Light Blogging Ahead
For the next few days I might not be near an Internet connection, so probably won't be posting anything new.
The MCPS situation is pretty quiet at the moment. The citizens committee will meet again at the end of February, and so far has not received a new curriculum. I'm sure some stuff will hit some fans when the new curricula are delivered; I'd betcha money "some people" are going to find it -- whatever it is -- offensive, they'll say it violates their morals, they'll say it undermines the family ... It hardly matters what the content of the classes will be. They'll talk about sexual variation, and so some people will have to display their carefully cultivated outrage. Whatever, we've seen it before.
Right now is a good time for a short break. I'll be back soon.
JimK
The MCPS situation is pretty quiet at the moment. The citizens committee will meet again at the end of February, and so far has not received a new curriculum. I'm sure some stuff will hit some fans when the new curricula are delivered; I'd betcha money "some people" are going to find it -- whatever it is -- offensive, they'll say it violates their morals, they'll say it undermines the family ... It hardly matters what the content of the classes will be. They'll talk about sexual variation, and so some people will have to display their carefully cultivated outrage. Whatever, we've seen it before.
Right now is a good time for a short break. I'll be back soon.
JimK
posted by JimK at 9:33 AM
79 Comments:
The Friday, Jan. 27, edition of the Gazette of Politics and Business published this open letter to Governor Ehrlich. Every elected official should read it and search his/her conscience before voting on any state constitutional amendment.
Father to Ehrlich: Reconsider position on ‘protecting traditional marriage’
Friday, Jan. 27, 2006
Open letter to Gov. Robert Ehrlich:
You don’t know me but we have a great deal in common. We have both been fortunate enough to find the love of our lives, marry and have children. We know infinite love because we have experienced the love we have for our wives and children. When our children have been ill or hurt we have known crushing worry and fear, as only a parent can.
So Governor Ehrlich, as one father to another, I’m asking you to reconsider your position on marriage equality for gay and lesbian families. You see, I have two children, one straight and one gay. I love them equally, just as you love your two boys equally. I believe both of my children deserve an equal chance at life’s joys. But in the wake of Judge M. Brooke Murdock’s ruling that banning marriage equality for gays is unconstitutional, you have said that you will do everything possible to ‘‘protect traditional marriage.”
If you would, Governor Ehrlich, stop and understand how your statement affects my family and so many others like mine.
It seems to me that you aren’t protecting anything but instead are denying my gay son the happiness that you and I have enjoyed simply because the object of his love is different than ours. You are permitting me to celebrate the wedding of my straight daughter and yet forcing me to mourn the loss of my gay son’s marriage dreams. You are depriving my wife and me of the prospect of grandchildren safeguarded by marriage. You are stealing from us the peace of mind that comes to parents in our senior years when we know that our children have settled down with all of the stability and protections that marriage affords.
Is it so unreasonable that I want my children to have the same opportunity at happiness as your children? I don’t question for a second that your most fervent dream is for the happiness of your children. Do you doubt that it is my dream too?
I invite you to our home to share a meal with my family and then explain to me how my children are less deserving than yours. Explain to me how it is part of your role as governor to crush my son’s chances of pursing the American dream. Show me how my family is not as good or worthy as yours. Tell us how it is that we are less equal. And look my son in the eye and tell him why he can’t have the same opportunities as your sons.
Governor Ehrlich, please consider this father’s perspective. Walk, if only in your mind, in my shoes and re-evaluate whether by ‘‘protecting traditional marriage” you might not only be hurting my family, but many Maryland families.
Dan McCarthy, Columbia
http://gazette.net/stories/012706/policom155048_31904.shtml
"They'll talk about sexual variation, and so some people will have to display their carefully cultivated outrage"
Not if they tell the truth. Here it is:
Some people are sexually attracted to people of their own gender. No one knows why. Scientific studies have shown biological reactions associated with this type of behavior but it is unclear whether they are the catalyst or result of this behavior.
Traditionally, this type of behavior has been considered immoral and not in the best interest of a society. Random promiscuity, mental illness and certain dangerous sexually transmitted diseases appear in higher rates among those who particpate in this type of behavior.
anonymous said of homosexuality, Scientific studies have shown biological reactions associated with this type of behavior but it is unclear whether they are the catalyst or result of this behavior---Traditionally, this type of behavior has been considered immoral and not in the best interest of a society.....
_______
Anon you are a bigoted idiot.
freebird
Anon, I will amend your categorical statement:
Throughout humnan history some people have been sexually attracted to people of their own gender. No one knows for sure, but studies over the past thirty years point to a strong biological innateness to sexual orientation. Attempts at applying psychoanalytic and religious therapy to change sexual orientation over the past century has abjectly failed.
In western monotheistic society this type of behavior has been considered immoral and not in the best interest of that society.As those societies evolved, however, they have managed to jettison slavery and the servitude of women, as well as recognizing child abuse and the importance of education for all members of that society. Promiscuity, whether hetero or homosexual, can lead to dangerous sexually transmitted diseses. Mental illness is not associated with sexual orientation but is common in anyone who feels marginalized by her society, including Christian fundamentalists. Sexually transmitted diseases, which have been prevalent in Christian societies since the Middle Ages, and were brought to the "New World" by Christian colonialists and missionaries, may lead to significant morbidity and mortality, and necessitate an understanding of safe sex techniques and behavior.
Anon, neither you, Theresa, nor anyone else has yet to provide any evidence that intersex conditions are mental illnesses. In spite of that, Ms. Turner has recently sent letters around the state declaring that transsexualism is a mental illness. Please justify such behavior, or cease such hateful actions.
yes, free, and so are all the scientists who also say this
Prove it anonymous (the bigoted idiot),I dare you.
Be careful who you hoist up here as your scientists.
freebird
"Prove it anonymous (the bigoted idiot),I dare you.
Be careful who you hoist up here as your scientists."
We all went through this ad nauseum a couple of months ago. Read back to the posts about the pheronome study. The authors said they can't tell from the data if the reaction was caused by past behavior or if it caused the behavior. I quoted the authors directly.
You must be a flippin' imbecile if you don't remember that whole exchange.
"Is it so unreasonable that I want my children to have the same opportunity at happiness as your children? I don’t question for a second that your most fervent dream is for the happiness of your children. Do you doubt that it is my dream too?"
David,
It's really a bit much to swallow that the blessing of the government is the only thing standing between these people and happiness. Nevertheless, we as a society have decided that we don't want to endorse these kind of relationships. In all nineteen states where this has been brought to the voters, it has failed. It will in Maryland, too. That's why the Dems don't want it brought before the voters. They want to keep their gay vote and their normal vote too.
Dems are a sad and sorry bunch. Did you hear they've cancelled the West Wing show? Even the fictional Democrats are doing poorly.
Peter,
The pheromone study is what you always fall back on? Are you aware that the whole issue of pheromones in humans is highly controversial and still in its infancy? Yes, if all we had to fall back upon was pheromones, then there would be very little evidence.
Now I've presented to you two books chock full of references, written for a layman such as yourself, and all you come back with is pheromones. So sad.
"Peter" Sprigg....
Hmmmm
freebird
Anonymous wrote, in response to the Open Letter to the Governor:
"It's really a bit much to swallow that the blessing of the government is the only thing standing between these people and happiness. Nevertheless, we as a society have decided that we don't want to endorse these kind of relationships. In all nineteen states where this has been brought to the voters, it has failed."
Anon,
Would you vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage or civil unions which would have the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage? If so, why?
“Today our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken from her so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King.” (President George W. Bush, at the start of last night’s State of the Union Message.)
In light of the President’s comments, we should all read this letter to the editor in this morning’s Washington Post:
An Advocate of Rights for All
Wednesday, February 1, 2006; A22
I am saddened by the passing of Coretta Scott King, who in addition to being a tireless symbol of the civil rights movement and an advocate for human rights also spoke out about the struggles of gays and lesbians. She recognized that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are wrong.
On March 31, 1998, speaking at the 25th anniversary luncheon of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Mrs. King said, "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people, and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
She also said: "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence, that spreads all too easily to victimize the next minority group. . . .
"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the civil rights movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."
WILLIAM C. STOSINE
Iowa City
One must feel for Coretta Scott King who, like Hillary Clinton, had a husband who let success go to his head and began cheating with other women. She kept her dignity in the face of these revelations and dserves admiration.
And that's what you focus upon? Her cheating husband? Is that how you define a human being's total worth?
There's an article in today's NYTimes about a row in Europe and the Mideast over a cartoon portraying Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Here's a quote from a leader of Hamas: "We are angry — very, very, very angry," said Jamila Al Shanty, one of six women elected to represent Hamas in the Palestinian Parliament. "No one can say a bad word about our prophet."
Sound like any people we know over here on this side of the Atlantic?
And there is an article in a similar vein on the growing crack between the dying Republican moderates and the totalitarian evangelicals: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102393.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/international/europe/02cnd-cartoon.html?hp&ex=1138942800&en=d585e98f353a8976&ei=5094&partner=homepage
anonymous said,One must feel for Coretta Scott King who, like Hillary Clinton, had a husband who let success go to his head and began cheating with other women.
___________
Gee and here some (CRC and company) have been saying that only gays are promiscuous.
freebird
"Gee and here some (CRC and company) have been saying that only gays are promiscuous."
Actually, at least Martin usually knew the names of those he fooled around with.
Well, at least now we know exactly where to draw the moral line. Anonymous promiscuity -- wrong. Distinctive promiscuity -- not so bad.
But if anonymous sex is so wrong, why is anonymous blogging acceptable?
"Anon,
Would you vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage or civil unions which would have the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage? If so, why?"
I'm in favor of laws and constitution that recognize that marriage is heterosexual. Marriage is something that is acknowledged by governments, actually instituted by God. To say "banning" is misleading.
I don't want to write an essay since the point is moot. Changing the definition of marriage is a non-starter with the electorate. Basically, marriage was instituted by God and should be preserved as an ideal.
I think people who have violated traditional morality have little real concern about marriage and I think most homosexuals aren't looking for monogamy. The whole thing is a gimmick, part of an agenda to normalize homosexuality by destroying traditional marriage.
David S. Fishback said...
Anonymous wrote, in response to the Open Letter to the Governor:
"It's really a bit much to swallow that the blessing of the government is the only thing standing between these people and happiness. Nevertheless, we as a society have decided that we don't want to endorse these kind of relationships. In all nineteen states where this has been brought to the voters, it has failed."
Anon,
Would you vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage or civil unions which would have the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage? If so, why?
Can I answer that question? Ok, I will answer...
First off, in every instance that I am aware of, where this has been put to a vote of the electorate, the decision has been loud and clear: marriage is a union between one MAN and one WOMAN. In the last Presidential election even states that voted for Kerry..."Blue States"...where the issue of marriage was on the ballot, voted to maintain the present understanding of marriage. Nothing was banned, contrary to the assertion of homosexual rights activists and their liberal/left allies. In the face of attempts to achieve in the judiciary (what they could not achieve in a single election), conservatives have been forced to make clear what has long been understand to signify marriage.
And second, civil unions which would have the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage is little more than "marriage lite" or a thinly veiled attempt to make a way around a limitation that voters have made it clear that they want to remain in place. In addition, this is little more than an attempt in political incrementalism, that is, first this step, and then once that win is safely in the bag as an established political/legal reality everyone in the movement begins all over again..."well, you gave us civil unions...why not marriage?"
Open Letter writer Dan McCarthy writes,
Is it so unreasonable that I want my children to have the same opportunity at happiness as your children? I don’t question for a second that your most fervent dream is for the happiness of your children. Do you doubt that it is my dream too?
And I reply,
No, it is not...and if your son desires to be married he can accept it on the same terms it is offered to all, as a one man/one woman union.
Back in 1870 the United States had to tell the Mormons living in the Territory of Utah the same thing gays and lesbians are being told in election after election now: marriage is about more, much more, than the two people involved and American society has a vested, long-term interest in maintaining and defending that understanding.
Since Dan McCarthy has asked two questions; I will ask only one. Let us suppose that American society grants you your wish (as well as that of your son's) and extends marriage to any two members of the same sex. What's next? On what principled basis could marriage be denied to a father and his adult daughter (esp. since what any two consenting adults want to do in private is nobody elses business)?
Please, in responding, drop the name calling, and utilize arguments based in reason, thanks.
Orin,
Other than the slippery slope point--which could be taken care of by our democratic means in the incredibly unlikely event that the high court of any state would go down that slope--do YOU have any other reasons for opposing same sex marriage or civil unions? If so, please explain.
"marriage is about more, much more, than the two people involved"
Like what? How does my marriage effect you?
"Like what? How does my marriage effect you?"
Marriage and family is the basic organizing principle of society. The male and female interaction works in a way to produce civilized citizens. There's no sustitute.
First of all, we don't know if there's any substitute. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. There have been variations throughout human history, and I expect there will be others.
But let's accept the premise anyway, since most people do believe that the family is the most successful structure for human society. Saying that, however, doesn't say anything about God, or that "it must be so," simply that it works, has for a very long time, and most are happy with it.
But that still doesn't get to the point of why a civil marriage between two persons has to be heterosexual. Most are, and most certainly will remain so, but for the small percentage for whom such a relationship would be immoral, what's the problem with treating them as equal citizens? Gays can constitute a "family" as well as any man or woman. They can raise children just as well. The variations within the gay community on the one hand and the straight community on the other are far greater than the differences between the two. That's the same as for sexual characteristics -- the differences among women, and among men, are greater than the differences between the two groups.
Yes, I would expect that more gays would choose to remain single rather than marry, because they are men. And more lesbians would choose to marry than remain single, because they are women. So what?
And bottom line, none of you, nor anyone else in this gloriously diverse country of ours, has yet to make a rational claim as to how the same sex couple in a marriage down the block could possibly have a deleterious effect on you or society. Unless you fall back on the "recruitment " canard, or "homosexuality is contagious" canard, though, of course, neither works since gay people are all around anyway, regardless of how we as a society choose to treat them.
The fact that the US military has fired its gay Arabic speakers is a travesty and treasonous. Denying marriage equality to fellow citizens is equaly foolish, cruel, and terribly shortsighted.
I guess the Germans had the legal right to discriminate against their Jewish citizens; they changed the law, after all. And look where it got them.
Marriage and family is the basic organizing principle of society. The male and female interaction works in a way to produce civilized citizens.
_____________
Not necessarily so as plenty of "uncivilized citizens" have been produced. Prisons, etc. are full of them.
freebird
"Marriage and family is the basic organizing principle of society. The male and female interaction works in a way to produce civilized citizens.
_____________
Not necessarily so as plenty of "uncivilized citizens" have been produced. Prisons, etc. are full of them.
freebird"
Free
I'm not saying if everyone were married there would be no crime. I'm saying marriage has a civilizing effect. Married men, especially those with children, have much lower rates of crime, violence and all sorts of anti-social behavior. Sociologists have noted that women, and the responsibility of parenthood, have a civilizing effect on men. There are probably effects the other way where male tendencies temper some excesses of typical female behavior. In general, it works. God knew what he was doing.
anonymous said,God knew what he was doing.
Gays and lesbians can attest to that. In that they are human beings that were lovingly brought forth by God in their orientation.
freebird
"Anonymous said...
anonymous said,God knew what he was doing.
Gays and lesbians can attest to that. In that they are human beings that were lovingly brought forth by God in their orientation.
freebird"
Sorry free, God didn't make them that way. They chose to indulge this rebellious attitude themselves. Unlike animals, they were given a will- the ability to choose between right and wrong.
I agree with your comment about the civilizing effect of women on men :-) But a single man may also have a civilizing effect on another man in a gay relationship, and by refusing to countenance that relationship you're only encouraging male promiscuity. If there's no chance of recognition with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, why bother with monogamy?
As for God got it right, which God?
Anonymous said:
"They chose to indulge this rebellious attitude themselves. Unlike animals, they were given a will- the ability to choose between right and wrong."
Do you realize how insulting lgbt people find statements like this? I think you do, and say them as provocatively as you can find a way. Can you be a little more tactful in sharing your thoughts?
Always hopeful,
Robert
I'm looking for a response to this post. I spent a lot of time researching the answer.
rrjr
digger said...
Anonymous asked:
"Where's the "tolerant" from in your quotation marks? I don't think I remember tolerance being a Christian virtue. Check out the seven letters at the beginning of Revelation where Christ exhorts the churches that tolerate sexual immorality in their congregations."
The greek word is 'anoches' which is the genitive of 'anoche'. If you check an Ancient Greek/English dictionary (e.g. Liddell and Scott, the standard dictionary in schools), you'll most likely find 'tolerance' as the meaning of this word. The American Standard and King James translate it as 'forbearance' (does this not mean 'tolerance' in the English of the early 1600's?), while the New International Version and I think the New American Standard translate it as tolerance in this place (Romans 2:4).
Is tolerance a Christian virtue? Paul seems to be saying it is. He doesn't seem to be encouraging ranting about other peoples' behavior.
I'm glad you don't support sodomy laws. I have little respect for conservatives and Christians who support legislating away perceived sin.
Are sodomy laws unbiblical? Paul says the response to sin should be self-examination, clean living and patience, tolerance and kindness. Admittedly Paul was living in a time when Christians were a miniscule minority with no expectation of controlling the government. Would his thoughts have been different if knew that Christians would come to control society in some places?
Thanks for the biblical interchange. Always a pleasure.
Robert
Robert
You had some interesting stuff that I thought deserves more than a flippant answer. I'll try to get to it this weekend. I think part of the resolution lies in the expanding definition of the word "tolerance". I've actually talked about that here before. But, anyway, sometime this weekend.
"Do you realize how insulting lgbt people find statements like this?"
Most people would not find it insulting to say they have the dignity of choice. So, I guess I don't realize that.
" Random promiscuity, mental illness and certain dangerous sexually transmitted diseases appear in higher rates among those who participate in this type of behavior."
Except that this posting came from one of our small minded gay bashers- I would have thought this was about Hollywood- Bennifer/ Brangelina/Jennince(-I made this one up-I am moving on to US magazine work) and my top nominee- Britney and Kevin(how about BriK?). I could include major sports figures and musicians as well. I heard on the radio this morning that Heather Locklear is divorcing Richie Sambora because she is tired of his constant cheating. Unlike our anons who are "experts" I can't say for sure- but I hear(from sources as valid as the pooh our anons cite) that many popular married musicians -as hetero as can be- consider liaisons on the road okay. So why don't you anons go after real identifiable people who are offending your morals-or are you only offended by gay people?
If you think marriage is so "civilizing"- why don't you go blog on a fansite for one of these serial hetero married cheaters. Go rip up Brad Pitt for leaving Jennifer and marrying(or not) Angelina. And rip her up for her many liaisons. Then go after Jude Law for leaving his wife and then cheating on his girlfriend with the nanny - while the kids were around. If you are looking for the damage to marriage- look for it among people who currently can get married. Don't claim gay people are harming marriage- straight people do just fine at causing their own problems.
Allowing the civil rights of any citizen to be voted on by the general populous is absolutely absurd. Just imagine if blacks weren't "emancipated" and the general bigoted population voted on whether or not they should be "freed" where would they be? Certainly still picking cotton. (remeber the bible sanctions slavery)
The right to marry as well, was forbidden for black slaves in America and as a result they solidified thier bonds of committment by rituals such as jumping brooms. However love affriming these practices are, these marginalized people are not given the same rights and benefits under the law. What we all need to understand is that marriage is no longer something that the church has to sanction it is also a secular union which guarantee's rights and benefits all who are bound by it.
Most gays don't want to change the church and people's religious beliefs they just want to be able to visit thier partner in the hospital when they are sick, or be able to leave thier belongings to them if they happen to die.
Remember when it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry? Orin and Anon where did you stand on that?
David S. Fishback said...
Orin,
Other than the slippery slope point--which could be taken care of by our democratic means in the incredibly unlikely event that the high court of any state would go down that slope--do YOU have any other reasons for opposing same sex marriage or civil unions? If so, please explain.
Thank you David for the question, though I do believe my question is still "on the table". Still, since you are willing to admit that this starts American society down a "slippery slope" (well, not exactly...but at least you are willing to entertain the possibility that this could happen) I would be just fine with answering your question.
What would prevent me from supporting same-sex marriage? The knowledge of the social science data that strongly suggests that children do best in a two parent household where there are a father and a mother. I know, I know...what about the research suggesting that this is little more than societal prejudice? I would suggest that this might explain some of that,
http://www.marriagewatch.org
/publications/nobasis.htm
Still, if fully informed of all the risks, if American society desires personal happiness above all, then fine. If the American electorate, thru their legislative representatives, are willing to approve same-sex marriage then that is something we will all have to live with and get along.
Anonymous said...
Marriage and family is the basic organizing principle of society. The male and female interaction works in a way to produce civilized citizens.
_____________
Not necessarily so as plenty of "uncivilized citizens" have been produced. Prisons, etc. are full of them.
freebird
How can you say this? The only way you could make such an assertion is that you are not aware of the sociological research in this area. With relatively few exceptions, those in prison are the direct product of adults that failed to discharge their duties are parents in a responsible manner. This is especially true with regards to boys/young men that never had a father that loved them, yet would when needed discipline in a manner that reflected that love.
I have more to say on this, but I have to do the afternoon school shuttle thing...duty calls.
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO
Orin,
It's good to hear from you. You are always a rational voice.
I don't believe the sociological research shows that good gay paernting is any worse than good straight parenting. You resort to justifying failed parenting by blaming the parents. OK, so having opposite-sex parents doesn't prevent a child from turning out badly. And simply having two same sex parents guarantees a similarly poor result?
I don't see how the simple fact of being gay and in a gay relationship has any significance on whether a child feels loved and cared for. I accept the statement that men are more promiscuous than women, but the outcome of that is that gay men will marry less than straight men. So there is still no problem, since there will be no reaon for a promiscuous gay man to marry.
But marriage doesn't cure straight men of their promiscuity -- they've been cheating for millenia. If you want to fix society, get straight men to stop cheating. And good luck.
Also, I don't think David said or implied anything about a slippery slope occuring. There's no evidence for that other than right-wing propaganda.
Dana writes,
It's good to hear from you. You are always a rational voice.
Thanks for the compliment. When I am absent it is more likely to mean that I am busy working, sleeping (important since I work graveyard shift), keeping up with any number of my domestic duties ...whither the afternoon school shuttle, doing a load of laundry or baking a couple of loaves of bread...then for any other reason.
Dana,
I don't believe the sociological research shows that good gay paernting is any worse than good straight parenting.
Excuse me if that was the impression I left you with, because that is not what I meant to say. The link I left in my last posting was to a research paper (albeit *not* peer reviewed...at least that I am aware of at the moment) that contends that much of the contemporary social science research that supports the idea that gay parenting is just as good as heterosexual parenting is flawed
You resort to justifying failed parenting by blaming the parents.
You bring up an interesting point here that I had not fully considered...that those in prison are in prison not just for the crime they committed, but because they are habitually blaming somebody or something else, rather than accepting responsibility for their choices. Still, good parenting has been shown to be one of the single greatest determinative elements in the successful socialization of children into adults.
Yes, there are instances where even with the best parenting, children do not develop (dare I say, evolve?) into productive, law-abiding adults. Other outside influences and individual choice account for this variation from what is clearly the norm.
OK, so having opposite-sex parents doesn't prevent a child from turning out badly. And simply having two same sex parents guarantees a similarly poor result?
No, simply that the research to date has not proven that same-sex parents are as good as opposite-sex parents. That's all. With that said though, I do not support individual states, like Florida, that create a situation where children, esp. children with special needs, must be made to linger in sub-optimal foster care situations for lack of opposite-sex parents.
I don't see how the simple fact of being gay and in a gay relationship has any significance on whether a child feels loved and cared for.
Are you looking for me to disagree with such a statement? Sorry to disappoint, but I could not agree more with you. Children's needs are simple...to be protected, to be nurtured, and most important of all, to be loved.
Problem is, children do not stay children, that is, they grow up and their needs become even more demanding as they also become more complex. This is where the skill set that a father brings to bear on the role of parent is different than that of a mother.
I accept the statement that men are more promiscuous than women, but the outcome of that is that gay men will marry less than straight men.
Perhaps...but at present I think that might be more speculative than anything else.
So there is still no problem, since there will be no reaon for a promiscuous gay man to marry.
I suspect that if same-sex marriage is made available, men will enter into marriage thinking it will tame their vociferous sexual nature, and make them more "domesticated" like their heterosexual male counterparts. In this thinking they will likely be for the most part bitterly disappointed.
But marriage doesn't cure straight men of their promiscuity -- they've been cheating for millenia.
Yes, they have because that is their nature...they take their sex where they find it. However, for a long time, men have had some effective restraints on their sexuality. First is the restraint placed by that phantom that haunts TTF's, that is Judeo-Christian sexual morality. Second, the sexual nature of most women simply will not tolerate a man that will not control his sexual urges (Hillary Clinton, notwithstanding). Women want what men do not generally have naturally, that is *committment*. So, an exchange takes place: a man reigns in his sexual nature and makes a committment to one woman, and a woman agrees to that committment and to have any children that result from such a union.
I know...it all sounds rather dated, quaint, if you will. But the result is greater wide-scale social stability, and happiness (as study after study has clearly demonstrated).
If you want to fix society, get straight men to stop cheating. And good luck.
As a man I would be delighted to accomplish that feat...if only the social "tools" were available. But, alas, they are not; worse still, they are not likely to return in our present day libertine culture (that is a social and legal culture that elevates individual rights, even at a heavy cost to the community). If you doubt this, go back and read Justice Kennedy's opinion in Planned Parenthoof of PA v. Casey (1992), which has the following line of legal reasoning in it, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." (while this is directed at a defense of the abortion license, it could be easily adapted for use in overturning any law designed to make men more responsible for their sexual nature). After all, a man has got to be able to express his sexual nature.
How would I fix husbands cheating on their wives? I would make adultery a crime...WHAT??? Hear me out...in making adultery a crime, if a husband cheated on his wife and she found out, the wife would have grounds for divorce and for taking a majority of his assets, including the house. The same law would apply to women as well. Furthermore, if a woman had children by this man, he would be required to prove that he cares and provides for his children before he would be allowed to re-marry and potentially have even more children.
I know this idea sounds a tad fascistic, but men must be made to understand that satisfying their sexual urges has a steep personal cost for themselves.
Simply put: it is not enough to tell men to behave - they must be given a powerful enough reason to do so.
Dana writes,
Also, I don't think David said or implied anything about a slippery slope occuring. There's no evidence for that other than right-wing propaganda.
Here is what David wrote,
Other than the slippery slope point--which could be taken care of by our democratic means in the incredibly unlikely event that the high court of any state would go down that slope...
One does not need to be a devoted viewer of the Jerry Springer Show to sense that this would eventually happen. And when that happens, all a father and adult daughter would need to do is argue that gays and lesbians have had marriage extended to them, and that to deny a father and his daughter the right to marry is a violation of the Equal Protection of the Laws.
Rather than asserting that such a belief is little more "than right-wing propaganda" I would ask that a legal rationale be argued that would block such a claim on the basis of Equal Protection. In the absence of any effective legal rationale, may slippery slope argument stands.
"JHarris said...
Allowing the civil rights of any citizen to be voted on by the general populous is absolutely absurd."
Marriage is not a civil right. I just don't see how this error keeps coming up here.
"Just imagine if blacks weren't "emancipated" and the general bigoted population voted on whether or not they should be "freed" where would they be? Certainly still picking cotton. (remeber the bible sanctions slavery)
The right to marry as well, was forbidden for black slaves in America and as a result they solidified thier bonds of committment by rituals such as jumping brooms."
This is in no sense analogous to gay marriage. The definition of marriage never had anything to do with race. Slave had no empowerment over their lives at all. This is hardly the situation gays in America face.
"However love affriming these practices are, these marginalized people are not given the same rights and benefits under the law."
Rights and benefits are completely different.
"What we all need to understand is that marriage is no longer something that the church has to sanction it is also a secular union which guarantee's rights and benefits all who are bound by it."
Marriage was begun by God. The state, recognizing its value, began to endorse and encourage it.
"Most gays don't want to change the church and people's religious beliefs they just want to be able to visit thier partner in the hospital when they are sick, or be able to leave thier belongings to them if they happen to die."
Maybe anyone should be able to designate who they want to visit them in the hospital- in honesty, I've never had any trouble visiting anyone I want in a hospital. Anyone can leave anything they want to anyone after they die. Are you now arguing for a tax break for gay couples?
"Remember when it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry? Orin and Anon where did you stand on that?"
I was against it but it's not the same thing.
"Don't claim gay people are harming marriage- straight people do just fine at causing their own problems."
I don't claim that. I'm claiming that gay advocacy groups want to harm marriage.
I'm sorry, Anon, but you're wrong. Resistance to inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage IS the same thing. Your obfuscating doesn't change that. Just because the "definition" of marriage in the past had nothing to do with race is irrelvant -- it didn't stop whites from prohibiting blacks from partaking in it, as if your arguments would have had any meaning to those racists.
Ther fact that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman in this country is also not relevant. We've been through this. Polygyny reined for millenia. In the early years of the European settlement of this nation people died like flies, and all sorts or "arrangements" were crafted to deal with loneliness and child-rearing. Your "tradition" is just that -- a tradition, and often a paradisically imagined one. Traditions are not absolute laws, and we evolve those traditions all the time.
Your reading of the law and custom is simply incorrect. Whern it comes to hospital visitation, simply for visitation, then in most cases there is no problem. The problems occur once there is a lockdown, and only "family" are allowed in, for instance. And there are serious problems when "next-of-kin" rules are invoked. In addition, wills are often contested, based on your definition of marriage, as well as "man" and "woman." There have been too many court cases where aggrieved and greedy family have annulled marriages involving trans women. Maybe you were unaware of all these problems -- if so, you should get out more and talk to the poeple who are p[eersonally affected.
And, yes, gay couples should get the same tax break straight couples do. Why not?
And back to your God. Which God is this? I don't believe my God created marriage. And there are many Gods who have nothing to do with it. So invoking "god" ha no place in this discussion. In your particular religious community with its particular understanding of its God, sure. Not in a diverse society. Or are you siding with the Islamofascists in their threats against the Eurpoean cartoonists they descry as "blasphemous." Gee, where have I heard that word recently?
Hi, Orin,
I can imagine the graveyard shift is no picnic. I can recall my years on the wards with 36 hour call schedules. No fun at all.
Slippery slope arguments are simply arguments, which may or may not have any credibility. I am aware of Scalia's comments in Lawrence v. Texas, and I have also felt the potential with this country's increasingly religio-fascist government. Anything's possible. But just because I may be worried about what MAY happen, or you may be, is not a valid argument. Our Constitution is vague enough that you can craft many a scenario, and label it a slippery slope. But life and politics, in particular, are not chemical reactions where C must result from A+B when the reaction conditions are just right.
As for your comments about sociological studies, well, they're not hard science, and flaws can always be found. I'm all for more studies. But in the meantime there is no evidence to the contrary, and one shouldn't simply infer from tradition that same-sex parents are inadequate. Again, maybe Ozzie and Harriet were the ideal parents. maybe not. But I believe that it's the skills of the individuals that matter more than their sex. In addition, children usually have humans of both sexes in their extended families, as we're not talking about raising children in communities devoid of men or women. I just don't think it's a problem. But I support more research, and I appreciate your decency in recognizing the evil of Florida's decision to allow children to rot in foster care when decent alternatives are available.
As for your solution to the promiscuity problem -- making adultery a crime punishable by death never worked in the past. Why do you think it would work now? In the past, the woman always got the worse of it. Do you thinking executing more men would be effective? Do you think the men who run things would allow that? And as for the child support issue -- we don't enforce the laws on the books today, and I don't see that happening until we have a country run by women. But when that happens, the Christian conservatives will probably rise up against the "feminiNazis" who dare usurp man's God-given right to lord it over women and children. I wish you luck, as I said.
Though I do fully agree that the more responsible individuals are the better their families, and the easier it is to raise a generation of healthy children. I have read the verse of God visiting the sins of the fathers unto the children and the children's children . . . as meaning just that -- when a parent raises a child poorly that child will raise its child poorly . . . , and it holds for child abuse, spousal abuse, financial irresponsibilty, etc.
Dana writes,
I can imagine the graveyard shift is no picnic. I can recall my years on the wards with 36 hour call schedules. No fun at all.
Oh, you get the endurance award...I work 7 1/2 hours with a 30 minute paid lunch and then I am done, and can walk out the door, go home and sleep. If you are refering to a work life like I've seen on the tv show "ER" then you have MY admiration.
Dana writes,
As for your solution to the promiscuity problem -- making adultery a crime punishable by death never worked in the past. Why do you think it would work now? In the past, the woman always got the worse of it. Do you thinking executing more men would be effective?
I did not advocate death for adultery...lol...please, cut me a little slack, ok? What I advocated is the criminalization of adultery along the same lines as say perhaps suicide, where the law is, more than anything, an expression of collective moral sentiment. I don't want adulterers put in jail; however, should men who have cheated on the spouses be allowed to in a very real sense wreak the home life (so they can satisfy their labido) of their wife and children, and be allowed to walk away and marry again??? I don't think so...but society must first be willing to impose a cost for such misbehavior.
And, as I said, I don't think this will happen any time soon. We like our liberty to abandon our responsibilities any time it suits our fancy. In this, Republicans...even ones claiming to be conservative...are every bit as guilty as Democrats.
That is about all I can write for now, because it is time to go home and clean the house before my father-in-law arrives (tomorrow afternoon).
One last comment (for now)...
Anonymous said...
"Don't claim gay people are harming marriage- straight people do just fine at causing their own problems."
I don't claim that. I'm claiming that gay advocacy groups want to harm marriage.
Orin replies,
I do not believe that gay advocacy groups want to harm marriage. What they want is the respectability that inheres in the rite of marriage.
"One last comment (for now)...
Anonymous said...
"Don't claim gay people are harming marriage- straight people do just fine at causing their own problems."
I don't claim that. I'm claiming that gay advocacy groups want to harm marriage.
Orin replies,
I do not believe that gay advocacy groups want to harm marriage. What they want is the respectability that inheres in the rite of marriage."
I know that's what they say, Orin, but it doesn't really make sense. They want to get rid of the whole idea of "resepectability" in order to level the playing field. Changing the definition of marriage to some kind of vague partnership furthers this plan.
Orin,
I am not admitting the slippery slope argument has practical validity. I am only trying to get the discussion onto the MERITS of same sex marriage/civil unions.
I found your response useful. Unless I am mistaken, the only reason YOU would oppose same sex marriage/civil unions is the concern that the optimal child-rearing arrangement is a a mother and a father in an intact home. The American Academy of Pediatrics cites the following study in support of its view that children do just fine when reared by stable same sex couples: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=7971593&dopt=Abstract
While anectodal, one of the finest young women we know was raised by two moms, one of whom is her biolgoical mother. Would it be better if these two moms continue to be prohibited from marriage rights?
In any event, by your logic, if we are to deny marriage rights to same sex couples because they might raise children, then we should have a whole bunch of legal restrictions on single parents.
Not all married couples have children. If government is to bar adoption by same-sex couples -- as it does in Florida -- then we should discuss why (in my view) that is very bad policy. But unless one believes that the ONLY reason for marriage is child rearing (and society does not really believes that, since there is not an upper age limit on the right to marry), then that argument against same-sex marriage/civil unions does not withstand scrutiny.
In sum, if the parenting argument is the only one you personally have against same sex marriage/civil unions, then I don't think that is very persuasive -- your post suggests that you do not think so, either, since you are ready to live with it if that is the judgment of society.
My point, again, is that we should focus principally not on the procedural matters currently in the news -- judicial application of state and/or federal constitutional provisions as opposed to legislative action -- but, rather, on the merits of the proposition: What do each of us believe on the merits of the proposition and why do we believe it.
For many of those opposed to same-sex marriage/civil unions, the opposition is theologically based, typically on the view that because of a few lines in Leviticus (which only mention male homosexual activity, not female) God's instruction is that all such activity is a sin. I challenge those who say they believe that to examine their understanding of scripture. Since virtually no one in the United States is a scriptural literalist (we do not, for example, demand captital punishment for adulterers or countenance capital punishment for disobedient children, which is also instructed in Leviticus), then we must admit that we use the good judgment God has given us to determine what words of scripture should be followed and what words are simply the product of an earlier time and place in the development of the human race. This freedom can be scary, but it is the essence of progress and the American break with old Europe over two hundred years ago.
"then we must admit that we use the good judgment God has given us to determine what words of scripture should be followed and what words are simply the product of an earlier time and place in the development of the human race. This freedom can be scary, but it is the essence of progress and the American break with old Europe over two hundred years ago."
Not alot of time today, David, but I didn't want to let this go by without comment. Your understanding of history is incorrect. Those coming to the New World did not come because they wanted the freedom to decide which scripture to accept. They came because they believed in all scripture and the Europeans usually placed the judgment of men, Pope or King above scripture. The Pilgrims wanted to go back to a first century understanding of scripture.
Certain twisted participants here at TTF have repeatedly made the charge that Christianity was responsible for the Holocaust.
An antdidote to this lie appears on PBS at 10PM. The story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was convicted from his study of scripture to conclude that Christians must not only help the victims of Nazism but actively fight against the Third Reich. He was arrested for his part in a plot to assasinate Hitler and was executed shortly before the Allies entered Berlin in 1945. His devotional books are still popular and widely read by evangelicals.
"An antdidote to this lie appears on PBS at 10PM."
That would be Monday evening.
Anon,
I look forward to that program on Bonhoffer. He was a very interesting man, though far from being a philo-Semite, as the phrase used to be.
I have never said Christianity was responsible for the Holocaust. Without Nazism and the pseudo-scientific racial justification for the dehimanization of Jews, it wouldn't have happened. Nazis hated gays and Slavs and Romani and Africans as well. I understand that. But the Jews were singled out because of 2000 year old tradition of anti-Semitism, which was created and then fostered by the Church and numerous Popes and Protestant leaders. I do not believe the Shoah would have happened without that Christian fertilization, because it required the acquiescence of the the population to pull it off. Christian Germans had to either actively participate in the dehumanization, or at a minimum "turn the other cheek."
Bonhoffer is an example of a Christian leader who repented his overt anti-Semitism and acted morally. The reason we celebrate him is because he was joined by so few Christians.
Anon,
You said the Puritans came to the New World to "go back to a first century understanding of scripture."
What, pray tell, is such an understanding? Do you know? How would the puritans have known? The Gospels weren't even compiled until after the first 100 years from Jesus's birth. Most Christians at that time were Jewish who simply believed Jesus was the Messiah. I doubt the Puritans celebrated Chanukkah in Plymouth.
Orin,
Thank you for taking the time to respond, especially when you have more important things to do:-) Btw, do you know where I can find such a helpful (as well as intelligent and articulate)husband as you?
The point about the "respectability of marriage" is an interesting one. Initially, the LG community wanted the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage, to which we are all entitled if in a hetero relationship. Many today would still be satisfied with that, and many people who were opposed vehemently to civil unions as recently as five years ago accept the fairness of that proposal. All except Anon and his friends, who, unfortunately, still make up about 30% of the population, though they are dying off. There is a real generational divide.
What's interesting is that the next step was taken in calling for "marriage." Not religious marriage, but civil marriage. I believe the choice of that single word is what causes 80% of the fireworks today. And I think you recognize the main point -- calling it marriage confers respectability, or to put it differently, a social recognition that is absent minus the word even if all the benfits are there. You can get a feel for this when you hear the children of couples who have a civil union express surprise that their parents aren't "married," just legally joined. It's that extra degree of scoial acceptance that integrates people into the larger community, allowing them to assimilate, while creating a separate category with a different name is really, fundamentally, no different than "separate but equal."
By the way, Anon, I am currently in a legal, same-sex marriage. I don't think anyone is harmed by this. My neighborhood hasn't been declared a disaster area, my neighbors haven't come down with the plague or avian flu, God doesn't seem to be punishing Chevy Chase like he's been punishing the Confederacy lately. Believe it or not, the Chief Justice has no problem living a few blocks away.
And, no, I wans't really suggesting that adulterers be executed. I don't know how you can pass a law with the understanding that it won't be enforced, and even if you could, would kind of impact it would have. This is THE problem of a free society. You can't dictate morality or behavior; you can only model it, teach it, encourage it. And I see nothing wrong with doing all that. I just hope the onus is placed where it belongs, with the person, male or female, who is the "transgressor."
IF god put us here on Earth and gave us our "will", then he must have been wise enough to know that some would not believe in him and or would "defy" him.
I doubt god would want to punish random people for a choice they were free to make.
One would have to argue that the only reason god would've given us free will is because he doesn't care what we do with it.
If he did, then he just wouldn't give it to us.
Anonymous said...
"Not alot of time today, David, but I didn't want to let this go by without comment. Your understanding of history is incorrect. Those coming to the New World did not come because they wanted the freedom to decide which scripture to accept. They came because they believed in all scripture and the Europeans usually placed the judgment of men, Pope or King above scripture. The Pilgrims wanted to go back to a first century understanding of scripture."
I was not talking about the particular motivations of particular people in the 17th Century. Rather,I was talking about my understanding of the broad scope of American progress. I suspect we have different understandings of what has made America great.
Anyway, you have not answered my question from earlier in this thread. Orin took a stab at it, but I addressed the question to you.
Here is a letter to the editor of a local Virginia newspaper, that reminds us that the issues we discuss are very real to some people. The Tully Satre in question in the 17 year old founder of Equality Fauquier-Culpeper (Northern Virginia's exurbs), and he has been featured positively and also vilified recently in the local press):
My father has been outraged by the local response from the communities about EFC. For those of you who do not know, the local media in Fauquier and Culpeper have feautured EFC a number of times over the past two weeks. Some newspapers have stated that they have not had such a large reaction to any story before. In addition to the excellent publicity and the chance to have our voice heard in the homes of Fauquier and Culpeper, the response from the community has been both threatening and negative. In a recent letter, one woman claimed that we have "sexual disorders" that homosexuals "hate themselves and each other" - my father was OUTRAGED by these statements and wrote the following reply to her letter:
"A Father’s Reply"
After reading Helen M. Bowerman’s letter in the Opinions section, I had to respond. You see I have a homosexual living in my house. He is my son, Tully Satre. He was not raised to be gay, that’s just the way God made him. To say homosexuality is a disorder is beyond my depth of knowledge to intelligently debate. Homosexuality has been around for as long as mankind has existed and possibly before man walked this earth. Indeed, mankind does not have a monopoly on this so-called disorder, it does exist in other species.
What Tully and Equality Fauquier Culpeper are after is acceptance and tolerance for who they are. They do not have an agenda to harm our society or to bring down the American family. They are not recruiting straight people to become gay or to indulge in a sordid life style. They simply want to have the same rights as heterosexual people and to be able to live their lives without the fear, hate, and intolerance of some people in the communities in which they live.
Ms. Bowerman stated that “sexual disorders are intrinsically evil and should be recognized as such.” That is her opinion and I respect her right to say it. However, I am not convinced that this is a disorder. I am convinced it is not a choice. I was wired to be heterosexual, my son was wired to be gay. Knowing the prejudice against gay people, do you think they would willingly choose to be this way? As far as being evil, I paraphrase what we are told Jesus Christ once said: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Robert S. Satre, Jr
LtCol, USAF, Retired
Jeffersonton, VA
--
"Anyway, you have not answered my question from earlier in this thread. Orin took a stab at it, but I addressed the question to you."
Sorry, David, I don't recall what it was. Could you briefly restate the question? I'm a little swamped and I think I still owe Robert a reply to something. Maybe, tonight I'll catch up with you two.
Anon,
Here is the question I posed to you on February 1:
Would you vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage or civil unions which would have the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage? If so, why?
February 01, 2006 8:50 PM
OR said, "The knowledge of the social science data that strongly suggests that children do best in a two parent household where there are a father and a mother. I know, I know...what about the research suggesting that this is little more than societal prejudice? I would suggest that this might explain some of that,
http://www.marriagewatch.org
/publications/nobasis.htm"
I read it, all 149 pages of it. The authors conducted a review of scientific studies about children raised by gay or lesbian parents. The authors state, "We have tried to be as exhaustive as possible, although research is exploding in this field." They selected and analyzed 49 studies and report, "With one exception, the authors of these studies wish to influence public policy to support same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by homosexual couples." The one exception is Paul Cameron.
It is not very "exhaustive" for the authors to come up with only one study that wishes to influence public policy to NOT support same-sex marriage and adoption. These authors have an obvious bias as evidenced by their decision to attack the scientific rigor of studies mostly on one side of this topic.
In the Marriagewatch.org publication, there is no discussion of any study that in any way "suggests that children do best in a two parent household where there are a father and a mother." Instead, there is much discussion of defects with the research methodologies employed in the 49 studies selected for review. The authors' state their opinion that all of 49 the studies are so flawed as to be scientifically meaningless and therefore useless for helping form public policy.
For a more exhaustive view of Paul Cameron's research, you might want to read the following articles from the Southern Poverty Law Center's Winter 2005 issue of "The Intelligence Report". (Thank you, Alvin.)
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=588
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=587
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=363
Christine
Christine, Orin, actually, Bob and Althea, who wrote that report, are friends and neighbors of mine. They're serious about what they do, and no dummies. As I recall it, that report is careful in its analysis and careful not to overstate their point.
Here's what happens: Bush Misunderestimates Gay Parenting. When uneducated people hear those kinds of results, they make the opposite mistake. See, Lerner and Nagai's critique undermines both sides of the argument equally. There's no evidence that gay people do a better or worse job of raising kids.
JimK
David wrote:
"Anon,
Would you vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage or civil unions which would have the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage? If so, why?"
Anon replied:
"I'm in favor of laws and constitutions that recognize that marriage is heterosexual. Marriage is something that is acknowledged by governments, actually instituted by God. To say "banning" is misleading.
I don't want to write an essay since the point is moot. Changing the definition of marriage is a non-starter with the electorate. Basically, marriage was instituted by God and should be preserved as an ideal.
I think people who have violated traditional morality have little real concern about marriage and I think most homosexuals aren't looking for monogamy. The whole thing is a gimmick, part of an agenda to normalize homosexuality by destroying traditional marriage."
David, your question can't be answered, only replied to, because it's based on a false presupposition. There are no laws banning "gay marriage" and no one is suggesting any. A religious ceremony obviously couldn't be banned by the government. If you're talking about a civil ceremony, how could a government ban actions of its own- it would simply not take the actions if those in power didn't approve.
David, you might as well give up. Our society is not going to change the definition of marriage. Stop playing word games. It's over.
I asked Anon this question:
"Would you vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage or civil unions which would have the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage? If so, why?"
Anon replied:
"I'm in favor of laws and constitutions that recognize that marriage is heterosexual. Marriage is something that is acknowledged by governments, actually instituted by God. To say "banning" is misleading.
"I don't want to write an essay since the point is moot. Changing the definition of marriage is a non-starter with the electorate. Basically, marriage was instituted by God and should be preserved as an ideal."
Anon tried to avoid answering my question by saying that "changing the definition is a non-starter with the electorate." But that is not what I asked; indeed, I did not limit my question to marriage definitions, but included civil unions. He/she does give one answer: "Marriage was instituted by God." Anon does not say how he/she knows this, or why he/she believes God would frown on expansion of the institution. The majority of the electorate used to believe that interracial marriage was against God's plan.
This limited answer reveals something I have long suspected: That those who viscerally are opposed to same sex marriage or civil unions really don't have a rational answer for their opposition.
"And, yes, gay couples should get the same tax break straight couples do. Why not? "
TAX BREAK ????
Are you kidding ?
I had an accountant advise Dale and I to get divorced on paper because it would save us 20K a year CASH.
And the gay marriage proposals don't ask for the benefit of married filing jointly (not a surprise).
Theresa
Hey Anon -
"Our society is not going to change the definition of" SCIENCE. "Stop playing word games. It's over."
The only people playing word games are those who seek to insert their religious views into our public schools by camouflaging those views with scientific language.
American society has already changed the definition of marriage once. It did so in 1967 to allow interracial marriage. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
Get over it.
David, my friend,
I suspect that Anon will not vote for anything. In order to vote, he has to identify himself.
Not that I disagree with your analysis of his answer; this is just an additional view.
Theresa,
In in June of 2000, there was an article in the National Tax Journal about the tax implications of same-sex marriage. The authors estimated that the federal government would GAIN between .3 billion and 1.3 billion in income from the additional two-earner families.
The article was in National Tax Journal, Vol. 53, issue #2, June 2000. The simplest way to read the full article is on the lead author's website at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. http://aysps.gsu.edu/publications/2000/000101_weddingbellblues.pdf
All of the same sex couples I know who would marry are aware of the financial implications of having their two incomes treated as one large income for tax purposes. They are perfectly willing to pay the "marriage penalty." They understand that marriage brings both rights and responsibilities and they are not afraid of either.
The few who go on about the tax breaks for married couples, same-sex or otherwise, haven't done their homework; we really don't need to get too worked up about their foolishness.
"Anon tried to avoid answering my question by saying that "changing the definition is a non-starter with the electorate." But that is not what I asked; indeed, I did not limit my question to marriage definitions, but included civil unions. He/she does give one answer: "Marriage was instituted by God." Anon does not say how he/she knows this, or why he/she believes God would frown on expansion of the institution. The majority of the electorate used to believe that interracial marriage was against God's plan.
This limited answer reveals something I have long suspected: That those who viscerally are opposed to same sex marriage or civil unions really don't have a rational answer for their opposition."
David, civil unions shouldn't be instituted for the same reason I have given for not changing the definition of marriage- government should endorse and encouragement arrangement that are good for society. God created the institution of marriage but you don't have to be a believer to see its benefits. That's what governments have done.
You are all really desperate with this inter-racial comparison tactic. Sad.
"TAX BREAK ????
Are you kidding ?"
What I was originally referring to, Theresa, was the ability of married couples to leave unlimited amounts to their spouse in their wills without paying inheritance tax.
Anon writes:
"David, civil unions shouldn't be instituted for the same reason I have given for not changing the definition of marriage- government should endorse and encouragement arrangement that are good for society. God created the institution of marriage but you don't have to be a believer to see its benefits. That's what governments have done.
"You are all really desperate with this inter-racial comparison tactic. Sad."
1. I agree that marriage is good for society. Marriage promotes stability and monogamy, and can provide the comfort and closeness that most of us need. But Anon still hasn't explained why same-sex couples should be denied the rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals have in marriage. Other than to say that God created marriage that way.
2. Which brings me to why I mentioned interracial marriage. Before such marriages became accepted in our society -- if it is good enough for Clarence Thomas, I guess conservatives no longer complain about it -- a big rationale given for anti-miscegennation laws was that that was how God wanted it. Pro-slavery and pro-segregation people also said that that was how God wanted it. My point is that we all must approach our statements about what God "wants" with a lot more humility.
Anonymous said:
"I think most homosexuals aren't looking for monogamy."
Again, you talk as though you were gay or know a whole bunch of lgbt people.
In my experience, some lgbt people don't want monogamy, but most do. I don't know where you get your information, but it isn't from the people who would really know
Robert
"1. I agree that marriage is good for society. Marriage promotes stability and monogamy, and can provide the comfort and closeness that most of us need. But Anon still hasn't explained why same-sex couples should be denied the rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals have in marriage. Other than to say that God created marriage that way."
David, you have an incredible tendency to achieve deafness when you don't want to hear something. Heterosexuality, as we discussed last week and found agreement with some TTF members has a unique civilizing effect on its participants. There are others ways in which male and female characteristics complement one another and make for a stabler society. It is in the interest of society to encourage this. Again, God is responsible for this wonder but, theoretically, like the benefits of sunshine, you don't have to be a believer to recognize this.
"2. Which brings me to why I mentioned interracial marriage. Before such marriages became accepted in our society -- if it is good enough for Clarence Thomas, I guess conservatives no longer complain about it -- a big rationale given for anti-miscegennation laws was that that was how God wanted it. Pro-slavery and pro-segregation people also said that that was how God wanted it. My point is that we all must approach our statements about what God "wants" with a lot more humility."
True humility would be to accept what God says. This whole game where gay advocates try to say that God didn't actually condemn homosexuality in scripture is similar to the serpent in the Garden telling Eve, "God didn't really say not to eat that fruit." God condemns homosexuality in scripture, he never condemn any race of people.
Anon and I clearly differ. He/she purports to be a scriptural literalist; apparently, he/she believes that every single word in the Bible is the word of God. Presumably, he believes that fathers should be permitted to kill their disobedient children and that those committing adutery should be executed.
I, in contrast, am not a scriptural literalist. I believe that the Bible provides great insights and the writing may have been divinely inspired in some sense. But I do not believe that every word is the word of God. That is why, for example, I do not believe that it would be moral for fathers to kill their disobedient sons or that we should execute adulterers.
If I have misinterpreted Anon's view of scripture, I apologize. But if I have, if Anon accepts some Biblical statements as the word of God, but not others, then he/she needs to explain why he/she accepts a few words in Leviticus dealing with a male homosexual act as the word of God.
Further, to say -- as Anon did in his/her last response -- that that only heterosexuals are capable of having stable, loving intimate relationships is false and is an insult to the so many gay and lesbian people I have met who have such relationships.
If anyone has been reading this exchange, I thank you for doing so.
"Anon and I clearly differ. He/she purports to be a scriptural literalist; apparently, he/she believes that every single word in the Bible is the word of God. Presumably, he believes that fathers should be permitted to kill their disobedient children and that those committing adutery should be executed.
I, in contrast, am not a scriptural literalist. I believe that the Bible provides great insights and the writing may have been divinely inspired in some sense. But I do not believe that every word is the word of God. That is why, for example, I do not believe that it would be moral for fathers to kill their disobedient sons or that we should execute adulterers.
If I have misinterpreted Anon's view of scripture, I apologize. But if I have, if Anon accepts some Biblical statements as the word of God, but not others, then he/she needs to explain why he/she accepts a few words in Leviticus dealing with a male homosexual act as the word of God."
David,
I'm not a Bible literalist but I do believe the whole of scripture is divinely inspired. I think you've got a faulty dichotomy set up in your mind. I can explain my views on the Law if you'd like but I think they're pretty close to historic reformed Christianity. Still, if you'll keep in mind that I'm not a theologian, I'd be happy to take a stab at it. To be very brief and simplistic about it, Christianity deals with overcoming sin AND for overcoming the penalty for sin. Unfortunately, some seem to think that the only way to be merciful is to eliminate the idea of sin altogether.
"Further, to say -- as Anon did in his/her last response -- that that only heterosexuals are capable of having stable, loving intimate relationships is false and is an insult to the so many gay and lesbian people I have met who have such relationships."
I think heterosexual relationships provide for a more stable society. I think any honest examination will find this to be true. Sorry if that insults somebody but facts are facts.
"If anyone has been reading this exchange, I thank you for doing so."
Well, thanks for maintaining a non-inflammatory tenor this time.
Anon,
Why is it so very hard for you to accept that both "heterosexual relationships stabilize society" and "homosexual relatinships stabilize society"? You want to write gay people out of existence, because you believe the only way gays differ from straights is that they sin sexually. Stop sinning, and you'll be fine.
But we've been through this ad nauseum. Some people, that small percentage, are homosexual intrinsically. To force them into heterosexual relationships is to be misogynistic at best and destructive of heterosexual marriage at worst. By acknowledging that natural phenomenon, you would allow the gay population to live in peace and contribute to a more stable society, while protecting women from being deceived into loveless relationships.
Btw, the God with whom I was raised, popularly known as Yahweh, was known to be, on occasion, a genocidal brute. So much for never "condemning any race of people."
And David's point still holds -- you are obsessed with a single verse in Leviticus. I think it's a fair assumption on my part that you gratefully ignore the vast majority of the others. You have yet to show me any "facts" that you believe otherwise.
David
If you're still reading, I had one more thought on the inter-racial angle. My definition of marriage comes from the Bible and there is no prohibition on inter-racial marriage as there is on homosexual behavior. It's also worth noting that there is actually an example of an inter-racial marriage in the Bible and evidence that God disapproved of those who mocked it. Moses married an African, presumably a black, and Aaron and Miriam ridculed him for doing so. As punishment, God struck them with leprosy, which as you may know, turns its victim ghastly pale. Let me know if you can't find the story.
Just looked the story up, David. It's the first part of Numbers 12. One correction: it was only Miriam who was turned "white as snow" with leprosy.
Actually, Anon, Tzipora was a Midianite, not black. No one knows for sure what the word "Cushite" means in this context. It may even be referring to a concubine, and his sibs distress may be ralted to his having taken another woman. Nowhere in that chapter does it give any credence to racial discrimination or God's anger being brought on precisely by that. There was a long-running power play going on in Moses' family, and if this relates to anything it relates to that. Your interpretation is just midrash, an interpretation. A close reading will show you the more likely interpretation.
I believe I asked you before, but where exactly is "marriage" defined Biblically?
Numbers 12
1 Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman. 2 So they said, “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” And the LORD heard it. 3 (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth.)
4 Suddenly the LORD said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, “Come out, you three, to the tabernacle of meeting!” So the three came out. 5 Then the LORD came down in the pillar of cloud and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam. And they both went forward. 6 Then He said,
“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision;
I speak to him in a dream.
7 Not so with My servant Moses;
He is faithful in all My house.
8 I speak with him face to face,
Even plainly, and not in dark sayings;
And he sees the form of the LORD.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant Moses?”
9 So the anger of the LORD was aroused against them, and He departed. 10 And when the cloud departed from above the tabernacle, suddenly Miriam became leprous, as white as snow. Then Aaron turned toward Miriam, and there she was, a leper. 11 So Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord! Please do not lay this sin on us, in which we have done foolishly and in which we have sinned. 12 Please do not let her be as one dead, whose flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother’s womb!”
13 So Moses cried out to the LORD, saying, “Please heal her, O God, I pray!”
14 Then the LORD said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, would she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut out of the camp seven days, and afterward she may be received again.” 15 So Miriam was shut out of the camp seven days, and the people did not journey till Miriam was brought in again. 16 And afterward the people moved from Hazeroth and camped in the Wilderness of Paran.
Two things, Anon.
One, you didn't answer my question. Where is marriage defined in the Bible?
Secondly, I don't know what translation you're using, but nowhere in my Bible (as close to the original as we can get today) does it say anything about marriage.
Maybe that's the problem. I've always noted, especially when I taught Sunday school at a Baptist church, that the English translations of the Tanakh have been so distorted that much of what passes for Christianity today is based on mistakes, inadvertent or otherwise. Not that I want to shake your faith, but before you go trying to teach Bible on this website I suggest you become fluent in Hebrew, and Biblical Hebrew for that matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home