So Hezbollah did it. Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri has been replaced with Najib Miqati, a man billed as a “compromise” leader who is time zones away from being a Hezbollah member but who nevertheless agrees with Hezbollah on the few things — which ultimately add up to everything — that matter most.
Miqati says he’s an independent centrist who disagrees with Hezbollah as much as he disagrees with everyone else in Lebanon. I believe him, actually, so long as he’s referring to the number of things he disagrees with Hezbollah about. He’s a Sunni and therefore obviously not a cheerleader for the parochial Shia sectarian interests that Hezbollah champions. There’s no chance he endorses the Iranian government’s reigning ideology of Velayat-e faqih, the totalitarian theocratic system Hezbollah would love to impose on Lebanon if it had the strength — which it doesn’t. Miqati is a billionaire businessman and does not even remotely share Hezbollah’s cartoonish paranoia about global capitalism and how it’s supposedly a nefarious Jewish-American plot.
What Miqati will do, however, is safeguard “the resistance,” as he has promised — meaning he won’t ask Hezbollah to hand over its weapons to the authorities — which is one of only two things Hezbollah requires of him. The second is repudiate the United Nations Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Everyone now expects the tribunal to indict Hezbollah for the assassination of the Sunni former prime minister Rafik Hariri, an event that may severely damage Hezbollah’s standing in the majority-Sunni Arab world even if it does have a prominent Sunni willing to provide some cover.
Hezbollah also needs, and will get, the same from Lebanon’s Christian president Michel Suleiman. Anything else these two leaders do in their official capacities is irrelevant from Hezbollah’s perspective.
Lebanon won’t likely ever resemble Gaza, which is under the complete control of an Islamist terrorist army. Hamas rules that beleaguered territory as the virtual Taliban of the eastern Mediterranean, but the Lebanese will blow their country to hell and gone all over again before submitting to something like that. Hezbollah knows it, as do the Syrians and the Iranians. They also know, or at least think they know, that they can bully the rest of the country into surrendering on the two most crucial items on its agenda, the ones that give Hezbollah the latitude to do whatever it wants in the Shia-majority areas that it does control directly.
We’re about to find out if that’s actually true. We’ll also most likely find out how true it remains if Israel takes the gloves off the next time there’s war.
Representative Frank criticized President-elect Obama
Frank just can’t resist “hate speech”
Peter, your argument that opening the door to gay marriage also opens the door to polygamy and incest is ridiculous.
Following this logic, the expansion of gun rights from muzzleloaders (its historic definition), to include semiautomatics or any other class of firearms should never have been allowed, because opening the door to any other arms technology necessarily means that we cannot stop citizens from carrying RPGs or machine guns.
In fact, all you have to do is maintain in the law that marriage is between two unrelated adults, regardless of sex, and you’ve solved the problem. The law draws such lines all the time.
Well said. There is another aspect of marriage that bears consideration, as well. Barney Frank thinks marriage is about him & his partner. If that were all it marriage is, there would be no need for any special law. Even today, in my state (WA), there is nothing that keeps two people from forming a contract that simply says their relationship is defined by the law of community property (a term of legal art here).
But marriage is not about the two spouses; it is about kids. Marriage is designed to create an economic and social unit that provides for the effective rearing of children. Parents/spouses are a means to an end, not the end itself. People who insist that marriage is about their “rights” demonstrate adolescent narcissism and confuse the means with the ends. It therefore follows that you, Bennett, & Warren are right: once marriage is about the “spouses” and not kids, then anything goes.
Kids need moms & dads — not one or the other. But Frank doesn’t care about kids — he just cares about himself. And the record clearly shows that he doesn’t actually care about low income access to home ownership, either.
“By all accounts, Rick Warren is a man of enormous integrity who oversees a wonderful, life-saving ministry.”
Please ask Mr. Warren exactly what happens upon death to a jew or any other unbaptized,un-born,un-born again human being? Just because you agree with this cretin on one issue,——
Even though I haven’t attended the Christian Church in many years, I was baptized as an infant. By the way, infant damnation is still in play for these ideologes.
First a point of agreement. There is a handy little distinction to keep in our arsenal for arguments: to “compare” is not to “equate.” Imagine an argument in which my opponent praises Obama’s mastery of stagecraft. I may respond that the Nazis and communists also understood the dynamics of stagecraft, and the point is rather what purpose the stagecraft serves. To this, many of my colleagues at Harvard (those guardians of nuance) would respond: “You just compared Barack Obama to Hitler! I am deeply offended!” This is the way argumentation unfolds at Harvard: the first person to take offense wins.
If I had “equated” Obama with Hitler, they could rightly condemn me for it. But I merely “compared” Obama and Hitler on a very specific issue. I employed an argument from analogy to make a precise point: that it is not the skillfulness but the teleology of stagecraft that ultimately matters. But the argument from analogy is always partial. If my opponent replied: “Well, Obama didn’t murder millions of Jews,” I could reply, “Of course not. I never implied that he did.” If I pointed out that Obama and Hitler both were bipeds, that would not imply that Obama was the leader of the National Socialist Party.
The argument advanced here analogizes homosexuality, incest and polygamy on a specific aspect, but does not “equate” them in other respects. If one wanted to be truly precise, one would say it posits an analogy between the *grounds* of the argument for homosexuality and the (potential) grounds of an argument for incest and polygamy, rather than an analogy directly between homosexuality and incest and polygamy.
My point of disagreement is that Warren has not really expanded the social ethic of evangelicalism. It is a myth propagated by the left (and especially those of the religious left, like Jim Wallis) that conservative evangelicals for a long time have cared only about abortion and gay marriage, and have ignored poverty. We should not buy into this myth, even if our intention is to say that evangelicals have broader concerns now. What about all of the hospitals, all of the homeless ministries, the food and clothing services for the poor, the adoption services, the child sponsorship organizations, and on and on and on, in every state and almost every town in this country, founded and funded and run by evangelicals? Simply because the liberal press ignores the social ministries of the evangelical right does not mean they have not existed. I confronted Jim Wallis on this once and he agreed that it was true–then he went right back to railing against those evil conservative evangelicals who only care about abortion and gay marriage. I’ve spent my life in the orbit of evangelicals, and to this day I have never met an evangelical such as that.
And what, pray tell, is so abhorrent about polygamy? Moral collapse indeed — whence do our morals come? From a religion whose founder married his niece?
This particular hypocrisy has always struck me as very revealing.
Jacob @ #2: You misinterpret the point of Mr. Wehner’s argument. No one is arguing that marriage couldn’t be re-defined in the law to include same sex couples. That would be absurd. Mr. Wehner’s first purpose in the top post was to point out that Frank and his ilk are engaging in demagoguery – that the generalized logical and philosophical arguments made on behalf of same sex couples would apply to same-blood couples and loving triples, quadruples, and quintuples.
The use of the word “teleology” tends to obscure the point made more clearly @ #3: For very real, very practical reasons – the most practical reasons of all, really – society chooses to view opposite sex couples differently. (A society that ceases to do so is a society that has lost interest in its own perpetuation.) This perception pervade society at every level, and it’s this connection to what gay culture refers to dismissively as “breeding” that also explains why we refrain from giving our endorsement to polygamy and incest. The difference is that homosexuality presents an arguably less threatening set of problems to society. Precisely because polygamy and incest can result in children, they complicate and undermine an orderly set of societal relations proceeding from recognition of the uniqueness of the heterosexual bond. Re-definition of marriage to include same sex couples merely undermines society’s endorsement of the nuclear family. Its negative effects on the latter are mainly indirect – which isn’t to say that they’re non-existent, unimportant, or unrelated to fundamental moral perceptions and values.
Re-definition also happens to put the state on the side of an absurdity, a willful blindness or intentional forgetting, about the “facts of life” – the kind of imbecilic indifference to human reality that is, of course, the specialty of young progressives and old liberals.
I prefer a minister,religious leader to be lean and to be somewhat poor. You could argue that Warren is one of the “Elect”,thus his girth and net worth are signs of God’s approval.
RCAR, many evangelical theologians argue that all Jews will be “saved,” due to the covenants G-d established with Abraham and (especially) David. This is the subject of Romans 9-11, if you’re interested. If G-d promised everlasting faithfulness to the Jews, then the Christian must believe that G-d will fulfill His promises–otherwise how could the Christian believe that G-d would be faithful to the “new covenant” offered in Christ? Paul wrote that Christians (as we came to call them) are “grafted in” to the branch of Judaism. Granted, Paul hopes that the Jews will come to believe, with him, that Christ is the fulfillment and not the abandonment of Judaism. But he hardly imagines that the Jews are damned.
As for those of other religions, it is true that the prevailing understanding through the Middle Ages was that people who do not put their trust in G-d’s provision through Christ will be excluded from G-d’s presence and blessing in the new creation. There are fanciful depictions of hell from the New Testament gospels to Dante, most of which are clearly meant to be symbolic–and you can find similar depictions throughout the world, from people of all religions. I was surprised by all the images of hell I saw in Chinese temples and monasteries. I don’t know what Rick Warren thinks exactly, but many evangelicals have agreed with what is now the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, that people of other faiths, because of the work accomplished in Christ, can be “saved” if they are faithful to what they know of God. This is called “inclusivism,” and there are many “universalists” as well, who hold out hope that God’s grace will ultimately overwhelm all evil and redeem all things and all people.
I hardly know anything about Rick Warren personally; I’ve never read his books. But I wouldn’t let yourself–even if you were baptized as an infant (and no, infant damnation is not a common belief at all)–be misled by by popular misconceptions of what “evangelicals” believe.
“that the generalized logical and philosophical arguments made on behalf of same sex couples would apply to same-blood couples and loving triples, quadruples, and quintuples.”
Conversely, the same arguments that you use to advocate keeping homosexual marriage illegal also apply to loving sterile couples. I suppose the legality of their marriage “undermines society’s endorsement of the nuclear family” too.
I think Wehner has a point, but I don’t think it’s an argument against legalizing gay marriage. The proper counterargument is that polygamy and marriage involving multiple partners should likewise be legalized. And why not? As Wehner correctly notes, both are very traditional, even Biblical. What objections can be made? Genetic inferiority will result? Why not screen for genetic diseases and prevent those with them from marrying, then? The question is the burden of the individual, not the state. The argument only works if you have some sort of emotional revulsion towards these expressions of love.
And RCAR, Warren is not a “health and wealth” preacher. He does not believe that God necessarily demonstrates favor by giving good fortune. And one of the few other things I know about him is that once his book sales took off, he repaid every penny the church had ever paid him and started giving away 90% of his income.
There may still be a fair amount of money left over afterward, I don’t know. And I don’t begrudge a man, even a pastor, for wanting to put money away for his family. But I don’t know too many people who give away 90% of their income, so I think he’s doing pretty well on that score.
One point that is, it seems to me, often overlooked here. There is a fundamental question at issue, and it is: What is the basis of a law?
Is a law only justified when it prevents one person from harming another? That is, should we have a sort of minimal legal structure in which laws are only justified when they prevent one person from infringing on the rights of others? If laws are minimal defenses of rights, then one has to make an argument that gay marriage is actually harmful to individuals.
Or, can a law be based in the basic norms and goals of a society? Can a society say: We simply think that *this* family structure is morally preferable, and/or it serves best for the achievement of our goals of social stability and growth and so on? If laws are social agreements, then a society can say: we choose to honor this sort of relationship, to sanction it legally and confer it with certain benefits because we wish to encourage it for the moral and social health of our society.
This is somewhat simplified, but it seems to me we have some laws which are in defense of rights, and some laws which give expression to social values and goals–and conflicts arise between these two different ways of viewing laws. When the gay marriage advocate says, “Whom does gay marriage harm?”, he is appealing to the first sense. When the gay marriage opponent says, “Gay marriage would weaken the structure of the family, with overall deleterious consequences for our society,” he is appealing to the second sense.
“The proper counterargument is that polygamy and marriage involving multiple partners should likewise be legalized. And why not?”
The Republican platform for 1856 had a plank stating something to effect that slavery and polygamy were the twin relics of barbarism. In his Speech on the Dred Scott Decision, Lincoln attacked Douglas and his vision of states’ rights on the grounds that it would allow the admission of Utah to the Union with a state constitution allowing polygamy.
The argument, made by Lincoln and others, is that polygamy is inconsistent with the notions of human equality that support humane, liberal, republican government, and is instead part and parcel of illiberal and inhumane regimes that see some people as unequal, commodities, and in need of being ruled by others.
The issue isn’t the legality or illegality of some ideal state of union between adults. The issue is the state’s endorsement of any particular kind of union, subject to particular definitions.
The arguments against polygamy and incest – why they’re treated as crimes, rather than merely as un-endorsed relationships – are of a different character than the argument against legal re-definition of marriage, as I began to suggest in my prior post. Some of the arguments against polygamy are stronger now than they once were, others weaker. Polygamy made a lot more sense, for instance, in scarcity economies with high rates of childbearing-related mortality and impairment. Some day, perhaps, when the Brave New World is upon us and the majority of babies are not or do not need to be born in the old-fashioned way, the arguments in favor of the state endorsement of heterosexual marriage may also seem much weaker. We’re not there yet, and may never get there, however.
The state does have a real interest in relations between heterosexuals, since there would be no state without heterosexual relations, and since the offspring of heterosexual unions become wards of the state. Unfruitful unions do have a different status in society, and still somewhat in the law, though the advent of “no-fault divorce” has tended to obscure the legal differences (they now mainly arise only in the sense that they leave no custody and inheritance issues to adjudicate). There are good utilitarian reasons for maintaining the recognition of unfruitful unions, since no one knows in the majority of cases whether a newlywed couple will prove sterile, and since otherwise reducing the supply of unattached singles, increasing the supply of potential adopters, and validating the institution apart from its main purposes are all deemed worthy ends in themselves. In my opinion the latter set of justifications provide the best utilitarian arguments in favor of same sex marriage, by the way, though I personally don’t find them sufficient.
“The argument, made by Lincoln and others, is that polygamy is inconsistent with the notions of human equality that support humane, liberal, republican government, and is instead part and parcel of illiberal and inhumane regimes that see some people as unequal, commodities, and in need of being ruled by others.”
Religiously mandated polygamy indeed! (A man can, however, beat one wife or three.) But polygamy doesn’t have to be religious. A wife may have two husbands, a husband two wives. The argument is like comparing having a maid to having a slave. Of course they are similar, but the different is that there is no compulsion involved in the former. Polygamy does not imply coercion. (Correlation does not imply causation.) It has been associated with it for a long time, but that does not mean that polygamy is *only* compatible under a coercive system.
CK, you frame the argument entirely in utilitarian terms. But we don’t live in a utilitarian state, nor would, I think, most of us want to. If we did, then everything mostly harmful to us would be illegal. But many things that hurt and kill (alcohol, tobacco, firearms, fireworks, &c) are legal. There is no evidence that gay marriage is “bad,” and even if there were, this would still not constitute an American argument for banning it, especially when the right to be with someone one loves is of a much higher and more important order than the right to get drunk or amuse yourself with colorful fire.
Ari, you put forward a simplistic view of utilitarianism, as though it presumes the availability of some sort of perfect socially mandated hygiene. I take it to mean, following the classic definition, “the greatest good for the greatest many.” It’s very possible along utilitarian lines to argue that a program of prohibition will be on balance more harmful than license. Do I need to rehearse the familiar arguments? I don’t take utilitarianism as the be-all and end-all, but I do think that it generally serves the interests of a free, diverse society to investigate the utilitarian questions first – that is, before getting into a “my morality is more moral than your morality” debate.
Polygamy is thought to imply unequal power relationships, both within the marriage and within the societies organizes around it, and therefore also to imply coercion both in “progressive” and in “traditional” arguments against it. Also, the word “polygamy” refers etymologically to multiple wives, and shouldn’t be confused with the more rare practices of polyandry and of communal or “line” marriage. The problems with such alternative arrangements vary, and the issues are debatable. For numerous reasons – moral, prudential, pragmatic – I believe the argument still comes down heavily on the side of the traditional view.
Generally speaking, and for better or for worse, our society mainly chooses “don’t ask-don’t tell” except in egregious instances – when slapped in the face by the likes of Warren Jeffs and his sect’s unfortunate chattel and progeny – and except when it comes to the state’s positive endorsement of a particular institution.
See where outlawing buggery has brought us?
Interesting point, Ari. Maybe polygamy can be refined, but I doubt it. I think the affinity of polygamy and slavery runs deeper. I think the nub of it may be the importance of an enduring mutual exclusivity to marrage; when it is absent, it necessarily involves a diminution of the of one’s partners and an elevation of the multi-partner person that puts you well on the road to inequality and coercion, if you’re not already there.
There may be many sources of this exclusivity. It may be that a humane or “romantic” sort of spousal affection is intensely exclusive and mutual in this way. On the other hand, the sexual passions that find fulfillment in polygamy are of a different nature; they are rooted in and an expression of the control, self-sufficiency, and superior status of the person with multiple partners. There may be no way you can “domestic” these fierce and savage passions.
The exclusivity of marriage is important for other reasons that go to the heart of the sort of individuality that is characteristic of liberal regimes. Exclusivity means that parents can recognize and put their individual stamp upon their children. Similarly, children are not the product of some sort of communitarian or communal relationship, in which their identity with their parents is blurred into a tribal or national affiliation. That is why totalitarian societies attack the family.
This also goes to one of the arguments against homosexual marriage — it diminishes heterosexual marriage in the eyes of children. The relationship from which they issued becomes one of many equally important choices their parents could have made. There is nothing natural or inevitable or special about their generation or, hence, themselves.
#2, Jacob: “all you have to do is maintain in the law that marriage is between two unrelated adults, regardless of sex, and you’ve solved the problem. ”
This objection quite misses Peter Wehner’s logical point.
Yes, you could rewrite the law to redefine marriage in this way; and by doing
this, you would create a precedent of rewriting the law to redefine marriage
- that is, you do “open the door” to include other variations -
such as polygamy and incest – depending on the political expediency
of the moment.
Polygamy, in particular, has much more historical justification than
homosexual marriage. It is a form of marriage
that is illegal in our society – while same-sex unions are not
marriage at all.
Consider the “unrelated” clause, its inclusion wrt same-sex unions would be
totally arbitrary – a mere slavish copy of a prohibition that
in (real) marriage has genetic sense. In homosexual marriage -
even if there are (adopted) children – the same objections do not arise.
There is no reason why two sisters cannot bring up an adopted child in
common. Prohibiting such a family, while allowing the same to two unrelated
women, would be arbirary and unfair.
Calling a union between two sisters “incest”
is absurd, and this highlights the difference between real
marriage (monogamous or polygamous) and something else
that is merely assigned the same name by arbitrary law.
Note that these considerations are not moral or religious or judgmental:
the issue is not approval or disapproval – but non-Orwellian use of language.
Words have meanings already before a law is wriitten,
the law should use them but not redefine them:
if the meaning of every word were up for grabs, then the rule of
law would be impossible.
We can call polygany marriage (which it is) – and
still prohibit it. We can refuse to call same-sex unions marriage
(which they are not) – and still allow and encourage them.
For example, suppose somebody proclaimed, in the name of equality,
that men should have, like women, the right to abortion…
The answer would be that men are incapable of pregnancy and therefore
of abortion. If, to counter that, somebody redefined prostate removal
as “abortion”, we would then have a situation analogous to the
“same-sex marriage” issue…
CK, etymology does not restrict words. Polygamy could well evolve into something healthy — we don’t know. Jeffs-style polygamy is truly despicable, but so is OJ Simpson-style monogamy.
nocubsno, so long as we prevent coercion from occurring, I don’t think polygamy is any more dangerous than ordinary marriage. Any man in this country who is presently willing to live in such a relationship is probably not the type who would abuse his wives (except in Utah, where polygamy occurs *despite* its illegality). And why should one relationship be any stronger than two simultaneous relationships? Or three? Who knows — maybe three partners together create a loving relationship infinitely superior to a dyadic one. But the only way to determine this is by experiment, and we can’t say that monogamy is superior to polygamy without seeing what the latter is like in non-religious contexts. There is nothing special about polygamy that creates violence and control. (I should add that your argument about the specialness of heterosexuality to children also applies to couples who adopt. If couples can simply adopt children, there’s no point in getting married, right? Today, however, marriage is about love, not procreation. Adoption is, after all, perfectly legal.)
Also, legality does not constitute endorsement, as we see with tobacco. The legality of polygamy, homosexuality, and incest would send a message of freedom of consensual arrangement to our children; it would not imply that polygamy, homosexuality, and incest are moral inferiors or superiors to, or coequals with, heterosexuality. The government would have no say in the matter.
“The exclusivity of marriage is important for other reasons that go to the heart of the sort of individuality that is characteristic of liberal regimes. Exclusivity means that parents can recognize and put their individual stamp upon their children. Similarly, children are not the product of some sort of communitarian or communal relationship, in which their identity with their parents is blurred into a tribal or national affiliation. That is why totalitarian societies attack the family. ”
I think this is a strong argument, but I’m not advocating communal raising of children, and I don’t believe that polygamy necessitates it. Again, however, parents are free to raise their children on communes today. Polygamy and homosexuality would not add any more communalism to the mix.
The central problem at issue here is our conception of morality. The reason homosexuals desperately want same-sex marriage has little to do with marriage per se (homosexuals care little about the concept of life-long marriage). Rather, allowing same-sex marriage would help bestow upon homosexuals the one thing they desperately lack, and which they crave from non-homosexuals – moral legitimacy, moral sanction, moral esteem. By selecting Rick Warren, Obama was challenging what homosexuals singularly crave.
But the same would be true in selecting almost any other clergymen. Judea-Christian religions universally condemn as immoral (abomination) the acts of homosexuals. Obama would have had to search far and wide to select a pro-homosexual clergymen, one who’s religion is morally indifferent to homosexual acts.
Even with the brazen moral ambiguity of our times, homosexuals are not likely to prevail upon us all and reverse our moral reasoning.
This is a poor slippery slope argument. Citing tradition is no better an argument here than it was when people cited it in defense of slavery. Citing the nuclear family is a particularly bad argument in a time where the divorce rate is fifty percent. There is, of course, research that best situation is for children to have a mom and dad. But this is misleading. It’s misleading because no one would make laws based on this truth; children of single parents are not removed so they can be placed with a mom and a dad. There is also no evidence that children do better in orphanages than they do with gay parents, since, in reality, that is the choice that society makes when it denies gay parents the right to adopt.
A good article, but misses what is even a higher point, that being that same-sex “marriage” is simply a canard. “Marriage”, legally, is simply two people agreeing to formalize their relationship according to a set of contractual principles codified by the State into its Law. Marriage is simply the label used to describe a man and woman who are recognized by the State as living according to those principles. Alternative labels to describe two men, or two women, can also be defined. I might suggest using, for example, “civil unions.”
Since the full rights of the existing marital contract can be granted to same-sex couples under another label, denying the use of the term “marriage” to that union cannot logically be viewed as a matter of personal or civil rights. Nobody is denying full equality of rights to anyone; what is being denied is the use of a particular label which, because of historical and religious tradition, already has a defined meaning. That’s just semantics. Nor is any sort of “hate” implied by restricting the label to its traditional definition.
Further, Bill is correct when he points out that the “legitimacy” reason given as to wanting the use of the “marriage” label is also a canard. Is anyone so naive as to think that if same-sex marriage is nationally legalized, the majority of the country who are Catholic and Evangelical Protestant are suddenly going to change their views on what is, to them, an article of faith?
Polygamy will not come quickly after the legalization of homosexual marriage, but it will come. Once you’ve hollowed out marriage enough to accept homosexuals as belonging in that relationship, pretty much everything will fit in.
The jig will be up, I suspect, at the first major crime family who takes these developments to their logical conclusion, all members marry each other and gain spousal immunity from testifying. We’re a long way away from that but nobody has gotten any credible firewalls between where the homosexual lobby wants to put us and the spectacle of letting crime bosses go because all their henchmen are their spouses.
Marriage as a business arrangement is not unheard of but it’s no way to run a society.
I agree with MichaelC that we are not likely to abandon our moral beliefs over the structure of our labeling. But if we cherish marriage as lying at the core or our moral values with respect to sexual interaction, we should not let go of it. The homosexual’s quest for moral validation is not a reason to allow the institution of marriage to be defiled. Indeed, if you adhere to the the fundamental moral principle – that homosexual acts are immoral – the homosexual’s quest for moral validation should then simply fall on deaf ears.
I am not opposed to granting certain privileges to homosexuals who choose to commit themselves to a lifelong relationship, such as privileges of property, medical care and even taxation. But I think we have a perfect right not to do so, and a right not to grant the moral and religious imprimatur of calling it “marriage.”
It depends on how one understands laws and their justification. Can laws express the moral commitments of a society? Or must they be justified according to utilitarian calculations of loss and benefit? Or must we have only those laws that are necessary to defend the rights of our citizens as articulated in the Constitution? I think it’s an empirical fact that many of our laws do reflect our moral commitments, and I think that this is perfectly reasonable–as long as those laws do not conflict with the Constitution, and the case that we contradict the Constitution by not granting marital status and privileges to gay couples is, to my mind, very weak. There are many nations in the world. We choose to fashion our society in this way, and if one likes the laws of another nation better, one is free to go and live there. But we are not violating any rights by saying that we, as a society, will give certain benefits to the heterosexual family structure–both for utilitarian reasons and because it reflects our values–and that we will only call the union of a man and a woman “marriage.”
Good argument from Mr. Wehrner. His logic is solid and compelling. I find myself moved to neutrality on the issue of gay marriage.
My point of contention on this issue is as follows: Just because some on the right have found a logical voice to lend credence to their bigotry, does not make the motives of the vast majority of them any less vile. The evangelical right is largely made up of weak-minded sheep (notice I did not say unintelligent sheep…there is a difference).
Mr Wehrner, Mr. Warren (and many other thoughtful conservatives) may have truly applied a dispassionate analysis to the issue of gay marriage, and come to this conclusion. I am, however, skeptical of the cognitive abilities of the rest of their contemporaries to do the same. When it comes down to it, the real issue here, as with all evangelical conservative issues is this: I am afraid of those _________ (insert minority) and I will say anything to stop them.
This, like Blago, is a none issue that the press and pundits are trying to make into a big issue because they’ve got nothing else to talk about. Bush is totally ignored, Obama has announced his team in record time with little or no drama, and has now gone off on holiday with the wife and kids for a couple of weeks. The only people excited about this are the ultra faction in the gay community. Their strictures actually do Obama a bit of good with more traditional, typically Republican voting, Americans so why Wehner and some on the right are trying to make a big deal about it is a bit of mystery to me. Believe me no one is paying much attention.
To Eric, I say “Bull.” The issue has to do with one’s moral value system.
There is no moral aspect to black, brown, red, or yellow skin (Eric’s “afraid of minority” argument is hooey). There is no moral aspect to a person’s physiognomy, eye color, eye shape, hair color, hair texture, etc. Eric mixes apples and oranges.
The issue is whether homosexual acts raise a moral issue – that is certainly a legitimate question. As Eric indicates he is neutral on the subject of gay marriage, this might suggest that he is also morally neutral on the subject of homosexual acts.
But if so . . . so what? Eric suggests that those who disagree with his morally neutral view might not be very smart. Again, that’s hooey.
The debate and movement for same sex marriage has been around for over 10 years. Just because it hasn’t been popularized, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been around at all. In fact, embedded in the domestic partnership movement was the idea that since, currently, marriage is unavailable to homosexuals, that 2 people who are in a committed relationship still deserve the rights and protections afforded to heterosexual couples. No one in the gay community is arguing against polygamy–incest, yes, polygamy, no. In fact, it’s one of the very reason that gays use to argue against a concept called “traditional marriage’” that marriage as an institution has been re interpreted by societies and religions around the world throughout history. Rich Warren thinks that the definition of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman has never changed; polygamy proves that the definition has changed and that Rick Warren’s view is actually a limited one. Gays don’t care how you define marriage, whether it’s between a man and a woman or whatever. Most care about the ability to enter into a committed relationship through the state that affords equal protection under the law. The supreme court did not change the definition by “fiat” in CA. They ruled in favor of same sex couples to marry. It was the people of CA who illegally changed the law of CA by circumventing the rules for changing the constitution, and undermining its very purpose which is to protect citizens. And btw, Marriage IS what you make of it. Or not. Hence, divorce.
Mir is wrong. Homosexuals will not settle for equivalent rights under law. They want the same moral status for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples have once united in marriage. Period.
If Mir disagrees, he should advocate limiting same-sex relationships to “civil unions” and then experience the full fury of the homosexual community.
Homosexuals are seeking moral legitimacy and sanction from non-homosexuals. They are not going to be comfortable unless they get it.
Eric, I hate to make this personal, but I’m afraid that the only prejudice I’m seeing at the moment is your sneering bigotry against evangelicals. On what do you base your sweeping generalization that “the evangelical right is largely made up of weak-minded sheep”? It’s big of you to grant that they’re not all necessarily unintelligent, but it does little to detract from the general prejudicial tenor of your post.
My experience has been that the distribution of intelligence, education and strong-mindedness in evangelical circles is roughly the same as it is in society generally.
You ascribe fear to the majority of evangelicals as the reason for their opposition to same-sex marriage. I always find this to be a dubious rhetorical move. If someone criticizes you or a group you favor, rather than engaging the argument, you accuse them of harboring a deep-seated fear that is the real reason for their opposition. I don’t see much fear of gays in evangelical circles. I see among some evangelicals a view that homosexuality is morally wrong, but a moral conviction is not the same thing as fear.
Someone explain to me how it is legal for gay couples to adopt,but not legal to marry. Is that logical?
Also, contra Mir, the definition of marriage has shown a remarkable stability for many centuries now. The ability to point to one change, many centuries ago, serves rather to highlight just how remarkably stable the concept of marriage has been.
#33″Also, contra Mir, the definition of marriage has shown a remarkable stability for many centuries now.”
The definition may be stable,but the shelflife is short for many.
Nonsense.
Polygamy and bigamy are remnants if the times when women were chattel property to men. Any reinstitution of it would be a step back in that direction. If women (AS A CLASS) start agitating for it, then maybe we’d need to rethink. Don’t hold your breath. Few women want to go back to being the property of men. Might as well talk about outlawing divorce.
As for incest, it increases the likelihood of genetic problems. Also, psychologically, parents exert a great influence on their children, even as adults. So, could a parent/child relationship truly be assumed to be consensual? Furthermore, it runs into the “class” problem. Are children/parents/siblings agitating for incestual marriages AS A CLASS? No?
Charles Krauthammer is as slippery as you. He can say whatever he wants about what “many Americans believe”. People “believe” all kinds of crazy things. Lots of studies have been done. Why doesn’t he reference any of them? Oh, because they don’t back up his (or your) argument.
The reasons why gay people are upset with picking Rick Warren has nothing to do with you or your narcissism. It has everything to do with the very real destruction that people like Rick Warren introduces into their lives.
Rick Warren is bigoted. He refuses to accept any evidence, information or arguments which don’t fit his Biblical worldview (at least as far homosexuality is concerned). Doesn’t mean he is a hateful man, but he is certainly a bigot.
Why is the state overseeing a Religious affiliation? There should be a separation of church and state. Instead of offering a legally sanctioned gay religious affiliation, The state should broker legal contracts of union that unite people to anyone. Let someone legally unite with their twin or their clone or 10 virgins, if they are so inclined. Anyone who wants equal protection and rights under the law for whatever reason they should want it, should have it. It is ridiculous the way the culture has been attempting to heteronormatize gay relations into couples in order to make it seem like a variant nuclear family.
The church should oversee marriages, and the law should not be allowed to tell churches whom they would marry. If All Saints Gay Pride Episcopal of Los Angeles wants to marry people to their dog, or their twin, or a realdoll, so be it. But if a faithful church refuses to marry a couple because of a past divorce or sexual sin, that is their prerogative.
Jacob, in his statement that legalizing same sex marriage does not equate to the need to legalize incestuous marriage, writes above:
“..all you have to do is maintain in the law that marriage is between two unrelated adults, regardless of sex, and you’ve solved the problem. The law draws such lines all the time.”
2 problems with that logic:
– It does nothing to solve the problem of polygamous unions who want to marry, who can morally use the same civil rights arguments that same sex marriage supporters currently use,
and regarding incestuous marriage, how can you morally tell two related people that they can’t marry, if they’re legally consenting adults? Seems to me that the blanket law that Jacob stated above is pretty similar to the one keeping marriage between a man and a woman, which Jacob seems to oppose but somehow hypocritically finds it acceptable to “discriminate” against polygamous unions.
I like that you note that people are mad bc Warren compared gay marriage to incest, but yet your entire argument dogdes that accusation and is instead based on polygamy. Weak! I am disappointed that an article that so blantantly fails to address its own point of contention would even be posted.
Ari posts above:
“I think Wehner has a point, but I don’t think it’s an argument against legalizing gay marriage. The proper counterargument is that polygamy and marriage involving multiple partners should likewise be legalized.”
Thank you Ari, for proving Mr. Wehner’s point, which is that the legalizing of same sex marriage and the subsequently logically necessary legalizing of polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, etc., would deem marriage to be basically meaningless, and just a flimsy standard-less institution that means whatever an individual wants it to mean. But then again, leftism/liberalism is nothing more than the shirking outward of responsibility in the name of excessive compassion and feelings, so it stands to reason why this value system leads to the urge to make marriage whatever feels good to the individual, at the expense of timeless standards.
Michael Brenner states above:
“This is a poor slippery slope argument. Citing tradition is no better an argument here than it was when people cited it in defense of slavery. Citing the nuclear family is a particularly bad argument in a time where the divorce rate is fifty percent. There is, of course, research that best situation is for children to have a mom and dad. But this is misleading. It’s misleading because no one would make laws based on this truth; children of single parents are not removed so they can be placed with a mom and a dad. There is also no evidence that children do better in orphanages than they do with gay parents, since, in reality, that is the choice that society makes when it denies gay parents the right to adopt.”
No reasonable public figure is calling for the children of gay couples, or of single parents, polygamous unions, etc., to be taken from their homes and placed in other types of institutions. This kind of fascism would right never be tolerated in a free society. But why does this mean that we should then jump to the opposite extreme of deeming marriage to mean any two or more people who choose to force government to recognize their union with a particular word, especially if most Americans support all the rights and benefits of marriage to be granted to same sex couples in the context of a civil union? This poster should quit using extremist scare tactics as an argument for the legalizing of same sex marriage.
What is wrong with polygamy? It is sanctioned in the Quran, and there are lots of examples in the Bible. And what about the pedophiles? The Prophet Mohammed (pbuh)’s favorite wife was 8 years old when they got married. Those that oppose these things must be Islamophobes.
What’s wrong with incest? If you believe in the Genesis story (as told in both the Quran and the Bible) Adam and Eve’s children would have either had sex with each other or with mom and dad. Sounds like that’s ok. And bestiality? Who says that both entities in the relationship need to be human? You can leave your estate to your pet, and lots of folks sleep with their pet. What’s wrong with that?
I’m tired of all of these folks trying to impose their values on the rest of us. It’s time for change that we can believe in!
Greg:
(1) You automatically have a quorum for polygamy in this country from traditionalist mormons and muslims. So, I would expect it would take less than 10 minutes to have a significant number of women petitioning for polygamous marriage. Let’s put that notion to bed, right now.
(2) Please specify as to what “Real Destruction” Rick Warren has brought into the lives of anyone.
Thanks.
Very spirited and intelligent debates on this stream. I would have to add for those who say that evangelicals may have a view of homosexuality as immoral, that that is a judgment, and one Christian tenent is that we are not to judge, only God and Jesus can do that. Laws are to protect rights, and based on a society’s motivations. All motivations are based on two premises: love and fear. Love that is based on accepting, tolerance, understanding, non-judgment, unconditional (what is the basis of most religions, not just Christianity, and in a non-religious sense is rooted in laws of nature, laws of the universe and truth); and fear (not to mean only feelings such as “I fear for my life, or I fear you will harm me”) that is as simple as “I fear you taking something from me, or I fear you lessening what I believe, or I fear you are simply different from me.” The leap that Gays asking for full rights afforded to married couples will lead to all kinds of anarchy are oversimplifications of fear (chaos in a world they feel should be morally ordered). True, there are those on the fringe of the gay community that seek to have their unions morally accepted, but for the most part, this class and the loving couples want equal protection and full rights. Defining marriage as only between a man and a woman allows laws to be introduced such as adoption can only happen with married couples, etc., etc., thus denying rights to this class. It is discrimination. The main reason there is such opposition is rooted in fear. So those of you who oppose, ask yourselves why this type of fear which denies rights, encourages judgments so guides your views. It is divisive, and not rooted in the spirit of love that many profess in their religion.
“Defining marriage as only between a man and a woman allows laws to be introduced such as adoption can only happen with married couples, etc., etc., thus denying rights to this class. It is discrimination.”
This is a hypothetical. Whilst anything is possible, those of us that support civil unions as the best alternative for all here would strongly object to any change in the marital convenant that does not cascade to the civil union. So, we can dismiss this argument as unlikely to occur, and if it does, sufficient support would obviously exist to rectify the situation.
“The main reason there is such opposition is rooted in fear.”
This is personal opinion stated as fact. I, for one, disagree.
“So those of you who oppose, ask yourselves why this type of fear which denies rights, encourages judgments so guides your views. It is divisive, and not rooted in the spirit of love that many profess in their religion.”
Since that the root is not fear, the argument is thus a straw man. Well written civil union legislation does not deny rights, does not encourage judgement, is inclusive rather than divisive, and quite in keeping with the charge of Biblical love.
The argument that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy and incest is just… really silly. Who is agigtating for legalizing polygamy or incest? Anyone? Anywhere? It can’t be more than, say, 0.03% of the U.S. population.
These “slippery slope” arguments are pointless. Remember when women bobbing their hair was going to destroy American society? When black people getting the vote was going to destroy American society? When women getting jobs was going to destroy society, destroy the traditional American family, and on and on and on and so forth…
1) Polygamy, in the traditional forms that it was practiced, damages the rights of women.
2) Incest ruins human genetics and damages and hurts the rights of the next generation.
Though gay marriage may be offensive to some, it doesn’t hurt anyone. Even if it causes you extreme moral revulsion and squeamishness, it’s not actually hurting you or your own marriage. And it certainly can’t be more harmful to the “traditional” idea of marriage than the current 50% U.S. divorce rate.
As for Civil Unions, I’ve studied the topic in law school. Civil Unions do NOT give gay couples the same legal rights and protections as marriage. If we could get a bill passed in all fifty states creating a form of Civil Union that does grant all those legal rights and protections, then maybe this issue would be different. But that hasn’t happened, and it’s not anywhere close to happening. If it did happen, it might entirely change the tone of the current debate.
But yes, if individual churchs wish to practice their own particular religious interpretation of the sacrament of marriage, then obviously Rick Warren’s church, or conversation Baptist or Catholic churchs should not be forced to marry gay couples. We do have a seperation of church and state, and that should be honored. The problem is, we’re currently denying married gay couples from having the same civil rights as straight married couples. The central problem is the lack of civil rights. If I was gay and wanted to get married, I could find a pastor or priest of some type who would perform a ceremony and declare me “married.” The problem is, that marriage would have no backing in U.S. law.
Let churches decide on their own what kind of sacramental marriage ceremonies they wish to perform. But there must be the same rights under law for all consenting adults who wish to form a life-long partnership.
And, I might add, this will all happen within the next twenty to thirty years, regardless. So we should all start talking and thinking about it now.
Marriage is the most holy of all the sacraments that God has ordained. I have partaken of this sacrament and don’t want to see it diminished by those who hate the Word of God. I cannot stand by and allow the holy sacrament (which is my own marriage) to be defiled by giving this sacrament over to buggery. Indeed, I’m the victim of this unholy marriage definition fiat. Why must I recognize a homosexual sacrament which is anathema to my God? The liberal elites of this country are not gods yet, thank heavens.
Argumentation by analogy is non-argumentation.
If you can’t do it right, don’t do it at all.
I don’t care what you think or what Warren thinks. You just need to get your foot off my neck. Human rights are not something you get to vote on — not if America is standing up to its true promise.
My life is measurably worse because you think you have the right to make your religion a law that I have to live by. Nothing, absolutely nothing excuses that or allows it to be explained away by some kumbaya notion of the greater good. I do not excuse and I do not forgive. Not until you leave me alone.
In the year 6565
Ain’t gonna need no husband, won’t need no wife
You’ll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube…From the song “In the Year 2525″
It might all be happening a little sooner…YIKES!!!
The straw dog of gay marriage barks again. First of all, the argument that, technically, Warren merely compared gay marriage with incestuous marriage, etc., and did not equate them, is totally disingenuous. These comparisons have been widely used to disparage, marginalize, and contemn gay people.
Second, opposition to gay marriage (as opposed to indifference to it, which best characterizes Obama’s official stance) cannot be other than discriminatory. Homosexuality is a naturally occurring variation. To tell gay people that they can’t be married is to relegate them to a class of citizenship that is distinctly second-class. There simply is no reason to deny them this right. To say that we must ban gay marriage to safeguard species propagation is absurd. For this argument to mean anything, gay sex would have to be near-universally appealing and so seductive and superior to straight sex that to engage in gay sex is to be hopelessly seduced away from straight sex. It’s absurd.
I’ve got news for you closet cases presenting this argument. To straight people, gay sex is not appealing. And the reason gay marriage is not a threat either to straight marriage or species propagation is that only a small minority of humans DO find gay sex appealing. They’re gay. And it’s because of this minority sexual preference that they are abused, discriminated against, and otherwise denied social and other rights accessible to straight people. Not because their sex acts don’t produce children, but because they are different and unappealing.
And ironically, since the argument against incestuous relationships is the risk of deformed children, under Frank’s view of the world it would be wrong for a brother and sister to marry for the risk of deformity, but two brothers or two sisters could marry, as they could not produce offspring.
Marriage is between a man and a women, no matter what others want to redefine it as. The gay community should come up with it’s own word for life-long commitment, much like other parts of society regularly develop their own words.
46
Andrew:
“Though gay marriage may be offensive to some, it doesn’t hurt anyone.”
Are you sure about that?. If you are a child of a gay marriage or a polygamous marriage or any non-traditional marriage or a child of single parents or divorced parents etc., you may (though not necessarily) may face a whole lot of extra challenges that children in what is considered to be the traditional two parent/heterosexual/married families are not faced with.
Of course even in traditional families there can be problems. To be and maintain a happy healthy family is sometimes a daunting task.
When I was a kid in the metropolitan NY area kids would be teased if they came from unwed mothers or would feel ostracized if there was a divorce. If there was any hint of homosexuality they would be picked on. If there was a divorce a lot of these kids would feel that it was somehow their fault and there was a lot of insecurity and sadness. For sure some kids will despite their circumstances would eventually adjust and maybe turn out ok. But for a lot of them (and I don’t have any stats) it caused much emotional pain and scarring.
Now today because there is a greater prevalence of non-traditional homes with kids, perhaps they don’t feel as stigmatized as in the past but I believe it may still be horrendous for many.
46
Andrew:
“Though gay marriage may be offensive to some, it doesn’t hurt anyone.”
Correction-
Are you sure about that?. If you are a child of a gay marriage or a polygamous marriage or any non-traditional marriage or a child of single parents or divorced parents etc., you may (though not necessarily) may face a whole lot of extra challenges that children in what is considered to be the traditional two parent/heterosexual/married families are not faced with.
Of course even in traditional families there can be problems. To be and maintain a happy healthy family is sometimes a daunting task.
When I was a kid in the metropolitan NY area kids would be teased if they came from unwed mothers or would feel ostracized if there was a divorce. If there was any hint of homosexuality they would be picked on. If there was a divorce a lot of these kids would feel that it was somehow their fault and there was a lot of insecurity and sadness. For sure some kids would, despite their circumstances, eventually adjust and maybe turn out ok. But for a lot of them (and I don’t have any stats) it caused much emotional pain and scarring.
Now today because there is a greater prevalence of non-traditional homes with kids, perhaps they don’t feel as stigmatized as in the past but I believe it may still be horrendous for many.
What a confused Peter Wehner essay and thread.
It’s about Barney Frank who is angry that Pastor Rick Warren, a prominent opponent of same sex marriage, will have a prominent role in the inauguration which will spoil a day of celebration for many gays.
I think Frank is right. Obam’s victory is the triumph of America’s fringe groups. He was not just the wild favorite of colored people, of Muslims, radicals, lefties, but surely also of the counter culture crowd. Homosexuals saw in his victory their own validation and advancement. If a black man can become president than American society is also a more welcoming place for queers. But now, with Rick Warren’s selection, Obama has rained on their parade. It seems rather cold blooded and gratuitous.
Why was that necessary? There are plenty of popular white preachers representing middle America, staid and conservative, but not famously anti-gay.
Why did Obama chose this route; what does it means and portend? I wish Wehner and the posters had addressed that. Instead everyone went off on a tangent. I explained my opposition to same sex marriage several times in the past. I see nothing new here on that subject. But about the new thing, Obama’s provocative choice of Warren, nobody, including Wehner, seems to have any ideas.
The joke is on the gay community. They poured money, time, and effort into getting Obama elected only to find out that he not only doesn’t care about civil rights for gay men and women he actively opposes them. The reaction should be blind fury and a promise of political retribution in 2010 and 2012, but it won’t happen. The gay community is like a dog that the owner treats nicely for a few months every 2 to 4 years and then kicks and abuses the rest of the time. The dog takes the abuse, whines a little, and then falls all over itself licking it masters boots at the first kind word when election time roles around. The election of 2008 is over at the dog is getting kicked again!!!!!!
Yep, Judith. I’m pretty sure. The fact that you’re still ultra-concerned about children of divorce indicates that you’re living in the 1950s. (And no, to confirm what you said — twice — you don’t have any stats.) As I said before, current statistics show that 50% of American marriages end in divorce. My parents got divorced when I was five, and I turned out fine, trust me. The fact that you’re throwing in stuff like “…If you are a child of a gay marriage or a polygamous marriage…” is, um, well, I don’t even know. Polygamy doesn’t exist. It’s illegal, and only exists in America in illegal Mormon compounds along the Arizona border. Whereas gay men and women are an active and vibrant part of American society.
So no, you don’t have any stats. Yes, I do know what I’m talking about. Gay people make you uncomfortable. Fine. Polygamists make you uncomfortable. That’s fine too (expect that only about 0.01% of Americans are polygamist, so it’s kind of a moot point). But the fact that you lump them together in the same sentence is odd, and indicates that you haven’t really met any of them. That’s fine as far as polygamists go — you’d probably have to travel thousands of miles to secret compounds in order to hang out with them. And you don’t have to hang out with gay people — who live everywhere, in every city — if you don’t want to.
That’s all fine. But you’re just talking based on your feeling and emotions about people whom you don’t know. And that too would be fine — except that you also support denying these same people (gay people) the most basic of civil rights. That’s not fine. There are plenty of things that I don’t like — liver and onions, for example. And other things, as well. I went to college with a girl who was having a sex-change and having operations performed that would give her a penis and turn her into a man; or, a “man,” if you prefer. That totally freaked me out. I found it unpleasant — I found her to be personally unpleasant — and the whole thing really really bothered me.
But I didn’t allow my personal feelings and emotions to take me too far with her, him, whoever. She was still a person. And even if she freaked me out, she should still have the same basic individual human rights that every other person in America has. My emotions do not give me the right to deny someone else their rights, as long as they’re not doing anything harmful to anyone else.
And it’s as simple as that.
Hi facts
Marriage– why do gays need it?
To get rights —what rights?
Co-ownership of property offered to married couples… so?
What was orignal marrieage for…?
1. Productive Sex (as opposed to entertainment only)- so is purposeful engagement to try and procreate (as opposed to girl friend and boy friend done by teenagers -which is categorically identical to gay relationship—satisfy you sexual need)
Girls and boy engaging in sexual relationship before marriage is discouraged because its just to satisfy your need…. not to purposefully a design of purposeful procreation
Hence Gays will basically remain at that level because it can not take a step further
Lucky enough for teenagers they may mature their relationship into purposeful engagement and marriage to procreate (You notice that they don’t want to have babies unless the girl is convinced that the boy want to marry her and live together and bring up children together(almost in all cases)).
So sex is separate from marriage—that is why gay relationship remains just there at sex only no step further– which boys and girls (teenager manage to change their sex driven relationship into marriage to agree to make children and support them together (procreation)
Stop talking about adopting children—- its not connected you know it
marriage is simply – sex + to produce children
Incest, rape and polygamy will produce the same results as acceptable marriage —But they are the wrong kind of marriage (socially and are unacceptable and criminal)
Gay – relationship is not even marriage – does not reach that state at all (sex+children, egg+sperm, male organ + female organs for procreation)
Marriage can fail to achieve its objective — that happens and cannot be equated to
example dont quote “childless family”, Divorce etc these are ‘failed to achieve objective yet having done the correct procedure’ and that cannot be compared to carrying-out the experiment wrongly
As long as consenting adults are involved, I have no problem with any kind of marriage. Drop the incest laws and the bigamy laws. Permit gay marriages. The issue is legal and financial benefits and responsibilities that come with marriage. I’m for making the law, the tax code, and all government institutions strictly marriage status neutral. That would make the whole issue moot.
#55, why did Obama have to rain on the gay parade? Because the Senate is not quite filibuster proof, and it’s important for him to do whatever insignificant thing he can to get Evangelicals on his side and lull Republicans into complacency.
Warren may be famous and Evangelical, but he is very much like a lot of clergymen in knowing that homosexual acts are forbidden in the Bible. It would actually be hard for Obama to find one who didn’t, though many will keep this quiet. They are acting out of homophobia–fear of offendding homosexuals.
About the larger argument for and against gay marriage, it seems to me that we are not talking about mariage but about goodies. Health insurance, Social Security and pension benefits, rights to property–goodies that were not negotiated or approve by law for homosexual couples, but that these couples can now appropriate by getting their relationships labeled “marriage.” How about a forthright campaign to have SS fund survivorship for gays? Where do you think tht would go in a vote in Congress? And of course the next step on that slippery slope is for anyone to team up with anyone else to “marry” and get the same goodies. We can already see this with green cards.
“Rev.” Rick will have to lose a lot of “weight” before I believe a thing that he says!
He’s another MEDIA QUEEN GOD-SCAMMER. God knows, there are too many of them and
many of them are so disgusting.
Frank is whining about incest? His Washington residence (publicly funded if I remember correctly,) was used as a homosexual brothel by his teenaged gigolo–and he was complicit. Incest is nothing compared to that.
We need to stop allowing Frank to pretend he’s a moral voice for Congress and America. He’s a filthy degenerate and a liar, and he always will be.
WeeTom,
Wehner correctly contended that other groups will cite the same reasons homosexuals and their strident advocates cite for wanting to coopt marriage. Everybody has their longings, and they will all claim they have the legal and “civil” right to practice them. This is axiomatic, because polygamists, pedophiles and people who advocate bestiality ALREADY demand the “civil right” to marry the objects of their affections.
You didn’t even address this in your diatribe, nor did you address the fact that you, Frank and the other fascists on the left are trying to silence all debate and coopt a millenia old tradition from those who deserve to practice it the way it’s meant to be practiced. Too bad for you that the rest of us wont allow you to force your warped and selfish views down our throats.
Come up with your own traditions, and stop peddling your rank hatred and intolerance.
The thing I find most comforting in this whole affair, the only solice I have is knowing that we, homosexuals, will outlast religion. As long as there are people, so to shall there be homosexuality. We are a natural force. There is homosexuality in nature in many species of birds for instance. We are created if you believe in god as we are, because no sane person would chose to be the target of such societal hate. Believe me, no matter what you think of my lifestyle, it is horrible to live in a place where so many of your countrymen despise your existence.
I just can’t help but think there would be a better use for the religious right’s time and money than trying to stop or stifle homosexuality. You want nothing to do with us, and I want nothing to do with you. I have no problem with Rick Warren having the 1st amendment right to say whatever he wants. And I don’t care how he feels about me or his views on wether or not I’ll be invited into his idea of heaven, a place I don’t want to go. But what I think is utterly intolerable is the double standard that is taking place in the public sphere around this issue. That is to say, any public figure, politico, journalist, radio host, that related as identical any group other than gays (women, blacks, hispanics, jews, veterans, the disabled, or god forbid black women) to those committing pedophilia, incest or bestiality they would immediately be shunned and universally rebuked. Except if they were talking about gays. We shouldn’t have to do the old mammy routine for our rights, but if we’re going to have to we shouldn’t have to beg for a little decency when were doing the shuffle. It is this aspect that I object to about Obama – who I have known all along is no alley of the LGBT community – raising this ignorant hateful man to a position of national prominence, even more than the one he has eked out for himself. And this is why when I read articles legitimizing his work and political value, or see Catholic heterosexual white men telling gay people their struggles are not relevant, not equivalent to those blacks experienced prior to having legal protections, I want to, pardon the crudity, barf. They don’t really know what they are talking about. We are the only group of tax paying American citizens to be subjugated and not represented according to our taxation. Regardless of how you feel about us or how gross it may or may not be to sodomize a man (in a gay relationship) vs. a woman (in a heterosexual relationship, through oral or anal sex), somewhere deep down pangs of basic fairness must cry out.
However I am again comforted that we will outlast religion. We will outlast intolerance. I just want to be there personally to see it.
Jeff@5.22
“… fascists on the left are trying to silence all debate and co-opt a millennia old tradition from those who deserve to practice it the way it’s meant to be practiced. Too bad for you that the rest of us won’t allow you to force your warped and selfish views down our throats.”
This attitude is why there can be no compromise and gays will have to fight for our rights. This person thinks that if we act as equals, then we are oppressing them. First comes the lie that marriage has always been what he wants to now say it is. This is then followed with more lies about the fascist left trying to silence the debate.
The coup de grace is that he feels WE are preventing HIM from living his life the way he wants. Where does this idea come from? It is obvious that nobody would ever force him to marry someone of the same sex, so the argument is ludicrous, yet he believes it. It is we, not he, who is seen as doing the “forcing”. He thinks it is his right to vote on our lives, yet we are seen as the “selfish” ones.
The underlying thought can only be that unless we all live as he wishes and surround him in his cocoon with 100% validation that his world view is correct, then we are seen as attacking him — based on his religious views (in a country that promises the freedom to each person to live our own religion views).
This is no different from the Taliban, the Wahhabi, and every other dominant cult that seeks to control the entire culture based on their world view. It is they that draw the line in the sand, and they who will not back off, and they who make this nothing less than a fight that will be fought until one side loses.
Gays and PE’s who think that this is some polite intellectual discussion are fooling themselves into complacency.
One could not wish for a more complete demonstration of the lack of self awareness prevalent among advocates of homosexual marriage than the combination of #65 and #66.
Thank you for cogently setting forth the truth of the matter which has largely been ignored in the mainstream reporting of this issue. I have no quarrel with anyone who embraces a same sex lifestyle, but I do have a problem when activists decide that, notwithstanding our pluralistic democracy, the will of the majority of people should be ignored for no other reason that it didn’t go their way and I also have a problem whn they attempt to vilefy and disparage anyone who makes an argument, indeed a very logical argument, that there are problems and ramifications with repect to the end they are trying to achieve.
I agree with #68 completely.
Homosexuals universally yell “leave us alone!” to the rest of the world, but then show themselves to be universally disingenuous.
Homosexuals seek to use the moral pillars of our civilization to lift them out of the moral abyss in which they live – that is why homosexuals so loudly demand same-sex marriage (all the while screaming “leave us alone!).” Homosexuals crave moral validation from non-homosexuals, and will say and do anything to achieve that. They do not wish to be “left alone.”
In recent years, one of the greatest moral pillars of our history has become a target – the great president, Abraham Lincoln. By asserting that because Abraham Lincoln shared a double bed with Joshua Sneed while traveling (not an uncommon thing for a traveling lawyer at the time), Lincoln was engaged in a homosexual relationship. Of course he wasn’t. But again, as with same-sex marriage, homosexuals seek to use the lofty moral tower of Abraham Lincoln to lift them out of their moral abyss. They do not seek to debase and defile the great Abraham Lincoln, but to use the power of his moral persona to elevate themselves in the eyes of non-homosexuals.
Bill,
In #68, one could easily travel back 150 years, write your same comments and replace the word ‘Homosexual’ with ‘Negro’. Based upon your comments I believe that you are an intelligent, thoughtful person. However, you (like most conservatives) hold on to an idealized past that probably never existed.
The real world is far more nuanced than you give it credit for. Abraham Lincoln very well may have been a homosexual, but during his time, he could never have openly expressed this aspect of himself. And even if he were, would it completely shatter for you his “moral persona”? Would the re-union of the Republic be any less sweet? Would the blacks be any less free? After all, aren’t we all sinners? Unfortunately, you seek to call out the specks in the eyes of others while ignoring the stone in your own.
Eric:
I have not read all of your comments here, but your comment above reveals that the fundamental difference between your view and my view on this subject is common to the entire debate. Those (like me) who seek to prevent the creation of same-sex marriage essentially believe that homosexual acts are immoral, and that to endorse their moral validity by extending to them into the core organizing institution of our civilization – marriage – will not and cannot do. Creating same-sex marriages will not elevate the moral standing of homosexual acts (as homosexuals believe), but instead will merely degrade and debauch the moral standing of marriage itself. It is amusing that many people who argue against same-sex marriage beat around the bush by claiming that marriage is a “long-standing institution” or that “the democratic will should prevail” or that “gay concerns can be addressed by other means than by enlarging the institution of marriage.” This appears to be an effort to avoid addressing the fundamental and difficult issue which troubles most non-homosexuals – that they believe that what homosexuals do is immoral because it is against God’s design and thus nature’s plan.
You claim that this view is a idealized past that never existed, but that is not so. World religions have almost universally maintained throughout recorded history that homosexual acts are to be condemned. So what is it that “never existed”?
You suggest that Abraham Lincoln “may have been a homosexual,” yet you provide no proof of this. Abraham Lincoln was married and had several children. The burden is surely on you to overcome this fact with evidence – rather than rely on mere suggestion.
Your question “After all, aren’t we all sinners?” seems prophetic and amusing. Do you suggest that homosexual acts are then indeed sinful?
AL GORE; “SUN SPOT THROWS CHICAGO INTO ICE AGE.” Read more at, http://stopthepresses2.blogspot.com
Bill, I have a question. Is homosexuality really a slight on the institution of marriage? Will it really “degrade and debauch the moral standing of marriage itself”? And if so how? What about divorce? Maybe you guys should spend some time and money trying to over turn the legal right to a divorce. That seems to be really flying in the face of marriage.
And I have a further question, because you write clearly and have a point of view that I am not privy to, so I hope you’ll take me at my word and try and answer even though I admit to being “immoral” in your view, by living the way I was born, created by your understanding by your god this way. So, When you refer to homosexual acts, what are you talking about? Are you talking about sodomy, as I understand it defined as anal or oral sex? Are you supposing there is a moral difference between sodomy performed by two men than between a man and a woman? If so, what is the difference? And further, do you think it is immoral to have sex out of wedlock? Does that damage our moral society, because if so I think I found you a new crusade. And further aren’t you only supposed to copulate for reproductive purposes? You see what I mean, there is a lot of room for heterosexuals to parse to be able to have sex the way they want to. This doesn’t mean that I think someone who has sex is a bad person does it? Or immoral? Or incapable of loving someone in a way that should be celebrated?
I really hope you answer. I would love to continue a dialog and learn a perspective from the other side.
#74 The question raised in your first paragraph might have been equally raised by other people who share the belief that homosexual acts are immoral.
The current divorce rate constitutes a direct threat to the efficacy of marriage and family as the fundamental organizing unit of our civilization. Men need to take whatever steps drastic steps might be necessary to reverse the current tread in the destruction of marriage and family. The argument you make is absurd: Since we men are standing idly by while the institutions of marriage and family are being destroyed, our should idleness provide a further justification that destruction of marriage and family should proceed through the endorsement of same-sex marriage as well. An absurd non-sequitur.
The further delicate “nuances” offered in your paragraph 2 I prefer not to indulge with someone of your persuasion.
Oh Bill, I didn’t mean to get you riled up with dirty talk. And believe me as cringeworthy as you find homosexual sex, I find heterosexual sex. A necessary evil you know what I mean, I kid I kid. What I was getting at is if the act/action or who you perform it with is the thing that you find immoral? Can you answer in those more delicate terms?
This question sort of leads to my broader question for you, which I think you misunderstood – which is how is homosexuality a slight on the institution of marriage? Particularly when all these other vices, like divorce, sex out of wedlock, and heterosexual “unsanctioned” sex practices exist. I was merely trying to point out that there may be other threats to marriage as pernicious as homosexuality that you might have a chance of thwarting. My father was divorced before he met my mother, and that was a really difficult horrible thing to go through for him.
Bill I want you to know I made no absurd non-sequitur. And I’m not trying to be divisive or nasty. I want to know what you think. I want to understand your point of view. I know that though we have different beliefs, we are both people with lives and values, responsibilities and morals. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m trying to learn about how you see the world. I hope you respond.
Okay, here comes a long post. Again, Rick Warren is not equating homosexuality with incest and polygamy. He is *comparing* (not equating) the *grounds that are given for homosexual marriage to the grounds given for incest and polygamy* (not homosexual behavior with incestuous and polygamous behavior). Would Warren go further, and say that they are similar insofar as they are immoral? Yes. Does this mean that he is equating them? Of course not. Lying and murder are both immoral, and saying so does not mean that I am “equating” them. Presumably Warren would acknowledge that homosexuality, incest and bestiality are starkly different in many respects.
Also, it’s not a matter of hatred or fear. Of all the gays I’ve had as friends and students over the years, I don’t think a single one of them would say that I’ve been anything but warm, generous and loving toward them. It’s a matter of sincere moral conviction. I would be happy to conclude that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality; that’s the politically correct position, and it would win me the applause of many. But I simply don’t believe it. I do not *want* to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I am *compelled* to believe so on the basis of religious and nonreligious arguments.
Liberals often claim to be the guardians of nuance, but they cannot seem to grasp these distinctions.
To the fellow who argued that homosexuality must be genetically determined because no one would choose to be homosexual…I’m afraid I’ve never found this argument persuasive. People choose all sorts of things that make no sense on a cost/benefit analysis. They choose to defy their parents, to do drugs, to stay in abusive relationships, to commit suicide. The human mind is a complicated thing, and I can certainly imagine a variety of motives for pursuing homosexuality.
But on a different level, I think three distinctions have to be made. The first is between an influence and a determination. Genetic factors may influence us toward certain behaviors, making those behaviors 5%, 25%, 75% likely, but they may fall short of *determining* us for those behaviors (in which case the behavior would be 100% likely). I think there is likely a spectrum here. Some may be determined toward homosexuality, for all I know, but the majority, in my view, are *influenced* toward it. The genetic studies I have seen support this. If one genetic twin is gay, the other is more likely (than the average) to be gay, but will not necessarily be gay. If it were simply a matter of a “gay gene” that is either on or off, then all twins would share sexual orientation. In most cases I believe we have a limited power to shape and cultivate our desires over time.
The second is between homosexual desires and homosexual behaviors. Even if a person is *determined* toward homosexual desires, he may not be determined toward homosexual action. This is where the Catholic Church comes down; there is nothing sinful in being homosexual, or in being born with these desires; the sin comes in acting upon those desires. I don’t know where I stand on this, but I think the distinction is important. I may be 75% influenced toward addictive behavior, but I am morally culpable nor for the desires but for the way in which I respond to them.
The third distinction is between what is chosen and what is voluntary. Yes, no one wakes up one morning and chooses to be gay, in the way one chooses to wear a yellow shirt. The shaping of identity and behavior is far more complicated than that, and takes place over the course of thousands of tiny decisions that move us in certain directions. I may have a predisposition to alcoholism, and I don’t wake up one day and choose to be a drunkard; I become a drunkard *voluntarily*, even though I don’t *choose* it, because of all those tiny decisions that result in my becoming a drunkard.
Finally, I do not see a right enshrined in our Constitution that you can commit yourself to whomever you please and receive the status and privileges of marriage. Where do you see such a right? You are certainly free to commit yourself to a homosexual relationship, but the state is not compelled to treat all relationships in the same way. I prefer a civil unions option, but I don’t think that the institution of marriage itself should be tinkered with.
Brian, I appreciate the kindness of your last post, and I don’t want to interrupt your dialogue here, but pointing out that marriage has other problems does little to persuade me, at least, that this problem should be ignored. I do think we have a crisis of high divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births, and I think that I and others who believe as much should (and many do) do something about it. But the fact that marriage is on the ropes, so to speak, only suggests to me that we should try even harder to spare it from taking another blow. Care to explain how you see it otherwise?
And to answer your other question, to me, the problem is with sexual relations between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, not specifically with particular sex acts.
Ahithophel:
Don’t worry about interrupting any dialogue with Brian. I am not about to enter into a discussion with a homosexual concerning the “finer distinctions” of his trade.
I agree that all of us are born with certain proclivities that reach powerful force in adolescence. That is a critical time in the lives of young boys, and much care should be taken to prevent them from becoming disoriented and misdirected in the company of a grown man who is himself already afflicted. That is why adolescent boys should be kept away from homosexuals.
I do not believe there is credible data to suggest that in the case where one twin boy who is separated from his twin in infancy and later becomes a homosexual, that this gives rise to a greater-than-average likelihood that the other boy will become a homosexual. If I recall correctly, a fraudulent study was published making this claim long ago, but subsequent studies have completing negated the former study. Do you have a good reference?
Sure, thanks for the shout out, I’ll take a crack. And in fact I’ll go one better, I’m going to have my father respond as well. He was raised in a Catholic home and I was not, so when it gets to the minutia of religion, and can speak to having a gay son. I have an outsider’s view.
How I see it, love is a net positive. The point I was trying to make talking about these other things that seems to really be contradictory to the institution of marriage, chiefly divorce, was that there are avenues that religious people could take that would be more valuable in terms of results than opposing gay marriage. As I said in a previous post, gay people will always exist, have always existed and will continue to exist and act in the ways that they see fit, I mean pursuing their rights, loving each other, and acting on their sexual desires – the same as heterosexuals. I don’t think there is a lot of difference between gay people and straight people. I think at the core we both want to be loved, respected, have families, contribute to society and have children. I don’t think these desires are an abomination. I don’t know how anyone could think that they are. As to the social excesses that you speak of, I find it hard to see the difference between an excessive gay lifestyle and and excessive heterosexual one. If your problem is sex out of wed lock, does the other participant really matter as to the gender? I can’t see how this could be worse.
Now I have tried to make it very clear, I want, no gay friend of mine wants to interfere with your religion. I don’t care if you think I’m going to hell or anything else. But out of basic fairness, I think that if I pay the same taxes that you do I should be extended the same rights. I think if I have a partner dying in the hospital I should be able to be allowed to be there. I think if I have a life partner – or husband – for the sake of ease of discussion – we should be able to share the same property benefits as anyone else. The slippery slope argument, often crudely made, doesn’t hold much water for me either, because it’s irrational. No one is arguing for legal protection of pedophiles, and for the clergy to attack homosexuals as being pedophiles smacks of wild lunacy given the events of recent years.
To me this time reminds me a lot of the civil rights movement. At one point (as I believe is condoned in the bible) slavery existed in this country, then this was understood to be intolerable and rectified. Then eventually blacks and women were given the right to vote. Interracial marriage was understood as the act of two people loving each other and no longer made a crime. I am inclined to think that this demonstrates an evolution of thought. In a society as complex as you agree that it is, nothing is fixed. Moral absolutes are for children’s cartoons, not for the discourse of thinking people. I won’t site all the hilarious biblical examples of laws that you know probably far better than I, shellfish, two different clothes, living to be 900, slavery, all of these ideas are clearly at least ideas of the past. So if these can evolve, why not a modern Christian understanding of marriage. I specify, because marriage has not always been between one man and one woman. No matter what Rick Warren tries to convince the flock.
So all this to say, Ahithophel, that I am hopeful that one day you will understand my desire to be married to a loving life partner is not a detriment to your marriage but an testimony to it. You’re into a good thing, and we want partake as well. We can’t partake in your terms. The discussion of choice is silly, because it is beside the point. Gay people are a reality. You shouldn’t try and change us any more than we try and shouldn’t try and wipe out religion. And trust me the more I hear straight people tell me that anyone would want to choose this, the more I realize that they don’t understand what it is like to be the victim of living in a hate filled society. I am a target, and that is very uncomfortable, I have known that I was gay since I was ten, and suffered insults, violence and wild intolerance. If I could flip a switch and feel about women the way I do about men I would. Please believe me, this is not something a ten year old chooses, but rather realizes. We don’t want to convert anybody or bother you guys, we just want to peacefully love each other and our kids.
I hope we can continue our dialog as I find it informative and civil. I guess my major question is how does gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage, I have never heard a compelling reason. Not from Rick Warren, Mike Huckabee, anyone. Nothing beyond it isn’t traditional.
I will be driving to my family’s home, so won’t be able to respond for a while, but please write back and check for my response later. I would appreciate it.
We’re not bad people, that’s why we’re upset. It is uncivil to be associated with pedophiles. If the roles were reversed you wouldn’t appreciate it at all.
Happy holidays
Bill do you know any homosexuals? Again, your tone is insulting, but I’ll ignore it for the spirit of the season.
The idea that there is some sort of admissions program is ludicrous. We don’t recruit. We have no group meeting where we decide which good Christian boys we will target. If you genuinely believe that, I’m amazed in the most thorough sense of the word. More over I’m saddened.
You again refused to answer the simple question I was getting at: I was trying to assertain what you find reprehensible, the actor or the action? But I think you tone probably answers my question. By the way my trade is that of a writer. My sexuality is homosexual. But I am a person. With a mother, a father, two arms, two legs, a brain, thoughts and feelings. Which from the dismissive tone you take in your response, I’m not sure if you were aware of. Anyway Bill, in the spirit of being the bigger man. I wish you and your a happy healthy new year. I hope you can accept that with out getting cooties or something.
Bill,
Your homophobia is becoming very suspect. I can say quite confidently that my heterosexuality has never been tested by contact, or discussion, with any homosexual. I, for one, don’t think that our sexual tendencies are so fragile as to be threatened by the mere presence of a gay person.
Also, I don’t know about in your case, but we heterosexuals also enjoy those “finer distinctions” of Brian’s “trade” too.
I think it’s pretty clear that what homosexuals want more than anything else is for non-homosexuals to accept homosexual acts as moral. That is at the root of the entire controversy and debate over the “gay” thing.
But that has never happened in history, and it will never happen. So in the present environment, there is no reason for non-homosexuals to defile and debauch the core organizing institution of our civilization – marriage – in order to address the psychological cravings of homosexuals for moral legitimacy.
Eric:
Than by all means feel free to take up the discussion with Brian of all the “finer distinctions” of homosexuality you wish.
I agree, Bill. Let’s stop procrastinating about the side issues and focus on the core.
Bill says, “[We] essentially believe that homosexual acts are immoral, and that to endorse their moral validity by extending to them into the core organizing institution of our civilization – marriage – will not and cannot do.”
Bill et al, we keep telling you that we do not care what you believe — believe on. Nobody is stopping you. Rather it is you are trying to stop us from living the full lives that we are — to the same extent as anyone else — promised in both the Declaration of Independence (recite after me…) and the Constitution (“Equal Protection under the law”).
Now, I know you are going to off on some tangent about what the Constitution really says, but at the end of the day the likes of you voted to take away our rights given under the California constitution. So let’s not get crazy with that canard. Go ahead and admit it – you want us to be less equal because you think we are less equal.
Unlike some, I don’t care what you call this, but I am denied special privileges that are afforded by our government to heterosexuals in general and breeders in particular. I don’t object to most of the later and I gladly pay my property taxes to help educate your kids. But I do care that I do not have the same financial benefits and immigration benefits that can only come from:
A. Marriage rights for everyone, or
B. No Marriage Rights for Anyone, or
C. Civil Unions for everyone and marriage relegated to the churches, were it belongs.
At the end of the day, unless you admit that you want us to remain second class citizens in this free country, then your only choice on “vote on homosexual rights” day is to stay home or abstain.
One more time: I don’t give a flying leaping lizard if anyone finds me morally acceptable or not.
I wish Mr. Barry Goldwater were still here. I yearn for the day when ‘conservative’ meant ‘libertarian’ in the true American context.
P.S.: “It will never happen”???? Plenty of countries in this brave new world now allow gays to marry and guess what? They still have churches, and straight people, and babies, and effective armies, and… oh, never mind.
The government encourages behavior that it believes to be good for society. Hence, government support of heterosexual marriage — to encourage a couple’s fidelity, wealth (through community property), fertility, stability and the healthy development of children. Because the consequences of promiscuity, poverty, childlessness or juvenile maladjustment harm not just the couple, but all of society.
My understanding from talking with many gay people on the subject is that the contract of “gay marriage” does not necessarily–or even usually–include the promises of fidelity or community property, and it by definition does not include fertility. So what are the promises in this contract, and how is that contract a “marriage”?
And why would the government encourage a behavior — homosexual relations — that causes dread diseases, at least in the case of men? Does society suddenly have an interest in encouraging the spread of dread diseases? If so, what is the CDC for, exactly?
Before I get the knee-jerk accusations of “bigotry” and “homophobia,” I’ll just say one thing. I admit to homophobia, in that I am afraid of the inevitable consequences of homosexual behavior, and if I were a homosexual male I would be very homophobic indeed. With an average life expectancy of 38 years in a society in which the average man lives almost twice that long, he has a lot to be afraid of.
Brian,
your claim that you “know” homosexuality will outlast religion is based on wishful hostility. Heterosexuals are not trying to coopt homosexual customs or practices, homosexuals are trying to coopt heterosexual customs and practices, so tell me again who is intolerant. Society doesn’t hate activists like you, YOU HATE SOCIETY, and you know it.
Religion has contributed untold riches in science, culture, art and charity to the world. What has homosexuality contributed besides AIDS? Absolutely nothing. Individual homosexuals have contributed to society, but their sexual orientation was irrelevant. Nothing worthwhile that they contributed was based on homosexuality.
Grow up and realize that other people don’t want your agenda forced on them.
JSF,
spare me your militant dogma. Homos heve MORE rights than heteros, and you know it. There are no statutes protecting heteros specifically, and granting them special rights. There are plenty that aaward those to homos. You people are already MORE than equal. YOU are the ones trying to redifene and coopt a heterosexual tradition, not the other way around, so spare me your feigned martyrdom, you unmitigated @$$hole.
You are trying to force me to live my life by telling me that the definition of “marriage” no longer means a union between a man and a woman and that you will force your agenda down my throat. Like all rabid activists, you use misdirection and finger pointing to hide your fascism. If you don’t like living in a Democracy, get the f^ck out of America. The majority of Americans choose to defend marriage from your hateful, intolerant assault, and are perfectly willing to let you come up with YOUR OWN TRADITIONS. You obviously resent the fact that people like me Are allowed to vote, and that’s what makes you a fascist piece of $hit.
Again, heteros are not trying to force homosexuals to conform to their point of view, so stop making hypocritical, asinine and fascist claims that we are. Homos are trying to force heteros to conform to their point of view.
Look up fascism in the dictionary, you hatemongering ignoramus.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
“The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” that
are to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and, thus, affect the interpretation
of a wide variety of federal laws in which marital status is a factor. In 1997, we issued a
report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in
which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital
status is a factor.
Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a
total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which
marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.”
Dayna K. Shah
Associate General Counsel
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Replying to #85
JSF:
1. Marriage involves a complex relation between one man and one woman. You seek to intrude on that in the interests of a “full life” (presumably, your penchant for homosexual relations). What you really want is for the rest of us to say what you do is OK, and we are including your homosexual thing in our marriage institution in order to say “it’s OK.”
2. When the people vote you down on this, you get mad and try to fashion a constitutional right for yourself, in order to stifle the democratic will of the people. What you are straining for is moral legitimacy for your homosexual acts, but you cannot have that. If that makes you feel like a “second class citizen,” then so be it.
3. If the people don’t accept what you do on moral grounds and vote against same-sex marriage, then that is your bag of rocks to lug around. It’s YOUR problem. My best advice to you is to do your homosexual thing quietly behind closed doors and keep your mouth shut about it.
Replying to #89
JSF:
I don’t see all the single people, divorced people, widows and widowers complaining about purported benefits under law going to married people.
Shouldn’t there be a “Single people unite! All we have to lose is our chains!”
Only homosexuals squeal about not being “married” under law.
No, it is because of your perception that your homosexual acts are not being accepted as morally equivalent to what the rest of us do. That is why you want same-sex marriage, entry into the Boy Scout hierarchy, entry into the religious clergies, access to and endorsement by all of the other symbols of moral authority in our civilization. You constantly sniffle for moral validation any way you can get it. If you were so sure of your moral standing among yourselves as you seem to claim, you would shut up about it and leave the rest of us alone.
You want moral endorsement, but you cannot have that. Deal with it.
Oh my. Some of the things said in this thread confirm, to my mind, that there is a roughly equal distribution of jerks and bigots in the homosexual and heterosexual communities. Certainly, neither side has a monopoly on bad behavior.
Brian, you have been a fair enough interlocutor, though, so I’ll address you. A few points, in response to your reply. First, I don’t doubt that many gays, including apparently you, are often frightened for their safety, reputation, etc. One of the points I was trying to make is that some people, I believe, are very strongly swayed toward homosexuality by their genetic constitution, and others may be less strongly. One of my favorite students, the president of an LGBT organization, tells me that he has never been aroused at the sight of a woman. I had another student, however, who had been attracted to 1 woman and 2 men in his life. (I get to know my students, and sometimes they confide in me; I don’t solicit this sort of information.) Then there is my brother, who has been attracted to 50 women and 1 man (though it may have been a sort of friendship crush, I think), and myself, who has never been attracted to a man. I think there is probably a spectrum, and the formation of homosexuality is probably a complex interaction of genetics and environment. (And Bill, my point regarding twins was that the studies suggest there may be *some* correlation of homosexuality between twins, but if genetics were the *cause* (the sole determining factor) of homosexuality then *all* twins should share sexual orientation. I don’t have a particular study I can reference, I’m afraid; this is just a recollection.)
So again, I don’t think anyone “chooses” to be gay, but I do think that for most (not necessarily all) gays there is a “voluntary” element, comprised of decisions made over the course of time. And I think the decision to act upon homosexual desires is always, or almost always, a matter of freedom. The dangers, although I am sympathetic to them, don’t really mean much to me as an argument. People chose to be Christian (and still do in some places in the world) when they knew it would lead to persecution and likely martyrdom. People today choose to fly airplanes into buildings, to write articles critical of the Kremlin, to return to destructive lifestyles, to have affairs with secretaries, or to flay their own skin, or to take their own lives–all sorts of things that make no sense according to a cost/benefit analysis. And again the desire/behavior distinction is important. Probably there is some genetic proclivity to homosexual desire, and then there is a complex interaction of their genetic proclivity, their environmental influences, and their decisions made over the course of time, that determine where they go from there.
In any case, all this is somewhat beside the point. I’m not seeking to change you — but this goes to the issue of whether there is freedom in homosexual behavior, and thus whether acting upon homosexual desires can be morally assessed.
As for the legal issue, let me offer a few thoughts. First, laws make distinctions all the time, distinctions between adults and children, men and women, rich and poor. Moreover, they make distinctions between people *even moreso* on the basis of people’s behavior; a felon cannot vote, a person who launders money is thrown in jail, etc. Also, laws incentivize what a society values or deems helpful. We have financial incentives for people to have children, to buy certain cars, to start businesses, etc. I don’t see any wrong, prima facie, with a legal distinction between those who marry heterosexually and those who do not.
Second, you seem to be assuming that I need to justify a law according to utilitarian reasoning. That is, the (common) assumption seems to be that I need to show that granting marital rights to homosexual couples would be harmful to society. If something is not clearly harmful, the argument goes, then it cannot be legally prohibited. There are a few reasons why I don’t agree with this. (a) Not all laws are justified on utilitarian grounds. Some are simply reflections of the moral sensibilities of the public. One can put forward a libertarian argument that such laws are unfounded, but it’s an empirical fact that we do have such laws, and I don’t see anything wrong with a society expressing its values through its laws, as long as those values do not trample rights enumerated in the Constitution. (b) For better or worse, our society still recognizes certain things as sacred, and some of our laws are designed to honor those sacred things. Marriage resides in the interstices between state and religion, and the vast majority of Americans regard marriage as a sacred institution or a “sacrament.” As long as this doesn’t cross over into the establishment of a state church (and I think you’d have a hard time arguing that it does), I don’t see anything wrong with laws that recognize and respond to the sacredness that the vast majority of Americans find in marriage. And apart from the question of harm or benefit, I think the sacredness of marriage resides in its traditional definition of a man and a woman. (c) I am not the one who is seeking to change the law. It seems to me that the homosexual lobby needs to present a solid argument that the rights enumerated in the Constitution require us to extend marital status and privileges to homosexual couples. I haven’t seen a convincing argument to this effect, though I’ve seen many try. And lastly, (d) some laws incentivize what we think is valuable or beneficial. Even if I do not show a “harmful” effect of gay marriage, I can believe it is “beneficial” for society for heterosexuals to marry, and that we are justified in having laws that incentivize that behavior with certain privileges.
Third, if I did agree that I should have to advance an argument that granting marital status and privileges would be harmful, these are a few of the things I would say: (a) The slippery slope argument always looks silly prospectively, but retrospectively it does not. Ever since the sixties, we have loosened legal protections of marriage, and really changed fundamentally some of the ways in which we understand the marital commitment–and now divorce rates are sky high, illegitimacy is sky high, and we have a major problem on our hands with deadbeat dads, fatherless children, single-parent families that cannot support themselves and go forever on welfare, and etc. This already *has been* a slippery slope, and we’ve been sliding down it for quite some time. Look at the long slide into drug culture, welfare culture, etc. Many people raised slipper slope arguments against them, and were mocked. “How is this little law going to weaken the institution of marriage?” But over time these things add up. (b) Extending marital status and privileges to gays would be an alteration of the very concept of marriage. This would not be lowering the hedges around the institution of marriage; this would be changing the very concept. None of us really know what sort of consequences this might have in the long term; neither my side, nor yours (really). But once we abandon the centuries-long concept of marriage, it will be easier to abandon it again. I understand your argument that the rate of gay marriages (per the populace) would be far lower than the rate of divorces, but in some ways redefining marriage would be a much more fundamental change because it would change the very idea. (c) As far as more concrete harm goes, here is where I am most likely (I’m afraid) to offend you. Since I believe that homosexual behavior is immoral, I believe it is destructive of the individual in psychological and spiritual senses. You might tell me (as other gays have) that accepting one’s homosexuality and acting on one’s homosexual desires feels liberating, as though one has reached a higher level of self-consciousness, or etc. In the long term, nevertheless, I believe that acting on one’s homosexual desires is self-destructive. I can expound on this in another post, if you want.
But this is already very long, and let me turn the table around here. Much of the talk about how the fight for gay rights parallels the fight for civil rights assumes that we are in agreement that we’re talking about a “right” in the first place. But I don’t think we are. How would you argue that any Constitutional right implies that a man and a man should be able to commit themselves to each other for life *and* have that union honored by the state with the status and privileges of marriage? Remember two things: I don’t think that we’re talking about a “right” in regard to marriage at all, homosexual or heterosexual. I don’t think I have a right to marry a woman and have that union recognized as a marriage by the state. I think the state has granted marital status and privileges, but I don’t think there is a right to have one’s marriage recognized as such by the state. So you would first have to show that marriage is a right in the first place. Then, second, you would have to show that the marital “right” should not be permitted to distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual couples. In other words, show me that we’re talking about a right here, and then, assuming we’re talking about a right, show me that the state, which makes many distinctions, especially on the basis of behavior, should not be allowed to make a distinction here. At least I think that’s how the argument would have to run in order for it to convince me.
Anyway, thanks for the conversation, and the respectful tone you’ve had. I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas.
Ahithophel:
If I may comment from the side, first, let me convey my compliments to you on a very eloquent dissertation.
I believe you are correct that most of us have had the propensity for ambiguous attractions early on in life, especially in adolescence, when hormones are galloping along blindly at times, and at full speed.
But wouldn’t you agree that for this very reason, adolescent boys should be kept away from homosexuals? I am a Roman Catholic, and as you probably know, our church has just been through the gauntlet from hell with the homosexual priest scandal. A few decades ago, the American Catholic church hierarchy allowed homosexuals to begin the process for a virtual take-over of many of the instructional institutions where priests were trained. The priesthood began pumping out homosexual priests (an oxymoron) in great numbers, who then went into the parishes and, over the years, corrupted tens of thousands of young adolescent boys who were students in Catholic schools. All of these boys felt ruined; most ended up homosexuals themselves. This nearly destroyed the Catholic clergy in America (for years, non-homosexual men had either been denied entry to the priesthood, or stayed away because of what was happening). It almost bankrupted the Catholic church in North America as a whole. It will take decades to repair the destruction.
Homosexuals have now been barred from the priesthood. Better late than never. But none of this would have happened had homosexuals been barred from the priesthood early on.
LGBTs did not redefine marriage, it’s been redefined many times before we touched it. Polygamy is all over the bible, and as recent as this year in FLDS sects. i’ve seen in my lifetime inter-racial marriages become legal.
the marriage argument in CA Supreme Court is that gays can raise families legally, therefore the have the RIGHT to protect their families.
Hetero Christian Right folks have to come up with BETTER legal arguments than the thought of queers touching the word marriage gives them such ICKS.
also stating same sex marriage goes against their religious beliefs is a LOSER argument. No American is forced to hold your religious beliefs or ANY religious beliefs. if those non believers are hetero, they can marry, and have their Constitutional Rights covered by the equal protection clause.
What is the core meaning of marraige, according to those who think Warren was wrong to support Proposition 8?
Don’t point to the lack of a legal requirement that would make procreation mandatory for each and every instance of marriage.
If you do, then, you cannot distinguish marriage as a sexual relationship type. There is no requirement for 1) sexual relations, 2) sexual attraction, 3) this or that sexual identity, 4) this or that sexual orientation.
On what principled basis would you draw the line at related people?
Don’t point to tradition, taboo, public morality. These have been discarded by the “gay marriage” advocates.
You can’t even point to the marital presumption of paternity which makes of the conjugal relationship 1) a both-sexed relationship type that is 2) a sexualized relationship type. All who enter marriage also consent to this marital presumption that arises from the both-sexed basis of human procreation and of human community.
You can’t even point to the existing boundaries around the core of marriage. That’s because the boundaries are around 1) sex integration and 2) contingency for responsible procreation and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution). That’s because the “gay marriage” advocates have sidelined this core of marriage because it does not fit the one-sexed combination.
You have sidelined concerns about sex equality within marriage since the one-sexed arrangement (homosexual or not) is definitively sex-segregative. So you can’t even make the case against plural marriage.
Likewise, gay advocates have sidelined the importance of responsible procreation. So no concerns on that front can apply to the line drawing against related people nor against already married people.
You can’t point to the social institution, either, since gay advocates insist that the Government owns marriage as a vehicle for benefits.
You can’t exclude vulnerable families who could use protections that the advocates of “gay marriage” claim are essential to the well-being, the self-esteem, and so forth of people identified as gay and lesbian.
Protection equality is not the same as marraige equality. Marriage equality is the equal representation of both sexes in the conjugal relationship type. Excluding one or the other sex does not augment sex equality. And excluding related people, or already married people, does not enhance the protections that might be accorded gay or lesbian arrangements.
So forget about complaing that “gay marriage” has been compared with incestuous marriage or with plural marriage. Those lines are not sustainable without a principled basis. And the gay advocates have trashed that principled basis by promoting their favored subset of nonmarriage.
But what of under-aged relationships? Why are these not also eligible for marriage.
Consent? Well, I dunno, what would people being consenting to?
What is the core meaning of marriage, according to the advocates of “gay marriage”? What are the definitive legal requirements that distinguish that relationship type from the rest of the nonmarital arrangements?
If you have no core meaning, and no definitive legal requirements that show a core meaning, then, your own pro-”gay marriage” argumentation has defeated your claim to a special status.
Marital status is a special status. It is preferential. So all you really have is a call for a protective status. And protecitons should be available to all nonmarital arrangements — regardless of gay identity politics, right?
Or maybe you are really just looking for a tolerative status. In which case, all relationship types that are not outlawed — not criminalized, for instance — would qualify.
It seems that to favor the merger of “gay marriage” is to favor the merger of nonmarriage with marriage. And that means demoting marriage from its special status.
Warren was correct to compare with incestuous and polygamous behavior. These are nonmarital because of the societal concerns for sex integration and responsible procreation. Likewise underaged marriage.
Yet in all three we have some accomodations based on tolerance and protections — again, due to concerns for nonmarital families that are outside of marriage. Warren has said pretty much that these concerns may fairly be extended to the nonmarital same-sex arrangement that some call “gay marriage”.
Obama has said as much, also. And Lowery has, too.