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 ... 5 6 7 8 Next »
Too speculative. First show me a non-human animal that is a sapient being capable of giving consent and then we can discuss the possibility.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Only when you attempt to use such as the basis for making law that violates the beliefs of others. As far as preaching to others that this belief of yours is correct, you are free to do so to your heart’s content. However, I do not agree with you nor do I recognize your authority for interpreting the Bible.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 4:02 PM
It takes balls for a gay advocate to tell us to shutup and mind our own business while pushing alternative lifestyle material in grade schools. A true homosexual is incapable of reproducing without some form of help, so why don’t you shut-up and mind your own business, and let the “breeders” worry about what their children learn in school.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 4:03 PM
I can show you prinmates with vocabularies only slightly smaller than most neocons egos.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 4:05 PM
If your objection stopped at the schoolhouse door, you might have a point. However, since you have the gall to go beyond this in imposing your views I believe DCGamer’s point stands.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 4:06 PM
And I can show you those who have both. Your point?
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 4:07 PM
No, particularly on the gay issue, where chaos reigns, let’s then keep it that way, chaotic.
Conservatism believes in the rule of law, and there is no definitive law as to the gay issue, especially on the federal level. There must be a consensus, a law that everybody should abide by. To ask for a referendum and law is to ask for big government? I don’t think so.
Current laws don’t satisfy everybody. I say, ask the people what they want, let them vote and accordingly, promulgate a law, once and for all, for all states.
Gays will not have any more excuses.
Indy Conservative on March 17, 2008 at 4:13 PM
In re-reading my comment, I never used an ad hominum attack. I called your interpretation of the Bible narrow minded, not you. Furthermore, I suggested that a congress full of similar-minded people would resemble the government of Iran. That is a simile not an ad hominum attack.
Perhaps I should explain. The government of Iran is a theocracy. Its sharia law is based completely upon the holy books of Islam, the Koran and its hadiths.
What you appear to be suggesting is that the U.S. government was not only founded upon Christian belief, but that its laws should pass some sort of Christian litmus test. This sounds very similar to the government of Iran.
Tell me again, how is this an ad hominum attack?
I do not think that you are “racist” or “unfair.” I think that you are wrong on this issue (and perhaps a bit of a bigot), but I do not hope to persuade you. I do not doubt that you are very set in your ways. I hope to persuade the others that are reading this post.
DCGamer on March 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM
So IOW, you want to toss aside Federalism and have a standard law on personal behavior – just in this one instance. After that precedent, we are supposed to ignore government encroachment when it comes to obesity, smoking, guns, etc? Ok…
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 4:16 PM
How do you know where my objection stops? Listen gay Joe, I appreciate that your smarter than the avergage gay man, and realize Islam and it’s tendancy to kill homosexuals is probably bad for your demographic, and we thank you for your support in that area. However, you should realize that your support is strictly limited to that issue, and maybe lower taxes, everybody likes lower taxes, and trying to convince us to accept the “gay agenda” is going to be about as successful as us getting you to give up quivering man flesh.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 4:18 PM
My point? Your the one wanted an example of an animal capable of giving consent, or did you forget.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Do you even know what you’re talking about? Have any idea about the history of the Bible and the original manuscripts from which it came from? It sure doesn’t sound like it. It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria, and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt. The Syrian text from Antioch is where our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is where all the other modern versions come, including the Catholic Bible (Rome got her manuscripts from Alexandria). So before you go talking about revision over the centuries, I would hope you have done some research on this matter. Aside from that, your point is what?? That the Bible permits sodomy and sex outside of marriage?
Show me where it says that and tell me the version you’re taking this from.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 4:21 PM
That’s a cop out. You’re avoiding answering the question.
Answer these if you can:
1. Say all the criteria you list above are met? Would you approve animal and human marriage?
2. Or rather a dog and it’s owner love each other. Would you approve animal and human marriage?
3. The animal cannot understand. Would you allow people to marry animals?
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 4:30 PM
DFCtomm, where to begin? I disagree with you on this issue. Does that make me a “gay advocate” in your mind? Furthermore, when did I tell you “shut up and mind [y]our own business?”
I presented a quote by George Washington that I thought was poignant to the debate. Your comment illustrated perfectly the point that Washington was trying to make. He suggested that before we take up arms (rhetorically speaking), we might first question whether the issue at hand really affects us. I suggested that perhaps the gay marriage issue does not affect straight people.
I am not foolish. Given the controversial nature of this issue, I do not doubt that straight people will have an opinion. I just wish that some of you would tone down the hurtful nature of some of your comments.
DCGamer on March 17, 2008 at 4:32 PM
There’s no such thing as a “Catholic Bible”. Most Catholics, myself included, use the Douay-Rheims Bible, or else the New American Bible. The Douay is the older…translated from Latin Vulgate.
JetBoy on March 17, 2008 at 4:38 PM
I wish people wouldn’t make grade schoolers aware of alternate lifestyles, so it looks like both of us are SOL.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 4:42 PM
What are you talking about, passing law by it’s very definition is legislating morality. Secondly, don’t twist my words. People can believe what they want. I’ve never said otherwise.
And so are you. Let the truth win.
I haven’t misquoted Scripture. But, then again, what else are you going to say when the Bible’s simplest interpretation is for man and women to have sex in a monogomous relationship.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Cute. While the Constitution gives you and I both the right to express our views, I care about yours on this specific issue as you apparently do mine. As for being “successful”, that depends upon what you mean. If you mean by changing laws, that’s already being done and will continue with society as a whole becoming more tolerant of homosexuals. Feel free to preach what you please in your church.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Since consent is a prerequisite for marriage, or any legal contract for obvious reasons, such a request is reasonable when someone raises the possibility of human-animal matrimony.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 4:44 PM
That is awesome, bro.
Yes, the children. Heterosexual couples and their children are being bombarded by the homosexual agenda. Take a look
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 4:46 PM
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I find such speculation beyond the bounds of rational discussion and until that changes, like you presenting an animal that is a sapient being capable of giving consent, this is an unreasonable distraction.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Yet the morality in this case is civil and secular, one that that is based not on religious concerns.
Yet you are forgetting about polygamy and concubinage, both of which the Bible allows. Besides, whatever happened to the Protestant notion of private interpretation? Suddenly that’s tossed out the window when faced with one you disagree with?
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 4:50 PM
You’ve peaked. You have reached your high water mark. Homosexuals will soon be fleeing Europe in record numbers, or being killed in record numbers, by muslims. America is going to grow increasingly more conservative if this economic crash is as big as I think it’s going to be. Take the roaring 20s for an example. It was called roaring for a reason. What effect did the great depression have on society?
It’s the future so, neither of us knows whats going to happen, but the only thing I feel confident of is that it’s never going to turn out exactly like you think it will.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Putting aside your characterization of this, if it helps lead to school choice being adopted then may they have success in this endeavor.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Of course, yet given your admission that you do not know what the future holds you have no viable way of saying that I’ve “peaked”.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 4:54 PM
He can’t show you that because it does not exist in the scripture.
If you go back through my posts on pages 2,3,4,5 you will see that I prove that one of the other sins the practicing homosexual “Christian” commits is IDOLATRY.
Idolatry is when one creates a false god in their minds that justifies their sins.
You can’t say your a Christian when you’re clearly a follower of satan.
“NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS”
You show who you are serving with your actions.
God does not care about whether you praise him in words,but in deeds.
You don’t show God that you love Him by saying “I love you God”…you show that you love God by obeying His Word.
Make no mistake about this, so called gay “Christians”.
You’re not saved if you are still following the devil and living a life of sin..
SaintOlaf on March 17, 2008 at 4:55 PM
I gave you one,I used primates, but chimps, and apes to be more specific, that can stand up there and using an accepted language(sign) give you consent, at least as much consent as a human five year old can muster, which I think is plenty enough for some fool to carry this to the Supreme Court.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I am probably with you on this one, DFCtomm. I am not aware of the details of this issue, so I cannot make a definitive comment. I would agree, though, that all too often our public school classrooms focus too much on advocacy, self-esteem issues, and other political agendas rather than on teaching the three “Rs.”
I would probably also agree with you on hate-crimes legislation. I am very uncomfortable with the government trying to read the minds of criminals. After all, assault is assault and murder is murder regardless of whether the victim is black, gay, or whatever.
What I wish you would realize is that there is no monolithic gay agenda. Gays come in as many varieties as straight people do: conservative, liberal, religious, secular, etc. While I vociferously disagree with you on the marriage issue, I will agree with you on others.
DCGamer on March 17, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Call it a hunch.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 5:01 PM
The eternal destination of my soul and even yours are not up to you. Your views on Scripture do not interest me nor do I recognize your authority. Besides, the religious tenets of your particular sect has no bearing on this discussion.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Yet it remains unproven that they are sapient let alone capable of giving consent. Even a 5-year old human is not capable of giving consent, especially with regards to contractual law. When you find an example that meets these prerequisites for marriage and contracts in general, I’ll be happy to discuss the possibility. Until then…
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 5:08 PM
It’s not for “personal behavior” that I want a common law, but for the results of that behavior. All that debate and clash here on this message board and elsewhere can be avoided if we have a common ground to lean on, a common law that rules everybody, a law agreed upon by all people. Is this hard to understand? It is as simple as it is, no need to make a federal case out of it, or maybe some people like to debate and fight anyway.
Indy Conservative on March 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM
One I do not share, so it appears that both of us are at an impasse with competing premonitions.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
You suggested that if we had a government full of true Bible believing Christians, then we would have a country not much different from Iran. First off, in Islam as a dogma, the idea of salvation, there’s only one way you can assure yourself of going to heaven. It’s not like the Christian dogma in which you believe in the dogma of one, Christ, by that a sinless person who died on your behalf, you go to heaven. In this case of Islam, the way to assure yourself to go to heaven is by dying yourself, as an offer to god. So I find any comparisons between Christianity and Islam offensive and I think you owe Christians an apology. America was founded on Christian principles. You’re able to speak freely today because of Christians who fought for this right.
That homosexual sodomy goes both against God’s laws and natures laws. And you know it.
I’m not. Speak freely. Enjoy life.
LOL. You guys ALWays have to throw in that bigot trash. You people have soooo over-used that insult that it no longer has any meaning OR should be considered a badge of honor considering the source. In YOUR case, it’s the latter.
I’m not set in my ways at all. I only care about what’s right that’s all. And yeah, I can see you’re trying to persuade other it’s okay to be homosexual. That’s obvious.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
So do liberals when it comes to obesity, smoking, etc. Why do conservatives resist them on these matters yet embrace such mentality when it comes to sexuality? Seems rather inconsistent and given the rhetoric about the dangers of such, just a tad myopic when it comes to using Big Brother to further one’s social views.
Since when are civil rights up for majority vote? Shall we wait a few years for Christianity to fall into the minority and hold a vote on their rights?
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 5:14 PM
“So called gay ‘Christians?’” Wow! I am pretty sure that it is God’s place to judge, olaf, not yours.
I will make you a deal. I will allow you to worship in whatever narrow-minded, medieval manner you wish if you agree not to burn me at the stake in some sort of inquisition.
DCGamer on March 17, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Except, the forces that I see driving my prediction are very, very hard at work today. I can see by the website linked in your signature, that you fear at least half of my prediction may come to pass. You agree with my cause, but don’t agree with my conclusion. You have already conceeded more than I have.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 5:19 PM
There are laws against smoking, or at least rules and regulations agreed upon by all people. Same thing for civil rights. You just want to divide this nation more than it’s divided.
Again, we have current laws. We have a new behavior and as a result of that behavior, current laws don’t seem “fair” for some people.
So, let’s ask the country, what do people want?
Democracy, civil discussions, referendums, the rule of law, and a consensus are the only ways to solve problems, not chaos, not shouting at each other and calling each other names which are the Liberal’s preferred ways for solving problems.
Indy Conservative on March 17, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Hey, Jet. I was talking about the original manuscripts in which the Catholic Bible originates from. All of today’s modern versions, including the New International Version (NIV), New American Bible (NAB), New Living Translation (NLT), and the Catholic Bible, etcetera, were copied using a different manuscript than was used to make the King James Bible (the one I use) These were called the Alexandrian Text (or Egyptian text). Sorry to say, but these were bad manuscripts, they were corrupt containing errors and alterations. Watch here for a better explanation.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 5:28 PM
On the contrary, by allowing religious sects which differ from your own, as well as atheism, to freely operate against what you perceive as God’s will you have already undercut your own. If you want to draw upon Christendom to make your arguments, and whether you know it or not that’s exactly what you are doing, than allowing heretical sects which lead people astray from the True Gospel (however you define this) is far worse. Heresy kills the soul and leads far more to damnation than anything else, so why are you not advocating legislation to protect us from harm that has eternal consequences? No, when the Protestants bolted from the Church that’s what brought a fundamental shift in thiking. Trying to cling to medieval Christendom in part to bolster your argument isn’t good enough as the foundations of our very society are against such.
In opposing Islamic fanaticism and terrorism I concede nothing to your argument because in addition to self-preservation, their idea of religion and the State is completely different from what one finds in the Constitution. If anything I’ve been very consistent in that regards.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM
So if a majority decides that smoking a cigarette even in the privacy of your home is punishable due to second-hand smoke, you’re okay with that? If a majority decides that people eating trans-fats and non-organic unhealthy foods forfeit insurance coverage, or any kind of medical treatment, because of their own poor choices, you’re okay with that? Where exactly do you draw the line when it comes to the powers Big Brother can exercise and what the majority can impose?
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Whatever. You’re the one who suggested if a dog could give consent it could marry a human. I’m only following up on that. Somehow I don’t think you would oppose. You’re also arguing against what people themselves view as morally acceptable, ie, calling people bigots just because they oppose the gay lifestyle. Folks like you often say “anything goes” as long as it’s not hurting anyone. Animal/human marriage is an obvious next step then.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Yet even in such an “anything goes” view, consent is usually a prerequisite. I didn’t make any suggestion in favor of or opposed to human-animal matrimony because possibility cannot be even be discussed until consent is achieved. Once you cross that, call me and we discuss the possibility.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM
And if we reject KJV Onlyism? I’m curious how the Dead Sea Scrolls fit into your view about this.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 5:44 PM
There is a line to be drawn. But in the gay case, because it has to do with marriage and kids, something has to be done on the federal level.
OK?
Enough spinning now.
I’m not going to repeat myself.
You’re giving me a headache.
I’m going for my Camel Urine now!
Indy Conservative on March 17, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Concede, consmeed, agree it’s all the same to me, and you do as far as Islam is concerned. With the collapse of Bear Sterns yesterday I feel pretty good about the other half of my prediction as well. How many billionaires are there in the world, anyway after this past Sunday there were two less. I wonder if they will be on the endangered species list soon?
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Again, why the exception and once you set the precedent in this case, what’s to stop liberals from exploiting this all for the benefit of “the children” of course? I’m reminded of the cautionary words of Barry Goldwater:
“When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Eh, makes no difference to me if you want to believe this but it ain’t so me laddie.
Something a liberal would see as validation of more government control.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 5:50 PM
A liberal yes, but I’m not, so thats not what I see. I see government interference has let to the formation one bubble after another, until now we have reached the ultimate bubble(maybe), the bubble that will be large enough to drag the government down with it, since it insists on interference.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Great. So we have multiple views and premonitions. We’ll see what happens.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 5:57 PM
The Bible has instances of polygamy, but it was NOT approved by God. Well, I’m about done for today. I can’t reason with people who make things up. Some folks just keep making new truths up as they go along and it’s rather pointless. They are just like Doritos: Defend away, we’ll make more.
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” 2 Peter 1:20-21
The meaning here is that no true prophecy springs forth from private reasoning of the man speaking or writing, but it also applies to all Scripture. Private interpretation is changing God’s Word and what Satan has tried to do ever since the beginning of the creation when he placed doubt in Eve’s mind by approaching her and asking, “Yea, hath God said?” (Genesis 3:1) And he’s doing the same thing with you JohnAGJ on this homosexuality issue. You’re doubting God and what He said about this sin. Believe me. I only wish you the best. I’m not your enemy. The Devil is.
Caio for now.
apacalyps on March 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Never disapproved either: Exodus 21:10; 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9 & 14:3; Deuteronomy 21:15.
Cool. So you reject Protestantism and recognize that its inherent heterodoxies are from the Devil. That’s progress…
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 6:14 PM
You might want to short sell the S&P or LEH if you are that confident. It is risky betting either way though.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Of course this may come as no surprise, but us Catholics believe it is the King James Bible that’s chock full of translation errors…anywhere between 300 and 500 of them.
Again, there is no “Catholic Bible” per se…I guess you can consider the NAB or DRB “Catholic Bibles” for argument’s sake. But as far as I know the bible Catholics use are translated from the oldest known texts throughout the last 2000 years.
JetBoy on March 17, 2008 at 7:42 PM
End this thread now, before it’s too late.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 17, 2008 at 8:42 PM
The essence of conservative thinking is to realize that not every new idea is a good idea, and to consider carefully before making radical changes. The push to create “gay marriage” utterly fails. Old may not necessarily be right, but it deserves the benefit of the doubt. I’ll go so far as to say that making radical and ill-considered changes is the epitome of foolishness. I’d also say that this is one case where Ed’s tone in dismissing this woman’s concerns shows a lack of wisdom.
Note that I can pull out tons of Bible verses that clearly show that homosexuality is morally wrong. I’ve focused on the political questions, because this is a political blog, and they are sufficient in themselves to reject redefining marriage to include, well, unmarried people.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 17, 2008 at 9:18 PM
A few years ago Buckley said that resisting change is important but that “deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism”.
I agree with your Burkean skepticism toward new ideas, and we’d probably agree that some social changes are constantly necessary in order to adapt to a changing world. Many older conservatives have rethought their opposition to civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
None of that, though, tells us whether gay marriage is a good idea. I think the conservative case for gay marriage would be based on the value society gains from the fidelity of couples. Gay sex and cohabitation is legal. They can already buy property and move into any neighborhood they want. They can teach in the public schools. If a gay couple is looking to make their commitment permanent and life long isn’t that morally greater than a lifetime of trading partners? Haven’t straight people found that out?
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Speaking of God’s judgements:
and
Why do you appeal to God’s future judgement if you’re ignoring His judgement already on record?
In fact, from the creation of the world itself you could make an excellent case against homosexuality. Since God created us man and woman, a man who rejects a woman in favor of another man is at least arguably thereby in rebellion against God. This argument correlates very strongly with what the Scriptures say about homosexuality.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 17, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Why I am not surprised Cap’n Ed sides with the amoral a-holes like Mark Foley destroying the party? Anything which destroys the party, Cap’n Ed is in favor of. This lawmaker is right: acceptance of sodomy has always been the swan song of great empires. Those who do not learn history…
Also remember, no gay person who supports gay marriage is the product of one, so in essence they advocate destruction of the institution which brought them into this world to begin with–which is insane.
Forget the Bible, read the very first legal code in this country, Lauues and Libertyes of Massachusetts (1648):
8. If any man LYETH WITH MAN-KINDE as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shal surely be put to death: unles the one partie were forced (or be under fourteen years of age in which case he shall be seveerly punished). Levit. 20. 13.
Morality and legislation are inseparable. I am not religious, but I see a purpose to such common law traditions.
The state has a legitimate interest in the procreation of human beings (taxpayers), and when benefits are granted to people who do not deserve them in a zero-sum game, the institution of marriage becomes crippled.
Couple the “gay rights” crusaders with a catholic, condom rejecting mexican invasion of 20 million welfare-loving paisanos, and you Americans will be replaced with a new constituency sooner than later. It’s already too expensive to raise a child without this “gay rights” nonsense. They have the same rights as I do: to marry a person of the opposite sex.
petit bourgeois on March 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Could the state protect these interests if the birth rate is too high (like China)? Conversely could it protect its interest if the birthrate were too low by prohibiting contraception? Should the state’s legitimate interest in procreation prevent a fertile woman from marrying an infertile man, if she chooses to marry for emotional reasons and squander the natural purpose of her ovaries?
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Exactly. I’m a little disappointed to have to make the basic case for a conservative approach to radical societal change
Yes, this is the conservative case for gay marriage. That’s about it. A plausible argument that the fact of entering into some sort of commitment by two homosexuals will be at least an improvement on no comitment at all.
But while that might be the case, there’s no real argument that it will be the case. What we’re left with is an argument based on what could potentially happen.
I’d argue instead that promoting “gay marriage” has nothing to do with promoting marriage, and everything to do with promoting being gay. I still believe the push for gay marriage is simply a push for complete social acceptance for gay people. And that it is a push that will be disappointed, because it cannot bring anything else but disappointment when the institution of gay marriage still doesn’t bring about that full acceptance.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 17, 2008 at 11:01 PM
It is not a question of allowing a gay couple to marry as no one-sexed arrangement is a bonafide marriage.
You may wish to call it “marriage”, but you need a much more persuasive case, one which begins by convincing people on principle before venturing to bolster that with sentimentalism.
What is the core of the relationship type that you have in mind? State it and then provide the legal requirements that define that type of relationship.
I doubt you will be able to do so without eraising the lines that are drawn around the core of marriage itself.
More to the point: do you disfavor preferential treatment of the combination of sex integration and contingency for responsible procreation? In other words, if you favor abolishing the man-woman criterion of marriage, for the sake of replacing marriage with recognition of some other thing, are you ready to also abolish the promotion and priviliging of the integration of motherhood and fatherhood, for example?
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 11:34 PM
petit bourgeois on March 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Petit bourgeois, are you ready to go on record to state that you are in favor of capital punishment for homosexual sex? If yes, I hope you realize how insane you sound. If no, then according to your beliefs, you are disobeying God’s direct commandment.
DCGamer on March 17, 2008 at 11:40 PM
It is not a reframing of the debate. It hardling me picking and choosing when I cite prominent examples rather than seek out the rarest of apparent exceptions.
To favor gay revisionism, based on the lens of today’s gay identity politics, as is oft done by advocates of the SSM merger, is hardly the firm ground to fight for the abolishment of the man-woman criterion of marriage.
You must provide, at the minimum, some superior alternative to the core of marriage. You haven’t responded, yet, to my request for your idea on this. But as a conservative, I look for more than the minimum. You need to identify the glaring flaw in the core of marriage such that it merits consideration of any kind of substitution. You haven’t done that either, yet.
But you are not alone, neither here nor in the SSM cammpaign in general. I think that points to the rather vague notion of “marriage” that SSM advocates, and their supporters, have come to believe is the new and better version of marriage.
It is revisionism of this sort that is standing on quicksand that is so variable and which encompasses just about everything — such that it becomes meaningless to talk of the shared public meaning of marriage.
Suppose that society had only heterosexuals. Would your idea of “marriage” suffice, you think? Would be a preferential status?
Now, suppose that human procreation and human community were not both-sexed; suppose that the nature of humankind was not two-sexed. Would there be a need for “marriage”? On what basis? Would it be merely a protective status or a list of protections based on private contract?
I think it is a grave error to view society through the lens of the gay identity politics. That would be necessary should the SSM merger be enacted. This would be like a huge tanker ship that cannot be stopped on a dime. It cannot be turned instantly to avoid catastrophe. And, sure, the SSM campaign is riding a tidal wave that began maybe a hundred years ago. But despite all of that momentum, marriage is not based on the one-sexed model of intimacy or whatever.
And I am deliberately not talking of homosexual intimacy. For even in Massachusetts and Canada, there is no legal requirement that makes that kind of sexual behavior (if this is the intimacy that SSM advocates have in mind) mandatory. If the rules of SSM arugmentation can be invoked to attack the obvious connection between marriage and procreation, then, they will be used to test the substitution that those same advocates have in mind when they think of the relationship type that they say is the new “marriage”.
* * *
The two-sexed nature of humankind, the both-sexed nature of human procreation, and the nature of human community — also both-sexed — have been constants throughout recorded human history. No government, no society, can repeal this.
And it is this from which marriage has arisen and has contributed to the basis for civilization and for the flourishing of societies far and wide and possessing such a wide range of differences that it adds to the significance that the man-woman criterion has remained constant and near-universal.
The proposed SSM merger is a substitution, not a substitute itself. No, I am not referring solely to this or that instance of a one-sex arrangement that happens to be sexulized. I am referring to the core of the substitution which would become the new basis for how society would see and treat all unions of husband and wife.
For example, why should society strip of marriage the marriage presumption of paternity? What good does that do? If you would not so strip marriage recognition, then, how do you propose to treat all one-sexed arrangements as both-sexed arrangements?
It does nothing but promote gay identity politics; and that is the primary goal of the SSM campaign — to innoculate gay identity politics from criticism and to use the state’s power to quash dissenting views that, up until five minutes ago, encompassed a great range of traditions, customs, and religious beliefs which, in pluralistic fashion, shared the consensus that marriage unites the sexes and unites motherhood and fatherhood.
It surely is a good thing that such unity is normative. Marriage makes it so.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Children do not occur in both — contrary to your assertion — in the manner in which the marriage presumption applies.
If you point to adoption, you point outside of marriage. If you point to third party procreation, you point outside of marriage. So unless you propose that marriage law follow the practice of extramarital practices, your assertion amounts to eraising the lines that distinguish marriage from nonmarriage.
No form of SSM can create the direct legal relationship between adult and child that can be so established via adoption. And that, just like third party procreation, comes with two major pre-requisites: 1) parental relinquishment (or loss) and 2) a subsequent government intervention to decree another adult a substitute parent for the child. This is the inverse of the marriage presumption of paternity.
If the one-sex arrangement is a subset of the type of relationship you have in mind, please identify the core of the fuller set of arrangements that includes the both-sex arrangement as well.
If you no longer believe in preferential status based on the core of marriage, then, do you instead believe in a special status based on the core of the relationship type you have in mind? Or is it really about protections and, thus, not preference?
Most people who say the agree with the SSM merger have not thought these things through very well. Instead they are ‘persuaded’ by the false litany of equivalences that have been repeated so often by the SSM campaign that it induces issue fatigue. If that, rather than principle, is the way to achieve this major reform, then, it ought to be resisted all more and all the more strenously.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Troll begone! Crawl back into the hole whence you came.
1. You are a racist. You called Mexicans “condom-rejecting” and “welfare loving.”
2. You are anti-Catholic. You implied in your racist slur about Mexicans that Catholics reject condoms (and thus breed non stop).
3. You are an uneducated fool. With no evidence you claim that it is too expensive to raise a child and somehow link it to “gay rights nonsense.”
You remind me of the quote, “It is better to let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Sadly, you opened your mouth.
DCGamer on March 17, 2008 at 11:52 PM
“For richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part” is a noble promise to make. It makes married people stronger both through honoring the commitment and from the support of their partner. The shared effort makes it possible to create a home, in a way single people really can’t. It provides the foundation for the care of children if required.
The legal requirements can be the same whether the genders are opposite or the same.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 11:57 PM
If there is love, intimacy, and a bond of common loyalty, then, what matters the lack of formal consent expressed in the “humannormative” tradition?
Heh.
An individual could marry himself if he consent to the proposed arrangement, perhaps?
Heh.
Consent is not enough for closely related people. Nor is it enough for underaged people. Yet related people can and do marry. And there are people underaged who are more mature and competent than people twice their age who can and do marry.
SSM argumentation hates such underinclusiveness when it is overinclusive at the same time. Right?
Heh.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Good points. I don’t disagree with the concern that marriage is less interesting to some gays, in-and-of-itself, than it is a platform for more attention.
I’d probably contend that plenty of straight people misuse marriage, whether it is a clueless celebrity on her 3rd attempt or just a couple too young and looking for something to make them feel adult and independent.
Marriage survives and is a fulfilling endeavor for those who commit to their spouse.
dedalus on March 18, 2008 at 12:05 AM
The man-woman criterion would be abolished; and with it the marriage presumption of paternity which cannot apply to the one-sexed combination.
But what are the definitive legal requirements that identify the core of the relationship type you have in mind that would encompass one-sexed and both-sexed combinations?
The promise of till-death is no longer a legal requirement, noble though it certainly is.
Without the marriage presumption, it would not provide the foundation for responsible procreation (which itself begins before conception and extends beyond childbearing). Perhaps some substitute presumption might be used in its place? What would that be?
Nonmarital arrangements do as much, too. Would you obliterate the distinction between those and the conjugal relaitonship type?
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Mere survival is not what is at stake.
We want a flourishing and successful society and we want to ensure that through self-governance that The Government does not own civil society.
So marriage merits a preferential status, not merely toleration and a hope that it will survive government interventions that sideline the core of the social institution.
No man can become a husband (i.e. a spouse) unless he enters the social institution with the woman who becomes his wife.
Maybe Party A and Party B can form a union of sorts, but if it is one-sexed then it is nonmarital.
To choose such a nonmarital alternative (sexualized or not) is a liberty excercised, not a right denied.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Homosexual activists call Christianity a bigoted religion because we take the word of God seriously, but they want to have their unions recognized by the church….
I’m sorry, but you need to make up your mind….and that, my friends, is the crux of the argument. They don’t like us, but they want to change us to conform with them…and that’s ok with Ed Morrisey, but we don’t like their sins being forced upon us, and Ed thinks we are bad people for it.
Come On Michelle, where do you keep finding these Christian haters? Why no balance here?
Fuzzball on March 18, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Constitutions are ratified by majority vote. Subsequent amendments, too. As are statutes and other legislation, including legislation initiated by plebiscite. Even decisions on higher courts produce majority votes.
It is not “a majority vote” that you object to, is it?
I mean, look again at the Goodridge opinion and you will see that a majority of justices rejected the claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, 4 to 3. And only 1 justice claimed it was sex discrimination at stake. Yet a majority did vote in favor of some basis, no matter how ill-defined and ill-reasoned.
No, it is not a problem with “a majority vote” but rather with the lack of a majority in favor of the reform you have in mind. Right?
* * *
To illustrate, walk me through you thinking on the rights-based claim you’d make.
Whence comes the supposed right to treat anyone as married?
Does the Government own the social institution of marriage?
Do marriage amendments affirm the nature of marriage? If not, what do such amendments, ratified by a majority vote, affirm, in your view?
* * *
I think that folks often confuse a constitutional right with a civil right with a contractual right (limited to the terms of a given contract and extinguishable upon breach or agreement).
Maybe it is better to think in the broader terms of a social contract between the pluralities of society. That is, we ought not to look to Government as promoting a sectarian view over and above the social consensus. And, by Government, I mean all branches. That includes the People when acting as a legislative branch in direct votes.
However, if society, through consensus-building, chose to abolish recognition of marriage and instead established some kind of protective status for a much broader type of relationship, of which the conjugal would become a subset, that would at least have the merit of a majoritorian approval.
It is approval, afterall, that the SSM campaign seeks.
So no shortcuts. For shortcuts almost always undermine self-governance, civil deliberation, and the principles of justice.
Opponents of SSM are entitled, are even duty bound, to seek to sustain a consensus in favor of the man-woman criterion and the core of marriage.
* * *
If, as your comments about consent suggest, you seek a private right to form a contractual agreement with another person of the same sex, then, you posses such a right already.
If you seek rights that arise from such an arrangement, again, you can form it and list those rights today.
In fact, the provision for reciprocal beneficiaries has long-existed and is well-utilized across society, already.
A new relationship status, at law, is not needed, I think, but if such a status can be justified in some way, then, that is where the effort ought to lie, not in the attack of the man-woman criterion of marriage.
The SSM campaign would use legal reform to reform society — to alter the marriage culture itself.
This is far more significant than an argument about a legalistic criterion.
It is fundamental to the nature of humankind. And, perhaps more importantly in the context of the comparison with Islamism and its violent ideological underpinnings, it is cultural, social, and religious-based.
Trying to unravel this from what the government recognizes when it recognizes and privileges the social institution is, in the end, anti-marriage. It can easiy tip over into the sort of sectarianism that is evident in Iran, for example, or even in The Netherlands.
Or at least, such unravelling would lead to the direct demotion of the society’s preference for the relatively non-coercive means by which marriage promotes and makes normative the integration of the sexes — combined and not set apart from the contingency for responsible procreation. If not marriage, then, how would society give this preference?
Maybe you don’t think it merits special status nor preferential treatment at law or culturally either?
The social institution gains influence via the nongovernmental support for its essentials. So pushing religion to the sidelines or diminishing the value of restraining Government as a mere recognizer, rather than creator and owner, of marriage is ultimately anti-marriage.
Strong marriage cultures include great dollops of religious support that goes far beyond anything Government can do competently. That should not be underestimated.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Commitment and fidelity.
If you are saying that “till Death” is not a part of the legal marriage definition then the governmental parameters for marriage are already short of what the institution has been and should be. That doesn’t concern me too much since I believe that societies define and give strength to marriage–governments just process the paperwork.
dedalus on March 18, 2008 at 12:40 AM
It is up to commenters to provide that balance, sometimes.
And I think it is beyond the pale to refer to Ed as a hater — of Christians or otherwise.
I agree that some of his remarks, the essentials in his post, were unfair and unreasonable. But his is one voice and it is up to folks like you and I to shed light on the principles that stand against the views expressed by Ed in his blogpost.
But at the same time, I do see where you come from when you refer to how some people (Ed excluded, I believe based on his other writings) hate Christianity and hate, especially, those who unflinchingly stick to the fundamentals of their religious beliefs.
It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. Respect for human dignity is required of us all and it is thus required of a just government, as well. That is in accord with Christian teachings far and wide. Those who are homosexually orientated are human beings and as such, of course, they merit this respect.
Gay identity is a different matter. We can rigorously discuss it in terms of substantive issues and in terms of the lens through which such identity politics views human sexuality and sexual morality.
How that all ties-in with the Kern remarks, well, that’s up to Ed to address perhaps in answer to the challenges made to his comments in this very long discussion.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 12:41 AM
dedalus, but commitment and faithfulness can, and often do, apply to the vast range of nonmarital arrangements.
Yet we have always drawn lines around the core of marriage. How else could it be identified and protected and privileged?
There are both-sexed relationship types that are excluded from eligibility. But these prohibitions are based on what marriage is, not based on what SSM is.
What distinguishes marriage from nonmarriage, in the reform you’d have society embrace? Or is the line to be blurred even more?
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 12:47 AM
It still retains the core: sex integration (for which the man-woman criterion stands) and contingency for responsible procreation (for which the marriage presumption, for starters, stands). This is the hub for the rest of the spokes, including (familial) commitment and (sexual) fidelity.
Marriage unites man and woman. And, it does so in combination with responsible procreation. We draw lines around this because marriage is identifiable by this.
What is the flaw? What is superior about your alternative?
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 12:50 AM
In effect if you commit exclusively to another person and are sexually faithful you are married. Under some governments if heterosexual couples do this for a period of time, it is considered a common law marriage whether the couple went to a marriage official or not.
A heterosexual couple can love, share, cohabitate, and have children without being married. The line drawn around marriage would be the faithfulness and commitment.
dedalus on March 18, 2008 at 1:07 AM
dedalus,
It looks like your idea would not bar much of the nonmarital range of relationship types. It could only blur the line between marriage and everything else.
SSM argumentation asserts (as has been asserted in this discussion) that the lack of a legal requirement to procreate means that procreation is not at the core of marriage.
Also it asserts that if it can occur outside of marriage, then, it is not essential to marriage.
Sexual faithfulness can and does occur within and outside of marriage. It is not a legal requirement.
Commitment can and does occur within and outside of marriage. It can and does exist within multi-marriage and as such can be exclusive to those who form the arrangement.
Yes, commitment is a legal requirement, but so it is with provision for reciprocal beneficiaries and for other nonmarital contractual agreements.
Commitment can and does occur without sexual relations, much less sexual fidelity, neither of which are legal requirements.
So it boilsdown to some vague notion of commitment.
Related people can and do marry but some subset is barred even if there is commitment.
Likewise, already married people are barred even if there is exclusive commitment.
So, these two examples would no longer be barred, as per the rules of SSM argumentation.
Maybe you reject those rules?
If so, then, perhaps you will acknowledge the misrepresentation that many SSM advocates make of the connection between marriage and procreation. It is not marriage = procreation, but that marriage’s core is contingency for responsible procreation. It is not about making procreation compulsory for all married people, or barring people based on a disability.
But ask yourself why exclusive commitment (whether monogamous or polygamous) is associated with marriage. And why sexual faithfulness is included with marriage (again whether monogamous or polygamous).
It does indeed bring us to the centrality of responsible procreation, sex integration, and these combined as a coherent whole. This is the societal concern that forms the core of marriage.
As you said, unwed cohabitation can meet some or all of this, however, it has proven to be an inferior form that does harm to the marriage culture. It is marriage that needs to be promoted, not nonmarital alternatives.
As for common-law marriage, that goes back to the need for a shared public meaning. Without it, there is no actual standard for a couple to hold themselves out to be “married”. Marriage remains a sexual relationship of man and woman; and even common-law marriage has, and, where it still is recognized, continues to provide contingency for responsible procreation.
Anyway, given the low participation rates in SSM, civil union, registered partnership, and the like, it would appear that your comment misses the mark. Also, the low conversation rate from shacking-up to SSM and civil union speaks against your comment.
On the other hand, I think your answer depends more on custom and tradition than on legal requirements, which makes me feel sad that you advocate a change which has been promoted as rejecting the significance of both tradition and custom in deciding this issue on public policy terms.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 2:53 AM
But having said that, I would still like to understand what you think the flaw is with the man-woman criterion of marriage (and the core as I’ve described it); and what you think makes your idea superior.
I’m guessing that you’d have society change its priorities significantly when it comes to family formation, if you would have marriage reject the differences 1) between the sexes and 2) between both-sexed and the two types of one-sexed sexual relationship types. That’s just a guess, but if it is correct, more or less, then, you’d confirm that at root the SSM merger is not a conservative idea but radical.
That may or may not change its appeal for some people. I think that the normative power of marriage is a very poor fit for the nonmarriage purpose that the SSM campaign is all about.
Not the aggrressive and totalitarian gay identity stuff, but the more benign idea of fostering societal tolerance for a particular kind of nonmarital arrangement which is presumptively based on same-sex sexual attraction.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 3:07 AM
You dodged the question.
Would you approve of marriage between dogs and cats, horses and people, etc., would you do it?
William2006 on March 18, 2008 at 3:49 AM
You make an appeal to a 17th-century document which grounds its reasoning on the Bible? Besides the fact that such is hardly applicable after the adoption of the Constitution, how far are you willing to extend this? From the same document, again with reasoning based on their understanding of the Bible, we find the following:
1. Anabaptists were subject to banishment, as were heretics and Jesuits.
2. Slavery was permitted in certain circumstances.
3. Usury was verboten.
Those are the key words, “deserve them”. A very subjective criteria, even if I happen to agree that the state has such a legitimate interest. The debate doesn’t involve the State’s interest in persons capable of procreation, but whether the benefits of marriage shall be extended to those who are either not capable of such or who may have children under different circumstances. I would argue that it does.
Who says Mexicans reject condoms – especially those who’ve immigrated and been assimilated into our society? Don’t assume that they obey all the dictates of their Church for most Catholic here in the USA do not on this issue, nor do large numbers in Mexico.
Remarkably similiar in sentiment to telling those of different races that they are free to marry as long as they don’t stray from their own group.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 7:35 AM
Since contracts require two parties, how do you propose such an arrangement would be made?
Too true, nor is there a uniform standard on such laws in this country, throughout the West or even in history.
Yet without being emancipated by the courts or obtaining permission from their guardian, the age requirement of which varies from state to state, minors are not recognized under the law as having the ability to give consent regardless of their wishes.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM
No church is or could be compelled to marry persons who do not conform to their professed doctrine. This discussion is not about religious marriage, something protected under the First Amendment, but civil. Gays right now can get married in some churches which of course have no legal standing.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 7:53 AM
Actually, a few super-majority votes are necessary on the Federal level and even where it is majority in some state no proposed amendment can violate the rights guaranteed or the powers derived under the US Constitution. Yet let’s pursue your reasoning here. What of inalienable rights, to which the Founders appealed, that are valid regardless of how the majority feels? If a majority decides segregation, slavery, etc. are acceptable is depriving the rights of those involved acceptable and valid in your view? Or by such action from the majority, does the minority then have a legitimate right to rebellion if unable to change such laws? Careful how you answer because our own society was founded on such a right.
However, such contractual arrangements do not guarantee the protection to such unions as marriage does under our laws. Hence why even in states where civil unions or domestic partnerships are allowed these are found to be insufficient. Personally, I would settle for such an arrangement to allow an evolution within society and would prefer action through the legislatures rather than the courts. However, the courts do exist for redress when all else fails so do not entirely reject such a move.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 8:04 AM
When you provide an example which meets the prequisites needed to form a contract, I’ll be happy to address it. Until then this is an unwarranted distraction of the “moon is made of green cheese” variety.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Forget the Bible, read the very first legal code in this country, Lauues and Libertyes of Massachusetts (1648):
8. If any man LYETH WITH MAN-KINDE as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shal surely be put to death: unles the one partie were forced (or be under fourteen years of age in which case he shall be seveerly punished). Levit. 20. 13.
Morality and legislation are inseparable. I am not religious, but I see a purpose to such common law traditions.
You’re making an appeal to a 17th-century document that bases it’s reasoning on the Bible? Putting aside for the moment that such were abrogated by the adoption of the Constitution, how far are you willing to extend this reasoning? The same document banishes Anabaptists, “heretics” (however you define this), Jesuits, permits slavery, prohibits usury, etc. Shall we toss out the First Amendment and implement the doctrines of one particular sect of Christianity as being the norm for our laws as was done in colonial Massachusetts?
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 8:28 AM
You make an appeal to a 17th-century document that bases its reasoning upon the Bible? How far are you willing to extend this? The same document banishes Anabaptists, “heretics” (however you wish to define this) and Jesuits; permits slavery and prohibits usury, etc. Putting aside that this was all abrogated by the adoption of the US Constitution, are you seriously saying we should go down this road? The tenets of which sect of Christianity do you want us to emulate to the exclusion of all others, as was done in colonial Massachusetts?
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Irrelevant. Unless you are willing to adopt the medieval Catholic notion that impotence and infertility are impediments to a valid marriage, which it has backed away from since then, the exception allowing such “extramarital practices” already exists. Marriage is not solely about procreation, though it is primarily so.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 8:39 AM
The same argument that existed prior to allowing interracial marriages, divorce & remarriage, etc.
Even if such were the goal of some, marriage still boils down under the law to a contractual arrangement between two parties, regardless of whether others agree with it or not. There are some today who still disagree with interracial marriages or divorce and remarriage yet these objections do not affect these arrangements nor do their existence for persons to change their minds about them. Has the legal right to divorce and remarriage forced the Catholic Church to change their doctrines prohibiting such arrangements? No.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 8:44 AM
JohnAGJ,
Religion aside, America is a democracy and if I vote that I don’t want to support a gay lifestyle which is dangerous because of Aids and is non productive in terms of building the country’s population even if my motives are based on my religion, it doesn’t matter.
.
I resent my tax dollars going to support programs which force me to relate to and accept people that do things by their own choice that I find abominable .
.
Whatever they do on their own is their own business. However, when they force it on me and take away funding for insurance for those more deserving, it is my democratic right to vote against their so called rights.
FactsofLife on March 18, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Actually, it does matter. America is not a democracy but is a constitutional republic. The will of the majority through their elected representatives usually prevails, but there is a reason why we have rights guaranteed by the Constitution lest we degenerate into “mobocracy” or tyranny of this majority. What if you fall in a minority group for some reason, can your rights be tossed aside at the whim of the majority or are there constraints on what is allowable?
As do I and so do probably most taxpayers. Yet outside of the realm of rights, in this case the will of the majority through their elected representatives prevails. We are all, of course, free to change that majority opinion as we see fit.
You presume to have a right to do something which our system does not entitle you to and the reasoning of which can lead to all kinds of havoc.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Two people can sit down with an attorney and give each other power of attorney in every aspect of their lives. The fight for “marriage” rights is about making homosexuals feel better about themselves. The sad truth is that if gay marriage was unrestricted everywhere, it would be a hollow victory for them. It wouldn’t change the suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse rate and all the mental and physical health related problems.
peacenprosperity on March 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM
.
What you say is true but misapplied in the case of the gay lifestyle. Races and ethnicities are protected but lifestyles of choice such as pederasty and the gay lifestyle are not. I am free to vote against them as I choose.
.
.
I don’t see any reason why I would be limited by the system from voting against a pernicious lifestyle. I believe that the promulgation of homosexuality has already led to chaos and breakdown of the American moral fiber by weakening the heterosexual family.
FactsofLife on March 18, 2008 at 9:24 AM
FactsofLife
America is a Republic. Slightly different…
How do you feel about tax exempt status for churches?
Krydor on March 18, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Krydor,
.
.
In what way? Please explain.
.
.
If this would apply across all religions, I think it is a good thing. I don’t believe that separation of church and state requires that we support an atheistic or agnostic lifestyle.
FactsofLife on March 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Yet such arrangements do not have the same legal standing as marriage which we’ve seen numerous times. Why not abolish all such civil marriages then and have everybody use this process you suggest?
No, it’s about the right of same-sex couples to have their unions protected under the law. Do heterosexuals generally get married to further their self-esteem or are there other factors involved? The answer is obvious and the same applies to same-sex unions.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM
I suspect the largest problem with gays is their not being accepted by not only society, but in too many cases, their own families. That leads to abberant behavior and a political agenda. People are either born gay or they’re not. It’s not a lifestyle choice, as if it’s more fun to be gay than straight. Would you condemn someone for being born different? Besides, sexuality is only one facet of being human, and hardly the most important. Character counts. You can’t choose your sexuality, but you can choose your character. Those who condemn gays have failed in that regard.
NNtrancer on March 18, 2008 at 9:51 AM
You are seriously comparing pederasty, which no consent is possible, to same-sex relationships which require this? Give me a break. If you are “free” to vote as you please about a group you personally dislike, what’s to stop the majority from banning your particular sect for your own “pernicious lifestyle” in worshipping a false god (or having heretical notions about God), propagating a false morality, etc., all of which places people in danger of eternal damnation? In fact, I can easily resurrect the medieval notion of Christendom here and say that allowing your false religion to operate freely causes a “breakdown” in the natural order and threatens the very fabric of society which leads “to chaos”. Don’t bother citing the First Amendment in rebuttal because you feel free to deny this to me, as well as the Fourteenth, so we’re now in extra-constitional territory. Don’t forget that if the “gay lifestyle” is a choice as you insist, so is religion which by your reasoning opens the door to deny your rights.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 9:53 AM
I suspect the largest problem with gays is their not being accepted by not only society, but in too many cases, their own families.
I can only speak for myself, but my family doesn’t have a problem with the fact that I’m gay. I neither need nor really care about the approval of society, such would be nice but isn’t necessary. It’s the obstacles that some in society put up in denying my rights and which impact my life that I have problem with. Remove those and that changes matters, nor will you hear much from me on this.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 Next »