I’d like to explain how it is that a (mostly) liberal like me can be against same-sex “marriage.”
Right now, there is a raging protest going on over the passing of California’s Proposition 8, which was a California constitutional amendment to ban same sex “marriage.”
What is bothering me and what is motivating me to write this, is that I don’t think that anyone, on either side, is discussing what is really the most important point to this debate (to be described below). On one side, gay “marriage” proponents are trying to make this into a civil rights issue. Gays are being denied some sort of basic human right, in violation of all which is just and good. On the other side, there is too much of a religious connotation. The main people speaking up are religious people, who too often talk about the “sanctity” of marriage and otherwise discuss it in a religious context. It did not help that the major financial supporter of Prop 8 was the Mormon Church.
Here’s what I think are the most important issues. Marriage has endured as an institution for thousands of years for one main reason. The institution of marriage greatly improves the behavior of men, who would otherwise have a tendency to abandon women and children, who depend upon men for protection, shelter, and sustenance. This was always a societal responsibility. Fathers were responsible for the care of their daughters; the fathers paid a dowry to grooms as part of passing along the responsibility of caring for a woman from one man to another. The new husband accepted this dowry as part of a societal contract.
Fast forwarding to present day, most women no longer require such protection and care. Women are, in most cases, perfectly capable of caring for both themselves and their children. But it’s more of a struggle, and children from two parent households have clear cut advantages, as shown by considerable and compelling research. And, in two parent households, happiness and harmony are greatly facilitated by fidelity, and the institution of marriage continues to do a very good job of preventing most men from behaving too badly.
Supporters of same sex “marriage” are fond of tearing down the institution of traditional marriage with misleading statistics. The fact is that the average first marriage endures for more than two decades. A marriage which lasts 20 years or more is a success. It takes the married couple well into middle age and past most of the child rearing years. Most traditional marriages are, in this respect, a success.
Why does traditional marriage succeed? Because it is a very big deal, even in non-religious couples. Marriage has such a long and esteemed tradition. It is more than a social contract. It is more than a civil right. The very definition of marriage connotes “til death do us part.” It doesn’t matter that many marriages do not make it to this ultimate end. This is the goal of marriage, in the minds of most who enter into it. It is the biggest and most important commitment that most people ever make.
The average male in a “committed” gay relationship has 6 partners per year outside of the relationship. In the mind of many – if not most – heterosexual males, the concept of gay marriage is a joke. This is probably unfair and more than a little cruel, but it has it origins in the notorious promiscuity of gay relationships, even in supposedly “committed” gay relationships. It is the antithesis of marriage, which is fundamentally based in commitment. The average partner in a traditional marriage doesn’t have relationships outside the marriage. For the substantial minority who do have affairs outside of the marriage, it is on the order of one or two such affairs, over the course of decades or a lifetime. The point is that the institution of traditional marriage does a very good job, indeed, of keeping most men from behaving too badly, to the advantage of women and the well-being of children.
If same sex “marriage” becomes a matter of official government recognition, this will cheapen the concept of traditional marriage as being the most serious of life’s commitments. This won’t happen immediately, but, over the course of a generation, this will be the effect. Marriage will no longer be a “big deal,” it will be just another contract, to be dissolved more easily than it was formed. The average first marriage will no longer endure for more than two decades. More wives will be turned into single mothers. More children will be raised in one parent households.
The Netherlands experience is, to date, very controversial. Gay “marriage” has been in force of law only since 2002. I personally think that the statistics are strongly suggestive of a very adverse effect of the existence of same sex marriage on the degree to which traditional marriage is surviving as an institution in the Netherlands, but it will take more than a generation to have clear data on the ultimate, full effect. By then, it will have been too late. I think that the institution of traditional marriage will have been irreparably damaged, at least among secular people, again, to the disproportionate disadvantage of women and children.
Being a good liberal, I support everything else in the gay agenda. I’m for tenant rights and employment rights. I’m for ending all restrictions against gays serving in the military. I’m in favor of domestic partnerships, conveying on couples the same legal rights, advantages, and responsibilities which exist in the case of marriage. This is right and fair and it should take away every argument that non-government recognition of same sex “marriage” is in any way a violation of human rights, civil rights, or any other “rights.” Gays can call it whatever they wish. They can say that they are married. They can have ceremonies in church or any other institution which voluntarily agrees to host such ceremonies. They can go on honeymoons. They can privately use whatever descriptive terms or names they wish.
Just don’t have government refer to it officially as “marriage.” Marriage is a word which connotes a commitment of a man and a woman to be faithful to each other “til death do us part.” It is a human tradition going back millenia. Same sex “marriage” has briefly existed at various periods in the past. But only as a historical curiosity.
What is needed is simply a new name for what gays hope will become a new and enduring institution.
Men and women are different. They use different rest rooms. They have different rules in competitive athletics. They have different sexual functions. They often wear different types of clothes. They are separate but equal people, who already have separate but equal institutions.
Same sex couples who wish to make commitments should have their own separate but equal institution. Equal rights does not mean the blurring of important semantic distinctions. And that’s all the fuss is about. It has nothing at all to do with basic human rights or civil rights or equality under the law. It’s a war being fought over semantics. Trivial, on its face, but with important implications especially for women and children.
It isn’t a right. They aren’t entitled to get married. I really don’t care either way, but those are the facts.
Showing your “conservative” segments I see, Larry. Good on you. And I dare say I don’t think many genuinely disagree…. except the LGBT community themselves. They have a different agenda from that which they publicly outcry.
The LGBT community is not fighting for equal rights and benefits, they are fighting the entire concept of “marriage” as it is government defined.
Frankly I, and most conservatives I know, don’t have a problem with same sex union benefits. However there are some things that do *not* need to happen to accomplish this. They do not need to reinvent the wheel to accomplish what they supposedly say they want.
1: Definition of marriage stays man-woman. Marriage is not a creation of government, but a union devised of religion. Govt got into the act for the financial aspect… shared assets, taxes, etc. Marriage should stay a product of religion, and govt should continue to do what they do for whatever. But marriage was, and is, a religious rite first and foremost. It should stay that way.
2: Civil unions: If they want the same govt benefits, then civil unions is the answer. However the problem is they don’t want civil unions. They want to call it “marriage”. If the LGBT community was merely after benefits, they would be conceding on this. They aren’t. And that’s because they want to change mindsets as to what is “marriage” in the norm. Retraining in schools, advertising, etal. You think the Muslim world doesn’t like us now? Wait until same sex marriage becomes legal…..
Again… see my #1. Marriage is for a man and woman, born of a religious rite. My suggestion to the LGBT? Take the civil union, or forever hold your piece.
3: Conservatism is alive and well, and aptly demonstrated this past election. They voted for a guy who lied thru his teeth and promised tax cuts (very conservative issue). They also voted enmasse for NO to same sex unions (another very conservative issue). Amazing, eh? And they say conservatism is dead. Nope….. it’s just being hijacked by very efficient liars.
And you, Larry, unfortunately voted for him. Together with his potential supermajority, they may ignore separation of church and state powers and remake a traditional religious rite a new… “right”.
Lesbian couples are as monogamous as opposite sex couples. (More than opposite sex couples living together, and less than married couples, which is to be expected since not all lesbians would choose to marry.
For the most part, it is lesbians who will marry. A smaller number of males will marry, but these will tend to be the ones who actually want to be monogamous.
In short, I can’t really see this as making marriage less monogamous.
i would say that the election is over and the voters of california spoke out against same sex marriage. get over it. you choose an alternate lifestyle, you choose to be in a commited relationship, then have a civil union. whats so bad with a civil union? if they want to have gay marriage legal i feel it would cheapen an actual marriage, i mean anyone can get married then, hell dogs will get married eventually. i could care less what people do in their badrooms as long as they aren’t hurting kids, they want to be “married”, have a civil union and then tell everyone you are married. i can’t believet hat the most liberal state in the nation passed this, i am actually very surprised, but it seems that event hough that state is usually a disgrace in most social issues it is satanding up for what is right. marriage is for a man and a woman only. do the gays actually think that seeing the ads paid for by a church swayed voters? this is one of those issues you either believe in or not, its that simple, you are either for it or against it. more people were obviously against it. so suck it up and move the hell on.
My comments are on this thread:
OBAMA’S MANDATE FOR NATIONALIZED SAME-SEX MARRIAGE http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37932
I just don’t understand why married gays should devaluate a hetero marriage — how do to two married men who would not marry women cause unmarried mothers? Seriously, how would the mechanism work —
do you think that many gays would marry women if they are not allowed to marry each other?
Gays who marry take responsibility for each other, marriage is not just about bringing up kids, it’s also two people saying ‘yes’ to each other and looking to get old together. Why should they be begrudged the legal status that allows them to take care of each other properly?
They don’t take anything away from anyone, in fact, their kind of union is an addition — we have few enough people love each other anyway nowadays, so anyone who is into trying to love and bond properly should be commended and helped all the way, marriage is always best — in fact, it’s the unmarried people who don’t want to bond with anyone who are the troublemakers!
If marriage has made men better people and partners why wouldn’t it do the same thing for gay couples. I think i understand the argument and stand on the exact opposite side of you. I am a conservative and i don’t believe all the crap the liberal illuminati tell me about Obama and what he will and won’t do and it probably doesn’t matter anyway. BUT when it comes to gay marriage, even though i think homosexuality is wrong because of my religious convictions i think homosexuals should have equal rights just like all the other people in this world i don’t agree with. that’s my thoughts.
I would love to know where the author draws his stats from about monogamy in marriage and in committed gay relationships. Hearing those stats reminded me of Bill Clinton for some reason.
I frankly think the government should be out of the religion business. If people in favor of prop 8 don’t want gay marriage but support civil unions, whatever that is, then all people who apply for a governmental license should be given civil union certificates since marriage is a religious deal anyway. Let people get “married” in their churches. My church won’t even marry people of a different faith or people divorced.
Some interesting numbers about Prop 8:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=9718
>>all people who apply for a governmental license should be given civil union certificates>>
Which is presently the case for gays in California.
>> since marriage is a religious deal anyway. Let people get “married” in their churches. My church won’t even marry people of a different faith or people divorced.>>
Hah. Now you’ve hit on it. If marriage for gays is legalized, how long do you think it will be before your church will be _required_ to marry gays or give up it’s tax-free status? imo, _THAT’s_ at the heart of the issue – forcing religions to accept the homosexual lifestyle, and make it illegal to condemn the gay lifestyle in religious sermons. It will be fashioned as hate speech, as it has been in Canada.
When the FOCA (federal abortion) act is passed, Catholic hospitals will be required to do abortions, even though it’s prohibited by their religion. Many have said that they will either close down entirely, or will close down their OB-GYN wings. It will become a freedom of religion issue, and even if the Feds don’t force it, you can bet someone will sue them and make it impossible financially for them to stay open.
So much for the Freedom of religion.
So why should the civil union be only for folks currently in a relationship of a sexual nature?
Why are the anti-prop-8 folks insisting on limiting the union to couples in sexual relationships? Don’t they think other folks have important relationships?
Why can’t I have a civil union with a very good friend (female or male), or relative, with whom I want to share my life and home? And medical benefits. And rights of survivorship. And pensions. And be allowed to visit me in the hospital no matter what. And so forth.
Dan.
Suek, I can see hospitals being required to perform any legal medical procedure – based on if it were an immediate life threatening condition, as well as a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath. However, it is my understanding that FOCA would only apply to public hospitals, not private ones:
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html
It looks like there are too many issues in this bill that are left undefined or which lead to other questions, such as freedom of speech, so it would seem like it has a way to go.
I tend to think that this would be less of an issue for gay couples, as they would have plenty of churches to chose from and ample time to do so, as would a couple of differing religious beliefs.
I don’t really care about gay marriage one way or the other… I worry about Step 2.
The way I figure it, once gay marriage is state-approved, then the ability to teach my children that homosexuality is abnormal, a statistical abberation, not something to consider as an “option” or to be “experimented” with… but something to live with if you have to… will be curtailed as “hate speech.” I don’t want my children being “acclimated” to gay relationships in school, or any of the rest of it.
While I do want my children to learn not to abuse, or prejudge gays on the basis of their sexual choices… I do NOT want my children to see those sexual choices as equivalent… and that’s what I see state-approved gay marriage as forcing.
Eddie, don’t worry – your kids cannot choose their sexual preference any more than they can the color of their eyes or whether they are left or right handed. Go ahead and teach your kids tolerance and acceptance – just they way you’ll love them no matter what.
If you know a lot of gay people, you know that the vast majority are pretty low-key and regular folks. The ones you always hear about on TV are usually the wildest of the bunch. Civil unions are not the same as marriage. Try telling your tax adviser you’re in a civil union and see how many full marriage benefits you’ll get. If your partner is from Canada or any other foreign country, try seeing how that civil union holds up on immigration rights. No gay person ever wants to be gay. They’re gay because they are. Being gay means putting up with a lot of crap from society, sometimes on a daily basis. It also means you pay just as many taxes as the person next door, only you get less in return.
If this is all really about the children, why are half of kids growing up with divorced or single parent households?
If you’re shocked and embarrassed about explaining to your kids what being gay means, how do you explain MTV and half the other shows on TV? Kids need to learn about people who are different. 30 years ago, parents had to explain why a white person would marry a black person to their children. It was just shocking. It’s not a big deal anymore.
All of these people bringing up religious references don’t seem to mind all the other violations. Thou shall not work on the Sabbath? Pretty much all sex that isn’t missionary position in order to produce children falls outside of standard religious practice. And I know very few people that uptight about sex.
I understand “ideal” Americana. But life just isn’t that rosy for many people. Would you find it easier to stomach if all gay people just married people of the opposite sex and lived a life of lies? Should all gay people just become, say, repressed priests? What straight person would want to be married to a repressed gay person?
Some of the best parents I’ve ever met were gay. The families they create are well thought out, loving, and the children are financially well off. That’s because they can’t just have children (for the most part) by complete accident, out of wedlock, as a teenager, etc. They often adopt, which is a rigorous process. If they use a donor, they typically have a lot of extra money to spend. Not every gay parent is a dream, but what I see doesn’t match up to the anti-gay marriage rhetoric.
Gay people are demonized. And I would imagine most of them are simply tired of that stereotype.
+1 for what Eddie said.
I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their own home. They already have legal protections in the state of Kalifornia (civil unions).
I don’t think that the State should be condoning something like “gay marriage” and giving it legitimacy. They (gays) already have de-facto marriage in Kalifornia, so there’s very little to be accomplished by letting them legally marry.
This is nothing but another front by gays to impose their will on the rest of society.
The people in Kalifornia have now voted TWICE against gay marriage, but the KA Supreme Court will probably soon invalidate this latest vote, too. By doing so, they will (again) make up another legal ruling out of thin air, without any legal precedent to do so.
I will continue to vote against the furtherance of any more “gay rights” other than that currently available by KA law.
The dominant cry of outrage is always over rights. When does anyone discuss responsibility or that in the country with the most freedom on the planet there are plenty of examples where by design our freedoms are limited. Whether the same sex marriage debate or any other the argument always seems to land on who is being denied their rights. Having the courage or simply discipline to deal effectively with the cards your dealt and being resourceful enough to find a way to be content with what you do have must be a historical footnote not worthy of the enlightened populating much of the US and elsewhere.
Cary #14… now you’re over here, confusing “tolerance” for “separate and different, but equivalent”? Frankly, your comments insinuate that if we don’t agree with your childless butt (as you informed us on the other thread, you have no children) on civil unions instead of marriage, we are somehow “intolerant” of the gay lifestyle?
You seem utterly incapable of seeing the obvious… that the govt redefining a religious rite *does* have consequences that are both legal and moral, and that the LGBT community is unwilling to settle for civil unions. The majority of the US favors the “separate but equal” civil unions, and has voted down same sex marriage in most of the most liberal states.
If you want them to enjoy equivalent govt benefits, then welcome to the club. Altho, employers may not be so thrilled to have their insurance costs skyrocket further…
But you and your sister cannot speak for the other families who do not want to see this become a new cultural issue, rammed down the throats of our children thru the public school system.
Personally, I never got that worked up about semantics arguments about the word marriage. I admit I come down on the “keep it between a man and a woman” side of things, but I would hardly put it in my top ten list of societal threats we face. “Girls gone Wild!” videos seem a greater threat to morality and monogamy than whether the legal document conveying partnership rights to a gay couple says “marriage” or “civil union”.
Angry, violent mobs breaking numerous laws to protest legally passed constitutional amendments? Law enforcement idly standing by with politically correct handcuffs on? That seems a bit more threatening to our society to me. We have the Constitutional right to assemble, not the Constitutional right to assault and threaten other citizens.
To top it off, our bastion of protection for the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the U.S., is very likely to overthrow Prop 8. This will be a gigantic slap in the face of state’s rights along the lines of Roe vs. Wade. Why bother to have individual state governments at all? What purpose are the rules and laws of our states and our nation if any pissed off group of criminals with enough time and disrespect for the law can bitch and whine until 5 lawyers with delusions of grandeur and lifetime appointments, who are specifically charged with protecting our most sacred document, can shred another page of it? I am keeping my fingers crossed that it does not come to this. If they want it overturned, they should do so legally at the ballot box, not by fiat.
I would be just as angry, and just as disgusted, if the shoe were on the other foot. If Prop 8 had failed, and Mormons, Blacks, and Catholics were rioting in the streets and assaulting Gays in an effort to have a legally defeated proposition upraised unconstitutionally, I would be haranguing those protesters. We are on a slippery slope down from rule of law, into mob rule.
It is a bit confusing to have the same discussion on two different threads, but this is how it played out. I would just ask anyone joining in on this discussion to also read the other thread, as many of the things raised here are addressed there:
After Terry’s well said comment, anything I’d have add would be superfluous and far less eloquent, so I’m gonna bow out now.
I’m glad we had this discussion. It wasn’t even possible as little as a decade ago.
Terry, you confuse Bible doctrine with different religious sects’ man-made rules with their interpretation…. i.e. working on the Sabbath and sexual positions. These are not Biblical doctrines.
And I’ll give you a hint… if Canada doesn’t have legal same sex marriages, you and your partner still won’t be viewed as a legal couple in that country.
There is nothing about civil unions that is insurmountable. What is insurmountable is that the LGBT community will settle for nothing less. That’s because it’s not really about the benefits.
Your comments about “stomaching” don’t sit well with me. You have an extreme “my way or nothing” attitude. Instead of recognizing that most the nation, and most of us here have absolutely not one problem with seeing LGBT couples receive equivalent government bennies, you are part of those that demand the traditional rite and family change to suit your ideas.
Therefore we thank you for proving that this isn’t about benefits for you. It’s about changing societal behavior and the culture of the US. And that only happens thru school indoctrination. The day parents yield that much power to the schools is the day the family is forever doomed.
I also wish someone would address another issue…if we allow gay marriage based on it being discriminatory not to, then why shouldn’t we also allow bigamy or polygamy? What if I want to marry my son, or my dog? Wouldn’t it be discriminatory to not allow it all? We just cannot go down that slippery slope.
@Pam: This was addressed in the other thread.
Larry;
While I commend you on your well thought out position on marriages vis-a-vis civil unions, as a retired military member, the standard liberal concept concerning gay’s in the military is not an issue easily administrated.
A fundamental part of basic training is to facilitate an environment leading to a significant emotional event to effect psychological changes and attune the individual to a willingness to following orders. One of the prohibited activities during this process is sexual activity. To enable this inductees are segregated from those of the opposite sex for the duration of their training to help govern their urges.
Even following basic training, during initial technical training there are strict limitations on accepted sexual behavior, so as to keep the trainee’s concentration focused on professionalism and the task at hand.
Once this period of time is over, and they return to society, the military has little regard on actions of a sexual nature aside from those that might have adverse effects on the command structure (i.e. fraternization, perceptions of favoritism, etceteras). One of the taboo is partners of differing ranks are not usually allowed to work together.
The problems with throwing homosexuality mandates into the mix is not just the nightmare of how to effect separation in those early stages of training, but to maintain discipline. You can’t just throw them in with a group of people of the same sex. What happens if a wayward homosexual decides to commit some late-night sodomy or fellatio on an unsuspecting/unwilling participant? They are likely to get their butts trounced by their own peer group before order can be restored. What do you do about the possibility of the equivalent lesbian behavior? One solution might be to suggest perhaps housing the homosexuals with those of the opposite sex, but that too would have led to even complications. You still couldn’t place more than one admitted homosexual in the same group without defeating the purpose. What happens if a sex-starved deviant of either sex takes it upon themselves to rape that individual as an outlet for relief? What do you do in the case of bisexuals? However the outcome, the potential damage to maintaining order and discipline is undermined.
Another problem, boils down to the very promiscuity issues you point out. With these factors in mind, we all got a big laugh at the naivety of the ridiculous of the, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” politically-correct mandate foisted upon our military. Some gays who were inducted confused this policy to presume that after “lights out” they were free to ignore the restrictions on discipline and slip off for a cozy tryst in a broom closet or common barracks bathroom. When caught, they were summarily booted out, not for being homosexual, but for failing to adhere to the strict disciplinary conditions set forth.
Not to say that there is no such thing as gays in the military. Those who do “behave themselves” and have the willpower to control their urges, can serve and nobody may be the wiser. That is the real key to solving the problem, free-will combined with willpower. I personally had no problem serving alongside homosexuals as long as they did not attempt to indoctrinate me into their “club”. I know of a few individuals who served with me that were obvious “flamers”. As long as they followed the rules of decency and did their jobs like everyone else, I never had a problem with them, nor would I have considered turning them in for being “limp-wristed”. Yet, there is little our government bodies can do to force individuals into toeing the line. They’ve already tried going way beyond what was workable in the military environment. Further attempts by members of the legislature to corrupt our military institutions are also folly.
“No gay person ever wants to be gay. They’re gay because they are. Being gay means putting up with a lot of crap from society” (Terry)
So are pedophiles. And then, what’s next? Sex with animal? Prostitution? Where is the limit? In Canada, same sex marriage are legal. Now, pedophiles also wants legality. Did you know that there are multiple pedophile’s associations that wants to be recognize as normal people… as legal?
MANDATE OF PEDOPHILE ORGANIZATIONS
The overall mandate of these various organizations is to legalize sexual relations between adults and children. They want to break down the social discrimination that pedophiles face. They maintain that pedophilia (or as NAMBLA calls it, inter-generational sex) is a sexual orientation or preference just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Age should not be a barrier to “consensual” sex between children and adults.
Such organizations argue that laws prohibiting sexual relations with children are based on mistaken notions that such relations are harmful to children. They argue that sex with kids is healthy and beneficial for them.
http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/rev2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=356&Itemid=46
We have a case in Montreal of a pedophile (a pastor) who married a 10 years old girl and thinks that he has done nothing wrong. The case went to Court.
MAN MARRIED TO 10-YEAR-OLD GIRL FOUND GUILTY OF ASSAULT.
Oct 15, 2008 05:52 PM
THE CANADIAN PRESS
MONTREAL – A self-described Montreal pastor who says a so-called marriage to a 10-year-old girl gave him the right to have sex with her has been found guilty of sexual assault. Daniel Cormier, 56, was convicted by Quebec Court Judge Sylvie Durand today after a five-year trial rife with legal wrangling.
http://register.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/518123
I’m late to the party, and apologize, but I do LOVE LOVE LOVE this topic. It demonstrates the finest in liberal tolerance (not).
If we’re to blame the mormons for bringing in outta state cash to defeat this, then…isn’t it wrong to deal w this outta state as well from the other perspective?
Where’s the backlash against Pre-elect Obama who is silent rather than protesting with the mad left? Oh that’s right, he’s The One, and we don’t dare blaspheme him.
Meanwhile, in the war on terror that Democrats no longer refer to as the war on terror (their first move in taking power in 06 was to stricken “Global War on Terror” from Federal docs and replace it w “combat operations against Al Queda and other extremists around the world”)…in the Global War on Terror that Michael Moore fans/lemmings deny even exists…
No doubt if someone would just talk to these ruffians their gay bashing would stop. All they need is a good talking to. OR, maybe the Prop8 fanatics will suggest that Gay Marriage is a human right, that all gay rights are human rights, and as such they should be defended; ie they’ll enlist en masse and demand to invade Somalia or wherever human rights/gay rights are violated and talks fail?
Nah. I have my doubts about that happening.
…and if it doesn’t….I suggest letting California decide for California.
http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnJOE4AE06Y.html
Let California be California
Scott,
How exactly do you mean “let California be California”?
Prop 8 passed in a legal ballot. The homosexual activists protesting this legal vote are the ones who are trying not to let “California be California”. In fact, it is the gay right’s activists who are acting more like the Islamist insurgents than anyone else.
This is only one incident among many.
While they didn’t “whip” anyone, they sure acted like they would have without the police there to stop them. So what exactly are you saying Scott?
Craig,
The vast majority of homosexuals I know despise NAMBLA. The difference between an adult, mutually loving and respectful relationship and child abuse should be obvious. If it isn’t, I’m sorry I just can’t explain it to you.
MataHarley
The LGBT community is not fighting for equal rights and benefits, they are fighting the entire concept of “marriage” as it is government defined.
Why is marriage even “state defined” in it’s only relevance being a tax- status filing? Does anyone really want Big Government ( as inflated by Bush and co.) shoehorning in on your relationship with your spouse? Do you have to file quarterly reports on yuor marital status? No. This is a quagmire that the federal government has gotten it’s Brer Bear feet stuck in.
Why people associate NAMBLA with gays is ludicrous. Most pedophiles are Married or single men. Look at the statistics- and look at who usually gets caught on Dateline….even Rabbis for pete’s sake.
Lightbringer:
“Prop 8 passed in a legal ballot. The homosexual activists protesting this legal vote are the ones who are trying not to let “California be California”. In fact, it is the gay right’s activists who are acting more like the Islamist insurgents than anyone else.”
J Edgar Hoover and Eugene McCarthy would be proud. Nice to see profligate ignorance alive and well. How is it they are acting like Islamis insurgents? Know any insurgents? Are you a CIA profiler? A counterterrorism expert? Nah, just another troll with a keyboard.
Lights out.
This is a huge part of Prop 8 that is almost totally ignored in the media: the fact that this was ALREADY voted on and four state Supreme Court judges took it upon themselves to disregard the will of the people. That’s the only reason this came up again. And the results were the same the second time around. That’s what upset a lot of people, having their votes basically disregarded because the result wasn’t “politically correct”.
WWJDFAKB-
Perhaps you should learn to understand the written English language. I said acting MORE like Islamic insurgents. Not acting LIKE Islamic insurgents. If you would bother to watch any of the violent, hate filled episodes being video recorded of Gay activists threatening violence to people who are not behaving violently, perhaps you might understand my inference. But since you sound like you have some Mormons to go beat up, please don’t bother yourself by wasting time being informed, following laws, respecting legal election results, or anything civilized like that.
“The vast majority of homosexuals I know despise NAMBLA. The difference between an adult, mutually loving and respectful relationship and child abuse should be obvious. If it isn’t, I’m sorry I just can’t explain it to you.” (Cary)
You don’t have to explain this to me; I am of course against it. I don’t even understand homosexuality so imagine for pedophilia. Both say that they did not choose to be this way that they were born like that, just like homosexuals. They say some prefer women, some men and some children. But you could go and try to explain it to Judges. The Montreal case took 5 years in course to be resolved: “Daniel Cormier, 56, was convicted by Quebec Court Judge Sylvie Durand today after a five-year trial rife with legal wrangling.”
Pedophiles argues that children want sex and initiated it most of the time, these organizations claim that thousands of people, including teachers, doctors, and lawyers, belong to their groups.
What I wanted to point out is the fact that when you give a particular group an inch, they want a yard. So where is the limit? We have accepted homosexuality in society, then we tolerated their gay parade and now they want to change the rules of marriage. Where does it end? Don’t be surprise that other groups now want the same understanding.
Tolerance is not a virtue. It is a weakness. And when you concede on important matters such as same sex marriage, you are sure that there will be other groups that will come and try to get the same tolerance for their behaviour.
It is a dangerous slope to take. That was my point.
Light:
“Perhaps you should learn to understand the written English language. I said acting MORE like Islamic insurgents. Not acting LIKE Islamic insurgents.”
Pretty sharp knife to be splitting hairs on semantics- trying to backpeddle qualify “More Like” to “Like” is a syntactic failure at simile. Perhaps you should look those words up, as they are also English.
“More Like”, and “Like” are in the same vein and you are trying to microparse it. Fail.
I don’t condone violent activism, but it’s so pat to compare them to islamofascists- it’s laughable.
How about comparing them to Sinn Fein, Neo Nazis or other “social clubs…”
“But since you sound like you have some Mormons to go beat up, please don’t bother yourself by wasting time being informed, following laws, respecting legal election results, or anything civilized like that.”
I may have to call a vet for you, you’re starting to foam. Anger and fear are paths to the dark side.
talk about knee jerk left field accusations. maybe you need to check your dosage, Your bp seems to be elevating.
I say put it let California be California. If THEY want it on the ballot a 3rd time, then fine. If not, fine. This is moot to the rest of the country.
Anyone see Barack Obama leading in opposition to the rantings of the far left on this one? Nope. No leadership-PERIOD
@Craig: As has been stated, there are two threads on this topic, ongoing simultaneously. Please see comment #22 on the other thread. Links have been provided on this one at least twice, but I’ll help you – it’s at comment #20 here. =)
Also Craig, you site a Canadian case. I don’t know if you have age of consent laws up there, but we have them here. They actually state that if a child makes a sexual advance towards an adult, and the adult accepts, the adult is still guilty of Statutory Rape/Sodomy – since the child is not legally capable of consenting. Also, each state decides what the age of consent is – based on the residence of the child (thus eliminating crossing state borders). For some states (NY) , it’s 17 – for others it’s 14 IF the older person is younger than 21. Each law is quite clear, so I’d be surprised if a case could go on for as long as five years here. But, of course, I’m no legal expert.
WWJDFAKB-
LOL Well I am so glad you are here to watch my blood pressure. Since you evidently did not read my earlier posts, perhaps you should. It is not my blood pressure that is raised, it is the blood pressure of the anti-prop 8 protesters.
You seem awfully intent on nailing me with comparing violent thugs in the streets of California, to violent thugs in the Somalia. I’ll admit that I misinterpreted Scott’s post #27, post #26 was evidently caught in the spam filter. In any case it appeared to me that Scott was comparing prop 8 to fundamentalist violence in Somalia. I made the observation that Gay rights activists who have been threatening innocent people with violence for over a week are acting more like Islamic thugs than those who voted to pass prop 8. I did not bring Islamo fascists into the discussion, Scott did. I did not force the protesters to behave violently or threateningly, they seem to have done that themselves.
You have been too busy attacking me to actually discuss the situation. Do you support the actions of people such as those in the video clip I linked? Do you think that such angry protest bordering on violence is the way we should discuss issues in our society? Do you think the multiple police whistles constantly blaring enhance the discussion of their talking points? You say that you do not condone violent activism. Which do you think is more topical to discuss inside a thread about violent activism, my use of the word Islamic, or the anti Prop 8 Gay rights activists who are threatening people with violence?
Cary,
We also have an age of consent law in Canada. Still it took the Court five-year trial rife with legal wrangling to declare him guilty. Those pedophile associations have powerful lawyers. Do not underestimate them, they are as powerful as the homosexual lawyers. Danger ahead, be cautious!
P.S.: The age of sexual consent in Canada is 14, Stephen Harper wants to raise it at 16.
Well Craig, that is certainly a crying shame, and I hope that does get changed. However, I still hold to my stance that an adult consenting relationship is quite a different issue than is child abuse. I think most people would agree on that particular point.
LB
ok, chalk it up to a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation. I was addressing that comment in and of itself and not linking it to the other posts. So perhaps guilty as charged- it seemed to me you were being hyperbolic in any event.
What it boils down to is people are passionate about their causes- it is how they choose to exhibit that passion that merits looking at.
Craig:
P.S.: The age of sexual consent in Canada is 14, Stephen Harper wants to raise it at 16.
eww. Hell go for 17-18. Ok at 14 I was hormones on legs, but no steering wheel, I’ll admit.
They should put them in the military at that age then- old school British Navy style!
“How exactly do you mean “let California be California”?
Prop 8 passed in a legal ballot. The homosexual activists protesting this legal vote are the ones who are trying not to let “California be California”. In fact, it is the gay right’s activists who are acting more like the Islamist insurgents than anyone else.
This is only one incident among many.
While they didn’t “whip” anyone, they sure acted like they would have without the police there to stop them. So what exactly are you saying Scott?”
I didn’t see any violence- other than one person ineffectually push a car in frustration-
Was the crowd menacing? Perhaps- did there need to be so many cops? Well usually in this day and age it seems they all tend to swarm an event for backup. All I could see from that clip was a crowd chanting “shame on you”. Did they need to follow? Probably not,- but perhaps did because they were being taped?
“They acted like they would” Been to a lot of riots in your lifetime? Seriously, it’s just speculation on your part.
If the police weren’t there who’s to say who would /would not instigate violence.
One side or the other could easily spark the fire.
Legalized abortion was made in a legal decision by the US Supreme Court. Yet many Pro-Lifers continue to to put up a fight, as is their right. Some have taken their protests to the extreme by bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors. Is it fair to hold up these isolated incidents as reflective of the majority who support the cause? I think not. Now, before anyone gets in a tizzy, I’m not comparing these two issues by any stretch – just pointing out that we all have the right to fight for what we believe in, even long after there would seem to be a final decision.
“However, I still hold to my stance that an adult consenting relationship is quite a different issue than is child abuse. I think most people would agree on that particular point.” (Cary)
“Hell go for 17-18” (WWJDFAKB)
I agree with both of you. I would like the consent age to be raised to 18. But Canada has a step ahead of USA on tolerance liberal bullshit. We are very socialized here. And when you are a tolerant country, there is no end to the demands of the population.
We have the same problems with Muslins and Sikhs and all those different groups of religious people. The Sikhs won in Court 2 years ago, the right to go to school with their “kirpan” a ceremonial knife. It is banned on airplanes though. Go figure out what the Court thinks!
Last year, believe or not, voters where aloud to voted with a Burka… the face all covered up. This year the Court finally did not accept it anymore.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.”
G.K. Chesterton
“We tend to idealize tolerance, and then wonder why we find ourselves infested with losers and nut cases”
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
WWJDFAKB-
If you count situations that include groups of people of about that size, then yes. Situations where two sizable chunks of such a crowd either wanted to or did come to physical violence between each other? Then yes I have. During the 80’s and early 90’s I watched a dozen skinheads get set upon and beaten soundly while being “evicted” from a Butthole Surfers show. I have watched two groups of 20+ skinheads beat the crap out of each other, including stabbings and a serious concussion caused by a 2X4 all in the middle of a crowd of 100+ people. Something like 20 out-of-towners get assaulted and driven off from a show by locals. (both from a local, and from an out of town viewpoint) Crowds of Blacks from a Reggae club mix it up with a crowd of punkers and skins. I have been mixed up in most of a dozen of such “gang” fights. I think I have seen enough to know the look of violence in somebody’s eyes. Did every protester have that look? No. Did some of them? Would some of them have resorted to violence if the cops had not been present? I would bet yes.
You are correct. I am/was making assumptions based on some crappy video evidence. But if I had been part of the crowd that was being harassed, I would have been fully expecting violence. The police were not keeping them separated because they wanted to prevent hugs being exchanged, and if you don’t trust my judgment on this type of situation, then trust theirs. Also, the smaller group that was made up of about 1/2 females would have been suicidally insane to start a physical confrontation, but I’ll concede your point that one of them may have been the “spark” if police had not been present.
Regardless of my accuracy concerning violence or possible violence, and my slipping a bit into hyperbole, I stand by my opinion that protests with such vitriol as their theme are not serving the best interests of the protesters. Nor are such angry scenes the proper way to respond to a defeat in a legal constitutional amendment vote. Besides all of which, shouldn’t these protesters be marching through Latino and African American neighborhoods protesting the 2/3’s majority with which those minorities voted for Prop 8?
This whole issue is screwed up enough without these anger fests. Would you want to have someone shouting in your face that he was going to “follow you home!”, simply because you did not see eye to eye with him politically?
That’s interesting that WWJDFAKB supports anti-constitutional and anti-democrat mob action just because it’s in support of a cause he/she/it believes in.
I wonder what WWJDFAKB would be saying if we started marching on Washington determined to stop Barack Hussein Obama from being inaugurated?
see below
@Lightbringer: I don’t think those people were right in anyway shape or form to “run them out of town”, they have every right to express their opinion, but perhaps in their own righteous indignant way they felt the need to excommunicate these people- and I for one am glad those people didn’t get hurt. Hoe different was this from whites hurling epithets at black students in the 60’s? Were they Islamist insurgents? Or would they have compared them to the boogeyman of the day. But to compare them to terrorists is silly- a mob mentality sure, but we seem to brush every civil disobedient act off now as a potential terrorist threat- which, in effect lets the real terrorists win.
Well I guess you have. I suppose you were a punker in those days. That lifestyle itself walks a thin line between society and violence. I’ve been in a mosh pit or two myself-almost got kncoked out cold once, and that was by a friend!
@Mike’s America: you completely miss my point. I support everyone’s Constitutional right to peaceful protest and redress of grievances- just because I don’t lockstep with your viewpoint doesn’t mean I am in opposition.
@Mike’s America: And yet I am amused by Mikes addressing of our President elect ( Elected by a large electoral vote margin,fwiw) by his full name Barack Hussein Obama. Do you remember King HUSSEIN of Jordan? He was on our side during Gulf 1 and Jordan is a friend of the US. Hussein is pretty common in the Arabic word, just as Patel is in India, and Smith is in the European-American world.