Vermont legislature overrides governor’s veto, legalizes gay marriage
posted at 4:30 pm on April 7, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The first state to do so the old-fashioned way, i.e. legislatively, instead of by court ruling. It was close in the house but they got it done:
The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.
The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.
It’s now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others…
Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said he was disappointed but believed gay marriage opponents were outspent by supporters by a 20-1 margin.
Normally this is where I’d gauge whether a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision is feasible or not, but since Vermont’s gone off-script I’m without an angle here. No reaction yet from prominent social cons either, although Huckabee, Romney, and Palin are all on record as supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment so it’s safe to assume they want this overturned even without the dastardly handiwork of “activist judges.” In lieu of further comment, let’s take the temperature of the Hot Air faithful with a poll. You’ve got three choices — the social con option, the federalist option, and the libertarian option. I’m curious to see how it’ll shake out. Why, even Rick Warren’s backing away from this fight.
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 2 3 4 5 Next »
You have spoken the truth, in fact this whole debate has very little to do with ‘gays’ and in fact is just one more grievance that the left has with traditional culture. The goal is to destroy it
If we gave in completely and had gay marriage in all states then they still would not be happy
kangjie on April 8, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Secular Humanism is not a state religion, though the U.S. is a secular state.
dedalus on April 8, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Isn’t it possible to practice a culture without it being official state policy? Don’t many groups practice their faith, maybe speak a foreign language, share music or stories or art that binds them, and possibly abide by higher ethical standards without a government mandate?
dedalus on April 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM
It’s true that many christians let divorce slide, but that doesn’t make it right. I agree there is much hypocrisy among christians on this issue but just because we let one thing slide doesn’t mean we have to let everything slide. All who claim to be christians should be following the teachings of Christ on all aspects of marriage, whether we’re talking about divorce or same sex relationships.
As far as my extrapolation I don’t think I’m making any stretches here. If I say something is all red, then by definition I’m saying it’s not blue even though I never used the word ‘blue’. Jesus is pointing back to God’s definition of marriage defined in Genesis as being between a man and a woman. By clear implication that excludes a man and a man. If it was God’s plan that people of the same sex marry each other then why would the explicit terms MALE and FEMALE even be used in the context of this verse?
frank63 on April 8, 2009 at 11:11 AM
One explanation could be the way the question is framed by the pharisees. If you asked someone a question framed something like “If a man steals from his neighbor should he go to jail” they might respond that “A man who steals from his neighbor should go to jail”. That doesn’t give woman a free pass on theft. The Declaration of Independence says that “All men are created equal”. They certainly didn’t mean all males. It is arguable what they meant about women but today we functionally read it as mankind irrespective of the words used.
My point isn’t that the NT could be interpreted as being OK with gay sex–it isn’t, especially Paul. However, in applying Mark 10 I’m more concerned about divorce laws than gay marriage. To my knowledge proposals such as the FMA doesn’t address divorce, which affects many more straight marriages than gay marriage ever could.
dedalus on April 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM
frank63 on April 8, 2009 at 11:25 AM
I don’t think this is a valid comparison. Everyone knows that in our common language the generic term ‘man’ is often used interchangabely with ‘person’. No such parallel exists in the passage where Christ defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. If the OT was wrong in it’s condemnation of homosexual unions, this would have been the perfect opportunity for Christ to correct the record, but he did not. Many people point to the fact that Christ never talked about homosexuality explicitly as evidence that he approved of it but that is ridiculous. The reason he had little to say about it was because it was not commonly practiced in the Jewish culture of that day, given the Old Testaments’s harsh condemnation of it. St. Paul had more to say about homosexuality because he was the apostle to the Gentiles. He was immersed in non-Jewish cultures that did not follow the Old Testament moral code. His letters were written to places where homosexuality was more accepted and practiced, which is why he talked about it more explicitly than Jesus.
As far as divorce, again I agree that christians can be lax about it but we have to see that divorce is a little more complicated than gay marriage. In one passage, Jesus does seem to allow for divorce in cases of adultery. And Paul seems to allow it for cases where on partner is not a christian. So it’s not as clear and straightforward as gay marriage, which has no support at all in the New Testament.
frank63 on April 8, 2009 at 11:49 AM
What gives christians the rights to define morality for non christians?
How is pushing monogamy and personal responsibility thru the institute of marriage bad?
Zekecorlain on April 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM
It’s was “god’s plan” to condone slavery, polygamy, monarchies, genocide, and plagues. But I don’t see you pushing those experiences to the fore front. Maybe christians should realize that trying to rule a secular state with biblical quotes only leaves you open for hypocrisy when you pick and choose the topics that you want to mandate. If God’s marriage plan works so well, how come we are experiencing divorce rates of 60%+.
Gays have been around since the beginning of the written word, condoned or opposed by various religions and faiths thru the ages. As the members of a secular Republic sworn to defend the wall between theocracy and secular rule you should be ashamed to ever quote from the bible in order to make a legal point. Yet here you all are jumping up and down that people are
eating shellfish and wearing double source fabric. (oh wait it’s the other verse you like more)Don’t you see the hole your digging for yourself? Shouldn’t you be afraid that the next generation will try to rule from the koran instead of the bible?By the way our laws are based on personal property rights in the English/Norse tradition, NOT biblical morality. think about it
Zekecorlain on April 8, 2009 at 12:03 PM
In Mark 10, after Christ leaves the pharisees he emphasizes his point on divorce:
Christ identifies anyone divorcing his wife as committing adultery. Adultery is one of the commandments, not merely one of several hundred mitzvot that Christians have culled through.
It seems odd that straight people would give a pass to 95% of the population on divorce, but feel they are implementing Christ’s teaching by enforcing a code on 5% of the population.
I see your points about Paul. Understanding his writing in light of his role of taking Christ’s teaching beyond the boundries of Judaism is helpful.
dedalus on April 8, 2009 at 12:06 PM
There was a time when this was not true. Catholics in particular are still very reluctant to accept divorce as valid. In Catholic doctrine a civil divorce does not nullify a Catholic marriage. You must obtain an annulment from the Church.
The tradition of Christian tolerance for divorce goes back to King Henry VIII of England and his desire for an anullment from Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. The confrontation between Henry VIII and the Pope cause the Church of England to separate from the Papacy in 1534. Henry VIII became the head of the Church of England and established a tradition of tolerance for divorce. Since most American settlers were British, many followed the Anglican tradition. That allowed this tolerance for divorce to be inherited by much of the American Christian tradition.
So in a nutshell, if you follow Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions, the tolerance of divorce is much lower than in the classic Anglican tradition. Since Reformed Protestantism followed from the Anglican tradition they also share the outlook on divorce. Either way, it was all done by a King that wanted to switch wives at will.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 12:13 PM
For a Catholic divorce is morally wrong but legal in the U.S. Gay marriage can be viewed similarly.
dedalus on April 8, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Because in the context of gay marriage it is not at all about monogamy or responsibility. It is about establishing legal rights for a great many things.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 12:16 PM
dedalus: Divorce is a problem, no doubt. There are places where it is allowed, etc. Christ of course wouldn’t force someone to stay in an abusive marriage.
What we have to realize is that Christ was preaching for the ideal life. That’s what He wants us all to achieve. Truly, when you divorce your wife and run off with another woman, that should be adultery. But if you divorce because of abuse, etc.–Christ won’t hold you to it. Divorce is a necessary evil, but one that will eventually be stamped out. If both partners are committed, divorce is never necessary. That’s not true in this world, though.
SSM is, however, not a “necessary evil.” You seem to think that people who, like my faith, are preaching against SSM do only that and nothing more. Which is entirely wrong, my faith spends a great deal more time trying to keep “straight” families together and providing solutions for that than they do about SSM. But SSM is the popular immorality right now, so that is what gets the press.
Vanceone on April 8, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Indeed you are correct. Gay marriage is one of the issues in our society that we will struggle over for many decades, just like abortion. I am waiting for the gay rights movement to take a similar approach and look to obtain their version of Roe vs Wade so they can remove it from state courts and win a nationwide battle in one stroke. Personally, I do not believe that either issue should be federal and both should remain in the states.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Do you believe that stealing and murder should be illegal? If so, then you’re doing the same thing you accuse christians of, you’re imposing your morality on others who may have different beliefs than you. Not everyone agrees that murder is wrong. Terrorists believe it’s ok to murder if it’s done for a religious cause, so what right do you have to say they are wrong?
The case I’m trying to make here is that ALL laws are basically the imposition of some type of moral code on everyone else. We live in a democracy so everyone has a right to make their case for what types of behavior should be regulated by law. Christians have just as much a right to make their case as anyone else. Whatever side wins gets their morality imposed on everyone else. That’s how it works.
Gay marriage supporters are doing the same thing as their opponents – trying to impose their morality on everyone else. They say it’s immoral to prohibit same sex couples from enjoying all the same benefits as straight couples. Look at what happened in cases like EHarmony where a private business was pressured to accomodate same sex coupling. Stuff like that is only going to accelerate once gay marriage is widely legalized. I believe gay marriage supporters have every right to fight for their cause, but let’s not make any bones about the fact that BOTH sides of this issue are attempting to impose a moral standard on everyone else. This idea that only the christian side is doing this is flat out wrong
frank63 on April 8, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Ha, roger. Which is why I’m hoping the D-word (Darfur) doesn’t surface any time in the near future. Deploying there just doesn’t sound like a good time to me.
Send_Me on April 8, 2009 at 12:24 PM
@frank63 I understand your argument but you are still ignoring the fact that our law is based on property rights, not biblical morality. Also your fear that SSM is an imposition is twisted, gays are not forcing you to marry a guy, I just would like to be assured that my property rights as a citizen will not be trampled by others eager to impose their fears on my family. You say that gays are trying to impose something but every straight argument ends up being well if they want to get married they can marry a woman. A situation that happens often and always leads to tragedy. Would you want your sister to marry a man that cannot give her the emotional and sexual fulfillment that she needs to be happy?
Zekecorlain on April 8, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I think this is awesome.
My best friend and I are going to get divorces and move to Iowa. Then, he and I get married for the tax break and our “wives” go on welfare. Over time more and more women will be removed from working society and we will be back to a nuclear family in practice but not in name.
Thanks gay marriage and government!
DWB on April 8, 2009 at 12:32 PM
It is OK to leave an abusive spouse, but you are always married in the eyes of God. It would be remarriage that Christ would not be OK with.
dedalus on April 8, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Would you agree that culture is religion externalized? By “religion externalized” I mean, what underlying beliefs, views of life, ethics/morality, history, and teachings as to the purpose of life, do we see communicated in our culture today? I’m not talking about “official” state religions here. I’m talking about our human terrain, the make-up of our population as it relates to culture and the culture’s underlying foundation. I’m talking about cultural hegemony, as Antonio Gramsci termed this concept. Our government and society communicate a religion, a secular religion, regardless of whether the Constitution provides the legal framework for it or not. Every nation has a religion, which drives culture.
Send_Me on April 8, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Maybe christians should realize that trying to rule a secular state with biblical quotes only leaves you open for hypocrisy when you pick and choose the topics that you want to mandate
frank63 on April 8, 2009 at 12:34 PM
ZekeCorlain: In fact, the eHarmony fiasco clearly represents what SSM marriage means for those who are “straight.”
This was a site meant to help out people getting married. They focused on only males and females, since, after all, that is the point of marriage. The Gaystapo came in and forced eHarmony to change their focus and start providing services to them.
This has happened to wedding photographers, adoption services, and more. The Boy Scouts are now propagandized against because they believe in being morally straight. Just like the gay bigots on here attack religion and Christianity and say that it should never influence anyone, because it cuts against them. And they want that to be the law–only THEIR views are valid, but Christians and others views are not.
In short, Folsom Street Fairs for everyone, but burn the Christians at the stake!
Vanceone on April 8, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Zekecorlain,
First of all, if someone is not a christian I can’t expect them to follow the bible. Secondly, why do gay people need marriage in order to be fulfilled sexually? The issue is not about sexual fulfillment, it’s about societal acceptance. Civil unions provide most of the desired benefits but that’s not enough it seems. You talk about your property rights, but what what about the rights of christians? Why should I be forced to have my children indoctrinated in the joys of SSM by the public school system? Why should a christian photographer be sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding (as happened recently)? Why should private christian businesses like EHarmony be sued for refusing to provide special services for gays? This is the road we are heading down. If this were all a matter of live and let live I’d be fine with it, but many gay marriage supporters want to create a cultural atmosphere where anyone who does not accept gay marriage is the equivalent of a Ku Klux Klan member.
frank63 on April 8, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Again, I can only speak for myself but I do not believe that everything in the bible should be enforced on the entire population. The bible says we should go to church, but I don’t want the government making laws in that regard. It just so happens that as christians we believe that SOME laws in the bible address issues that are fundamental to the health of our society. The bible says “Thou shalt not steal”. Should christians not support anti-theft laws because it’s found in the bible? Of course not. Many christians happen to believe that the traditional moral code surrounding marriage is foundational to our society and should be followed for the desired benefit to society as a whole, not simply because the bible says it.
frank63 on April 8, 2009 at 1:04 PM
The reasons to oppose gay marriage are given to us by history.
We must first understand that civilization at its core, is the practice of learning to deny our individual wants and needs for the good of the whole. When we are making a decision to allow people to satisfy their needs, we must look deeper than just hedonism to justify it.
When we view relationships our traditions have been to encourage the family unit. That is done in order to provide a stable and loving foundation in order to raise children.
We have learned from early civilization that approaching sexual activity purely from the perspective of pleasure is a mistake. Using a hedonistic approach is the justification for many behaviors that we do not wish to condone. Rape, sexual slavery, pedagogy, bestiality, sadomasochism, asphyxiation, homosexuality, polygamy, and incest are all features of sexual relationships that can provide for pleasure. But do we really wish to make all of these legal and socially acceptable?
The problems that we face is how to define relationships in such a way that allows for a clear legal distinction between what is acceptable and what is not. That is why potential for procreation is an important factor in the decision. It allows our society to create a legal construct that supports raising families but shuts out the more deviant sexual behaviors that have no real value other than hedonism.
Once you remove the legal line to allow relationships to deviate from procreation and family, you have opened the door to lots of problems. How do you justify homosexuality without allowing pedagogy? After all, the gender distinction is much more clear and defensible in court than a concept of when you are old enough to decide for yourself. Any arbitrary age that we set will only be accurate sometimes. But gender is determinate in the vast majority of situations.
History has shown us that accepting hedonism as a basis for social acceptance is a bad idea. Every civilization that openly accepted homosexual behavior eventually progressed to much more deviant sexual behavior. Pedagogy shares a very close relationship to homosexuality and virtually all societies that accepted one eventually accepted the other as well. We are already on this path. NAMBLA is active and lobbying.
Indeed the acceptance of homosexual behavior has been the harbinger for the onset of a decadent and declining society in every case. This is the lesson of history, not religion. The prohibition in religion is there because religions have learned from history and tried to restrict behaviors that have proven to be destructive of society in the past.
We can walk this path if we choose. We can argue about religion all that we want. Apparently we are doomed to go the way of the Greeks and the Romans because we have not learned from them.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 1:16 PM
I also do not accept homosexuality marriage.
Unfortunately every argument you made were basically the same used to deny blacks freedom.
Rape, sexual slavery, pedagogy, bestiality, sadomasochism, asphyxiation, homosexuality, polygamy, and incest are all features of Negroes society that can provide for pleasure. But do we really wish to make all of these legal and socially acceptable?
History has shown that accepting Negroes as a basis for social acceptance is a bad idea.
Indeed the acceptance of the primate Negroes behavior has been the harbinger for the onset of a decadent and declining society in every case.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Right2bright–I do hope you are being sarcastic. If so, that’s quite a racist statement there.
Vanceone on April 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Christian Conservative on April 8, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Skin tone is genetic. Homosexuality is not. That is where your analogy fails.
Send_Me on April 8, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Your response is not dignified. It is not even correct. It is nothing but a blatant attempt to derail the real discussion over something that is clearly not the same by drawing a spurious comparison. Care to enlighten us with more specious reasoning that adds nothing to the discussion?
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 2:00 PM
OK, now that I have recovered from the breathtakingly huge amount of balls you have to use to post something like that, I can answer.
Racial discrimination is not the same as limiting the impact of hedonistic behavior on your society. The entire group of all black people will consist of every political leaning you can imagine. It will contain both saints and sinners. It will bring valuable cultural lessons in example of both success and failure. But there is no single behavior to attribute to them.
Homosexuality is a behavior. It is defined by a specific act, or group of acts. We have always adopted laws that proscribe actions that we do not feel are desired in our society. That is how we outlaw things like murder, theft and rape.
So are you telling me that the black race in an identifiable action?
Also please tell me why we are incorrect in our ability to outlaw behaviors that we do not feel are contributory to a civil and rational society?
Please, I anxiously await your explanation of this.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Hawthorne, I really hope right2bright was being sarcastic, or trying a “Modest proposal” style post. I’ve never really seen right2bright exhibit irrational prejudice against blacks before. Mormons, yes, but no one else, really.
If right2bright doesn’t clarify, though…. just wow.
Vanceone on April 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Haven’t you considered that since gays have always been around it is a natural human condition?
and doesn’t this apply to gays as well as blacks?
“The entire group of all black people will consist of every political leaning you can imagine. It will contain both saints and sinners. It will bring valuable cultural lessons in example of both success and failure. But there is no single behavior to attribute to them.”
Zekecorlain on April 8, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Zekecorlain: Yes, and murderers have always been around too. So has just about every other kind of activity. Prostitution, murder, drug abuse, theft, bigotry, etc. Just because homosexuals have been around for a long time doesn’t mean we should legalize it. That argument is nothing but anarchy.
Vanceone on April 8, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Prostitution has always been around also.
Christian Conservative on April 8, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Homosexuality doesn’t have to hurt anyone and is between two consenting adults, connotating it to murder, rape, drug abuse, is disingenuous and abusive. child rape and murder is typically done by straights I don’t see you outlawing marriage because of it.
Zekecorlain on April 8, 2009 at 3:50 PM
blaming gays for being outcasts to justify making them outcasts is the most ridiculous argument of all. Human history is full of civilizations that didn’t give a rats ass about gays, and for all of you christian “historians” it wasn’t till Rome started persecuting gays that they fell if you want to abide by the proper timeline. so shove it.
Zekecorlain on April 8, 2009 at 4:07 PM
@Christian Conservative if following the bible is so important why don’t you go set up a theocracy some where? Oh yeah those always destroy themselves in orgies of mass executions of the “impure”. In fact everyone here who is so keen to live by the bible, why do you support secular law at all? Why do you pick and choose what you want to follow? I’ll tell you why because your smart enough to know it’s a horrible idea, and you’d all suffer. So stop justifying your “moral outrage” with bible versus’s and let ask ourselves what 2.6% of the population could really do to the mass culture? Fighting gay rights hasn’t stopped a single teen from pregnancy, it’s never saved any families, in fact it tears them apart when they tell their children that they shouldn’t aspire to a monogamous relationship because it’s just a sham and no two men or two women could ever truly love each other.
Zekecorlain on April 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM
You guys are so quick to pull the trigger…you should read what I posted, not what you think I posted.
What I posted is that those were the same arguments used 200 years ago…not my arguments.
Read the post…I stated those were the same arguments, I am old but not that old.
The entire group of all homosexuals will consist of every political leaning you can imagine.
Get it now? I am saying your arguments, to you sound “right”, but so did the arguments of many scholars, ministers, scientists, politicians, regarding “Negroes”.
Darwin, and before,and many religious leaders felt the same about “Negroes”. The Methodists were split, Baptists were split, Mormons were generally thought of anti-slavery, however in the Book of Elders Smith was quoted as advocating it, it was controversial because it is condoned biblicaly. Catholics are all over, but generally the Pope was against it, Pope Innocent (which is funny name) gave a couple of hundred slaves as gifts, yet in the 1400’s Pope Eugene or Sixtas issued a Sicut dudum, under threat of ex-communication, Spain had just a couple of weeks to release all slaves of one of the islands Spain controlled.
So the religious community was all over the spectrum…because the bible condones slavery.
And Vanceone, stop playing the “victim card” of a Mormon. Just because I have no use for Joseph Smith the pedophile, doesn’t mean I don’t have respect for Mormon’s…at least the ones who won’t “sell” their child into marriage.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Apparently you missed the entire point of my argument.
Black, Hispanic, Caucasian, etc are all genetic attributes that refer to a physical property of that person. They are not the same as being gay. Blacks, Hispanics, and Caucasians can also be gay. That by itself is unequivocal evidence that they are not equivalent. It is not possible for something that is a member of a set, to also coexist with other members of the set. That makes being gay an entirely distinct and different property from race. You are comparing apples and oranges.
We define people that are gay by their sexual preferences. That is now it is described in law and in literature. Legal definitions make a clear distinction between sexual preferences and race. For example, affirmative action laws do not apply to gays.
What I am saying is simple. Our society has decisions to make about what types of behavior we wish to allow and what we do not. The typical gay relationship is more about hedonism than anything else. I have previously quoted a lot of statistics from respected and published studies that show gay relationships are:
Likely to break up within a few years.
Much more likely to have partners cheating on each other.
Vastly more likely to result in serious issues with sexually transmitted diseases.
Much more likely to have an abusive relationship.
All of the4se are important indicators. They are very typical of a decadent and hedonistic culture. They ARE NOT indicative of a culture that is more concerned with raising a family. For the big majority of gay partners it is all about the pleasure. It is hedonism. Every one of them are indications of a person who will ignore social restrictions to satisfy their own desires.
I have already mentioned several ways that gay relationships create a burden on our society. The much higher instance of STDs puts a burden on our health care system. In fact this burden is much more costly than smoking per instance. A person with lung cancer tends to either recover after surgery, or die rather quickly. Patients with HIV+ and AIDS tend to be long term and expensive. Male gay relationships and drug abusers are the two highest risk groups for HIV by far. So if we are justified in outlawing smoking over health concerns, why can’t we outlaw gay sex? It is a provable burden on our society and health care system.
Gay relationships have an incidence of abuse that is nearly double that of a hetero relationship overall. When you look at only males, the gay relationship has several times the incidence of abuse when compared to heteros. We have recently had to spend large amounts of money to create abuse shelters and counseling that is tailored to the needs of the gay community. That has also been a burden on our society.
So what have we gotten in return? We tolerate the problems with male-female relationships because they contribute to our future through children. It is necessary if we wish to have a future. But we do not need homosexual relationships for that. We can produce more than enough children from heterosexual relations. So what is the real benefit to our society of allowing homosexual relationships that offsets the cost?
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Hey, guess what you fool…the life you live was provided to you by the faithful.
The schools, the hospitals, the care for the least, the caring for the battered women, are all created by what you deem unneccassary.
So you demean, what you have taken so freely of.
Been to a Folsom parade lately, along the public streets? Been to a gay parade lately along the public streets? You like that, it turns you on, you think society is better off for that?
Homosexuality has not just been deemed “wrong” by religious groups, but most of all historical society has not supported it…what would 5,000 years of history tell you?
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 4:30 PM
You missed my point…I am saying the same arguments used today were used against the blacks…I am not using them, I am saying these guys are just repeating the same arguments.
I don’t know if “gays” are born that way or become that way.
If they are “born” that way then the arguments are exactly the same, they can’t change the genetics…however if they “become” that way then…
But even if someone is wired, they are still in control of their actions, they aren’t “animals”. They just have to learn to control.
Many people have an addictive behavior, that may be genetic, it does not excuse them and allow them to become “addicts”.
I am just stating that what appears to some as a logical argument, isn’t so logical.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 4:40 PM
You missed the entire point of what I posted.
Since blacks can also be gay they are separate and distinctly different attributes. If they were not, they could not co-exist. It is recognized as such in our law and in our literature. I pointed out in my earlier post that when you have a law about hiring, you must specify discrimination based race and sexual preference separately.
Regardless of what the gay community might like to portray, we discriminate based on sexual preferences in our laws all the time. We have laws against incest, pedagogy, polygamy, etc. Those are all sexual preferences too. There is no reason to give homosexuality any more legitimacy than any of the others.
So are you saying we should not have any laws at all concerning sexual preferences?
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 4:45 PM
@Hawthorne you do realize that correlation does not equal causation? You point to a fringe group that is typically relegated to the fringes of society and than comment on their status, you imply that because many gay relationships end early there is no reason to try for longer. What of the many relationships that last till death? You don’t have firm numbers so drop the argument, unless you want to disavow marriage for straights since the divorce rate in Oklahoma is nearing 70% ?
Also I don’t see you making the argument that since minorities have a disproportionate number of in prison that all minorities should be locked up.
Also without the chance for marriage woul;d more straight couples break up if there were no advantages to staying together? You don’t have a control group so that is a pretty crap argument as well.
Living on the fringe gays are more likely to develop addictions and destructive behavior, it would seem that following your logic we should bring gays back into the mainstream to protect them from the dangers of social indignity? Gays are no different than any other member of society nor any more or less likely to commit a crime or take up abusive behavior. Yes HIV is more prevalent in this country among gays, but that’s not the case in Africa, should we not treat Africans as equal members of society because they are more likely to have HIV? Again your logic seems rational but it’s really not. Should the homeless never be taken care of? Should the Sick never be treated?
You say you produce more than enough children to reproduce the species but you ignore the fact that you don’t have enough adults to care for them so you leave them to rot in foster care or orphanges until they are 18 than you kick them out on the street to fend for yourself. If you were really the dispassionate observer you would see the use of adding additional stable households to your tax base and your child rearing. Homosexuality is innate, whether from genes or circumstance, there is no additional danger of the children becoming gay. Since all gays come from straights the logic would be that gays are a constant product of child bearing and if treated like normal people would have no additional issues than their siblings.
Zekecorlain on April 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Ummm… How in the crap did a post on gay marrage get into talkin bout “primate negroes”? Why o why do you guys fall for (or use) these lame tactics. For turds sake try at least a little bit to compare oranges to oranges. Im sorry but that is a nice fat FAIL. I recommend not even trying to fix that one.
bigskinny on April 8, 2009 at 4:47 PM
I like this for the right way it was done!. the Governor Veto the bill and the both houses passed it by state law- is the America way of law.
hawkman on April 8, 2009 at 4:55 PM
@right2bright your not to bright are you?
I never deemed them unnecessary, I take procreation very seriously. As for social ventures I take part in them and I repay them, I pay a significant portion to taxes, I donate to charitable causes, yet I am not a christian. In fact other societies have these same features and they are not christian either.
I have never been to Folsom, but it doesn’t bother me, the people seem like will participants. Ever been to Mardi Gra? or a beach during Sporing Break? And having been to a gay pride parade, I can tell you that i felt great about it, and it was nice to know that even though half the participants were straight it was important to feel appreciated and loved by your fellow citizens despite the fact that my own family finds it so hard to say a nice thing about the other gays in the family.
This is also not true, most societies don’t care about it, in most asian culture it is merely accepted and in some cases venerated ( the thai) in some regards. In South America it wasn’t condemned until the spanish came, and murdered them, in The middle east and among the Mediterranean worlds it was widely expressed as a normal part of life and most men were encouraged to try it.
Even in the bible the relationship between David and Jonathan was and still is widely viewed as a perfect friendship. (this after they stripped naked and pledged undying fealty and love to each other). Despite the fact that gay relationships were condemned in Leviticus.
Also you do know that there is at least significant evidence of human civilization on almost all the continents for the past 20,000 years? Not even mentioning the fact that aboriginal society is at least 15,000 years old on it’s own, and the chinese calendar starts 5000 years ago.
Zekecorlain on April 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Do I have to state it again…my observation is that your arguments are the same that were used for decades against the blacks.
They are not my arguments, they are others.
See where I answer your question, before you asked it here:
You are too emotional, and you should step back and see that your arguments, by the most part, are the same that were used 100 years ago.
Can’t allow those “Negroes”, they are an abomination, they are animals, they can’t control themselves, they are deviant.
We judge individuals by their actions. God judges the heart, the reason.
If you have a gay brother, you don’t hate him, you don’t hold him in disdain…unless he does something deviant, you judge his actions.
You can’t judge a homosexual as a group, but as individuals (which is why I brought up the Folsom Street Fair,it is a market of individual acts, but not reflective of all gays)…lust for a man or a woman is the same sin in the eyes of God. It is your actions that we judge.
So when you say homosexuals have an incidence of abuse twice, if your brother was gay and had no relationships, would you want him portrayed as an “abuser”?
Get it now?
God says you judge the action, not what is in the heart (that’s his job).
Being homosexual is not a sin, the action can be sinful.
Show me in the bible where having homosexual lust is any different then heterosexual lust…
Now you are beginning to understand…if you are a Christian.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM
This is also not true, most societies don’t care about it, in most asian culture it is merely accepted and in some cases venerated ( the thai) in some regards.
frank63 on April 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Why do you insist on reading things into my position that I never said? I simply said that hedonism is not a basis for changing social policy. I have proven my point with facts. If you want the references to the actual studies then go back to my previous post when I gave them. I produced hard numbers, you just didn’t go back to get them. Don’t attack me because you are too lazy to do your research before you post.
The divorce rate in Oklahoma is 70% over how long? What study shows this? Also, if they stay married long enough to raise their kids it doesn’t matter. But studies have shown that the failure rate for gay relationships is much worse than that. About 86% of the gay couples in the study broke up within 12 years. That is not even close to long enough to raise a child.
How about the study that showed that over 40% of gay men have more than 500 sex partners in their lifetime. About 28% have over one thousand. Is that what we want to subject a child to? Not hardly.
Sorry, but the gay culture is decadent and hedonistic. It is about pleasure and thrills. It is about pushing the limits of society because you do not want limits. But at the same time all of us get to deal with the wreck that you make out of our society. We are the ones that will have to deal with the pedophiles that assault our kids. We are the ones that will have to deal with preparing our children for a world that is a lot more predatory than it had to be.
Frankly I am tired of your distortions and misdirections. I am dealing with the issue directly. I am not putting up straw men by using race or anything else as a dodge. I am meeting you head on and you utterly fail at much but trying to find any possible way to twist and spin to distort the point. You use tactics that try to paint your opponent as something evil. But you are the one making baseless and groundless accusations designed to discredit me as a bigot.
I am not homophobic. I am not afraid of gays. I have had several gay friends, though two are now dead from AIDS. I just don’t feel that gay marriage is the right direction for our society. It is more more or no less than that.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 5:17 PM
No they are not. My arguments are based on historical observations of many people that go back thousands of years. I have not found one Greek or Roman example that tells me that acceptance of blacks creates a promiscuous and decadent society. But there are many dozens of historical examples that homosexuality does this.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Here is your fair on public streets.
If you think this is good for society, great…if you think kids getting drunk and exposing themselves during spring break is good for society, great.
But the are apples and oranges…look at the pictures then tell me that is “good for society”.
How naive, no country, or society in the history of the world has ever come close to the expression of giving then the faithful in this country.
And good for you saying you “give”, the difference between seculars and the faithful is embarrassing large. I am shocked you even bring it up.
Let me assure you, biologically alone, homosexuality could not exist in anything but a deviant behavior. Your historical knowledge is only a sign that you were public educated.
Funny you pick one of the most barbaric cultures, the Aztec’s (or Mayan), to promote homosexuality. And for your info. very little was written or is actually known about what you supposedly are so knowledgeable about…unless you are an expert linguist in Nahuatl.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM
To take my point a bit farther. The causal relationship for the objectionable behavior of early black integration in America was not the same. Blacks in America were brought from backward tribal cultures and placed into a segregated social system. Once they were allowed to integrate into society, blacks were able to assimilate and adopt sensibilities more aligned with mainstream American culture.
Gay members of society have been integrated into mainstream American culture for the entire existence of our country. There is very little reason to believe that going “mainstream” will make things any better. If anything, most people tend to become more promiscuous once it is acceptable, not less. Current statistics show a level of promiscuity and hedonism among gays that far dwarfs anything that black culture exhibited now or in the past. How many blacks do you think have had 1000 sex partners? Do you feel it approaches anything like the 28% figure among American gay men?
So what I am saying, is that the fears do not compare regardless of the attempts to paint them the same.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 5:31 PM
@right2bright How can you move between this sobriety and distortion between statements? You make a comment to me that barely seems lucid and than you make a comment to Hawthorne that is well thought out and positioned. on one hand you say that you should judge people on their actions not the group stereotype, than you turn around and call me a fool? Are there two of you?
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 5:17 PM
quoting numbers does not make them “hard facts” In fact most statistical research is utter bullshit with no controls.
As for “distortions and Misdirections” could you kindly reference them as I am not sure how making a counter argument equals a misdirection
http://tinyurl.com/kdvl
http://tinyurl.com/dhmalm
I couldn’t find statistics based on years married, however if I remember correctly it was the highest among first time marriage within three years. Not all counties mandate keeping track
in fact I am the only one of my friends not divorced.
Zekecorlain on April 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Unfortunately every argument you made were basically the same used to deny blacks freedom
frank63 on April 8, 2009 at 5:34 PM
No they are not what…not used for the past 100 years? Didn’t I say Darwin? Was he Greek?
You sure jump around.
Great then you have no problem showing me where being homosexual, but not doing an act, is forbidden and a sin.
But glad to see you are backing off the claim that they were your arguments, you framed them as yours.
And you are judging the act, not what you perceive, correct?
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Right2bright: You again are lying about Joseph Smith–he did NOT advocate for slavery. Indeed, when your religious predecessors murdered him, he was advancing a program of the government buying all the slaves and freeing them. He did, as Jesus did, state that slaves should be obedient to their masters, but he never condoned slavery or said it was a good thing. Another lie on your part about Joseph Smith. It’s endemic with you.
And this “gays are the new blacks!!!!” Is bogus. Gays are not genetic, and can choose to not engage in homosexual acts! Blacks couldn’t cease to be black–not even Michael Jackson. Worlds of difference.
Gays claiming civil rights is the same as prostitutes claiming a civil right to engage in prostitution, or adulterers claiming adultery should be celebrated in fairs on the streets of San Francisco.
On that note, I’m outta here for the day.
Vanceone on April 8, 2009 at 5:41 PM
That’s the problem when you get into the middle of the thread.
That should catch you up.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 5:42 PM
I think you misrepresented a lot there Frank. Sodomy was illegal in Thailand until 1956 and homosexuality was treated as a mental disease until 2002. So how is that venerated?
Sorry, but your post is an outright lie. Currently there are seven countries that allow same sex marriage. There are another fifteen that allows same sex civil unions. That does not include the United States because we determine SSM on a state by state basis.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 5:43 PM
My my. How convenient of you to utterly dismiss my statistics as bullshit then use some of your own. Debating with you is pointless because you are not open to any debate. You are just applying double standards and manipulations to spin the discussion. There is no intellectual basis to your argument. It is all purely partisan political crap. If it weren’t you wouldn’t have all the double standards.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Hit and run…I never said that “gays are the new blacks”, I was speaking only of the argument. The behavior is deviant is what I have continuously posted, but not being. We can only judge the actions (about the 6 time I have stated this, and you still don’t get it).
And here is Joseph Smith answer to question number 13, from the elders journal:
by his own words, not mine.
Every time you post that, I have the quote that backs up my statement…funny you never then answer back, you just “forget” about your accusation. Funny how quotes can haunt you.
I have never posted anything about Joseph Smith, that he himself has not stated, or embraced.
This is what I stated, and proved by my quote:
You should be more careful, I am sure false accusation is something your faith frowns upon.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Amazing…once they were able to assimilate, they became what, human?
I think I know what you mean (wording was a little shaky), but even up to recent times the blacks were considered less then “human”, and treated as such.
And indeed, I think the liberal culture still holds some of those original feelings and beliefs, hence the “affirmative” culture of the left.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I am not arguing that, it is the arguments used.
So now do you judge homosexuals by their actions, or by what you perceive…you seem to have dodged that most important point that I have been driving home.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 6:01 PM
What I meant is that social morals are usually determined by culture. Most early blacks were brought to America as slaves after being kidnapped from African tribal lands. They held the cultural taboos of their homeland.
When black slaves were placed onto a plantation, they became members of an segregated and isolated society. In that environment they were not allowed to experience mainstream culture in America. All they really saw was plantation life as a slave. So the culture of their homeland survived.
While the tribal cultures in Africa may have seemed wanton and backward to Americans, the black slaves had no context to learn any alternative. Once the slaves were feed and allowed to merge into American society, their social morals became more like what Americans expected.
While the segregation continued for many years, the isolation had been lifted. Prior to the civil rights movement in the 1960’s, the black American culture actually featured a more stable family unit than white America. The divorce rate and the legitimacy rate in black American society were both superior to that among whites. Black Americans had learned many lessons from American culture and practiced them better than most whites.
So what I am saying is that we are shaped by our experiences. I do not expect the gay culture to benefit because they have never been isolated from mainstream American culture. They simply reject it. There is not a great potential for altering their culture or attitudes by allowing gay marriage. Gays can adopt now if they choose. The big majority do not. If it was about family they already have that option and reject it. We need to realize that the gay culture is promiscuous and decadent because they choose to be. Not because they are a backward tribal culture isolated from the mainstream of society.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM
I have had several gay friends in my lifetime. I have had an opportunity to see the gay lifestyle. Two of the gay friends I once knew are dead from AIDS. One thing I can definitely say is that the gay lifestyle is vastly more promiscuous than the straight lifestyle. Especially among the men. It was the most hedonistic and decadent thing I have ever witnessed.
Our social values have been developed for a reason. We have the benefit of thousands of years of history to learn from. We learned from several cultures, but mainly the Greeks and Romans, that hedonism and decadence lead to the decline and fall of your society.
The reasons for this are not hard to understand. Civilization is based on depriving ourselves of the things we want in order to have a better social foundation. Barbarianism is the practice of taking whatever you want any time you want it. The more you give in to your desires at the cost of society, the more you move toward hedonism and decadence.
At some point your society becomes used to the idea of indulging in its desires and ignoring the more difficult tasks of sacrificing for the greater good. Eventually your society becomes unwilling to even provide for itself. Like in ancient Rome, you just pay people to do the work you don’t want to (illegal immigrants?) and even pay people to defend you (Canada?) because you are unwilling to sufficiently defend yourself. Everybody is too busy indulging themselves to make the sacrifice.
One of the historic indicators of this decline into decadence and hedonism is open homosexuality. In our society it opens so many additional issues that I fear it is our Pandora’s box. It opens the road to even more decadent sexual practices. How long until the gay bath houses become just like the Roman bath houses? Everybody into the pool!
How is marriage going to be redefined now? Will we legalize polygamy and polyamory? Heck. let’s just have group marriages where 20 folks can just swap partners when they want. How is parentage and reponsibility for children determined in that? The acceptance of gay marriage is going to create a ripple in our society where we are going to cede the parental rights of our children to the state. The relationships will become so complex that only courts will be able to sort them out. In the process the parents will lose control.
What about pedagogy? What about incest? Where does it end?
This is why it is essential for a marriage to remain between one man and one woman. The consequences of the path we are about to take are breathtaking and horrifying. We are giving up the rights to our children because they want to get married.
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 6:52 PM
I don’t want marriage to be redefined, I have made that clear for the past year.
I just don’t like grouping individuals and condemning all in that group.
Great to group them for study, or generalization…but gays are not sinners until they have committed a sin.
That is, as Christians (if you are one) only judge the action.
I can look at the Folsom fiasco and state they are way out of human dignity bounds…but I can’t look at a group of gays at a dinner table and say they are deviants, they have done no act I am aware of that is deviant.
If so, show me in the bible where being gay is sinful, all the passages refer to action.
So when you say “gays” are deviant, then what you should mean is gays that have been deviant are deviant.
Just being gay is not sin..or is it, and if it is, show me the verses.
While you are trying to lecture me on stuff I have posted for years…I am trying to get out of you.
Do you consider being gay inherently sinful? Is lusting after another male any different then lusting after a female?
The bible say no…so being gay is not sinful.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 6:57 PM
I do not judge the group, I just look at the evidence and try to determine the impact. What I care about is where it leads us and what we sacrifice as a society for an imagined right for less than one half of one percent of all Americans.
So what my essential question is:
What does gay marriage contribute to America compared to what we stand to lose?
Well, let’s look at what has happened in gay marriage in other places.
In Sweden, only about 2% of same-sex couples have chosen to legally formalize their relationship since 1995, when Swedish law first allowed for registered partnerships.
In the Netherlands about 2.8% of the same-sex couples have chosen to marry since 2001.
These represent the gay couples that have chosen to enter a formally committed relationship. The percentage is extremely low.
Even in the situation of a “committed” relationship it is clear that monogamy is not a part of most.
Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile speaks approvingly of those who advocate replacing monogamy with sexually “open” relationships:
“For these men the term “monogamy” simply doesn’t necessarily mean sexual exclusivity….The term “open relationship” has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.”
According to the Mendola Report, a mere 26 percent of homosexuals believe that commitment is most important in a marriage relationship
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, only about 8% of the same-sex households in America have children. Same-sex household account for less than 1% of the overall population.
So what are we saying here? We are going to shatter the fabric of our entire social structure and open the door to an untold number of legal challenges for what?
We are talking about only 0.008% of our entire population as being same-sex couples that are raising children! They can do that now without any legalized marriage. Nothing is stopping them? So what is the agenda?
Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so….Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.”
So you decide. Are you going to risk all of the legal changes that will be made to parental rights to accommodate gay marriage? Are you willing to allow your children to become the property of the courts in order to award a piece of paper to same-sex marriages that does not give them ANYTHING that they cannot already get?
Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 8:26 PM
A church can have a secular idea at the root of his organizing principle. Whether it is taxed is a function of how it operates, rather than the nature of its belief. A church may worship trees and get a tax break, though that doesn’t then mean that any teaching of dendrology violates the Establishment Clause.
dedalus on April 8, 2009 at 8:28 PM
I think it would be better for our country’s politics if both issues were handled that way.
dedalus on April 8, 2009 at 8:30 PM
As a resident of the neighboring state who used to make liquor runs to Barre before the famous Rethuglican Meldrim Thomson became NH Governor and lowered the drinking age to 18 (with nasty results the first year alone), I have always looked at Vermont as the modern-day equivalent of the country that Porky Pig went to in Africa in search of the Dough-Dough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j–UTqLZMRg
Even Bob Newhart knew better-the opening sequences of his brilliant show where he dreamed about being an innkeeper in Vermont were in fact filmed in NH.
As for this decision, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but think that as with everything else the voters should decide this issue.
Proponents for other causes, such as marijuana legalization, have to my knowledge never had a Legislature or a small group of Judges rewrite the law for them, after all. Why shoud one relatively small group get special treatment?
Some are more equal than others. George Orwell was right.
Del Dolemonte on April 8, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Interestingly enough I can name 5 over the age of 75 right off my head — strangely enough all 5 are (were, obviously since the 6th died at 82) in long term monogamous relationships for over 30 or 40 years — despite it being taboo.
Any correlation? I don’t know but it’s about as good as Camerons statistics.
David
LifeTrek on April 9, 2009 at 2:00 AM
The Bible does indeed say that homosexual behavior is sinful.
Google it for the appropriate verses, but here is just one link out of many possible ones:
Christianity & Homosexuality
Jenfidel on April 9, 2009 at 3:58 AM
Outstanding post!
God bless you and Happy Easter!
Jenfidel on April 9, 2009 at 3:59 AM
But as a non christian, I don’t care what the bible says. and unless you don’t believe in free will divorce neither do you.
Zekecorlain on April 9, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Hey, Jen+infidel…read my post, I agree with you. That is what I said, homosexual actions are sinful. I have seen and studied all the “passages” in both Greek and Hebrew…the curse of going to Fuller seminary.
homosexual behavior is sinful…but being homosexual is not.
Get it?
We can only judge the actions (as I have stated). God judges what is in the heart.
Man, you guys have a difficult time reading through your hate.
So now I will ask you…is just being homosexual a sin?
If so, show me the passages in the bible that says we judge a man by what we perceive, not his actions.
Being a Christian, means following His standards…and his standards is that you judge actions, the rest is left up to God.
right2bright on April 9, 2009 at 9:25 AM
All that cut and paste, and you still didn’t answer the simple question I posed, which I have tried to get you to answer a couple of times.
Do you think homosexuals are sinful just by nature? Or do they have to commit an act to be sinful.
right2bright on April 9, 2009 at 9:30 AM
With apologies to Jeremy Bentham, that isn’t just nonsense, it is nonsense on stilts.
From what I have seen and experienced, most of the gays who argue for gay marriage do so out of a desire for equal protection under law (one of the principles upon which this Republic was founded). They don’t want to destroy morality or Christianity; some of them are more devout Christians than I, but simply disagree with the Church over their teachings on homosexuality.
Personally, I have mixed feelings over this. While i have a lot of respect for the equal protection argument, I am at heart a conservative, believing that traditions should be followed unless there is a good reason for doing otherwise. Marriage, as an institution going back through the recorded history of man, has between man and woman. Not always one man and one woman, but never between man and man or woman and woman. That is a powerful argument, from a conservative viewpoint, and I’m not sure I have yet heard a powerful enough argument to overturn 5000 years of tradition.
But the argument that State action in a marriage contract somehow threatens Christianity, and in fact the very moral fiber of our society is so much Chicken Littlism, and does no favor to the forces trying to prohibit gay marriage. Christianity survived, and survives, societies that enslave, rape and kill its practitioners, none of which our State is even contemplating. I have faith that our moral fiber can withstand a broadening of the marriage contract, even if it is one I disagree with. And even if every gay man and woman were to be married tomorrow, I have little doubt that heterosexual men and women would continue to find both bliss and misery in their nuptials.
JohnGalt23 on April 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM
I have already debunked your premise in previous posts. The gay community can already get all that they are sking for in the vast majority of cases by filing the proper legal papers. The lie to your position is proven when gays will not accept civil unions. We have a mountain of proof that civil union is not sufficient to the gay community in the states where it is used. They continue to fight for “marriage” even though the legal differences are semantic.
Many gay leaders have openly stated that their goal is not just recognition or equal protection, but to fundamentally change the fabric of society. Do a little research and enlighten yourself. I have give quotes previously.
In countries where gays already have the right to marry, less than 3% of the gay community chooses to participate, This is strong proof that the right to marry is not the agenda at all. If it mattered that much to the gay rank and file, more gay couples would do it. The noise you are hearing is political positioning by activists.
Yes, what you are saying is what the gay community claims in the sound bites. But when you look further you can easily discover that it is all a smokescreen.
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Half of this is a strawman argument, disingenuously employed by opponents of gay marriage far too frequently, and with far too much vigor.
Clearly the ban on pedagogy is not arbitrary. We, as a society have drawn a fairly bright line as to when an individual is old enough to grant consent, to enter into the marriage contract. That is no more arbitrary than setting a sufficient age as to when they can drive an automobile, join the military, or enter into any other valid contract. The recognition of the marriage of homosexuals doesn’t affect that one whit.
Likewise, we do not grant beasts the right to enter contracts, and we do pass laws to protect them from needless harm. How the recognition of marriage of two sentient individuals affects that is unclear, to say the least.
Incest… well, that’s a dicey proposal, involving both a series of moral and public health issues that I, for one, am not prepared to tackle in this missive.
However, the polygamy argument is absolutely valid. If we recognize gay marriage, I find it very difficult to honestly sustain a ban on polygamy, assuming that we are talking about consenting adults.
JohnGalt23 on April 9, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Why do you persist in arguing points that are irrelevant. The law does not criminalize homosexuality. I am arguing that recognizing homosexual marriage is a mistake. I am trying to point out that the agenda is not marriage at all but to remove restrictions on all types of sexual behavior. Your focus is much too narrow and contrived.
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Then you have proven my point. Because I am not saying that homosexuality legitimizes all of these other activities. I am saying that gay rights groups are trying to open the debate on them. That is how it always starts. Not long ago there was no debate on gay marriage either and the idea of it would have been anathema. What makes you feel that the efforts we see today will not blur the lines on age of consent fifty years from now.
You need to realize that the battles over these issues are not fought as a single issue. The legal precedents that are established by one are used as the foundations for the next. As a society, we need to decide how far we will let this go and be aware of the long view. We need to stop the movement at a sensible and legally defensible place and refuse to give any more.
I choose to draw the line NOW.
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM
“Vast majority” is not “equal protection”. Equal protection either is, or it ain’t.
And I have the opinions of actual gay people, not “gay leaders” and their political agendas. People who only want what every one else has. My research is with the people, not from the ivory tower behind a computer screen.
First of all, please link to that statistic. I find it hard to quantify, especially given that we’re really not sure, even in the most open societies, how many gays, much less gay couples, there really are.
Second, all that indicates is that gays aren’t getting married. Any relation to it and the motives behind the push for recognition of gay marriage is merely coming from the voices in your head.
I have heartfelt conversations with gays over this issue. Given your attitude towards gays, I seriously doubt that you do.
Now, which one of us is more likely listening to the gay community sound bites?
JohnGalt23 on April 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I am sorry, but nothing stops a gay person from vetting married now. They can marry a person of the opposite sex and have a family just as any heterosexual couple does. The equal protection argument is the strawman here.
The institution of marriage is not created in order to determine who you can have sex with. You need no marriage license for that.
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Except you are not talking about blurring the line on the age of consent. You are talking about society wiping out the line completely.
The age of consent is decided through the democratic process, largely through our state legislatures. The idea that we are going to wipe out the age of consent, for marriage or for any other contract, based on allowing consenting adults to enter the marriage contract, is paranoid nonsense.
And trust me, as someone on the fence, such paranoia really doesn’t help your cause.
JohnGalt23 on April 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM
The statistics were derived from various sources:
Directory and Complete Guide to Sweden, 2000: available at: http://www.sweden.com.
Scott Shane, “Many Swedes Say ‘I Don’t’ to Nuptials; Unions” Baltimore Sun (January 16, 2004):
At a Glance: Netherlands Statistics” UNICEF:available at: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/netherlands_statistics.html.
OLR Backgrounder: Legal Recognition of Same-sex Partnerships,” OLR Research Report (October 9, 2002)
Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia,” Weekly Standard (February 2, 2004)
There are a lot of different sources for this information and they will provide a variety of different views of it. But the most generous statistics indicate that marriage rates among some gay communities approach 25% at best. The statistics for Sweden and the Netherlands are the best to use because they have a longer history of legal gay unions to work from.
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Are you aware that history teaches us differently? I invite you to look at the history of homosexuality and pedagogy in both the Greek and Roman empires. History teaches us that when societies begin to accept one form of “deviant” sexual behavior as mainstream, that other types become more acceptable. You are aware that NAMBLA has already begun to challenge age of consent laws in many states?
What I am trying to get you to see is the bigger picture. It is not paranoia. It is proven by history. When societies begin to accept hedonism and become decadent, the slide does not really stop. You can claim paranoia all you want in an attempt to marginalize me. But the lessons of history are on my side.
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM
The tax difference at the federal level can be very different, and no amount of lawyering can get a gay couple the same tax treatment as a married couple.
It isn’t possible that all gay people have exactly the same motive in wanting gay marriage–for some it mostly personal and for others it is more for a political statement. However, one couldn’t have denied rights to women or black people because a subset of them had an additional agenda.
dedalus on April 9, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Spoken like the truest of collectivists.
Hillary Clinton would be proud.
JohnGalt23 on April 9, 2009 at 1:30 PM
No, I was asking you, if you are a Christian, do you feel being homosexual is a sin?
That’s all…don’t be so defensive.
I have said all along I believe that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
But it is funny you won’t answer a simple question.
Is it the action or the being…
I find it interesting that you are so afraid of this question…too narrow? or to specific…
right2bright on April 9, 2009 at 2:08 PM
There is no denial of rights. As I said before, marriage does not guarantee you parner with someone who you love. It has nothing to who you are sleeping with. It is only a legal construct abut families.
As for tax code, I can see how the gay community might want their taxes raised by having the marriage penalty placed on them. Married couples pay more taxes than single.
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM
One more point, if an equal taxation treatment were important under the law, we would have to completely revamp our entire tax system. So you are saying that a graduated tax system is illegal?
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Obviously you are intentionally missing the point of my statement and choose to take it out of context as usual. You also must not have paid much attention to the body of my posts. I am VERY far from being a collectivist.
I would imagine that your view of “anti-collectivism” must include allowing people to murder each other because they feel like it. Maybe you feel that rape is a good thing. That is all about somebody taking what they want. So please explain to me how you justify that in your ideal of “collectivism.”
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Having homosexual temptations is not a sin. Acting on them is the sin. We are all tempted. Even Jesus was tempted. Our free will allows us to make a choice and resist the temptations that we have. We will be known by our acts.
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM
The estate taxes are the big deal. Married couples get the large break there.
My point wasn’t about rights. I was addressing your assertion that gay couples can get “all that they are sking for in the vast majority of cases by filing the proper legal papers”.
dedalus on April 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Out of curiosity, Allah, do you offer to write all the gay posts, or are they assigned to you?
leetpriest on April 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Most of the population is never tempted by gay sex. Straight people may have one night stands that they immediately regret, but it is seldom because they went home with someone of the same gender.
Straight people are tempted by casual sex all the time. The apostle Paul thought it would be best to never have sex, but offered that marriage was where to have sex if one simply couldn’t resist. What is the option for a person whose only attraction is homosexual? Marriage? Unofficial, but committed relationship? Multiple partners? Celibacy? The Apostle Paul would likely argue celibacy, but he knows that most straight people can’t handle it.
dedalus on April 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM
There is no sin in being tempted by homosexuality. The sin comes in when one gives into the temptation and lusts in his heart (for man or woman) and then acts out his lust. God loves the homosexual and the straight, but He loves us too much to let us stay in our sin. I know one guy who chose to identify with Christ instead of identifying with his homosexual temptations, and he became a devoted husband and father of several kids.
You seem to be making the case that lusting after a woman is no big deal, so why is lusting after a man? The premise is wrong, since both are sin.
Christian Conservative on April 9, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I will forgo the “right” I have in the state of nature to commit murder, and allow civil society to govern my actions therein. But I don’t do so for some “good of the whole”, whatever that nonsense means. I do so because for me to ask others to give up the rights they have in the state of nature (like murder, rape, etc.), I must be prepared to give up mine.
You start throwing around the “good of the whole”, and you take the first step down the collectivist road that ends in Hillary Clinton’s mantra of whatever is good for you is mandatory, and that which is bad for you is prohibited… all for the “good of the whole” after all.
JohnGalt23 on April 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »