Gay Conservatives:
Interesting post by the Gay Patriot: "It’s easier to be gay among conservatives than it is to be conservative among gays."
Gay Conservatives:
Interesting post by the Gay Patriot: "It’s easier to be gay among conservatives than it is to be conservative among gays." |
That in itself is a very dubious notion, promoted I feel by interest groups who would rather see people merely share echo-chamber "experiences" than devise and share meaningful policy goals and develop an honest understanding of their own place in society.
If, as he claims, the vast majority of conservatives have no problem with gays, then explain the hyperventilating over including gays in the institution of marriage? You would think conservatives would applaud gays wanting to pair off and form monogamous, self-supporting family units.
Oh wait, he means, "conservatives who won't to your face call you a pervert, and will even pretend in public to be open-minded, but in private think you are a deviant deserving scorn." Sorry, I don't accept that you can be pro-gay and anti-gay-marriage, despite all the pretzel-contorting logic to the contrary.
Oh wait, he means, "conservatives who won't to your face call you a pervert, and will even pretend in public to be open-minded, but in private think you are a deviant deserving scorn." Sorry, I don't accept that you can be pro-gay and anti-gay-marriage, despite all the pretzel-contorting logic to the contrary.
___________________
Assuming your characterization is accurate (tenuous ground, I think), GPW framed it as a matter of degree - it's "easier."
I believe him.
I'm not saying all conservatives by any means.. there are genuinely pro-gay conservatives out there... Bill Weld comes to mind. But the number of conservative, OPENLY pro-gay conservatives out there is small. When being gay is accepted as being left-handed (minority, but completely irrelevant) in conservative circles, THEN I'll buy it that it's easier being gay in conservative circles than conservative in gay circles.
I know plenty of gays who hold conservative positions (low taxes, pro-business, pro-life, pro-military), but choose to still identify as liberal (in the classical sense, or not quite the same, Blue Dog sense). They would rather be associated with the side that doesn't question their legitimacy as a healthy human being... they find it easier to be on the left, but fight and oppose the economic policy on the left, than be on the side that they agree with on economic issues but barely accepts their humanity.
Add me to the list. Lifelong republican and homo (LOL). Even my Democrat fiance who voted for McCain this past election received a lot of hate from his gay friends for doing so.
And of course the same surmise could be made about liberals, so your point is irrelevant.
It is understandable that liberals believe this, since so many of them take a personal dislike to those with whom they disagree.
Gay activists, of course, try to exploit this image by labeling those who oppose their initiatives as "homophobic," an inaccurate but effective pejorative.
Believe it or not, it is actually possible to be against causes like gay marriage while appreciating and respecting gay individuals.
No, it's not. I fear though, this is a fundamental disagreement that no amount of debating will resolve...
Huh? So even though I appreciate and respect gay individuals, you are telling me that I don't really do so because I disagree with their marriage goals. That's absurd.
You would be wrong, unless you are talking about politicians who are always careful about who they offend. One would think that the Christian right is some sort of Godzilla. We aren't.
That's EXACTLY what I'm telling you. You may THINK you respect gay individuals, but you don't. Unless you have some unusual definition of "respect."
If you don't think a lesbian couple of 20 years who has been raising, say, 3 kids from birth does not deserve marriage rights, then, no, you don't respect them in any meaningful sense of the word. You may think you do, but you don't.
If you don't think two consenting adults who love each other, and want to care for and be responsible for each other in a committed, monogamous relationship don't deserve to be included in marriage, then no, no you don't respect them.
Hint: If the vast majority of a group believe you are not respecting them, have an ounce of humility and at least own up to the fact that you probably are not respecting them.
You have a really bizarre concept of the word respect. You seem to equate it to unconditional approval of all aspects of that person's life and goals. If that's a standard, there's hardly anyone that anyone can respect.
Or is it the idea that a person must be defined in terms of their sexuality, and that they can only be "respected" if one agrees with all aspects of their sexuality?
How truly extreme!
I have a friend who drinks too much. I am concerned that he is headed down the road to alcoholism.
I have friends who don't go to church. I feel sorry for them.
I have friends who don't appreciate the grandeur of the night sky, or the power and beauty of looking at Saturn or M42 through a large telescope. I am perplexed by their inability to appreciate this. (Well, not too many aren't awed by Saturn.)
I have a friend who seems to have at least a mental adultery problem--and might go beyond lusting in his heart if he had a chance. I know enough about his marriage to see why, and feel for him.
None of us is perfect. We all have areas where we fail, where we are weak, where we miss the mark. Does this mean that these people aren't my friends? No. But it doesn't mean that I pretend that drinking to excess isn't a problem. It doesn't mean that I excuse my friend who makes crude remarks about the waitress (in front of his wife, who is obviously hurt by it). It doesn't mean that I support passing laws to make all of these peculiarities, weaknesses, and human foibles into protected categories.
For a while I had a fascinating email conversation with a gay conservative competition shooter who had to be deeply closeted about both parts of his life. He was a competition shooter--and where he lived, he didn't feel that he could let even a hint of his gayness leak out. At the same time, he didn't dare let his conservative political leanings show to his gay friends. He was in a terrible bind.
This need to reduce every relationship to binary love/hate is the sign of enormous immaturity.
We can offer respect, friendship, or whatever that people offer each other. There is no requirement to offer some sort of marriage or marriage surrogate.
Respecting an individual and respecting a specific aspect of their life (in this case, their sexual preference), are not the same thing.
As usual, eloquently expressed.
And that's the big problem that homosexuals in America have today: they have, as a political movement, abandoned the notion that they have a privacy right to be gay, and turned into a demand that we smile stupidly and pretend to approve of homosexuality--on pain of being punished with fines, lawsuits, etc.
You think homosexuality is just fine, and anyone that doesn't share your view is sick, hate-filled, or stupid. That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I have a different opinion than you do. The difference between us is that you insist that you have a right to force your opinion on me, using the government to force me to pretend that I agree, or being punished. I'm willing to accept a difference of opinion, and leave you alone.
I can respect gay conservatives and gay libertarians because they are prepared to accept that we don't have to agree. We can agree to disagree about certain moral questions, and neither of us is going to use the jackboots to force behavior.
The difference is...
your friend who is alcoholic knows that this is self-destructive... your adulterous friend knows his behavior hurts others as well as himself... no one goes around declaring "adultery is good", "alcoholism is good"
The fact that you equate homosexuality with destructive behaviors.. that hurt themselves and those around them shows that you just don't get it.
Then again, I've seen enough of your posts to know that really there is no point in arguing with you.
I'm sorry you think that gay conduct is like alcoholism, atheism, or mental adultery. It's not. It's simply a natural action that flows from the fact that some people are attracted to the same sex.
And yes, the fact that you don't accept that fact probably makes it hard for many gays to be close friends with you. My fiance and I are Christians, but you'd probably still treat us as second-class friends, because we're a same-sex couple and not a 'real' couple in your eyes.
Fascinating. You know better what I think than I do? This is all rather reminiscent of when the psychiatric profession better knew what homosexuals wanted, or should want, than they did. You might ask Alan Turing how well your attitude worked, when the ballerina slipper was on the other foot.
That's a fact. High substance abuse rates in the gay community have been a subject of enormous study for decades.
Jab, then I guess you would agree that President Obama does not respect gay people either, right?
You seriously have it twisted... gays are not forcing you to do or accept anything... gays just want to be left alone to live their lives.. they want to be treated THE SAME by their government... I don't give a rat's piss what you think or believe about gay people... but I very much care how the government treats its citizens. No one is forcing you to think anything AT ALL. You can hate gays all you want, honestly, no one gives a da*m what you think. Gays are NOT asking the governement to make you do anything at all... they just want equal treatment in the civil context. Period.
Clayton, please tell me exactly how gays are forcing you to do anything... Seriously, it's hilarious that you think you are the one being oppressed...
In all the time that I lived in the Bay Area, I can think of two gay couples that I knew, both lesbian couples. One of them was a pretty normal couple (other than their sexual orientation); the other was one of those nasty stereotypes: the bull dyke doing an insulting parody of a hypermacho mam.
Since you don't know me, don't interact with me in any social setting, you are doing exactly what a lot of gay leftists do: engaging in stereotyping based on what you want to believe about me.
You want my honest answer?
I think Obama is lying. I believe he has no problem with gay marriage. Same with Hillary. Same with Bill. Same with Kerry. Same with Edwards. I think the vast majority of the Democratic leadership are lying... they personally have no problem with it. But they are calculating... that you just can't win a national election right now and openly say it... so they wink, and they nod, and they hope gay people suck it up and understand... and the vast majority do.
But that is just my opinion.
Do you think it's impossible because being simulataneously pro-gay and anti-gay marriage involves embracing a logical contradiction? Because there's nothing unusual, much less impossible, about doing that. Or do you think it's impossible for another reason?
In New Jersey, a church is in danger of losing its non-profit status because it refused to rent its facilities out for a same-sex civil union.
In Canada, teachers have been suspended from their jobs for writing letters on their own time to the newspaper to express disapproval of homosexuality.
Rev. Green was threatened with jail time for preaching against homosexuality.
There have been many such incidents over the least few years.
If you want to be left alone, it's easy. There are no laws against homosexuality. Stop this attempt to punish people for disagreeing with you.
No, I don't know you outside of your comments here, your posts on your blog, and your scholarly articles. (And I've read Volokh and your blog for years.) I have no doubt that you can be friendly to gays.
However, I don't have to know you on a personal level to realize that your position on homosexual conduct would create barriers in any friendship. For example, if homosexuality in your mind is like alcoholism or adultery, then there is simply no way you'd attend our wedding, because that would be supporting us as we 'gave in' for life to our flaw. How can close friends not go to each other's weddings and still be considered close friends? That's the kind of real life situation I'm talking about where your position on homosexuality would put up a wall.
Yeah, the great one must be lying, because otherwise he would be unacceptable in your eyes. That cognitive dissonance is apparently too much for you to bear.
Most Christian denominations are against homosexuality, including Obama's. That doesn't mean their members dislike homosexuals, but it does mean that they don't approve of their sexual behavior. Furthermore, it is not an unreasonable hypothesis that homosexuality is (on average) a harmful aberration. In fact, statistics strongly support that - at least about males. It is, however, a hypothesis that is almost as verboten as holocaust denial.
Even so, we can respect gays, be friends with gays(if THEY would allow such a thing), work with them, etc.
Unfortunately, gays activists demand, apparently psychologically need, full approval. There is no compromise. As is clear from this discussion, one supports the gay political agenda, or one must be evil.
BTW... The Roman Catholic Church accepts homosexual priests, as long as they do not engage in homosexual acts - which is completely consistent with the requirement that heterosexual priests be chaste.
Gay families? There are no children of gay couples. Guaranteed. There are gay people with children from a previous straight marriage, or who have adopted children, or had a child by a someone outside the relationship. (Holding a turkey baster doesn't make you the father.) But the primary governmental interest in marriage today is child custody and support questions--and since there are no (guaranteed) biological children from a gay couple, there's no need for it.
And of course, the Goodridges, on whose behalf the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled, are now divorced. As is another of the early Mass. gay marriages. They went to Rhode Island, demanding a divorce within a year two, as some sort of test case. Pretty clearly, either these marriages were shams to force changes in the law, or marriage didn't help these couples stay together. Probably because the core problem of keeping gay couples together isn't a lack of marriage, but much deeper emotional problems.
It is apparent that much of what drives the gay marriage thing isn't a legitimate need; it's a desperate need for the ultimate societal badge of approval. But that won't solve the fundamental brokenness that shows up in the high rates of promiscuity and substance abuse that disproportionately afflict the gay community.
Then it sounds like they have even less respect for gays than conservatives that treat gays fairly and with respect, but nevertheless have a good faith opposition to same sex marriage.
I wasn't aware that there was some obligation to be a close friend to you. I don't have a lot of close friends. But then again, I'm not prepared to pretend to be something that I am not.
But by all means, I hope Clayton and Mr. Moore keep posting honestly, proving to all of us with each and every post how they REALLY do "RESPECT" gay people... LOL... isn't it obvious from their posts? Just dripping with respect.
See that? That's immaturity--the need to have people that you don't even known respect you and pretend that everything that you do is okay.
I do a lot of things that you probably don't respect--you might even find them gross or repulsive. I eat meat. (I had a friend who attended UC Santa Cruz in the 1970s, and felt that she was constantly being looked down for being a meat eater.) I don't want reality TV shows--they seem stupid. I find quite a number of common entertainments vulgar and degrading.
But so what? I'm not asking for your approval. I'm asking for you to leave me alone, and I'm glad to return the favor.
Wow. That's a pretty brazen distortion, even for you.
I have friends who are Jewish (and not just culturally). I don't go out of my way to emphasize the differences between Christianity and Judaism; they don't go out of their way, either. We recognize that there are differences of opinion, and we are mature enough adults to have a friendship based on mutual respect.
I must admit that my respect for you is dropping, but I don't even know your sexual preference. You appear to either not understand the meaning of the word "respect," or are using it as a surrogate for something else.
To be clear: there are gay people I respect. There are gay people I despise (e.g. Andrew Sullivan). There are straight people I respect. There are straight people I despise (e.g. Jimmy Carter). There are gay people whose presence I enjoy. There are straight people whose presence I don't enjoy.
Get it? You frigging sexual preference does not define you in my eyes. If you define people by their preference, you either need to grow up or you have a cognitive deficiency.
I was not suggesting that you were obligated to be friends with me or anyone else. The reason I'm bringing this to a personal level is because I think it's easy sometimes for one group to simply think of another group as some 'other' that exists only in the abstract.
What I find unfortunate is that we most likely could never be close friends, no matter how much we got along in life and agreed on other issues, because your opinion on homosexuality would prevent you from partaking in activities that close friends share. That's my point.
Oh, and FYI, I'm a teetotaler and definitely not a swinger, so we have that in common.
Very possibly.
You mentioned weddings. You don't have to be gay for that to be an issue. Mormon weddings typically take place in Mormon temples--where non-Mormons are not allowed. I have had some Mormon friends--and not being able to attend their weddings hasn't been any big deal to me.
I remember some years when King Hussein of Jordan died, the non-Muslims (many of them heads of state) had to stay outside the mosque for the funeral. I don't know if that is the case for Muslims in America, but does that prevent me from being friends with Muslims? No. (And yes, I have had Muslim friends in California and here in Idaho.)
I'm honestly hard pressed to see how your homosexuality would prevent a friendship. I suppose if you and your partner started getting hot and heavy in front of my wife and I, we would be uncomfortable. But that would be true if we were at a straight couple's home.
Clearly, we have different definitions of the word "respect."
To me, "respect" implies that you fully accept the humanity of an individual... and the core of one's humanity is the ability to love and be loved.
It's one thing to disagree with someone on policy... I have plenty of conservative friends (I admit not socially conservative), and we freely debate foreign policy, economic theory, tax policy... and these debates can get very heated/passionate. I may not always agree, but I respect their intellect and insight.
As for my orientation... yes, I am gay. The thing is, for my conservative (again, I admit not socially conservative) friends, being gay is like being left-handed to them. It's not the majority, but so what. They accept me as a human being, they accept that I am hard-wired to love and be loved, and all they care about is that whoever I end up with with treat me with love and respect. Period.
Being gay is not just some minor part of identity... because as humans, our capacity to love and be loved is really what separates us from other animals (along with intelligence and self-awareness).
As I said, I absolutely love debating policy... and I value opposing view points... but when it comes to sexual orientation, I guess I am unforgiving... my humanity is not up for debate.
The reason why Gay Patriot probably encounters hostility from the left is not because gays oppose conservative policies (really, gays don't get that worked up about tax policy, social security, foreign policy, trade agreements etc)... it as a reaction to to the social conservatism.
Government is "government of the people, by the people." Forcing "the government" to accept the ideology of gay equivalency is forcing the people to do so.
Furthermore, it is utterly clear that gay couples are NOT equal to straight couples - by definition.
Generally, sexual orientation antidiscrimination laws make exceptions for religious institutions--but not always. That's why the Catholic Church stopped running adoption agencies in Massachusetts a while back, and I recall that something similar happened with New York State removing the Salvation Army from its list of social service providers because they refused to sign a pledge not to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
If there were some really serious obstacles to gay couples organizing their affairs without benefit of marriage, I could at least believe that the motivations on this were aboveboard. But the obstacles are tiny, and the brazen test case nature of the early adopters in Massachusetts only staying married for a short period of time show that this wasn't an honest goal.
says the guy who shows up on every post in regards to homosexualty and slings anti-gay insults around.
I respect individuals that I know who are gay, and who either behave themselves reasonably well, or at least don't insist on rubbing my nose in what they do.
shorter clayton: i only respect gays who do their best to be not gay.
The main difference I see between a gay wedding and a wedding at an LDS temple (like you, I have many LDS friends) is that non-members (or members without temple recommends) are not allowed at temple weddings, period. But you and your wife would certainly be allowed to attend most gay weddings, so it'd be entirely your choice not to attend. Maybe that choice wouldn't put up as much of a wall as I think it would though...
Oh, and my fiance and I NEVER get hot and heavy in public. At most, we'll hold hands or give a quick kiss, but even those kinds of things are the sort of things respectable couples do during a fireworks show instead of at a friend's house.
Also, please don't mistake my thoughts on straight/gay friendships as approval of government restrictions on certain 1st Amendment rights. I am VERY libertarian when it comes to the freedoms of speech and association.
No, I respect gays who don't think that acting like a nasty stereotype makes them authentic, and don't insist on flaunting their homosexuality.
If I was invited to a vegetarian potluck, I would bring macaroni and cheese--not a platter of ribs.
There, Clayton, is at least one rather major distortion. Pardon me, untruth. Lie.
I'm sure it was unintentional. Not the sign of any deep-seated issues or fundamental brokenness. Happnes to everyone. Not to worry.
I just think they would be happier and better taken care of if they worked in my cotton fields.
I have friends that are free and black, and I know them as intelligent, war people I am proud to know. But that doesn't mean I must approve of everything they do - like not working in my cotton fields.
Clearly I am a gay liberal. I have a sincere question.
Why do you feel it is easier for you to be a gay Republican rather than a gay conservative Democrat? In the Democratic party, you don't have to defend your humanity... so you could focus on pushing the party to more free-market economics (or whatever your favorite conservative policy is). Why do you think it's easier for you to try to shift the GOP left on social issues rather than the Democratic party rightward on economic issues?
Jeez.
You are clearly defining "respect" to be "acceptance" of a particular personal characteristic. That is not a normal definition.
I can respect your reasoning, your compassion, your creativity, your humanity, and still not approve of your sexual behavior. I can enjoy your company and speak highly of you to others, and still not approve of your sexual behavior or life partner choices. I can dislike that behavior without demanding any government actions to discourage it. I can recognize that your sexual identity is effectively hard wired, and still not think government should grant you marriage equal to heterosexual marriage.
And, I can still respect you.
If this isn't correct, provide evidence otherwise. I notice that you aren't actually saying what the situation was. Why?
Probably because I'm libertarian on some issues (gay rights, gun rights, economic freedom, first amendment applies to corporations and campaign money) and conservative on others (abortion, death penalty), so overall, I agree a heck of a lot more with the Republicans than with the Democrats.
I look at it like this. If I agree with the Republicans 90% of the time and the Dems 10% of the time, then doesn't it make the most sense for me to fight to change that 10% of the platform?
Also, by being openly gay in the Republican party, I have been able to change quite a few minds on the issue of homosexuality being a choice. Sure, not all of those people support gay marriage yet, but as I'm sure you know, it takes time for people to go from recognizing that homosexuality is OK to fully supporting equality. I think of it as planting a seed.
You keep talking about defending your humanity. No one is denying that homosexuals are humans. Perhaps you are confusing your humanity with your sexuality. For most people, sexuality is merely one part of being human. The crowd that does street festivals such as "Up Your Alley," on the other hand, behaves as though their sexuality (and really gross stuff--ejaculating from upper story windows on the crowd in the street below, peeing on each other in public) is the sum of their humanity.
I would understand your point of view if being gay was just another "personal characteristic."
I personally believe that our ability to love, to be loved, our sexuality, is not just another "personal characteristic," but it goes to the very core of us being human. For heterosexuals, it is a mjor part of your identity, but only because you are in the vast majority, you actually don't have to think about it...
Honestly, I was an evangelical christian in college (believe it or not), trying to suppress my feelings... i remember a number of occasions where I was walking down the street or across campus... a cute guy would catch my eye, I would stare for a couple of seconds, and then I would catch myself and spiral into depression that could last for weeks on end, ashamed... before I knew it, I got used to walking with my head down, never making eye contact or looking at people... do you have a clue what living like that is?
We are creatures hard-wired to love and be loved... it is not just a minor personal characteristic that you can overlook or merely tolerate.
Mr. Moore may not, but I sure do. Hugs.
I may disagree, but I can respect policy differences... I guess for me personally, I would rather be accepted on my identity and fight 90% policy than vice versa. But I am glad you are different and willing to fight on the other side.
I look forward to the day that being gay is like being left handed... then we can get back to "merely" fighting over policy.
Incidentally... I have changed my mind on issues, so I am open... for example, I switched from being pro-bilingual education to being pro-immersion because of intelligent debate with conservatives.
Bloom, in "The Closing of the American Mind" criticized many of the "groups" that social cons go after -- the leftist identity politics activist of the feminist and racial vein. He rarely criticized gay groups, however. Homophobe (and fellow Straussian) Harry V. Jaffa called him out on this.
Though Bellow noted in Ravelstein that Bloom had no sympathy for "gay pride" or gay identity politics.
Ultimately as a someone profoundly influenced by Nietzsche, I think Bloom saw a place for "conflict" or "cognitive dissonance" in one's mind and soul as something that contributed to human acheivement. Bloom, using Nietzschean terms might say inner "chaos" contributes to true "creativity," (of the profound, not the superficial sense).
In the audio lecture Bloom discusses what true "creativity" is. In Closing, he notes, after Nietzsche, it's not something ordinary people are. A finger painter is not "creative." Rather, geniuses like Raphael are.
I've also noticed, after Bruce Bawer, that a disproportionate number of homosexuals (particularly homosexual males) seem to be genius creative types who have disproportionatelt built the "Canon" of Western Civilization. See Bawer's article on the matter which discusses Bloom.
LOL... yeah, I figured you would understand that ;)
I think it's very difficult for people not in that situation to even comprehend the psychological damage that does to someone in the long-term.
I just think they would be happier and better taken care of if they worked in my cotton fields.
--------
dude, are you on drugs, or just f**ked up? may be a lame attempt at a joke?!
Well, yes, we all share the supression part of it, but the turning evangelical christian and then coming to terms with our homosexuality part of our stories is not something that all gays share, so that's really what I was getting at. I'm still a Christian, but obviously not a self-loathing one anymore.
It's Sarcastro. I don't think he has ever been serious. I personally think his attempts at humor and sarcasm are annoying, but others here seem to love it.
Are you in a gay-friendly church, or is it like you being in the GOP, "planting seeds" in a non-gay friendly church?
Me, I grew up Catholic (practicing), and was rebaptized as an evangelical christian (was in InterVaristy in college)... though I no longer consider myself Christian anymore... more like an agnostic who is back to being open and searching...
Non-denominational, gay-friendly Christian church is what I attend. I think politics and religion are two very different things, and so, no, while I'm certainly willing to debate other christians in person and on the Internet about homosexuality, I don't think it's a wise spiritual choice to be a member of a congregation that is anti-gay.
"...as long as I'm not too gay."
Sorry. Not playing. After all, it's Friday night. There are illicit drugs to be taken and orgies to attend. Or maybe I'll just finish the latest Grisham. The gay lifestyle... so many temptations.
Being black per se isn't a behavior (just as having a homosexual orientation isn't a behavior). However being involved in an interracial relationship is as much of a behavior as homosexuality is. Arguably more so because there seems to be no "orientation" for people to be attracted to other races, not your own. However to the extent that there might be, that would make bans on interracial relations all the more cruel. Thus, stigmatizing homosexual relations is crueler than stigmatizing interracial relations.
you clearly use an eccentric definition of "leave alone". you also should check you reading glasses...they are so strong you are able to read things that i never wrote. either that or you just like to make things up to denigrate people whose views you don't like.
No, I respect gays who don't think that acting like a nasty stereotype makes them authentic, and don't insist on flaunting their homosexuality.
thank you for confirming my characterization of your argument as accurate. it's always nice to know i'm right. i wonder how many times you've claimed of people flaunting their straightness?
this statement implies to me that a lot of the anti-gay from conservatives stems from fear and ignorance and not on any rational basis. if it was the latter it wouldn't be so easily changed.
Really? "Love it"? Seriously?
I'd say that's a pretty fair description.
OK, OK, fair point. Not everyone here loves it, but enough seem to that it encourages him to continue. I've read far too many comments that are basically "Sarcastro wins the thread!" or something equally as absurd. That kind of reaction just makes him do it over and over again.
jab, not sure about anyone else but I unscientifically believe that children develop better when raised by a man and a woman, because each has something to teach that the other cannot, hopefully in a stable marriage. Pass the pretzels, please.
This is true. But can you offer us a cite for any conclusive results?
I think it has far more to do with the way society treats homosexuality than anything else. When everyone says you're trash and incapable of forming loving, healthy relationships, it's hard not to let that affect your life.
Here in Oregon they pass the meth and the alcohol. Must be the heavy concentration of gay parents.
No, I have not had to go through that. It doesn't sound like a lot of fun.
I don't dismiss the difficulties homosexuals face, and unlike some, I don't deny that many male homosexuals could not change their orientation even if they wanted to. In that sense, I view homosexuality as an affliction. Many of us are afflicted with varying issues that affect our lives, and gays, as has been demonstrated here, are too.
Furthermore, as Jon Rowe points out, gays have made great contributions (look at the tragedy of Alan Turing). Is there something about gayness that leads an increased incidence of special abilities? It's possible.
However, many gay activists have behaved despicably. In the 80's, radical gay activists caused the tragic deaths of tens of thousands with their irresponsible advocacy and denial. The blackmailing of the blood donation clinics by San Francisco gays in the '80s was an act of pure terrorism.
The Orwellian insistence that homosexuality is as normal as left-handedness is pernicious. Left handed people still write, but homosexual sex does not produce offspring. The odious use of the term "homophobe" to refer to those who oppose gay policies or disapprove of homosexuality is offensive.
The demands for full "equality" are based on the incorrect application of all the features of the civil rights movement to "gay rights."
The coercion of various civic organizations because they do not fully accept gay "equality" has been destructive. The Boy Scouts have been significantly harmed; churches have been viciously attacked and vandalized; the military is under threat of forced gay integration. The asserted right of gay couples to have and raise children is potentially dangerous.
Notice that all that I listed above are acts of advocacy, not acts of love or sex. To object to these actions, to condemn some of them and fight others, is not the same as condemning gays.
Which clearly highlights two of the problems with the gay advocacy:
1) The objective is to COERCE those companies via government power.
2) This is based on the utter fallacy that discriminating against gay behavior is equivalent to discriminating on the basis of race.
You could create a civil union that was completely equal to marrriage, but lo and behold, the christian right opposes that too. They want the government to punish gays and force them either into the closet or into straight lives.
Objection: Over-generalization, stereotyping, mind-reading. As a member of the Christian right, I support many aspects of civil union (not including child rearing). It has nothing to do with punishment or forcing people into the closet or to be straight.
We haven't really discussed the piece Todd posted. GayPatriot simplifies too much. In my experience -- and he writes nothing that contradicts or even complicates this -- gay people in gay social settings are more likely to alienate a few Republicans in their midst than conservatives are likely to alienate a few gays in their midst. On the other hand, I really don't think you're liable to be attacked in a gay social setting for certain beliefs you hold or policies you advocate, only if you're seen as being an "R" partisan.
And meanwhile, conservatives on the issue of homosexuality are frequently very respectful toward homosexuals -- so long as that homosexual does not talk about his romantic relationships as being the moral or political equivalent of heterosexual relationships. At that point, I've seen very few social conservatives fail to alienate the speaker.
So, really, it's unsurprisingly a wash. It's a rare group of gays who won't make the lone Republican feel strange and alien, and it's a rare group of conservatives who will listen thoughtfully and silently, seeing no need to object, if a homosexual in their group suggests that his relationships aren't less moral than theirs.
But it doesn't have to be, John.
So have many black activists, pro-life activists, pro-religion activists, etc. etc. etc. I assume you find this a good reason to discriminate against these groups as well.
Not all left-handed people produce off-spring. So what?
How?
Only by gays?
So?
How so?
When you concoct a list of vague or bogus "ills" and crimes supposedly brought on by gays, you're pretty much condemning them for no good reason.
No, it's not.
Many "queer theorists" would beg to differ.
What it is that they offer to a gay couple instead of marriage?
Why do people think they are entitled to government handouts?
Conservatives are generally antagonistic towards courts' reading of statutes and constitutions that are based on the political preferences of the court members rather than the text of the documents.
The reason for this is that the conservatives do not view texts as oppressing minorities; they view texts as protecting them. Judicial holdings that substitute political for textual considerations wind up harming the politically disenfranchised or unpopular. Because gays are a numerical minority, a judicial philosophy that allows the constitution or a statute to be disregarded for the sake of political expediency has a far greater likelihood of harming than of helping gays.
What is your position on the Defense of Marriage Act, on California Proposition 8, on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage throughout the US? Isn't that "dragging government into this"?
I understand your point, jab, but I do not think that Obama is "lying." I believe that he has said he believes marriage "should be" between a man and a woman. What is the foundation for that belief? Very likely it is policy, rather than a deep moral aversion to gay marriage. There are good reasons for a mainstream politician whose goal is to achieve the support of a majority of the voters to voice such a policy position. Policy positions are, of course, subject to change, particularly if (or I would prefer to say when) public opinion changes (as it is in the process of doing right now).
This focuses on the real issue. Those who argue that recognition of same-sex marriage is an attack on heterosexual marriage, or would "damage" or even "destroy" the traditional institution of marriage, are either disingenous or mistaken. Recognition of same-sex marriage would, as you say, constitute some sort of approval of same-sex marriage. But, as you yourself point out, you can distinguish between your relations with gay people and your own opinions about their conduct. If you lived in Massachusetts or Connecticut, where same-sex marriage is (I believe) recognized, you would still be free to disapprove of it. Your conscientious right to regard it as immoral would not be compromised. You would not be required to participate in a same-sex marriage or to attend one. You would not be required to be friendly with people who have contracted same-sex marriages.
I think same-sex marriage is required on the simple basis of equality. The government, which defines and regulates marriage in great detail, confers benefits on and exacts duties of married persons, should treat all people equally. Gays are people just as much as straights. They pay taxes and are required to obey the laws, the same as straights. They fight for their country, and die for their country on the battlefield. The government should treat them equally. And the clearest and most obvious way of teating people equally, absent some compelling reason not to, is to treat them the same.
Government is "government of the people, by the people." Forcing "the government" to accept the ideology of gay equivalency is forcing the people to do so.
Fifty years ago, you could be imprisoned or institutionalized for being gay. You could be jailed for hanging out with gays. You could lose your business if that business catered to gay people. Forget having any job security, or any recognition for your relationships, or any social deference to your life choices except in the most anomalous subcultures. To be gay or lesbian in the United States fifty years ago was to live in fear of disclosure and persecution.
Most of that has changed. But it has changed despite conservatives, not because of them. To a large degree it has changed over the vocal and forceful opposition of conservatives. It has changed because conservatives' power has waned, because conservatives' power has been constrained, and because conservatives have realized that most Americans don't agree with their most anti-gay positions. And yes, it has changed because many conservatives have become less hostile to gays and lesbians, buoyed along by a broader cultural transformation that they did not initiate.
To the extent that it is easy to be a gay person among conservatives today, that is because of the weakness of traditional conservative values in American society today. The idea of conservatives as second-class citizens, deprived of basic civil rights, is a right-wing fever dream. That of gays and lesbians being deprived of basic civil rights is a matter of historical record.
The Gay Patriot has his ease because his side has been defeated in a thousand hard-fought struggles over the last half-century.
Taken to its logical concolusion, this argument would compel you to oppose any law that offends your personal morality. Divorce is regarded by the Catholic church as a serious moral offense, yet the laws of all of the states recognize divorce, enforce it with the full panoply of the laws and domestic relations courts. This was not always the case, of course. In Italy and Ireland in recent times, divorce was absolutely forbidden because it offended the morality of most of the people. Many people believe that drinking alcoholic beverages is immoral. Many states (and at one time the laws of the entire United States) forbade this "immorality." Yet it is today generally sanctioned by the law. Keeping the sabbath was at one time a very important moral duty in the United States, strictly enforced by law. It no longer is enforced by the law, though there are still many people who believe it is sinful not to keep the sabbath. I personally believe that it is immoral to "take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," yet I recognize that the law does not condemn the practice, and that many people do it routinely, and I don't believe that the law should forbid them from doing this. We have many moral beliefs, conscientious scruples, that govern our lives, but we do not expect them to be embraced by the whole community, nor do we have a right to demand that the government condemn them with the full force of the law, because we realize there are others who do not share our personal beliefs. If the law sanctioned same-sex marriage, all who oppose it on moral grounds would still be free to oppose it on moral grounds--but not to enlist the help of the government, acting with the full force of the law, in enforcing their moral beliefs on others.
Perseus:
Equal treatment under the law is not a "handout." Brown v. Board of Education was not a "handout." Legal recognition of gay marriage would no more be a "handout" than is legal recognition of straight marriage.
Anti-war groups love to have veterans joint their ranks. Socialist movements welcome any son of privilege who's seen the light about capitalism. It's easier to be a Jew among holocaust deniers than vice versa. Recall that Ahmadinejad feted a rabbi (with what could be called unconventional views) to his Holocaust denial confab recently, to show he really didn't have anything against Jews per se. Democrats love to have a mavaricky repub fronting their agenda, and vice versa. Cf. Lieberman, McCain (in certain incarnations), and the Tennessee state legislature.
In other words, if you're down with the cause (and at least keep your mouth shut about the anti-gay parts), of course you're going to be welcomed. You're useful. And you're going to be despised by the gay community, for the same reason.
Heh.
Call it something other than marriage if it will make the straight people happy, but don't tell me I have no family ties to my husband just because you don't like us.
civil unions?
Fundamentally, however, at its core the gay marriage debate is about the normalization of homosexuality. As a society we've moved from discrimination against homosexuals (even violence in some cases) to widespread tolerance, but we haven't yet moved to full normalization.
The concerns about visitation rights, what sort of couple is fit to raise children, and even free speech are all tangential to the normalization battle going on right now
If you try to stop feeling sorry for me, I will try to stop feeling sorry for adults who claim to believe that one fairy tale is true (to the exclusion of the other fairy tales, of course).
And, while I am at it, I will try to resist the strong temptation to believe that many people who today claim to 'respect gays but merely draw the line at gay marriage' are the politically and socially cornered heirs to those who eagered barred gays from many aspects of employment, public service, social interaction and the like for many years.
On the other hand, in the bible belt conservatism is dominated by religous conservatives, opposition to "the homosexual agenda" is a major tenet of conservatism and can't really be ignored.
I'd like to see any supporting evidence of this. Particularly that there is something magic about "pair" vs., say, more than a pair. Also I'd like to see any justification denying incestuous relationships the exact same rights you are asking for gay relationships.
Further, you are suggesting that we SHOULD discriminate against incest and deny basic rights to pairs. To follow up your question, you may not approve of incest, but as a matter of public policy we don't discrminate marital benefits against hanggliders, and we shouldn't discriminate against gays, and we (following your logic) shoulnd't discriminate marital benefits against incest.
Why are you such a hateful bigot?
So basically, gays are so horrible that we will infect the military, destroy the Boy Scouts, and ruin churches. And yet John Moore just can't understand why he doesn't respect gays!
If the military is "forced" to accept gays (actually, the military has no problemwith gays serving, as long as they remain closeted), how has it harmed such militaries as Israel, Canada, Britain, and Australia, all of whom have gays serving openly?
Your only answer is that gays are *inherently* bad -- that are very existence is a threat to straight marriage, the military, churches, and so on. That isn't respect -- its' contempt.
My question: Why are you so terrified that gay relationships would be normalized?
to a large extent, our relationships already are. I can take my boyfriend to many social and professional functions and we are accepted as a couple. Many newspapers carry gay marriage or civil union announcements. IF gays can get married everywhere, and that 'normalizes' our relationships throughout society, what's the problem?
Are you really afraid that if gay relationships are normalized that it will somehow affect you? How? You are going to leave your wife and marry a man, just because I do? Your children will grow up gay just because they see me?
Sorry, but whether gay relationships are normalized or not, I see absolutely no reason why straights have anything to worry about .
Jab, one of the things that I find disingenous about this argument is that you are arguing a false absolute - that namely society must accept and condone any and all relationships so long as they are consensual and between adults.
But take incest. If a father loves his daughter and wants to marry her (and raises her to accept incest as normal and ok) when she turns 16 can you think of one reason why that should be judged as improper. You might say its disingenous to compare incest to gay marriage, but I'd argue based on how you are arguing FOR gay marriage its perfectly reasonable to compare, because a consensual incestual relationship meets the criterion you set in your argument. Namely they are consenting and love each other. Can you find an objection then to say that incest shouldn't be allowed, or that those who want to marry within the family should be denied benefits? Are incestual relationships incapable of love. If people are hardwired to be loved are they incapable of finding said love in their parents or children? And wouldn't you be a bigot therefore to have any reservations about incest based on your own reasoning?
Further, why are you limiting your acceptable relationships to couples? Are three people of whatever persuasion not hardwired for love and incapable of getting love from more than one person? Everyone is hard wired to be loved whether they want to be libertines or chaste, monogomous or swingers. But that doesn't mean that its in societies interest to promote any and all types of relationships as the norm. If you want to say that society can place absolutely zero restrictions on marriage whatsoever (therefore there is no reason to discriminate against polygamy incest underage marriage harems, what have you then argue that.
How is that different from narcissism? Do people have to love you unconditionally or they are hate mongers? The qualities you point out (the capacity to love and be loved, being hard wired to be loved and be loved is a universal condition and no one can deny anyones humanity if they are living and breathing. So you just described every living person on the earth. That doesn't mean though that every behavior under the sun should be tolerated or promoted does it?
Jab, one of the things that I find disingenous about this argument is that you are arguing a false absolute - that namely society must accept and condone any and all relationships so long as they are consensual and between adults.
But take incest. If a father loves his daughter and wants to marry her (and raises her to accept incest as normal and ok) when she turns 16 can you think of one reason why that should be judged as improper. You might say its disingenous to compare incest to gay marriage, but I'd argue based on how you are arguing FOR gay marriage its perfectly reasonable to compare, because a consensual incestual relationship meets the criterion you set in your argument. Namely they are consenting and love each other. Can you find an objection then to say that incest shouldn't be allowed, or that those who want to marry within the family should be denied benefits? Are incestual relationships incapable of love. If people are hardwired to be loved are they incapable of finding said love in their parents or children? And wouldn't you be a bigot therefore to have any reservations about incest based on your own reasoning?
Further, why are you limiting your acceptable relationships to couples? Are three people of whatever persuasion not hardwired for love and incapable of getting love from more than one person? Everyone is hard wired to be loved whether they want to be libertines or chaste, monogomous or swingers. But that doesn't mean that its in societies interest to promote any and all types of relationships as the norm. If you want to say that society can place absolutely zero restrictions on marriage whatsoever (therefore there is no reason to discriminate against polygamy incest underage marriage harems, what have you then argue that.
How is that different from narcissism? Do people have to love you unconditionally or they are hate mongers? The qualities you point out (the capacity to love and be loved, being hard wired to be loved and be loved is a universal condition and no one can deny anyones humanity if they are living and breathing. So you just described every living person on the earth. That doesn't mean though that every behavior under the sun should be tolerated or promoted does it?
Try bringing your same-gender spouse to a conservative gathering, or talk about why you think even conservative gays should have an equal right to license the civil contract of marriage and see how 'easy' the interactions become.
Respecting an individual and respecting a specific aspect of their life (in this case, their sexual preference), are not the same thing.
Sexuality is not an 'aspect of one's life;' it is a fundamental element of one's identity. Furthermore, your comment reveals that, in fact, you do not respect gay people: you respect some people and hope to overlook that some of them are gay.
In that sense, I view homosexuality as an affliction.
Wow. I regard prejudice and bigotry as afflictions. Unlike homosexuality, they are other-regarding afflictions.
The Orwellian insistence that homosexuality is as normal as left-handedness is pernicious. Left handed people still write, but homosexual sex does not produce offspring.
This would be unworthy of one of my undergraduates. For the analogy to be even useful, it would have to work thusly: Left handed people write, but homosexuals do not have sex. Aside from the absurdity of the analogy, of course, is the missing premise in your 'argument' -that 'sex' is/should be only undertaken in order to procreate. Then, you would have to address the wealth of bio-evolutionary evidence that homosexuality is common anomg mamals and seems to serve ends other than direct reproduction. Oh, and you might want to say something about the meaning of sex among humans, which certainly seems to extend beyond evolutionary influence.
This is based on the utter fallacy that discriminating against gay behavior is equivalent to discriminating on the basis of race.
A claim cannot be fallacious in itself. It may be true or false or poorly evidenced. What you should say, here, is that you disagree with the claim. Then, you should provide an argument/evidence for denying the claim. By the way, asserting that the claim is false because you think it is false is not good argumentation.
What you're describing though is an interaction where you are deliberately starting a debate or argument with someone to get a reaction. of course those wont be easy interactions. But is that particular to the gay marriage debate alone?if you are ardently pro life and go into a prochoice rally (or vice versa) and start arguing the evils of abortion or the pros of non abortion do you think the interactions will be easy?
And, by way of a P.S.:
Perhaps some conservatives, even many, are comfortable with gays and lesbians. Kudos; back-patting all around.
But the hostility and venom so consistently directed at gays and lesbians in posts to this and other predominantly conservative blogs do not seem evident on blogs mostly frequented by liberals. Does this suggest that liberals are generically more wonderful than conservatives? No. But, it does suggest that liberals are less likely to be hostile to gays and lesbians than conservatives.
I just think they would be happier and better taken care of if they worked in my cotton fields.
I have friends that are free and black, and I know them as intelligent, war people I am proud to know. But that doesn't mean I must approve of everything they do - like not working in my cotton fields.
"I respect supporters of the Iraq war. I just think it would be better for everyone if they didn't want innocent Iraqis dead in the name of US imperialism.
I have friends who support the war in Iraq, and I'm proud to know them. But that doesn't mean I must approve of them supporting mass murder."
Surely a conservative doesn't think that gay marriage causes any more harm than a liberal thinks the war in Iraq causes. Yet liberals have no trouble having friends who support the war in Iraq. It actually is possible to think that someone is doing wrong, and still be friends, and it's not like thinking they should be slaves.
Of course, this all started because a lot of liberals aren't like that at all, and won't be friends with conservatives, but surely it's possible?
In other words, JR, you consider someone introducing his husband to his friends as "deliberately starting a debate or argument."
"Greg, I'd like you to meet my husband, Dan." That's a provocation to you. Got it.
Yes that's why you bring your spouse along with you to a dinner or a social gathering 'to deliberately start a debate'.
Thanks for proving that its only easier to get along with conservatives is by pretending you effectively aren't gay.
I recognize women are not second class citizens, but I'm not so delusional as to think women are the same as men.
Somebody commented that marriage shouldnt be religious, and instead should be civil between consenting adults. The problem with that is marriage was at one time civil, and supported by the government in an effort to create good citizens.
Obviously not all married couples have children, and the importance of society promoting new generations of good citizens isnt as important as it once was, but is it not still important?
I hate long comments because I believe comment sections are better used for questions and answers, so I'll stop here.
I guess my question is, why to be equal does something have to be the same? Why do apples need to be oranges before they get equal shelf space at the grocery store?
An ironic question and tangential to this thread I would think so I won't answer it directly. But according to jr565 merely expressing it or its inverse is being provocative and looking for a 'debate'.
I wonder how many conservatives that avoid any 'debates' and merely say 'I'm a conservative' have any significant problem with liberals either? If the 'discussion' never goes beyond saying 'I'm gay', 'I'm conservative' or 'I'm liberal' and then dropped who does run into problems?
Again, mind reading. It does not follow that I believe the government should take the actions you say.
Agreed. Many homosexuals are perfectly happy.
Well, at least we have the "homophobia" hypothesis directly stated. (a) may be true for some people, but is not the general case. (b) is an offensive statement of the belief that some people have. You are missinc (c) and (d)...
Simple biology puts a lie to that assertion.
@studentactivism.net
You are implying that today's conservatives would use government to persecute gays. If that were true, they would also not be folks that gays would be at all comfortable around. Hence your assertion fails.
Only if one has the belief that government should be used to enforce all of one's personal morality. Part of modern conservatism is the recognition that government should not be over-used. Progressives have demonstrated a strong tendency to outlaw behavior with which they disapprove (c.f. U.S. Prohibition).
@PeterWimsey
Don't confuse opposition to "the homosexual agenda" with an intolerance of gay individuals.
Y
Bob, that was in reference primarily to this quote from you " talk about why you think even conservative gays should have an equal right to license the civil contract of marriage". If you are going to argue a point then you should expect people to argue with you if they disagree with the point. And if you're going to a conservative party and introducing yourself and your bf and then launching into a discussion about the merits of gay marriage that is being deliberately provocative. Just as if you went into a Move On. Org meeting wearing an "I voted for Bush" button and start talking about the merits of ehanced interrogation techniques. Right or wrong or whether you agree with it or not, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be some arguing involved
We're still waiting for support for your claim that Cramer has misstated the facts.
It appears that you've conceded his accounts of the other incidents.
You conflate gays with gay activists.
Regarding the military, the close living and young age of the participants makes it an environment of high sexual tension. The introduction of women demonstrated the problem this caused (but the substantial increase in the pool of available candidates made it worth it). Open gays would be a greater problem. That doesn't mean the military would fold up and die, but it would be an issue. The number of gays is not enough to significantly increase the recruiting pool.
The Boy Scouts have been under continuous attack by gay activists and their allies. As just one example, the gay mayor of Tempe, AZ required that United Way not contribute to the BSA because of their stance on admitting gays. The slightly religious nature of Boy Scouts has been used as a lever, by gay activists, to force them off public lands where they have been for years (San Diego).
Gay activists have been very hostile to churches, engaging in vandalism and other acts of anti-religious bigotry.
And that statement is so incorret as to be idiotic.
Nonsense. Again. I don't overlook the gayness of people I respect.
What I don't understand is why there are so many posters on the gay side of this discussion that have repeated the flawed argument that they get to define how other people feel. It sounds like a seven year old child telling her mother "you don't love me unless you buy me a pony." Just some sad and pathetic attempt at emotional blackmail.
The fact is, Jesus Bob can respect Gay Nancy without feeling any responsibility to do Nancy's laundry, even though Nancy would really like Bob to do her laundry. No matter how much Nancy wants to say otherwise, in the end it is up to Bob to define his feelings.
BS. I am openly gay and speak out about gay issues and am still treated with respect by many of my fellow Republicans.
I do get much more hate from the gay community in general for being a republican than I do from republicans for being gay. Now, the smart homos change their minds once they talk to me and realize that I'm openly gay and a supporter of gay rights. The stupid ones are too busy trying to prevent their tiny brains from exploding to say much of anything except "OMG, traitor!"
Bob, that's a great idea...you might be surprised by the reaction. We've had gay couples at "conservative" gatherings, including my brother in law and his partner and some parents of my kids' friends, and everyone seemed to get along fine. Do you think that maybe you are projecting a bit?
"In NJ, the beaches are considered public. The Methodist church group that bought that land (and the gazebo in question) did so with the provision that it would remain publicly accessible. Further, the tax exempt status of the land is conditional on it being publicly accessible.
Since this land was bought from the state and given tax-exempt status on the condition of it remaining publicly accessible this ruling is consistent and this couple (and any other couple regardless of creed or orientation) has the right to rent it for whatever purposes they see fit. Otherwise the current owners are in violation of both the original purchase agreement and their tax-exempt status.
As part of maintaining the public accessibility of the land, the church had allowed anyone who wanted to use the property to do so, regardless of whether or not the usage was religious in nature. The had even allowed non-religious weddings to be held there. As noted in the Box Turtle Bulletin, however, following the request by the lesbians to use the pavilion,…the Association had changed their policy and tightened the purpose of the Pavilion. They no longer allowed weddings in the space at all and limited those who were allowed use of the space based on religious affiliation."
Clayton always omits facts whenever he tries to prove the tryanny of gays.
I am sure, however, that many gay activists have been very hostile to (some) churches and there have been at least two instances of vandalism of anti-gay religious institutions by gay activists. "Bigotry" I will not concede.
Huh? What hostility and venom? Disagreement is not hostility or venom.
Many of today's conservatives would certainly use government to persecute gays. A Gallup poll last summer found that 40% of Americans think it should be illegal to be gay, and support for gay rights correlates strongly with one's overall political views.
The fact is that virtually all gay people support serving openly in the military, marriage rights (or at least civil union rights), laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that in general we are entitled by law to all the same rights striaghts have.
Therefore, all gays are gay activists.
"Open gays would be a greater problem. That doesn't mean the military would fold up and die, but it would be an issue"
It hasn't been an issue in any country that changed to allow gays to serve openly. Even Powell and Nunn realize that the current policy needs to be revisited, and many retired military personnel believe gays can serve openly. Additionally, the DADT is only sporadically enforced, and gays are currently serving openly in many units with no ill effect.
"The Boy Scouts have been under continuous attack by gay activists and their allies. As just one example, the gay mayor of Tempe, AZ required that United Way not contribute to the BSA because of their stance on admitting gays."
Nope. The Boy Scouts of America *officially* discriminate against gays in their policy. No gay boy can be a member of the BSA, and the BSA will not hire anyone who is gay or allow them to play any role.
That's perfectly fine. Many churches have a similar policy, and they have not been 'attacked.' However, when the BSA wants preferential treatment form the city (as in Philly), access to tax dollars, or access to donations, in jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, then yet, they will have a problem. but the problem isn't 'gay activists', the problem is that the Boy Scouts are asking to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the benefits of a public charity but exemption from public laws.
In BSAv. Dale, the BSA argued that it was a *private* organization, and as such, not subject to laws regarding discrimination of sexual orientation. SCOTUS agreed, and ruled in their favor.
Sorry, but if they want exemption from public laws, then they have to be exactly what SCOTUS ruled them to be, a private organization. But if you are a private organization, then you don't have access to the public treasury, or public donation of funds.
Setting aside the use of the name "nancy" to represent the gay person in this example, Guest is getting at the heart of the issue here.
If you believe that my most profound emotional connection with another human being is sinful, or that it is aberrant, you may well believe that you are being respectful to me. You may well manage to overcome your distaste enough to treat me with cordiality. But on some fundamental level you are disrespecting who I am.
The respect that the supporters of gay rights are talking about in this thread is the respect shared between equals, the respect shared between people whose judgments of each other are grounded in common values. It is that respect that is lacking here.
Possibly. But living here in Washington,I know of quite a few gays who work for conservative organizations, and they must remain closeted for fear of losing their jobs.
I have never heard of a gay person working for a liberal organization who has had such fear, at least not in over 15 years.
So, although there are no doubt *some* conservative organizations that have no problem with gays, and probably a few liberal ones that do, the overwhelming evidence is that conservative groups *in general* have more a problem with gays than liberals do.
No, I don't and I do note you put 'conservative' in quotes? Are we talking about your backyard gatherings, or a Republican caucus dinner? I ask because I know that conservatives get along fine at many "liberal" gatherings I've attended.
The slightly religious nature of Boy Scouts
That's like being a little bit pregnant isn't it? Private religious organizations like the Boy Scouts of America of today live by different rules from the public accommodation BSA of old and they don't qualify in the same way in many civic arenas as they used to. You don't see DeMoley, Baptist Youth Fellowship or other private religious youth groups getting special access and special treatment do you?
There was a discussion earlier about respect, and that to respect someone is to respect their deepest person and part of that is one's expression of love. Let's assume the premise then, that to respect someone is to respect their deepest person, doesn't it follow then that the activist who is telling a religious person that their faith is a fairytale, or their "prejudice" is based on a book by the "invisible man" in the similar vein a huge lack of respect? Is not our faith beliefs some of the deepest parts of us, and to many deeper even than our expressions of love to other humans.
If this is the case it seems that it is not respecting the religious person by saying that their faith is misguided or foolish or superstition, and should be ignored. HOWEVER, I do not think that is the proper measure of respecting a person.
The idea of respecting a person's humanity is key. That is a fundamental, you must not dehumanize the person you disagree with. Their disagreements are personal and deep within them. To tell the other, that they are homophobic or anti-religious should be done very slowly and very softly.
So, can one respect another and state that I understand that you believe that your relationship is the same as a heterosexual relationship, but I disagree, I think there are fundamental differences, based on biology, but also based upon my understanding of the stable ordering of society. I do not think that two people of the same sex should be able to marry.
Similarly, can another respect one and state that they understand that in your deepest person your respect the Bible as the Word of God, that it orders your life and you find deep meaning in it, but that they do not agree with what the Bible has to say and choose to reject it.
Absolutely, I think both are ways to respect the other person and yet still disagree.
There are ways to disagree with a person that does not respect their humanity, they are extremes and they are disrepectful.
To say that the faithful is an idiot or mocks by referencing the "flying spaghetti monster" is hardly respectful, nor is the person who claims that the person who is in a same-sex relationship is should be ignored.
Neither is respectful...but we should be able as people to respectfully disagree, but it seems that we are less able to do this than in the past. The political is more and more personal.
Fair enough. However, even a gay republican like David Catania felt he was forced to leave the party based on its anti-gay stances in the past eight years.
I think the problem most liberals have is with the Repulican party itself. The party platform is clearly against gay rights of any kind: It is against SSM and civil unions, and hate crimes bills, and ENDA, against gays in the military, and so on. The Repubs in the last eight years did everything to marginlize gays -- remember when Margaret Spellings at Education was against any information about gays on their website? As though gay students dont' exist! Furthermore, I can't think of a single openly gay Republican politician -- do you seriously think none exist?
So, we wonder, how can you support an organization that is so fully committed to treating you worse than a second class citizen? Heck, even David Catania, a young and effective repub here in DC was forced to leave the party.
I can understand that a person would supprot lower taxes, smaller gov''t and all that traditional conservatism. And sure, people high up in the party might even invite you to their cocktail parties and allow you to bring your boyfriend. But if you asked them to support you in your request to get married, they will tell you to get lost. Am I right? If not, help me out.
"I think there are fundamental differences, based on biology, but also based upon my understanding of the stable ordering of society. I do not think that two people of the same sex should be able to marry. "
Then your understanding is incorrect. In all places where SSM is legal, which include Massachusetts, CT, Spain, S. AFrica, The netherland, Beligium, Denmark, there is no evidence that SSM has caused any sort of an unstable society. If you have evidence to the contrary, please bring it out.
Furthermore, there are a great many gay couples who have children, through various means, including adoption. You are arguing that somehow the children are better off with unmarried parents than with married parents. I would argue that having unmarried parents is far more distabling than having married ones. Or don't you agree?
Furthermore, as gays getting married represent only a very tiny number of people compared with society at large, then society is far more unstable that we believe if those few couples can somehow knock the whole thing down. And that isn't because of us, it's because of you. So please don't put the blame upon us for society's ills.
The respectful atheist doesn't believe in using the power of the state to reduce religious people to second-class status.
That's it in a nutshell. Saying, "I acknowledge your right to marry, but my faith doesn't permit me to solemnize your union" is respectful. Saying "I oppose the extension of the legal rights that my relationship enjoys to yours" is not.
Opposing same-sex civil marriage on religious grounds is disrespectful to gay people in loving committed relationships in exactly the same way that opposing civil divorce on religious grounds is disrespecful to the unhappily married.
And of course, it's a disaster for everyone. It's a disaster for unsuspecting spouse who gives up his or her life for a lie, it's a disaster for the kids and for the related families. How would you feel if you had a daughter who married a guy who was really gay? If you want to see what happens, then look at Ted Haggard. Or Larry Craig. In other words, you have gay men in marriages having sex with on the side. Don't beleive me? check out any Craigslist, and you will find plenty of men who say they are married and are looking for a sexual tryst with a man. And those are just the ones who admit it! THIS is your definiation of a stable society? Unbelievable....
Wouldnt' you rather have gays realize that being gay is perfectly okay, normal, and approved of so that they can live their lives as gay people, instead of gay people pretending to be straight?
And the only way that will happen is if society honors and respects gay relationships as much as they do heterosexual ones. Now, as you and many others argue, heteresexual relationships are 'better'. And so long as you think that, then your gay son or nephew will be trying to have the 'better' relationship instead of the correct relationship. How that makes for a more stable society, I don't know.
Uh, could you provide some proof that this was going on 50 years ago, at least on the vast scale you claim?
Here is my problem with gay marriage. I am not sure that we really know how one's sexuality is formed. Certainly, I accept that for some, it is something they are born with. However, I do not think that is the case in all or perhaps even most instances. This is such a polarizing issue, one cannot trust the science as any scientist who suggests anything gays don't like is going to be vilified and have his life made miserable, possibly lose his job or at least his funding. This persecution is a case of gays saying "Do as I say, not as I do".
I object to gay marriage because when it is approved, then it must be incorporated into all public school curriculum as an equal alternative to heterosexual marriage.
As one who has raised children, there are many times in their young lives when friendship with one of the same sex can seem so much easier than dealing with learning to get along with the opposite sex and so much more appealing when the need for love and acceptance is so strong, as it is in teen years.
I object to gay marriage because I don't think it is good for society to confuse the entire issue of sexuality at too young an age. Also, as a parent, I did not want to have to discuss certain issues of sexuality at an age when children are simply too young to comprehend them. And, we are not doing too well in the last 50 years with our notion that a single mother is just as good as a mother and a father. Children of single mothers have vastly more problems, overall, than those who have a father and a mother. We have had this system for child rearing pretty much since our cave days. Are you sure that overthrowing natural order of things is not going to result in many unintended negative consequences? I am not.
I am all for civil unions. I really don't care what anyone does in their bedrooms as long as it is between consenting adults. I just believe that gay marriage is too high a price to pay for confusing our kids and having a gay lifestyle rammed down their throats as it would be in every classroom in this land. If I had a gay kid, fine. I would love and accept him/her. But, I would like to think that is was fate rather than choice that led the child to that decision. It is hard to be gay, even with gay marriage, it would still be hard.
So, go ahead and call me a homophobe and a hater because I differ with you and have serious concerns about children and the forcing of this in the public education venue from kindergarten on up. Obviously, good people can't agree to disagree.
Also, I have met very, very few Liberals who are accepting of the expression of an opposing political viewpoint. I am not misguided, but rather I am evil if I disagree along with all others who disagree with them. There is precious little tolerance that I have found among Liberals in accepting a diversity of ideas.
If I may just refer to Zhou Enlay's statement "too soon to tell." At the same time, I don't think SSM will do more damage than our society is already travelling on generally destabilizing marriage.
I don't think SSM is a cause to an unstable society, frankly I don't. I do think however, that moving away from what marriage really is, does disorder society. And I do think that no fault divorce as it has been done over the past 40 years has caused a great deal of social disruption and disordering of society. As well as the redefinition of "love."
That has caused a redefinition of marriage from a sacred union to a contract of convenience. And that is what is destructive. Additionally, I would agree that single parenthood, is more distabling to society than other forms of parenthood. And yet, I would still say that parenting by mom and dad is the best form of family. Let me say assuredly that the blame for society's current ills lay nowhere near the feet of people who are or choose same-sex relationships.
I view gay marriage (forbear with the analogy) as the congestion you get from a flu, it is not the cause of the flu, it is not that bad of a part of it at all, (that's probably the headache, runny nose, fever, etc.), it is nevertheless a symptom. But at the same time, I am told that I cannot take medication for the congestion because the majority is not willing to go to the doctor for the vaccine.
I agree it is not fair, but it is neither fair to me or to you. It is...what the majority appears to accept however, and that is our system of government.
I disagree with your distinction as to suggest that a lack of SSM places a person into a "second-class status."
A lot of baggage or emotion comes from the word marriage, and it is that simple. Marriage is a union, that I believe, created by God to show the way in which two distinct persons form one union, two different persons and types man and woman, come together to form the married whole.
Civil Unions, squares the circle for myself, and probably for many, it accomplishes the equality of legal rights, but does not define marriage as that fundamentally I think it is not.
Nope. Support and activism are not the same thing. Certainly a large percentage of gays seem to support the same goals as gay activists, but how many support the more extreme means?
Thank you for showing exactly the problem. By using the government to enforce a moral code that homosexuality cannot be discriminated against, gay activists are harming very valuable organizations such as the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts don't want to be exempt from the laws - they disagree with those laws
Gay rights laws have already forced Catholic Charities of Boston (serving since 1903) to shut down. - because otherwise they would be forced to provide adoption services to gay couples, which is against their religion.
If a religious excemption existed in those laws, these organizations could continue to provide their valuable services - even while controversially denying them to a small minority.
@Bob Van Burkleo
The Boy Scouts do not have a religious creed or text - just one non-denominational statement: "To do my duty to God and my country." That is about as marginally religious as you can get. It certainly says nothing about what that duty is.
@Gov98
Well said and correct.
By asking:
I didn't make any claims about scale. Repression doesn't need to be ubiquitous to make people live in fear, it just needs to be severe and unpredictable.
As for my specific claims, a lot of what I had in mind was the police harassment of gay bars that led to the Stonewall riots in 1969. Before Stonewall, gay bars were essentially the only public gathering places open to openly gay people and their friends, and those bars were regularly raided by the police. Anyone inside, gay or not, was likely to be taken to jail in the course of one of those raids, and bars were often shut down as a result.
If you'd like specific documentation of any of my statements, just let me know which ones.
Whether anyone chooses to believe or not, I intended Nancy to be a woman, not to make a derogatory remark re. gay men.
On the question of whether civil unions are a route to such equality, the New Jersey example strongly suggests that they are not. In the two years since civil unions were initiated there, thousands of incidents of public and private entities refusing to recognize such unions as the legal equivalent of marriage have been documented. The institution of marriage holds a unique position in our civic life, and unless same-sex marriages are called marriages, they will never be equal.
As you yourself suggest, if civil unions do not "accomplish the equality of legal rights," same-sex couples are reduced to second-stats status. The evidence I have seen strongly suggests that they do not.
Because of the pernicious effects of forcing recognition of full equivalence between gays and straights (see my post above), civil unions seem the right way to address the some of the important needs of gay couples.
Because the civil unions would NOT be equivalent to civil marriage, the obstacles such as you point out, could be dealt with by individual statutes defining the scope of rights of those unions.
That would allow reasonable exceptions (such as a religious objection of a charity to provide services to gay couples but not straight couples) to be legislated. Furthermore, by doing this on a state-by-state basis, it would allow different forms to be developed, leading to an ability to better distinguish the most appropriate, and allowing them to be matched to local culture.
And this is exactly what gays are asking for -- to get marriage back to a sacred union between two people. surely, you have no problem with that?
"If I may just refer to Zhou Enlay's statement "too soon to tell."
Possibly. But so far, there is no evidence, as you no doubt will concede because you have brought up none. But at what point will SSM be evidently harmful to society? 5 years from now? 10? 50? And when you have to go THAT long to prove it's harm, then it will likely be more confluence of various issues so many and so large that you will have a very difficult time proving that SSM had anything to do with it. And to deny the right of marriage to people on such speculative arguments is just wrong.
"I view gay marriage (forbear with the analogy) as the congestion you get from a flu, it is not the cause of the flu, it is not that bad of a part of it at all, (that's probably the headache, runny nose, fever, etc.), it is nevertheless a symptom."
Well, that's a strange analogy. So SSM is simply the sympton of what? You fail to say. And in any case, your analogy is clearly stating that SSM is somehow bad, but you can't quite articulate why.
I understand people have gut feelings about issues. But people had gut feelings that interracial marriage was bad for society 40 years ago. At the time of the Loving decision, about 80% of people were against interracial marriage. In the meantime, all society has moved on -- in your view, then, is interracial marriage a flu-like symptom of something worse? Has it stablized or destablized society?
You see, when forced to think about the issue, you have already backed off your statement that SSM destablizes society. Before, you said it did, now you say it doesn't. I'm sure that if you live in MA for a while, you will come to realize what the majority of people there have concluded, which is that SSMis not a problem.
Moore: ". Support and activism are not the same thing. Certainly a large percentage of gays seem to support the same goals as gay activists, but how many support the more extreme means"
What are those 'extreme means? " You mean like voting, lobbying our officials, donating money to non-profits? Because that's about as extreme as any activists do.
Wrong again. The CC were not forced to shut down at all. If you actually read the facts instead of reading the propaganda printed by anti-gay organziations, you would learn a few things.
First, CC of Boston had no problem placing adoptions with gay parents for many years. Then when SSM was approved, they suddenly decided that gay couples are good enough, so they stopped. Meanwhile, CC was a recipient of state funds for their adoptions. Turns out that MA also has a law the prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. So, the state gave CC a choice: either comply with the law, or don't, but then you can't get any state funds.
CC could have done either, and still placed adoptions. But instead, they choose to shut down voluntarily. The fact is that the shutting down was never one of the options that the state gave CC. So, no, you can't blame gays for that one.
"By using the government to enforce a moral code that homosexuality cannot be discriminated against, gay activists are harming very valuable organizations such as the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts don't want to be exempt from the laws - they disagree with those laws "
Yup. And many aspects of our society have concluded that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong, just like discrimination based on race, or religion is wrong. That no doubt hurts many organizations and people who really DO want to discriminate against blacks, or jews, or gays. Disagree with those laws? Then it's your right to vote against them.
Look, John. This whole argument started because you said that you 'respect' gays, but that you don't think we should have very many rights. All your posts have taken the side of the anti-gay rhetoric. Furthermore, you keep arguing for the right of organzations and people to discriminate against gays. Which is fine, but then it makes it very difficult for us to square with your statement that you 'respect' gay people. Generally speaking, it's hard to respect people that you think should be discriminated against.
But that's the problem: There ARE no pernicious effects! They are only made up in the minds of the anti-gay crowds. EVEN if you still accept the falsity that MA somehow forced CC to stop adoptions, that had nothing to do with SSM, and everything to do with anti-discrimination laws.
Even in places were SSM is allowed, no church has been forced to recognize or conduct a SSM. Furrthermore, every single anti-discrimination law specifically exempts small businesses and religious institutions.
"That would allow reasonable exceptions (such as a religious objection of a charity to provide services to gay couples but not straight couples) to be legislated. "
You still don't get it. Any religious institution CAN object to providing services to gay couples if they choose. What they cannot do is then ask for public funds to do so. Is that not reasonable? Most taxpayers do not like their funds going to organizations that discriminate.
It's just like the arguments of private clubs several decades ago. They were private organizations, andy many discriminate based on race, religion, or sex. so the gov't simply said that you cannot claim a tax deduction for membership in clubs that discriminates. So the clubs had a choice — either end the discriminatory policies, or continue them, but then members dont' get a tax deduction. Although most went with the former, many still went with the later. To me, that's perfectly reasonable. Why you don't believe so, I don't know, but I suspect it's because you want any organization to be able to discriminate against gays and still have all the benefits.
I would suggest you don't, or else Michael B will arrive and hurl insults at you for doing just that. Some people get very defensive when you talk about how straights have acted towards gays in the past.
For specific documentation,read The Gay Metropolis. It's a large book that specifically goes decade by decade the condition of gay society in a larger straight society. It has plenty of examples of police raids, their failure to investigate crimes committed against gay men, the legal system, etc.
So you are asserting that they shut down for some reason OTHER than gay adoption? That's pretty hard to support. Please explain why they did shut down.
Once again, equating discrimination against gays in certain circumstances with racial/ethnic discrimination. I do not accept that equivalence. And yes, it's my right to vote against them (well, not in Boston), and it's my right to point out the harm those laws do.
It is also up to anyone to balance the harm vs the benefit and come to their own conclusions.
Good summary. But, I have no problem respecting people I think should be discriminated against. It is false that one must approve of every, or some arbitrary (even important) part of a person's personality or behavior in order to respect them.
You seem to equate discrimination with condemnation, and respect with unconditional approval.
Query: Two atheists get married by a justice of the peace. God is never mentioned, and the married couple never recognizes his existence.
Is their marriage still a union created by God? The beliefs and attitudes of the married couple have nothing to do with God and yet they are still considered married by law and in society. It's difficult to imagine that God would bless a union that denies his existence, yet you would still consider that a valid marriage, correct?
The bible has quite a few things to say about marriage, about who can marry and who can't. Jews are definatly not allowed to marry non-jews -- so are you arguing that interfaith marriages are invalid by law and by God? Seems to me we are violating God's will on that one, but most people don't have a problem with it.
But since we are presuming to know God's will, how exactly do you know what God's will is? I know quite a few gay couples who are married, and they live perfectly happy lives. Why isn't God punishing them?
And if religion is the basis of marriage, then which religion? Down at Bob Jones U., interracial marriage is forbidden, and they specifically cite the bible and God's word. They believe they are correct, and everyone is wrong. Who is to decide?
I think it is best to allow civil unions to anyone, and leave marriage to the churches. Your church doesn't believe in SSM? Great! Then don't have 'em! But for those people who do believe, they should not have THEIR faith trampled upon, should they? Why should your religion forbid others to practice their religion?
And yet it is enough to discriminate in who can participate - congratulations on the pregnancy!
And the Boy Scouts themselves claimed they were a religious organization in the filings to the SCOTUS in their case though it wasn't decided on that standard.
Again, they are being treated the same as every other private religious youth group, what they are whining about is losing their special privileges they got back when they behaved more like a public accommodation. They can't have it both ways and shouldn't even want to if they are going to be consistent with the Scout creed. (as several scout leaders have stated). They can discriminate, they just can't be a state-sanctioned organization if they do. Again, you don't see other religious youth groups clamoring for special rights do you?
Which is better: A gay couple that has three kids and cannot be married, or a gay couple that has three kids and is married. Which is better for the children and society?
Convicted heterosexual pedophiles?
Their behavior hasn't changed in that regard, as far as I know.
The former. How did they get the kids?
Well I was an outspoken atheist when I was in scouts in the 60s and even did my religious merit badge paper on how if there was an acceptable religion it would be the Deism of our founding fathers. The Baptist minister that signed off on it said 'well you've obviously thought about it'. Overt religious discrimination as policy is a new aspect of the BSA some say after key leadership positions were taken by Mormons and evangelicals.
Regardless the reason, they now are an 'out and proud' private religious youth group that discriminates and they reap the positive and negatives of that identity, negatives which are the exact same ones as every other such group has. Again, why do they deserve special rights and treatment?
Randy R wrote:
Catania doesn't seem to me to be the best example. He's a moderate Republican, but one elected (mostly by a quirk in DC election law that reserves seats for non-Democrats) in one of the most liberal cities in the country. His party was always more of a handicap in DC politics than his sexual orientation and although he said he broke with the party over gay marriage, I can't be the only cynic who thought at the time that dropping the (R) after his name was a convenient political move for him.
It comes back to the question in the original post. Are liberals more intolerant of Republicans than Republicans are of gays?
I wonder if such erroneous term substitution is the source of many of the responses here.
Republican ≠conservative.
I am sick and tired of conservatives continually trying to impose unworkable values on anyone else and boo-hooing about being beleaguered and discriminated against because they don't succeed 100% of the time.
No less respectful than people saying others not of their faith are sinners, a purely religious term that applies only to those that share their faith.
They call me a 'sinner' I get to call them a 'superstitious moron' - doctrine of mutual respect.
No, the purely religious term applies to everyone, but may only be accepted by one who shares the faith. It is not terribly disrespectful, depending on context, since Christianity holds everyone to be sinners, including devout believers.
What religion exactly are they? After all, you can be Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Muslim (among others) and join BSA.
Not sure about Ireland, but in Italy, the passage of divorce laws by a leftist government in the early 70s was followed by a referendum three years later, in 1974. The referendum to REPEAL the law and BAN divorce failed 60/40 with 88% turnout. Support for divorce had been a majority position for quite a while.
It was the Vatican and the right-wing parites who insisted on the "moral" prohibition.
plus ça change...
"Religious Merit Badge?" Various religous groups have had specialized awards for Scouts that are members of their religion, but as an Eagle Scout I have never heard of a Religious Merit Badge.
Maybe it was something else, and maybe you did write such a paper, but your anecdote sounds fishy to me.
Republican is a reasonable proxy for conservative, especially when contrasted with the other pairing - liberal and Democrat. It's in the nature of parties to be coalitions of the more-or-less-in-agreement.
GOP turnout in large areas of the country...
It's perfectly legal to run a private adoption agency in Massachusetts; you just can't get state funds for doing so.
I did run across a reference to an agency run by the LDS in Massachusetts. Not only will they not adopt to gay people, they won't adopt to non-Mormons.
Can they really discriminate like that? Sure they can.
Do I have a problem with that? Not at all. They're a private religious agency.
Aren't you first waiting for Clayton to clarify his meandering assertion and back it up with evidence?
Don't leap to conclusions.
Thanks, first of all, for a calm and polite post.
Still, I think you miss something fundamental.
The issue isn't whether we speak to each other nicely about our differences and refrain from harsh words and insults. The issue is our equality in the law. The law reflects your disagreements with my life choices. At the same time, it protects your life choices from my opinions.
That's not fair. It's unjust. How can we have mutual respect when actual treatment is so unbalanced?
I can think of a few, though I can't think of one who wasn't involuntarily outed. There must be a couple by now, I would think.
Harder, of course, to find an openly gay, pro-gay-rights Republican politician.
The nuclear family as social structure is about 50 years old.
But, more to the point, do you think there were no gay cavemen?
I guess they were run out of town so fast they neglected to turn off their website:
www.ccab.org
And how is this different from the "If we allow SSM, then we'll have no ground on which to prohibit polygamy" argument?
I find it exceedingly curious that the ideology that, one the one hand, gives us "It's biology all the way down" on the question of the genesis of life in general, no other narratives need apply, supplementary or otherwise, on the other hand, on the the question of the genesis of particular lives, denies that there is any biological component whatsoever, indeed pretends that they've never even considered the possibility (else the out-of-hand dismissal of SSM critics makes no sense) that there might be some compelling societal interest in taking advantage of the selfishness of each gene in looking after its progeny via the entirely unnatural, but long useful, institution of heterosexual, monogamous marriage (until recently, the qualifiers being unnecessary).
Expanding that definition might be the least bad alternative, but the pretense that nothing is lost thereby is, literally, incredible, and does little to make the preferred policy of its advocates a reality. Wallowing in victimhood no longer matches the facts.
Please. The goal posts have been continually moved to prevent that very actuality.
A clarification. CCAB, like some other CC organizations, stopped providing adoption services under clear direction from the Vatican overriding the positions of their CEOs and near unanimous opposition from their boards of directors.
The Church created this "crisis" on purpose.
The former. How did they get the kids?"
Please explain how it is better for the kids and society to have unmarried parents.
And please make sure that your explanation shows the respect for gays that you claim to have.
Maybe it was your gratuitous addition of capitals at the beginning of the words that confused you? I described the merit badge as a 'religious merit badge', which your Google search shows many old scouts just refer to as the religion merit badge. They may have pc'ed up the name in recent decades but it existed.
What religion exactly are they?
The deistic theist kind. The kind that doesn't enroll people who don't believe in a magic sky parent.
A large part of Republican are motivated by fundamentalist religious beliefs, not conservatism. Many Republicans are very non-conservative when it comes to promoting their religious agendas.
Which goal posts? And who moved them?
I said it was harder. You seem to think it impossible.
On a thread about how welcoming the GOP is to gay people.
Interesting.
I hardly know how to respond to that one. You learned it in college, right?
What would you call Jesus, Mary and Joseph?
Probably, but I don't think they were married to each other. Nor do I think they contributed much if anything to the evolution of and propagation of the species.
They certainly did not have artificial insemination.
The problem with this notion is that "civil rights" is in no way dependent on making an equivalence with race. Nothing is equivalent to race. Race is race. If that's what civil rights were and along come the gays arguing "we are the new blacks" (the way the anti-gay right portrays things), I'd be against gay rights.
In reality the protected categories at the federal level are race, color, ethnic origin, gender, religion, pregnancy, age and disability. Given what's protected, there is no logical or rational basis for excluding sexual orientation from the civil rights list. Religion is a Hell of a lot more chosen and changeable than sexual orientation. Older folks over 40 are not economically disadvantaged, but the very opposite. Many disabilities are either mutable (they can be cured) or the result of choice (i.e., Christopher Reeve).
If there is no such thing as anti-gay bigotry than there is no such thing as anti-Christian bigotry.
"Which goal posts? And who moved them?"
People who say things like the statement of yours I quoted, often for reasons having more to due with cultural/party markers than rights per se.
Get over yourself. Most Republicans and/or conservatives are quite solicitous of the rights of their fellow citizens, whatever their sexual orientation. To say that it is difficult to find a Republican who is openly pro-gay-rights says more about your understanding of rights than the difficulty of being a gay conservative.
Apparently.
Irrelevant to the question. But something tells me that's not the answer you're after, so how about 1) the abiological progeny of 2) his biological mother 3) and his non-biological father figure (at least that's what the theology says).
So, if 2) and 3) were a distinct entity unto themselves, what put them on the road to Bethlehem resulting in the birth of 1) in an animal pen? Surely as an autonomous social unit they could have just stayed home for the Event, no?
"What would you call Jesus, Mary and Joseph?"
Considering that Joe would fail a paternity test, I'm not sure that this is the best example for your argument.
Then again, if the nuclear family is only 50 years old, that means it started in 1959, making the bulk of the Baby Boomers conceived by something else. The Atomic Family?
What? Sorry, I went to college when we had to write coherently. I do not speak the new double-speak, non-sequiter, nuanced English. Please translate for me and write slowly.
By the way, they didn't stay home because they had to go to Bethlehem for the government census. Ergo, baby born in manger.
Desiderius,
Not to mention the pioneer families, immigrant families, the Pilgrams, the Puritans and most of Europe pre coming to the New World. One wonders how all those Jewish families got started in the Old Testament. Not to mention poor Oedipus.
Apart from gays, could you give us an example of someone you respect who you also think it's fair to discriminate against?
Good answer!
What difference does that make?
According to their own literature it's called "non-sectarian" or "interfaith."
The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership.
If there were any justice in this world, a statement like this would result in a sort of instantaneous mini-rapture of the speaker as his existence was obliterated due to his utter disrespect for the importance of his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-...great-uncle who, upon the death of his nephews' and nieces' parents, spent the remainder of his life feeding and caring for them with his loyal life-partner, Ogg, eschewing the temptations of Stone-Age circuit parties and all-male vacation cruises.
But, as we all know, the Animist religions have been largely displaced by the much more realistic idea of monotheism, so things like that hardly ever happen.
You're not reading very carefully. Randy said "Furthermore, I can't think of a single openly gay Republican politician". I said I could think of a few. I said it was harder to find one who was also openly pro-gay-rights. You seem to say it's impossible.
I'll "get over myself" once you try to follow the thread more closely.
As I get older, I keep forgetting that I have to raise the number 50 to keep up with the advancing calendar. Sometime in the last century, the predominant social structure went from extended family to nuclear family. Is that vague enough to be something we can agree on?
Previously, families often consisted of three generations sharing a dwelling. If we went back to 1809 and told people that grandma (or great-grandma) lived on her own, or worse that she was in a communal living situation tended by strangers, they'd be dumbfounded.
In a lot of those stories: immigrants, Pilgrims, Jews of the Old Testament period, there's grandma in the shadows by the fire. When grandma's living with you, you're not in a nuclear family situation.
You poor man. It must have been hell.
My point is that Joseph had to return to the home of his family. The government and culture of the time did not see him and his wife as a separate family.
My point is that Joseph had to return to the home of his family. The government and culture of the time did not see him and his wife as a separate family.
Baloney. The Rebpulican congress passed DOMA,and prevented ANY gay rights legislation to even come to a vote any time they were in power. Heck, they even tried for a constitutional amendment to strip us of any chance of getting married in any state. All legislation they have ever proposed was to rescind the rights of gays. Remember Amendment 2 to the CO state constitution? It wasn't Democrats that voted for that one, so who do you think did?
But please -- go ahead and name one right that the Repubicans and/or conservatives have given to gays.
Au contraire. Both are handouts that need to be justified like any other social policy, and like any other social policy, who should be eligible for them is a critical question.
Why any gay would want to identify with self-identified conservatives--who, as this thread demonstrates, think they are the equivalent of drunkards, adulterers, polygamists, and assorted sociopaths--and who regard gay rights as "government handouts"--is puzzling. I think it must be deeply psychological, perhaps a reluctance to turn their back on the politics they grew up with--most (not all) all gays come from staunchly anti-gay households, of course--and a belief that self-loathing is perhaps the best they can expect in this life. It is profoundly sad.
That is precisely the sort of patronizing attitude that inspired the original post.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that we don't know what causes heterosexuality either. We know it's somehow innate but we don't know anything about the mechanism that causes it.
This being the eve of the Academy Awards in which politically correct Hollywood nominated Milk for several awards, I would point out that none other than the man who is much hated by gay rights groups, Ronald Reagan, came out publicly against the Briggs Initiative, which helped to defeat it--and he did so despite concerns that it might alienate conservatives whom he was courting in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
Bob, I could make a similar argument that says liberals aren't liberal if they support ideas that I think are illiberal (like, say, speech codes). But railing against commonly understood terms and contradicting how people identify themselves would be pointlessly argumentative, something that confuses rather than clarifies.
Personally, I think it is more productive to debate ideas than it is to try to appropriate language.
Women in ground combat roles.
Blind folks (we don't usually let them drive).
Many folks who are smart, creative, etc who are not qualified for the work I might be hiring for.
Bufo Americanus.
Liberals seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against men and whites with affirmative action, the rich with progressive taxation, those willing to work for less than the minimum wage, etc.
Rights, properly conceived within the Liberal tradition, are recognized, not given.
Your average conservative recognizes more of your rights as a human being than the vast majority of people living elsewhere or elsewhen on this earth. If this is insufficient for your purposes, or you're upset that they do so in spite of how you construct your identity instead of in enthusiasm therefor, I'd suggest you might have other issues with conservatives that have more to do with exercising cultural dominance than defending the defenseless.
I will grant that adoption is a different issue than conception, and support adoption by stable guardians, whatever their sexual predilections. Dale Carpenter did convince me that same-sex "marriage" is a least bad alternative, but the favorite arguments advanced by its advocates makes it difficult to support him with much enthusiasm.
And I said it was because the goalposts have been continually moved to prevent it. That doesn't make it impossible - nearly all Republicans I know are very supportive of gay rights, including second-amendment rights that supposed progressives manage to forget, or economic rights that I consider to underlie and secure all the others, which, again, so-called progressives show little interest in. So, by and large, Republicans could be considered more pro-gay rights than Democrats, unless getting married is all that matters.
Which, to put it mildly, was not exactly at the top of the gay-rights agenda for much of its history.
And, also, anyone who went to law school knows exactly of what Gay Patriot speaks and that he is 100% correct.
Ascribing bigotry to one who objects to the Boy Scouts' bigotry reveals quite a blind spot.
No, they assert that someone who doesn't belief in God doesn't conform to their particular standards.
That's not bigotry - it's choice.
Sure, he has an easier time among [presumably straight] conservatives than he does among [presumably liberal] gays. He's in a crowd of people who share the same beliefs about gay people (and other things too).
I'm sure I would find it the other way around, since like many gay people, I'm a liberal.
Counterclaim: It's just as easy to be gay among liberals as it is to be liberal among gays.
Now we've established that people of similar beliefs get on well together and that many of the people who have posted in the 234 comments before this one don't much care for gay people.
Is that news?
"Now we've established that people of similar beliefs get on well together and that many of the people who have posted in the 234 comments before this one don't much care for gay people.
Is that news?"
It would be news if it were true. Not to mention news to my three very close gay relatives (one by "marriage") and several other close gay friends, for whom I care a great deal. Many of the commenters in this thread disagree in various ways with how homosexually is understood (as an identity trumping all others, for instance) and exploited as an ideological club by a dominant culture.
It does not therefore follow that we do not care for people who so construct their identity, rather than simply disagreeing with it. If one chooses to insist otherwise, perhaps you'll excuse me for wondering whether your blind insistence has more to do with your own ideology (or more likely ginning up a good hate against your partisan opponents) than with a disinterested pursuit of truth.
I hear from the opponents of same-sex marriage that "traditional" [i.e., heterosexual] marriage is the "cornerstone of civilization"? You tell me that it is a mere "government handout." I suppose you think it started with the New Deal, that font of all "government handouts." Your position is preposterous.
Perseus:
Why do some people think that argumentum ad hominem is an acceptable alternative to a substantive argument? If you have something substantive to say, say it.
So if I believe that black peolpe are interior to whites, that's "choice." If I believe that Jews are money-grubbing materialists, that's "choice." If I believe that the Holocaust never happened, and it's all a lie perpetrated by those same money-grubbing materialists, that's "choice." If I believe there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, that's "choice." If I believe that a wife who is unfaithful to her Muslim husband should be beheaded because she has dishonored him, that's "choice." What in the world (if anything) would you classify as "bigotry" and not mere "choice"?
The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God
That is such a goofy assertion that I used "reportedly" when associating it with the Boy Scouts because I had not performed the relevant research. If the Boy Scouts do not make such as assertion, I believe they are due an apology for being smeared. If the Boy Scouts do make that assertion, they are bigots. Unusually lame bigots, because their objectionable position is aimed at children. Attemping to rehabilitate such bigotry by labeling it a "choice" is lame, too.
Conservatives have fought gays at every step of the way, from decriminalization to antidiscrimination laws to antidiscrimination norms to marriage equality. Even here, on a "libertarian" blog, is the reaction to Lawrence "as long as SCOTUS is misinterpreting the Constitution, they may as well do it on the side of giving people too many liberties?" No, what we see from the commenters is chock and horror at this outrage.
It's a general characteristic of conservatives to oppose any and all extensions of civil liberties. Conservatives opposed universal male suffrage (abolishing property requirements), abolition of slavery, woman suffrage, child labor laws, the end of Jim Crow laws, the end of anti-miscegenation laws, and the anti-discrimination legislation. Heck, it was conservatives who opposed American independence from England. There have been notable exceptions along the way, but this is the general rule.
What does it mean to "disagree with an identity"?
Does it mean that you are questioning the existence of homosexuality? "Yes, I know you claim to be in love with another man, but deep down, you're heterosexual, because everyone is?" Is this what you're suggesting?
I know there are people who state their opposition to gay rights is based on a belief that homosexuality is illusory, and a mere inappropriate turning away from a proper, heterosexual outlook.
To those who say that inside every gay man or lesbian there's a heterosexual struggling to express him or herself, I have these words:
You're wrong.
I am well aware that there are people who believe there really are no gay people, just misguided straight people, therefore there is no need for gay rights. Gay rights would just encourage people to make mistakes.
They're wrong.
The existence of these people remind me that they will never compromise. The Blankenhorn/Rauch [so-called] compromise is dead in the water. It's probably harder to get than marriage rights.
I think same-sex marriage will be recognized throughout the country before 2025, unless we make some stupid mistake and settle for a separate-but-unequal status.
However, the point was valid for either thread.
"One characteristic that all bigots have in common is the self-satisfied belief that they are not bigots."
Is this a proof by demonstration?
Of course there are gay people, as there are people who prefer chocolate ice cream and others who prefer vanilla. As a liberal, I tend to resist ways of thinking that diminish the role of volition in living, and thus understanding - the unexamined life famously being not worth living - one's life.
The iron doctrine that homosexual practice contains no volitional element seems to me thus illiberal. It does not therefore follow, however, that it should be illegal, or even discouraged. It does seem reasonable, however, to consider the extent to which children, benefiting from being raised by both of the human beings who combined to create said child (this benefit itself, of course, is debatable) do not have some claim to have that arrangement recognized and encouraged by the society, if not the state, and whether those who choose not to enter such an arrangement, but rather to create a different arrangement more consonant with their own preferences than, necessarily, the interests of the child (given above debatable point), should be able to claim that the two arrangements are identical, and, further, to assert that those questioning their claim do so from base motives.
Most of the events you speak of happened well before the bulk of today's "conservatives" were even born. As a liberal, I had hopes that we might be more, you know, progressive. Forward-looking. That kind of thing.
That said, they were fighting for the rights I mentioned above. We're such a liberal country that everyone is fighting for some right or the other.
To answer your specific question, I disagree with the current emphasis placed upon sexuality in the construction of identity - straight, gay and otherwise. Nothing against sex, just that other things of more lasting importance tend to get overlooked. BTW, my gay (and straight) friends disagree with how I over-analyze everything, so such disagreement is far from the end of the world.
Uh... that's not quite the GOP giving gay people a right, is it? Nevertheless, the support was appreciated.
As for Milk, have you seen it? Personally, I can see why it's in the category, but can't imagine why it would win. A Best Actor to Sean Penn, on the other hand, I could see, though he wouldn't be my first choice.
It would be a shame if Milk won as some sort of compensation for Brokeback Mountain's loss to Crash.
The point is that gay couples fit quite well into the structure of multi-generational extended familes and, in all likelihood, did so quite well before some religions developed an aversion to us.
Desiderius:
If the shoe fits, by all means wear it, Desiderius.
You have some novel ideas, though they are poorly thought out. Is it your position that conservatives first emerged into the world with people who are now living? As I said, novel. I also take it by your use of scare quotes that you don't actually think there are any conservatives, just "conservatives." As I said, poorly thought out.
I should apologize for saying your ideas are novel and poorly thought out. I see from the above that they are novel and absurd.
By the way, have you seen a particular movement to achieve equal rights for people who prefer different icea cream flavors? Have any constitutional amendments been proposed that address ineequality in this area? Have you heard of any ballot propositions in which millions of voters have expressed their opinions on this burning social question, touching as it does at the legal, social, and moral fibre of the nation? Have you heard of any foreign nations--perhaps Canada, Spain, or the Netherlands, that have addressed this problem with legislation that grrants broad equality to all the different icea cream prefererences in the world? If you have, perhaps you would share them with those of us who haven't.
As I said, novel and absurd.
Talk about ad hominem argumentation. While marriage is indeed older than the New Deal, anyone the least bit familiar with the institution in the West knows that government hasn't always been involved with the institution. In ancient Rome for example, marriage was a purely private act which did not require the sanction of any public authority. Today, by contrast, civil marriage carries with it a large basket of legal goodies and public recognition of such relationships which the supporters of SSM feel they are entitled to.
Uh... that's not quite the GOP giving gay people a right, is it?
I suppose that depends on whether one considers not taking away a right as being in some sense equivalent to giving one.
Of course, the particular basket of rights and obligations that goes with marriage today is very different from what it was thousands of years ago, but the same is true for rights in land. And the institution of "civil marriage" that comes into existence by grant of a government license dates from the 19th century, but government involvement with marriage goes back much farther than that.
So what?
You're free to ignore the Boy Scouts for an reason, good or bad, justified or not.
Why don't they get the same consideration? Why do they have any obligation to pay attention to what you'd like them to "maintain"?
The repeal of sodomy laws happened after that—24 states repealed them in the '70's (Illinois was the only state to repeal before the '70's, in 1962). Other states repealed (or had them struck down by courts) through the '80's and '90's, with the anti-sodomy laws of 14 states stuck down in 2003. In fact, the younger leaders of today's conservative movement cut their political teeth fighting decriminalization and the slow development of antidiscrimination laws and norms in the '80's and '90's.
I'm not sure there is any point to continuing with thise, but so much for the path of wise men.
What 'Nancy' [nice] wants is not for Bob to do her laundry, but for Bob to stop arguing against her right to marry her partner (Joanne or Joe, depending on how we are to read 'Gay Nancy's' sex).
And what she deserves by way of respect as a human is rather minimal, in my view: that her orientation not be described as an 'affliction' or likened to alchoholism, pederasty, bestiality, etc. More subtly, too subtly for some here, she does not want to hear that she is respected as 'Nancy' but not as 'Gay Nancy,' or that she is worthy of respect only if she does not 'flaunt' her gayness - which seems to require pretty much keeping it to herself.
And, yes, to disagree does not entail hositility or disrespect. But, some very hostile and disrespectful comments have appeared in this thread. It is rude to liken someone's faith to belief in a flying spaghetti monster, but it is also rude to tell someone you pity them for not sharing your faith. It may be rude to call someone a bigot; it is definitely rude to tell someone that his/her sexual orientation makes him/her unfit to raise children or undeserving of equal treatment under the law.
Finally, as to the whole 'I do respect you/No you do not' business: I think respect is a relational concept. If you keep telling someone you respect them, and they keep aserting that they feel disrespected by you - well, something has gone awry in the relation. (And, to claim the person who feels disrespected is just engaging in childish emotional blackmail is dismissive, rude, and hostile.)
"If the shoe fits, by all means wear it, Desiderius."
I'll get right on trying the fit as soon as you remove your other foot* from it. Then again, I suspect that you're more likely to be the one Prince Charming is looking for than I.
* - the one not in your mouth.
"The point is that gay couples fit quite well into the structure of multi-generational extended familes and, in all likelihood, did so quite well before some religions developed an aversion to us."
Indeed they do, and have, and will continue to do so, as uncles, aunts, cousins, and adoptive parents. It does not therefore follow, however, that the direct biological tie between parents and their offspring is thereby lessened in importance, especially when such a tie spans multiple generations. Perhaps as a child of divorce, I overrate that importance, but given the trends of the last couple generations, I'd be surprised if I were alone in doing so.
I assumed from the tone of the original poster that he was speaking of younger conservatives who, by the Stonewall Era standards, would be considered flaming liberals in the area of Gay Rights. Thus it is moving goalposts to consider them somehow unreconstructed bigots. Older conservatives have made their various peaces, or in some cases haven't, but by and large your characterizations don't fit well with my experiences.
You (we?) won, especially among the elites who are wearing a little thin on the rest of the country right now and who haven't shrunk from using the supposed homophobia of the conservative parts of the non-elite as an ideological club.
That some conservatives have likewise used Average Joe concern with elite mores (including celebration of homosexuality) as an ideological semi-automatic on their end of the culture war does not argue that such use is justified in either direction, or even ultimately in the interest of securing the rights of all citizens, homosexual and otherwise, given the alternatives on offer, such as MLK's Civil Rights movement.
The quotes on "conservative" were to stress that the denotations of that word you consistently claim are at odds with my own experience and usage of the word.
Are you new to VC? If so, you might be interested to know that civility is considered a value here.
1. Gays need to understand part of acceptance is people being able to kick your tires a little bit. If you act like you're above criticism (which almost all of you do), you're just as guilty of the "othering" of the LGBTQ community as those who are principally against gays because of their sexual orientation.
2. It's always been true that the hippy-dippy, do-your-own-thing crowd is more uptight, has more rules for what you can and can't say and do, and is more easily offended than conservatives.
The truth is, many people dislike gays because of their personality, their attitudes, and the way they look at issues, especially those that concern themselves. The fact that their sexuality makes them atypical is really just an added extra.
People like Randy R. and jab just prove what I've often said about gays: for many of them, their sexual orientation is actually the least offensive part about them.
The basket of legal entitlements associated with marriage has become quite bloated: hence my use of the word "handout."
"you might be interested to know that civility is considered a value here."
The bully, bloodied, learns the value of civility. Ever was it so. Perhaps some of the conservatives you so loathe have learned a similar lesson?
And no, I'm not new here, although I, like you, have made the decision to adopt a pseudonym.
"People like Randy R. and jab just prove what I've often said about gays: for many of them, their sexual orientation is actually the least offensive part about them."
Then you've been often wrong, although I hesitate to challenge such a demonstrated expert in the field of giving offense. There is nothing offensive about their orientation, and as for the rest Randy at least is less offensive than the average commenter, often more insightful, and at times quite reflective.
Their self-styled ideological "defenders" are often far more ostentatiously tetchy than gays themselves, though I don't begrudge gays any tetchyness they might have, considering. It just might not be their optimal strategy going forward.
Are you as pompous in real life as you come across on these posts? What does a pseudonym (which most of the posters here have adopted) have to do with being new or not new to the site? Or with civility, or the lack of it? Nothing, of course. And all of this to defend your theory that sexual orientation is equivalent to preferences between different ice cream flavors. I called it absurd--yes, because that is what it is. And for that I am a "bully" and "bloodied." If you knew anything at all about sexual orientation, you would not present such a theory, which is totally separated from reality. And if you really believed in such a theory, you would support it by substantive arguments, not epithets.
First of all, a lot of people -- gay and straight -- seem to think other straight, religious people are offended by homosexuality just on its own. I've never thought that was true, and if it were true, it would rank pretty low in terms of what is unlikable about the gay community. Thus my comments.
I'm guessing your claims about Randy are more based on the fact that you agree with him than you actually considering him to be all those things, but the one I see is defensive, dismissive to the big picture (which offends his "gays are the real victims" orthodoxy), and thoroughly unable to engage this issue he seems so passionate about.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Not to mention the fact that there are some federal benefits that pertain to no one, like reparations for, like, widows of soldiers who fought in the Spanish-American war.
I look at marital benefits the same way I look at veteran's benefits, disability, senior citizen benefits, welfare, unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, farm subsidies, WIC vouchers (I know they only apply to women), federal college loans, certain tax breaks people with dependents receive...these are all privileges that in no way outline a fundamental, inalienable right, and people aren't being discriminated against because they don't qualify for them.
I think a lot of people view the issue that way. I think that's the most apt, honest way of looking at it. People think because it's marriage, and because it has a certain civil component, that unwrapping the 14th Amendment burrito and just pointing at what's inside until something sticks is all they have to do.
We do this careful parsing of benefits with everyone, not just with gays and marriage. There are some who get these benefits on a technicality (couples who don't and/or can't produce children), but that doesn't mean we have to enshrine that obvious deviation of intent of these benefits into law just to make another lobby feel good about their social standing.
I took a black female law clerk (orientation unknown to me, not that it's relevant) to a Federalist Society gathering at a Philadelphia law firm (I'm an old white conservative guy) to see David Post speak. She later confirmed my feeling that the crowd wasn't very welcoming to her. Maybe Charlottesville isn't quite as conservative as other places (like non-college towns).
Straight couples enjoy fellatio, anal penetration and analingus as well, why should gay men be ostracized for engaging in the same fun?
I think we've about set the mutual patronization record and gotten exactly nowhere. What say we quit while we're behind?
"I'm guessing your claims about Randy are more based on the fact that you agree with him"
Then you've guessed incorrectly, which you could easily discover by reading the thread. BTW, least offensive is still offensive, so your claim not to be offended doesn't jive with your statements.
Agreed.
So then you disagree with him completely? Just curious.
And you obviously didn't catch the point of my comment. The belief is that homosexuality is somehow offensive; I'm saying the attitudes of gays and lesbians is the least offensive part. Meaning, if anything is offensive, it's that. If there is some deep-seated offense religious people have, it's pretty insignificant. But, I'm not going to keep explaining the statement.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.