. Secularists tend to embrace familiar and cultural oblivion in greater rates (witness Europe).
I certainly never used the word "doomed". That's alarmist claptrap.
As well you realise that people are free to hold different opinions from their parents? As well as move from where their parents lived, resulting in local changes in populations.
My sense from reading on this, Pragmatus, is that the 1 in 10 stat for homosexuality is not taken very seriously. I know estimates go as low as 3%. But whatever.
Of course Christians don't raise only Christians. But the odds of their propagating their beliefs are higher if they have children than not - and I don't mean "brainwashing". To state the obvious: opposition to gay marriage is not "mindless", nor does it usually speak to particular intolerance or a desire to make homosexuals disappear. (Or are you accusing Obama of these sins?) One can be tolerant, even accepting, of homosexuals without supporting their right to marry or adopt children (i.e. accepting homosexuality as an adult lifestyle choice, but one not fully appropriate for marriage and parenting as those institutions have been constructed by our legal and cultural traditions.) You will obviously disagree with this proposition, but that doesn't mean that those who hold it "hate" gay people. I presume something like this explains the opposition of the Obama's to gay marriage. Either that, or he is throwing gays under the train for his own electoral advantage, which would be a far more cynical treatment of homosexuals that the transparant and honest comments of a California beauty queen. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Why aren't you? Or if you are, why don't you extend the same benefit of the doubt the majority of your fellow citizens who oppose gay marriage?
Jeff…
Anybody who defines homosexuality, as you do, as a “lifestyle choice” is in fact expressing hatred of gay people. The pity is that you will never see it.
A “lifestyle choice” would be appropriate to describe someone who decides to make a career as a criminal, or a drug addict, or a rapist. I don’t see you pushing to ban any of these groups from trying to adopt children, but you are ferociously opposed to gay people doing it—so what gives?
What color eyes do you have? If they are blue, would it be correct to say that you have blue eyes because of a “lifestyle choice” or because you were born that way?
Your reasoning is that of a simpleton. This is very easily accomplished by merely accepting what everybody in the white-bread world told you when you were growing up, without ever bothering to examine the issues for yourself.
Dragging Obama into this discussion—I have no opinions on his gay rights agenda, nor have I expressed any here—is a typical tactic of people who don’t want to discuss the meat of any issue, so they steer the argument off into something trivial.
Gregory said...
Bart De Palma writes: Unless Kennedy goes off the constitutional reservation when the CA amendment is reviewed by the Supreme Court, same sex "marriage" will be a cultural oddity limited to a handful of northeast states.
Bart, Your use of quotation marks around 'marriage' is offensive.
I am offended that you support redefining marriage into something it is not. So FWIW, we are both offended.
The marriages performed in those "northeast states" (extending all the way to Iowa) are real marriages in every sense of the word.
No they are not, they are civil marriages only. Marriage long preexisted the state and does not rely upon the state for definition. A state can redefine the union of my brother and I as a civil marriage, but that does no make it a real marriage.
This discussion reminds me of a scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian, which I am sure you will find doubly offensive:
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! -- Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
Ummmm....When these guys say "protect religious freedom" they mean "their own" freedom to kill any Muslim who dares diasagree with them.
As for Jews, why don't even ask. They want the "freedom" to impose their views on all of us.
BDP…
So to follow your logic to the inevitable, what you’re saying about marriage is that it is only “real” if sanctioned by God? Suppose one doesn’t believe in God? Suppose he believes in a different God than you believe in? What then???
I was wondering how long it would take for the Nazi Party to show up…
Pragmatus:
You will note that I have not cited God nor do I need to.
One does not need to believe in God to note the multiple millennium long definitions of marriage that include some combination of a man and a woman and do not include homosexual unions.
One also does not need to believe in God to note the fundamental purposes behind and benefits of those millennium long defintions of marriage of the union of a man and a woman that are in no way shared by homosexual unions.
BDP, the real problem with your example from 'Life of Brian' is that Loretta is trying to be something that he/she physically is not. She couldn't bear a child even if she wanted. Those wanting the right to get married are not. They simply want, as they see it, an equal right. If you like they want the state to get out of the way!!!!
But Prag is wrong, its not about God or whoever sanctioning marriage, it IS the state. And in this case it seems as if the state is therefore getting in the way of people's religious freedom. (defining 'religious as widely as possible).
I think that semantic discussions about whether they are termed 'civil unions' or 'marriages' is about worthless to me. What about a civil union is different from a marriage? What would the state do if an organised religion decided to recognise 'gay marriage'. But then again its always seemed to me that 'civil union' was always an awkward compromise to avoid offending middle America. I think in most countries, they have come in as'civil unions' but are now largely thought of as marriages.
BUT from My POV the problem here is whether or not it is worthwhile legislating on the issue. If it can be done through the courts do it that way, at a national level. But lord knows the Democratic Party does not need to alienate the right, on the national level, any more right now. That would put at risk a whole raft of legislation.
Bart DePalma said...
No they are not, they are civil marriages only.
~~~~~~~~~~
Care to opine what the "legal" difference between civil unions and religious marriages is/are?
Yes, what is the "legal" difference?
then of course, there's common law marriages, but, but, but don't tell the evangelicals ;)
The main reason couples have church weddings is tradition and wedding gifts ie it's a cottage industry, eh, much like Christmas ... sort of the same reason America had slaves for 300/400 years, tradition.
take care
btw, your 538 posts reminds me of the song, Runnin' on Empty!
BDP…
At no time and in no place on earth prior to the 20th century has marriage been exclusively the province of the state. Marriage has always been associated with religion, and if you’re arguing that you can have a religion without a God I would suggest that you have crawled pretty far out on your limb.
BDP: Read Marriage, A History by Stephanie Coontz. If your mind is open to well-researched, footnoted, and verifiable historical records, it may change most of your opinions on "millennium long definitions of marriage." If you're not open to it and cling to your the "traditional definition of marriage" as a matter of dogma, then don't bother.
Pragmatus,
I didn't mean that being homosexual, as such, was a "lifestyle choice", I meant that it is a lifestyle choice to practice as one, to live openly as one, and so forth. Some choose to live celibately, or to keep their sexuality private, others to be more open about it, others to be very open about it. Most gay rights actvists will only respect that last of these choices. I respect and tolerate all of them. I simply agree with the majority that marriage should be an instituion between a man and a woman, as out culture and laws have held for centuries.
As for your description of me as a "simpleton", and "whitebread" - you don't have the slighest idea who I am. Which was my point about Obama. He agrees with me, not you. And since you presumably don't consider him a whitebread simpleton, I'm calling you out for hypocrisy. It is deeply relevant.
Finally, I do not hate gay people. I have a lot of gay friends, and teach my children to respect all. You can comfort youself all you'd like by repeating that those opposed to gay marriage hate gay people, but it won't make it true. It just adds to the anger and pointlessness of the discussion.
“Christian” families don’t necessary produce only mindlessly rightwing children...
Necessary should be "necessarily."
Gotta watch that grammar, dipshit. Especially if you're going to extend me the same courtesy.
Pragmatus:
Pagans married without believing that marriage was a sacrament of God.
Pan:
Marriage, A History simply catalogues the variety of forms, formalities or lack therefor and reasons for marriage of men and women. I never said that marriage followed a strict definition, just that it involved the union of man and woman.
@Jesse
i am *against gay marriage* because i am *against the state having any involvement in our sexual/romantic lives* meaning *i am also against straight marriage.*
What about the different rules of testimony when the accused is your spouse?
@Pragmatus
"I was wondering how long it would take for the Nazi Party to show up…"
If you mean "The Judean People's Front", call it what you like, just so long as you don't call it "The People's Front of Judea"!
But you lose points for succumbing to Godwin's law.
@Bart DePalma
"One also does not need to believe in God to note the fundamental purposes behind and benefits of those millennium long defintions of marriage of the union of a man and a woman that are in no way shared by homosexual unions."
In other words, controlling women so as to ensure the paternity and maximum production of heirs, thereby cementing tribal alliances requires both one man and one woman (or more)? Well, since the function of marriage in society hasn't changed at all, no need to reevaluate its aspirants, right?
Brian said...
Well, since the function of marriage in society hasn't changed at all
~~~~~~~~~~
What's your definition of the "function" of marriage?
markymark said...
BDP, the real problem with your example from 'Life of Brian' is that Loretta is trying to be something that he/she physically is not. She couldn't bear a child even if she wanted.
Likewise, a man cannot be a wife and bear children and a woman cannot be a husband and impregnate her female partner.
A man cannot be a mother to children adopted by a homosexual union and show the children how women are supposed to behave. Vis versa for women.
There is no evidence that two men in a civil marriage enjoy the demonstrated benefits a husband gets from a wife in marriage. Vis versa for women.
I feel sorry for those who feel what I think is a natural need to marry and have families, but whose genetic disposition makes that difficult because they are not sexually attracted the the opposite gender and decline to enter into true marriage. Creating pretend civil marriages does not change that reality. Thus my citation to the Monty Python sketch.
@Jeff
"Which was my point about Obama. He agrees with me, not you."
Don't embarrass yourself by conflating Obama's purported beliefs with his personal ones. I don't know a single person - liberal or conservative, gay or straight - who thought that during the campaign he was doing anything other than taking the moderate position on this issue optimal for getting elected as a Democrat despite his more liberal views.
@Shiloh
"What's your definition of the "function" of marriage?"
The traditional functions were the control/heirs/alliances things. The current functions of marriage are to encourage people to raise children in a two parent environment/(and at least with the financial support of two parents), satisfy romantic love, provide stability to personal lives, create a set of legal realities relating to testimony, final wishes, inheritance, etc. All or most of which applies to gays.
I think California Prop 8 has to be considered an aberration (for CA anyway). With the Mormon church and evangelicals pouring literally tens of millions of dollars and many people into the State to appeal to Black and Hispanic voters (mostly through lies), it was able to pass. But, many in those communities realize what they did was wrong and they were misled. Further, many who voted for it do not normally vote, but did so for Obama. It was a perfect storm.
The power of the lies (claiming that "Gay Marriage will be taught in schools so 'indoctrinating' kids" (whatever that means), that "all Churches will be forced to perform Gay marriages", that "Churches would lose tax exempt status if they preach against Gay Marriage", that "parents would not be allowed to have their kids skip sex ed classes", etc. All of it was fictitious and much of it was intended to play on the fears of the less educated in the minority communities (the old white people of Kern County were in the bag). These were all outrageous lies. I think you will find that CA takes these outrages more seriously next time.
On the function of marriage, you have to go back to the fact that there are two kinds of "marriage": civil and religious. Civil marriage (controlled by the government) was about financial and legal issues (control of assets, inheritance, child welfare/upbringing, etc). Religions focused on marriage in terms of child rearing and "spiritual" issues). Religions are not being barred from keeping their own definitions for their own purposes.
This argument is only about the Civil definitions, each religion can keep its own counsel on how they approach this.
As outlined here very eloquently, Obama has not been particularly receptive to the rights of GLBT, therefore, the social conservatives probably realize that he will not be an outspoken advocate for gay marriage. Obviously gay marriage is happening in various states and through the court systems as well.
As far as a woman's right to choose, Obama has not waivered on this issue, ever. That, coupled with the desire of the wingnuts to control woman and their sexuality (these people are also often against sex education and birth control) has probably pushed abortion to the front burner. Not to mention, possible Supreme Court vacancies in the future that could impact Roe.
Of course, the obsession with homosexuality by the GOP continues. Tom Coburn's chief of staff states "all pornography is homosexual pornography." Huh?
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../michael-schwartz-homosexu_n_293180.html
@Bart DePalma
There was also a multimelenium long cultural tradition that allowed people of non white decent to be treated as slaves in white cultures. There's also a long cultural tradition that women's only role in society is subservient to their male counter parts.
Just because these beliefs were held for a long time does not make them correct, or just.
There was a long tradition of believing the earth was flat. How did that work out as being a good position to have?
There was a long tradition of sacrificing people in order to allow your crops to grow. Should we continue doing this because there is a tradition for it, forgetting that it is WRONG?
So, to my point, just because the tradition of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman does not mean that it is the right way to look at it.
And since when does allowing equal rights according to the state / country = forcing a catholic church to marry gays?
I do know some gays who are catholic, but I bet even them would rather not have a religious ceremony when the religion thinks their life is an abomination to all that is holy.
Just because it's legal by the state does NOT mean the state is forcing a religion to accept it.
PaulK,
Way to condescend to the minorities who voted for Prop 8. Don't kid yourself, they haven't "realized they did wrong" (!), nor were they used or misled. They are more socially conservative than you. As for the lies you report, you are apparently unaware of the court case underway RIGHT now, contesting the right of a school district to prevent parents from removing their children from class when homosexuality is being discussed, or taught, or whatever.
Brian, who is trying to read Obama's "beliefs", me or you? I'm basing my case on his public position. YOU are assuming that his private beliefs don't match his public position. Why this would work as a defense of Obama is beyond me. I would think such a cynical betrayal would be worse than honest, transparent conviction. In any case, if being tolerant of gays but opposing gay marriage is the "moderate" position for Obama, why not for me and other conservatives who are constantly derided around here? HYPOCRISY. You're the one who's embarrassing himself with this lame apology for the President.
Depalma:
a man cannot be a wife and bear children and a woman cannot be a husband and impregnate her female partner
I think this comment says it all. I hope your wife enjoys being a baby factory.
"Just because it's legal by the state does NOT mean the state is forcing a religion to accept it."
Exactly. Given that any church can refuse people for marriage now, why would this be different. Even if you are Catholic, a Catholic church can refuse to marry you for a whole variety of reasons - no laws govern that. So, no difference.
The State takes care of legal marriage anyway, and simply gives you the option to have the ceremony performed by a religious leader vs. a clerk.
Brian said...
@Shiloh
"What's your definition of the "function" of marriage?"
The traditional functions were the control/heirs/alliances things. The current functions of marriage are to encourage people to raise children in a two parent environment/(and at least with the financial support of two parents), satisfy romantic love, provide stability to personal lives, create a set of legal realities relating to testimony, final wishes, inheritance, etc. All or most of which applies to gays.
~~~~~~~~~~
There's the rub, how much of your definition has to do w/religion and how much has to do w/promote the common good knowing how much the founding fathers were wary of religion having come to the new world because of zealots religious persecution in Europe, I digress.
Which is why "we" have separation of church and state and why imo Jefferson would be very unhappy re: Prop 8 overturning minority rights by a majority vote.
As societies are ever changing re: families/marriage etc. and many gays, single or married want to adopt children that nobody else wants to adopt ... is where promote the common good is very much up for debate, eh.
As their are scum of the earth straights and gay folk and funny how "god" did not discriminate in that area lol ie free will.
This issue is only black and white to evangelicals or someone w/strong religious beliefs and then separation of church and state must kick in er promote the common good.
As Kinky Friedman said re: Gays, They have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.
@Jeff
so by your definition, should people who are truly in love with someone of the same sex should hide who they are because you see it as a bad lifestyle choice that can be taken out of view of the public?
If you want to treat that statement equally, you should NEVER let people know you have a wife, because it is showing your sexuality, and what you do in your free time.
You should NEVER let anyone know you ever have sex, because it is showing your lifestyle choice. You should never let people know that you like women - because we should ban showing of lifestyle choices.
That sounds absurd right?
Bart DePalma said...
markymark said...
BDP, the real problem with your example from 'Life of Brian' is that Loretta is trying to be something that he/she physically is not. She couldn't bear a child even if she wanted.
Likewise, a man cannot be a wife and bear children and a woman cannot be a husband and impregnate her female partner.
Are you saying then that anyone who is genetically sterile should also be forbidden to marry? You may want to reconsider your definition, or just concede that your definition of marriage is also just as incompatible with the current legal definition as those who want gay marriage.
One can be tolerant, even accepting, of homosexuals without supporting their right to marry or adopt children (i.e. accepting homosexuality as an adult lifestyle choice, but one not fully appropriate for marriage and parenting as those institutions have been constructed by our legal and cultural traditions.)
Actually your statements are plum full of intolerance, ignorance, and irrationality.
@Jeff, "Way to condescend to the minorities ..."
I am not condescending. The statistics are there for all to see. The polling of minority communities show that a reasonable number of those who said they voted for it, would not do so now.
" court case underway RIGHT now, contesting the right of a school district to prevent parents from removing their children from class when homosexuality is being discussed, or taught, or whatever."
Where is this? CA has always allowed parents to remove their children from Sex Ed. There is no case in CA that I am aware of. Is this one of those "Rush says so" kind of "facts"? Homosexuality is not "taught", so I have no idea what you even mean. But, many schools cover both diversity of home life (kids with two parents, one parents, grandparents, gay parents, etc). Further, in sex ed, they do not teach how to be gay, but they do cover forms of sexuality.
James Y, It sounds absurd because it is absurd. I never said anything like that.
Paul K, Ah, the cry "Limbaugh" strategy. Brilliant. But in this case, look up the facts. The case has been filed by parents against Alameda Unified School District. They are being prevented from removing their children from a course designed to teach kindergartners about "alternative" families.
And their lack of interest in pursuing an anti-gay marriage agenda is supported by their welcoming as their keynote speaker on the first day: Ms. Opposite Marriage, Carrie Jean Prejean, who is holding herself out as a victim of the scurrilous pro-gay marriage supporters. Was the fact that she was greeted with overwhelmingly positive applause and coverage more evidence of how they have mellowed?
@Jeff
"Brian, who is trying to read Obama's "beliefs", me or you?"
We are clearly both trying to read his beliefs. I'm using induction and rational conjecture based on evidence and you're taking a politician at his word. The man said he "respect[ed]" the California Supreme Court decision instating gay marriage despite popular support for civil unions instead of gay marriage, and then opposed Proposition 8.
"Why this would work as a defense of Obama is beyond me."
That would make two of us.
"In any case, if being tolerant of gays but opposing gay marriage is the "moderate" position for Obama, why not for me and other conservatives who are constantly derided around here?"
It's a moderate position, and wrong.
Yet another thread reminding me of how quickly this world is going to hell in a handbasket.
chgoblue said
'Of course, the obsession with homosexuality by the GOP continues. Tom Coburn's chief of staff states "all pornography is homosexual pornography." Huh?'
-----------------------------------
There is an easy explanation
Coburn likes to watch two wom.... nope not going to go there!
Anyhoo BDP, the point is that in your example you cited something that was PHYSICALLY impossible. Marriage is not a function, necessarily, of creating babies. That might be a by product, but it is not a prerequisite of getting married- that you must create children. You may well want to, but a marriage certificate is not a document compelling you to create children.
I am not even sure your view of marriage is an old fashioned view. I am not sure that it isn't just a view inspired by a particularly fundamentalist view of religion.
Just some observations here -
I can't understand why anyone would think allowing same-sex marriage would in any way endanger hetero marriages. Okay, call me ignorant, but I don't see the connection.
Are there conservatives who are afraid that if same-sex marriage is legal, that they themselves might be tempted to try one? I can't think of any other way it would "endanger" the marriages they already have, or are likely to have.
And in an era and a nation in which half of all marriages end in divorce, talking about preserving the "sanctity" of marriage sounds more than a bit hollow anyway.
Let's go back to that string of ultraconservative Republicant "values" politicians who have recently been involved in sex scandals - frequently same-sex - and ask whether that particular political party has any right to even have an opinion on the moral issues involved here (or any moral issues at all, in fact).
Geeze, hasn't Newt Gingritch been married three times?
My point isn't the scandals and divorces themselves - Dems certainly have their share of them as well. My point is the hypocrisy of it. And the mindlessness of the people who accept and agree with the anti-equal-rights rhetoric.
The only arguments against same-sex marriage are hollow self-contradictory hypocrisies, attempts to impose one's own religion on someone else (disguised as "protecting religions rights - what a crock!), or both.
Bart DePalma said...
Pagans married without believing that marriage was a sacrament of God.
Actually, we Pagans do believe it is a sacrament of God - but not the same god.
@jeff, exactly - it is not about "teaching homosexuality". It is about teaching kids that different kids come from different home environment. The book they use has a kid who lives with their grandparents, one with two parents, one with two mothers, one with a step-parent and parent, etc. The school district is right to fight these parents. If they are that intolerant, they should send their kid to a religious private school (normal private schools also teach diversity) and probably keep them out of any of the nice parks in Alameda as well as grocery stores and restaurants.
If you cannot tell the difference between that and "teaching homosexuality" or the lies that "kids would be forced to be 'indoctrinated' about gay marriage in the schools" (what the Mormons were running ads saying), then you will believe anything. I used Rush simply because he stated that the case in Alameda shows that "California is 'indoctrinating' the kids to become gay and will not allow the parents to take their kids out of those indoctrination classes". Sounds like what you said to me.
Shocking News out of Iowa!!! ;)
"The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives."
as Casey Stengel would say, you can look it up at either HP or Kos. :)
BDP, Iowa is fairly close to Colorado, be afraid, be very afraid!
'nuf said!
shiloh said...
Shocking News out of Iowa!!! ;)
"The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives."
Oh my god! You mean there are still heterosexuals in Iowa???? and they are still sometimes married??? to each other???
Wait wait wait, same-sex marriage is going to destroy traditional marriage, isn't it? (How long, exactly, is that process supposed to take?)
< /sarcasm >
shrinkers, not all Pagans have traditionally believed that marriage is sacred. Many early religions (including Zoroastrian) believed that the marriage itself is not sacred (which is why they had easy divorce) but that the 'righteous' life of the couple is sacred. Ceremonies were almost always about warding off evil, ensuring both parties were willingly entering into marriage, and good luck charms for their children (so the mother or child would not die in Childbirth - something that happened a lot), and celebrating.
It is not clear that any of them suggested that God or the gods told them they must be married. Binding of family units (for protection, food sharing, etc) likely goes back farther than any known religion and is seen in primates.
shiloh said...
Shocking News out of Iowa!!! ;) "The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives."
I am not offering a harm argument. Rather, I maintain that homosexual unions do not offer the benefits of marriage (or indeed any benefits at all) to society and thus do not merit the recognition and subsidy society provides in return for the benefits of marriage.
@Bart, "homosexual unions do not offer the benefits of marriage"
So, I assume you think we should force divorce on any couple who does not have kids, is on welfare, has a kid who ends up in jail, or is otherwise not bringing "benefits to society" (including older couples who cannot have kids anymore)? I suppose all couples getting married should be required to state they fully intend to have kids?
It seems to me that any hard working couple is probably bringing more benefits to society in terms of money to fuel society. Teachers bring more benefit that someone who just pops out kids. So, I am not sure I follow your twisted logic.
PaulK,
Certainly, Pagans are at least as diverse in such opinions as are Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindus, etc., etc.
As for unions between people - whether same-sex or not - in all these groups, there are some who see pair-bonding in sacred and religious terms, and some who don't. My point was that it was incorrect to say that Pagans do not consider it to be something sacred.
An argument could certainly be made that it is equally incorrect to make a sweeping statement the other way - just as it would be incorrect to assume all Christians are narrow-minded enough to want to impose their religious view upon everyone else.
BDP, for someone who has previously claimed to be a libertarian, that is a very strange argument to make. For a libertarian, surely, you need to find a reason for something to be illegal rather than finding a reason for it to be legalised?
What about a marriage between, say, 2 65 year olds? How would you view that?
Bart DePalma said...
I am not offering a harm argument.
~~~~~~~~~~
BDP, you're offering no argument period! as per usual.
take care
@PaulK
So, I assume you think we should force divorce on any couple who does not have kids, is on welfare, has a kid who ends up in jail, or is otherwise not bringing "benefits to society"
Excellent point. Additionally, if a mother or father dies (say, traffic accident) then, by Federal law or Constitutional amendment, we should force the surviving parent to remarry the very next day, to insure the children get hetero role models of both sexes.
PaulK:
Scroll up to my post listing the benefits of marriage that are not present in homosexual unions.
The fact that a small subject of marriages cannot produce children is irrelevant since they can can still offer the other benefits of marriage.
I did not include among the benefits of marriage the greater economic efficiency of two people working as a team. This is present in any team and every team is not a marriage.
@shrinkers, "as diverse in such opinions as are Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindus, etc., etc."
Actually, most of these do encode a "sacred" meaning to marriage in their religion proper, usually to produce more 'believers'. So, they are not very diverse in that regard. But, then, most took from their cultural/tribal heritage which pushed marriage for producing more 'warriors' (for Kings and Popes) and 'farm hands' and 'brides'.
My point was only that not all Pagans had such concepts and the Pagans in general preceded most of the modern religions (Zoroaster brought a half-way religion which was mostly mono-theistic).
Hmmm. I'm trying to see what "benefits to society" marriage offers -- other than procreation and (over-)population, and that only from a subset of heterosexual marriages, but certainly not all. I would think some people, at least, would see benefits in promoting long-lasting relationships of mutual support that only marriage can provide -- economically, emotionally, for better health, etc. Conservatives seem to want gays and lesbians to lead lives of celibate loneliness (which hasn't proved very emotionally maturing for many of the religious clergy who must adhere to that stricture) so that they can then die alone, without the emotional or financial support that comes from a long-term marriage. But those "benefits to society" apparently don't much count -- as if society were something other than the people who make up society.
The whole post and point is pretty much a red herring, though, as Nate should realize. Same-sex marriage is only an issue for "values voters" during an election year. Check back this time next year, as the mid-term elections heat up. You'll see same-sex marriage back near the top of the list, I'm sure. Bond issues, congressional races, and city charter revisions just don't seem to bring out the conservative voter base the way the gays do.
markymark said...
BDP, for someone who has previously claimed to be a libertarian, that is a very strange argument to make. For a libertarian, surely, you need to find a reason for something to be illegal rather than finding a reason for it to be legalised?
Same sex marriage is not in any way illegal. Homosexuals can exchange vows and rings with a Universalist minister presiding and then proclaim to the nearest police officer that they are married and the officer will not arrest them or even give a damn.
This is why comparisons with anti-misegenation laws are so absurd.
What proponents of same sex marriage desire is to compel society to recognize homosexual unions as the equivalent of marriage when they are not. This is not a battle against oppression in any way, manner or form.
@Bart, you offered: "a man cannot be a wife and bear children and a woman cannot be a husband and impregnate her female partner.... show the children how women are supposed to behave."
Those are not benefits to society. They are not benefits to the marriage either. The fact that only the woman can get pregnant is a negative since it halves the chances of procreation (if that is the goal).
As to teaching how to women are supposed to be behave is an interesting concept. How are they supposed to behave? You mean subservient chattel? You mean barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen? Obviously it takes more than the mother (or father) to show the children how adults behave.
BDP, you know that is b*llsh*t as much as I do. Really. If thats really how you explain to yourself that you are not oppressing a section of society by denying them the legal recognition of their union, then you are a very small minded man.
You are denying a choice for people who want the same legal benefits you and your wife enjoy, based on a choice of who they wish to share their life with. That is not at all libertarian. Utterly amazing.
Derek said...
Check back this time next year, as the mid-term elections heat up. You'll see same-sex marriage back near the top of the list, I'm sure. Bond issues, congressional races, and city charter revisions just don't seem to bring out the conservative voter base the way the gays do.
~~~~~~~~~~
And the party of No! having shot their wad ;) re: gay marriage in 2004 putting the gay marriage "hate" initiative issue on the ballot in (8) states, including Ohio which swung the election to cheney/bush.
Interesting that Kerry and Bush pretty much had the same position on Gay marriage as they were both in favor of civil unions, hmm.
Again, just another indication how Reps are now screwing ;) themselves re: jumping in bed ;) w/the religious right! ie gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, school prayer, creationism, etc.
Let the fornication begin ...
and love it when a plan comes together!
@bart, "Same sex marriage is not in any way illegal."
You miss the point. That couple married by the Universalist minister cannot visit their spouse in the emergency ("relatives only"), does not get automatic inheritance if one dies, cannot get their spouse added to their health insurance in most cases (depends on the company and State), can be discriminated against in housing that requires married couples only, and they lose many other rights as well.
So, it is not illegal in terms of criminal code, but is "not legal" in civil code.
markymark said...
BDP, you know that is b*llsh*t as much as I do. Really. If thats really how you explain to yourself that you are not oppressing a section of society by denying them the legal recognition of their union, then you are a very small minded man.
Spare me. That is such a whiny childish argument.
I would like to have society recognize me as a hall of fame NFL player. However, society is not oppressing me failing to do so.
If homosexual couples are so desirous of social acceptance and approval of their unions then the burden is on them to demonstrate why they deserve such acceptance and approval. The world owes them nothing.
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! -- Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
BDP said
'I would like to have society recognize me as a hall of fame NFL player. However, society is not oppressing me failing to do so.'
----------------------------------
You had the opportunity to do so though, you just didn't practice your skills hard enough. You seem to think that homosexuals should not have the opportunity to have a civil partner to share there life with, and be able to receive certain rights through that partnership.
Again you are supposed to be a libertarian, and yet you seem to want them to come up with reasons to receive something from the state. A libertarian should seek to find the state reasons to take rights away from people, if they aren't to receive those rights.
If it is about reproductive rights, then how do you feel about 2 childless 65 year olds getting married?
(That and the fact that a place in the NFL is not the states to give!)
PaulK,
My kids are 5 and 8 - kindergarten age. They do not know what "homosexuality" is, or what "two mommies" might imply, and I'd like to keep it that way until they are older. That is not intolerance. That is a perfectly defensible parenting choice. I also happen not to trust the schools to be neutral on this matter. Do you think they will divulge that some parents do not approve of homosexuality? No, they will not. There is no neutrality on these kinds of questions, and children are too young to grasp the difference between their teacher's opinions and "the truth". These teaching plans are all about "normalizing" homosexual marriage. They imply that there is no moral disagreement of homosexuality, and in that they are privileging one side of a very fraught debate.
Quite frankly, I don't want the schools telling my kids that broken families are the "same" as intact families. I want my kids to be tolerant of others, open to different choices, and so forth. But this idea that every family structure is the same is itself a social and moral vision that I do not share. That sort of chirpy hyper-individualism has lead to social problems untold. Quite frankly, I worry about how divorce is getting mainstreamed into our culture - its no longer something to be regretted even. I feel the same way about same sex families.
Let me worry about my kids education on these social issues. The schools should stick to reading and writing - God knows they could do a better job of the basics. What possible purpose does their social engineering serve? The idea that parents are preventing from removing their children is an outrage. The public schools are there for everyone, not just you and your friends.
Jeff, you make some valid points, but I think you overestimate the power of a school. Kids get most of their social values from the home. (I work as a teacher so I have some idea about this!) I would agree that schools are not good at social engineering, but its partly because they are swimming against the tide a lot of the time.
Of course the other problem comes when you get into controversial areas like evolution. (Not that evolution should be controversial but never mind that!)
Jeff said...
The idea that parents are preventing from removing their children is an outrage. The public schools are there for everyone, not just you and your friends.
Precisely. When schools validate intolerant and ignorant viewpoints, it is an admission by society at large that they are legitimate viewpoints to hold. If you want to teach your kids something other than socially accepted norms, you're free to do so, but that doesn't mean the public school systems should be used as a vehicle to legitimize your intolerance by passing it on to children of parents who are not so intolerant, or by allowing you to pick and choose what education your child receives in a public institution.
The schools are there to prepare your kid for entrance into public society, and to do so, they need to comprehend how the rest of the world works. If you want to teach your kid intolerance, you can do so at home, but don't ever tell me that the public schools should pretend your views are legitimate. I'd be just as offended as if you suggested the schools should start teaching that racial and sexual discrimination are considered to be legitimate viewpoints as well.
If you are really that adamant about teaching your child to hate, do not expect me to willingly pay for that education (or lack thereof). Public schools are not a buffet, they're a full meal.
Markymark,
I appreciate the tone of your response. Robert's response, immediately below, is more typical. For some reason, Robert, you are of the view that gay marriage is a "socially accepted norm". It is not. You are of the view that the public schools should not "pretend that my views are legitimate", which is precisely what thay CLAIM not to be doing, but I fear they are. You are sort of a walking, talking object lessons in the sort of indoctrination a lot of us worry about. I commend you comments to everyone else on this string. They are a great example of the sort of "intolerant tolerance" that I am talking about. In your world (and in some teacher's world view, more to the point) anyone who opposed gay marriage (meaning, a majority of Americans, a vast majority of the world, almost all of the major faith traditions, Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews) "hates", and is full of "intolerance." This is, of course, itself a sectarian point of view - a minority point of view. To the extent that the schools convey it, they are attempting to stigmitize my beliefs (as you are). I'm not asking for my views to be propagated by the public schools. Why are you?
Again: the schools should stay OUT of this. Why are they suddenly expected to be institutions of general socialization (of a particular kind)? Stick to academic subjects, and we won't have to worry about this. But until then, your teaching kids that Catholics are "haters" is no better than someone else teaching kids that homosexuality is "deviant". You are not espousing neutrality, Robert, that is quite evident.
@Jeff
As Marky said, you do make very good points. Especially this: The public schools are there for everyone, not just you and your friends.
Equally, the public schools are not there just for you. They also are there for the children of same-sex couples. Just as they are there for the children of mix-race couples, or of minority couples.
Only a few years ago - and still today, in some places - there were people who had "moral objections" to mixed-race couples. That doesn't mean the public schools should avoid acknowledging that mixed-race couples exist, and that they have children. Nor does it mean the people who had such "moral objections" had a defensible (or even a moral) position.
The public schools are not there to teach your moral viewpoint. They are there for everyone, not just for you. If you want your children exposed only to your moral viewpoint, then put them in a religious private school. After all, it is your responsibility to provide moral education for your children, not the school's.
It is the public schools' responsibility to teach acceptance of American pluralism and diversity, like it or not. And if you don't like America as being diverse as it is, then find a school for your children that teaches the view you want your kids to have.
My kids are 5 and 8 - kindergarten age. They do not know what "homosexuality" is, or what "two mommies" might imply, and I'd like to keep it that way until they are older. That is not intolerance. That is a perfectly defensible parenting choice. I also happen not to trust the schools to be neutral on this matter. Do you think they will divulge that some parents do not approve of homosexuality?
You have a seriously flawed assumption here is that they need to talk about [homo]sexuality.
There is plenty of "neutral" if you don't go wandering off explaining what goes on in the bedroom of Little Johnny's moms.
Well there is "neutral" unless of course you lack that tolerance of the "gay lifestyle" that you claim to have. Which is actually the problem here, right?
Well let's see....
These teaching plans are all about "normalizing" homosexual marriage. They imply that there is no moral disagreement of homosexuality, and in that they are privileging one side of a very fraught debate.
Yes, yes it is.
But don't sweat it, markymark is right. You've got plenty of chance when they get home to instill your intolerances into their head. No guarantee that it'll stick with them into adulthood though. They might actually notice the world around them at some point.
"Robert, you are of the view that gay marriage is a "socially accepted norm""
No, I'm not. But I'm not of the view that the schools need to teach it as less than equivalent to regular marriage, or broken homes, as you insinuate. "I don't want the schools telling my kids that broken families are the "same" as intact families."
Would you have the teacher just refuse to answer any questions relating to the comparisons between different family types? At that point, why bother teaching anything at all?
With regard to whether I support "indoctrinated tolerance" or that I think anyone who opposes gay marriage hates, you're drawing equivalency where none exists. I don't know that you hate anyone, or even whether you are intolerant (for all I know, you hang out with gays all day long while judging them).
As far as "indoctrinated tolerance" goes, yes, I do support it. I don't support the public school system legitimizing intolerance of gays any more than I support it legitimizing racial, sexual, or religious intolerance.
"I'm not asking for my views to be propagated by the public schools. Why are you?"
But you are. You want schools to admit that not teaching kids the same course material is a legitimate course of action whenever you don't like what is being taught. I say, too bad. Take your kid to private school if you don't like it, where I don't have to pay for your child's ignorance.
"You are not espousing neutrality, Robert, that is quite evident."
Other movements that ignored neutrality included the abolitionists, feminists, and the civil rights movement. I thank you for your complement, sir.
Right wing blatherers…
Homosexuality cannot be “taught” any more than blue eyes can be “taught”. You are either gay or you aren’t. And yes, to characterize the love between two people who are forced by religious kooks to hide their feelings as a “lifestyle” is just about as blind to reality as it is possible to be.
The ages-old tradition of marriage is not one man and one woman. The overwhelming pattern for marriage in the history of the world has been one man and many women. (Look up polygamy anywhere.) So using “tradition” as a fallback principle does not support the idea that marriage “should” be defined as one man and one woman.
Further, the “modern purpose” of marriage is to enact a commitment between two people who love each other. Saying that the purpose is to facilitate the bearing and rearing of children belongs to an ideology most of us find repellent—that of the Third Reich.
@Pragmatus
Homosexuality cannot be “taught” any more than blue eyes can be “taught”.
What the right-wingers are afraid might be taught is an acceptance of homosexuality. Though I have no idea why they fear it so much. Maybe if it is accepted, they're afraid they themselves might be tempted to try it?
Shirkers,
Your argument is an analogy. It fails if you analogy fails, and I don't accept your analogy. Race is one way of "casting" gay rights. Staunch conservatives might say that homosexuality is "analogous" to "pedophilia" (and thus deserving extreme "moral" disapproval in the schools). I don't accept either extreme. I want neutrality from the schools. You are not asking for neutrality - in that you presumably don't want schoolkids taught that the traditional view of homosexuality is a legitimate one (out there in the "real world"). You talk a lot about diversity and pluralism, but I ask you: do you want your children exposed to MY point of view, or the Pope's, or Islam's. No. Those are "hateful" and "intolerant". But those are YOUR moral judgements, not neutral ones.
The whole point is precisely that I don't want the schools to propagate ANY view point, mine or yours, on this difficult topic. I want them to teach academic subjects. The irony of all this is that if anyone's position here is the "society's", it's mine, not yours. The consensus is (still) against gay marriage, but I'm not expecting that "socialization" lesson to be foisted on kids either.
On a more general level, a lot of you need to learn something. It is possible to oppose gay marriage, and even to think that homosexuality is wrong, and not HATE homosexuals, or teach hatred to one's children. I'm not sure why you insist on casting other people's motives and emotional states in this way. It's certainly not true, unless you think of most orthodox religious people as a bunch of haters. And if you think that, I suspect you don't know any.
But the discussion has done nothing to change my sense of the question: that the school lessons are designed to do more than merely encourage tolerant disagreement; they are designed to further the stigmatization of traditional moral views on homosexuality.
shrinkers…
As bizarre as it sounds, I really think that a lot of the opposition to even mentioning homosexuality in schools is the irrational fear amongst the hyper-religious that children can be lured into become homosexual. Look at the website of the Family Research Council (a name which suggests science—“research” my ass) where one of their rotating images is of a gay person who—horrors!—advocates teaching children at some point about the sexual realities of the world.
It’s not the first, nor will it be the last, ridiculous fear that has its source in blindly followed religious dogma.
bulump: Movie sound effect of dead body hitting floor...
Jeff…
I’m afraid you’re just a big old idiot.
You said—“It is possible to oppose gay marriage, and even to think that homosexuality is wrong, and not HATE homosexuals”.
You are the dumbest brick on earth if you can’t see the connection between thinking people are wrong just because they are born a certain way and hatred of them. This is the exact argument used to bolster race hatred.
@jeff, "or what "two mommies" might imply, and I'd like to keep it that way until they are older."
The reality is that they likely already have friends who have more complex home situations. The schools talking about tolerance and understanding differences and similarities is not about moral judgment, but about accepting that there are differences. What helps to stop bullying is when kids just accept that some kids have differences. Unless you are hoping your kids will be playground bullies, you should want that too.
"Do you think they will divulge that some parents do not approve of homosexuality? No, they will not. "
Of course not. Nor will they divulge that some people do not approve of Black people or Catholics or people from foreign countries. Their job is not to teach that there are narrow minded adults such as yourself, that is for you as a parent to do. Fortunately, society tends to slowly weed out people like you, so your kids will likely be far more tolerant than you, no matter how hard you try.
"There is no neutrality on these kinds of questions, and children are too young to grasp the difference between their teacher's opinions and "the truth"."
Unlike you, they are not trying to teach such things. The point is that there are other family types than yours and kids need to learn that they are not there to judge. Judging the family types of others is a uniquely adult sickness.
"Quite frankly, I don't want the schools telling my kids that broken families are the "same" as intact families."
No school says they are the same. The point of discussing different family types is accepting that they are different. They do not add value judgements in these discussions because that is neither useful nor their place. If they did, they would have to talk about the quality of the variety of "intact" marriages, which includes cheating spouses, abuse of a spouse, child abuse, parents who fight constantly and bitterly, as well as loving intact families, etc. That is not the point. The point is only to show kids that when one kid talks about "going to their dads" or living with their Aunt and Uncle, or both their parents coming to open house, that this is just another family type. Kids are sensitive to differences anyway, so they will see these differences no matter what - the purpose of discussing it is to remove "better"/"worse" type value judgments from the children's heads. You may be full of value judgments, but the kids are not old enough to be.
Staunch conservatives might say that homosexuality is "analogous" to "pedophilia" (and thus deserving extreme "moral" disapproval in the schools).
They might say that...if they were ignorant of the moral argument against pedophilia.
The whole point is precisely that I don't want the schools to propagate ANY view point, mine or yours, on this difficult topic.
This isn't propagating a view point anymore than Adam and Steve coming to watch their Little Suzy in the school play.
You want that to stop happening? Only one 'mom' and one 'dad' can show up at the school play?
@Jeff
but I ask you: do you want your children exposed to MY point of view, or the Pope's, or Islam's. No.
Actually, my kids were exposed to these ideas, and I strongly approved of having them provided with the contrasts.
Our kids' best friends down the block had parents who were Fundamentalist Evangelicals, and so they often watched those hyper-Christian propaganda cartoons for kids. Our family frequently shared sader with a Jewish family we knew. Our kids also occasionally went to mass with their Catholic grandmother. We encouraged them to read about other religions, from a very early age. I think our kids' lives are much richer for it.
The one thing we did not do was expect the public schools to teach our religion's concepts and worldview. That happens at home.
Having grown up in the Catholic religion, parochial school, Baltimore Catechism believe it was 5th/6th grade when I started to think for myself and of course credit goes to my teachers and parents that I was able to think for myself at that time. Sooo everything I was taught up 'til then I could question and reassess.
Amazingly most of my teachers, including Nuns, were tolerant of others and not quick to judge. Probably had to do w/reading the Bible everyday, go figure!
Anyways, another thing that helped my attitude toward gays was of course my parents attitude, lack of prejudice and they belonged to a dance club that met socially every Sat. and their dance instructor was Gay and a notable figure in society ie he was out of the closet in the '50s.
So again, ones background and the prejudices/fears they are spoon fed by their elders/teachers determines how much hatred/bigotry they have against certain groups or minorities, no surprise.
Live and let live is a very good philosophy. Don't invade my privacy and I won't invade yours as long as "rational" rules/laws in society aren't broken.
Hey before you abuse, criticize and accuse, walk a mile in my shoes ...
and as always, the Bible can be interpreted every which way to Sunday, depending on one's agenda as the recent priest molestation scandal covering at least (50) years cost the Catholic church a fortune.
carry on
Living is easy w/eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see ...
@jeff is using the old canard, popular in the South through much of the 20th century: "It is possible to oppose letting blacks vote, and to think that blacks are inferior, and not HATE blacks, or teach hatred to one's children".
Once you view someone's very existence as "wrong", you are "hateful" and likely imparting that "hatred" on your children. You can color it up nicely to not sound so bad, but that is what it is. When you fear that teaching tolerance undermines your attempts to teach intolerance (your words paraphrased), you have a problem.
Think about if you and Bart were saying that Blacks should have to "justify" why they should be allowed to vote, and that schools should not tell white kids that blacks are just a different race and skin color, since the schools "should be neutral" and should not undermine what racists are telling their kids.
@Pragmatus
As bizarre as it sounds, I really think that a lot of the opposition to even mentioning homosexuality in schools is the irrational fear amongst the hyper-religious that children can be lured into become homosexual.
Yeah, you're probably right. I guess the overwhelming presence of heterosexual-oriented ads and books and magazines and TV programs and movies that permeate our culture - not to mention whatever kids learn at home - cannot possibly compete with a few words of tolerance spoken at school. Gay is just that hot.
(By the way, I personally am a devout heterosexual. I'm just not evangelical about it.)
Gay is just that hot.
It likely is to someone that can look any piece of pr0n and decide that it is gay pr0n.
Point of clarification: when I said homosexuality was "taught" I meant "taught about", not "taught as a "skill" or some such. Other are having a field day with this slip, but its all a red herring.
Robert, analogies, analogies, analogies. Racial justice, woman's justice = justice for gays. I might as well say, well, I'm a crusader for the rights of the unborn (many pro-lifers do this, use the slavery analogy). So I would like the schools to cultivate an intolerance toward those who won't grant the unborn their full rights.
Is this a fair analogy? I think it is. You disagree. The schools remain neutral on the point (or they should) until a clearer consensus emerges, if it ever does. If it doesn't, they should stay out of it. Gay marriage should be exactly the same.
This is starting to go around Facebook.
Adults who love each other should have the right to get married whether they are gay or straight. If you agree, post this on your Facebook page, along with this link to the campaign to protect marriage equality in Maine. http://action.protectmaineequality.org/t/4847/signUp.jsp?key=2377
I just can't wrap my head around why anyone should care who someone else loves.
Two adults who find each other - why is that anyone else's business? And why shouldn't life-partners be granted the same status and benefits regardless of who they are? What gives you - or anyone else - the right to decide what couples may marry, and which may not?
In what way is denying the social benefits of marriage to Couple A (who happen to be of the same sex) different from denying those same benefits to Couple B (who happen to be black, or one black and one white)?
I guess I just can't get into that mindset of wanting to impose myself - and maybe even the power of the Government - into someone else's life.
Or the mindset of anyone who can compare falling in love with another adult to anything unsavory.
@jeff, "So I would like the schools to cultivate an intolerance toward those who won't grant the unborn their full rights."
That analogy makes no sense. The schools are not cultivating intolerance of anybody.
"Is this a fair analogy? I think it is."
How? It makes no sense. One is about whether the schools note that there are different family types and you are upset because you are against some family types. The other is that you are against a medical procedure which the schools do not discuss any more than they discuss chemotherapy.
If you want your analogy, it would be like my saying I am against Europe and I do not want the schools teaching about Europe because it undermines my attitude about Europe.
Clearly you need to put your kids in a narrow minded Evangelical school which will teach the literal interpretation of the Bible, skip most science, skip diversity, and will "protect" your children by surrounding them with people exactly like them.
@Jeff
Your argument is an analogy. It fails if you analogy fails, and I don't accept your analogy. Race is one way of "casting" gay rights.
No Jeff, it's not analogy. It is identity. We are talking about whether two adults who love each other should be allowed to marry. That is the issue. All else is irrelevant distraction.
Your argument, on the other hand, trying to inject completely unrelated concepts - the abortion rights issue, pedophilia, etc. - is entirely off base. It's a red herring of no value.
Now, if you wanted to argue that the unborn have a right to marry - that would be closer to being a related concept - though no less silly an argument than the one you're now using.
@Jeff
In fact, you did.
"Some choose to live celibately, or to keep their sexuality private, others to be more open about it, others to be very open about it. Most gay rights actvists will only respect that last of these choices."
You say you support ALL of those choices, except when it comes to people who want to have the same legal rights a man and a woman couple can get. You support equality in theory until it becomes equality in practice.
Gay rights activists, for your information, do not only support those who are very open about it. They support EVERYONE. The reason people choose to be closed off about it is because of people who believe they aren't good people purely because of their non-ability to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine someone who would ever chose to not let people know that they love someone of the opposite sex, or are interested in someone of the opposite sex? Some people can be celibate - but they never have to pretend that they aren't attracted to the opposite sex, like homosexuals do if they want to fit in in our society.
As a heterosexual, you never have to worry about losing your job, or your friends or your family if people find out you like someone of the opposite sex, but as a homosexual, you do. This is why so many of them chose not to let anyone know what is going on in their lives - where if they were heterosexual everyone would be dying to find out.
@Jeff
"So I would like the schools to cultivate an intolerance toward those who won't grant the unborn their full rights. "
So what if the unborn child ends up being homosexual? By not supporting equality rights for gays and lesbians, you are one of those who do not grant the unborn their full rights. Should we be intolerant to you? I'm sure you'd LOVE that.
There is a larger issue of GLBT rights in general, of course. But for the present discussion, the question is pretty straightforward:
Do we want our government to prevent two adults who love each other from getting married?
I don't want that level of government intrusion into the most private and intimate and personal of decisions. And I sure don't want that decision to be made by someone else because of odd religious notions.
Anyone who wants to live in a theocracy should feel free to move to one.
"Robert, analogies, analogies, analogies."
I'm not using analogies, but ok.
"Racial justice, woman's justice = justice for gays"
I didn't use the word justice. I used the word tolerance
"I might as well say, well, I'm a crusader for the rights of the unborn (many pro-lifers do this, use the slavery analogy). So I would like the schools to cultivate an intolerance toward those who won't grant the unborn their full rights."
However, in that case, you are still preaching intolerance instead of tolerance.
"Is this a fair analogy? I think it is. You disagree."
Fantastic, let's keep with you telling me what I think without knowing! What a fun game.
"The schools remain neutral on the point (or they should) until a clearer consensus emerges, if it ever does. If it doesn't, they should stay out of it. Gay marriage should be exactly the same."
Regardless of consensus, Roe v. Wade says it's legal.
The fact is that your viewpoint breeds intolerance and discrimination, as do corresponding viewpoints about peoples' religions, races, and gender. Intolerance and discrimination are things we have worked centuries to weed out in this country, and it has a lot to do with what we teach kids in public schools. Whether you are capable of admitting it, or not, you are the kind of person this country has said no to over and over again, and we continue to do so.
You will find that any given generation of Americans is more tolerant than the last, and it's intentional. Your intolerances are not as likely to be picked up by your children as they were for you. This is a fact that you should accept now, before it makes you angry later.
Ah Robert, "regardless of consensus, Roe V. Wade says abortion is legal. The law also says gay marriage is illegal in California. But don't let that trip you up.
As for the various ill-thought out responses to my point about analogies: I KNOW that pedophilia and fetal rights are POOR ANALOGIES for gay rights. That was my POINT. So too, the race analogy is a poor one. You folks missed the argument entirely. Analogies typically produce sloppy thinking.
I've obviously touched a nerve here, and though I've tried to keep the conversation civil, it is degenerating into abuse. Let me simply make this clear. I am not an evangelical. I am not a creationist. I am not a hater. I do not preach intolerance to my children. I support all human rights for homosexuals (I do not consider marriage to number among these). I also oppose gay marriage, and have some moral qualms about homosexuality. There are millions, probably billions of human beings who share these traits. It is revealing that some (not all) of you can't imagine such a person, which suggests that your own horizons are a bit limited. In any case, the string has served to illustrate my point. Discussing "tolerance" of homosexuality and gay marriage almost always slides into a discussion of the moral question itself. That is true on blogs, and in classrooms too.
@Jeff
As for the various ill-thought out responses to my point about analogies: I KNOW that pedophilia and fetal rights are POOR ANALOGIES for gay rights. That was my POINT. So too, the race analogy is a poor one. You folks missed the argument entirely.
No, you missed the point. Talk about equal rights is not an analogy. The issue is whether the government should be allowed to tell two consenting adults that they may not marry - and whether that policy should be created to satisfy certain bigoted religious zealots. It is exactly the same issues, the same situations, the same questions, as we faced in racial matters.
What you're doing is intentionally creating a false analogy - even you admit as much - and then trying to claim that merely because you can create an intentionally false analogy, the other situation is also an analogy, and is equally false. But you're incorrect, and you are engaging in a logical fallacy and a common (and transparent) debater's ploy.
"The law also says gay marriage is illegal in California."
California != US, and it's laws are not mine. It's not illegal according to the constitution, if you really want to get down to it.
"So too, the race analogy is a poor one. You folks missed the argument entirely."
You're wrong here. Racial discrimination and intolerance are EXACTLY the same as homosexual discrimination and intolerance. The first definition of race (via dictionary.com) is "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity". Whether or not you accept it, homosexuality is a genetic trait (found in all species across the globe, btw). When you discriminate based on sexual orientation, you are quite literally being a racist. You shouldn't have any illusions about this, because that's why people respond to you like you are racist.
"It is revealing that some (not all) of you can't imagine such a person, which suggests that your own horizons are a bit limited."
Rather, it is more revealing to me the delusions which provide you comfort in your discriminatory attitude, and your belief that you are not preaching intolerance in sharing your views.
"Discussing "tolerance" of homosexuality and gay marriage almost always slides into a discussion of the moral question itself. That is true on blogs, and in classrooms too."
Great! Schools are for teaching more than dry facts. They're for teaching critical thinking and self evaluation. If schools force children to examine their beliefs by discussing them, they will be serving their exact purpose. Remember, you are the one who doesn't want schools to talk about it, and you illustrate your points (fears) quite clearly.
@Robert
It's not illegal according to the constitution, if you really want to get down to it.
And that's an excellent point. Strict constructionists should be all over this, insisting that the federal government does not have the right to interfere in this matter.
But of course, they do implicitly admit this fact, by frequently suggesting a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages. If they need to be banned, that means they are not currently prevented.
I think we should start a movement to create a constitutional amendment that would outlaw attempts to ban same-sex marriages, or that would explicitly grant the right of any two adults of sound mind to marry, regardless of race, creed, gender, (insert your favorite irrelevant distinction here).
Robert,
I disagree that race discrimination and discrimination against homosexuality are exactly equal. I don't approve of either form of discrimination, but I don't think these are exact categories for the purposes of equal protection. We can debate this all night, but I'm sorry to disabuse you: very few people, except zealots, treat those who oppose gay marriage as "racists". Very few people, for instance, think Pope Benedict, or the Dahli Lama, or President Obama, are racists. That's not the consensus point of view. The issue is not quite that easy. And browbeating people with charges that they "hate" others and are "racists" is never going to change that.
As for schools teaching kids to examine their belief, should they force liberal kids to challenge their beliefs by reading and discussing traditional teachings? I thought not. Those are "racist" after all. Keep in mind, by the way, we are talking about kids in kindergarten. Any discussion of this kind of topic is bound to be mostly indoctrination at that level.
Shrinkers,
You deny that you are making an analogy, and then you make the analogy. Gay rights are not exactly the same as rights for African Americans. That is factually obvious. Any attempt to compare the two is an analogy. It might be a good one, or a bad one, but it has to be defended, not just asserted. My analogies weren't really "false", just debatable. I, for one, think the unborn have rights, and should have them protected. In my ideal moral world, this would be taught in school. But I don't live in my own ideal, moral world, and I accept that difference on this point renders it off limits in the public schools. The pedophilia analogy is a false one in my view, but not prima facia. To demonstrate its falsity, one must argue it out. You just want to assert the analogy, gay rights = rights for racial minorities. But as I understand it, that is contentious, even within the gay rights lobbies.
"We can debate this all night, but I'm sorry to disabuse you: very few people, except zealots, treat those who oppose gay marriage as "racists"."
The point was not how many, the point was that the position is inherently a racist one. You claim that the comparison between discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on race are not equal. They are. You claim that discrimination against african americans and homosexual are different. They are.
The distinction is a genus/species distinction. Homosexuals are a race, as are african americans, but discriminating against either one still makes you a racist.
Jeff,
I am asserting an equivalence, which is not quite the same as an analogy. I suppose, were we in a formal class, we'd then have to explore the differences between those terms.
Thank you for the discussion.
@jeff, you clearly are a moral relativist in the strongest sense. Discrimination against someone for a genetic trait is discrimination. Saying you are for some group's rights except for some set you decided you are against says a lot right there. Using racism as an equivalence is intended to let you see how ridiculous your words are if you simply applied them to another group.
Your "separate but equal" approach of suggesting that it is OK to discriminate against this minority group as long as you choose which things to discriminate really seems pretty absurd, just as it does looking back at our history with black people.
I will note that I am not Gay - I am happily married with children. But, I will not agree to governmental discrimination against Gay people anymore than I would agree to keeping woman from voting, preventing blacks from attending the same school, or keeping mixed race couples from marrying. Marriage is a government institution conferring specific rights by the government, just like voting, schools, etc. So, discriminating on that basis would be discrimination of the highest form. You and your church are free to not marry Gay couples or blond couples or couples of another religion, but this is about government and rights of citizens.
You do not have to "like" Gay people (any more than you have to like Catholics or Hispanics or whatever), you do not have to feel comfortable with homosexuality. Our society is built on tolerance, not on discrimination. Tolerance means accepting that there are others who are different than you. Tolerance of who people are is the founding principle, whereas tolerance of choices people make (e.g. religious belief, who they vote for, etc) is a grayer area perhaps, but only in the sense of when it imposes on others or harms others. We all agree that pedophiles are intolerable because they harm others - children cannot consent. We may not like some of the more outrageous aspects of many fundamentalists (whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc), but unless they are harming others, they have every right to be treated fairly by their government.
>Pragmatus said...
" BDP…
At no time and in no place on earth prior to the 20th century has marriage been exclusively the province of the state. Marriage has always been associated with religion, and if you’re arguing that you can have a religion without a God I would suggest that you have crawled pretty far out on your limb."
1- What do you call Buddhism? There is nothing in Buddhism that requires you must believe in God. You can, but you don't have to. Likewise, the Unitarian Universalists are the same way. I know lots of atheist UU's.
2- My husband and I are atheists and we got married by a Humanist celebrant. No church, no god-believing preacher. And plenty of others get married by the courts or 5 miles out to sea without any recognition by any church or religion. And you know what? I'm not civililly-unioned I'm MARRIED. No church has the right to say who can be married and who can't. They only have the right to refuse to perform the ceremony when asked. They do NOT have the right to tell other churches or civil authorities that members outside their flock can't be married.
3- Why should we give a rat's ass what marriage was before the 20th century? It used to be that marriage was both arranged and forced and had more to do with creating political alliances than romantic love, which is a modern notion. Who the hell wants to go back to THAT?
Barty with the intelligence of a Palmetto; the BOY named jeffy; the one who rides the offspring of a horse/donkey mating; NJ Conservatard; and all the other right wing TROLLs:
Please explain to everyone here how two gay men (or two lesbian women) getting married negatively affects your own marriage (directly or indirectly), or if you are not married, how this will negatively affect any heterosexual marriage.
Examples of such negative affects are REQUIRED. Enumerate those reasons. List them.
I keep seeing (on and off 538.com) lots of statements that allowing gay marriage will destroy marriage, but I've never seen anyone give an intelligent reason why that would be so.
Bonus question: How does the judicial ruling that a black person and a white person can marry negatively affect your marriage (directly or indirectly)?
A lack of response will be interpreted as a lack of having an intelligent reason for such belief. A lack of such response will totally indicate that you have just pure, unadulterated hatred of the GLBT community; and/or a continuation of using talking points as your sole basis for posting (but most likely both, as bigotry, as well as being a parrot of talking points, usually requires a lack of intelligence and/or a lack of ability to critically think for oneself).
Mike in Maryland
@Mike in Maryland
The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. Duh! :)
Of course it should be really easy for Jeff as he's been living with it as law for over 4 years now. Not with the sorta-legal version like that handful of US states. The full federal Monty.
So Jeff, what part of the country are you in? I'm curious.
Lynne said...
3- Why should we give a rat's ass what marriage was before the 20th century? It used to be that marriage was both arranged and forced and had more to do with creating political alliances than romantic love, which is a modern notion. Who the hell wants to go back to THAT?
~~~~~~~~~~
Bart
Dwight said...
So Jeff, what part of the country are you in? I'm curious.
~~~~~~~~~~
Believe Jeff said he lives in Canada, don't know if he's an American living in Canada ...
Jeff said...
Freedom of religion is deeply connected to the gay marriage issue, as many have noted here. I live in Canada, and I can assure you that this is not a false issue. We, and the Europeans
Assume he's Canadian ...
carry on
You know, Canada is also a country with differening parts to it. :P
You both seem to have missed my 'clue' about knowing that he lives in Canada from my comment about 4+ years of same-sex marriage in federal law. In fact, depending on the province, he may have been in a jurisdiction with same-sex marriages even longer than that.
Dwight said...
~~~~~~~~~~
OK, my bad. Find it amazing that some of the biggest Rep wingers who post here and at other political blogs are Canadian and they actually have better arguments than American wingers, which of course ;) is not a very high bar to exceed.
Yes Virginia, many Canadians care more about America and American politics than Americans do. but hey, as America goes, so goes Canada ...
Was a huge Bobby Orr fan in the early '70s, I digress.
What We've Learned So Far
Bart isn't really libertarian.
Jeff is from Canada and has no horse in this race.
Lidian & Mike said...
Jeff is from Canada and has no horse in this race.
Actually, in Jeff's defense, "we" are all part of the global perspective and input from all "good faith" folk should be welcome, even foreigners. Although, from my experience at other political blogs, more used to Canadian posters being progressives, but nonetheless ...
Except one trick pony trolls like BDP, they should be discouraged. ;)
At 'Empornium' in 2004/2005, a porn torrent site run by Europeans, they had a flame forum where oddly enough, not a lot of flaming took place and occasionally world politics was discussed and some of the most intelligent posters were European who yes Virginia, actually knew the difference between Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Taoism ;) Buddhism, Hinduism and most other isms lol unlike "us" Americans.
I digress
but, but, but re Jeff he really should move to Alaska or Oklahoma or some other winger state where he would be more at home! Although unfortunately after the '08 election he has fewer winger states to choose from ...
@shrinkers
The fact that we have to come down to a constitutional amendment to make sure the current amendments are applicable to everyone is a sad state of affairs...
@Pragmatus
I don't quite agree with you here...
though I don't agree with Jeff's point either.
but to think it is wrong that someone is born a way is not a good thing, and is an intolerant stance. To think that it is not correct for you is one thing. But to say something that someone can not help because they are born that way is wrong leads to intolerance on a larger scale.
Again, it may be wrong for you, but for those who are, it is not wrong for them. Being a trait you are born with - its just as wrong as if someone was born with blond hair, but you are born with brown hair. Blond may not be the right color for you, but they are not wrong to have it.
Just my opinion, but why the heck is any government supposed to define what marriage is? Isn't this legally just a means to pay lower taxes via filing combined income? Potentially popular change to tax policy: any two adults (college roomates, etc.) can claim to be a "household" filing taxes jointly. This status can also be used for shared health benefits, etc. Married? Religious? Great! Join a church that agrees with your definition of it. Isn't that what religious freedom is all about?
Is gay marriage becoming more accepted and less resisted? As Nate has shown the answer is, are old people aging and dying and young people aging and reaching voting age?
@ Jeff much earlier comment regarding gay marriage acceptance by govt leading to gay marriage and gay people acceptance foisted on people Jeff said:
"Freedom of religion is deeply connected to the gay marriage issue, as many have noted here....
Now, the US is more libertarian than Canada (thank God)"
I think this is a very pertinent point, as backlash to changes in culture and laws is a real issue and such changes can happen in fits and spurts, forward and back and only with time can the real over all trend can be seen...like say was the recent dowturn in Dow beginning of many months/years of brutal bear market or just a blip down before market keeps going up.
The interplay of gay people and their supporters demanding NO discrimination and bias, and thus maybe eventually treating anyone against complete acceptance of homosexuals as if they are holocaust denying anti-semites.
I think what we are seeing is long-term trend towards elimination of gay discrimination with an eventual moderation/tension of respecting those who are religiously opposed. Whether people want to admit it, religion mores follow culture more than lead it. When US abolished slavery of African people, Christians spoke less and less about Paul's statement about slavery and about black people supposedly being under curse of Ham, and stop seeing bias against blacks as an integral part of their religion. Same thing has happened in regards to bias against women and religion.
I do think that there is always a tension and difficulty balancing the need for govt not to discriminate or be biased, and the fact our democratic principles are based on allowing religious freedom and tolerance of people's practice of their religion, and these peoples religious views that do just what govt and laws should not do in fair system that treats people, such a govt should not discriminate or allow others to do it.
Here in MN Muslims driving taxis want right to refuse taking passengers that have alcohol in their packages...and Muslims working at SuperTarget (grocery store and more) want right to not touch/ring up pig/pork foodstuffs. How do we provide freedom of religion and fairness/equality at same time
On marriage, why does the state make it all or nothing in the legal system?
As an example of something that would be in a spectrum of marriage like arrangements: what if two single woman, each with a kid or two, who were not romantically involved decided to cohabit for economic purposes and ending up sharing lots child rearing duties. If this arrangement worked for them, why couldn't they have a well-recognized, straight-forward legal option to codify their domestic arrangement of choice.
Maybe they could chose marriage as we know it with all its benefits and entanglements, including children rights, finances melding, inheritance rights etc... Or maybe they could chose to be a just a melded economic unit, a family in terms of tax reporting, credit rating etc..or maybe they could stay seperate financially but have their children treated in same manner as married couples childrens including same custody issues should they split.
And i know this will feak out relig right types, What's wrong with letting two sisters in same situation to chose to be "married" in the civil/legal sense, if they don't mind also incurring the potential disadvantages of have their lives so entangled as well as the advantages.
And why can't straight people have options less then all of marriage.
I know these domestic/financial/child custody issues can be arranged in a spectrum of custom "semi-marriages" by hiring a lawyer, thinking all this thru and signing a lot of papers, and then patiently showing that agreement over and over again to confused relatives and govt officials etc...when such rights are invoked.
Why not offer a spectrum of civil unions that cover a handful of typical domestic agreements, options that are well-known and understood and much easier to legally define.
Maybe some of the options:
1)Civil Union for joint child raising/custody
2) Civil Union for joint financial partnership
3) Civil union for health decisions...
4) Civil union including all of the above and more(i.e marriage)
all those people who say that we should ignore the historical position of marriage being between a man and a women because of polygamy, seem to forget that each of those women is married to the man - they are not married to each other. It may be wrong and demeaning to women and I'm not condoning polygamy (or polygany), all I'm saying is that that man is entering into many marriages, but they are always with a man and a woman.
Historically, what do all marriages have in common, whether they be forced, arranged, out of love, or with a party who is already in a marriage?
they are all between a man and a woman
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
I'm not sure the ideas Nate draws from this poll suggest any change in passion.
1. Abortion has been the nominally key identity issue for value voters for a generation, they're just more interested in doing things to stop gay rights than they are in stopping abortions.
2. "protecting religious freedom" begs the question, 'from what?' I suspect the answer is partially, perhaps significantly, 'from gay rights'. A lot of the conservative chatter about gay rights is coached in terms of religious liberty- the right not to have gay employees, the right to untainted marriage, the right to have schools pretend gay people don't exist.
Post a Comment