Gays worse than terrorists, but hey, no offense intended!
posted at 2:40 pm on March 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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 ... 6 7 8
Factsoflife,
A Democracy is mob rule. 50%+1 decides all issues. That is not the case in the USA. Every state gets equal representation in the Senate, while the seats in congress are based on population. It is possible to win a Presidential election with less than 40% of the vote as long as EC votes add up. If 50%+1 agree that an amendment to the constitution is in order, that isn’t enough to get it done. All kinds of neat things in place to ensure that there isn’t a tyranny of the majority or minority.
If there was an Atheist Church, would you support tax exemption?
Krydor on March 18, 2008 at 10:05 AM
.
If you don’t like pederasty which a number of psychological organizations have labeled as a valid lifestyle, then let’s consider polygamy which is a lifestyle of choice for the participants.
.
In the American democracy as currently constituted there is nothing legal that prevents the majority from voting down some form of lifestyle or religion. There really is no logical reason why polygamy limited to consenting adults should be anymore outlawed than the gay lifestyle.
.
If we are to label certain sets of practices as being inviolate and not subject to vote, who makes that choice and on the basis of what?
.
In reality, there are many laws which are on the books that are unfair. Overly taxing the rich for the benefit of the non productive poor is one example.
.
Right now we depend on the good sense and honorable intentions of the voting public to not unfairly deny people certain practices. There are instances where this has failed. Otherwise, there are no legal barriers to denying support of various activities based on the majority’s choice.
FactsofLife on March 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Krydor,
.
.
Thanks for the explanation. I don’t see how this would impact the question of gay marriage.
.
I would not support an Atheist church but others might. I have a right to feel that what I believe is true and act accordingly as do you.
FactsofLife on March 18, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Really? Which organizations, exactly? This still leaves the problem of consent for which minors are unable by law to give. As for polygamy, what about it?
Actually there is: the First & Fourteenth Amendments.
The States asserts a compelling interest in the former that the courts agree with. A First Amendment case could be made, but thus far hasn’t passed judicial scrutiny. How far in your estimation do the powers of Big Brother extend in this area? May the government prohibit a husband and wife from engaging in sodomy with each other? Sodomy of course involves ALL sexual activity, without getting descriptive, beyond that which has the potential of procreation.
Who is authorized to make such constitutional decisions in our system? If I attempt to ban your sect for whatever reason I please and you are unable to convince a majority to vote otherwise, where do you go for redress under the Constitution?
Fairness or the appearance of fairness isn’t exactly part of one’s civil rights.
Actually there is: the courts. Not a perfect solution to be sure, but it’s the best we’ve come up with thus far, other than persistent pressure on the majority to change their views and correct perceived wrongs. You know, part of that “agenda” that socons whine about but aren’t afraid of embracing when it suits their purposes.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Of course you do, yet you have no right to deny the rights of such a hypothetical atheist church. Denying this ‘church’ their rights places your own in danger.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Tell that to Jesse Dirkhising
RedLizard64 on March 18, 2008 at 12:19 PM
No, that’s why homosexuals want marriage. Wasn’t I clear on that?
peacenprosperity on March 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM
.
See this article for information about the APA endorsement of pedophilia http://hicaliber.net/mi2cents/pedophelia/pedophilia.htm
.
In the case of religion, you are right. In the matter of lifestyle, I don’t see anything in either amendment that guarantees protection.
.
.
This is an arbitrary decision by some court that could conceivably be overturned by another. No one is talking about preventing what people do in the privacy of their homes. What is at issue is state support for mandatory insurance coverage, so called civil rights and hate crime types of legislation.
.
.
Yes, where do you go? What makes the politically sensitive courts any better judge of the answers to these questions than the will of the majority?
FactsofLife on March 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM
It doesn’t, it confuses the debate. No matter the cause of someones homosexuality, or whether or not it is controllable, treatable or permanent, the most healthy psychological response possible would be to accept who they were and the consequences that can follow. Instead, the extension of the dysfunction is to try to justify the condition or demand the condition be accepted as “normal”. Homosexuality not only defies scientific law but the results and consequences support that conclusion.
peacenprosperity on March 18, 2008 at 12:41 PM
What consecrates something into a church. The founding fathers of this country would surely not have included atheism in the panoply of religions. Is any collection of practices by a group sanctified into an inviolate religion?
FactsofLife on March 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Pretty irresponsible and grossly misleading of a publication to make such a claim when the APA definitely did not endorse pedophilia, as it’s own release that controversy makes clear 2 years prior to the article you link:
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/apa.html
Insurance coverage isn’t a right, the only time rights are involved are in the equal application of a law giving such a benefit. Hate crimes legislation are not mandatory for any group, but are deemed necessary and constitutional in some circumstances. Civil rights in and of themselves are different matter entirely.
The courts aren’t necessarily “better” but are part of the branch of government assigned such a role under our system of government. What do you propose instead, anything and everything are up to the will of the majority? That’s a recipe not only for tyranny but violence as well.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 1:14 PM
So IOW, disbelief in religion is not protected in your view under the First Amendment? An astonishing claim…
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 1:19 PM
And yet homosexuality is not defined as a “dysfunction”, as being pathological or any other type of disorder. It simply is and has been recognized as a “normal” sexual orientation beyond a person’s choice or ability to change, just like heterosexuality.
And you have credible evidence to back up such a claim or are you speaking solely from your religious viewpoint?
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Thanks for the explanation. I don’t see how this would impact the question of gay marriage.
It means that a mere majority would not be enough to force a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man/one woman.
You know what’s funny? We hedonistic Canadians have legalized Gay Marriage. Not “civil unions” or “equivalent to marriage”, but gay marriage. The country is still doing fine. The gays haven’t taken over. My children have not gone gay. The argument that gay marriage will somehow lead to the end of civilization and anger God doesn’t seem to be playing out.
Krydor on March 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM
It is your contention that you were born to be homosexual? That it was either a scientific blueprint or God preordained that?
If you are a man, do you produce sperm? If you are a woman, do you produce eggs? If you were biologically meant to be a homosexual, why is your body doing that?
If you are a man, you are using your alimentary canal for purposes other then it is designed for. Those purposes will always have a negative effect on your overall health. Why would you be biologically programmed to do yourself damage? If you are a woman and producing eggs then you are also producing hormones that create a desire to procreate. Why are those feelings superceded by sexual longing? Which feeling will result in extinction and which will continue the gene pool?
As a thinking being don’t you feel silly ignoring the basic biological purposes of your body in order to justify your behavior?
Pursuing the homosexual agenda is shooting yourself in the foot. People like you think that someone who is against gay marriage somehow “hates”. My experience, and I think the way the liberals are turning on each other over race is a good analogy, is that those people that you believe hate you, those committed to their religious faith and reason and unwilling to throw those beliefs away for post modernism, would be the first to protect you and your legitimite rights. Those who you think are on your side will throw you under the bus for selfish reasons in a second.
peacenprosperity on March 18, 2008 at 1:49 PM
So, the definition of what, will the canadians be changing next in order to make some small group feel better about themselves?
peacenprosperity on March 18, 2008 at 1:52 PM
If God had meant man to fly he’d have given him wings. Certainly our potential is more than our biology. People are born with physical disabilities, perhaps an inability to walk, but we have laws requiring private businesses to build ramps and customize their bathrooms. It isn’t silly that we navigate around their biological inability to climb stairs. Women circumvent their fertility by multiple means in order to avoid giving birth when they turn 14. Are women who choose college or a career into their 30’s avoiding a blueprint by postponing pregnancy? Is a married couple with 3 kids who engage in sexual intimacy other than intercourse in order postpone further pregnancy misusing their genitals, mouths or other body parts?
dedalus on March 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Yes and both.
Why do males have nipples and both genders have tailbones, wisdom teeth and an appendix? All of these are vestigial and useless in humans. Human beings are more than the sum of their parts.
Ah, the teleological argument. Been awhile since I’ve seen this one in such detail. First of all, you are presuming that I either use mine in such a way or make use of someone else’s. The fact is that many gay men dislike anal sex and do not engage in it. This aside, your argument rests upon the assumption that sex is solely for procreation when that simply is not the case. There is a unitive and pleasurable aspect as well to the act, the latter of which humanity is well aware of a bit too much at times. If you want to approach this from natural law than I presume you are arguing as well against husbands and wives using their genitalia with each other, or by themselves, in any manner that does not have the potential for procreation. This leaves out oral, anal and masturbatory sex. Yet as we know, such are frequently part of sexual activities between men and women with hardly which most people do not find to be wrong, though there is some hesitation by some on the part of the second. As I said, humans are more than the sum of their parts and as an example of this, why is kissing morally permissable under natural law? Pressing one’s mouth to another, let alone inserting one’s tongue into another mouth, is a good way of transmitting germs. The act serves no functional or biological purpose. The act is pleasureable in some instances, an expression of affection in others.
First of all, what is this “homosexual agenda” you claim exists? Secondly, how exactly am I wounding my foot? My nature is same-sex attracted, not oriented towards the opposite gender. Are those who choose to live celibate lives, whether for religious reasons or otherwise regardless of sexual orientation, likewise shooting themselves in the foot? If find this claim to be contradictory since most so-called exgay groups call for homosexuals to be celibate if they are incapable of ‘becoming’ heterosexual.
No, I think such is the case for many but not all. I respect the fact that some people truly don’t hate homosexuals but have a religious objection to same-sex marriage. Yet personal feelings or religious tenets are irrelevant when discussing civil rights.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM
That goes way too far. Please restate your actual meaning without the hyperbole.
Otherwise it appears to me that you are asserting a sectarian view that would monopologize the public square and the decision-making inherent to self-governance. You would deeply discount the beliefs that inform many people — the vast majority — as irrelevant.
I’d hope that you would agree that liberty depends on a virtuous society of moral men and women. There is no governmental on-off switch that turns the lights out on our convictions and consciences, surely.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM
I had said:
JohnAGJ curtly responded:
Society, through our government, is party to the contract whereby a shared public meaning shows preference for a relationship status, at law.
Relationship status. Not relationship sans status. That status is a preferntial status in the case of marriage recognition.
Besides my line about the lone individual, which is a one-sexed arrangement by the way, was a light note. Hence the “heh” that followed it.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 5:56 PM
I had said:
JohnAGJ said:
So lacking a uniform standard invalidates the example? I suppose your point about consent is lost, then.
As I have said previously, related people can and do marry. Lines are drawn. You have said that this is due to concerns about procreation. I reminded that you had objected to the fact that responsible procreation is at the core of marriage. If you remove that and say it is superfulous baggage, then, you remove your justification for prohibiting related people no matter how closely related they might be.
In regard to 3rd party procreation, which is extramarital procreation even when married people use it, I had said:
JohnAGJ said:
Yet consumation is based on the same thing that the marriage presumption of paternity is based on; and both are both-sexed.
Anyway, your claim that this is irrelevant is mistaken since across the country consumation and the marriage presumption apply to all unions of husband and wife. And, contrary to your assertion of irrelevance, impotence remains grounds for annulment in civil courts in this country.
What your reply illustrates is that you believe that marriage is not a sexual relationship type. It may include sexual behavior but this is not enforced by the government as compulsory for obtaining a license.
I doubt you really mean to suggest this but your comment certainly does suggest that you would have expected the government to require premarital sexual relations — and proof of such — when couples arrived at the license office. Or that the government would have Fertility Police that would unilaterally revoke marital status by way of enforcement.
Marital status protects the private aspect as much as it protects the public aspect of the conjugal relationship of husband and wife. The public aspect is contingency for responsible procreation, which applies to all marriages, and sex integration, which applies to all marriages. The private aspect is not owned by the government, as you might appreciate as a freedom-loving American citizen, right?
JohnAGJ said:
We agree.
This is progress of a kind. You appear to have dropped the misrepresentation of the argument about procreation. We are really disputing the significance of Responsible Procreation, rather than any and all kinds of procreation.
It is at the core of marriage — and is combined with integration of man and woman. As you said, it is primary, not secondary nor tertiary.
And it is extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements — homoexual or not.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 6:11 PM
By the way, if you’d place special merit in the existence of a univeral standard, then, the man-woman criterion should have much more merit in this discussion than you have so far acknowledged.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 6:12 PM
JohnAGJ, regarding majority votes, you have not really answered the points I made.
Majorities decide these things. They do so even in the high courts of the land. They do so in the legislative branch. They do so when The People cast direct votes either to enact legislation, to review legislation, or to ratify constitutional amendments. Sure, super-majorities are a subset of “a majority vote”, but you will note that no such requirement is in place on our high courts.
Besides, I pointed out that the Goodridge case could not produce a majority of justices to say that the man-woman criterion was unjust based on sexual orientation. They could not produce a majority to say that it was unjust based on sex classification. Rather the contrary, a majority indicated they disagreed on either basis.
So what did they base the majority opinion on? Please be precise. Then we can talk about ends and means when it comes to the SSM campaign.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 6:17 PM
I had said:
JohnAGJ said:
But we must distinguish between marriage and non-marriage.
Why should nonmarriage automatically be treated as marriage in each and every way under our laws?
I know, you say that the one-sexed arrangement is a type of marriage that is being denied today. But you are talking in circles.
I’ve explained that there are legal requirements that show what the core of marriage is. You reject those requirements and reject that core, it seems, but have not provided a description of the definitive legal requirements that identify the core of the relaitonship type you have in mind.
Based on your recent comments, its core is not sexual, and it is not procreation, but it is something else. Upthread I’ve looked at the possibilities and none are exclusive to marriage.
You need to do more than just complain that nonmarriage is not treatd as if it was marriage.
That’s why I also had explained:
JohnAGJ said:
Insufficient in what key way or ways?
As I said, I don’t think a new relationship status is required. However, if a status is deemed a good vehicle, and if affordability or accessiblity are problems, that can addressed specifically — based on the nature or the core of the relationship type.
That’s the starting place.
You have to make that start. The SSM campaign just lept over this basic work of the reformer and used the courtcentric approach and the litany of false equivalencies to push their project to the top of the public agenda. That’s the problem with shortcuts and especialy with the short cuts that are fueled by identity politics — of which gay identity politics is just one variety.
JohnAGJ said:
But your comments indicate devolution of marriage, not evolution.
The SSM campaign began with its courtcentric approach. It did not go to the legislatures — and still hasn’t done so — in Massachusetts for one big glaring example. Likewise in Vermont and Connecticut and New Jersey and so forth.
I get the feeling that for you, like the typical SSM proponent, you take the Andrew Sullivan model to heart. The end justifies the means.
Self-governance in Massachusetts has been undermined by the SSM campaign. Goodridge is a great example of that. Look at the obstructionism that has thwarted a direct vote on the marriage amendment. Look at the nonsense with the Rhode Island “SSM divorce” case. It is all of a piece and it ought to be abhorred even by those advocates of SSM who say they favor “evolution” rather than imposition.
When Kern referred to the threat of totaly embracing homosexuality, this is the sort of thing she was pointing at. In my view she conflated homosexuality with gay identity, but so do advocates of SSM. It is mainstream to do so, unfortunately, because it does a disservice to same-sex attracted people whose human dignity is owed more than such stereotyping.
While same-sex attraction may or may not be inborn, no one is born with a socio-political identity and some sort of a predetermined fate to adhere to gay identity politics.
The gay agenda is real. And today it has pushed this merger of nonmarriage with marriage as a way of innoculating gay identity politics. Again, look to the way adoption services and schooling have been turned inside out by the pro-gay forces in Massachusetts. Even saying that the integration of motherhood and fatherhood is a good thing for society, as Mitt Romney said not so long ago, was hate-speech or some horrible villification of some poor downtrodden and powerless minority.
If we adopt that mindset, then, Kern’s point is right on target. Comparing gay identity with racist identity politics is moral dynamite but apparently pointing this out is itself an act of hatred if the pointer is not pro-gay.
Of course, when that dynamite is used by advocates of the gay agenda, they are innoculated, right? That’s why it is so common for SSM proponents to declare the axiom that to disagree with them is itself an act of bigotry.
That leaves zero room for evolution of public discourse and the civil deliberative process so essential to our liberties.
And reserving such an axiom as a backup wheh “all else fails” is hardly a principled stand, JohnAGJ. It seems to me that axiom is your axiom at the getgo, anyway. Please correct me if I have misread your meaning. I’d happily be wrong on that point.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 6:43 PM
“Gay marriage” was not outlawed. It was legal.
What has occured in Canada is legalization of the merger of SSM with marriage. It is a merger of the nonmarital and the marital.
If you look at the way it was accomplished, you won’t see an example to follow. It also began with a courtcentric approach which distorted the common law meaning of marriage.
It also imposed a litany of false equivalencies. It has also innoculated the pressing of gay identity politics into adoption services and schools.
The same judge who imposed SSM in Ontario also played his part in establishing triple parental status — that is, three co-equal parents for one child. It was based on the same-sex union of two women and one man. The women, and the court, agreed that the father’s presence was essential (their word) to the child’s well-being. So the rule of two was no big hurdle; this judge strolled around it without working up a sweat. Now, the husband is married and has children with his wife; maybe the adults will agree that she too should have co-equal parental status over his child. The rational is so anemic that it makes a mockery of the various claims of the Canadian SSM campaign that the abolition of the man-woman criterion would have no unjust reprecussions for society.
And then look at the llow participation rates in SSM by the homosexual population in Canada. Half of the SSMs are foreigners — most from the USA. Canada is exporting SSM. The SSM campaign had declared there was a huge demand for this big change. They’ve been shown wrong.
But Canadians have made their error and they will live with it. We need not follow in the USA. In fact, Krydor, you can come back in a couple of generations with evidence that all is well. For now, you have nothing but happy talk just like those who have tried to innoculate the issue of no-fault divorce.
The sky has not fallen wherever the man-woman criterion has remained for milennia. It has not fallen where it has been reaffirmed in constitutional amendments in the USA. But when a fundamental social institution is tampered with by Government, which is hardly competent at much more than collecting taxes, well, don’t claim all is well so soon, in regards to the SSM merger in Canada.
F. Rottles on March 18, 2008 at 7:08 PM
You understand my point. It isn’t that there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage. It is that it is a social good that a gay couple’s desire to commit themselves exclusively and faithfully to one another be recognized by the community. I recognize the objections of the majority of Americans, but still believe in the merits of the viewpoint I hold with a minority, but growing number, of Americans. Maybe over the next decade opinions will change that cause legislatures rather than courts to decide that it is valuable to recognize the promise of a lifetime commitment.
The state adds nothing essential to a marriage. As we agree, a man and woman can recreate the core of the marriage arrangement, complete with kids, without a government or church stamp of approval. Marriage is a way of taking what already exists and making it public. So I wouldn’t concur with the following assertion:
I haven’t made a case for procreation being essential to marriage. I don’t believe that it is universally, though I consider it essential to my marriage. However, straight marriages where partners have reproductive limitations are full and complete marriages, especially if they look to artificial reproduction or adoption as a way of forming a family. Considering child-raising to be essential wouldn’t rule-out SSM, especially among lesbian couples.
dedalus on March 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Interesting. I’ve noticed that you’ve projected something onto several of my comments without any basis. You found this hyperbolic? Elaborate because unless you have just misinterpreted my remarks I’d say that you’re suffering a bout of hypersensitivity.
On the contrary, I haven’t dismissed the influence of such just that religious tenets are not of themselves valid criteria for establishing law. The problem you are avoiding quite adroitly is one the First Amendment was intended to address: which religious sect do we draw upon in formulating our laws, to the exclusion of all others? Before you respond along the lines of the nebulous “Judaeo-Christian tradition”, I’ll remind you that Judaism and Christianity have vast contradictory differences in not only fundamental theology on the nature of God, but interpretation of and the content of Scripture, salvation, what constitutes righteous or evil works, etc. Christianity itself suffers from even more distinct differences among its various sects that are quite stark. So I ask again, which religious sect are you drawing upon to formulate legislation?
Indeed. Yet religion varies on what exactly constitutes a “moral” man and woman. We have common agreement in many areas, but not all including on the subject of homosexuality.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 8:15 PM
“Curtly”? And you arrived at this conclusion, how exactly? If you are saying that your example of a person marrying themselves was meant in jest that’s fine, I missed that and since it lacked the basis forming a contract unworthy of further exploration.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Nope. Such may cause some to question the necessity of these laws into question, but the principle of consent remains the same. Minors are unable to give consent regardless of when the age of majority is established.
You are mistaken. I said that procreation is the primary reason for the instituion of marriage but not the sole, which is exactly why I raised instances of validly contracted marriages wherein such does not occur. You yourself conceded this point in saying that the State has a valid interest in uniting the two genders for more than just procreation. I do not disagree with that point but extend this to the State also has an interest in recognizing unions between persons of the same gender incapable of joining with someone of the opposite gender.
Except there is a crucial difference between the two: in a civil marriage an annulment can be granted if one of the parties concealed from the other their impotence, which is akin to fraud and invalidates a contract. In medieval Catholic sacramental theology, impotence creates an impediment to a sacramental marriage because the potential for procreation does not exist. That could be waived if the other party agreed, but not easily.
It is presumed to involve sexual intercourse, but isn’t mandatory if both parties agree to such an arrangement.
You’re burning down strawmen, but proceed…
The relationship in and of itself is indeed incapable of procreation without third party intervention or at least through adoption. I never disputed this and have said this more than once. What I have also said is that the State has an interest in such unions regardless, just as it does with opposite gender marriages that are likewise incapable of procreation without outside intervention or adoption.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 8:36 PM
Interesting. In this example you cite of court rulings, I’ll agree with you on this. Yet on the Federal level and in many States, these are unelected judges unaccountable to the People for their decisions which is the system our Constitution established. However, you are still missing the appeal of the Founders I referred to which goes the decision of one man or tyranny of the majority: there are inalienable rights that are valid regardless. These rights may not be recognized for a time or even be abused, but they exist nonetheless.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Did I say they should be? In fact, I believe I said that such arrangements are insufficient as an alternative to marriage because they are not treated the same even when they are intended to as far as rights, privileges, benefits and protection to the parties involved. If you want to argue that civil unions/domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage, be my guest. I happily concede the point.
No, I have said one of the impediments is as invalid as the former prohibiting interracial couples from marriage, while I also said that procreation was the primary but not sole reason for the institution.
Ironically, I actually agree with you to a point here though mainly for pragmatic and societal reasons. While I believe there is a valid argument based on rights to be made through the courts, pursuing this through the legislatures is far more prudent. However, I disagree with you that the case has not been made your objections to the merits of that case notwithstanding.
Interesting bit of mischaracterization and poisoning the debate through such comparisons. This is especially true since I consider St. Sully of the Perpetually Grieving Heart to be an ineffective and unworthy spokesman for any group. He is master of nothing save his own bluster and ill-considered commentary.
You do tend to go on. Since the rest of your remarks are not directed to anything I wrote, I’ll ignore them.
JohnAGJ on March 18, 2008 at 8:58 PM
I have to say, this made me laugh. A quick count of posts on this thread shows that yours just slightly outnumber his.
Of course, in your defense, you do have the harder position to justify.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 19, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Oops. I meant,
Although I suspect the ratio holds pretty well through the entire thread, I’m not about to count all 8 pages (so far) to check.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 19, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Thanks for clearing that, as I had requested.
It was not so obvious as you might have imagined, given your various comments in this discussion. In fact, your comments echo Sullivan’s dogamtism on this very subject of marriage.
But I would therefore say that your argument is wrong by association with his. Unlike the way you attempt to tarnish my argument by associating it with racists who outlawed “interracial” marriage.
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Sorry, I meant to say
I would not say that your argument …
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 1:00 AM
I said:
Because you had said:
The provison for reciprocal beneficiaries has existed long before there was a campaign for SSM. It is not one and the same as civil union or other attempts to mimic marriage.
Now, if you would please state the nature, the core, of the relationship type you have in mnind, we can assess the merits and demerits of treating it with the same legal standing as marriage.
Failing that, you have no cause to call for the abolition of the man-woman criterion. None.
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Close but not quite right.
Marriage is not a government creation, we agree.
But it is (first to last) a social institution and, thus, it is public before the government touches it. It has both public and private aspects.
Public does not mean government-owned, I think we’d agree.
Yet we also might agree that Government has powers which can do harm to civil society — to social institutions which stand as buffers between the State and the individual.
In our society, the Law does teach so when legal reform is used to reform the culture — and to attempt to marginalize the core of a foundational social institution — almost certainly there will be grave injustices committed.
dedalus, do you think it pragmatic that society show special consideration for responsible procreation? Howabout for integration of man and woman?
That is, if there are laws or social policies which undermine either of these aspects of marriage, would you not agree that harm has been done?
Maybe you would balance this harm with the potential for good, for some segment of the population, and call it a wash — or even a net good for society. But there is some balancing, I would say, between the aspirational ideal that you’ve alluded to and the aspirational ideal that is at the core of marriage as I’ve described it.
I am not talking of theoretical harm, either, for a foundational social institution is very real and its influence pervades society even beyond the boundaries of that social institution.
I’ll give you an example to illustrate.
As a response to the prevalence of unwed childbearing, some jurisdictions have enacted a presumption of paternity that borrows aspects of the marriage presumption of paternity. There must be demonstrated an opportunity for the man to have impregnated the woman of the child, for instance. No woman is presumed the father of a child so this presumption does not apply to an all-female arrrangement. But to establish the validity of this presumption, the government must intervene — via a court system and high tech labs and a laborious and strict evidence chain procedure. That’s not how the marriage presumption works.
Now, in both cases, the presumption is rebuttable. But in neither case would there be anything to rebut in an all-male or all-female arrangement. So some other kind of presumption, I suppose, my be concocted for one-sex paternity/maternity. However, even at that, it could not be based on whatever men or women would do, sans the other sex, in a sexual way. It might mimic other court doctrines of de facto parenthood, for example, which themselves depend on post-birth relationships built between the child and the adult.
Anyway, this illustrates the lengths to which Government would intervene into the private sphere of married people should all unions of husband and wife be treated as if they were one-sexed.
And, in all that, the prerequisites remain: in an all-male scenario, the mother must relinquish (if she has not died), and the second man must adopt or be decreed the replacement “second adult” — that applies only to one-sex arrangement into which children are born — there is nothing to be presumed, based on sexual behavior, as far as I can detect.
This is the inverse of the marriage presumption of paternity which applies to all marriages.
So either we treat the both-sexed differently from the one-sexed (even if unwedded) or we treat them the same. If the same, we drop the marriage presumption of paternity and even the basis for the unwed presumption of paternity.
I do not think that the practice of adoption, nor the practice of third party procreation, ought to be equated with one another nor either with marital procreation. To do so would be harmful to the socia institution of marriage, to married couples, and to children.
It would also be astoundingly foolish, in terms of safeguarding our civil society from government intrusions.
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 1:25 AM
I had said:
dedalus said:
It is essential to identifying the core of the social institution. The marriage presumption is based on both-sexed sexual relations.
Besides, it is contingency for responsible procreation, not mandatory procreation, that is at issue. Also, this is combined, as per a social institution being a coherent whole, with integration of the sexes on many levels. Without marriage, the integration of motherhood and fatherhood would not be normative. I think we’ve already agreed that the divorce revolution has added sex segregation and has undermined responsible procreation as well. These are directly related.
If by limitations you mean disabilities, sure, but are you saying that we presume that all marriages are disabled unless proven to be fertile (i.e. conceiving and bearing children)? Because that is what your response strongly suggests when you say “especially”.
Maybe 10% of married couples experience infertility during their childbearing years. Almost all resolve this through changes in behavior. Only a tiny subset resort to ARTs; and of that subset, only a very tiny share, maybe 8%, go outside of the marriage for gametes — in fact of those who do so with IVF, about 20% mix the husband’s sperm with the “donor’s” sperm. Less than 3/4 of 1% of children born in this country each year are born via 3rd party procreation.
This is important because 100% of children born to the one-sexed arrangement will have gone the extramarital route. There is a legitimate question of proportion when viewing social institutions, such as marriage, and we should not breezily dismiss this.
Sure, but see my comments just above.
Childraising arrangements include both-sexed combinations of people who are not eligible to marry. But the presence of children does not make them eligible. Consider polygamy for just one example.
Also, adoption does not bestow marital status. Quite the opposite. It is legitimate, and lawful, to prioritize adoption based on marital status. Adoption is an effort to makeup for a shortfall experienced by the child in need. So we ought to make husband-wife unions the top priority for adoptions of children unrelated to the adoptors. This, too, involves balancing of ideals but we must not make adoption the core of marriage for there is no adult right to adopt children. There is no absolute right to even be considered for adopting children.
Besides, no one-sexed arrangment, label it “marriage” if you wish, can do what the marriage presumption does. See relinquishment. See the need for adoption to create the adult-child legal relationship.
Now, if instead you are referring to child-raising where the adults deliberately creating the circumstance in which motherhood is segregated from fatherhood, then, no, child-raising of that kind cannot be considered the core of marriage.
This is why I say that the SSM merger is not an extension of marriage. It is a replacement with something else.
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Infertility is an actual disability.
So I don’t think it would be just to equate infertility with the choice that forms an arrangement that purposefully lacks the other sex but which uses “donor” gametes for attaining children yet-to-be-conceived.
Such a choice cannot be reasonably claimed for the sake of children in need, as might, plausibly, with ’second-parent’ adoption. For the children follow the choice, not the other way around.
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 1:52 AM
JohnAGJ had said:
I responded:
That goes way too far. Please restate your actual meaning without the hyperbole.
To which JohnAGJ said:
Yes.
What is the source of the civil rights which cannot be discussed in light of religious tenets and personal feelings?
Gay identity politics is very much steeped in sentimentality, emotivism, and quasi-religious beliefs — basically gay identity politics.
In your own comments you’ve displayed a lack of objectivity and just now you have attempted to hyper-personalize this discussion.
You presume an irreligious sectarianism and keep asking which religion would be established in its place. I have already discussed pluralism which is expressed in secular language.
And in my comments here I have not presented a religous-argument.
On the other hand, you talk of SSM being an end that justifies the means and have dodged the points about majority votes.
I will say that the man-woman criterion is universal, except in the cult-like beliefs of those who plant their foot and pivot in circles around the axiomatic belief that to disagree with gay identity politics, and with the SSM merger, is itself an act of bigotry and hatred.
Earlier I asked you to put your finger on the basis for the Goodridge majority opinion. I’ve also asked for your version of the core of the relationship type that you have in mind, name it whatever you will. I’ve asked for the horrible flaw in the man-woman criterion and how your alternative is superior.
Without resort to sentiment and religious tenets, please make a stab at providing some kind of reasonable answer to these basic inquiries made in good faith.
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 2:27 AM
Yet, even if said in jest, the example does not lack consent, contrary to your response, and it includes at least two parties — the individual and the state.
It is also one-sexed and sex-segregative, infertile (without the other sex), and lacks contingency for responsible procreation.
As such it is nonmarriage for reasons that have zilch to do with your point about variable parameters for consent. Even with consent, one cannot consent to “marry” in such a form.
Likewise with “gay marriage” which is nonmarital for reasons that stand regardless of the quantity or quality of consent.
Underaged marriage is still a subset of marriage, even if prohibited in our society. In fact, our legal system will treat such marriages, as marriages, under some circumstances. We do this in the case of bigamy, also. There are various adjustments and accomodations that are tangled up with the social institution — but these are based on its core, not on SSM’s lack of that core.
I’ve noticed the absolutism in SSM argumentation and it is present in your own comments here.
Nonetheless, for you, it would now appear, there is no legal requirement that can stand the test from the rules of SSM argumentation.
If marriage is not a sexual type of relationship, then, don’t bother claiming that the line against closely related people can stand because of conserns about procreation, as you did do upthread.
If consent makes marriage, then, drop the line against mutually consenting adults entering polygamous marriages.
At least acknowledge the problems with the rules you are applying in your rejection of the core of marriage. Those rules are profoundly flawed whether they’d be used in a court of law, in a legislature, or in a church, or in the next meeting of the club for wise athiests.
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 2:41 AM
And that interest is … what, precisely?
I ask, not because I doubt there may be some type of interest, but because I doubt there is such an interest that cannot also apply to other nonmarital arrangements.
If this interest is the key to understanding your claim for a relationship status, at law, then, you might at least spell it out and distinguish it from the societal interest in these other arrangements.
And your note about annulment is off-base. First, impotence, and even a refusal to consumate, remains grounds for annulment in a civil court. And, contrary to your use of the word, medieval, it also remains grounds for annulment in Catholicism. As for the aspect of fraud, well, it is fraud regarding an essential of the conjugal relationship type. If not for that, then, it would hardy be fraud, would it?
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 2:49 AM
It is so presumed because of the contingency for responsible procreation. That contingency certainly is enforced.
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 2:51 AM
A case has been offered, but it is full of profound flaws.
It is not evident, based on your comments, that you have weighed the merits and demerits of the SSM merger.
Instead you have started, and ended, with the assertion that to disagree with you on this subject is the equivalent of arguing in favor of the racist system that outlawed “interracial” marriage.
That is wreckless on your part.
If marriage is primarily about procreation, then, it is absurd to say that procreation is subordinate to the secondary and tertiary aspects of marriage.
You don’t identify marriage by the legal incidents that are attached to marital status. I mean, government bennies will come and go. But what has remained at the core, and which identifies marriage, is something extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements. All.
It is not about homosexuality, in fact, but about a social institution which ought not to be confused with the nonmarital arrangements (call them civil union, domestic partnership, or “gay marriage”).
That far too important to be tainted by false assumptions of bigotry.
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 3:02 AM
Correction and clarification:
I said, “It is also one-sexed and sex-segregative, infertile (without the other sex), and lacks contingency for responsible procreation.”
Actually, the one-sexed scenario (a lone individual, a twosome, or a group of persons of the same sex) is not infertile for it is not fertile in the first place — without the other sex. It is non-fertile or sterile by its very nature. It is not a disability but it is an intrinsic feature of the one-sexed scenario.
That constancy, for all one-sex arrangements, contrasts with the variability of fertility throughout the life of the human being, across the population, and during each and every month of a reproductively healthy man-woman couple’s childbearing years. That variability is just the nature of the thing.
Infertility can be experienced due to ill-health, such as life-saving surgery for cancer, or misfortune, such as contracting a disease that adversely effects the reproductive system, or old age — that inevitable maturing process that is a given.
But the nonfertility of a single-sexed arrangement can be due only to the lack of the other sex. And without the other sex, it cannot become fertile.
However, in most instances of infertility during childbearing years, the disbility can be treated and resolved. Where it cannot, the use of third party gametes does not cure the disability.
Obviously, these factoids are not anti-homosexual.
But they do stand against the proposition that there are no highly significant differences between the one-sexed and the both-sexed combinations such that the core of marriage matters a great deal.
Consider how the experience of infertility, even it is resolved, can greatly strain the relationship of husband and wife.
It does so because fertility is expected and, more importantly, is the nature of the sexual ecology of “heterosexual” people.
There are studies which indicate that the practice of 3rd party procreation often does not fully relieve the strain on marriages. This is not necessarily due to some flaw in how people cope, by the way. As I said, the infertility is not actually cured by someone else’s gametes.
In contrast, the use of 3rd party procreation by lesbian couples tends not to be based on infertility (with the other sex) and tends not to strain the relationship as much.
But the practice is not well-studied, yet, in both types of scenarios. It is unclear how the practice effects children, their relationship with each parent, and sibling relationships.
Again, contrast that with the wealth of data and analysis on intact married families with children — the standard against which all other family forms are compared and fall short.
F. Rottles on March 19, 2008 at 3:40 AM
I need to check out of this thread, but I thank you for sharing your thoughtful comments. I’m sure we’ll catch each other on another thread.
dedalus on March 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Well said…
Tim Burton on March 20, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 6 7 8