 05/17/2004: Out of the Closet and into the Tomb
On a day when those of us who support Gay Marriage are celebrating good news from Massachusetts, Gay Rights suffered a setback in London. I say suffered a setback, because the two groups who were so mistreated by Palestinian Thugs masquerading as "progressives" apparently still continued to protest in the Palestinian's behalf (go figure): OutRage and Queer Youth Alliance went to the protest march at Trafalgar Square to show their support for people of Palestine. But they also urged the Palestinian Authority to halt the arrest, torture and murder of homosexuals. As soon as they arrived at the square members of the two groups were surrounded by an angry, screaming mob of Islamic fundamentalists, Anglican clergymen, members of the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition, and officials from the protest organizers, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). They variously attacked the gay activists as "racists", "Zionists", "CIA and MI5 agents", "supporters of the Sharon government" and accused the gays of "dividing the Free Palestine movement". As a commenter on Little Green Footballs, where I found this post, noted: Gays opposing the war on terror is as stupid as Jews opposing the US fighting WWII. Yup.
Replies: 178 comments
Comments are open and unmoderated, although abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.
I was beginning to wonder how long it would be before the horde of opposition parties started feeding on each other. It's the problem with inclusive movements - they can't seem to maintain enough discipline for long-term, sustained collective action without turning on themselves. (See also, Democratic Party)
Posted by Bravo Romeo Delta @ 05/17/2004 02:20 PM PST
There is a time in the lives of all men when they have to choose a side,that time has come.
Posted by Peter UK @ 05/17/2004 02:44 PM PST
"On a day when those of us who support Gay Marriage are celebrating good news from Massachusetts" I wonder if Al Jazeera and other Arab news networks will be showing those pictures of MA men kissing one another on the lips. A terrible portrait of American decadence and not much of an advertisement for democracy - at least not in the Arab world. Perhaps Iraqis will think that is what Americans have in store for them. I can imagine the disgust felt by most people in the world at such pictures. But look on the bright side, maybe decadent lefty Europeans will now be a bit more sympathetic towards you.
Posted by coisty @ 05/17/2004 02:58 PM PST
But, to too many of these folks, the fact that the war is not being fought in order to allow gays to practice invalidates the war. The comparable aspect, I suppose, is that the war in Europe was not fought in order to liberate the death camps; ergo, no moral advantage accrues to the Allies for having fought the war. Indeed, judging from the "why didn't we bomb Auschwitz" books that were common a few years ago, I'd say that the moral onus almost fell as much against the Allies as for them, in the eyes of some.
Posted by Dean @ 05/17/2004 03:15 PM PST
Thank you Roger, for pointing out the difference between us and the Enemy. In the States, we argue whether or not marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. In the Arab/Muslim world, they argue about the proper way to kill homosexuals.
Posted by FH @ 05/17/2004 04:01 PM PST
coisty: In terms of disgust I doubt if the Arabs can anymore disgusted with those pictures from MA. than I was with the picture of Nick Berg's head being sawed off.
Posted by Terrye @ 05/17/2004 04:16 PM PST
" A terrible portrait of American decadence and not much of an advertisement for democracy" Yes, the hideous decadence of two people exchanging a kiss as a symbol of their love on their wedding day, what horror! We should push a wall on them Taliban-style, so the ever-sensitive "arab world (neé street)" won't think any more bad things about us. I'm always amazed how flexible the image of America is in the hands of those who seek to denigrate it. We're prudish Puritans, ashamed and horrified of sex, except when we are decadent, hyper-sexualized wantons dissolving the dignified and restrained cultures of the world with our caustic media culture. We're isolationist xenophobes, except when we're empire-obsessed colonialists bent on domination. Well, yes, being a pluralist nation with a relatively short cultural history, we are all those things and more. And I'm glad we have room for all of them.
Posted by goldsmith @ 05/17/2004 05:10 PM PST
Terrye: Obviously Berg's murder was a thousand times worse but the people who did that aren't trying to convince you of their superior values. The US is trying to sell democracy to the Middle East and thus needs to be concerned about the country's image, especially in Iraq.
Posted by coisty @ 05/17/2004 05:12 PM PST
"Obviously Berg's murder was a thousand times worse but the people who did that aren't trying to convince you of their superior values." They're not? You better tell Bernard Lewis about that... What you may be trying to say, coisty, is that they are doing a lousy job of it. But to Al Qaeda, this is all about values.
Posted by J. Stewart @ 05/17/2004 05:18 PM PST
What goldsmith said -- Isn't it wonderful we live in a country were both Roger's and coisty's views can coexist? That is what the Islamofascists are ultimately against.
Posted by inkling @ 05/17/2004 06:05 PM PST
"According to the Boston Herald, here is what the first recipient of a Provincetown Massachusetts same-sex marriage license had to say about marriage: "[Jonathan Yarbrough] says the concept of forever is 'overrated' and that he, as a bisexual, and [his partner Cody] Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. `I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner, not in the polygamist sense,' he said. `In our case, it is, we have, an open marriage.'' Woo woo for gay marriage! Honestly, why the f*ck did they get married? Oh, I know. To make a complete mockery of marriage. That's why.
Posted by andursonne @ 05/17/2004 06:08 PM PST
coisty: Yes and everything is about the ME and how their delicate sensibilities will be effected. I am not all that interested in gay marriage. I don;t have a big problem with it, but I just can not get that excited one way or another. I fail to understand why civil unions are not enough nor do I have a big problem with the debate in regards to a Consititutional Amendment. A lot of people think this is a bad thing, but it will provoke debate on the issue and the people will be a part of the process. Most Americans do not support the concept of gay marriage. not now anyway. Maybe if the folks of Iraq don't understand all the legal implications involved they will get the idea that when we disagree we do try to deal with it in some way that does not entail blowing up people or otherwise killing or maiming them.
Posted by Terrye @ 05/17/2004 06:22 PM PST
Those guys really didn't know what they were getting into, did they? It's sad that many of the left, including the gay rights marchers here, haven't figured out where the lesser of two "evils" is. They think we're bad because some percentage of us doesn't think they should be allowed to marry, while in the Palistinian camps, the large majority would see them dead just for being gay, period. I will have to admit to have chuckled a bit when I read this, as I did a few weeks ago when the muggers held up the suicide bomber on his way to Israel and got themselves blown up. Does this make me a bad person?
Posted by Jim @ 05/17/2004 06:24 PM PST
Oh andursonne, get a grip. The vast majority of gay people who get married are doing so for the same reason the vast majority of straight people do. Because they want to spend the rest of their lives with one person whom they love and cherish. Perhaps we should prohibit celebrity marriages too, since Brad Pitt was just quoted in an interview as saying marriage isn't necessarily forever and he didn't believe people were cut out for having one permanent monogamous relationship. Why don't you concern yourself with the state of your own marriage if you are in one. Inspire people with the sanctity of marriage by being a good example, instead of trying to deny others the happiness they seek.
Posted by SJ @ 05/17/2004 06:28 PM PST
After I watched a "Women Against the Shah" rally in the '70's, I am not in the least surprised that gays and feminists will continue to march in defense of radical Islam. The simple hipocrisy of their position is, they excellent the reset of us to protect them from the consequences of the oppression they support imposing on the rest of the world.
Posted by Richard McEnroe @ 05/17/2004 07:16 PM PST
All right, "hypocrisy". Hey, I'm a conservative, how often do I need to use the word?
Posted by Richard McEnroe @ 05/17/2004 07:24 PM PST
Bravo Romeo Delta — An "inclusive" movement is not one that copes with differences between its elements by simply denying they exist...
Posted by Richard McEnroe @ 05/17/2004 07:50 PM PST
SJ makes an excellent suggestion - let's ban celebrity marriages! No seriously, as much as that guy in Provincetowm might have no real comitment to the idea of marriage, at least his 15 minutes are up, not so Brad, J Lo and Larry King, more the pity.
Posted by holdfast @ 05/17/2004 07:55 PM PST
When in doubt on any subect, consult Robert Heinlein. "Marriage is not something thought up by priests and inflicted on mankind; marriage is as much a part of mankind’s evolutionary equipment as his eyes, and as useful to the race as eyes are to an individual.... “Marriage” has endless customs, rules, arrangements. But it is “marriage” if-and-only-if the arrangement both provides for children and compensates the adults. For human beings, the only acceptable compensation for the drawbacks of marriage lies in what men and women can give each other." Thus speaketh RAH, subject closed.
Posted by George @ 05/17/2004 08:01 PM PST
My wife took time off from her busy day to attend a large rally against Gay Marriage in Arizona, at the statea capitol. She estimated 5,000 people attended, from many groups. The best speaker was from a black protestant congregation. The sign she took said "Stop Judicial Activism." It never even made the news. I recognize that several people here whom I respect and whose writings I enjoy have relatives or friends who are gay and may hope that they benefit from gay marriage. Those people are just as precious to their loved ones as anyone else - they are human beings who must be accepted as they are. While I object to gay marriage, I wish the best for those individuals . As when the subject came up before, I have no desire to hurt any feelings, and I apologize for any hurt that may result from my comments. That being said, I would like to feel free to express my opinion. Sadly, those of you who favor gay marriage (and I don't object to that, it's your right) share one thing with the AnybodyButBush crowd: the media bias is on your side. Of course, throwing that out as a naked statement is guilt by association, which is in this case absurd, but I do think that here is a case where the media bias so decried by many of us on this group is benefiting a cause that I suspect most commenters here support. It may be interesting to observe this issue with that in mind. Which do we hear more about, the actual discovery of a very lethal chemical weapon in Iraq (and the revelation of the discovery of another one last week), or gay marriage? Why, when I watch ER, do I see a weeks long running plot-line designed to make me want homosexual marriage? Why is Hollywood always leading the way in these things? If the Supreme Court rules that the Massachussetts licenses must be honored in other states, then we will have another major wedge issue. The merde will hit the rotating unit. It will become impossible to select judges on merit, as we will end up with two litmus issues. Our country will suffer. The marriage amendment, of course, is not to prevent gay marriage (regardless of what people say), it is to prevent courts from imposing it on those states who would vote otherwise. I suspect that almost all of its supporters would indeed want to prevent gay marriage, but they would want to fight it out in a democratic arena rather than the courts. The amendment is only needed because the left (and in this case the gay-marriage movement which is using the same tactics) tends to win only in court, not in a democratic vote except in a few blue counties. Personally, I see this as yet one more step down the slippery slope of a degenerate culture, as we change the most fundamental unit of our culture to a form that will lose almost all meaning as subsequent court rulings pile up. The example of abortion jurisprudence is illustrative. Roe v. Wade led to a series of decisions that make it legal for your 14 year old child to have her 9 month fetus killed by some abortionist without you being told about it, much less asked for permission, for any reason she wants. There is no way that a blanket rule like this is good for our country (except, as some cynics have noticed, it has reduced the number of Democratic voters dramatically by preventing them from being born). As I have said before, I am for suitable protections for gays, but not marriage. SJ The fact that straight marriage is degenerating is not a valid reason to legalize gay marriage. It is similar to the argument I have also used that since alcohol is legal, marijuana should be too (I believe it should be, but the argument is incorrect - subtly, but wrong). I have long had a problem with the tendency of the left to create equality where it does not exist or belong. Gay marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. Gay sexual attraction is not the same as heterosexual sexual attraction, and I suspect (based on lots of statistics my wife dug up a while back when researching education), that gay marriages will be far less stable. Furthermore, many gays have said they want an "open" marriage. Few heterosexuals have an open marriage (and those who do are more likely to have problems in their marriage and problems with their kids). I would throw out the following suspicion, one I am reasonably confident in, but cannot support: Female homosexual marriages are much more likely to be stable than male homosexual marriages. I predict this based on the differences in male and female sexual psychology. I also predict that female homosexual marriages will have a significantly different average age difference than male homosexual marriage. But my big problem is the effect of gay marriage, illegitimacy and no-fault divorce to increase the number of children growing up in suboptimal or just plain damaging environments. We have enough problems already with the decline of heterosexual marriages, where children not raised with their natural fathers are at much greater risk of subsequent problems in their lives. The illegitimacy rate is rising in heterosexuals, and the damage is obvious. The complexities of various forms of gay marriage (and I strongly suspect the courts will shortly discover a right for any collection of sentient beings to marriage) are not going to be good. I would suggest that a better solution would be for a state or two to have homosexual marriage - which is not recognized by most other states. This is the way federalism is supposed to work. Then we can see what happens. Are the negative predictions correct? What is the overall impact? Find out in one or two places in our country and see. But given the behavior of the Supreme Court, I and those who favor the amendment expect that the ruling dreamed up by a judge in one state is going to be held to be valid in other states.
A significant reason for problems with heterosexual marriages is the overall loss of values in our society - primarily in the areas of sexuality but also in the area of honesty and personal responsibility. We live in a society that has always been individualistic, but it has grown increasingly selfish. We have a popular culture where famous people (especially Hollywood folks) treat marriage like clothes - new set frequently. We have prime time TV shows, especially sit-coms, where the most commonly expressed value is hedonism and selfishness. The effect of these popular values tend to magnify as they slide down the socio-economic scale (why, I don't know), but the net result is the black inner city culture where fatherhood is an almost unknown concept and illegitimacy rates are 85%. The white illegitimacy rate is 25%, the level it was in blacks 30 years ago. We have previously discussed the difficulty of getting the people of our nation to adopt a reasonable attitude towards the war. A major reason for that problem has been the distortion and splintering of value systems. The value system of hedonism will cause many people to be AnybodyButBush. How many of the ABB's have traditional values? How many think the government should stay out of their sex lives, except when they want it to teach little kids to put condoms on bananas, or for it to get between parents and their minor daughters in the abortion issue, or when they want it to eliminate all prohibitions on their pleasures? Our society has degenerated. We have improved many things, but specifically in the area of sexual freedoms, we have created a large cohort of people who think that if they personally don't see a negative consequence to some act they want to perform, then they should be allowed to do so, with government blessing. In other words, we have thrown out the baby with the bathwater in discarding traditional values (some of which, racism for example, were just plain bad). All of this stuff is connected. Just as one cannot reasonably separate the War on Terror from the Battle of Iraq, it is illogical to separate sexual hedonism from many of the consequent attitudes, behaviors and damages in our society - from the reduction in disapproval for illegitimacy and extramarital affairs to the spread of infections diseases, to the behavior of those troops at Abu Ghraib. I don't believe thatall homosexuality is pure hedonism. Gays develop feelings of love for their partners, as do lesbians. But the movement for gay marriage is an inseparable part of the attack on traditional morality and values in this country, and I think that is foolhardy and dangerous. The largers scale attack is driven by hedonism and selfishness, and the bizarre arrogance and contrarian nature of tenured academics - many who want to destroy our culture in order to rebuild it. That religion is the frequent target of these attacks (and of Hollywood) is not surprising, since religion is generally uncompromising with certain core values. This is scary to a hedonist, and something to be driven out of society. Those who raise the spectre of a theocracy are really afraid of the existence of religion in any form, because they don't want to be judged and they don't want any value system to affect their hedonistic pursuits. ..... Some people are inherently homosexual. We don't know how they get that way, but they have no choice. I suspect that much will be learned about this now that we have sophisticated tools for analyzing the functioning of the human brain, and have thrown out most of the silly theories about it. Other people do have a choice. I don't know the rations, but some people do - at least at the start. This fact is denied by homosexual activists, but it is true. In fact, it would be a shocking exception to human behavioral traits if it were not true. The example of prison (and shipboard) homosexuality shows that many people can adopt homosexual behavior in some circumstances. Likewise the sudden conversion to homosexuality (such as with John Walker Lindh's father) indicates a plasticity in sexuality. To a very sexually focused young human male (in other words, one who has not been castrated), the "gay" lifestyle can be very attractive. Even today, women tend to be picky and not fond of frequent anonymous sex. There are sociobiological theories as to why, and animal models to study, but none of that provides solid scientific evidence as to the reason - but the behavioral differences in this area between males and females is obvious and well studied. Males, especially at certain ages, are not at all picky. An orgasm is an orgasm, the more the better, and the more variety the better. The gay lifestyle (and by this, I don't mean the lifestyle of all male homosexuals) provides as many "consequence free" orgasms as a male may desire. This can lead him to adopt it as a lifestyle and become conditioned to that style of sex. Hence the rise of the gay culture has probably signifintly increased the number of male homosexuals (history strongly supports that assertion). Gay marriage will do the same thing, by adding one more stamp of legitimacy. Off to dinner. Then back to work.
Posted by John Moore (Useful Fools) @ 05/17/2004 08:10 PM PST
John, that was a bit long for your average comment... Perhaps a post instead?
Posted by FH @ 05/17/2004 08:25 PM PST
I keep asking these questions and, nobody who favors gay marriage seems to want to answer them. Should the right to marriage be extended to polygamous relationships? How about incestuous relationships? If no, why not?
Posted by Reid @ 05/17/2004 08:51 PM PST
FH I often put long comments here... it just flows. The subject was here, so I put it here. If Roger wants it shorter, I'll do it. I could post it on my blog, but frankly, I'm in such a rush that I wrote it quickly and turned it loose. Notice the bad spelling.
Posted by John Moore (Useful Fools) @ 05/17/2004 09:04 PM PST
My suspicion is that our host did not intend his post to open yet another discussion of gay marriage, but that said, as a libertarian and a supporter of gay marriage, I wanted to point out that not only liberals favor gay marriage. Many of us libertarians do as well.
Posted by J. Stewart @ 05/17/2004 09:41 PM PST
Oh well, I took the subject beyond gay marriage. Anyway, I know what libertarians tend to think. I used to be when when I was young and foolish. The real question is the difference between a libertarian and a libertine. If find many libertarians motivated by libertinism - they want the government out of their sex lives as the main motivator. I find others motivated by small government ideas in general - which I mostly agree with. Then there are the big-L libertarians, who are as lost in space as the Marxists.
Posted by John Moore (Useful Fools) @ 05/17/2004 09:52 PM PST
Well, I don't know what brand of libertarian I am, actually, but alas I do suspect that at sixty-two I no longer qualify as "young." Foolish, perhaps.
Posted by J. Stewart @ 05/17/2004 10:04 PM PST
I'm no spring chicken myself, although you're ahead of me. Here are my definitions: Big L libertarians tend to have an attitude like "if you need an army to protect you against Saddam, go hire one." In other words, they are extremists and utopian to the point of being utterly silly. I used to be a registered libertarian until I discovered that they were on a planet far, far away. "small l" libertarian, as I define it, is someone who holds to the principles of minimal government and zero or few laws about consensual behavior, but who recognize the need for a military, a judicial system, police, and some government paid for services. Barry Goldwater was a small-l libertarian. I moved from conservative to small-l to libertarian-conservative to a position that is now closer to social conservative - depending on the issue. For example, I am against the drug war, both on libertarian grounds (depending on whether taking the drug makes you dangerous to others) and on practical grounds. That, by the way, is also the position of one of the main conservative magazines - Naitonal Review. On the other hand, I have come to believe that some civil libertarian causes (such as extremism in separation of church and state) are part of a destructive attack on important aspects of our culture, turning us into a society of selfish hedonists and, I think, a people to weak to defend ourselves. I am against abortion on libertarian grounds - that the rights of the fetus do indeed conflict with the rights of the mother, and hence the current situation - abortion on demand for anyone at any stage of pregnancy - gives the right to murder to one party in a two party situation. Of course, defining when abortion is homicide as opposed to tissue removal is a matter of arbitrary decision - there is no simple guideline to it - so I prefer to err on the side of life over inconvenience. Anyway, gotta get to bed. Tornado chase starts in a few days.
Posted by John Moore (Useful Fools) @ 05/17/2004 11:52 PM PST
"I do think that here is a case where the media bias so decried by many of us on this group is benefiting a cause that I suspect most commenters here support." Actually, media bias pisses me off even when it is on my side. Though as I read further down in your post, it turns out that though you claim to be an SSM opponent and I claim to be a supporter, our positions come out surprisingly close. You see, I like the idea of gay marriage, but I hate judicial activism. I'll support any legislative push for gay marriage, but I also support the federal "Hatch Amendment," a proposed FMA alternative that basically says "the marriage issue is reserved to the state legislatures, and 1 man/1 woman is the default." I also would like to see a few states try SSM, and see how it goes. MA is actually a pretty good one to start with as their state law forbids couples coming to the state to get married if they wouldn't be eligible back home. This will help keep the interstate questions moot for a while. I'm an experimentalist at heart, which is one of the main reasons I'm very pro-Federalist. I have different expectations than you do about how the SSM experiment will turn out, of course. But I will admit it if the evidence proves me wrong, just as I assume you would.
Posted by ralph phelan @ 05/18/2004 02:48 AM PST
The argument was made that gay marriage is a bad thing because it will make us look bad in the eyes of the Muslims (especially Iraqis) to whom we are trying to export democracy and Western values of tolerance. By that argument, we should not allow any form of behavior in this country if a substantial number of Muslims would disapprove of it. No more letting women vote, tolerating Jews or atheists, etc. The left does have a terrible blind spot about the war being waged by Islam against the West. The Christian fundamentalists whom the left despises, and the Islamic ones whose barbarism they try to excuse or obfuscate, are different only in degree. Unconventional sexuality, unconventional religious beliefs (or unbelief), freedom of expression, diversity of ideas and ways of living -- all the things the left claims to support are the very things about the West that the Muslim fundamentalists point to as examples of our evil decadence. As the homosexuals in the original posting discovered, its people like them who have the GREATEST stake in the defeat of the enemy in this war. As for the weird claim I constantly hear that moving toward a more hedonistic and de-Christianized society will somehow weaken or destroy America and make us "unable to defend ourselves", remember that the Roman Empire thrived for centuries with its paganism and perversions -- but after it adopted Christianity as its official religion, it collapsed within a few decades.
Posted by C-Serpent @ 05/18/2004 02:50 AM PST
coisty sez: "The US is trying to sell democracy to the Middle East and thus needs to be concerned about the country's image, especially in Iraq. " Sorry, Coisty, but you obviously don't understand at all. The whole reason we're fighting a War On Terror is so that we *don't* have to worry whether or not a bunch of savages approve of our lifestyle.
Posted by Ralph @ 05/18/2004 02:52 AM PST
"the Christian fundamentalists whom the left despises, and the Islamic ones whose barbarism they try to excuse or obfuscate, are different only in degree."
No. The Christian fundamentalist will try to convert you and "save your soul". The Muslim will slowly hack off your head (ala Nick Berg). That's a difference in degree so wide, that the degree becomes a chasm.
Posted by David Layman @ 05/18/2004 03:36 AM PST
My first wife, after 17 years of marriage decided that she liked women better. Gays have always been able to get married. Homosexuality has long been part of middle eastern life. What do you think those women in harems did? What do you think the men do when they can't get women because the rich asshats have all the women in harems? The Qu'ran states that if you conquer someone in battle, that you can do with them as you wish, so homosexuals routinely prick each other with a finger, so that blood flows. Then, with the "battle" complete, they can accomplish their buggery. You see, it is all in the definitions.
Posted by Don M @ 05/18/2004 03:44 AM PST
My first wife, after 17 years of marriage decided that she liked women better. Gays have always been able to get married. Homosexuality has long been part of middle eastern life. What do you think those women in harems did? What do you think the men do when they can't get women because the rich asshats have all the women in harems? The Qu'ran states that if you conquer someone in battle, that you can do with them as you wish, so homosexuals routinely prick each other with a pin, so that blood flows. Then, with the "battle" complete, they can accomplish their buggery. You see, it is all in the definitions.
Posted by Don M @ 05/18/2004 03:44 AM PST
This is the perpetual weakness of the Left. Since all it's grievences boil down to special pleading if you boil long enough, the various groups are at root antagonistic to one another, joined only in their hatred of The Man, these days that generally means George Bush. When there is no Man, they turn on one another. Delicious it would be, if it weren't so dangerous.
Posted by megapotamus @ 05/18/2004 04:49 AM PST
"Should the right to marriage be extended to polygamous relationships? How about incestuous relationships? If no, why not?"
No, because those sorts of relationships are harmful, and often non-consentual. One of the attactions of becoming a suicide bomber is the 72 houris you get. Polygamy makes it much more difficult to find a lover or a wife if you're not on top of the social heap. (And Ghu knows that it's difficult enough for some of us...) In most incetuous pairings, it's an adult taking undue advantage of a child or teenager. Clearly that ain't kosher. Now, if it were two adult cousins that wanted to marry... change your names, then move out of state, as those sorts of folks have always done. What others don't know won't hurt them. Genetically, a one generation hookup between 1st cousins carries less risk of birth defects than in vitro fertilazation. (And for the record, I researched that because I was adopted as an infant & live in a state where you have little to no access to information about your birth parents.)
Posted by Cybrludite @ 05/18/2004 05:03 AM PST
Some people are too stupid to know the difference between their friends and their enemies--and they deserve what they get. For more links that you can follow to political news and views, check out www.allthingspolitical.org. For my rants on the news of the day, check out my Blog, www.allthingspolitical.blogspot.org
Posted by David Broadus @ 05/18/2004 05:19 AM PST
on topic: No, we're the People's Front of Judea, we hate the the People's Judean Front! on tangent: John&ralph;, similar end with slightly different path (more here). In short, there's nothing to stop two (or even more) people of whatever bend from coming together in whatever ceremony they want and coming out the back end calling each other husband and husband or wife and wife or master and slave or whatever title they want for each other. Hell, this is America. I can call myself "Pope" if I want. The question really comes of what legal recognitions the state bestows, and in this regard I have to agree with the wisdom of RAH quoted above. It is not the willing participants of marriage in which the state has an interest, but, rather, the unwilling ones that cannot protect themselves (i.e. children). All meaningful laws that have anything to do with marriage recognize that. It is for this reason that my libertarian tendencies say that the state should generally have no concern with "gay marriage" at all.
Posted by submandave @ 05/18/2004 05:22 AM PST
"No, because those sorts of relationships are harmful, and often non-consentual. ... In most incetuous pairings, it's an adult taking undue advantage of a child or teenager. Clearly that ain't kosher."
The use of "consensual" misses the point. IF one argues homosexual marriage ought to be permitted because (1) it's "natural"; or (2) answers the "basic meaning of life" for the homosexuals, THEN one can clearly argue that for the pedophile or incestuous person, THAT relationship meets one or both of the above stipulations. The stipulation of "consent" is a MORAL stipulation that cannot arise within the sexually libertine framework. It is imported from a morality which the libertine A PRIORI rejects.
In other terms: modern sexual libertines (including homosexuals) want the fun of libertinism, while being protected from the negative consequences of libertinism by a morality they reject.
Posted by David Layman @ 05/18/2004 05:23 AM PST
That's right, David. Once the door is opened for gay marriage, it cannot be closed for everything else.
Posted by Reid @ 05/18/2004 05:27 AM PST
What John, David and Reid said.
Posted by syn @ 05/18/2004 05:38 AM PST
Gay Palestinians actually have sought asylum in Israel where they know that at least amognst the Jewish enemy they will not be persecuted.
Posted by Joel @ 05/18/2004 05:45 AM PST
John VERY excellent diatribe on gay marriage et al. I hope you don't mind but I posted excerpts on another board I frequent in which I seem to be the sole person against gay marriage. On said board, I am frequently called a bigot, a racist and right wing bible beating hate monger. I am none of those things (except for right wing I guess). But gay marriage has become a button pushing issue that I suspect we'll all be addressing in the next few years. I am frequently compared to segregationists- the most intellectually dishonest argument I have thrown at me about gay marriage is in denying "rights" to gays to marry, I am just as responsible for denying people the "right" to engage in interracial marriage (which I have no problem with). My primarily argument against gay marriage is typically that its a state decision rather than a federal decision. State laws allowing or forebidding gay marriage still permit a choice- if you are gay and want to marry, you can go to a state that permits it. If you want all the benefits of gay marriage perpetually, you can move to a state that has a law providing for it. Federalize it, however, and 4% of the population of the US has managed to not only impose its brand of morality on me and everyone else but will force me to subsidize a lifestyle I find morally objectionable through my tax dollars. I have problems with this and for having these problems, I am called very unflattering things. I do not hate homosexuals. I have friends who are homosexual. My fiancee works in the restaurant business and has a numbr of friends, guys and gals who are homosexual. But I have very serious issues with the obvious decline of morality in the US and gay marriage is at the forefront of this decline.
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 06:47 AM PST
Cyberludite's argument is sound. You can ignore it and merely assert that support of gay marriage requires that one has thrown moral constraints out the window, but this doesn't hold water. Support for legal alcohol drinking doesn't mean that one has thrown morality out the window. Support for women's suffrage and interracial marriage didn't commit anyone to support for harming others. The argument for gay marriage merely assumes that we should expand liberty within the constraints of not harming others (whereas incest and polygamy harm others, by causing child neglect and birth defects). You can assert without argument that it assumes that we should expand liberty without any moral constraints at all. But it obviously makes no such assumption. [The requirement of consent] is imported from a morality which the libertine A PRIORI rejects. I've never met a supporter of gay marriage who rejects the traditional morality of not harming others without their consent. Even if you can find one who does, there is no logical connection.
Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 06:49 AM PST
But I have very serious issues with the obvious decline of morality in the US and gay marriage is at the forefront of this decline. Please tell me how two people committing to support each other in sickness and in health, for richers and poorer et al. and spend the rest of their lives together is "immoral?" That doesn't make any sense to me.
Posted by Mike Silverman @ 05/18/2004 07:03 AM PST
WOO HOO! Next we'll have group marriages and interspecies unions! I am yet to hear someone face this question honestly. Marriage is older than the constitution and a lot of other institutions. It is not meant to be "between two loving. caring, yak yak yak...." or any other thing a postmodernist can think up in 5 minutes. It's about a special recognition of the building block of the most basic unit of society-- the family. You can do whatever you want, but don't ask the government to sanction your deviant behavior. In the meanwhile, some brave supporter of gay marriage can now try to convince me that Lassie and John Smith (or Jane, Roger, Alice, Adam and 10 year old Janice) won't be able to marry soon. You wait and see...
Posted by Logical @ 05/18/2004 07:05 AM PST
"whereas incest and polygamy harm others, by causing child neglect and birth defects" Sounds to me like you are engaging in stereotypes. Most incestuous and polygamous folks love their children and would never harm them. Birth defects? There are families up in the hills here that take pride in their six toes as a mark of their family membership (I'm not kidding). Besides, they don't even have to have children. Wouldn't those who promised not to have kids be eligible for marriage, then? Personally, I think you are just foisting your own morality on decent, caring folks and you are nothing better than the bigots who punished interracial relationships for so many years.
Posted by Reid @ 05/18/2004 07:10 AM PST
Seeing some of the posts here, I am shocked -- because I didn't know that the Taliban remnants in their caves had net access. The anonymous character "logical" needs to slap on a turban and he'd be ready to join the Society for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue.
Posted by Mike Silverman @ 05/18/2004 07:21 AM PST
John Moore: Thank you for that excellent and thoughtful post. I have just a couple of points in (sort of) rebuttal (not to turn this into another open-ended discussion on gay marriage, but . . .) 1)The fact that straight marriage is degenerating is not a valid reason to legalize gay marriage. Here, I think you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the argument. Some people who support SSM do indeed phrase the argument like this, which I think is a somewhat weak argument, but I don't think that's what SJ meant, and that's certianly not what I mean when I say stuff like this. It's not an issue of "marriage is already broken so who cares", it's a civil rights/equal protection issue. A heterosexual couple has the right to civil marriage regardless of whether or not they plan to be monogamous. And, in fact, many heterosexual couples, whether they are Hollywood types, or not, actually do enter into "open" marriages. I know people like this. So, if the government is willing to hand out marriage licenses to any heterosexual couple (above age 13 in some states) regardless of the seriousness of their commitment, attitudes towards monogamy etc., a perception that gay married couples will be less serious about fidelity, to me at least, doesn't seem to hold as an argument against gay marriage. Unless we start applying the same standards, legally not just socially, to heterosexual couples, denying civil marriage rights only to gay couples on the basis of this argument would probably be a violation of equal protection and, more fundamnetally, would be unfair and inhumane. My guess, and I think your guess to, would be that a greater proportion of male/male marriages would be non-monogamous than are straight marriages, but lesbian marriages would be far, far more monogamous. The Boston Herald, a conservative newspaper, managed to find one couple that was getting married and explicitly planned not to be monogamous, this was immediately seized upon by Katherine Jean Lopez, and then by commenter "andursonne" above. I've read many other reports of same sex couples getting married in Massachusetts for perfectly conventional, conservative reasons, and with a plan to have a loving, life-long monogamous relationship. Until someone compares the attitudes towards monogamy of all the heterosexual couples who got married in Massachusetts this week versus the gay couples, there's no meaningful evidence to suggest that the gay couples intend to be less monogamous. 2) On the legal issue. We have the DOMA. We have the mini-DOMAs in 38 states. On top of that, I've read a lot of opinions by constitutional experts saying that the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the US Constitution does not apply to marriage. With those three levels of protection stopping a gay marriage in one state from being recognized in another, I don't seen the need for the Amendment. Like the other pro-SSM person above I find myself largely in agreement with you. I would like to see a federal solution, in which gay civil marriage is tried out in a couple of states in which there is support for it. The language of the "Musgrave Amendment", the one being proposed, wouldn't allow this to happen. On the general issue of people who side with groupls that would just as soon kill them, there are Jews who don't support Zionism, Americans who hate America. There are idiots in every group. Perhaps they think that if the side with the enemy they will be spared. I wouldn't make too much of it.
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 07:23 AM PST
I don't understand this "decline in morals" argument . It sounds rather sky-is-falling Chicken Littleish to me. In fact, the younger geneartion, accroding to reports, is beginning to favor celibacy. Similarly, all this tralala I read on here about slippery-slopes seems nonsensical. I haven't heard of one person advocating incestuous marriage. No Oedipus Rights Movement out there I can see. It's a bogus argument and, possibly, just another mask for homophobia.
Posted by J. Stewart @ 05/18/2004 07:24 AM PST
"'[The requirement of consent] is imported from a morality which the libertine A PRIORI rejects.' "I've never met a supporter of gay marriage who rejects the traditional morality of not harming others without their consent. Even if you can find one who does, there is no logical connection." Jim, you totally invert my point. I did not say that supporters of gay marriage reject traditional morality. Exactly the contrary: I specifically noted that they want traditional morality to protect them from the destructive consequences of their non-moral premises. Put another way: they want the CONCLUSIONS of morality, but not the PREMISES. Those premises include the claim that human animal impulses (sex, violence, gluttony) are to be controlled. That premise directly contradicts the homosexualist claim that BECAUSE homosexuality is biologically "natural," THEREFORE it is good. Huh? The whole point of morality is that natural impulses are to be disciplined, controlled, channelled into specific activities. E.g., sexuality is best expressed in a monogamous relationship between an man and a woman, the primary goal of which is to procreate AND nurture children. Homosexuality is contrary to this moral law, since (1) a homosexual relationship has never produced offspring, (2) children are most productively nurtured by a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers. Adoption is beside the point, since it is another example of "sponging off of" a moral belief system that the homosexuals do not endorse. Finally, you say, there is "no logical connection" between a rejection of the morality of consent and advocacy of homosexual marriage. That begs the question. I assert there is, and have provided the framework of argument. It is up to those who disagree to provide counterarguments, not assertions.
Posted by David Layman @ 05/18/2004 07:29 AM PST
Sexuality is best expressed in a monogamous relationship between an man and a woman, the primary goal of which is to procreate AND nurture children. What is the basis for this moral judgment on your part? I am not being facetious, I am asking a serious question?
Posted by Mike Silverman @ 05/18/2004 07:40 AM PST
The irony here is that what the Islamicists most object to about our culture is the stuff that comes from the left--the cultural sewage, the moral relativity, etc., so that oddly enough we go to war to protect their right to produce this garbage against foes who would take it away, and what does the left do? They protest, of course! This is not surprising, as they are the Againsters (as Catherine memorably dubbed them). They define themselves by what they are against (America, the Republicans) and buy into the nonsense that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend. Note particularly Michael Berg's deluded comments about the killers of his son: "They don't know it, but they killed their best friend."
Posted by Pat Curley @ 05/18/2004 07:43 AM PST
David Layman, You haven't argued that there is a logical connection between support for gay marriage and rejection of the requirement of consent. You have merely asserted that there is a connection. The burden is on you to show that "Gay marriage is good" entails "It is okay to harm other people" As for naturalness, I don't care if someone makes that argument. That's not the argument I make. The argument I make is that gay marriage is relevantly similar to interracial marriage and barren marriage: commited, loyal marriages. As for controlling sexual impulses outside of procreation, you'll have to disallow barren marriages. But doing that would be wrong. Moreover, belief that sexual urges ought to be controlled is consistent with support for gay marriage. The purpose of marriage is to seal commitments of loyalty. This is obvious from the fact that there are good marriages which are barren.
Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 07:59 AM PST
I guess I can't say I'm surprised that several persons reactions here has been typical- if you disagree with gay marriage or believe that the lifestyle offends a particular set of cultural, societal or religious moral norms, you are homophobic. It is easy to see why these arguments go nowhere- the immediate argument for those farther left on the spectrum is to immediately accuse those farther on the right of hated, fear and bigotry. Unfortunately, when you immediate draw unfounded conclusions like this, you'll also tend to tune out any of the logical arguments being made. For one thing, I don't believe gay marriage issues are an equal protection issue. Rights cannot be denied by the Consitution but neither can the Constitution be interpreted to extend rights to individuals. From a constitutional perspective, marriage is a right protected by the Constitution and societal values, in place since the writing of the Constitution, have always held that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Activist courts are fond of ignoring the cultural and societal significance in favor of simply looking at the document. The minute you start using the Constitution to extend rights beyond cultural norms, you are on the slipperly slope. While the notion of incest and marriage to a blood relative is repugnant to most of us, how can you possibly argue against it, if you also argue for requiring the federal government to force legalization of gay marriage on all of us. I frequently hear "but incest isn't the same thing" or "incest causes health problems with offspring". Really ? 45% percent of the Aids sufferers in this country are homosexual - only 4% of this country's citizens are homosexual-do the math. *Please tell me how two people committing to support each other in sickness and in health, for richers and poorer et al. and spend the rest of their lives together is "immoral?"* Quite simply, they can do all of those things without having to be married. Homosexuals are not arguing that they can't be together for life (in fact, I am commonly introduced to "life partners")- they are arguing they want the inherent benefits which arise from marriage - tax breaks, health insurance coverage, etc. And the majority of these benefits, you and I pay for in one way or the other. I am not asking you to change your lifestyle if you are homosexual - I realize some of the more right wing hard core religious conservatives advocate that- I'm simply saying that I shouldn't be forced to pay to subsidize a lifestyle that I have serious moral objections to, unless the Constitution already extends protections to said lifestyle. I know it is difficult for some people to believe but not everyone who is against gay marriage hates or fears gays.
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 08:03 AM PST
I'm simply saying that I shouldn't be forced to pay to subsidize a lifestyle that I have serious moral objections to That is not a valid argument...after all, pretty much every person who pays taxes ends up funding something that they would find objectionable...somewhere in the thousands of pages of the federal budget there is something to offend everyone! Also, (and you may have not considered this) gay people pay taxes too, you know! Quite simply, they can do all of those things without having to be married. No, they can't -- that is the problem. With no lgeal relationship, a gay couple is considered under the law to be nothing more then roomates. No legal rights whatsoever. You tell me -- is it moral for two people who have committed their lives together to have no legal benefits at all -- forget social security or whatnot..what about simply making medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, or being able to join finances! If find it sadly ironic that denying me the right to visit my partner in the hospital is considered the morally correct thing to do by some people.
Posted by Mike Silverman @ 05/18/2004 08:23 AM PST
I live in Massachusetts and am a non-religious Republican supporter of the war. I have a sense of humor, I like people of all shapes, sizes, colors and proclivities and like fluffy animals, too. And I oppose Same Sex Marriage. Because I hate homosexuals? No. Because I want to somehow deny them the 'right to love' or some such nonsense? No. I'm opposed to Same Sex Marriage because I don't know where it will lead, and I think it was thrust upon us much too quickly, and I don't think people who say "It won't affect me" are really thinking it through, because it will affect everyone, somehow. How, you ask, how will their marriage affect you? I'm not entirely sure, to tell you the truth, but where everyone else sees blue skies and bouquets, I see some storm clouds gathering. Something fundamental (go ahead and roll your eyes) has just been changed right out from under our feet in a way that, a year ago, NO ONE would have predicted. I resent it, and resent not being allowed to be involved in any sort of way, despite my lifetime status as a member of the 'Commonwealth of Massachusetts'. I resent the Same Sex Marriage rights being hailed as unquestionably equivalent to the Civil Rights blacks fought and suffered for, and the trite implication that I am a racist because I oppose Same Sex Marriage. "It's okay, I guess. It won't affect me." Bullshit. Lines like that are just another way of saying "I can't say I disagree with this because then people will yell at me and call me names." That's what constitutes 'politics' in this 'progressive' age, I guess. I hope more than anyone else that I turn out to be as wrong, bigoted, mean-spirited and paranoid as everyone is so eager to tell me I am. "Everything is Equal." "It's All Good." "It Won't Affect Me." Okay, pal. Happy fishing!
Posted by SkipKent @ 05/18/2004 08:25 AM PST
Matt, some people have serious moral objections to black-white mixed marriages and to interfaith marriages. Yet you require that they subsidize these marriages. As for AIDS, marriage is a commitment of fidelity which would precisely eliminate any risk of AIDS transmission.
Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 08:25 AM PST
Re: Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality, Dogs and Cats Living Together, etc. etc. for the 6 millionth time 1) Polygamy: Jonathan Rauch has a great new argument on this which I saw him use at the American Enterprise Institute. Polygamy is not an issue for the pro-SSM side, because we are not the side that asserts that marriage is only about procreation. (despite the fact that many anti-SSM people, such as Pat Buchanan are in childless marriages, despite the fact that they would have no issue with a heterosexual 80-year-old couple getting married etc. etc.) If you think it's primarily all about procreation, and not about a commitment between two people, then clearly polygamy is the way to go. Polygamy is great for producing offspring. Look at the Saudi Royal Family! The person who thinks marriage is all about procreation is the person who needs to answer the "Why not polygamy?" question, not the person who recognizes that there are dimensions and meanings to marriage more important than and in addition to procreation. 2) Incest. This one is a bit more serious. Someone with a more scientific background, like John Moore, might be able to provide specifics on this, but my understanding is that at this point in time humans are so genetically diverse that even a brother and sister could have a child with little or no greater risk of birth defect. So, clearly the state couldn't stop them from marrying on that basis. Frankly, I'm afraid that I think the state will eventually end up recognizing incestuous marriages between consenting adults. But, this eventuality would still exist, for heterosexual incestuous couples, and this would happen regardless of whether or not there was a movement for SSM. I would be disgusted by these couples. I would find them gross and morally reprehensible, but no more so than I find Woody Alleen, who was allowed to legally marry his much younger step-daughter. But first we need some intellectual honest here to combat the David Laymans of the world, who use sophistry to assert that those on the pro-SSM side are explicitly, conciously on a path to undermine all Western, Judeo-Christian morality. David Layman, I scarcely want to dignify your "argument" by responding to it. It is sophistry, through and through. No one says that homosexuality is natural and therefore is "good". It's natural, so it's neither good nor bad. It's simply . . . natural. John Moore had some very interesting ruminations on how homosexuals could possibly be "made" as opposed to "born", but even he seems to admit that many are simply born. Every narrative I've ever read written by a gay person has said that they "knew from the earliest age" or "always knew" that they were gay, or some similar phrase. Unless you're a far-left "queer theorist" or a true anti-gay bigot, homosexuality isn't good or bad, it just is, much like hair or eye color. As far as I know, all respected social/religious conservatives warrant that some small portion of the population simply is gay. At that point it becomes an issue of figuring out what civil rights these people have. In my opinion, they should be the same as everyone else's. You seem to be suggesting that homosexuality is de facto a perversion, which of course you're free to believe and I scarcely think that gay people would care about convincing you otherwise, but you're not going to have a very good time in this debate. The rest of your sophistry spins out from this central point. Gay people cannot make any claim to morality because simply by being gay they have rejected standard morality yadda yadda yadda. This is ridiculous. Many gays are religious. Many are conservative. Many are Republicans. It would be more honest if the anti-SSM side phrassed their slippery slope type argument in the form of "If we allow SSM, it will inadvertently lead to . . .", which the smarter anti-SSM people do. I also disagree with this formulation but it is more honest and doesn't assume bad faith on the part of the pro-SSM side and omniscience on the part of the commenter. However, the more hysterical Dennis Prager types, take it a step farther and talk as if SSM is a deliberate plot to undermine all conventional standards of morality. That's ridiculous. The worst that could possible be said is that SSM might inadvertently lead to the recognition of some other marriages, such as incestuous marriages between two consenting adults, that are not recognized by the state now. There is no case whatsoever for the assertion that SSM is merely a step in a grand plot to move to incest, then polygamy, then bestiality, etc. etc. There might be a handful of left-wing nutjobs in university humanities departments who would like to see this happen, but there's nothing to indicate that this is the motivation for any significant portion of the gay people who want to get married.
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 08:27 AM PST
As for AIDS, marriage is a commitment of fidelity which would precisely eliminate any risk of AIDS transmission. Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 08:25 I think "eliminate" is the wrong word. There is a lot of infidelity among married couples.
Posted by Teplost @ 05/18/2004 08:29 AM PST
Oh yes, remember everyone, if you oppose Same Sex Marriage, you are a Racist. Commit this to memory, everyone! Opposing Same Sex Marriage is a Hate Crime! (Hey, "It won't affect me!")
Posted by SkipKent @ 05/18/2004 08:33 AM PST
Teplost, Yes.
Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 08:34 AM PST
No, homosexuality is not perversion. No sexual activity between sane, consenting adults should ever be labeled as such, although 'scatology' does give me some pause for consideration. Homosexuality is also NOT IMPORTANT enough a criteria to change the definition of marriage to make allowances for. "But we're NOT changing anything! BUSHtheDEVIL want's to CHANGE the Constitution to keep us out!" Yes, it's true, the Founding Fathers didn't see fit to say "Men can't marry men and women can't marry women," so I guess you've 'got' us there. Only they never said it because they never thought they'd have to. Same Sex Marriage wasn't in their vocabulary any more than 'Intercontinental Cruise Missile' was. If homosexuals want to marry, they can, (marry someone of the opposite sex), just like everyone else. No one is being denied ANYTHING.
Posted by SkipKent @ 05/18/2004 08:42 AM PST
In response to my statement: "Sexuality is best expressed in a monogamous relationship between an man and a woman, the primary goal of which is to procreate AND nurture children,"
Mark Silverman asks:
"What is the basis for this moral judgment on your part? I am not being facetious, I am asking a serious question?" Okay class, gather around:
All things are guided by laws. The sun shines. Planets orbit their stars in predictable orbits. Grass grows. Flowers bloom. Snakes bites. All these things act "automatically." They follow the law of their existence "instinctively." They just do it. Humans also follow laws. We eat. We procreate. We fight other humans (and animals) to survive. We struggle against the natural elements. We create communities. There is one fundamental difference between the "automatic laws" (suns, planets, flowers, snakes) and the "human laws." The sun does not think about whether it ought to shine. The snake does not think about whether to bite. They simply do it. In contrast, humans have the power of reason, reflection, and deliberation. Should I eat this entire box of donuts? Should I attack this human who is threatening me? Just because I instinctively want to eat a dozen donuts doesn't mean I "should." Just because I want to copulate with every female in sight doesn't mean I should. What tells me what I "should" do (not what I "automatically want" to do)? Reason, the human intellect. Now to the point of issue. We naturally copulate. Reason informs me that the point of copulation is to produce children. That is the END or GOAL of sex. Sex that does not lead to its goal is contrary to reason, and therefore, immoral. Please note that we do not blame a snake for biting me. We do blame a person who engages in certain sexual behaviors. The only question is: which ones? Most of us agree that pedophilia is "wrong." Why? It is contrary to the proper end of sex. The only question is: is homosexuality more like pedophilia, or more like the mating of a man or woman INTENDED (aiming for the goal of) procreation. Homosexualists will argue that h.s. is okay, but pedophilia is not okay. My point is that there is no RATIONAL basis for that distinction. The reasons that can justify h.s. can also justify pedophilia (or incest, or polygamy, or ...). Mr Silverman, we both agree that it is possible to make SOME moral judgment on this issue (that is assumed by your question). In other words, just because a person WANTS (for whatever "natural," genetic, biological reason) to engage in homosexual acts, is does NOT follow that it is MORAL to do so. (For the exact same reason that although I WANT to eat 12 donuts, it does not follow that I ought to do so.) So the only question between you and I, Mr. Silver, is what IS the moral standard to be applied here? If the goal of copulation is procreation and nurture (making the babies and then raising them so they can survive on their own--something that snakes, rabbits, and spiders do), then how can we use our REASON to reach that goal most productively and effectively? 1. The goal of sex is not pleasure. Pleasure may be a byproduct, like the byproduct of eating. But it is not the goal. Therefore, any sexual act whose primary goal is pleasure is contrary to the rational law which obligates human beings.
2. Sexual behaviors which are oriented to pleasure or self-gratification will lead to consequences that are destructive of the well-being of the off-spring of any mating. If I commit adultery and my spouse divorces, I can't be around to help raise the children. 3. Monogamy is superior to polygamy, which creates all sort of emotional and psychological tensions between the male and the female members of his harem which destroy the well-being of the children. People who have lived for any time in the middle east have pointed out the destructive consequences of polygamy for women in the society.
3. Children need both male and female role models to develop properly. There is data to indicate that children is same sex relationships are more sexually confused. Children in two-parent families are healthier, experience less violence in the family, and have a reduced risk that they will be either the victim or perpetuator of a crime. Furthermore, children in families where the couples "live together" have more of the characteristics of single-parent families than married-parent families.
Male homosexuals at least, cannot give the stability children need. According to one study (1981), only 2% (TWO PERCENT) of male homosexuals can be classified as EVEN semi-monogamous (defined as having less than 10 lifetime partners).
Female homosexuals may be more stable, but you still have the problem of no male role model.
Time to post this thing.
Posted by David Layman @ 05/18/2004 08:46 AM PST
I consider it intellectually dishonest to quote somebody portions of somebody's sentence and run with it. *I'm simply saying that I shouldn't be forced to pay to subsidize a lifestyle that I have serious moral objections to, unless the Constitution already extends protections to said lifestyle.* Thats the whole sentence. The basis for my objection, primarily, is that the law would have to be changed in EVERY state to extend homosexuals the rights to marry. From what I recall, at least 39 states already have laws which define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Gay activists advocate the requirement that the Federal government recognize gay marriage as being legal, which would trump any state laws to the contrary. I morally object to the worship of Satan. However, religious freedom is protected by the Constitution and Satanist do not recieve government benefits because they are Satanists. I object to folks engaging in sadomachistic behavior- however, the law provides some level of protection for those people under the right to privacy. Also, the the lifestyle of those persons are potentially subsidized by the federal government but not because they are sadomasochists. If Federal law is changed requiring states to legally recognize homosexual marriage, the Federal government (and my tax dollars) will be subsidizing a lifestyle solely on the basis of the fact that a person is gay. Can you point out any other ways in which the Federal government extends protection to a non-traditional lifestyle? *Also, (and you may have not considered this) gay people pay taxes too, you know!* Ok, the sarcasm is just as silly as the intellectual dishonesty. If you want to have a rationale discussion about the topic (which increasingly, I suspect you don't), keep the sarcasm to yourself. *With no lgeal relationship, a gay couple is considered under the law to be nothing more then roomates.* Really? You said "support each other in sickness and in health, for richers and poorer et al. and spend the rest of their lives together is "immoral?"*" How do any of those things require marriage. I can live with a woman and do all of those things. We're talking about legal rights, which almost all go back to the question of government involvement. The only argument I've heard for the necessity for gay marriage is the right to participate in hospital care - however, as I've noted, I have several gay friends and one of the lesbian couples that I'm acquainted with has solved this "problem" by asking me to draw up documents which permit the other to make determination about medical care. Hospitals have never denied them access to each other and while this argument tugs at the heartstrings, it is simply taken care of with a 200 dollar check to a lawyer, or, if you happen to know one, its going to be free. *You tell me -- is it moral for two people who have committed their lives together to have no legal benefits at all -- forget social security or whatnot* Morality plays not part in it. Its legal, however, Because thats exactly what you do with a heterosexual couple who is not married. Or an incestual couple who is not married. Once you extend rights to homosexuals (and here's the important part) in every state, that are not protected under the Constitution, you carrom down the slipperly slope at breakneck speed. Personally, I am not opposed to states making the decision as to whether to allow gay marriages- if Massachuset's legislature, rather than its Courts, was making this determination, you
would hear very little from me on the subject. State legislatures are a better measuring stick for determining the values of a particular state and should not be forced to accept a completely different set of values which may exist elsewhere. *Matt, some people have serious moral objections to black-white mixed marriages and to interfaith marriages. * Ah but the rub is, quite simply, those marriages are allowed because our society recognize the right of any man and any woman, of any faith or color to marry. There is no discrimination which should keep a man and a woman from marrying and I believe the Constitution clearly protects said rights. Indeed, imo, anyone who thinks the law should forbid inter-racial or interfaith marriages should look closely at why they believe this. *As for AIDS, marriage is a commitment of fidelity which would precisely eliminate any risk of AIDS transmission. * Really ? So marriages forces a couple to be monogomous in a way that the lack of marriage cannot ? A commited relationship is all thats required to be monogomous- I have been with my fiancee for 5 years and we have been monogomous without a ring on either of our fingers- why are homosexuals different ?
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 08:51 AM PST
"Homosexualists"!? That's even better than "warmongering vulcans".
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 08:52 AM PST
will not comment on gay marriage. However, I think that the attempted participation of gays in the anti-Semitic/Pro Palestinian rally in London underlines the cultural nihilism that gay marriage movement is based on. I am not that surprised that many gay movement types would fall in line with other progressives on Islamic Fundamentalism. They gay culture, as it has evolved, is itself a culture of suicide. Support for the Palis is no different then how the community treats AIDS. It’s a community disease that no gay man should be allowed to exempt himself from. Since AIDS appeared, the gay leadership has opposed every effective public health measure designed to reduce the spread the disease. Contact tracing is good example. The gay leadership claims it will lead to homophobia but what they really mean is that a known HIV positive man will be ostracized by his fellows who fear infection. Before you cry homophobe, just remember that the late Randy Shiltz said that too. Men engaging in gay sex, whether "protected" or not are playing Russian roulette and they know it. Its not just AIDS it’s a whole variety of potentially fatal sexually transmitted diseases. So if gay men are willing to risk death from sex why would it surprise you that as Progressives they would not choose the Palestinians and Islamic fundamentalists over their own lives. They just want to do the progressive thing.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 08:53 AM PST
Gay people want the legal protections of marriage. They want their lover to be their next of kin, they want health insurance from their employer, some (sadly) want acceptance in some form from society. All the other arguments are iceing, coating and in some cases, I think, a desire to hide the fact that they are simply looking for acceptance. Marriage used to be the basic building block of society. When a man and woman were united in marriage it was part of the bio-survival system. Individuals survived in tribes, families and villages, not on their own (hence why banishment was such a big deal). Today, bio-survival is accomplished by collecting bio-survival tickets (money). There is no longer the need for a organized tribe to survive. There is a corporation that takes care of the needs. Part of marriage was to produce and raise young and grow the tribe. Part of marriage was to give some legal protection to the spouse. (of course, this is all dependant on which marital customs, in which countries, in which centuries).... These things are not of major importance today. Plenty of people marry and never have children, there are laws that protect people equally now, society has changed. Today, marriage is no longer simply the basic unit of society. Marriage is how we determine who gets health coverage, who is next-of-kin, who can get their car insured on a joint policy. I am living with a wonderful woman. I've lived with her for two years and it has been nothing but wonderful. We were both married at one time and the marriages were both terrible and ended badly. They were also a pain in the a** to get out of legally. Two weeks ago she and I performed a handfasting ritual in front of many friends. My dear lover, is not able to get health insurance from my employer. We can't get a multi-car discount on most car insurances, because we're not married. We have to file taxes seperately. etc. So, life is not as easy as it could be for us, because we chose not to "marry" at this time. I'm not complaining, thats a choice, and I am happy with the chioce I made. Gays, until yesterday didn't have the choice. They were simply not able to gain any of the benefits our society hold out today, because of the irrational mess of encumberances we have built around and on top of marriage. The old standard of Common Law Marriages could have fixed these problems. At one time there were two types of marriage, Common Law and Cannon Law. Only the arisotcracy were married by Cannon Law (Church Law), the rest of society were married by Common Law, in fact, if you read the account of Joeseph and Mary in the Bible, you will find that they were married by Common Law as was standard for people in Isreal at the time. Common Law marriage usually has a much lower barrier to entry, two people move in together, publicly claim to be married, meet whatever basic time requirement the local custom holds and bam! All done. Common Law marriages could easily be adapted to cover heterosexual and homosexual unions, granting them the protections of marriage, by accepting their form of marriage, as a form of marriage. Those who wish to maintain that the purist view of marriage, can have that view of Church sanctioned marriages. The state shouldn't really care. When my dearest love and I decide to marry, I do not care if the couple married ahead of us are gay, I don't care if the couple behind us have an open marriage, I don't care if the couple comming in the door are cousins, and I don't even care if the guy and his pet goat sitting in the corner are gonna tie the knot. I will marry her, because I love her and she loves me. For me to even consider that our relationship would somehow be stained by what other people do is demeaning to me, my love and anyone who truly values their partner in life. (The above, of course is an exaggeration. I don't support beastial marriages.) Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 08:55 AM PST
In the time it took to create my posting at 8:46 AM PST, Mr. Eric Deamer wrote:
David Layman, I scarcely want to dignify your "argument" by responding to it. It is sophistry, through and through. No one says that homosexuality is natural and therefore is "good". It's natural, so it's neither good nor bad. It's simply . . . natural. 1. Anyone who asserts that an argument is sophistical, and then cannot (or will not) refute it, is begging the question. Any genuine sophistry can be refuted by reason. 2. So the pro-h.s. argument is simply that "its natural." In the first place, I don't know what Mr. Deamer has thought in the past, but having taught ethics for 7 or 8 years, people DO move from "it's natural" to "it's right." In the second place, in that case, then any arguments that h.s. is "natural" become irrelevant. The argument is not over nature (birds fly, flowers bloom, snakes bite--see my previous post). It is over morality--what SHOULD we do. It is not: are some people homosexual? It is: should people act on homosexual desires/inclinations? Mr. Deamer has conceded the argument: just because the answer to the first question is YES, it does not follow that the answer to the second question is also yes.
Posted by David Layman @ 05/18/2004 09:00 AM PST
Sex that does not lead to its goal is contrary to reason, and therefore, immoral. Let me make sure I understand you. You are claiming that everything which goes against reason (as you define reason) is by definition immoral?
Posted by Mike Silverman @ 05/18/2004 09:02 AM PST
David Layman, Purposes can have no other source than intention. One can intend to have sex for pleasure, and one can intend to have it for procreation. It has both purposes.
Again, you'll have to make barren marriage illegal. But that would be wrong. Matt, I assume that Constitution protects the right to marry anyone of your own race and religion, too. Also, you missed the boat in the point about AIDS. You argued that gay marriage promotes it. I pointed out that it does just the opposite. Jerry, Yes, there are culturally nihilistic freaks on the gay marriage side. Every side of an issue has its freaks.
Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 09:13 AM PST
Mr. Silverman asks:
Let me make sure I understand you. You are claiming that everything which goes against reason (as you define reason) is by definition immoral? "Reason" here means the rational discernment of the moral law, which itself is a manifestation of the law which governs all things. The difference is that (unlike the sun or flowers), SOME of the activities humans engage require reason to discern. Before you disagree, may I point out that you certainly think it wrong for me to use physical violence against a person who is different from me (whether color, nationality, sexual orientation). Now violence is "natural." (It happens in nature all the time). So how do you know that it would be "wrong" for me to be act naturally? Clearly there must be SOME standard. So if the assumptions of the previous paragraph are correct (as I trust they are), then you and I agree on one point: some human activities are "wrong" (i.e., contrary to what we OUGHT to do), even though they are "natural" (what we "naturally" do). Once you grant that point, then the question becomes: how OUGHT humans to express their sexual impulses? You cannot take refuge in "nature," then we have agreed that nature does not answer the question. So to answer your question, Mr. Silverman, YES: by my definition of reason, whatever goes against that reason is immoral (indeed if you look closely, it is tautological: anything that goes against moral reason is by definition immoral). BTW, for those of you who haven't figured this out, all of this was taught 800 years ago by Thomas Aquinas.
Posted by David Layman @ 05/18/2004 09:15 AM PST
jim: You obviously missed the point of my post. It was not about gay marriage. It was about gay and progressive culture. Just as there are Jews for Al Qaeda (Mr. Michael Berg) there are Gays for Al Qaeda. I am willing to be there are a higer percentage of gays marching for Palistine then Jews marching for Palestine.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 09:18 AM PST
David, You make a lot of noise about sex being only for procreation. Does that mean that post-menopausal copuples should no longer engage in sex? Should couples that find out that one of them is unable to procreate take vows of celibacy? What about couples that use birth control because they feel that they are not ready for children... should they not have sex until they're ready to procreate? How about you? Are you married? Do you have sex only during the peak time of your wife's fertility, and then only when you want a child conceived? At the end of the day... how will it affect your marriage? I hear claims about our taxes paying for their benefits, but we're paying for interracial couples, abusive couples, impotent or barren couples... should we give benefits only to couples who are cranking out babies? What about those who are concerned about overpopulation? SHould they not have to support these crazy procreators?! Your arguments are based entirely on opinion and maintaining the status quo in society. Unfortunately, in that way you are just like those who were against desegregation and civil rights. In many cases, it wasn't a fear of Blacks, but a fear of change, of something being UNNATURAL. There were even arguments about them taking our tax monies. You may not be racist, but you are dogmaticly clinging to a set of ideals, because you fear the changes they may bring. Society changes, it always has, it always will. If you stand against change, you'll eventually get run over. Just like the KKK. Ratatosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 09:21 AM PST
Going fast and furious here (got to go to teach pretty soon). Jim says: David Layman, Purposes can have no other source than intention. One can intend to have sex for pleasure, and one can intend to have it for procreation. It has both purposes.
Again, you'll have to make barren marriage illegal. But that would be wrong. Yes, it can have both purposes (pleasure and procreation). But if the ONLY purpose is pleasure, then the primary purpose is lost. (That's why the Catholic Church forbids artificial contraception--it is ARTIFICALLY interfering with the proper goal of copulation. And no, I am NOT RC.) No, this principle does NOT lead to the illegality of barren marriage. The couple is not responsible that "nature"/"god" has blocked their INTENT (openness) to procreate. What matters here is intention, not results (consequences) (that's Kant).
Posted by David Layman @ 05/18/2004 09:22 AM PST
You know that Communists opposed fighting Hitler in WW2 until the Soviet Union was attacked. And Trotskyists were against the war all the way through. They didn't want to support capitalists on either side.
Posted by Michael Kelemen @ 05/18/2004 09:22 AM PST
Jim *I assume that Constitution protects the right to marry anyone of your own race and religion, too.* Right to marriage falls under right to privacy. My point was thus (and I thought I had already made it but I don't mind typing it out again)- Federal legalization of gay marriage effectively overrules both the cultural and societal standards we've been living by for 200+ years (ie marriage is between a man and a woman) and effectively negates the law of 39 different states which recognize marriage between a man and a woman. *Also, you missed the boat in the point about AIDS. You argued that gay marriage promotes it. I pointed out that it does just the opposite.* I'm not sure you understood my point- which was this- I have frequently argued with pro-SS marriage folks, that technically, Courts should also allow for incestual marriage, as all alternative non-traditional lifestyles should be given equal weight. The argument frequently thrown back in my face is that incest has significant negative medical consequences whereas homosexuality does not. I disagree, based on the statistics I've posted on AIDS sufferers. I suppose I should have taken the next steop in the argument- that by legalizing gay marriage, you are encouraging a population to accept and/or take on a homosexual lifestyle, which could potentially lead to the wider spread of AIDS. Now I freely admit, this is not a slamdunk argument. However, neither is your assertion that marriage would keep gay couples monogomous.
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 09:23 AM PST
BTW, for those of you who haven't figured this out, all of this was taught 800 years ago by Thomas Aquinas. All in favor of using Thomist reasoning to decide 2004's political/social policy debates please raise their right hand? Okay dude. We get it. Yes, your system is self-consistent, but this is exceedingly weak stuff vis a vis the issue at hand, primarily because: a) The United States isn't a Catholic theocracy, and b) The Summa Theologica isn't a founding document of the United States. A stronger argument might reference oh, I don't know, the Federalist Papers, the US Constitution, you know, a work that has something or other to do with the history and legal traditions of this country. This is the worst group of anti-SSM commenters we've had yet, primarily because jerry has opted out and John Moore isn't around.
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 09:25 AM PST
"BTW, for those of you who haven't figured this out, all of this was taught 800 years ago by Thomas Aquinas." He also believed that the world was flat, the sun went around the earth and that the earth was the center of the universe. Obviously, he's completely trustworthy.
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 09:26 AM PST
Mr. Layman: Mr. Silverman, as well as anyone else who makes a similar argument, does not believe as you do that using violence against someone different from you is wrong. Oh they will say so but they don't really believe it because they are caught up in the noble savage mindset of Jena Jacque Rousseau. Society corrupts the perfect state of primitive nature. They are moral relativists. If it exists in nature it is good. Societal constraints corrupt this state and cause all sorts of pathologies like racism, sexism, ageism and homophobia. You on the other had would agree with Hobbes and Locke, that is, the state of nature is solitary, brutal, poor, nasty and short because of the intrinsic corruption caused by original sin. The state and moral law are designed to ameliorate the effects of sin. Otherwise we have a war of all against all. For those who believe in the Noble Savage governed by reason I give you Somalia.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 09:27 AM PST
David Layman, There is no evidence that there is a God who wishes only preocreative sex. You can't base your argument on that unfounded premise. Jerry, Point taken and agreed. I'm a conservative and I hate nihilism.
Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 09:30 AM PST
Mr. Silverman, as well as anyone else who makes a similar argument, does not believe as you do that using violence against someone different from you is wrong. Oh they will say so but they don't really believe it because they are caught up in the noble savage mindset of Jena Jacque Rousseau. Society corrupts the perfect state of primitive nature. They are moral relativists. If it exists in nature it is good. Societal constraints corrupt this state and cause all sorts of pathologies like racism, sexism, ageism and homophobia. jerry, you simply must teach us all this mind-reading/omniscience trick of yours when you get a chance.
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 09:31 AM PST
Eek! I agreed with Jerry's previous point that the gay marriage movement has a lot of nihilists. I do not agree that Mike Silverman is a moral relativist Enlightenment liberal. He may be. I have no idea.
Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 09:33 AM PST
*Great Gods and Monkeys I'm on the Same Side as Eric in an Argument* ;-) Matt, Why should I care if cousins marry? Why should I care if Brother and Sister marry? As long as they choose to do such of their own free will, what buisiness is it of mine? "It's been this way for 200 years!" So? 200 years ago, they weren't far removed from burning witches at the stake. George Washington grew Marijuana, and black people were slaves. A lot can change in 200 years, in fact, if things didn't change in 200 years, we'd be stagnant and likely have collapsed as a civilization. There were laws in many states about blacks, was it wrong to change them since they had been that way for many years and the majority of the state felt it was moral and justifiable? 'Tosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 09:33 AM PST
jim: Nor is there evidance that there isn't. However, some would argue that the bible is the expression of the will of God and that is sufficient evidence. I happen to be a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod so I take the bible at the word of God. I know one hting for certian, that the word tells me that marriage is for men and women, not men and men or women and women. This is my only comment on the issue. I have run it to death over the last several episodes on Roger's blog.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 09:34 AM PST
Tosk: Give a choice between gay marriage and gay freedom and the triumph of anti-Western Islamic fundamentalism, progressive will choose the later over the former any day. Get with the program.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 09:36 AM PST
I know one thing for certian, that the word tells me that marriage is for men and women, not men and men or women and women. I am a Mulsim and the Holy Quran tells me that marriage is for Muslim and Muslim not Muslim and Kaffir. The Holy Quran also tells me that I may take many wives if I choose. Why won't the government reflect my religious beliefs in its laws?
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 09:40 AM PST
David Layman, There is no evidence that there is a God who wishes only preocreative sex. You can't base your argument on that unfounded premise. Posted by Jim What unfounded premise? I don't think I invoked god (except at one point I implied that "god" may be another word for "nature"). No evidence? I think I provided a total of about 12 inches of column space of ARGUMENT. Well, I have to go. It's been fun.
Posted by David Layman @ 05/18/2004 09:41 AM PST
Jerry, You can accept the Bible as the Will of God all you want. It won't change the fact, that much of it was plagerized as was much of the whole Christian religion. However, I will fight to the death to support you believing it, if its the spiritual system you relate to. I won't support you using it as some moral compass to herd the rest of our society with. In the book, Christ didn't impose his views on the Jews, he let the people that were desirous come to him and learn from him. Some came and heard and left, he didn't strike them down or force them to change. He didn't lobby the Roman government, neither did his apostles. The preached to people and let people make up their own minds. Of course, its a rare christian today who understands such things. God forfend you let people make their own damned decisions without the Holy Spirit directing it.
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 09:46 AM PST
"remember that the Roman Empire thrived for centuries with its paganism and perversions -- but after it adopted Christianity as its official religion, it collapsed within a few decades." Not exactly a few decades, but who is counting. It is more likely that Christianity was embrassed by a population whoose moral compass had been totally obliterated by the perversions and corruptions that extended from the great to the little.
Posted by garrett @ 05/18/2004 09:49 AM PST
Matt and others are correct about gay marriage when they say that(among men) it will not prevent the spread of AIDS,...it will in fact, increase it. This is fact. Homosexual men in SF haven't reduced their promiscuity one iota, since AIDS first hit the scene ( early 1980's). I was told at that time (by our infectious disease doctor where I work):
" This is only the tip of the iceberg". How right he was.
To me, 'gay marriage' is a direct violation of the marriage covenant, but I don't want to risk being called a 'right-wing, religious zealot', so I won't elaborate. Suffice it to say that I think this whole issue is an assault on the family as well.
Hope all are having a blessed day.
Posted by Scout @ 05/18/2004 09:51 AM PST
"Give a choice between gay marriage and gay freedom and the triumph of anti-Western Islamic fundamentalism, progressive will choose the later over the former any day. Get with the program." What in the hell is that? Lets take two unrelated issues and make them an either/or formula... Not only is it a completely disjointed comparison, I don't know of any prograssive who would say "Let's support Islam instead of Gays". Finally, what the hell kind of response was that? I said nothing at all about Islam in any of my posts... are you taking hard drugs again? You really should cut down on the smack Tosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 09:53 AM PST
According to recent reports: "Astronomers in Australia say there are 10 times more stars in the visible Universe than all the grains of sand on the world's beaches and deserts." Yet some on here persist in saying their vision of God dictates that on one virtually microscopic planet only opposite sexes may marry. Busy deity this God.
Posted by 60 sextillion stars @ 05/18/2004 09:59 AM PST
Christianity was embarassed.... ha. Was that the same Christianity that adopted many pagan holidays in order to convert people? I forget. Or was it the Christianity that was based on the gospels plagerized from earlier Theraputian writings? Oh, maybe it was the Christianity that supported the Crusades and the Inquisition... the christianity that burned people alive for making readable copies of the bible. If it wasn't them, maybe it was the Christianity which was presided over by one corrupt Pope after another... Christianity was embarassed by the Romans? Dear Ancient of Days, if they were embarassed by the Romans, they must have nearly melted through the floor when confronted with the next 1700 years of existance. Have a blessed day. (Even if you believe in a different Invisible man than I do) Ratatosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 10:01 AM PST
Rat: Despite several the several spats we have had I find your much more simpatico then our friend Eric here. I will give a non-religious argument about morality in general. Morality is a public good. I mean this in the economic sense not good and bad. Morality, like all public goods, creates "free riders" and not enough of that good is produced to satisfy society's requirements. The resulting corruption leads to ultimate breakdown in social cohesion with its attendant social ills. Now our friend Eric provides a good example of the moral free rider. He relies on the western Judeo-Christian morality to ensure that people are treated "fairly" and can live happily ever after. Unfortunately what happens in such societies is that they begin to lose a long established cultural heritage and may become incapable of reproducing itself in the future. Having no future, the members of that society have will not resist those who seek to destroy them...See Europe. As Boris Yeltsin, the last Lion of the 20th Century, said civil society is not possible with out God. He meant the Judeo-Christian God. Eric: I don’t care to debate gay marriage. However, since you tried your little syllogism I will point out that it’s still a male Muslim married to one or more female Muslims. Your view of toleration has a strong feel of coercion to it.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 10:02 AM PST
stars: However, the odds are that at any one moment in cosmic time only a handful have any form of life. So he's not so busy. However, since he did create laws of the universe its pretty much on autopilot anyway.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 10:04 AM PST
*Why should I care if cousins marry? Why should I care if Brother and Sister marry? As long as they choose to do such of their own free will, what buisiness is it of mine?* Hmmm. I'm not sure if its your business or my business. However, the law cares. There are laws prohibiting incestual relations, much less marriage, in most states. Laws are typically a reflection of the standards of a populace. Laws forbidding homosexuality were struck down on Constitutional grounds - I've read the opinions and I agree with the SC's reasoning on Bowers v. Hardwick and its progeny. Essentially, I disagree with the law forbidding a certain lifestyle because for the most part, I don't care what people do in their own home. Again, I am viewing this from both a Constitutional and cultural perspective- I've seen statistics which indicate 70% of the citzenry are against gay marriage. Somewhere around 55% oppose civil unions in the last polls I've seen. Can you honestly tell 75% of the population that its wrong and the law should be change? SO lets address your point about slavery. Slavery was about money, not about any type of moral high ground which allowed the keeping of slaves. Slave owners didnt't find freeing slaves "morally objectionable"- they found it economically and culturally objectionable. Any attempts to use morality or religion to justfiy the keeping of slaves was nothing but pretext with little foundation to stand on. The Civil Rights Movement has based its work on the rule of law that every citizen has the same rights. I agree with this premise. However, nowhere in the Constitution are special rights extended to a certain class of people based solely on their sexual preference- and essnetially, that is the very argument behind the SSM movement. And Eric, I'm very sorry you don't find any of the anti-SSM arguments made here compelling- however, considering you're a muslim and yet apparently arguing in favor of same sex marriages, I'd venture a guess that you are a very confused person, given that Islam is not exactly known for its tolerance.
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 10:11 AM PST
Jerry, Morals do not have to be Judeo-Christian morals. They are not the only morals that society can be built on, they are not the only morals that democracy can live on. Hell, democracy is far older than Christianity. You are right that morals = laws = order in society. The problem is that you see only Judeo-Christian Morals = laws = order in society, when in fact morals are simply the agreed upon acceptable acts in any society. This is the problem. There are many other views of morals, to claim that your are Right is to stick your head in the sand. You have a spiritual framework that defines morals, I have a very different spiritual framework that has very different definations for morals. Do you assume that yours are somehow MOR RIGHT? Tosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 10:12 AM PST
rat: Just found a post directed at me. I was vaguely under the impression that Roger started this threat to talk about the LGF piece on the reception that "Gays for Palestine" received in London and not gay marriage. So sorry if I was mistaken that this was about Islam and Progressives and not another gay marriage thread.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 10:13 AM PST
Jerry, no one is stopping you from believing in your God and living your life according to your religious beliefs. BUT...there is NO proof ANY god(s) even exist. So all your arguments are inconsequential to anyone who isn't already one of your faith. As for your response to stars, it's just laughable.
Posted by SJ @ 05/18/2004 10:14 AM PST
Rat: I like our little discussion... You are absolutely right. The Nazis had one morality, the Communists had a different, though related, one. So do the Islamic fundamentalists, and so did the Aztecs. Now which was right. All? None? or it doesn't really matter? Perhaps, I could live with any moral system as long as it doesn't result in a bad end for me. Oh my, how do I know that one I choose will not come back and bite me? Solution: John Rawls' maximin solution. I think that the Western Judeo-Christian based morality ensures the best-worst outcome. So I will go with Yeltsin's Law. Eric: How do I know that Mr.: Silverman is arguing for the Noble Savage? Because he uses Rousseau's argument about nature that is why.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 10:22 AM PST
Matt, Yes, I do know that there are laws against incest etc. An earlier argument said that legalizing SSM was the slippery slope that would lead to legalizing incest. My response was that I don't care if incest is legal or not. If they want to, let 'em. If the gay people want to marry, let 'em. What business is it of anyone else? Show me where the legalization of Gay Marriage affects the Life, Liberty or Persuit of Happiness of other people and I will stand against it. Note that some crazy Christian saying that they can live a happy life if other people aren't doing God will is not a valid example. Neither is "AIDS". People are going to have sex. Men, women, and children. AIDS will spread because people aren't careful, and some percentage (as has often been the case)of people are not monogamous. It doesn't matter if the penis is going into a vagina or an anus. Irresponsible sex is irresponsible sex. Tosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 10:24 AM PST
SJ: You said "As for your response to stars, it's just laughable." This shows that you have absolutely no understanding of modern Cosmology or modern neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory. I recommend, "Physics and the Mind of God" and "About Time" By Professor Paul Davies and "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Dr. Richard Dawkins. You might even try "Self Organization in Non-Equillibrium Systems" by Dr. Nicolis Prigogine.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 10:28 AM PST
Jerry, re: the confusing islam post. The thread initially was about that subject, my question was why the hell you directed it to me, assumed that somehow I wasn't "with the program" and was ludicrious in its content... gay rights and the sucess of Islamfacists are not related, they are not either/or, your post was not logical. Hence my response. Also, I'm glad that you think you have a moral compass that will work out best for everyone involved. However, I disagree. The Judeo-Christian Morality has committed numerous atrocities throught its history and found moral refuge for it all. Your examples, were examples of extremists views (which is maybe fair, considering that Christian morals are pretty extremist as well). As for Yeltsin, I'm not sure I'd subscribe to any Law he made up... last time I checked he was a human and just as likely to be confused as the rest of us. Tosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 10:31 AM PST
Jerry, I think the laughable part of your stars post had more to do with the summation which presumes that God (Yehwah) exists, not the idea that most planets are devoid of life. Tosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 10:35 AM PST
*An earlier argument said that legalizing SSM was the slippery slope that would lead to legalizing incest* I disagree that was the point of my example. The point was, it *could* lead to incest. And technically, if we're going to make any lifestyle legitimate, despite any opposition to the contrary, we should also legalize pedophilia, necrophilia and any other sexual preference based alternative lifestyle which is currently illegal. You say you don't care of incestual marriage is made legal ? Really ? How about pedophilia ? Where do you draw the line ? I draw the line at homosexuality. Heck, I'd even say that for me, homosexuality is a grey area- imo, its morally wrong but I think homosexuals should have the right to do what they want in their own home. There is no grey area in my mind for pedophiles. But whats the difference ? *Show me where the legalization of Gay Marriage affects the Life, Liberty or Persuit of Happiness of other people and I will stand against it. * Its a monetary consideration. If the Federal government legalizing gay marriage, we all pay for it. Healthcare organizations will be required to cover gay couples (by law), SSI benefits will have to be extended, disability benefits, death benefits, et al. There is a significant economic cost. Not to mention, a moral cost. Honestly, your declaration about "Crazy Christians" speaks volumes about where you stand in this fight. You object to any moral line drawn by anyone that you don't agree with - isn't that an accurate statement ? But consider this - last study I looked at (I want to say it was done in 2002) showed that 78% of the US citizenry described themselves as Protestant or Catholic. The majority of churches in this nation, at least those which adhere to Biblical priniciples, will tell you that they are opposed to gay marriages. So do you not see that by forcing 78% of the population to not only accept (which has already been demanded and acquiseced to) but subsidize a lifestyle they find morally objectionable IS denying their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, in a fashion. *AIDS will spread because people aren't careful, and some percentage (as has often been the case)of people are not monogamous. It doesn't matter if the penis is going into a vagina or an anus. * Again, I can only cite you to statistics showing that 45% of the AIDS sufferers in the US are homosexual and the homosexual population makes up only 4% of the US population. Homosexuals are at greater risk for the transmission of HIV then any other group of people in America (except, perhaps, those using used needles- I'd have to hunt for the stats). That doesn't say something to you ?
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 10:37 AM PST
As a follow-up, for those of you saying that Judeo-Christian ideals should not be the norm, what do you think made the basis of this country's law (and the basis of English law)? Do a google search for Thomas Jefferson and read his thoughts on religion and its place in the laws of the land.
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 10:38 AM PST
tosk: Boris is never confused, He drinks too much vodka for that. Judeo-Christian moral precepts have a "Catch 22" Its called Original Sin, that is the inate corruptness of the soul. So no wonder bad things are done by Christians. At least we know that they are bad. Well, to paraphrase Churchill, Judeo-Christian morality is the worst form of moraltiy, except for all the other forms that have been tried.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 10:39 AM PST
For the irony-impaired the post where I said "I'm a Muslim" was a reductio ad absurdum meant to show a bad result from basing a legal definition of marriage on some subset of the population's religious conception of marriage, which jerry, and Lord knows what proportion of the anti-SSM movement does. I'm not Muslim (nor am I Jewish or Christian or anything else if it matters), and am well aware that Islam is intolerant towards . . .well, just about everyone, which is why these gay pro-Palestinians are so misguided, much like anti-Israel Jews and anti-American Americans. jerry feels that a greater proprtion of gays are likely to have pro-Palestinian /anti-Israel views than the proportion of Jews that do. I don't know that he's wrong, but he's offered no evidence to support his claim.
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 10:46 AM PST
I do not agree that Mike Silverman is a moral relativist Enlightenment liberal. He may be. I have no idea. For the record, I do not believe in moral relativism. I believe that humans make moral choices, and that these choices can be right or wrong. A key element in morality is choice. Even my opponents on the gay marriage issue probably agree with me to this point. Where we disagree is on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I see a homosexual sexual orientation as a morally neutral, unremarkable physiological trait on the same level of handedness or eye color. Obviously, individual behavioral choices do have a moral component, but the choices I believe are immoral are choices which can be made by any human no matter what their sexual orientation is (such as rape, murder, etc). As to same-sex marriage, I find this to be a moral good, because society has an interest in supporting two adults who wish to make a lifelong commitment to each other. Married couples are more likely to drive safely, own a home, take an interest in their community, stabilize their neighborhood, and are much less likely to need the financial assistance of the welfare state.
Posted by Mike Silverman @ 05/18/2004 10:53 AM PST
Eric: How about voting patterns. Gays and Lesbians vote overwhelmingly Democratic and most their favorite candidates are on the far left. I know that there are many Andrew Sullivans out there. I know you don't believe in anything. It is probably easy enough for you to oppose gay marriage as it is to support it. Its fashionable and "tolerant" to support today. Who knows? Tomorrow it might be fashionable to shoot to gays in the street. Who is to say one opinion is better then another. I, on the otherhand, find it both immoral to have gay marriage and to shoot gays (or anybody else) down on the street. You, Mr. Deamer, are a good example of a moral free rider. Your safety and freedom depends on people like me to ensure that some limits are placed upon immoral acts.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 10:59 AM PST
So now we've come back around to Nietzsche: If you don't believe in God, meaning, it seems, specifically the Judeo-Christian God, you can't have any morality. I think that's wrong. I base that on the amount of horribly immoral people who believe in the Judeo-Christian God, on the presence of legal/moral systems in non-Judeo-Christian societies, and on the existence of secular systems of ethics from Plato/Socrates to Aristotle to Kant's categorial imperative to Rawls (referenced above) and countless others. I suppose, for the sake of argument, jerry et al, could be right. That is to say, that the only reason I behave in a moral fashion whatsoever is that I have unconciously been inculcated with the prevailing Judeo-Christian values of my society, that I am indeed a "free rider". Well, if that's the case, would you all prefer it if all of us "secularists" or "heathens" (both things I've been called by the loving Christians of this comment board, btw) had the courage of our (imagined lack of) convinctions and started behaving like amoral animals? I've seen various assertions that all sorts of things not even remotely related to sexual orientation or gay marriage some how follow from one's opinion on such matters. That is: Those who are pro-SSM are automatically terror-appeasing, anti-Zionist, lefties, are people with no moral compass etc. etc. If there are inviduals who disprove that thesis (Jonathan Rauch, Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks, Roger L. Simon etc. etc.) you seem to almost wish for them not to. Can we just assume in good faith that people, through whatever strange combination of circumstances, can be "good people" whether or not they believe in the same interpretation of the same religion that you do? Or is that even too much of a conciliatory gesture in the culture wars? Maybe you're right jerry, maybe I'm a "free rider" on a Judeo-Christian moral/ethical system, which I otherwise don't subscribe to? What then, Should I give up the farce and start acting amorally, or should I convert right now? The rhetoric here is getting a bit ridiculous.
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 11:03 AM PST
Mike: Gays have some of lowest welfare rates in society at least until they contract AIDS or other serious sexually transmitted disease. The increase in the welfare rolls comes from single women with no skills getting pregnant by various men with only welfare to support them. Since Gay unions do not produce children it is unlikely that gay marriage will have any affect welfare rates. Stanly Kurtz has already refuted the marriaging affirming thesis for gay marriage. Even Andrew Sullivan has dropped that line of reasoning.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 11:04 AM PST
*For the irony-impaired the post where I said "I'm a Muslim" was a reductio ad absurdum* As previously noted, perhaps you should spent less time being ironic and sarcastic (as neither translates particularly well on an internet message board) and more time making useful points.
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 11:05 AM PST
Tosk, thanks for clarifying what I meant was laughable. I should have guessed Jerry would misinterpret.
Matt, if you're going to start invoking the Christian ideals of the Founding Fathers, you might want to do a little more reading about the tradition of secularism in this country. Here's a link to a review of a new particularly pertinent book (one of many) on the subject. It's called "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, by Susan Jacoby.
http://www.newsday.com/features/booksmags/ny-bkjacoby0516,0,2943544.story
Posted by SJ @ 05/18/2004 11:06 AM PST
ou say you don't care of incestual marriage is made legal ? Really ? How about pedophilia ? Where do you draw the line ? I draw the line at homosexuality. Heck, I'd even say that for me, homosexuality is a grey area- imo, its morally wrong but I think homosexuals should have the right to do what they want in their own home. There is no grey area in my mind for pedophiles. But whats the difference ? Is it really that difficult for you to differentiate between the act of two people(be those people male, female or cousins), old enough to be responsible for their own actions, engaging in a relationship and an adult taking advantage of a child, scarring them mentally and sometimes harming them physically? Is your fundamental reasoning ability so crusted with your religious dogma that you are unable to see a difference in willing choices and unwilling rape? If so, then I recommend you spend some time looking for straws in your eyes before you start talking about any rafters impinging on the ocular abilites of others. You also said: "Its a monetary consideration. If the Federal government legalizing gay marriage, we all pay for it." So? We pay for lots of things... I'd love a government where your tax form came with a checklist so your tax monies could only go where you wanted them to... but thats not how taxes work here. Yes, there would be more married couples getting benefits from the taxes we pay.... but how is that different that the gay people currently paying taxes for heterosexual marriages? Or couples that choose not to marry, having to pay for married couples? Your argument doesn't stand up to scrutinty, but when does that ever stop the Christian? And he continued: "Honestly, your declaration about "Crazy Christians" speaks volumes about where you stand in this fight. You object to any moral line drawn by anyone that you don't agree with - isn't that an accurate statement ?" No that is not an accurate statement. I object to any moral line drawn by the religious beliefs of some, in order to inflict their morals on everyone else. Let me say it more bluntly: "Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy and don't give each other crap." or "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." In your AIDS argument, you miss out completely on a number of factors. Factor One, the earliest outbreaks of AIDS were in the gay community. This is due (many think) to the fact that the initial carrier to the US was a promiscous gay. The infections and spread of the disease went unchecked for quite some time, because no one really knew or understood the implications of the illness. Pointing out that more of the initial group infected are infected than other groups is simply bad logic. Finally Matt, Do you really want to have a conversation with me about the founding fathers and their view of religion in government? If so, I'm afraid a lot of your fantasies will be popped like a balloon. Ratatosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 11:09 AM PST
Eric: What I am asserting is that you are free to act and behave anyway you choose. However, it would be nice if you admitted that you were in fact exploiting the system to maximize your own pleasures what ever they me be. Ever bother reading Camile Paglia? She is pretty queer in her own way. But she also is big supporter of bourgeoisie morality in her own way. Oh by the way, Sullivan is a conservative, not a lefty
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 11:11 AM PST
Oy vey! Always with the incest and the pedophilia and the bestiality and the necrophilia! What is it with you conservative Christians? Do you honestly believe that the only thing stopping an epidemic of these acts is the law and Judeo-Christian morality? The law and religious beliefs haven't stopped plenty of other things. THe reason these behaviors are not rampant is because the vast majority of people around the world have zero interest in engaging in them. When you try to use them in a slippery sloope argument, it only makes you guys seem like the ones with the unnatural urges.
Posted by SJ @ 05/18/2004 11:18 AM PST
jerry: Yes, I know who all of those people are and have read them extensively, seen them speak etc. On top of being self-righteous and over-bearing you've added intellecutal condescension. However, it would be nice if you admitted that you were in fact exploiting the system to maximize your own pleasures what ever they me be. You're the second Christian, after your buddy bdog, who's felt qualified to make these kind of judgements and assumptions without knowing anything about me. Maybe you should stop worrying about the mote in my eye and concentrate on the beam of wood in yours. It was wrong of me to make any assumptions about "DennisthePeasant" many threads ago, and it's wrong of you to make these sweeping assumptions here.
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 11:18 AM PST
Stanly Kurtz has already refuted the marriaging affirming thesis for gay marriage. Even Andrew Sullivan has dropped that line of reasoning. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you opposed to my argument that it is in society's interest to encourage monogamous pair-bonding?
Posted by Mike Silverman @ 05/18/2004 11:18 AM PST
rat: If you have read "The Band Played On” You wouldn't be making that argument if you did. Randy Shiltz was pretty pointed on the failure of the gay leadership early on to do anything to stop it. They didn't want to end the party and more over they saw it as an opportunity to gain sympathy and acceptance. The fact that we are having this conversation is a good indicator of their success in converting a STD into an asset. There are basicly two kinds of people who get AIDS in the US: Male Homosexuals and intravenous drug users. There is a lot of shifting in the stats. A gay heroine addict gets counted under IV not under gay. We have had your founding fathers argument before. You used highly selective quotes and even misinterpreted those so lets not go there.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 11:19 AM PST
"Your safety and freedom depends on people like me to ensure that some limits are placed upon immoral acts." Whoo Hoo, another example of some Christians have far too little history and far too much communion wine! Many countries and societies have done just fine without a Judeo-Christian moral compass. Sad to see them so fooled, is it any wonder they are called sheep? Tosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 11:21 AM PST
I'd like to step in here as referee. I don't know Eric Deamer personally, but I have corresponded with him numerous times and read his blog. He seems like a completely normal and moral person. Ad hominem attacks and weird presumptions about who people are and what they do are off limits on here. Stick to the arguments.
Posted by Roger @ 05/18/2004 11:23 AM PST
Eric: You condecending then I am. In fact you are down right nasty compared to me. I am can have a lot of fun here. You bring little joy to these discussions. You have too much "Sturm und Drang". Matt: Monogomous pair-bonding can occur whether you are married are not. It is unlikely that homosexuals who did not have such relationship before today will have one after today simply because of a piece of paper.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 11:24 AM PST
Will someone please explain to me what AIDS has to do with the issue of SSM?
Posted by SJ @ 05/18/2004 11:25 AM PST
Roger: I don't think I am make Ad Hominem attacks. But I will the drop the issue if you wish.
Posted by jery @ 05/18/2004 11:25 AM PST
Tosk,
You are correct in asserting that morals do not have to be Judeo-Christian morals. In effect, you have conceded that morals do exist and are used as a valid system for conducting daily affairs. Yours and mine may differ, but that does not invalidate them. SJ, A brief example:
*You wake up in the morning. Your body tells you to evacuate itself. You do so. Afterwards, you proceed to eat breakfast (which your body also told you to do). This food is perfectly metabolized by your body- the good is used, the bad is tossed. * This is a daily occurrence for you (and billions of others)...no proof of God? If God himself were to appear to you, it would not be enough to prove to you His existence. Furthermore, you can't prove his non-existence, so let it go. John, Reid,
Excellent points. I loved it. Reid, I've been asking the same questions for a long time with no response. Mike, What is the basis for this moral judgment on your part? I am not being facetious, I am asking a serious question? The question becomes more pertinent when you ask it of yourself. Christians have a source for their beliefs. It is easily referenced and speaks plainly on these issues. I don't have a copy of the reference material which you use as a foundation for your moral beliefs. Do you have one? No, they can't -- that is the problem. With no lgeal relationship, a gay couple is considered under the law to be nothing more then roomates. No legal rights whatsoever. You tell me -- is it moral for two people who have committed their lives together to have no legal benefits at all -- forget social security or whatnot..what about simply making medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, or being able to join finances! If find it sadly ironic that denying me the right to visit my partner in the hospital is considered the morally correct thing to do by some people. Absolutely false. There is power of attorney. There are wills. I find it hard to believe that you are ignorant of the existence of such legal arrangements. Your absolutism undermines the valid points in your argument. The valid point is that decisions shouldn't be based solely on one person's beliefs system. I agree. All SSM supporters,
What is the purpose of SSM? I've heard arguments, and they run thus: 1. It's the "right" thing to do (have you no heart?), and it doesn't hurt anyone.
2. Acceptance.
3. Financial reimbursement by the government for this relationship. 1. Isn't my side the one being accused of trying to impose morals on the other side? The first clause is a moral judgement. The second clause is not based on empirical data and can not be readily verified. Thus, slowing down the process of legalization for SSM is probably a good idea (a slow, even approach is usual the best way to implement a new institution...at least, this is how it works best in engineering). I would recommend the constitutional process either way (for or against SSM). 2. The #1 reason for SSM and the worst of the lot. Many financial and other benefits can be obtained through legal channels. Many employers now provide insurance benefits for their employees' significant others (regardless of orientation). Monogamy does not require a license. Homosexuals merely want to be accepted as "normal" (despite the fact that they "can't help themselves". Lack of self-control is now promoted as "natural"...which is only a step away from "right" as someone pointed out above. Vice has been turned into virtue). 3. I will accept the fact that the gov't wants my tax dollars to support SSM when it is legalized through an amendment. I won't like it, though (this wouldn't stop me from paying taxes, BTW). This movement conflates rights and priveleges. The "right" to marry is really the "privelege" to marry. Much like the "right" to vote is the "privelege" to vote. The one obtaining the privelege (and all parties involved) must meet certain qualifications before the privelege is granted. This movement also conflates rights and outcomes. Homosexuals want the "right" to marry so that they can be "just like straights". I just don't see this is a valid reason for altering a centuries-old institution which has suddenly become "intolerant" in the eyes of some (an institution with a verifiably excellent track record). Reasons against SSM? 1. Legal precedent.
2. Cultural precedent. 1. SSM proponents seem to be incapable of explaining how the institution of SSM will preclude the institution of legalized polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc. They can't explain why these are wrong, either (without using their nebulous "morals"..."morals" which do not have a reference to any document, creed, tome, etc.). From all the arguments I've heard, there is no way to stop these other relationships from being established should SSM be instituted. This goes back to my "x=1", "y=1" statement. You simply cannot assign two distinct variables to the same value. The institution of marriage will be rendered meaningless by this. I would also suggest that business relationships will spring out of this new definition in order to reap the financial benefits of marriage (Think: Two "married" college buddies who get the marriage benefit from the taxes to pay for school. They dissolve the marriage when it's time for the "real thing"). This does no harm to marriage? 2. Much like in nature, human children learn role identities through parents. What is the message of SSM? That it doesn't matter if you are a boy or a girl. Nor does it matter who your sexual partner is (regardless of gender). Gender differences are subverted in the name of "doing what feels good to you". This further encourages our culture of irresponsibility and hedonism. Just because something feels good, doesn't mean you should do it (an argument Freud might have made). We have become a culture of id. More and more children will grow up without knowing what the purpose of a "father" or "mother" is. How would they know? As SSM is approved, we will be bombarded with images of straight and gay couples that present them as no different from each other. Two dads are just as good as two moms or one mom or one dad or one mom and one dad. Homosexuality will increase as John Moore as stated, should SSM be approved. So, should I just trust that these will not be the consequences? The proponents of SSM often argue these things as if what they are proposing is happening in a vacuum. They clearly haven't studied Newton's Third Law of Motion: for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. These folks need to do some FBDs and show me why these things will not be so.
Posted by bdog57 @ 05/18/2004 11:29 AM PST
Jerry, I neither mis-inteperted nor picked selective quotes. I provided quotes that supported my statement that the founding fathers did not wish for politics and religion to become intermingled. Ioffered then as I offer now for those who disagreed with me to provide quotes from our founding fathers that supported the idea that they expected us to follow Christian Morals. Instead of quotes and discussion, I was harassed and someone threw up some other blatent lie that democracy is a judeo-christian concept. No substance, no facts, just you and some of your pro-christian zealots spouting off about that which you wish were true. If you wish to challenge me, go for it.
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 11:30 AM PST
Eric Deamer is a wonderful contributor to this board. His posts are reasoned and articulate. For those who find them condescending or joyless, I suggest that may be a case of projection.
Posted by SJ @ 05/18/2004 11:31 AM PST
SJ: That was an excellent post. I wanted to type "Oy Vey!" as well, but I felt weird doing it because I'm not Jewish. I'm a New Yorker so I use Yiddish words in conversation all the time but it felt weird to type it somehow. Anyway, all you can do is through your hands up at some points. There's really no possibility of having a good faith discussion of any culture wars issue, even a Mel Gibson movie fer Pete's sake. Thankfully, time is on our side. Eventually, the under-35s who mostly don't give a rat's ass about gayness one way or the other will take over and we can have our dystopia of state-sanctioned goat marriages, fuel-efficient cars, and non-gory Jesus movies. jerry et al will be rolling in their graves. To hear social/religious conservatives talk sometimes I wonder why they even feel its worth defending America, if it's such a horrible place filled with the likes of me, you, and all the other "free riders" "exploiting the system to maximize our own pleasures". It seems like a pretty worthless, amoral country, much like the way far-leftists portray it.
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 11:32 AM PST
bdog stated: "The question becomes more pertinent when you ask it of yourself. Christians have a source for their beliefs. It is easily referenced and speaks plainly on these issues. I don't have a copy of the reference material which you use as a foundation for your moral beliefs. Do you have one?" My dear bdog, simply because you have a book that claims divinity doesn't give you any sort of moral ground. Have you truly researched the bible, do you know where your moral system truly comes from? Do you even know where the stuff in the book comes from? Have you read The Diegesis? Have you heard of the Threaputes? Have you followed the inclusion of pagan deities, beliefs and holidays into your system of belief? You stating that since you have a bible, it gives you some basis for Morals, is fine... as long as its your basis for your morals. Asx soo as you try to bind me with the plagerized belief system of the Christian faith, then your argument loses any sort of credibility. Believe what you want, but don't ask me or anyone else to live by those beliefs, or even consider them valid.
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 11:36 AM PST
Eric: Roger asked that we stopped the ad hominem attacks. I have. Why won't you? And you would quite surprised at how I run my personal relationships. Tosk: If you live or come to the DC area. We can have that conversation over a few beers if you like. I am much more entertaining in person.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 11:38 AM PST
Jerry, sorry I'm in Ohio. :(
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 11:39 AM PST
One more thought. The topic was "queers for Palistine. I saw very little discussion of that on this thread.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 11:40 AM PST
Jerry, Of course you didn't see much discussion of the subject. It was inane and built on faulty logic. Tosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 11:41 AM PST
SJ Unfortunately, you gave me a dead link. However, as I'm fairly sure you didn't do a search as I suggested on Thomas Jefferson and religion, I've done the work for you. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 11:42 AM PST
Reid, I've been asking the same questions for a long time with no response. I answered the questions above. This has also been answered by the better SSM advocates such as Rauch and Sullivan. Thank you Roger and SJ for your kind words, and for sticking up for me. I wouldn't have written my most recent post before this one, which yanked jerry's chain a bit, if I'd known the refereeing had happened.
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 11:43 AM PST
Tosk, I've read the Old Testament 3 times cover-to-cover and read the New Testament cover-to-cover 7 times. I'd say that I'm fairly familiar with my source material. The pagan deities and traditions you mentioned are proscribed by Biblical text. Any "Christian" practitioners who incorporated these beliefs were going against the words of the book they professed to believe in. At no point did I ascribe divinity the Bible (though I hold its writings to be of divine origin). I merely pointed out that I (and many others) have a source point for my beliefs. I have yet to hear of any source text to which I can refer to that contains the basis for Mike's (or your) moral system.
Posted by bdog57 @ 05/18/2004 11:48 AM PST
*Eric Deamer is a wonderful contributor to this board. His posts are reasoned and articulate. For those who find them condescending or joyless, I suggest that may be a case of projection.* Interesting. I find him condascending and extremely sarcastic. Opinions differ, which I understood was the reason for this board.
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 11:50 AM PST
Eric, If you have made these arguments before, perhaps you should re-hash. All that I recall of them was rebuttals which did not rebut my points and name-calling. E-mail me if you don't feel this is the pertinent forum for this discussion (though you've willingly participated thus far).
Posted by bdog57 @ 05/18/2004 11:53 AM PST
Tosk: Nah, people just wanted to talk about gay marriage, sex and religion.
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 11:53 AM PST
Matt, I was afraid a link that long wouldn't work. That's why I gave you the title and author of the book. Since you condescendingly assume I am ignorant about Thomas Jefferson's beliefs, I will condescendingly assume that you are uninterested in reading anything about Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers that might contradict your narrow-minded opinions.
Posted by SJ @ 05/18/2004 11:54 AM PST
bdog57 here was what I said: 1) Polygamy: Jonathan Rauch has a great new argument on this which I saw him use at the American Enterprise Institute. Polygamy is not an issue for the pro-SSM side, because we are not the side that asserts that marriage is only about procreation. (despite the fact that many anti-SSM people, such as Pat Buchanan are in childless marriages, despite the fact that they would have no issue with a heterosexual 80-year-old couple getting married etc. etc.) If you think it's primarily all about procreation, and not about a commitment between two people, then clearly polygamy is the way to go. Polygamy is great for producing offspring. Look at the Saudi Royal Family! The person who thinks marriage is all about procreation is the person who needs to answer the "Why not polygamy?" question, not the person who recognizes that there are dimensions and meanings to marriage more important than and in addition to procreation. 2) Incest. This one is a bit more serious. Someone with a more scientific background, like John Moore, might be able to provide specifics on this, but my understanding is that at this point in time humans are so genetically diverse that even a brother and sister could have a child with little or no greater risk of birth defect. So, clearly the state couldn't stop them from marrying on that basis. Frankly, I'm afraid that I think the state will eventually end up recognizing incestuous marriages between consenting adults. But, this eventuality would still exist, for heterosexual incestuous couples, and this would happen regardless of whether or not there was a movement for SSM. I would be disgusted by these couples. I would find them gross and morally reprehensible, but no more so than I find Woody Alleen, who was allowed to legally marry his much younger step-daughter. I know for a fact that Rauch, Sullivan et al have talked about this, but I don't have time to google for it now.
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 12:02 PM PST
bdog57, So you understand that most of the gospels were written about 400 years before the 'birth of christ' by the jewish sect of the Threaputes in Egypt? You've read their accounts in which the Son of God is born of a Virgin, walks on water, feeds multitudes with some bread and fishes and gave them the power to heal (hence their name)? I suppose you can also explain how some exact lines from these extant works found their way into the bible? Your point is that you have a source for your beliefs. I am pointing out that your source point has some serious credability issues. I try not to hold beliefs. I tend to have ideas. See, beliefs are hard to change, because a belief is dogmatic, it is "THE TRUTH". If the belief is found to be wrong, its easier to ignore the wrong and hold to the dogmatic BELIEF. If a person has ideas, the ideas can change based on the experiences that person has in life. Well, you know... I do have a belief. I believe that the universe is far more complex than I will ever understand. Thats pretty much my beliefs summed up. Everything else I talk about are ideas, things that I think may be right, but am perfectly willing to be proven wrong on. If you wish to have someone else tell you what is real and what is not, thats your decision... if the rest of us, decide to engage our brains and experience what we precieve to be real, right or true at the time, thats our decision. In fact, I would say that your supporting argument for morality has much less credability than mine, or Mike's, or Erics. If you wish to refer to something that pertains to my moral system, I suggest you refer to me. God save us from your followers, Ratatosk Or, if you wish to actually read source materials for some of my views try http://www.principiadiscordia.com Pay special attention to the Pentabarf.
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 12:02 PM PST
"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545 Hail Eris!
Thats a great quote! Thanks for the link, Matt Ratatosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 12:07 PM PST
Rat: Why did Jefferson require Chapel attendance at UVA? He even founded a Unitarian Church so non-Christians would have place to meet their obligation?
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 12:14 PM PST
Raz As you well know, comparisons to other alternative lifestyles are used for the sole purpose of demonstrating the slippery slope argument. We can talk about alternative lifestyles in broad terminology, if that makes it easier. However, at what point do we draw the line at an alternative lifestyle and who gets to make that decision as to whether that lifestyle is "harmful" or not? *Is your fundamental reasoning ability so crusted with your religious dogma that you are unable to see a difference in willing choices and unwilling rape?* Ah, and there's the bitterness towards the so called "religious dogma". I have found that the most bitter opponents I have when arguing this issue are the atheist/ex-Christians who have determined there is no God but the one they make. Obviously, there is a difference between consensual sex and pedophile rape- but again, who gets to draw that line. Statuatory rape comes with an age set by state law and it differs- I know in one state I lived in, it was 16 and one state I lived in, it was 18. Can you tell me what the difference was in determining what age constitutes the age of knowing consent? And shouldn't we apply this criteria everywhere? Again, you're only solidifying my slippery slope premise- if a 50 year old man wants to have sex with a consenting 17 year old girl (or boy), shouldn't he be allowed to do so, if the girl or boy gives their consent ? You might say yes but government says no. Shouldn't you be outraged that the government is implementing a moral system thats different from your own ? *If so, then I recommend you spend some time looking for straws in your eyes before you start talking about any rafters impinging on the ocular abilites of others.* And again, we are not talking about consenting adults and what they do in their homes. We're talking about the Federal judiciary imposing its will on every state in the union. Your argument constantly goes back to the fact that you believe because I think homosexuality is morally wrong, I also believe homosexuals should legally estopped from pursuing that lifestyle. And yet, I've already addressed that point. The Constitutional right to privacy protects sexual preference. It does not protect marriage based on alternative lifestyles. *So? We pay for lots of things* And there is a cuplability for our legislators in determining what we will pay for. You don't think I've written my Congressman or Senator over this spending bill or that ? Of course I have. Public opinion keeps those folks in check. However, the federal judiciary and some state judiciary has no such checks- it is the very reasons Dems are fighting so hard to keep the majority of Bush's appointments to the bench from happening- and the federal judiciary should not under any circumstances be making decisions about what to do with my tax money. If homosexuals dont want to "pay for" married couples, they can right their congressman or hire a lobbyist. But they won't get anywhere and why ? Because cultural, societal and religious norms have been in place and are nearly impossible to uproot. You may beliebe in cultural and/or moral relativism but a vast majority of the country does not. *Your argument doesn't stand up to scrutinty, but when does that ever stop the Christian?* I'm disheartened that there is refereeing going on for personal attacks for individuals and yet apparerently, insulting an entire religion (as long as its Christianity of course), is permitted. *I object to any moral line drawn by the religious beliefs of some, in order to inflict their morals on everyone else.* So now you are you going to sit there and tell me that that religious ideals, primarily judeo-christian ideals, are not reflected in much of our Federal and State law, as well as in our country's value system? And moral lines are not drawn from religious beliefs ? Where do we get them? *"Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy and don't give each other crap."* Thats a brilliant philsophy. We live in the land of "Do as You Like" apparently. No wonder there's no reasoning with you. *"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."* Ah, the Golden Rule. Care to speculate where that comes from ? As to the AIDS issue, I could point out some of the stats posting on this board about the predominant lack of monogomy among male homosexuals and comment that perhaps we should be a bit worried about the fact that a vast majority of AIDS sufferers are, statistically speaking, not monogomous. *Pointing out that more of the initial group infected are infected than other groups is simply bad logic.* It would be if the point had anything to do with the "intial group". It doesnt. Instead, it has everything to do with noting that it is the lifestyle of gay males that is the problem, not the root cause of the disease (and I could get on the root cause of the disease but you'd just call me a "crazy Christian"). *Do you really want to have a conversation with me about the founding fathers and their view of religion in government?* Yes. I'd suggest you click on my link to the words of Thomas Jefferson. But I should warn you- I'm going to take his words and arguments as far more persuasive then anything you might make up. *If so, I'm afraid a lot of your fantasies will be popped like a balloon.* Your replies are becoming increasingly juvenile.
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 12:17 PM PST
SJ Did you bother to click the link ? Sorry you somehow find both my opinions and those of Mr. Jefferson narrow-minded. Course, thats just wrong with these conservatives today - they're just too dang narrow minded.
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 12:22 PM PST
As to the AIDS issue, I could point out some of the stats posting on this board about the predominant lack of monogomy among male homosexuals and comment that perhaps we should be a bit worried about the fact that a vast majority of AIDS sufferers are, statistically speaking, not monogomous. Just as a side note, the statistical group least likely to contract or spread AIDS are lesbian women. So be careful using "health" as a reason to not allow equal rights for same-sex couples, unless you want to end up supporting lesbian weddings!
Posted by Mike Silverman @ 05/18/2004 12:24 PM PST
*So you understand that most of the gospels were written about 400 years before the 'birth of christ' by the jewish sect of the Threaputes in Egypt? * Um. I might have missed a chapter somewhere but you're saying that the foregoing is a factual statement ? Its becoming more and more clear that this discussion is less about gay marriage than it is about religion and the apparent bitterness towards those who believe in God as compared to those who choose not to believe in a god.
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 12:27 PM PST
"This doctrine ['that the condition of man cannot be ameliorated, that what has been must ever be, and that to secure ourselves where we are we must tread with awful reverence in the footsteps of our fathers'] is the genuine fruit of the alliance between Church and State, the tenants of which finding themselves but too well in their present condition, oppose all advances which might unmask their usurpations and monopolies of honors, wealth and power, and fear every change as endangering the comforts they now hold." --Thomas Jefferson: Report for University of Virginia, 1818.
Of course I clicked the link, Matt. That's wherre I found this brilliant quote and a zillion others. What a great man he was. Too bad you don't understand what he was saying. Did you bother looking up the book I suggested about secularism? All you have to do is copy the name from my earlier post and paste it into an Amazon search. Nah, you'd prefer keep your head in the sand.
Posted by SJ @ 05/18/2004 12:30 PM PST
And furthermore, Matt, the only reason belief in God became part of this discussion is because those of you against SSM cite religious tenets as one of your major reasons.
Posted by SJ @ 05/18/2004 12:36 PM PST
Jerry, Probably because he did not consider UVA's participation in religious worship to interfere with the seperation of Church and State. We do not necessarily know what changes Jefferson as an individual underwent as he grew older. We do know that as a founder of this country he and many of his compatriots clearly stated that the government should not interfere with religion and religion should not interefere with the government. As to the theory that some (not all, or even most) historians subscribe to (Jefferson saw the light and had changed his views on how seperate things should be), it should be noted that A) its a theory based on the interpertation of some documents, letters, etc and B) Jefferson's personal views later in life have little to do with the founding of this country. There's my answer to your question. I don't know Jefferson's reasons for doing as he did at UVA, but I do know that he clearly stated that: "We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546 "Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545 "[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67 "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."--Thomas Jefferson, _Notes_on_Virginia_, _Jefferson_the_President:_First_Term_1801-1805_, Dumas Malon, Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191 Did Jefferson change his mind later in life? Perhaps... we know he had a personal belief in God... in fact he rewrote much of the Gospel account because he disagreed with the current form of the Bible. However, at the point of his helping found this government we have those quotes, as well as countless others which show that he had no desire to impose a religious moral, or civil view on those who may not share it. So you have still not tried to argue against the basic principle, please quote for me the founding fathers that said that our morals and government are Christian, or based on Christianity. Show me quotes supporting the legislation of morals according to a single religious interpertation. Thats all I ask, I will happily post pages of quotes that clearly do not support that position. In fact, I can point to quite a number of quotes from a number of those considered 'founding fathers' which not only points to a clear seperation of church and state, but indeed shows that christianity as a religion had soured in the minds of many of them. Believe what you wish, theres no rule that says you must prove to me what you believe. Tosk
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 12:43 PM PST
I'm disheartened that there is refereeing going on for personal attacks for individuals and yet apparerently, insulting an entire religion (as long as its Christianity of course), is permitted. Okay. Last comment I swear. I'm well aware that there is too much Christian-bashing going on in popular culture and our society in general. I don't do it, and I speak out against it when it gets out of line. For instance, I deplore it when people criticize Bush simply for being a deeply religious man. However, the somewhat frequent claims of Christian sensibilities being offended by the conservative Christians who comment here are getting out of hand and are starting to feel like some new form of special pleading or political correctness. Multiple Christians on multiple threads, in this case jerry (not to re-start my sparring with jerry who has graciously relented in these attacks, but just as an exmaple for my purpose here) and Matt have made all sorts of offensive assertions about the worldviews of anyone who isn't a conservative Christian, that they only do what's trendy at the moment, that they only care about maximizing their own pleasure, they "don't believe in anything". Further, despite the fact that none of us have ever said "I'm a an avowed (fill in the blank)" you've been perfectly willing to fill in the blank with whatever construct you wish: "Secularism", "Progressivism", "Heathenism" etc. etc. and then too ridicule and mock that belief system. So, if you've explicitly stated that you are a Christian, and are basing your beliefs and comments on Christianity, it take a lot of gall to turn around and expect people to censor themselves in their comments about your belief system. At least we're basing our comments on something you've said you believe in, not some caricature of our own making. It reminds me a bit of the people who said that if you didn't like the Gibson flick, you were automatically guillty of "Christian bashing".
Posted by Eric Deamer @ 05/18/2004 12:44 PM PST
And my point is, was and always will be, that the Founding Fathers did their best to keep religion and government seperate- there are obvious historical reasons for that- however, a vast majority of the founding fathers subscribed to Judeo-Christian values and said values cannot be disregarded when making law. While it is utterly out of fashion to suggest to an atheist that we should look at the principles behind the law when determining the intent of the law and to what extent it should be expanded, I firmly believe that it should and must be.
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 12:54 PM PST
So even though you agree there's too much "Christian bashing", when someone disagrees with you on the basis of their belief in Christianity, it becomes ok to bash ? I'm honestly sorry if I'm misinterepreting whats being said about a belief system. As was noted previously, Christianity's belief system is well known and easily researched. While there will always be some degree of deviation, if you have any knowledge of Christianity as a religion, you know what I believe before I even open my mouth. Here's my question- why not simply identify what belief system you ascribe to ? If won't reveal it, we're left to guess. If you want to discuss your belief system, disclose it and we'll discuss it. *it take a lot of gall to turn around and expect people to censor themselves in their comments about your belief system.* I'm sorry if I find it offensive when I'm called a "crazy christian", though virtually nothing I've said in this thread is either crazy or significantly deviates from the belief system of the predominant religion in this country. I have found more and more that folks who don't subscribe to any tangible ideology become very offended when their beliefs or lack thereof are questioned but have no trouble throwing around terms like "crazy christian".
Posted by Matt @ 05/18/2004 01:04 PM PST
Matt, Christians sure do think a lot of themselves when it comes to morals... "We got our morals from the bible, cause it says not to kill." Guess what! There are plenty of religions and moral systems that existed well before Christianity and its morals. In fact, you find many of the Ten Commandments are basic morals that people who have had no contact with Jews or Christians had for aeons. Christians don't have a monopoly on morals or moral systems.
----
As for bitterness to dogma.. yes, you might say that I do have a bitterness to dogma. I've learned that when dogma enters the head, all rational thinking ability leaves (case in point). I am bitter toward any unhealthy act that disturbes an individuals ability to think for themselves. Again I encourage you to research the Threaputes and the Diegesis (it was written by a Rev. way back in the 1800's, he even spent time in jail because of it). The AIDS argument has no basis in this discussion. Homosexual Couples who are married will either A) Be Monogamous (in which case they likely would have been without the paper) or B) Will cheat on their spouse, knowingly or unknowingly. If they contract AIDS, they will contract AIDS. The little piece of paper has no impact on this, its entire an issue of their sexual habits. Earth to Matt... come in Matt. Finally, The quotes you linked to are overwhelmingly in favor of the seperation of church and state, what fantasyland do you live in where the statement: "Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." "We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church." If somehow those say to you, that Jefferson would be against gay marriage today... thats fine. When I read them (as well as all of the other quotes on that page) it seems to me that he did not want religion in politics or politics in religion. Ratatosk I just love it when someone hands me the club to hit them with.
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 01:06 PM PST
"why not simply identify what belief system you ascribe to ? If won't reveal it, we're left to guess. " Oh silly me, I thought you could just ask someone what they believed, or better yet, in a forum such as this, read and comment on what their saying, not what you presume they think when they write. As for the founding fathers basing most of our laws on biblical morals, I would point you to the history of democracy, where most of the laws they instated were hashed out for 2000+ years. Did Christianity contribute, of course it did... does that mean that since something is repugnant to the Christian it should not be permitted? Not according to the very Jeffersonian quotes you sent me!!!!! But, I diegress. It's time to go home and enjoy the evening. I hope that you do the same. Goodnight all, fun discussion all around. Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Chatterer of The Words of Eris
Muncher of the ChoaAcorn
POEE of the Great Googlie-Mooglie Cabal Ordained Pope of The Discordian Society
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/18/2004 01:14 PM PST
Eric, The question is: How will SSM be instituted to preclude the legalization of the institutions of incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc. 1. I haven't made an argument for straight marriage based on procreation. This doesn't answer the question. 2. Here you have discussed the morals and scientific findings regarding incest. I did not discuss this either (nor did you state on what principle you find it "disgusting"). This doesn't answer the question either. You could state that SSM would be instituted de facto as one human to one human, but on what basis? It is the premise for this which will be milked by these other institutions for their purposes. Tosk,
Try reading the Bible, and you'll find that most of the events of the Savior's life are detailed in the book of Isaiah (ca. 900-800 BC). Hmmm...500 years before Theraputes? Could it be possible that the Egyptians had access to Hebrew texts (they had 500 years)? Hmmm....nice try. Maybe you should try reading the Bible to find out more about what's in the Bible. Furthermore, I have no followers (other than my family). I have not even discussed my religious beliefs here (other than the fact that I have them and they have a verifiable source). No human being can persuade you to believe in God, and I'm not about to try. You refer to dogmatic belief. This is false. There are presuppositions and biases. A presupposition is a belief that something is a certain way without any evidence proving this belief with certainty. Bias is a belief that something is a certain way in light of evidence proving/disproving this belief with some certainty. I am under the presupposition that there is a God and a Heaven. As there is no conclusive evidence to disprove this notion, it is still a presupposition. I would cite the organization of this vast universe ("worlds without number have I created") as evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being. Again, though, you are entitled to believe or disbelieve. It has been my experience that those who cry intolerance and dogmatism on the part of others could more justly ascribe these attributes to themselves. You have preached to me as if I have violated your sensibilites by citing a source for my beliefs. In engineering, it is always good practice to have documentation to justify why you did what you did. Wouldn't it seem appropriate to have the same thing in life? BTW, nobody tells me what to do. I don't just follow orders in life. Rather, I listen, reason, and then take any questions I have to God (in prayer). I then proceed to act. So, if I'm a blind sheep for following the Living God (who does answer prayers), then "BAA!"
Posted by bdog57 @ 05/18/2004 01:40 PM PST
Matt, et al.:
Just to clarify: " The group least likely to contract AIDS are lesbians" ( I think that's how you phrased it). True, but,...lesbians are much more likely to contract:
Herpes
GC and Chlamydia (Gonorrhea)
Equally at risk to contract: CMV(Cytomegalo Virus)as well as other STD's and immunosuppressive diseases.
Posted by Scout @ 05/18/2004 01:44 PM PST
Scout: One celled organisms have been indoctrinated by the religous right to be homophobes or maybe homephages....
Posted by jerry @ 05/18/2004 02:02 PM PST
Eric, You bite the bullet and accept incestuous marriage because you say that it is possible for a brother and sister to have a healthy child. Of course it's possible. But the likelihood of birth defects from such a family tree is highly elevated, to put it mildly, and that is why incest is immoral. The mere possibility of a healthy baby is irrelevant. No, the argument that "if we allow gay marriage, we will have to allow polygamy and incestuous marriage, which we know are immoral" may be hoisted upon its own petard. We know the latter two are immoral because we have reasons to demonstrate this (child neglect, birth defects). In the case of gay marriage, we have no reasons whatsoever. Matt, I haven't noticed any Christianity bashing. I'm an atheist, but I love religion. Heck, I have a graduate degree in the stuff. But there simply is no logical connection between the existence of God and morality. If there were no God, right would still be right, and wrong wrong. For example, God or no, it's wrong to cut off a harmless young man's head. Some, contending that God is your basis of morality, have demanded that a philosophical proof be given of the wrongness of killing a harmless man by those who contend that morality does not require God. However, the demand is illicit. For the original contention that God is the basis of morality is false. Moreover, there is no evidence that there is a God who prohibits gay marriage. And even if he did, that wouldn't make it wrong. Even if he commanded that we stop taking care of our children, this wouldn't make it wrong to take care of them. And to any attempt to reply, "Well, why wouldn't it be wrong to take care of your kids and right to kill harmless men if God said so, or neither right nor wrong if there were not God?" then at that point the debate becomes absurd. Because there is nothing more obvious than that it is right to take care of your kids and wrong to kill a harmless man.
Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 02:07 PM PST
Jim, "it is obvious" is called an ASSUMPTION. Self-evident things are essentially a form of faith. Contratulations, you have faith. You demand a proof of God, yet you dmand no proof of your own morality. Nice. Assuming there is no God, please prove to me that any behaviour is right or wrong. Claims of "self-evident" are an admission of failure, as "self-evident" can simply be calimed for anything anyone wants to believe. Take your time, and no, spelling doesn't matter. Back to the issue at hand (gay marriage): Without making any moral or other judgemnt at all regarding gay marriage, I can unquivically state that what is happening is Mass. is a VERY BAD THING. Why? It's simple: process. In this case, unlected justices have declared their will, and it is done. The closest thing to a justification they have is an amendment to their Constitution (that is supposedly what they are bound by) that was specifically stated not to provide the right they said it does by those who passed it. Allow me to give a reason why this is bad. Suppose, for a moment, that Florida passes an amendment to their constitution making it illegal to discriminate against anyone related to their ability to see or not. Sounds nice... then the Florida Suprme Court decides that means the blind may have drivers licenses. Assuming it takes 1 year to get an amendment passed in Florida (since I don't know how long), the Justices say thei ruling will take effect in 4 months. That is what has just happened in MA. The ISSUE doesn't matter - gay marriage, driver's licenses, the keeping of pets... I don't care. Unelected, unaccountable officals are dictating law (alsmost literally in MA). This, in and of itself, is a problem. In the Florida example, blind people from all over the US can now go to Florida, get a license, and demand that their home states acknowledge them (DL being already covered by the Full Faith and Credit clause, as gay activists will momentarily be demanding of marriage licenses). You should all find that frightening, no matter how much you agree or disagree with the outcome in this particular case. In a system based on precedent, PROCESS is all.
Posted by Deoxy @ 05/18/2004 02:45 PM PST
Jim, For example, God or no, it's wrong to cut off a harmless young man's head. Why? The individuals who did it don't seem to think they were doing anything. Rather, they praised God in the act ("Allahu Akbar!"). We know the latter two are immoral because we have reasons to demonstrate this (child neglect, birth defects). Why is neglecting your child wrong? Who told you this? How bad do birth defects have to be for the relationship to to be immoral? And what if procreation is not their intent? Is it still wrong then? ...there is nothing more obvious than that it is right to take care of your kids and wrong to kill a harmless man. Obvious to who? I agree that all of these things are wrong. But if you are not citing God or some other point of reference as the source of moral authority, then who (or what) do you cite? Is something wrong because the Law says it's wrong. You could cite basic human decency, but there are plenty of examples of basic human indecency.
Posted by bdog57 @ 05/18/2004 02:51 PM PST
Well, Deoxy, I'm happy to oblige if you want a metaethical theory. But my argument still stands that proponents of gay marriag have no duty to provide an adequate metaethical philosophy, especially given that divine command theorists have not. The notion that moral debate is impossible unless we have a metaethical theory is is implausible as the idea that you need particle physics before you figure out how to fix your car. Anyway, self-evident truths are not a matter of faith. Their denial is self-contradictory; they are a matter of logic. Morality has to do with showing respect for others. "Morality does not require that anyone show respect for anyone else" is uninterpretable, self-evidently false. "I cut off the harmless man's head, but I meant no disrespect" is similarly incoherent. Therefore, it is self-evident, a matter of the meaning of words, that it is wrong to cut off a harmless man's head. In any event, BDog57, do you agree that it is right to take care of your kids and wrong to kill a harmless man, whether or not God exists? If you do, then the point is moot and we can return to what is at issue. If you don't, then you are introducing an article of faith and not warrant as a premise to debate, which makes no sense.
Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 03:08 PM PST
Pretty soon, procreation is going to be possible without the need for both sexes. So that argument against SSM is going to be moot. I know, I know. Y'all will say that that form of procreation is immoral and not what God intended. But God didn't take into account artificial hearts, skin grown in labs to heal burn victims, etc, etc...
Posted by SJ @ 05/18/2004 03:34 PM PST
"Morality has to do with showing respect for others." Nice conclusion. Might even have some basis in reality - I really can't tell on the basis of a lack of predicate and argument in support. What kind of grade did Noam give you for that?
Posted by Rick Ballard @ 05/18/2004 05:41 PM PST
Rick, I'm a conservative. My favorite magazine is National Review. Nice try. Also, the sentence after the one you quoted was the argument you ignored. Why don't you attempt to refute it by providing conditions you would take as evidence for the view that morality does not require that one show anyone any respect? Or are you just a snarky kind of guy?
Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 06:51 PM PST
Jim, I've got to run at the moment. I'll try and reply later but as clear and self-evident as you feel your argument to be, at this point I find it unintelligible. My lack, I'm sure.
Posted by Rick Ballard @ 05/18/2004 07:01 PM PST
Rick, Full disclosure: I'm broaching the tip of an iceberg called the "British Sentimentalist" tradition, the high point of which was David Hume and the most recent highlights of which are A. J. Ayer and Charles Stevenson. We probably couldn't get to the bottom of it in a couple of blog posts, though I'd love to hash it out with you. It's an enormously rich tradition, now rejected by academic philosophers to my deep regret. I was asked for my metaethical bona fides, and I complied. Metaethics indeed takes us into big iceberg territory. As I said before, it isn't necessary to "go there," as the kids say, in order to determine the issues of the day.
Posted by Jim @ 05/18/2004 07:14 PM PST
"However, nowhere in the Constitution are special rights extended to a certain class of people based solely on their sexual preference- and essnetially, that is the very argument behind the SSM movement." Actually, Matt, since you're suggesting denying gays the rights & privliges associated with marrage, it's the Anti-SSM folks who're arguing for extending special rights to a certain class of people based solely on their sexual preferences. (Sorry if someone's already made this point, but just got back to the PC...
Posted by Cybrludite @ 05/18/2004 08:47 PM PST
Three comments: 1. SSM can be rejected on grounds entirely non-religious. The building block of the vast majority of societies since the dawn of human history has been the nuclear family (with extended family nearby). This societal arrangement (codified by law and by religion as marriage but the arrangement existed before either) has served to ensure human survival by producing offspring and by providing a mechanism for care of those offspring and for community support of the caregivers. Both male and female societal roles are modeled for the offspring in this arrangement, allowing for continuity in performance of those roles in the community. Because homosexuals have historically made up a miniscule fraction of any society, their role in community preservation was never sanctioned, due to their biological limitations in producing offspring and role modeling. In the US, we have moved away from the importance of this original arrangement with the advent of the sexual revolution (why just stick with one person?) and the elevation of alternatives to this arrangement as qualitatively equal (running the gamut from divorce and single parenting to the current movement for gay marriage). We have forgotten that there are "children in the room" and our standards for behavior have declined as a consequence. Speaking from the standpoint of a parent who is forced to try to raise children in an environment where adult entertainment and emotional needs and "rights" are paramount is a difficult task. Gay marriage just moves us another step away from keeping our community focus on raising the children of our next generation and putting it squarely on what makes some adults feel good here and now. 2. As an RN who has worked in public health (and with STDs) since the 1980s, I can say that AIDS is a relevant part of the SSM debate, if only to deflate the argument that marriage will cause gays (males) to be monogamous and, thus, less susceptible to AIDS infection. To anyone who has had any contact medically with the gay community, that idea is (I'm sorry to be blunt) a joke. Look no further than the comments of the guy first in line yesterday for "marriage" in Massachusetts. Not even Andrew Sullivan tries to make this argument anymore. In fact, in the early years of AIDS, the gay community fought hard against any restrictions on sex partners, even when it would have been much to their benefit. We in the medical community were forced to give AIDS a "special" status that forbade us from doing partner notification or mandatory reporting to the state health deparment as we do with all other serious STDs which severely hampered early efforts to control the outbreak. Thanks to gay activism, I was even told in one case where an infected female was keeping her married partner in the dark about her status that I could be pulled into court for invasion of privacy if I informed the patient's partner of her illness (apparently, it was more important to protect this woman's right to deceive than it was to allow the man and his wife the opportunity to protect themselves from, what was at the time, an inevitably fatal illness). I had asked the legal deparment where I worked about the case because, silly me, I was afraid of being sued because I knew and deliberately withheld the information! 3. Unlike Matt, I see quite a bit of anti-Christian sentiment in these posts, including some angry and derogatory terms ("crazy Christians" "crusted with dogma", etc.) There have also been a couple of remarks that not so subtly imply that Christians believe in a rather not-so-intelligent fabrication or "fantasy". Why is it so important to atheists to actively denigrate and "disprove" the faith of Christians (or the existence of God) rather than just accept it as a life philosophy that guides a person's life much like the philosophy that guides theirs? They seem to be overly concerned with showing how their philosophy is one only available to superior minds that are above being fooled by that "God nonsense" and then, in the same breath, complain about the arrogance and high-mindedness of Christians. Why spend so much time looking up references to "prove" there is no God and show those Christians just how truly misguided and stupid they are? Whom are you really trying to convince here? Speaking from the experience of having a very angry atheist as a brother (who is always trying to "evangelize" me as to the error of my ways), I can only surmise that it is because Christianity =believing there is someone and something bigger in this world besides me=now I have to follow "The Rules"=I will never be happy or have fun again in my life. Just as freedom is pretty useless without the rule of law, Christians think human life is pretty directionless and not truly free without the love of God and His "rules". That is just their philosophy and to try to classify their beliefs as sub-intelligent thought and to ridicule them is to fail to give Christians the most basic respect that you demand for your philosophy. Enough already. Sorry for the long post but I guess I had a lot to say.
Posted by Angel @ 05/18/2004 09:23 PM PST
Jim, In any event, BDog57, do you agree that it is right to take care of your kids and wrong to kill a harmless man, whether or not God exists? If you do, then the point is moot and we can return to what is at issue. If you don't, then you are introducing an article of faith and not warrant as a premise to debate, which makes no sense. You have presented the idea that truths are self-evident to all (as opposed to being self-evident in the eye of the beholder). You have presented this as an article of your faith, and it is always a subject of debate (think: the WOT; everyone sees the same things but walks away with different conclusions). My personal view is that truths are self-evident to those who hold them as such. I believe Ratatosk would actually agree with me on this one. I should note that whether a truth is self-evident or not, it does not change the inherent nature of the truth itself. Something is either true or it is not true. Regardless of its source. [How did we get here? Discussing "truths"? Oh well, the journey has been half the fun]
Posted by bdog57 @ 05/19/2004 06:27 AM PST
Good Morning BLOG! Well, I reread the posts before I wrote this. I wanted to refresh in my mind how a discussion on the merits of SSM degenerated into Christian Bashing. It is, regretable. However, I did figure out what it was. Angel wrote a nice post, but apparently didn't read back through the earlier posts. If a Christian is desirous of imposing his moral ideas on a society, then his moral ideas (where they come from, why he/she believes etc) are all fair game. If someone wishes to base National Law on a religious dogmatic belief, then I have alll the right in the world to question the validity of that dogma. BDog, apparently misunderstands dogma, he believes that he has faith, not an adherence to dogma. But, what is dogma, really? When I speak of Dogma I am refering to any belief system that requires, on the part of the believer, full acceptance of their belief as the only TRUE belief. They KNOW that God Yehwah exists, they KNOW that his son Jesus Christ came to earth to save us from sin. They KNOW that SSM will destroy the fabric of morality in our country. Of course, there's no way possible that they actually know. They read a book, listened to some man talk and accpepted it. Hook, line and that OH so Heavy sinker. Not all Christians are this way. Many say "I believe X", and leave it at that, there is not an attempt to assume that they have the answer that everyone else needs to hear, believe or accept. If someone brings up religious idealogies as a basis for arguing a political issue, then they are dogmatic. Stating that God exists and has interest in us etc. is a fine belief. However, when you try to convience others that based on beliefs that you got out of a book, which some evidence points to as a possible plagerization(apparently you aren't really interested in the history of it). It would be different if bdog had said "I personally choose not to be gay or to marry a man, because I do not think that my God approves." I would applaud, I would say DAMN STRAIGHT! I fully support any human to determine for themselves what is and is not5 acceptable for them to do. However, it is not the way with most religous folk (not just Christians, the Muslims are quite Dogmatic, as are the Hindu among others). Instead of being content with a personal spirituality, with a personal responsibility, they must enforce these ideologies on others. Not everyone believes in God Yehwah, not everyone believes in Jesus Christ, not everyone believes that the Bible is the Word of God, not even a number of theologians. I myself, have been a student of religion for many years, including quite a few in a very Christian religion. I have read the Bible several times (in a number of translations, not just the KJ which is known to have been co-opted). And bdog, Isaiah prophecied about Christ, but until you bother to research, you won't realize that the Theraputian works go much further than Isaiah's prophicies. Perhaps dogmatic thinking will lead you to decide that you KNOW THAT God exists and that the Bible is his inspired word (after all, it says its his inspired word), and you will assume that I am an athiest (I am not) and wish to destroy any understanding of spiritual things (which I don't, I myself am very spiritual). Maybe you won't read The Diegesis. However, if you are unwilling to question your own beliefs, if you are unwilling to consider that your ideas may be no better than anyone elses, then there isn't much to discuss in a political forum. And Angel, 'Crazy Christians' indicate that there are Christians who are not crazy, 'crusted with dogma' indicates that there is something that has been defaced by dogma. I love Christ, unfortunately most Christians act nothing like him. Perhaps he existed, perhaps he is yet another metaphor for a particular Archtype, I don't know, but I'm certianly not going to enforce what I don't know on an entire nation. bdog, "Something is either true or it is not true." That statement is inaccurate in the extreme. You are using the "is or 'is not" type of Aristotilan Logic that gets people into trouble. From what we understand of quantum physics, reality is not a case of 'is or not is' but a case of many, many possible states which may get measured at any point in time. Plenty of psychological experiments have shown that what humans think is true or not true, may depend much on what they see, what they believe and what sort of environment they are in at the time. The only truth we really know, ever, is what our perceptions are of the signals our neurological system is recieving. Thats it. Everything else may or may not be true. OR it may depend on the viewpoint and perceptions of the subject.
Posted by Ratatosk @ 05/19/2004 07:31 AM PST
"Speaking from the experience of having a very angry atheist as a brother (who is always trying to "evangelize" me as to the error of my ways)" Congradulations, Angel. You know what this athiest has to put up with from family, co-workers, and random people on the street. (Most of whom seem to have gotten their theology from Jack Chick pamphlets, I might add...) The reason a lot of non-believers seem "anti-christian" is because we have to put up with this theological spam all the frickin' time. I'm none to happy with the folks pushing "A11 natural v1@gr@!!!!1" either.
Posted by Cybrludite @ 05/19/2004 07:57 AM PST
Ratatosk, You've obviously misunderstood a healthy portion of what I've written. Let's recap. ***
From what we understand of quantum physics, reality is not a case of 'is or not is' but a case of many, many possible states which may get measured at any point in time. Plenty of psychological experiments have shown that what humans think is true or not true, may depend much on what they see, what they believe and what sort of environment they are in at the time. Didn't I say that here? You have presented the idea that truths are self-evident to all (as opposed to being self-evident in the eye of the beholder). You have presented this as an article of your faith, and it is always a subject of debate (think: the WOT; everyone sees the same things but walks away with different conclusions). My personal view is that truths are self-evident to those who hold them as such. I believe Ratatosk would actually agree with me on this one. You do agree, you just misunderstood. Nevertheless 1=1, regardless of what perspective. If I say "It is raining", you could look out your window in Ohio and say "No, it's not". However, if I were to say "It is raining at this location at this time", you could not dispute this if it was true. It is either raining at this time and location, or it is not. Truth=truth. Given this fact, what if Christianity is true (or Islam, Daoism, etc.)? Are you so dogmatic in your beliefs that you could not accept it? If Christianity is a fraud, at the worst a large segment of the populace is attempting to practice values described here as "basic human decency" while creating the minor annoyance of proseltying and editing media for "obscene" content. If Christianity isn't a fraud, then a large segment of the population is attempting to live good lives in hopes of a good afterlife. Why is this a bad thing? [I haven't used a religious argument (here) against SSM, so you can't use that argument against me. Also, forget the crap about the Crusades, people who cut you off that have Jesus fish on their car, etc. Christ said,"Be ye therefore perfect". Attempting this and doing it are two different things. The gospel is intended to make us better human beings...when practiced correctly] *** You again:
Instead of being content with a personal spirituality, with a personal responsibility, they must enforce these ideologies on others. At what point did I proselytize here? By all means, feel free to quote me in full context. No one else here has either. They have made an argument based on their belief system, but so have you -so get over it. *** However, if you are unwilling to question your own beliefs, if you are unwilling to consider that your ideas may be no better than anyone elses, then there isn't much to discuss in a political forum. You assume much here. You assume that I've had no trials of faith, or questioned that faith. You assume that I don't ask questions. You assume that I won't check out Theraputes or the Diegesis(sp?). You would be wrong of course, but go on thinking that...I wouldn't want to disturb the neat little box you file "Christians" under. *** I love Christ, unfortunately most Christians act nothing like him. I don't know about your personal life, but if you'll recall the Savior said "If ye love me, keep my commandments". He also said "I am the way, the truth, and the life". Are his teachings like a smorgasboard, some to be following, some to be ignored? Given a number of your comments, I find this disingenuous. ** Perhaps dogmatic thinking will lead you to decide that you KNOW THAT God exists and that the Bible is his inspired word (after all, it says its his inspired word), and you will assume that I am an athiest (I am not) and wish to destroy any understanding of spiritual things (which I don't, I myself am very spiritual). Actually, the thing that led me to believe in his word was study and prayer...and then following those teachings (just as prescribed). You assume way too much. Aren't I supposed to be the insensitive, ignorant one here? My believe in God is also re-affirmed by the order (as opposed to discord) that I see in everything in this Universe. Again, though, this is in the Eye of the Beholder. You have come to me with cries of "dogmatism", yet it is you who is dogmatic in your view of persons of faith and your views of God. Practitioners of religion absolutely cannot talk with you until they've met requirement x, y, z, otherwise they can't possibly understand your superior wisdom. You have set yourself up as your own God -your own source of all knowledge and moral authority. Excuse me if do not hold you as such (you say that you aren't asking anyone to believe what you do, yet your entire last post was devoted to this very premise). You see, if you believe something, you talk about as if it were true. You discuss it under the premise that it is something to believed (else why do people come here?). The free discussion of ideas serves to provoke thought. You have beliefs, even if you belief that there is nothing to believe in. In the words of Rush (the band), "If you choose not too decide, you still have made a choice". You (and others) can complain about Christians offending your sensibilities because they try to proselytize you, yet much more effort is being expended to convert Christians to secularists. This country is founded on the belief that one system of beliefs should not be put above another. Is this reflected in removing prayer from school? In removing all references to God (call him/her nature, Discordia, or whatever being you choose to worship)? The propaganda is incessant in your daily TV fare, programs and commercials advocating lifestyles far from Christian ideals as well as subtle (and not-so-subtle) ridicule of religion and religious people almost everywhere. These are all intended to entice and titillate away from a Christian lifestyle. Who's proselytizing who here?
Posted by bdog57 @ 05/19/2004 11:09 AM PST
I'm starting to see why Roger wants to charge for posting comments. His comments are more interesting than a lot of blogs. Maybe someone should start a Usenet group for Roger's readers and fans. As to the gay marriage thing, I think that homosexuality is immoral because I believe God has proscribed it. I also believe that God's commandments are based on his desire to guide us to maximum happiness. That being said, I suppose that after the damage this society has already done to the institutions of marriage and family, gay marriage won't do that much more. However, this decision being forced upon society by judges worries me greatly, because once gay marriage has been declared to be a constitutional right, the argument can be made that ministers and priests who refuse to perform gay marriages are violating that right, and should not be given the legal authority to perform any marriages at all. Having made gay marriage a fundamental right, courts will feel compelled to impose it on churches and others with strong moral objections to it.
Posted by AST @ 05/19/2004 03:24 PM PST
So, Angel, the quote from one male couple who are getting married is your proof of the horrible intentions of same-sex married couples? OK. You do realize that most of the couples who are getting married are female couples, right? Many of these couples are in their 50's and 60's and raising children. Do you really think that promiscuity and AIDS are a part of their daily lives? I would say that these children that you are so concerned about are far more likely to get AIDS if they are on the streets or living with drug-addicted parents or various other harmful situations that you seem to think are so much better than gay couples raising children. Basically your comments are a sweeping generalization of an entire community. You worked as an RN so you think that makes you an expert on gays and lesbians. Yet all of your arguments, as all arguments against this issue, are in the abstract. Oh think of society. Think of the children. You never really seem to pay any attention to the many children who have flourished with same-sex parents, who were rejected by so many others and who are raised in loving homes. Who grow up to be just fine, and often, heterosexual. Nor do you point out to us exactly how hundreds of lesbian couples being married is going to spread AIDS. Nor do you point out that most likely, the men who are out partying and taking drugs all the time, those who are most likely to get AIDS, are probably not the marrying kind. Even if they were, would you also work to prevent straight men who drug and party and have sex with random strangers from ever getting married? Of course not. You would never be allowed to do that. Yet, you feel it is your duty as an RN because gee, you knew some gay men who had AIDS. To another person in this thread, prison sex is not homosexual sex. Prison sex is rape. If someone who is twice as big as you or who will slit your throat corners you in the shower, you don't exactly have a commitment ceremony. At the Cambridge ceremonies, there were two men who held up a banner saying "TOGETHER FOR 49 YEARS". They were in their 70's and had lived together for nearly 5 decades. They were not dying of AIDS, or infecting others, or corrupting children. They were, as much as some of you may bristle at that, human beings. Men who wanted simple benefits that they did not have. That you have and so easily take for granted. As for the FMA, several versions of this amendment would stop legislatures and voters would ever changing the unilateral ban on benefits for unmarried couples. The people who wrote the original version of the FMA told the Washington Post that it was written to ban civil unions and other forms of partnership, and activists like Tony Perkins have said that the first thing they will do if the amendment is ratified is to go to court and strike down any benefits for gay couples. It isn't about saving America from the tyranny of the courts. This is about pushing an extremist agenda of lunatics (sorry to all of you noble anti-gay personalities, but others have said that same-sex marriage is as bad as 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, and I think that is insane) who will ban even benefits that have been enacted by legislators and voters. It is forever silencing the public on an issue that the far-right know they are losing ground over. If you are losing ground it is because no one, including the people in this thread, have come up with any reason to oppose same-sex marriage beyond, "I don't like it" and "look at history". If you want to honor history, then go marry your brother or two or three wives. Or tell your wife that she can't vote or own property or ever get a divorce. That is what the honorable tradition of marriage taught in the glory days that you recall.
Posted by James @ 05/20/2004 02:13 AM PST
As for the idea that gays are going to go back to their states and sue their state to make the marriage license valid, even if they did, the courts will rule against that. If they don't, it will be appealed. The Supreme Court has said not even a year ago that they do not support same-sex marriage (in the Lawrence vs. Texas opinions). There is no reason to think that this will change. And if it ever did change, and DOMA was thrown out, then Congress would almost immediately pass the FMA. So all this hand-wringing about activist judges destroying marriage in every state is a bit premature. I also have to question the idea that any decision from a judge is bad. There were a number of freed slaves who would argue that if they were here today. I also don't remember extremists crying judicial activism when the Supreme Court said the Boy Scouts did not have to allow gays or athiests.
Posted by James @ 05/20/2004 02:20 AM PST
Add A New Comment
|
