Curse you, Adam Corolla! As my faithful readers know (thank you, both of you!) I generally only weigh in on topics where I can find an angle that somebody smarter than me hasn’t already written. This is another one of those ideas that I’d been kicking around for a while but never got around to writing, and Mr. Corolla beat me to the punch. In a recent podcast he pointed out that Gay Marriage is hardly an end point to the debate:
“It’ll be legalized, hopefully, and then you’ll think we’ll be done with it, and then they’ll say, ‘we want to get married at the Crystal Cathedral,'” Carolla said on a recent podcast. “And the guys at the Crystal Cathedral will go ‘no, we don’t agree with it, and according to our faith, a man doesn’t lie down with another man, and a chick who looks like a man doesn’t lay down with another human who drives a Subaru. We don’t condone this.’ There’s a gonna be a march, and then there’s gonna be a thing and it’s gonna go to the Supreme Court again. This much I know … there will be more fighting. it will continue.”
I raised the incrementalism argument when I wrote about this subject last summer, and now with the subject becoming bigger in the news I’m seeing more of the incrementalism that conservatives are rightly concerned about. Here was my take:
Gay marriage was a subject I had never really had an opinion about until around twelve years ago when I read Jesse Ventura’s first book, “Do I Stand Alone?” Mind you, back in 2000 Jesse was still a new governor in Minnesota and a breath of fresh air in the system, not the full time conspiracy theorist he’s become today. On the issue of gay marriage he looked at both sides, and his assertion was that it was wrong to discriminate against two consenting adults from legal benefits from a system that they have paid taxes into based on their gender preference. On the other side, the term “Marriage” has an important spiritual meaning in religions practiced by many Americans, and their views should be respected as well. His solution was civil unions – granting legal rights for gay couples while still respecting the people whose religious views would be offended.
This seems like a reasonable compromise for both sides, and one that I supported then and still continue to do so. In fact, contrary to the leftist notion that conservatives are opposed to “gay rights” polls show that the majority of Conservatives as well as Republicans support civil unions.
Now, this was an opinion that I adopted thirteen years ago, and it still is my opinion today. But look at how the public perception, and particularly in the mass media has “evolved” since that time. Back in 2000 my stance would be considered moderate to somewhat left of center1 in most quarters, depending on the person I’m standing next to. But today? The fact that I don’t wholeheartedly support “Marriage Equality“, or whatever the latest term is to make the leftist position sound centrist makes me some bigoted extremist who is probably ready to throw a white sheet over his head and burn rainbow painted crosses on Harvey Milk’s grave. I go into my arguments in a lot more depth at my link, but while I haven’t changed, the left certainly has. Each step where leftist thought is met “halfway” (or anywhere) automatically becomes the new center to them, and anything to the right of that new line is right wing extremism.
I laid out before two of my concerns as to how we’re already seeing negative impacts of recognizing gay marriage –forcing gay marriage to be taught in schools, as opposed to trivialities like reading and writing, and in preventing children in foster homes from getting placed with families.
When conservatives raise the flag of what will be next down the road, such as redefining marriage for multiple partners, the left just tut-tuts about how they’re overreacting, just as they did when gay marriage was mentioned back in 2000. The problem is that California has already considered polygamy. Jeremy Irons also raised the touchy subject of this possibly leading to incestuous unions, which gets the same chuckle and a head shake reaction. But I ask, why not? Can someone from the left tell me where this issue will be 5-10 years from now? Does this end with “Marriage Equality”? or whatever you’re telling us is now the new center? I look at how our schools are infantilizing our kids today – suspensions for chewing a cookie shaped like a gun, or as a friend whose son is in the Maryland public school system recently told me, the horror of a teacher using a lighter for a science experiment resulted in notes being sent to all of the parents whose kids might have been traumatized by the event. When Baby Bob starts out in school if he calls another kid on the playground “gay”2 is he going to be forced into a modern leftist re-education camp known as “sensitivity training?” And as his parents, will Sister Babe and I also be held accountable for this vile hate speech coming from our child? Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but look at what’s happening up in Canada:
The Diversity Celebrators have their exquisitely sensitive antennae attuned for anything less than enthusiastic approval. Very quickly, traditional religious teaching on homosexuality will be penned up within church sanctuaries, and “faith-based” ancillary institutions will be crowbarred into submission. What’s that? I’m “scaremongering”? Well, it’s now routine in Canada, where Catholic schools in Ontario are obligated by law to set up Gay-Straight Alliance groups, where a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was forced to pay compensation for declining a lesbian wedding reception, and where the Rev. Stephen Boisson wrote to his local paper, objecting to various aspects of “the homosexual agenda” and was given a lifetime speech ban by the Alberta “Human Rights” Tribunal ordering him never to utter anything “disparaging” about homosexuals ever again, even in private. Although his conviction was eventually overturned by the Court of Queen’s Bench after a mere seven-and-a-half years of costly legal battles, no Canadian newspaper would ever publish such a letter today. The words of Chief Justice Burger would now attract a hate-crime prosecution in Canada, as the Supreme Court in Ottawa confirmed only last month.
Of course, if you belong to certain approved identity groups, none of this will make any difference. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who famously observed that Africans of the ancient world had made more contributions to philosophy and mathematics than all “them Greek homos,” need not zip his lips – any more than Dr. Bilal Philips, the Toronto Islamic scholar who argues that homosexuals should be put to death, need fear the attention of Canada’s “human rights” commissions. But for the generality of the population this will be one more subject around which one has to tiptoe on ever-thinner eggshells.
And back to Adam Corolla’s original point, at what point does any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage ceremony get labeled a “Hate Group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center? Leftists like to claim that their goal is to have the state out of the business of marriage. While I think many of them actually believe that, I also think that the ultimate goal is the opposite – to get the church out of the business of marriage. Many leftists follow different religious faiths to various degrees, but at the end of the day Leftism is their one true God that will have no other Gods before it.
So my question to all of the gay marriage proponents today is this: If I adopt your position today and accept it as the new center how are you going to “evolve” over the next decade to turn anyone holding your opinion today into hateful right wing bigotry? Will we see any clergy on college campuses who don’t endorse gay marriage attacked in the same manner that’s happening at George Washington University today? Will Polygamy be perfectly acceptable as the recent article in The Economist argues? Scroll down to the comments if you want to start reading some ideas that are just downright creepy. I’ll be curious to see where the leftist feminist groups will weigh in over the practice of polygamy that is so harmful to women. Or do we start normalizing pedophilia in the name of tolerance?
Do my last few ideas sound over the top and kind of crazy? I’ll be the first to admit that they do, but a decade ago I would have said the same about today’s debate. I like to be proactive, so assuming I give in and surrender to this new normal, I have one question for all of you leftists reading this. Can I just get a heads up as to why you’re going to hate me again a decade from now?
1. For my more conservative readers, I’ve lived in the DC area since 1999. If my civil unions idea seems radical leftist to you keep in mind in this town everyone half a step to the right of Michael Moore thinks their views are mainstream and moderate.
2. And no, we’re not going to be encouraging Baby Bob to call anyone gay or any other forms of name calling. From what I hear this is still a favored taunt used by little kids on the playground, and I’m guessing if gay becomes an outlawed term kids will find other colorful insults to hurl at one another.
@Redteam #147:
Yes, actually, I did show this very phrase to my Mother and to her 87-year-old boyfriend:
“The suggestion that I have an equal right as you to marry a woman is absurd. Marriage is a commitment of sacred trust between two individuals who indivisibly love one another. A gay man cannot love a woman in this manner, whether she is a party to the truth or not. He would always be distracted by his true orientation. Even worse is when a gay man marries an unsuspecting woman. Her trust has been violated, their conjugal relations are acts of rape, their children conceived are abominations. These are true crimes with real victims. I know a few, and each case is tragic. To suggest that a right to commit such crimes exists is ridiculous. No one has such a right.”
They both agreed with it thoroughly. You might better understand this if you hear the story about a young cousin of mine who married a man who, about a year after the wedding, revealed his homosexual proclivities. He explained to her that she was bound to accept him “for better or for worse,” and that this was how it was going to be. Knowing me well (I am proudly out to my family, young and old) she (and her parents) asked me for my advice. I gave them the long version of the phrase you question, and suggested that as he had already violated the sacred trust and honor in which he should have held her, she should – without any doubt and in spite of any love for him she might have – divorce him at once. Heal as soon as possible. Fortunately no children had been conceived. Everyone was thrilled with the power and clarity of my advice, and she took it. No regrets. Shit happens. So, “Yes” again, this time to the question you asked about what I would tell a “violated” woman.
Let me clarify the one other statement you objected to: “A homosexual man cannot love a woman in this manner.” I’m talking about sexual love. A homosexual man cannot love a woman as he would love another man, nor can a lesbian love a man as she would love another woman. A homosexual man having sex with a woman must necessarily engage himself in mental distraction to accomplish the deed, if indeed he is a true homosexual. I did this in my youth several times – the acts was peer-pressured. I had to imagine that I was with a man to achieve an erection. Finishing was quite difficult. A heterosexual man having relations with a woman is not so handicapped as his homosexual counterpart.
The love a mother has for her child or the love I have for my mother are both different types of love, neither of which (save for the obvious gender roles implied) are particularly sexual. I truly love and honor my mother, and I love my cats (yet another type of love). All of these other types of love pale in comparison to the love that I feel for Paul (my partner of 38 years). You don’t feel the same love for your mother that you feel for your wife, and the same is true with me. I doubt that you have any better frame of reference from which to evaluate same-sex love than I have to evaluate heterosexual love. But my intuition tells me that the two are comparable.
@Redteam: #150
Since you choose to dispute the honesty of my discussion (without calling it lying, if you insist) but have nothing else to contribute, I guess this thread is dead. It’s been interesting. I’ll be playing poker.
@George Wells:
So you will go through the motions, obtaining a piece of paper that validates your sodomist relationship with another, and gain what?
Do you live in Maryland? If not, then your “estate” will be subject to the laws of the state you live in, not Maryland. Also, since the federal government doesn’t acknowledge sodomist marriages, you will have gained nothing. Just reduced your “committment” to another to nothing more than being able to shove it down the throats of those in the state in which you reside.
@George Wells:
Wrong. Love is an emotion that is simply defined. The difference between your love for your mother, and your love for another man is sexual attraction. That is, unless you suffer from Oedipus Rex complex, in which case one might have a sexual attraction toward their own mother. Not unheard of in the history of mankind.
@retire05:
You are correct about the estate issue re: residency. For that purpose I have purchased (two years ago) a home on the Magothy River (in Maryland) and am now in the process of changing residency for the purposes you describe. It was a good investment bought at an opportune time, but I’m also keeping my Virginia property in case I CAN (and want to) move back per future developments. After the Supreme Court decides DOMA Section 3 is dead, I will have full inheritance benefits (at the Maryland home), which is my number one priority.
As my partner and I are both now in our 60’s, “sexual attraction” has long ceased to be even a small component of the love we share. If you saw either of us naked, I’m sure you’d understand. If anything, our love has endured these 38 years in SPITE of sex. Before I met Paul, I’d had much better sex with other men… I was perhaps one of those “sodomites” you get such a thrill talking about. But Paul taught be about love. I got the message one Saturday when he brought a 20-pound home-made lasagna into my Comparative Anatomy Lab where I was dissecting a cat. It’s been a wonderful 38 years. We have nothing to shove down anybody’s throats. (The lasagna’s all gone.)
I thought that this was a discussion site, not a hate hanger. I had hoped that my contributions might help some of you adjust as “gay marriage” spreads across the country and the world. (We got France yesterday…) I’m sorry that you are so upset about how this issue is progressing… your “opinions” sound so angry, if not hateful. As you seem so distrought over my “sin,” I am left wondering how you can live with yourself, as you surely you are not without sin. I am reminded of an old saying that “Those with my sins are normal, those with more sins are depraved, and those with less sins are deprived.” By that measure, I’m guessing that you would consider yourself “deprived.”
If you’d feel better if I left, say the word and I’ll be gone.
@George Wells:
Which will only affect your estate on a state level.
So you finally admit that your goals have nothing to do with love, or “fairness,” but in reality, your concern is financial.
Here is a news flash for you; you could avoid all that by simply living in a state that allows for “joint” ownership with “rights of survivorship.” I once owned a rent house with a family member. We owned it “jointly” and there were “rights of survivorship” and you are not required to pay inheritance taxes on property you already own. You also vote Democrat, and the Democrats were the ones that pushed to reinstate the death tax (inheritance taxes). So in fact, you voted against your own interests. Good move.
You then go on to give more information than I cared to know. I am not interested in your sexual history. Again, after years of sodomites fighting for the right to privacy, you seem to have no problem violating that right yourself. Kinda hypocritical on your part, isn’t it?
It is a discussion site, but you chose to use it as a venue to push your same-sex marriage agenda. I have thrown a number of things out there that you could have “discussed,” but anything that opposed your viewpoint, or pointed to how you were wrong, you ignored. From history, to the actions of fellow sodomites against churches, et al.
You seem to have a problem with a legitimate term describing your actions. I choose to use the age old term, instead of using the term “homosexual” that was only developed in the late 1800’s by Karoly Maria Kertbeny to “humanize and personalize” the actions of people. I also prefer the term “illegal immigrant” over “undocumented worker”, and I think describing people by their actions is appropriate such as murderer, rapist, sodomite, tax cheat, alcoholic, well, you get the drift. If being called a sodomite offends you, so be it. Your actions, and the actions of your fellow sodomites, offends me.
It makes no difference to me whether you stay, or go. It is not my blog. But if you feel that you are not gaining an appropriate amount of sympathy for your sodomite actions, by all means, leave.
@George Wells:
That’s why I objected to you saying that I called you a liar. I was only discussing the differences in what you state is important vs the importance you place on your objectives through your statements. In particular you say using the word ‘marriage’ is not important to you and then drone on and on about why we will be forced to accept it one day. Pointing out differences in your statements is not ‘calling you a liar’.
I don’t think that name calling is very effective and usually try to stay away from it.
@Redteam:
Sorry if you think I’ve been droning. Indeed I HAVE more than once predicted (and it was each time a prediction, not a demand – check the wording) the eventual legalization of gay marriage. Current events convince me that is what is coming, and many conservatives interpret them the same way. It is an observation.
Here’s another prediction: Some individuals and organization will be taken to court over their refusal to serve or otherwise accomodate the changing laws of the land. Doesn’t take rocket science to anticipate that, does it? Such friction is regretable, but at the same time preferable to bloodshed. Not something I WANT (or demand), but something I predict.
There IS a difference (as you noticed) between what I say is important to me and the “objectives” you refer to. The statements I make attesting to what I want come from my heart, from ME. They are also the logical consequence of my particular situation re: age, health, wealth and domecile. When I speak of what I want, I am addressing personal issues and aspirations, and I recognize that these are particular to me and not necessarily shared by other gays. For example, I’m retired. Employment discrimination issues are not part of “WHAT I WANT.”
What I predict and what I think are logical and justifyable goals of the “gay agenda” are both separate and distinctly different things from each other and from “what I want”. I don’t agree with everything that the gay activist community wants any more than you agree with everything that the Old Testament says. It is frustrating to me when you SEEM to be confusing what I say from these different perspectives, and your repeated statements suggesting that I was characterizing what I wanted in conflicting ways sounded perilously like you were indeed calling me a liar. If you really were not, then I apologize. But please don’t confuse me with the hyperbolic radicals on the extreme left of the gay rights movement. I am not them.
@retire05:
Actually, I think it’s kinda cute that you prefer using the quaint old term “sodomite.” Your preference for using archaic labels rather than “politically correct” terms tells me that you probably also prefer using the “n” word over the more recent inventions. When one of you called me a “queer” and another called me a “sissy” I was amused – such terms add so very much to a weak argument. But NONE of those terms bother me. There is (or was) a time and a place for each, and if someone hasn’t the sense to know which to use when, well, I’d just as soon let them continue to make the same mistake over and over. Helps them look “smart.”
@George Wells:
The whole story here:
So George, what is the agenda at that school? It’s clear to me, wonder if it is to you?
@George Wells:
George, that doesn’t follow. If Retire05 prefers the quaint or original term, then he would use the word Negro, which is not the n word. I don’t think that blacks objected to that term, just the n word take off that became common and is still common amongst blacks today.
What about referring to you as a ‘man’? Is that okay? I’m heterosexual, but I prefer the term ‘man’ to hetero or straight, etc. seems as if it should be good for you also?
@George Wells:
What bloodshed do you think will occur? Has there been, comparatively speaking, any bloodshed against sodomites in this nation? No. There hasn’t been, not compared to other “ethnic” groups that acually experienced genocide. And do you agree with those ensuing court cases? Do I, as a consumer, not have the right to refuse to use a merchant whose politics I disagree with? In the same vein, should I, as a merchant, not have the same right to deny service to someone whose politics I disagree with?
Yet not once, in all your entries on this thread, or the other thread, have you denounced the actions of the gay rights movement. NOT ONCE. You obviously give silent approval to what they do.
It is not a preference for “archaic” words. It is a perference for correct words. The n-word is a bastardization of the word
, a word that was used by the Spanish speaking to describe the slaves they traded in. In my Southern family, neither word was used as we used the word “colored”, as in the NAACP.
I don’t believe that I have ever referred to you, personally, as a “queer.” And I guess you are equally amused by your fellow sodomist who referred to himself, and you, as “sissies.” And I will continue to refer to you as a sodomist, a person who engages in sodomy. It is what it is.
@Redteam: 161
If there was no homophobia, no discrimination against gays (legal or otherwise), then there would be no point to self-declaration of homosexual sexual orientation. But in fact these things do plentifully exist. The increasing prevalence of “out” homosexuals has had a remarkable positive effect on public opinion, as the “closet” years were rife with outrageous misinformation about the so-called “gay lifestyle.” Where I live (in relatively conservative Virginia) I have been a model member of the same (largely straight) community since 1980. I am “out” to my neighbors. I don’t fly a “rainbow” flag, don’t host “pride” parties, don’t broadcast disco music and don’t wear outrageous or indecent clothing. I DO keep my 2-acre yard tastefully landscaped and impeccably maintained, I shovel older neighbor’s sidewalks and driveways when it snows, I vacuum the whole block’s street gutters with my riding mower, I carve a giant jack-o-lantern and pass out large-sized candy bars to over 500 children each Halloween, and give home-made cookies to carolers on Christmas. I have been told repeatedly that the good example I have made of myself has changed many minds about gay rights. This is why I self-declare. People need to be disillusioned, and nothing accomplishes the task better than the truth.
The “end-game” in this instance would be use of the term “man” as you suggest. Wouldn’t that be nice. Retire05 would have me pilloried with a sign reading “Sodomite!” hung from my neck. I’m not holding my breath.
@retire05 re. #156:
You said:
“You then go on to give more information than I cared to know. I am not interested in your sexual history.”
It was YOU who chose to identify me using a term (“sodomite”) the primary function of which is to identify specific sexual behaviors. Then you complain if I stoop to your level?
First you seem to want to draw attention to the mechanical part of sex, then you shift direction. Reminds me of the shifting target presented by the “right” as the gay marriage debate has progressed. First, the complaints focused on how wrong it was for the courts to require the legalization of gay marriage, as some courts did conclude that there were constitutional justifications for them to be made legal. “Was it not the responsibility of the legislatures to decide what the laws were to be?” Then some legislatures DID legalize gay marriage. Suddenly the focus was shifted to “the right of the PEOPLE to decide.” It wasn’t enough that the peoples’ representatives had exercised their usual function in making laws, now the PEOPLE had to weigh in. So in November of 2012, the PEOPLE of Maine and Maryland DID – by referendum – decide to legalize gay marriage. Where now shall the focus shift?
One of the reasons the public has become much more sympathetic to gay issues in general is that they have witnessed how the right has sacrificed logical integrity in its prosecution of the battle against gay marriage, and they have appreciated the unfairness of it.
If the SCOTUS surprises everyone and upholds California’s Prop 8, the voters of that state will overturn it themselves in the next election. You know that. What possible objection can remain?
George, you’re full of sh!t.
End of story.
Oh, and a liar as well.
retire05:
You said: “Not once, in all your entries on this thread, or the other thread, have you denounced the actions of the gay rights movement. NOT ONCE.” I guess that you forget where I said that I think that the extreme actions of the far left gay rights activists are not “productive.” If it helps, let me clarify: I personally think that involuntary outings are an invasion of privacy (some gays don’t WANT to be public about their sexuality.) I think that displays of public nudity in places where such behavior is against the law should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Sociopathic behavior, whether violent, destructive or simply designed to elicit outrage, does not lead to a broader acceptance of gays in the general society, and I denounce such behavior. At one point in our struggle, when we were unable to get media coverage for our arguments otherwise, there may have arguably been a valid reason for a “louder” presence, but that time is past. I am NOT denouncing all actions of gay rights activists. If you want to go through them one by one, I could give you an answer for each, but I already explained that I disagree with forcing Churches to do things that are against their tenets, and that should have been enough to convince you that I do not totally agree with the gay rights “movement” on every issue. Your characterization to the contrary is inaccurate.
During the course of our discussion, you have called me a hypocrite, a whiner, a drama queen, dishonest, likened me to a school girl, referred to me as “poor Georgie” and associated me with “queers (who) were (changing their agenda…)”. I’m not sure, but I do get the impression that you are making what is commonly referred to as a “personal attack.” In logical argument (or “debate,”) “personal attack” is a logic fallacy resorted to in an effort to distract attention from an otherwise deficient argument. By using “personal attack,” you discredit the portions of your arguments that are reasonable.
@retire05 re: #165:
WOW! GOOD ANSWER!
All:
“ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A national group of prominent GOP donors that supports gay marriage is pouring new money into lobbying efforts to get Republican lawmakers to vote to make it legal.
American Unity PAC…”
Nice to be getting support from both sides of the isle.
George wells
good for your cause,
we know the GAYS are a peaceful group and love AMERICA,
we never heard of them hating this AMERICA,
plus you all are mostly into a busy position,and contributing to the best interest of this NATION,
you have been borne in AMERICA so you are a big part of the good side of this NATION,
you are not a threat here and everyone know it,
there is of course the bad apples like in every group,
those who teach the youngs about the GAIS and we hear story lately of teachers
pushing the subject to be a corruption on the young ,
they claimed to be teaching but it is not required in school, and high school ,
no one want to know what is it of a teacher corrupt enough to force the class of young girls to kiss each other planting this corrupt action into girls innocent of that group although they have read about it or heard it but pass it as non interesting to dwell on it,
the school teacher must not be gay in school or not be there with kids at all,
same as the one other point you have in common is NO MUSLIM must teach his religion as a
ultimate peace loving religion in AMERICA or be taken out of the school system forever, because the loyalty to AMERICA is the ultimate and primordial need to teach with THE HISTORY
of this bravest NATION,
another point is the COLUMBIA hiring pass criminals to teach and implant their core of communist socialist into the vulnerable young students
should not be allowed in AMERICA,
another one is in the GOVERNMENT WHITE HOUSE AND ALL
no MUSLIMS should be hired until they have lived at least five generations of law abiding citizens,
with a record of having fought for AMERICA agains their own enemies.
that is today new way which AMERICA should impliment over all the rest of their impositions to AMERICANS law abiding CITIZENS so they can reclaim their past knowledge of what it is to feel free anywhere in AMERICA, having taken away the imminent THREATS among the others,
All:
Many of the opponents of gay marriage site many thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition as a justification for their position on the issue. The source sited for confirmation of that tradition is usually the Bible. The form of this argument is known as “the appeal to authority,” in this case the “authority” is “God,” the presumed inspiration for the Bible’s text.
In many cases the courts accept the “appeal to authority” as a “rational basis” for taking a particular position in an argument. That does not mean that the “appeal to authority” is correct, valid, relevant, significant or decisive in the case. It only means that the “appeal to authority” is not irrational.
For an “appeal to authority” to successfully inform the decision of the court, several conditions must be met. First, the jurisdiction of the authority invoked must be demonstrated for the case in question. Second, the position taken by the authority being appealed to must survive the same scrutiny that allowed the appeal to be considered in the first place. There must be a rational reason for the position the authority takes AND that reason must also be applicable today.
The first condition is easily met. There are enough references to God in our founding documents to deflect any argument that we are not a Judeo-Christian culture. As such, the Bible can certainly be accepted as an authority on Judeo-Christian morality from a historical perspective. A problem arises, however, if the claim is made that the moral authority of the Bible is infallible, because there are bountiful examples where 2000-year-old customs are no longer followed. For one, the Bible gives numerous instructions about the proper purchase and treatment of slaves. Additionally, the punishments suggested in the Bible for many behaviors that we consider trivial today (a wife cutting her hair) are brutal and excessive by modern standards. The Bible does not instruct the modern world flawlessly. But it remains a source of moral guidance.
The second condition is more difficult to meet. The long-standing disapproval of homosexuality is understandable. Going as far back as is imaginable, one can suggest a very good reason for not encouraging homosexuality: The survival of the clan depended upon reproduction. Lifespans were short, replacement warriors were constantly needed and babies were the clan’s survival insurance. Homosexuals didn’t make babies but ate food; they were a net liability. In this context, harsh treatment of homosexuals was rational. The archaic proscription against homosexuality was carried forward into recorded history along with a lot of unrelated misinformation about Gods, the Earth and the universe.
The Old Testament is a reasonably accurate compendium of the stories and lessons that had been passed down for thousands of years and which form the foundation of the Judeo-Christian culture. There is much of value contained there-in – lost cities have been located from clues found in the text. But in areas where those stories attempted to answer questions of science, the answers given were… colorful but wrong. The universe wasn’t made in six days and it isn’t 6000 years old. The Bible cannot be taken to be literally correct.
If you accept that the Bible isn’t literally correct, and also that the Bible’s positions on some moral offenses and the punishments accorded them are not currently applicable, it then becomes necessary for the proponent of the “appeal to authority” to show exactly why the Bible’s proscriptions against homosexuality SHOULD be relevant today while others of its proscriptions should not. This is very difficult to show. In the absence of a credible demonstration of validity, the “appeal to authority” is a logical fallacy.
The above represents only a rebuttal of the “appeal to authority” argument made by opponents of gay marriage. It does not attempt to make a case FOR gay marriage. Nor does it purport to rebut other arguments against gay marriage.
George Well’s, is this part of the ‘end game’?
link to full story:
http://cnsnews.com/blog/dan-joseph/california-bill-would-allow-students-use-bathrooms-consistent-his-or-her-gender
So now the boys will get to take over the girls restrooms and the girls basketball teams and softball teams. Is that what the objective is here?
@Redteam:
Sorry, but I cannot answer your question. I haven’t got a clue. How about if I ask a similar confusing question in return? OK, which bathroom does the intersexual (hermaphroditic) child use? He-Sh-It has both male and female genitalia. Is what the birth certificate says the determining factor? Where shall He-Sh-It pee if both X-X and X-Y chromosomes are present? Confused “gender identity” is not identical to hermaphroditism, but there are some similarities in the problems encountered, and while I don’t have a good answer to your question, I doubt that the best answer is a political one. I would hope that compassion might be in order, as in either case the child will be the one who suffers the most.
@George Wells:
It would depend on which part (man or female) was capable of evacuating urine from the body. And most children born with dual sexual organs are surgically corrected at birth. So, like most everything else you post, it is moot.
@Redteam:
Don’t expect to get an honest answer from George. He completely avoided the thread on the teacher that forced young girls to ask each other for a kiss and made two other girls pretend to be lesbians on a date. You see, that shines light on his agenda, and he will never address that.
@Redteam:
Looks like you’ve been elected umpire!
Retire05 is correct that I don’t answer every one of his angry threads… or questions. Like a court jester with a noise-maker, he always has an answer, informed or otherwise. I have the sense to know when I am uninformed and the dignity to admit it. I am unfamiliar with his “school girl” case – in truth I have very little interest in school girls.
Retire05’s claim that the question I posed regarding hermaphroditism was moot because “most children born with dual sexual organs are surgically corrected at birth” is a logically false statement. “Most” doesn’t render the question “moot.” “All” would, but “all” is not the case, as some intersexual children are not surgically “corrected” at birth. In fact, more of these children are being allowed to self-discover their gender orientation before deciding which surgery is appropriate. In any event, my answer was intended not to generate hysteria over hermaphroditism OR trans-sexuality. It was meant to suggest that there are children out there with very real problems not of their doing, and a politically angry reaction to their issues isn’t helpful. That said, it is a thorny little problem, and I don’t have a good solution to offer. I think that is an honest answer.
Cockroaches are said to be capable of surviving a nuclear winter – I wonder if retire05 can survive a woman in a man’s bathroom.
@George Wells:
It wasn’t my thread, asshole.
And exactly where have I been uninformed? Seems I know more about the history of the homosexual movement you do and you’re queer.
Then you have nothing to fear, do you?
@retire05: Retire05 you’re correct, I was the one that posted the story about the girls in school having to do a lesbian kiss, etc. It wasn’t you.
George, my expectation is, that if a person is XX & XY, he/she still lives their life as one or the other, not a mixture. If she has been brought up as a girl, wearing dresses, long hair, etc, I would expect her to use the girls restroom. and ditto if he/she is brought up as a boy peeing into a urinal, then I would expect he would go to the boys restroom. I don’t expect someone that everyone thinks is the opposite gender to go into the opposite gender restroom.
Why do you think a gay person would introduce a law such as this one above that I linked to? What is his motive? What is his agenda? How do you have competition in high school sports if you suddenly start having boys playing girl sports? Will the NFL require each team to consist of 50-50 male/female ration? How about the NBA? NCAA football certainly has to require a minimum of 5 of 11 players on the field at any time be female, right?
@retire05 re #176:
Thank you! You make my point better than I could. Your proudly declared bigotry leaves little doubt that if given the chance, you’d have me behind bars or worse. And from there, what good would the other constitutional amendments you quote do me? For you it is a war against a hated enemy, and I’ll use my vote against you in self-defense.
Such a potty-mouth. Your friends should be embarrassed for you.
George Wells
did you know that human all carry the genes from both
mother and father,
but they are borned with a gender, and if they are born MAN ,
it is who they are for life, and same for woman,
but SOCIETY has promoted a third GENDER on both side and there was borned the HOMOSEXUAL
bingo, it gave them a way to assume their sexual appetite
and make it correct and made SOCIETY to be compassionate and accept them as different
but human with a third gender, which is peaceful,
now you are no more alone, there is another GENDER borned in this earth long time ago,
their society have shape them to be MUSLIM and hate anyone else and conquer the WORLD,
they are now coming to do exactly IT,
and now they have been accepted in this SOCIETY with the same compassion,
and all HELL broke loose,
this SOCIETY has never seen so much HATE,and crimes and hurt, and sudden disapearance of people in thin air,
and violent murder, never seen yes never seen before,
you call for EVIL, AND EVIL CAME,
you want to change AMERICA, he is here to do it,
no more GOD IN SCHOOL and PUBLIC PLACE,
so to not offend EVIL, because
he will retaliate on THE PEOPLE,
@Redteam:
Per your XX/XY answer, first part – agreed. Second part – as I see it, is: There’s a problem either way. A gender-confused person confuses OTHER people, not just him/herself. I’m not sure that this confusion is avoidable. Some locations have decided that the best solution is to have a third bathroom for “confused” kids. I don’t know what the best solutions is.
Per your question about “motive” and sports, I’m in no position to speak for someone else’s motives. My speculations would be uninstructive. It would be helpful if you and yours would disillusion yourselves of the myth that all gay people have the same “gay agenda.” We don’t.
A lot of the noisiest within the gay rights “movement” have apparently decided that by proposing more and more outrageous things, the rest of the country may be induced to “sue for peace” and accept the terms gay people really want. (That’s my speculation, not an “official gay agenda” tactic.) There was a news item out a couple of days ago about a lesbian who has been lecturing about how the gay marriage movement is a lie, about how the REAL plan is to bring down the entire institution of marriage. #1. The bitch is insane. #2. The roughly 6 million gay people in the USA do NOT agree with her. (Maybe a few thousand do, but they are an equally insane minority.) #3. Her constitutional rights to free speech allow her to say ALMOST anything she wants, but her choice of subject and her line of reasoning are offensive to me and I condemn them vigorously.
About sports, I just can’t buy into the idea that the sexes should share the arena equally. Male gymnists aren’t going to be doing “uneven bars” routines, need I go further? I would think that, ideally, if a woman was a superior tight end (no pun intended), she might earn a first string position. Seems to me that denying her a spot would diminish the teams chances for a title. But the interest in balancing team gender is about as right-headed as efforts to balance employment ratios to match population racial and gender ratios. The fact of the matter is that both interest and ability in both sports and vocation are disproportionate to gender and race. We’d have never made it to the moon if we depended on a 52%-48% distribution of female-to-male rocket scientists.
Should NBA teams be forced to court more white players? NO! Women? NO! The best player for a position? YES! If a girls’ team brings in the same $$$ that a boys’ team does in a college sport, then they should get the same funding. If not, then not. And on and on in this same general direction. “Affirmative action” was an effort to make some accomodation for past racial “inequities.” While it helped some individuals, in the aggregate it hurt everyone. It is being phased out in favor of blind merit. I think that blind merit should be the ideal, be it in sports or employment. People who think otherwise may have an “agenda,” but it isn’t mine.
@George Wells:George, while I might like to agree with you on this:
I’m afraid I really don’t. I think the ‘agenda’ is the same, just the tactics vary. The ‘agenda’ is to change the world to make people accept gays more freely, some want much more than others.
Clearly the intent of that law in California is to make persons accept outrageous behavior. Laws made to make things more equal for some, by design, have to take away from someone. Affirmative action did not help the persons that were discriminated against, it helped their descendants. Slaves were not still alive to benefit. I grew up on the coast of Georgia at the same time that Clarence Thomas did. Because he was black, he got a scholarship to an ivy league school (affirm action) I was white, I didn’t get a scholarship to an ivy league school. He became a Supreme Court Justice, I didn’t. I would not trade places with him. But because of him getting a free ride to Yale, someone that actually ‘earned’ the right to that ride, didn’t get it. For anyone to ‘gain’, someone has to pay.
@Redteam:
“There was a news item out a couple of days ago about a lesbian who has been lecturing about how the gay marriage movement is a lie, about how the REAL plan is to bring down the entire institution of marriage.”
OK, what is the agenda here and how does it square with MY agenda? There’s a whole army of nut-jobs out there with a crankcase full of unrelated agendas. Some people want everybody DEAD! Some gays want to stay in the closet and be left alone. It’s not just a matter of differing tactics.
Suggesting that all gays have the same agenda is about as smart as saying that all Republicans want the same thing. Some Republicans want to go all the way back to Deuteronomy and stone all the bad people. Some Republicans want to follow Jesus and do as He would. Some Republicans think that slavery was good and should be legalized again. Some Republicans believe that gays SHOULD have the right to legally marry. Each Republican, and each gay person, has his or her own set of priorities, and a person’s priority issue is far more than a tactic to an end. The priority IS the end. It IS the agenda. You guys don’t all have the same “agenda” and neither do we.
@Redteam:
Post Script: As it would seem that we are really saying much of the same things, I’m somewhat mystified by your insistence that all gays have the same “agenda.” Do we make an easier target if we are all the same? Or is it more fun if you can blame one for the BS of another? Seems like a really odd point to belabor…
George Wells
but you do have ALL the same agenda that is for the end game result,
otherwise why do you think an individual could win what you all are after,
it’s to be married with all the same benefits that the normal MARRIED PEOPLE GET,
IS IN IT?
@George Wells: I don’t feel as if I ‘insist’ that all gays have the same agenda. I just state it. Because I don’t feel as if that point is even arguable. Gays agenda is that they be free to do anything they wish to do, even if it means that someone else has to give up something for them to have that right. If gays get the right to be ‘married’ then that means I do not have a right to something I have always had. The right to be married to a member of the opposite sex. That ‘right’ is not the same if the meaning is changed. As I’ve said, I don’t care who you live with but if it’s a male, then you can’t be married to him. You can have an arrangement, but not a marriage. While I don’t think all gays care one way or the other about ‘marriage’, there are other points that they do have that they want someone to give up something so that they can have it. No amount of denying it will change that point. It’s like you ‘language’ subjects and subsets. All gays want something that they want someone else to surrender the right to, but the subsets may all be different. George, if you don’t agree, tell me one thing you do personally want the right to do that you don’t already have, that will not involve someone having to give up something for you to achieve it.
Bees said:
exactly what I’m saying also.
@George Wells:
I had just about decided to ignore you from this point forward, but your own statements has caused me to rethink that. In my post #165, I gave a clear, and honest, assessment of your constant harping. But that was not good enough for you so here we are. To begin with, you said:
And herein lies the difference between you, and your agenda driven ilk, and the rest of the nation. When those laws, permitting same-sex marriage, were passed by either the legislatures of those states, or on a ballot referendum by the people themselves, those who disageed with that accepted the will of either their elected officials or the people themselves. When Prop 8 was voted on in California, and it did not turn out the way the gay activists wanted, did they, like the people in other states, accept the will of the people? No, the first thing they did was sue in court to get the will of the voters of California overtuned by judicial fiat. Gays are more than happy to see things go their way, but when it doesn’t, the run to court trying to find some activist judge that will give them what they demand.
You also said:
The one most discriminated person in the United States today is a Southern, Christian white male. They are ridiculed in film, in the music industry, on TV and radio, and by the political elite. Yet, they do not march, do not protest, do not demand “equal” treatment. They quietly endure the slings and arrows thrust at them by people like you who spent your entire post #170 dissing the very thing that those “straights” believe in, the Bible.
You use the Bible as an axe to wield against those who disagree with you. How dare you. Where is your tolerance, your understanding? Seems to have fled.
You go on to say, in reference to a lesbian activist who I find at least honest:
Therein lies your hypocracy. You do not go to some gay website, like Hlavacs, and voice your disapproval of the tactics used by gay activists, you come here on what is basically a very conservative website, and push your agenda, which you deny having. Why is that? If you are for so many of the issues that conservatives stand on, do you vote for those who oppose smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations on the common man, et al? Oh, that’s right; you’re a one issue voter and that one issue, for you, trumps the very Constitution this nation was build on. Hey, keep those trains running on time, right?
Do I go on gay websites and voice my opinion like I have to you? No. There is no reason for me to do that. But yet, you feel the need to come here. If that is not trying to drive an agenda, then you better purchase a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word.
And finally, you said:
Calling a person a bigot, when, in reality, you know nothing about them, is the last resort of a scoundrel. But let me be quite frank with you; are there gays I would see behind bars? You betcha. And here is the reason:
I would prosecute, to the full extent of the law, anyone, gay or straight, that willfully infected someone else with HIV/AIDs as attempted murder. And if their victim died, I would prosecute them for pre-meditated murder. I have known those infected who were never told by their lover that the lover was positive. These were cases of willful transmission on the part of the lover. That, George, is murder. No matter how you want to slice it. But none of those cases were ever prosecuted because of political pressure applied by those “radical” gays that you seem to want to distance yourself from, failing miserably.
I have held the thin, frail hands of the dying, because they were infected by their [oh, so faithful] same sex partners who contracted AIDs and then gave it to them. I have made too many calls to parents, made too many runs trying to get some food (searching for watermelon in the middle of winter) that the patient took only one bite of and then could not eat anymore. I have seen 17 year old boys sick beyond imagination due to being picked out by some 45 year old man who used them for nothing more than a toy who recruited an unhappy, perhaps troubled, young man all in the name of “love”. And I have watched them die. All when even nurses would not treat HIV/AIDs patients because of fear.
You see, if there is a bigot here, George, it is you.
You seem to resent the term “sodomite,” choosing to call yourself gay. How funny. In the late 1800’s, whore houses were called “gay” houses, and the term gay is what male prostitutes gave to their male customers. Seems to me that being called “gay” is just as detrimental as “sodomite.”
I do not agree with your sexual life style as I find it both unnatural and immoral. You are free to live your life, in the privacy of your home, anyway you choose as long as it does not create harm to another. But you are not free to indoctrine children, demand rights that no rational thinking person agrees you have, change the meaning used for thousands of years of “marriage” and force acceptance, which is completely different than tolerance, on the rest of the nation just so you get the things you want and feel entitled to. Frankly, you are not entitled to anything other than what is outlined in the Constitution. And marriage, Bubba, ain’t one of them.
@retire05:
You said:
“I would prosecute, to the full extent of the law, anyone, gay or straight, that willfully infected someone else with HIV/AIDs as attempted murder. And if their victim died, I would prosecute them for pre-meditated murder. I have known those infected who were never told by their lover that the lover was positive. These were cases of willful transmission on the part of the lover. That, George, is murder. No matter how you want to slice it.”
I agree with you 100%. Stone the bastards!
@Redtaem:
“Marriage has been around a long time and has NEVER changed: women are still property, divorce is still illegal, whites still can’t marry blacks, and grown men can still marry 12 year old girls. Anybody who disagrees with this definition of marriage is just trying to destroy traditional marriage.” (to prove a point)
Marriage, like every other human custom, changes with time. Rhode Island changed it yesterday, making it the tenth – and not the last – state to do so. Every time something changes, there is an implicit redistributed in the accounting of value, as you point out. But that is true of all change, not just the definition of marriage, and is not sufficient justification for resistence to change.
Procreation was once an essential component of survival. 3% made a difference then, but not today. The reasons for stoning to death all of the criminals enumerated in the Old Testament are not valid today. There is no longer a rational basis for opposing gay marriage.
@George Wells:
George, Rhode Island didn’t change marriage. They just passed a law to make a bunch of gay people happy by saying they can now call their relationship something that it’s not. It will never be a ‘marriage’. I can legally call myself a millionaire, but doing so would not make it true.
@Redteam:
Odd argument, as “marriage” has not always meant “one-man-one-woman” to all people. To YOU, and to others of the same OPINION, that is what it may always mean. But what it means to other people, to some states, to some countries, IS different, and for THEM, the meaning changes with time. The word “gay” did not always include “homosexual” in its definition, but today it does. (Look it up.) The word “marriage” will experience a similar evolution as its usage more and more often includes state- and church-sanctioned gay marriages. If you choose to restrict your usage of some words to their archaic meanings, that is your right. But in the future, the majority of people will be speaking a different language.
Sorry about your not being a millionaire – I thought everyone was. Guess you didn’t get your check from Obama like the rest of us.
@George Wells:
George Wells, your argument lacks accuracy.
Yes, language has changed over time.
For instance, in WWI the term “chicken” came to be applied to men who were cowards in battle.
BUT, look in a dictionary and see that the OLD definition of that near-flightless domestic bird did NOT change.
ANOTHER new additional definition was added to that term.
With ”marriage” a dictionary is also useful.
There is Holy Matrimony, the sanctified union of a husband and his wife, however later there was added the commercial union between two businesses.
So, it isn’t the mere term ”marriage” that people are concerned with.
It is the ending of the original meaning of the term by over-writing that old version with a new definition that is far more secular and profane.
If you are familiar with history books you know there are two basic types…..
Classical history books which keep all old versions in fine print in each new edition while updating new editions with corrections.
These are the history books so thick with fact, figures, names and dates that you can learn dozens of facts per page.
These books have extensive bibliographies and footnotes in them.
The authors make no secret of their built-in slants.
Then there are revisionist history books.
These pretend any changes they make are all that is real while the old editions vary quite a bit as newer ones are printed with many changes.
These also have fewer bibliographies and few footnotes.
They also use picking and choosing historical facts to press the agendas of their authors who do their best to hide this fact.
The whole idea of calling a mutual commitment between same-sex couples marriage (as in Holy Matrimony) is anathma to those who understand what it means to be united in holy matrimony.
@George Wells:
Actually George, I did get the check and deposited it then found out I had been debited with a note that it had been used to pay Social Security and Medicare for illegal aliens.
No it doesn’t. You ask most homosexual persons if they are gay, I suspect that even if they are content with their sexual situation, I doubt that they would claim to be ‘gay’ as in ‘happy’, ‘thrilled’ etc… So yes, while the word ‘gay’ is used vs the word ‘queer’, I’m sure they’d rather be called gay, but that doesn’t make them gay and it does not change the definition of the word gay.
@Redteam:
Ironic, isn’t it, that sodomites now perfer to be called “gay?”
@retire05:
Snicker, snicker. “Sodomites”. You sound so judgmental. Did your god make you the judge of your fellow man too? We know what you are, but did he make you this way? What did he have against you?
@ Nan G:
Your explanation of historical reference material is near – perfect. (You failed to note that in cases where an “old” definition has become obsolete, the note: (arch.) or (archaic) is added.)
I’m not sure that you made clear the connection between what you said about definition evolution and the definition of marriage, but I’ll see if I can fill in your blanks: You are positing that instead of, as you put it: “ANOTHER new additional definition was added to that term” (re: “marriage”), an attempt is being made to CHANGE “marriage” (as you put it) “by over-writing that old version with a new definition.” That would seem to be what your thesis was driving toward, but I cannot find where you demonstrated that an attempt to “overwrite” was under way as opposed to an attempt to “add to” marriage.
The digital logic of your argument is in the form of an “Or-Gate,” as opposed to an “And-Gate.” You seem to imply that the choice of options here is that marriage can either be heterosexual (your preference) or homosexual (my preference.) In the “Or-Gate” scenario, gaining “gay marriage” would necessitate the elimination of heterosexual marriage. But that is not what is sought. What is sought is, as you put it, is: “ an additional definition added,” – the “And-Gate” scenario. You demonstrated that the “And-Gate” form of definition evolution does occur, but then you failed to explain why it could not occur in the case of “marriage.”
You said:
“The whole idea of calling a mutual commitment between same-sex couples marriage (as in Holy Matrimony) is anathma to those who understand what it means to be united in holy matrimony.”
First, this statement seems to ignore the previous discussion YOU provided concerning the flexibility of word meanings. Second, this statement seems to also ignore those churches and people who DO understand that union in holy matrimony includes gays. Gay marriage is anathema to SOME, but not ALL people who have an understanding etc., and the resolution of that dispute rests on what, who’se right? Does our Constitution provide grounds for ruling which religions shall be deemed “right” and which shall be deemed “wrong”? Does “freedom of religion” mean “freedom to belong to MY church, but not to YOURS”?
Seems to me that the Constitution provides the States with the power to decide this question for themselves, and that in each state, churches should have the power to officiate and participate in gay marriages or not as they choose. In-so-far as the Federal government defers to the states in these matters but does administer benefits commensurate with marital status, it should respect the states’ decisions in each case. Meaning DOMA section 3 should fall. Let’s see what happens in June.
@Redteam:
I said:
“The word “gay” did not always include “homosexual” in its definition, but today it does.”
And you said:
“No it doesn’t.”
Well, I’m looking at my Webster’s copyrighted 1981, and it does. I don’t have all the dictionaries printed since 1981, but I would stretch and suggest that most of them WOULD include homosexuals/ homosexuality in the definition of “Gay.” Not as a REPLACEMENT meaning, but as an additional meaning. Word usage determines definition, according to the folks who make dictionaries. You want it different, good luck with that pipe-dream.
Nan G at least understands that definitions change with time. Maybe you should talk to him.
And thank you Tom. Retire05 is our comic relief here. He does have some good points, and the names that groups choose for themselves ARE indeed often ironic. But his principle objective is insult, his arguments are over-burdened with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and his conclusions are darkened by rabid judgementalism. You have to laugh.
@George Wells:
Ah, quoting me when it comes to you, Georgie?
Since you refuse to dispute what I say, why don’t you try being honestly specific? Or is that above your pay grade as a agenda driven queer?
@retire05:
“Or is that above your pay grade as a agenda driven queer?” = “But his principle objective is insult.”
Specific enough?
@retire05:
Address that statement, if you decide to be honest, which I find you are not.
@George Wells:
Beautiful, George. Don’t you just love it when the congenitally stupid lurch straight into traps of their own making?