Gays worse than terrorists, but hey, no offense intended!
posted at 2:40 pm on March 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
An Oklahoma lawmaker has received an avalanche of criticism, reportedly including a few death threats, for calling homosexuality a greater threat to America than terrorism. Republican state legislator Sally Kern has apparently made the comment in more than one venue, and even now defends her statement while the condemnation rolls in from around the country. Kern has only mellowed it to insist that she meant no gay-bashing:
A YouTube audio clip of a state lawmaker’s screed against homosexuality, which she called a bigger threat than terrorism, has outraged gay activists and brought death threats rolling in.
“The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation, OK, it’s just a fact,” Rep. Sally Kern said recently to a gathering of fellow Republicans outside the Capitol.
“Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted, you know, more than a few decades. So it’s the death knell in this country.
“I honestly think it’s the biggest threat that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat,” she said. …
Kern said she has no regrets for her statements and denies she was gay-bashing. Her Christian faith teachers [sic] her to be loving to individuals, but not their lifestyle, she said.
Gays are a bigger threat than Islamist terrorists? Only if one feels less than confident about their own sexuality. In the real world, gays don’t threaten anyone with their choices. Kern, however, has paranoid notions of gay infiltration of city councils in an effort to drive America to ruin. Oh, the humanity!
But don’t let anyone say that Kern engages in gay-bashing! No, no, no, she hates the sin and loves the sinners. She just doesn’t love it when they conspire to undermine city councils and conduct indoctrination of children into their networks. She doesn’t love gays who sneak gay-themed books into childrens’ libraries, which prompted legislation sponsored by Kern, and which failed to pass in the Oklahoma legislature. But don’t say she bashes gays, for Pete’s sake!
Unfortunately, many take this far too seriously. Republicans at some point have to distance themselves from those whose paranoid impulses lead them to these extremes. In practical terms, they are no better than those who blame Halliburton for conspiring to push the nation to war, or those who believe that the CIA secretly masterminded the 9/11 attacks in order to bolster their budgets.
Worst of all, it takes our eyes off of those who really do want to destroy America — like Osama bin Laden, the Iranian Guardian Council, and other real enemies of our nation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
I recently tried to sell twice the idea of voting for John McCain to two different lesbian couples. I argued that John McCain is unlikely to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who would hurt the cause of gay people. I doubt I made the sale, but they were willing to listen. Why would we want to write off their votes?
thuja on March 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM
True. However for me national defense takes priority after 9/11 so I put up with the nutjobs from the extreme right as much as I can. We can fight our battles on the side as long as the main threat isn’t forgotten.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Geeez-o-pete.
I left yesterday and you were arguing. I come back a day later and your still at it……
Go out and play….its going to be a nice day (be sure to wear green).
moxie_neanderthal on March 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM
I haven’t advocated any laws be passed. If I were it would hardly be unprecedented.
Speaking of the law, it’s a great teacher. Currently our society is teaching that homosexuality is fine and dandy. So voila! We get more of it, with all of its accompanying diseases and early death. You pat yourself on the back for being tolerant, while your advocacy for sex perverts contributes to their demise. Maybe you really hate them, and your advocacy is evidence that you want them all to be miserable and die by continuing to spread disease among themselves. I mean, what would be the difference?
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 11:04 AM
And you have credible evidence of such an increase in the numbers of homosexuals or are you just speaking out of your…posterior? We’ve seen the kind of ‘love’ you folks advocate and thanks, but you can keep it.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 11:10 AM
The straight guys I know, who think homosexuals are OK, haven’t suddenly been turned on by some dude. They probably also think that 80-year-olds are entitled to their sex lives, but they somehow still manage to be very preoccupied by younger women who look a certain way, rather than the octogenarians.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Not sure how to bring it about, but Kern needs to be condemned by the Republican party. There is no excuse for the kind of ignorance and bigotry she expresses, but unless Republicans are willing to stand up and condemn her, some people will think that they approve of her conduct. And don’t offer the tired excuse that Democrats don’t kick their bigots out as a reason for not doing so. It isn’t a question of what Democrats do, but a question of doing what is right.
Fritz J. on March 17, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Too many straw men are presented here by those attacking what Kern has said.
Indoctrination does not mean turning straights into gays, as the mainstream gay activists make clear themselves. It is about approval and about false equivalencies that are axiomatic in the agenda of gay identity politics.
Another straw man is the idea that merely having an agenda is the problem. The issue is the content of that agenda. Pushing identity politics is destructive even in the least coercive form. Using it as central to social policy or to weighing matters of justice, well, that’s the more severe form of harm. And gay identity politics is no exception.
Another straw man is the claim that tradition is irrelevant to societal esteem for marriage — esteem which sustains the special status that is marital status. Advocates of “gay marriage” attack the obvious connection between procreation and marriage and claim that this connection is either just tradition or just religious. They say, there is no legal requirement that makes procreation mandatory for all married people. But then they turn around and claim that marriage is about “love”, or “intimacy”, or some other feature that also lacks a definitive legal requirement. They trash tradition, and religion, only to later depend on it when trying to equate one-sex-short types of relationships with the conjugal relationship.
No dice.
To draw lines around a relationship type, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a relationship status at law, it is necessary (i.e. a requirement) that its core be identified. The man-woman criterion stands for integration of man and woman, not segregation of the sexes. The marriage presumption of paternity clearly stands for the integration of motherhood and fatherhood. These are legal requirements that identify the core of marriage — the social institution recognized and privileged and preferred in our society. The “gay marriage” argument would eject the core from marital status and then appropriate all the social esteem that arises from that core as reflected in our traditions, customs, and legal systems.
So even for the SSM advocates, tradition is mixed into their list of false equivalencies, yet they disparage both the core of marriage and tradition and, usually, they also tend to kick religious beliefs. All of that is corruptive.
And when primary school teachers are preaching, not teaching, about gay identity as some sort of state approved lense through which society must view all matters of human sexuality, well, that too is highly corrosive.
The goals of the mainstream gay activists (not merely the radicals) is to attack the norms and to bust up foundational social institutions such as marriage. They bust it up into bits and pieces. But marriage, as a social institution, is not the sum of a bunch of bits and pieces. It is a coherent whole. That is, the combination of sex integration and contingency for responsible procreation.
Gay activists could promote their goal of protections without attacking the core of marriage, but they adamantly choose attack instead. They attack marriage as “heteronormative” and their goal is to cleanse society of that supposedly hateful afflication. The totalitarian impulse is revealed over and over again. The intolerance pushed in the name of tolerance, by the mainstream activists, shows that a priority on the agenda is to quash dissent.
Now, is that going to strengthen our society to enable us to resist and to defeat the ideological threat of islamism or the existential threat posed by the lethality of terrorism? Intimidation, authoritarianism, and the twisting of principles of justice are common to both the gay identity agenda and islamism.
If those who disagree with Kern would also take a hard line against the profound problems of gay identity politics, starting with the herding of homosexual people, then, sure you would gain more credibility as a neutral defender of human dignity and civil rights. But what we have seen in this very long comment thread is how straw man arguments and other misrepresentations are quick to the tongue of those who totally embrace homosexuality and would have the rest of society relent to that embrace.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM
And yet, homosexuality has outlasted all societies. I’m getting into this discussion a bit late, don’t have time to read all comments, my two cents; When is everyone going to get over the whole gay thing? You don’t have to love it and agree with it, but it’s not the reason whole societies have gone into the tank. I wonder if Sally Kern has read any history at all.
4shoes on March 17, 2008 at 12:06 PM
What Kern said is not bigoted. But the response of those who claim all those misrepresentations, well, that confirms her basic point about what threatens society.
The People have a government, not the other way around. But what is one of the first steps that gay identity politics promotes in the marriage debate? That the government owns the foundational social institution of civil society.
Look at the most celebrated court victory in the SSM campaign’s very brief history. The supreme court in Massachusetts could not produce a majority of justices to decided on the basis of so-called sexual orientation discrimination. In fact, 4 of 7 justices rejected that claim outright while the other 3 (pro-SSM) did not propose a new protective status on that basis. Moreover, 6 of 7 justices did not decide on the basis of sex classification. Yet there was a majority opinion based on what? Really, read the Goodridge opinion and put your finger on precisely what formed the basis of the majority vote on that court.
The result of Goodridge? The court claimed it would change the common law meaning of marriage. It acknowledged that it could not re-write the marriage statutes and so pointed to the legislative branch which has still not bothered to do a re-write. Common-law is subordinate to statutory law. So even if the justices were empowered to change common-law (i.e. judge-made law) they were not so empowered to legislate a like change to the statutes. Further, there has never been common-law marriage in that state. And, moreover, that state’s constitution has always included a reference to marriage and the meaning of marriage could not be amended by the courts; clearly only the People can ratify a constitutional amendment.
See the corruptive influence of gay identity politics even where that politics has achieved its biggest victory?
Note also that before Goodridge was even written, the mainstream gay activists obstructed the state’s constitutional amending process to block a marraige amendment. That amendment would have reaffirmed the People’s esteem for the core of marriage. Later, in another attempt to amend the constitution, the same supreme court advised that to obstruct procedurally would be unconstitutional. Too bad they could not reach back in time and fix what they had broken. Afterall, they claimed to have done that when changing the common-law definition of marriage, right?
So look to the corruptive influence even on the fundamental law of a society. This is not small potatoes for the principles of self-governance. It is again an attack on the core of the framework of republican government which, itself, is the means by which society protects is liberties — including freedom of conscience. But gay identity politics is first and foremost about crushing dissent by state police power.
Now, about that other threat from Islamism …
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 12:07 PM
If you think that gay marriage is more destabilizing to hetero couples than the societal acceptance of divorce or the economic challenges couples with kids face, your experience is very different than mine.
The temptation for a middle-aged man to dump a marriage for a 20-something trophy wife is powerful if he has the means. This has become a common phenomena over the past few decades, without the practical availability of gay marriage.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Yeah, except, that would be normal.
RobertCSampson on March 17, 2008 at 12:16 PM
But yes you must, according to identity politics, to the extent that even saying that motherhood and fatherhood ought to be integrated is now denounced as hatred.
The influence of that sort of politics is what instills weakness in a culture, its social institutions, and far beyond into the spheres of economics and, yes, national defence.
If people who totally embraced gay identity would rest and not push to impose that embrace for all of society, then, you might have a point. But the homosexual population tends to be herded by identity politics, and supposedly the rest of society must relent as well.
A prime example is the approach that Andrew Sullivan takes on the issue of marriage. He is unhinged. Yet he is mainstream, right? What he advocates is one thing; but he is no process conservative, as he likes to pose, nor is he even a conservative in terms of just ends and just means.
The namecalling of gay identity politics has increasingly been adopted by people who are sympathetic toward gays and lesbians — as human beings rather than as foot soldiers in some ideological absolutism. That’s not progress. That’s yet more signs of a corruptive influence.
Yes, some people, many people, conflate homosexuality with the agenda of gay identity politics. Gay is not one and the same as homosexual; not one and the same as same-sex attracted. Yet the conflation is promoted and the misrepresentations abound.
Live and let live is a good general policy, however, that is not among the axiomatic beliefs of gay identity politics.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 12:17 PM
dedalus, yet another straw man.
I did not say a thing about divorce, one way or the other, yet you somehow presumed that your experience is so vastly different.
Your example of divorce, however, supports my view. When divorce becomes normative and is even promoted through happy talk as it is today, it undermines marriage. We would agree?
And when marriage is undermined through divorce, society sees more segregation of the sexes and a weakening of the family and the bonds between motherhood and fatherhood. Whatever the causes of more widespread divorce, this observation is hard to dispute.
Society does need a social institution that promotes, protects, and prefers the integration of the sexes. Marriage naturally does this, at its core, where integration is combined with contingency for responsible procreation.
No-fault divorce was indeed a revolution and its reprecussions will be felt for generations yet to come. It also undermined responsible procreation whereby moms and dads are not just donors of sperm or ova but are the parents– biological and social — of the children then create.
Now, if all unions of husband and wife are to be treated the same as one-sex arrangements, the marriage presumption of paternity gets sidelined — not just in law but socially and culturally as well. That’s not a good thing for society.
If not through marriage recognition, then how would society show preference for sex integration and responsible procreation?
Marriage is more than a bunch of protections. It is not just a protective status. It is a preferential status — because of its core. Other nonmarital arrangements, such as the homosexual variety, may or may not have sufficient merit for a protective status. That is for society to build a consensus on. It already has a tolerative status and protections are available through various routes already. But apart from gay identity politics, how would you distinguish the gay type of one-sexed arrangement from the rest of the nonmarital category of relationship types?
It can’t be love for there is no legal requirement for that. Same for intimacy. In fact, both of these features depend on tradition rather than statutes. Buy the SSM advocates have attacked both tradition and legal requirements. What is left when the core is gone from marriage recognition?
The upshot is that there already is provision for reciprocal beneficiaries, across the society, and if access or affordability is a real issue, then, that is what can be addressed directly, without urging the big hairy hand of the state to cut out the core of marriage. The nonmarital category includes many both-sexed types of relationships but these are excluded from the concept of “gay marriage” and so SSM, even in Massachusetts, is far less inclusive than provision for reciprocal benefiaries is and would be if (when) uniformed across statelines.
Gay identity politics tries to reduce all of this stuff to bumper stickers that depend on the first axiom of pro-SSM argumentation: that to disagree is itself an act of bigtry and hate-filled prejudice. In other words, to defend the special status of marriage, based on the core of marriage, is not to be tolerated. Marriage’s preferential status is thus threated by demotion first to a merely protective status among nonmarital alternatives and later to a barey tolerated status.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I think checking out 20-year old women is normal. My wife would rather I spend time fixing the house and helping with the kids.
My point is that most men have to constrain their attraction to other women, especially if the women are young, hot and flatter the men at all. Gay men? Not so much of a distraction to the marriage.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Gays have extremist rhetoric just as much as fundamentalists do. Refusing to use “mother” and “father” is just as idiotic as saying that gays are worse than terrorists. Should we judge all conservative Christians by the numerous examples their partisans, like Kern, give us? I’m thinking specifically of their battles against evolution being taught in school as well.
Yet those who embrace a so-called Christian identity haven’t made any similiar mistakes in pushing their agenda on the national body politic? I think so. They feel marginalized just as gays do so in response have formed advocacy groups to see their ideas enacted into law. Once you peel away the main issues that unite such groups you find that the individuals who comprise such groups have very little in common beyond being “Christian” or “gay”, however one chooses to define each of these for which there is no set criteria.
This is something that is hardly restricted to gays or straight supporters. On this thread alone we’ve seen a number of so-called Christians use derogatory langauge against gays and making appeals to fringe groups in support of their views, something which is not unusual at all in daily life.
Something we’ve seen from the Religous Right is such thinking is anathema to them as well.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Not a distraction, but an attack on the core of marriage, the social institution, and its positive influence on the behavior of men AND woman.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Well, when straight marriages currently have a divorce rate of 50%, is that the “positive influence” and “social institution” you’re talking about?
JetBoy on March 17, 2008 at 12:43 PM
JohnAGL, identity politics, in its various forms, tends to be corruptive, as I said previously.
Besides, saying, “You too!” is hardly a principled defence of the adverse influence of the gay variety of identity politics.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 12:45 PM
I always understand that as conservatives we respect and work to protect the rights of individuals and not groups. As such, I would protect the right of any gay person to practice their gayness regardless of how I personally feel about it. On the other hand, gay agenda groups that are trying to obtain special and / or preferential treatment (I include gay marriage in that), I have no use for. Our constitution provides for equal rights for all so they already have the same right as straight people. Marrying someone of the same sex would be a special right and to me is ridiculous except from a political standpoint. It only matters to those gays who feel the need to be treated as if their life choices are just as acceptable as anyone elses and I’m afraid those folks are in error.
RobertCSampson on March 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Thanks for proving my point.
2Brave2Bscared on March 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM
JetBoy, you missed the point.
The no-fault divorce revolution undermined the influence of the social institution.
It did not promote it.
As I said, it has produced less, not more, integration of the sexes and less, not more, responsible procreation.
The campaign for “gay marriage” merging with marriage is another direct attack on the core of marriage and its preferential status in society.
Your example of the crude divorce rate actually demonstrates what I’ve been explaining. Those whose parents have been divorced are more likely to subsequently go through divorce themselves. And people who divorce, and re-marry, also have highly probablity of dissolving their marriages later. The nonmarital trend of unwed cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing is connected to the prevalence of divorce in a society’s culture.
Perhaps you are merely suggesting that marriage is so beaten up, so undermined already, that we might as well merge it with nonmarriage (i.e. SSM)? That sounds like instilling defeatism. Another tactic of the SSM campaign.
Now, about that other threat from Islamism …
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM
You misundertand. It’s not a matter of “You too!”, but the focus which many religious conservatives tend to place squarely on gays while ignoring their own faults. It seems to be a matter of “at least we’re not as bad as THOSE guys” (reminds me of a certain parable now that I think about it – Luke 18:9-14). I happen to reject and oppose the behavior of some gay activist groups, but still get lumped into a rant about gays in general by socons. If I am guilty of “identity politics” at times it is because I am forced to in defense by those seeking to strip me of my rights. Ironically, since many of both groups feel the same perhaps we have something in common even if we don’t want to admit it.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 12:52 PM
And this is where we part company because your “life choices” are impacting on our lives to a degree I find unacceptable.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I disagree. It does no more than what Loving did in allowing persons once prohibited from marrying to have their own relationships protected under civil law. Churches are free under the First Amendment to prohibit them as they see fit.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Also, JetBoy, based on your pointing to a sad statistic regarding divorce, the very low rates of participation in same-sex householding might convince you that the SSM campaign is misrepresenting the homosexual population’s interest in their pet project.
Note that same-sex householding is a more broad category than registered partnership, civil union, or even SSM. For these subsets, the participation rates are much lower. The dissolution rates are far higher than the crude divorce rate that you cited.
So if statistics make a powerful point, it would appear that the divorce rate demonstrates what I’ve been saying and that the participation and dissolution rates for the one-sexed arrangement known as “gay marriage” disproves the claim of gay identity politics that there is an enormous pent-up demand for registeration with the government, among the homosexual population.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Why should Sally Kern be condemned for speaking her mind about homosexuality? Homosexual behavior is dangerous and unacceptable. Homosexuals are indoctrinating our children in the public schools (The article8 website has videos of homosexuals indoctrinating young children in our public schools.), attempting to destroy the traditional family, mocking Christians at every opportunity and in spite of events like the yearly “Folsom Street Fair” (yes, children permitted to attend) want to denigrate the institution of marriage.
To many Americans, Sally Kern is the voice of reason.
sinsing on March 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Yes, a very scarey faction of Americans whose religious beliefs trump the Constitution. That’s fine in their own lives but once they try and foist this upon the rest of us is when we start to have problems.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 1:03 PM
There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. So the analogy with racist classifications is very, very, very weak.
Also, we are talking of freedom of conscience of citizens, not just the practices of Churches.
But rather than go down the path of discussing those aspects, which we can return to later if you would like, let’s look at what you think marriage actualy is.
Marriage is a relationship type, yes?
It is distinguishable from other types of relationships, yes?
What is the core around which lines are drawn between marital and nonmarital? What is the core of the type of relationship that you have in mind when you think of two men or two women “marrying”?
Bear with me. I think this goes to the issue of identity politics being pressed into society’s recognition, through our state authorities, of a foundational social institution that the Government neither creates nor owns.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 1:03 PM
We would agree on divorce.
Looking at divorce, though, isn’t a straw man if the argument advanced against gay marriage is based on the necessity of protecting straight marriages. I’m not arguing that gay marriage is a Constitutional right. I’m arguing that those who want to defend marriage have a lot of work to do, and preventing gays from marrying isn’t going to help much.
When many of the legislators supporting “Marriage Defense” initiatives are either on their second wives or are busy cheating on their first wives I can’t take them seriously. If you want to help my marriage lower my property taxes, but don’t tell me you made my life easier by stopping the gays.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 1:04 PM
With a range of sexualities that show no credible evidence of being one’s choosing or capable of changing. I find the analogy to quite apt given the reasoning behind opposition to both.
Indeed, which encompasses more than just opposition to one group or another for whatever reason. In fact, I’m glad you brought this up because it is that attitude of compromise, tolerance, etc. of differences and groups which we may not like that has been the bedrock of our civil society. Protestant heresies haven’t been a big issue for example among Catholics for quite awhile even though these killed the very idea of Christendom.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 1:12 PM
JohnAGJ, another preliminary step in the pro-SSM campaign is to chase religious beliefs from the public square.
Sure, our pluralistic society has the good fortune of a framework of government that uses secular language in its laws and social policies, but that should not translate into anti-religious prejudices.
I’d hope you would agree.
And also that you would disagree with the sectarianism that is promoted by people who say that the Government must impose a non-pluralistic view of marriage.
For example, did you disagree with the efforts to force Catholic Charities out of the adoption services in Massachusetts?
There the goal was to force Catholics, not just the Catholic organizations, to implement anti-Catholic policies. It was not about funding. It was about licensing and, through that state power, imposing a sectarian view on adoption services.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 1:15 PM
This woman speaks for millions. She should absolutely not be condemned by conservatives nor the Republican Party. She should be supported and applauded.
It’s the Judeo-Christian worldview, kids, you are more than familiar with the arguments on both sides. And so you should also know that you will not change anyone’s mind on the issue. If so, gay marriage initiatives would have been voted into law by now at the State level. The fact is, the majority do not want gay marriage nor gay tolerance curriculum in our schools.
The “Gay Agenda” or any other liberal social movement, has several tools to work around the will of the American people: the courts, the schools, and the media. This woman speaks the truth and she is being pounded for it – and misinterpreted. She never said that Gays were like terrorists. She said that the gay agenda is more dangerous to our country than terrorism.
Demonizing Christians in the press who are honest is nothing new. Calling traditional Christians the “radical fringe” will score you points with your secular friends if you are a certain type of Republican. But if you are advocating that we distance ourselves from conservatives who agree with her, you underestimate the numbers involved.
Dork B. on March 17, 2008 at 1:18 PM
I haven’t told you that. But I see your point about politicians whose stated principles, at least in your eyes, are compromised by their behavior.
If “stopping the gays” means defending society against the total embrace of homosexuality, well, I don’t think it is merely a distraction, as I’ve explained earlier. Nor is that defence hate-filled and bigoted.
Yes, there is a lot of work to do in strengthening the social institution of marriage. The merger of nonmarriage with marriage goes in the other direction.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 1:19 PM
No fault divorce caused this, as Rottles points out. Divorce used to be extremely rare until governmental nullification of marriage vows gave us 50% divorce rates. Put another way, government redefinition of marriage resulted in untold human misery. Yet you argue that further government redefinition of marriage is advisable.
{{By the way, 50% of marriages end in divorce, but a lot of divorces involve serial divorcees. It isn’t like 50% of married people are remarried.}}
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 1:19 PM
While the opposite is forcing a particular brand of religion onto the public square? We can play the game of lumping all individuals who have a certain viewpoint into whatever nefarious group you wish, but this ignores certain basic facts that activists usually do not totally represent everyone of whatever cause they are advocate.
Indeed. Yet neither should this be used to foist a particular religious viewpoint onto our pluralistic society wherein not everyone holds such faith.
I’m not as familiar with this case as I probably should be, but in general I would say if they are a private religious charity, then no. If they receive public funding in providing their services that changes matters.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Since when and on what basis must the federal government enforce equal rights on the basis of sexual preference? Did I miss something?
Also, would you please give us your definition of sexual perversion?
Thanks.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 1:24 PM
In part there is a generational factor. The younger the age group, the more tolerance there is for homosexuals. It only takes a quick study of history to see the trend toward the increased visibility and acceptence of homosexuals during the past 40 years.
If this woman has a point she is making it in a way that does the most PR damage to the GOP she can.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Since the State has no business funding a particular religous group which advocates a position contrary to its own non-discrimination laws.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM
JohnAGJ, regardless of sexual proclivities, it remains the case that the nature of the one human race is two-sexed. The nature of human generativity is both-sexed. The nature of human community is both-sexed. Marriage arises from these givens.
Hence the need to integrate the sexes in such a way as to provide contingency for responsible procreation.
The old racist system undermined the core of marriage since it segregated the sexes based on the racist filter which is irrelevant to the nature of marriage. That old system also was an affront to responsible procreation since it bastardized children whose fathers could not marry the mothers. It was a form of identity politics that pressed nonmarriage purposes into marriage recognition and that was itself unjust.
The merger with “gay marriage” would bring sex segregative types of relationships under the auspices of the social institution that integrates the sexes. It can provide no contigency for responsible procreation. The first principle of the core of marriage is that each mom-dad duo is directly responsible for the children they bring into this world. They don’t own the kids. They don’t manufacture the kids through technological interventions. Due to the sexual nature of the conjugal relationship, the marriage presumption of paternity applies. It is not applicable to any one-sexed arrangement (homosexual or not, gay-identified or not, with or without same-sex sexual attraction). And if an all-male or all-female arrangement used third party procreation, well, that points outside of marriage to extramarital procreation. It is extramarital even when a husband-wife union utilizes it.
So the sex difference is far more significant to society, and to its foundational social institution, than the falsehood of subspecies of humankind based on skin color, shape of noses, or whatever. Even human procreation illustrates this, each and every generation of human beings throughout history.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM
2nd request: A) What federal law are you referring to, and B) What is your definition of sexual perviersion?
Thanks.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 1:36 PM
It was not just aboud funding. It was about licensing.
And the antidiscrimination laws were not intended, nor written, to force adoption agencies to place orphans with same-sex couples.
That arose only when SSM had been imposed. That’s the connection with the corruptive influence of gay identity politics.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Indeed. Yet while this is the primary impetus for marriage, it isn’t the sole reason else the elderly and infertile be barred from the institution.
Yet it was quite relevant to folks throughout much of our history, indeed in Europe as well. Such measures prevented a mixing of inferior blood into the superior race. An interracial marriage would have undermined the institution by allowing persons of different racial status to procreate and produce mongrelized offspring. Rather absurd thinking to us today, but religion and ’science’ backed such notions for a very long time. Your objections to same-sex marriage falls under the same category as it presents no threat to the institution, nor are the feared consequences grounded in anything other than religious bias and pseudo-science.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Also, if secularism is the brand of philosophy already identified as a religion, then, it is sectarian to impose its standards on all of society — especially to impose such standards on individuals against their freedom of conscience.
Such secularism ought not to be ingrained in the government. That is the sectarianism that now exists in Massachusetts.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Strike that. You weren’t referring to a law, but a principle. Sorry. But the charity in question, Catholic Charities, was not receiving any federal funding. On the basis of its religious principle regarding homosexuality being a disorder and a sin, it wisely refuses to allow homos to adopt. For this religious principle, First Amendment be damned, it was srummed out of business.
You like that?
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 1:38 PM
It is the core of marriage. Without that core, the social institution is unrecognizable.
Are you now equating gay identity with old-age or with the disability of the infertile?
I would hope not. So what is your meaning, precisely, please?
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 1:39 PM
The discussion was about Massachusetts law, not Federal. This will change, however, once ENDA is passed, although even without this one could make an argument based upon the 14th Amendment. How much, I’ll leave to others.
Why?
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 1:40 PM
That cuts both ways. As much as you’re opposed to people of religious beliefs “foisting” them on you, is as much as religious people enjoy amoral people “foisting” there beliefs on me.
From my perspective, being a single, divorced mother with both a 7 year old boy and 10 year old boy attending public school, my oppossion has a much higher merit. My religious beliefs are prosecuted if I allow them to be shared in the public square of the school MY CHILDREN attend and which MY TAX DOLLARS fund. Yet, your beliefs I openly taught in the school and I can’t say a freaking thing about it regardless of my religious beliefs because you’re beliefs are ’somehow’ Constitutionally Protected speech and my speech (1st amendment) ’somehow’ isn’t Constitutionally Protected speech. I’m just wondering why the Founding Fathers and those the came after them thought it was constituationl to ban certain homosexual practices and yet never thought it was wrong to say a prayer in the public square or put them on both the Capitol and Supreme Court Buildings? As far as I’m concerned, the “foisting” is occurring from your end not mine.
As for the marriage thing: If ‘love’ and not the ability to have a raise a family is the only prequiste to marriage, then why can’t brothers and sisters get married? They can adopt. Why not mothers and fathers? Why not multi partners? Three men and a woman? Three woman and a man? Why, if I’m in love with my German Shepherd, couldn’t I marry my dog? If you use that arguement, better take it to its final course, because if you’ll have to come up with a BIG difference why one deviate behavior should be accept over other types? ((Meaning deviation for the large normal percentage, i.e. bell curve. You know what I mean if you took statistics and it’s not meant to insult.))
Sultry Beauty on March 17, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Yes, by “you” I meant the legislators not you personally. We agree on the value of strengthening the family and disagree on the impact that legitimizing gay couples has on straight marriages. I might be able to find some agreement with you on a conceptual level about gays damaging the “ideal” of marriage, except from my own experience I find the practical challenges of marriage to be substantial–financial uncertainty, demands of children, lack of time, exhaustion, career demands, personal fullfillment, growing apart, etc. The rewards of marriage are also substantial, especially if you care about the long-term success of your children. However, the “notion” of marriage, the certificate, the state endorsement, the exclusion of gays, etc. I know are not materially beneficial for either me or my colleagues and don’t contribute to us getting up every morning and putting the family well being ahead of our own personal interests.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 1:42 PM
What do you mean by licensing in this case? Elaborate.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Which would still remain at the core of the institution regardless of whether SSM is allowable under law or not.
Only in the sense that without third party intervention they are unable to procreate, which in the case of the 2 I cited is not a barrier to legal marriage nor should it be.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Just wondering if you have one, since we are discussing sexual perversion and the threat it poses to our society. I wonder if you conceive of any sexual self-identification that poses a threat to society generally, or to the mental and physical health of individuals. I should think that it would be an easy question to answer, given your anonymity in this forum.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Except a secular attitude was fundamental in our founding. I beleive you mean secularism that is hostile to religion in general, which I would agree with you on.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Was it?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” -Congress of the United States of America.
“While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.” -George Washington, “Father of Our Country” (The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)
“The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” -George Washington’s letter of August 20, 1778 to Brig. General Thomas Nelson, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XII (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 343.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM
+1
RobertCSampson on March 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” -Article III of the Northwest Ordinance (An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio), enacted under the Articles of Confederation July 13th, 1787, and re-enacted under the Constitution on August 7, 1789.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 1:50 PM
JohnAGL, it is not psuedo-science that the nature of the human race is two-sexed.
Nor is it simpley a doctrine of this or that religion that human procreation is both-sexed.
Surely you would not claim empircal or even a principles contention that a one-sexed community would long endure, much less flourish.
Hence the nature of the human community is objecltively both-sexed.
You are dismissing far too much when you compare this with the racist subdivision of humankind.
You presented an ahistorical account oof so-called interracial marriage.
The nature of marriage is reflected directly in the ease with which the both-sexed combination can cross and obliterate such false categories of subspecies based on racist identity.
This is accomplished through the three givens I noted earlier: the natures of humankind, human procreation, and human community. Such integration is at the core of marriage which unites humanity in a way that was directly undermined by racism in its various forms.
The Loving analogy fails miserably. Even the Goodridge majority could not produce a majority of justices to decide that the man-woman criterion of marriage was unjust discrimination based on sexual orientation (or gay identity); nor on the basis of sex classifications.
The arguments for the man-woman criterion are not irrational. They are directly tied to the coherent set of principles, practices, and customs that promote responsible procreation and sex integration.
The argument for degendering marriage, abolishing the man-woman criterion, is also an argument to de-sexualized the conjugal relationship, in the eyes of the Government. The marriage presumption of paternity clearly establishes that the both-sexed relationship, under the auspices of marriage, is a sexual relationship. No such legal principle can appy to the one-sexed arrangement.
None I’ve come across. Maybe you can distinguish the sexualized relationship from the nonsexualized relationship, given your earlier response regarding procreation and marriage?
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Marriage as a social institution has been around before the U.S. Government, and before any government for that matter. It will survive irrespective of government legislation because human beings benefit from coupling and caring for one another, especially with regard to long-term efforts. People, who want to raise children, especially, will continue to seek communities that provide support for those efforts.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, letter to Jedidiah Morse, 28 Feb 1797.
I think this kinda eliminates the Barney Franks of the world from this Founding Father’s notion of the ideal ruler.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 1:55 PM
I have read most of the comments here, and I find myself disturbed by the intolerance of so many of the social conservatives. It’s quite sad, really. Many of you so slavishly look to the few passages of the Bible that can be construed as condemning homosexual conduct that you ignore Jesus’ larger message of faith, hope and love. In many ways you remind me of the pharisees that Jesus often rebuked. They, too, slavishly followed their canon of Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus frequently found common cause with the outcasts of society, those the pharisees ignored and condemned.
In order to avoid charges of hypocrisy, you should slavishly follow the rest of the holy book. Jesus clearly condemned divorce. How do you feel/act about that? Jesus was not a big fan of usury. Have you checked your investments lately? If you use the Old Testament to condemn homosexuality, than you really open a big can of worms regarding hypocrisy. Do you eat pork and shellfish? Do you wear mixed-fabric clothing? Do you avoid sex during menstruation? The list could go on and on.
So I suggest that you remove the log in your own eyes before you worry about the speck in mine. Try showing some compassion to your gay brothers and sisters. Try to understand the pain and extreme difficulty that many of them face.
Finally, I am not suggesting that opposing some of the measures proposed by the “gay left” makes you bigoted. I often oppose the gay left. What makes you bigoted is opposing the right of gay people to live their lives freely. Do you not realize how horrible you sound when you suggest that this great nation is going to hell in a handbasket just because a gay person has the audacity to suggest that he or she would like to marry the person he or she loves?
DCGamer on March 17, 2008 at 1:56 PM
From another whacko fundamentalist who doesn’t understand the Constitution:
“The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” -Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence (Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)
So, tell whom you think Benjamin Rush, John Jay, and George Washington would be closer to in this debate, Sally Kern or you, JohnAGJ?
And what is your definition of sexual perversion, please?
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I agree with your concerns about what goes on in public schools.
With regard to marriage, your German Shepherd can’t be party to any contract so that would be a showstopper. Your other points, which are essentially a slipper slope argument are ones that have been made against interracial marriage, which didn’t cause an increase in incest or polygamy.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I wouldn’t quite put it like that. What’s seems to be happening is that America specifically and the West generally are under attack by enemies both foreign and domestic. The Judeo-Christian values that gave birth to Western Civilization are under attack externally by Islam and internally by secularism. Strangely, both the Left (including Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender) and the Islamofascists function as two blades on a set of scissors, they are independent yet working together to shred the fabric of Western culture.
I don’t think that’s a fair statement. Sorry.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 2:03 PM
I think sometimes there is a tendency, among people (mainly liberals), to downplay the dangers of a promiscous lifestyle, particularly gay promiscuity, that spreads disease. Promiscuous behavior in the gay community was largely responsible for the spread of HIV in the 80’s and 90’s. Now this same behavior seems to be spreading a killer form of Staph. This one seems more likely to get into the hetero community, though, and will then be spread by the rampant promiscuity there. Article here
Please spare me the “safe sex” nonsense. It doesn’t work. It’s called abstinance or monogomy, and it’s the only sure way to not transmit STDs.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Given the slave-ownership, Jay may not have seen Colin or Condi as ideal rulers either.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 2:06 PM
And if you want to talk sin, fine. God GAVE us warning about homosexual sodomy. And God does nothing by accident!
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24
This was Gods plan. Man and Woman… Not Man and Man or Woman and Woman. It was never even an option! what made it an option in people’s lives is submitting to sick God forsaken thoughts.. and these same acts you think are harmless God takes very seriously.. Even animals stick to Gods code.. people are breaking HIS law and sending themselves to never ending nightmare called HELL. According to the Bible Sodomites (all immoral sex) are in serious danger of Hellfire.
God speaks against Homosexuals in the Bible… God sounds like he means what he is saying:
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:13
And for the record, I don’t hate gays one bit. We are ALL sinners. Each and every one of us. I just think homosexuality is wrong. Very wrong. And whether you agree with it or not, “millions” of other Americans agree with me. I think Kern has every right to speak out against homosexuality. And I don’t think urging Republicans to distance themselves from people who hold this view to be constructive. It reminds me of when Heidi Cullen, who runs a global warming kool-aid stand for the Weather Channel (which used to report the weather without political lectures), suggested that weather people who don’t toe the line should be denied American Meteorological Society accreditation.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Allow me to stop you right here, because the rest is unnecessary. I support school choice not only because of the PC nonsense, some of which we may not agree upon, but mainly because they have failed to teach the basics. Even when they try they mess it up so bad that it becomes mush (ever hear of “partial products”?). I thought they were bad years ago when I attended yet watching my nephew’s experience in them today I am even more underwhelmed. School choice would go a long way in improving education in this country and perhaps healing some of this cultural divide. Btw, I include home-schooling in this as well.
You would have to require sterilization of such couples that most would find to be an unacceptable breach of civil rights. Without this the State does have a compelling interest given the genetic problems such unions would cause in it’s offspring.
Is your dog capable of giving consent?
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Akzed,
No Religious Test Clause
That would be article 6. That kinda eliminates whatever John Jay wrote to Jebidiah Springfield.
Krydor on March 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I hardly see how this is relevant to the discussion, but if you’d like some examples: pedphilia, the whole S&M nonsense, ‘furries’, etc.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Yes. As I said, a secular attitude that was not hostile to religion in general. The quotations you provided did nothing to show otherwise.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM
But we know that there’s nothing immoral about being black, don’t we?
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM
And that still points outside of marriage. So why are you emphasizing extramarital procreation?
Whether by old age or some illness or other misfortune, infertility is both-sexed, not one-sexed. No individual can be fertile acting alone. The human individual is fertile only with the other sex.
The one-sexed combination — whether a lone individual, a twosome, or moresome — is never fertile. Not without the other sex.
So even when you point to infertilty, you point to the integration of the sexes.
There is no disability in the one-sexed arrangement. Just the lack of the other sex.
If you meant to say that there is no government intervention to force married people to procreate, well, I still don’t see the significance of that. Afterall, the government merely recognizes the social institution. And to have some sort of absolutist enforcement of a procreative rule, that would undermine marriage and attack its core.
The contingency for responsible procreation is not one and the same as procreation of all kinds. It is a contingency that many couples (about half) who experience infertility are able to resolve without resort to third party supplies of sperm or ova. They change their behavior. That option is not available to the one-sexed arrangement.
Of those who don’t resolve their infertility in that way, most already have children and so are experiencing secondary infertility or subfertility.
Of the remaining, most who use ARTs and/or IVF do not resort to third party procreation. About 90% of married couples who use such techniques use only the gamets of the couple.
So, I think, at best you would sideline the core of marriage by basing your claim on the rarest of apparent exceptions. That is, the married couple whose infertility is congenital, known before marriage, and is untreatable without resort to third party supplies of gametes.
They experience a real disability. Are you really saying that you’d expect governments — either of the distant past of the modern world — to intrude upon the privacy of such couples? If so, then, I am sorry that you would reveal such a totalitarian view of marriage law — of government itself.
As I said previously, the core of marriage is not just procreation, but contingency for responsible procreation *comnbined* with integration of the sexes. It is not just a bunch of bits and pieces.
If we are going to go down that road, then, I don’t see how you would distinguish the conjugal relationship from most other nonmarital relationships.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Odd, I fail to see where I said anything even resembling this.
Such would seem to be covered in Biology 101.
Since humanity is biologically incapable of asexual reproduction, let alone that of same-sex, I would be hard-pressed to make such an argument.
On the contrary, I present the view of interracial marriage that existed prior to Loving, though probably among some groups even afterwards. That you find such a view reprehensible or scientifically flawed is commendable, but it doesn’t change the realities of that time. History is replete with humanity embracing ideas later view with great wonder at the stupidity of.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Pretty funny!
I think Jay knew about the test oath dealio. He still advocated that Christians only vote for Christians. And there’s the whole Northeast Ordinance thing, plus the state churches among the ratifying states, and so on.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 2:23 PM
That is irrelevant to the one-sexed combination of people. If we are to treat one-sexed as if it was both-sexed, then, I guess sterilization would be necessary there as well, right?
Or if we are to treat the both-sexed as one-sexed, then, no sterilization and no prohibition.
But more importantly, you have just used an example whereby society draws lines around marriage based on concerns about responsible procreation.
The argument for “gay marriage” rejects that as the core of the relationship type. So you really can’t resurect it once the merger has occured.
Besides, once the merger is done, it is inevitable that closely related people would not look on “marriage” as marriage.
There is no legal requirement that men do something together sexually to gain “marital status” in Massachusetts or in Canada. You said something about the lack of a requirement in terms of procreation, so, again,you really can’t switch rules once the merger is done.
I think you may be depending on tradition, alone, and that too has been rejected by the argument for the SSM merger.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Since homosexual behavior has been observed in 1,500 animal species, are you saying that such is part of “Gods code”? Ok, as you wish.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 2:29 PM
“…a secular attitude was fundamental in our founding,” is what you said. Stalin was a secularist, Washington was not.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Do we? Perhaps modern society has reached this conclusion, but such was historically not the view concerning those ‘unfortunate’ enough to be born of a non-white race.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Which was followed by “I beleive you mean secularism that is hostile to religion in general, which I would agree with you on”, which Stalin would have great difficulties with.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 2:32 PM
JohnAGJ, perhaps I misread your meaning?
I see that you agreed with the givens that I had listed. It is on that basis, not quasi-science, that I have referred to the core of marriage.
I don’t really see, not yet at least, how the proposed merger of SSM is to be presumed one of those ideas outside of the category “stupid”.
I don’t say it is stupid, just that history has no record of this merger ever having been instituted in a flourishing society — or any civilization, bar some rare and small and short-lived exceptions.
I think that has a great deal to do with the nature of humankind being the base from which the social institution has arisen and is sustained across time, geography, and cultures.
No such evidence exists for the proposed SSM merger. None scientific. None empirical. And so on.
I think that has something to do with how human beings distinguish between the foundation of family formation, whether in its primitive form in its most elaborately civilized form, and the vast array of nonconjugal alternatives.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Akzed,
I would hope John Jay, being a Supreme Court justice would be aware of the Constitution. He is also advocating a religious test, in which only Christians are elected.
Krydor on March 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Some anthropologists I understand would dispute this, but I’m familiar with their work myself. Nevertheless, accepting your premise on its face, such would indicate that we have basis for denying SSM either except one from theory, not fact.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Excuse me, I meant to say that I’m NOT familiar with the work of these anthropologists.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Who would you rather have your back in a battle? This lady or Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright?
pabarge on March 17, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Actually, that conclusion is written into the two-sexed nature of humankind.
As for the history of the racist system that outlawed interracial marriages, these couplings were indeed recognized as a subset of marriage. The analogy with the one-sexed combination does not fit.
On the other hand, same-sex sexual behavior was widely accepted in ancient Greece, but it was not the basis for marriage.
In this case there is an analogy with slavery which basically provided the basis for many of that society’s successes. Yet it was not a racist slavery per se. And slaves could own slaves; slaves could buy their way out of slavery; slaves could be freed in other ways, too, within that society’s norms. But the marriage customs, and laws, made the marriages of slaves a subset of the conjugal relationship. And even at that it integrated the sexes and provided contingency for responsible procreation, albiet in an inferior form.
But “marriage” for an all-male or all-female combination, no.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 2:44 PM
You are comparing apples to oranges. Racial types didn’t change the fundamental core of marriage which is basically man and woman. On top of that, they are capable of having perfectly healthy children. My slippery slope “arguement” has been disproven by this? We are NOW discussing change the translation/definition of a word commonly known as “marriage”, a spiritual union between and man and woman to include something other than that. How does interracial marriage disprove my hypothesis? If you go to court and the courts uphold that they only criteria for marriage not gender and ability to procreate but “love” how do you argue that a Morman male should be prosecuted for wanting to marry multiple females if they are consenting? What makes it wrong for the Morman to practice his beliefs versus homosexuals? Is religious beliefs the only reason? Therefore, if I believe something that isn’t advocated by some church it shouldn’t be discriminated but if it has religious undertones it should be discriminated against a prosecuted? You put the 1st amendment upside down and I don’t understand your logic.
Sultry Beauty on March 17, 2008 at 2:50 PM
JohnAGJ, it is probably my fault, but I cannot decipher what you meant by the following. Could you please help?
Earlier you asked about the licensing of adoption in Massachusetts. Even if Catholic Charities had spurned government funds (I think it comprised 10% of their budget), they were being told to place children in homes against Catholic teachings — or lose the license to place any children at all.
That threat would have been followed-up with court battles that would have further depleted the resources of the Church’s associations in that state. In my view, regardless of one’s views on homosexuality or even on marriage, all of us should have backed the exercised of freedom of conscience. And if the backers of SSM had done so, against the so-called radicals, then, they would have earned a great deal of respect on that basis alone. Instead, well, you know what happened there. Identity politics corrupted even the goodwill of “moderates”.
That has not served children in need. And, no, the homosexual population is not going to be better served by the exclusion of Catholic Charities, much less by the stomping on freedom of conciene.
Given the rights-based claims of the advocates of SSM, one would might have imagined these activists — especialy in the mainstream — would have been appalled by the specific prospect of imposing anti-Catholic policies on Catholics. Instead they relented to inimidation.
I would have preferred the Bishop to have stood its ground and stand for freedom because that is a stand for all citizens, not just Catholics. But identity politics exacts a toll across society — even among those whose purpose is to promote Catholic teachings to their fellow Catholics.
We saw the horrible exhibition of non-Catholics proposing that they could teach Catholics better than Catholic Bishops. That certainly crossed the line into sectarianism.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 2:56 PM
This is unreasonable thinking DC. By your logic nothing is wrong then because we are all guilty of sin. That’s like saying someone caught cheating on his wife is not wrong because someone else got caught robbing a bank.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Oh, and by the way, the New Testament speaks against it as well:
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:26-32
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I’m not arguing that interracial marriage compels gay marriage, rather that the slippery slope arguments of the time against interracial marriage included references to incest and beastiality and a general breakdown of society.
Preventing gay marriages hasn’t kept the divorce rate down, and there would be few additional divorces if men knew they could leave their wife for the chance to marry another guy.
With regard to the 1st Amendment, the prohibitions against polygamy are not any more or less valid due to what Mormons or other religions teach.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Hey, John.
Tell me the truth. If a dog could give consent would you approve animal and human marriage?
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Marriage is a relationship type, yes?
It is distinguishable from other types of relationships, yes?
What is the core around which lines are drawn between marital and nonmarital? What is the core of the type of relationship that you have in mind when you think of two men or two women “marrying”?
Bear with me. I think this goes to the issue of identity politics being pressed into society’s recognition, through our state authorities, of a foundational social institution that the Government neither creates nor owns.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 1:03 PM
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 3:08 PM
What makes this comment even worse is that she represents Oklahoma itself – ugh.
A Axe on March 17, 2008 at 3:13 PM
I haven’t followed what your talking about, but thought to add that John Jay who was America’s first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, once received a letter inquiring from him whether it was permissible for a Christian to vote for an unGodly candidate. Jay responded:
“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab (”Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?” 2 Chronicles 19:2) affords a salutary lesson.”
Don’t know if that’s helpful.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Apacalyps, even the devil can quote scripture. If you think homosexuality is wrong, then don’t have gay sex. Also, don’t impose your narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible upon the rest of us.
Debates like this re-affirm for me why I am a big believer of the separation of church and state (even if such separation is not expressed in our founding documents). Without such separation, if we had a congress full of people who think like you, apacalyps, then we would have a country not much different from Iran.
DCGamer on March 17, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I was just reading Andrew Sullivan’s blog. He posted a quote that seems particularly poignant to this debate:
With regard to gay marriage, perhaps straight people should “meddle” less in the “affairs that are not their own.” Nobody has yet persuaded me how allowing a gay couple to marry affects straight marriage.
DCGamer on March 17, 2008 at 3:34 PM
So IOW, I am supposed to accept your re-framing of the debate by picking and choosing what you wish from Western tradition and natural law while ignoring the revision in thinking on both down through the centuries? I don’t think so. The State and society as a whole has an interest in recognizing straight marriages as well as gay ones, especially when children are involved which occur in both.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I spoke in generalities because I am not a lawyer so probably do not understand the full complexities of the legal situation here nor am I fully aware of this particular case. Part of the complexities I am referring to involve the licensing you say Catholic Charities is required to have. In general I would say that as a religious organization they are protected under the First Amendment, but where this licensing fits in and why I am not aware of.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Very true. The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
Heh, good one, except I’m 100% heterosexual. I like women…. ALOT….ahem, anyways….
Typical attack from your side. Now I’m narrow-minded and quoting Scripture for my purpose. LOL. Are you tellling us the Bible approves of Homosexual sodomy?
The so-called “constitutional separation of church and state.” No where in the US constitution is this mentioned, nor even the words “separation”, “church”, or “state”. That phrase was started by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a friend in which he explained that the church must be protected from the state (not the other way) in order to ensure freedom of religion. And this idea the state (and therefore public schools) must be free of Christian influence – what do people think this nation and its government, laws, and ethics were founded on?! Does the phrase “In God We Trust” sound familiar? You’d think that that phrase being on American currency would be against the “separation of church and state” and a blatent violation of the public’s right not to be exposed to anything pertaining to Christianity.
See. This is the problem with folks like you on liberal issues like this. Someone stands their ground and says homosexual sodomy is wrong and all of a sudden their racist and unfair. You may not realize it, but you are using what is called an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem is when an individual attacks the man, not the argument (a personal attack). When you can’t defeat the message, take a shot at the messenger. I’ve said nothing of the sort about you. You have your right to speak freely. Allow others the same right back or leave the debate.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 3:53 PM
No, what it shows is that interpretation of the Bible has undergone significant revision over the centuries, not just on what is morally permissable but even fundamental theology in both Judaism and Christianity.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 Next »