UPDATE: Prop 8 was overturned. Read more here (WSJ) and here (LA Times).
However one feels about it, the decision will be a big news event and an indicator of how constitutional amendments nationwide will fare under challenge.
This is going to the Supremes no matter what and that will be when the lady with girth sings.
I will update the post when the decision is handed down.
CNN has a brief explanation of what happens next.
Yeah, ain’t that a ‘kick in the head’?! And it’s absolutely amazing how much other joy is out there!
I wish I could recall where I saw it, but a year or so ago I read an article by a gay guy discussing how marriage impacted his life. He said that it surprised him in the way in which it impacted his views on monogamy.
Prior to marriage he and his guy were mostly monogamous but (if I recall correctly) occasionally one or both would have outside sex. But after making vows he and his husband found themselves newly jealous. They didn’t want anyone else touching their man and decided that marriage meant no outside play.
I don’t know if this is usual, common, or an exception, but I’m not surprised that the expectations and commitments and responsibilities of marriage change a person. We’ve seen it forever in straights, so I would not be surprised to see it in gays as well.
And yet the law does exist…and yet Christians were admonished to avoid all manner of sin…and yet Christ paid the price for our sins…for our transgressions of the law. To the woman caught in adultery He said ‘Go and sin no more’.
Eddy,
There were plenty of words in Greek which discuss same-sex behavior and same-sex love. Remember we’re talking about what the Victorians referred to as “the vice of the Greeks”.
I have no idea why Paul did not use the common current language if he wished to condemn either same-sex behavior or same-sex love, but it wasn’t due to any lack of words.
Exactly, Teresa. 🙂
Debbie,
Yes, Teresa uses the terms interchangeably. I should have been clearer in noting that I wasn’t necessarily speaking of Teresa’s usage.
I was just trying to inform you of the usage that my community has.
Debbie,
No, I don’t think that is a valid case.
That one might be impacted by a case – as a class of people – is not cause for invalidation. Or we should call for the recusal of all of the justices that are heterosexually married, lest they seek to protect their marriage from the harm of same-sex marriage.
And we’ll leave the decision to the two heterosexual single women on the court, Kagen and Sotomayor? Would you support that? 😉
CNN has just released a poll, CNN Gay marriage poll, showing a majority (51%) of americans now support gay marriage. However, this percentage doesn’t appear to include 18-34 year-olds which would probably bump that 51 a few points higher. No indication why that age group was excluded.
It certainly fits the trend of increasing support for gay marriage over the years.
Blakeslee,
I’m not much interested in your continued untruthful accusations, accompanied by bizarre, paranoid insinuations, and implied blame about totally unrelated people.
If you want to apologize for the slurs and the attacks, I’ll listen. If you pledge to stop the campaign of personal villification, I’m all ears.
Timothy
I think in many respects they are. “Found a family” and “reproduce” are not.
Not sure if I’m reading too much into it but normally two is not a group.
David,
Just make sure that your depraved 21st century Western sex is confined to the West and not extended across the Atlantic ocean to Africans who do not want it.
There is no mention on children or reproduction in this Article. To “marry” is to “found a family” — whether that family includes biological offspring, adopted or foster children, nieces and nephews, or no children at all. Kids may enrich a marriage or family, but they do not define one. Earlier in this thread, you asked: “What is marriage?”
I think that we can only guess… but that these guesses do have some bases.
It appears to me, based on what I’ve read, that part of the disdain for marriage has existed a many areas, a few of which include:
* marriage isn’t cool, it’s old-fashioned and square
* marriage is a paternalistic trap that demeans women
* marriage is bourgeois and not fair to everyone, especially gays
* marriage just isn’t worth the effort
* who cares about the kids, do what makes you happy
Personally, I think that the debate over gay marriage – and the acceptance of gay marriage – have actually helped heterosexual marriages in these particular areas.
With gay folk fighting desperately for the right to marry, it has undoubtedly increased its hipness quotient. If gay folk want it so very badly, well then it must have value, right?
And part of the debate – the part argued most vehemently in court has been the good of the kids. With both sides arguing that they are as good or better, this has, I believe, reawakened to some extent a questioning of good parenting or at least reminded parents of the value of two parents.
Also, amusingly, a great many dedicated feminists who had been suspicious of the institution have now given it a second look and, in many instances, a second chance. Among a whole demographic (more liberal Americans) marriage is no longer dismissed out of hand as paternalistic and archaic.
And finally, some who – out of solidarity with their gay friends – had refused to marry as long as it was exclusive and hostile to gays now are taking the plunge along with their gay friends in a handful of states.
Finally, I think that anti-gay-marriage folk have one tremendous flaw in their arguments: they must either be terribly cruel, or they must themselves demean marriage. (I’d love to take credit for this idea, but it’s Jonathan Rauch’s)
Gay couples need certain protections. And other than a few truly hateful people, most Christians just aren’t cruel enough to slam the hospital door or deny inheritance or fight health insurance. Christians are, on the whole, good and kind people and these just don’t feel like very good and kind positions.
Some folks suggest a secondary, separate, institution that has limited rights (and few responsibilities), sort of a “marriage lite”. But the problem is that this opens up the couple-status options. No longer is it married or single, but now there is an in-between option. And quite a few European countries have discovered that marriage lite is quite popular… with straights. They see it kinda like a trial marriage before or instead of real marriage.
But if we have just one option, one golden standard to which everyone is expected to strive, then I think this increases the image and status of that option.
Now these are my opinions and I’m not declaring that marriage equality will solve the marriage problem. But I am entirely honest when I say that it will not hurt and I very much think that it will help at least to some extent.
And if we do look at those countries that have instituted full marriage, though it is often recent and certainly not fully conclusive, the one thing we’ve seen is that marriage rates did not increase – and in some countries actually stopped or slowed their freefall – nor did divorce rates increase. This may well be to other factors, but I think it should give some ease to those who are genuinely fearful about same-sex marriages devaluing opposite sex marriage.
Even if this means or implies children, it is says that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” It doesn’t say that they have an obligation to marry or to reproduce.
It doesn’t imply that their marriage is any less valid or any less a human right if they cannot have kids or choose to remain childless. In fact, this article asserts that men and women of full age cannot be denied the right to marrry and to form a family (with kids) if that is their choice.
Eddy# ~ Aug 26, 2010 at 10:41 am
Good questions, all of them.
I understand that liberal Christian denominations try to apply the same rules, assumptions, and requirements on gay members as on straight, but they often have more lax rules in general.
As the more conservative Christian church denominations delve into this matter deeper in the future, I think they will have to address exactly the issues you bring up. And, to an extent, the discussion has already begun.
I think that the folks at gaychristian.net have been talking about sexual responsibility and what it means for quite a while now.
Personally, I think that the gay community would greatly benefit from voices which are consistent and equitable in their call for a Christian sexual ethic.
So, is the coupling of two people ‘the fundamental group unit of society’ or are they speaking to the expectation that the two become a family of more than two?
Let me rephrase it then. I am looking forward to seeing what happens when legal Marriage Equality is achieved. I think the benefits to everyone will outweigh the deficits. Personally, based on my personal and professional experience, I think the best relationships — gay and straight — are ones that avoid fornication and adultery — both of which I view as violations of the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” standard. I think both things cheapen sex and love.
Personally, I think sex and relationships are both harmed by fornication and adultery and that the “married and monogamous” model is best for everyone involved — emotionally, physically and spiritually. Fewer health problems and fewer broken hearts. If I asked to advise gay or straight couples about which model seems to be most beneficial, I would. share my opinion that sex is best in a committed, consensual, monogamous, married context. In terms of looking forward, I predict that full Marriage Equality will be good for LGBT people in every regard — and better for society in general.
Michael just posted a comment about human rights on another thread and it prompted me to read the International Bill of Rights where this struck me in light of some of our discussions here on the Proposition 8 thread:
It almost seems like, even here, the suggestion or hope of propagation is inherent to the basic understanding of marriage. It begins by talking about the right to marry and adds ‘and to found a family’ and then it concludes that ‘the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.’ It’s almost as if they treat ‘marriage’ and ‘family’ as synonymous. It will be interesting to see if ‘marriage equality’ or ‘gay marriage’ alters the language of this Bill of Rights…if the definitions become more clear or the distinctions more recognizable.
Timothy–
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Throughout this discussion, I had these questions–not quite gelled–rolling around in my brain. Everytime someone said ‘there will be no impact’; I recoiled.
I’m wondering now if scholars have only focussed on ‘effeminate’ and ‘homosexuals’ from 1 Corinthians 6 or if they applied their scholarship to ‘fornicators’ and ‘adulterers’ as well.
I think of that in light of:
I would hope that the consistent and equitable voices don’t just present a ‘consensus by committee’ but that they consider the Bible itself as a principle voice. If studies have been done on the complete or full meanings of ‘fornicators’ and ‘adulterers’, that would be, IMHO, a significant contribution to the larger conversation.
I KNOW that I am responding largely in response to my impression that experimentation is generally disdained among straights (with even liberals suggesting that you don’t ‘use someone’ just to gain experience) while it actually seems to be encouraged among gays. (Ironically, a bit of sexism seems to factor in. A guy experimenting with a woman implies that he’s ‘using her’ and that she is a victim; a guy experimenting with another guy is viewed as a dalliance between equals…no real sense of one or the other ‘being used’ or being a victim. It’s one observation but 1) not sure that it’s accurate and 2) don’t think it explains it all.)
I agree.
I agree. Very good questions!
Only time will tell. I have always understood “fornication” to mean prior to marriage and “adultery” to mean betraying the marital vow to have sex with someone else. I would tend to apply the same meaning to same-sex marriage — although I realize that others might differ on these boundaries.
Indeed! How would a straight person know? Many straights suggest that they should live together prior to marriage or experiment to find out. Some wait until marriage. Over 30 years of practice, I counseled many straight couples who found out only after being married that they were completely sexually mismatched in terms of libido, preffered sexual practices, who “initiates”, frequency, etc. Some found these differences to be irreconcilable.
Of course, the same thing could be said of straight couples. And the have had a considerable “headstart” in terms of social, poltical and religious support for their unions. I would imagine that legal marriagee would have a stabilizaing effect for many same-sex individuals.
I have counseled many couples — gay and straight — and find that they have essentially the same issues in their “marriages”: Problems with communication and conflict resolution, gender expectations, parenting, the role of inlaws, differences in religious values, sexual problems (mainly loss of desire by one or both parties),conflicts over money, division of labor, etc. I am sure that once marriage equality is the norm, that differences in same-sex and opposite sex marriages will become apparent — as will many similarities. As I said, only time will tell.
I’m sorry. I wasn’t quite clear what I meant.
I don’t mean to suggest that all voices agree, but rather that I hope that they would be (eventually) consistent and equitable within their own position.
In other words, I think that for a long time gays have heard a message from conservative Christianity that wasn’t relevant or applicable. It was either “ewww, icky, nasty, abomination” or “no sex ever ever ever ever no exceptions”.
But these were not what they heard being addressed towards heterosexuals. What they heard was more along the lines of: “not before marriage, not outside marriage.” This message does, I believe, result in a message of sexual responsibility which if it doesn’t entirely dictate sexual expression in most cases, does at least provide encouragement, expectation, and a push towards social stability.
Setting aside for a moment whatever one believes about sex and sin, it is my opinion that giving the same message: “not before (same-sex) marriage, not outside marriage” to gay people would also provide encouragement, expectation, and a push towards social stability.
Let’s be real. Very few heterosexual kids these days meet that goal and I doubt many gay ones will either.
But I think that providing reasonable and attainable goals can diminish promiscuity and encourage sexual responsibility, while providing no goals or goals that are unreasonable or inequitable simply result in a lack of any boundaries at all. If everything at all is evil-evil-evil, then depravity is no worse than monogamy.
Which is why I think that the gay community would greatly benefit from conservative Christian voices which are consistent and equitable in their call for a conservative Christian sexual ethic (i.e. fidelity within a Christian same-sex marriage). No it would not influence everyone, but it would push the entire community towards greater responsibility.
I realize that I may be reading into it a bit but I submit that adding the word ‘orientation’ to the understanding might be a similar transgression. It clearly says ‘due to race, nationality or religion’ with no mention of orientation. I’ll need to see when it was drafted and if the concept of orientation existed at that time.
In any event, to my earlier musing:
I’d like to add ‘or extending the language to include orientation’.
What a silly statement! As if homosexuality was non-existent in Africa or is something that could be “exported” from one continent to another– like oil. Homosexuality has always existed in Africa — and everywhere human beings have settled — and it will continue to exist even if you succeed in forcing it back into the closet.
Michael–
I appreciate your thoughtful response as well but I think it goes more towards how ‘gay marriage’ might impact gays rather than ‘what impact would/could gay marriage have on the church’? While I recognize both as valid trains of thought, they are different trains.
Several of us who comment (or read) here are not just focussed on the homosexual issue, we have a greater concern for general issues of morality…for the marriage crisis (I suppose ‘divorce crisis’ might be an interchangeable term). For this reason, we often look at issues with an eye towards how they might help or hinder efforts to stabilize those areas. Anyway, I can already assure you that there’s a general disdain for the ‘only time will tell’ approach. Taking that approach in the past has been deemed ineffective by many. Many have moved to a ‘looking forward…considering possible implications…and addressing them with foresight rather than trying to remedy them with hindsight’ approach. I’m not suggesting that one approach supercedes the other or that one is superior…just that I feel I’m speaking on behalf of those who lean towards the latter approach.
This morning some implications of same-sex marriage (marriage equality) on the church came to mind. And, who knows, perhaps it’s a good thing.
Much of the discussion has naturally focussed on ‘equal rights’ but little has been said about ‘equal responsibility’. First, if we accept the scholars reports that the term ‘eunuch’ was inclusive to the point that it included homosexuals, then we need to look again at 1 Corinthians 6:9. Naturally, it would first lead us to the words typically translated ‘effeminate’ and ‘homosexuals’ (previous translated in the KJV as ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’). This notion of ‘eunuchs’ including some who are born to be homosexuals compels us to rethink these words. But that’s a rethinking that has existed for some time. Even some 30 plus years ago, there were those who suggested that ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ applied to those born straight who turned to homosexual behavior. (Hence, perversion: they turned against their natural use.
But that’s not the point of impact on the church that occurred to me. It’s those other words: fornicators and adulterers. How will ‘marriage equality’ impact our understanding of these words? Traditionally, the generic definitions were ‘sex outside of marriage’ and ‘married person having sex with someone other than their spouse’. It would seem that we either need to move beyond these generic understandings and get to the essence of what these words mean OR begin applying them to homosexuals too. Let’s imagine that you have a straight lad and a gay lad both in the Sunday School class and you’re spending a week or two on sexual morality. Traditionally, church morality has been ‘save yourself for marriage’; even those with a more liberal view suggest ‘no sex outside of a committed relationship’. Would we now apply this moral guidance equally to both the straight and the gay? Perhaps my view has been jaded but it seems that gays are often encouraged to ‘experiment’ a bit to discover what it is they really like. While it doesn’t apply to all gays, some do have a distinct preference for certain roles and/or behaviors. (Various terms have been used: top/bottom, active/passive, giver/receiver, dominate/submissive. There are valid issues and exceptions to all of these…none properly defines or categorizes unique individuals AND there are many who simply have no preference.) Without ‘experimentation’, how would a gay person know prior to committment/marriage that they are committing to the right person. (And if neither partner experiments, what happens when they both discover that they prefer the same role and both have an aversion to the other role?) Would this consideration justify experimentation for the gay youth? If so, what implications would it have on the church’s traditional message to it’s straight youth?
Setting aside the issue of experimentation, let’s move onto adults. While I do have a number of gay friends who are in committed relationships, the majority are not. Out of this majority, there are only a few who I’d term as ‘promiscuous’ or ‘sluts’; the remainder might go for months or even years without a ‘hook up’. For the straight single Christian, even such occasional hook-ups would be considered ‘fornication’; will ‘gay marriage’ have the result of placing this same standard of sexual responsibility on the gay single Christian? If not, how will it impact the message the church gives to the straight single?
On to adultery. I can’t think of any church or denomination that condones ‘open marriage’ or ‘swinging’. I realize that there are many gay couples who do not practice ‘open marriage’ but I was surprised that a number of my gay friends had a tolerance for it. Would ‘marriage equality’ impact them towards zero tolerance or would it work the other way.
An easy and dismissive way to respond to what I’ve written is to say ‘stop preaching morality and major on the LOVE of Christ’. Easily said but the role of the church is also to instruct and to lead; the role of the pastor is to shepherd…to guide the flock along the right path, to steer them away from a wrong or dangerous path and to rescue those who have fallen or who are in peril. The discussion and teaching of ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘danger’ and ‘peril’ are responsibilities of the church.
It might take a while but, depending on which way the impact plays out, gay marriage/marriage equality could be a good thing, A basic life lesson still taught in the schools is that ‘rights come with responsibilities’.
…the one thing we’ve seen is that marriage rates did not decrease – and in some countries actually stopped or slowed their freefall …
Mary,
You are absolutely wrong on this point. The idea that the brains of women and men is different is well over a century old.
What do you mean medical research recognizes the difference gender plays in the treatment of patients?
It’s a bit similar to the proposed legislation by some southern legislator (I’ve forgotten the details) who wanted to make it a criminal offense (with jail time) for any pastor to conduct a same-sex wedding.
That one didn’t go very far, but it didn’t get the outrage that it deserved either.
Ken,
But it does apply to religious marriages that are performed for military personnel, at least on navy bases, but it is still religious in nature – or am I wrong about this?
Sorry. “Sue” is use.”
@ Timothy : I think your main point above is absolutely key – the dangers of conflating power politics with a particular ‘brand’ of religion are huge.
So, it seems in the final analysis, au contraire to Throbert’s statement below, the majority vote/opinion will decide yeah or nay for same-sex marriage. Either we see a slim majority by popular vote, 51%, or a slim majority in SCOTUS … 5/4 … this ends up being majority rule. No matter how SCOTUS opinions read, ultimately it’s majority vote.
The same business others have here on this blog who use polls to show that now the “majority” is on their side. The same business that elections decide issues … by majority. The same business that parties try to stack SCOTUS so that majorities follow their views.
It is interesting to see, however, that we homosexuals are not a monolith … just like every other group.
Debbie Thurman# ~ May 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“The sperm-bank baby phenomenon for lesbians is problematic, any way you cut it.”
Only when those lesbians aren’t allowed to marry and 2nd parent adoptions aren’t allowed. However, in the case where marriage is allowed, the legal situation is no different than a straight married couple that uses a sperm bank (ex. when the husband is infertile).
And for lesbian couples that aren’t married, that case is no different than an unmarried straight couple using a sperm bank.
The only situation that is unique to lesbian couples would be if one partner donated the egg while the other partner had the fertilized egg implanted and carried it to term.
“Especially for women, who most folks here acknowledge are more sexually fluid than men, same-sex unions with children can be a can of worms.”
Why would it be any different than an opposite-sex union with children? The sexual fluidity in women isn’t only in one direction.
Woo-Hoo a direct answer!!
And another direct answer.
And, as I expected, you believe that the federal government can pass laws which restrict the religious freedoms of others.
Nothing surprising there.
ken,
yes it would be a financial increase – perhaps – on couples (though some denominations are so aggrieved by the injustice that they have often volunteered their services), and I think that unfair and based on anti-gay bigotry. (I mean it really is extremely spiteful)
But the greater threat to our republic is the attack on religious freedoms. I think that the mainline denominations need to wake up to the fact that this really has little to do with gay people and a whole lot to do with whose religion gets to order the others around.
Richard–
I’m not happy observing this farce of a conversaton either but can you explain why you only directed your comment to Debbie? This thread has tolerated numerous detours including a detour or two back to the actual topic–with many players participating in the detours. And THIS topic is Prop 8. Can you elaborate on your comment. Lots of caps and bold…suggests strong feelings. They just didn’t come through clearly.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ May 12, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“Yesterday, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo) introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which would bar Defense Department employees from conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies. It passed 38-23.”
As I understand it, it would do more than bar chaplains from performing marriages, It would also bar the use of base facilities, ex. the officers or enlisted clubs, from being used for same-sex ceremonies as well, and that would financially effect gay service members since having to rent civilian halls would cost significantly more.
ken,
Are you seriously arguing that chaplains perform civil marriages? I don’t think that is very likely. What function would they serve?
I’m finding it difficult to follow your logic and fear that you are simply stretching in order to keep to your initial assertion. I hope not.
So let’s go back to the beginning.
A chaplain is a religious role. Chaplains are preachers. Their work is, by definition, religious. The functions that a chaplain provides are religious functions.
Having a chaplain officiate is, by definition, having a religious wedding in precisely the same way that having a Catholic priest or Reform rabbi or United Methodist Church minister officiate makes it a religious wedding.
Religion + wedding = religious wedding.
In fact, to be a chaplain you have to be a Catholic priest or Reform rabbi or United Methodist Church or ordained by some denomination and your service as a chaplain is entirely dependent on your good standing in that faith. if you church defrocks you, you can’t be a chaplain. Because what chaplains do is religion.
You can have a civil marriage either with or without a religious component (in five states). And you can have a religious marriage without civil recognition everywhere.
But you can’t have a civil marriage without a religious component if you include a preacher and have it blessed. That’s what makes it a religious ceremony.
Telling a chaplain “you cannot officiate at same-sex weddings” is, by definition, restricting a religious task, whether or not there is a wedding license.
Debbie
Let’s set aside ‘religious ideology’ for moment. Do you not think that is socially useful to have some form of ‘gay marriage’ for those who, for whatever reason, genuinely believe that this is the best thing for them? (It might interest you to know that it appears that the leader of Catholic Church in England and Wales, Vincent Nichols, thinks that there is a place for civil unions in UK civil law, presumably on grounds of ‘practicality’. After all, both individuals and society can often benefit from people ‘pairing up’ in ways that are genuinely mutually supportive; such ‘pairings up’ can, and, I believe, often are, conducive to the ‘common good’.)
What part of that was unclear to you, Timothy? I do not support civil unions (duh!). Society will to the extent that my objections won’t matter. And I will have to be “cool” with that, won’t I? Life will go on.
I believe the question you have your shorts in a knot over is, do I believe the government is restricting the religious freedom of chaplains by mandating that they follow federal law? No, I don’t. You used the word sacrament, as if the government has some sort of ecclesiastical authority. It doesn’t. Chaplains take an oath and they know they are federal employees when they sign up. Will they be able to sue a conscientious objector kind of defense, either way here? Maybe. Don’t know.
Are you also asking if a chaplain can use his ordination as a minister to marry a same-sex couple off of a military reservation, if his denomination supports that? I don’t know. He/she is a federal employee, and would have to abide by federal law and military regulations. I don’t know how that pertains to private, off-duty ministerial affairs. My answer is the government does not have the authority to restrict basic religious freedoms for a chaplain. It does have the authority to set regulations and enforce the law.
Debbie
PLEASE STOP. It’s UGANDA, not Prop 8! Leave it for now. PLEASE!
It’s about PRIORITIES, Eddy.
I’m sure you, Debbie, Teresa and Timothy understand. (No need to reply!)
UGANDA!
Timothy Kincaid# ~ May 16, 2011 at 9:19 pm
“The federal government is prohibited from expanding or limiting religious functions”
And what are you basing your claim that the government is doing this on, Timothy?
“(and chaplains perform religious functions) ”
they also perform a secular function, which is solemnizing civil marriage (generally concurrent with a religious marriage). Nor are military chaplains the ONLY military personal who can sign CIVIL marriage certificates. And I suspect this amendment would apply to ALL military (and civilian federal employees) on military bases (and perhaps other federal land) who are allowed to solemnize CIVIL marriage.
“unless you have language that shows that this is limited to chaplains being barred from performing civil marriages (and unlikely notion) please don’t accuse me of being as unethical as anti-gay activists. ”
Or perhaps since YOU made the initial claim, you should provide the language of the amendment showing it applies to religious marriages. and if you don’t want to be accused of being as unethical as anti-gay activists, then don’t use their tactics (i.e. claiming legislation about civil marriage applies to religious marriages).
“I don’t intentionally lie”
many anti-gay activists aren’t lying either, they actually believe what they say.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ May 13, 2011 at 7:37 pm
“But the greater threat to our republic is the attack on religious freedoms. I think that the mainline denominations need to wake up to the fact that this really has little to do with gay people and a whole lot to do with whose religion gets to order the others around.”
I disagree and I think you are making too much of the situation.
1st of all, I don’t think this amendment applies to RELIGIOUS marriages, only CIVIL marriages. Remember, this legislation is only re-enforcing DOMA (which doesn’t apply to religious marriages, just civil ones). I still haven’t been able to read the exact wording of the amendment, do you have a link to it?
2nd, even if it was as bad as you claim, this would hardly be the 1st time some congressman put forth an unconstitutional piece of legislation in order to score political points.
Eddy,
God is a kill joy when it comes to 21st century Western sex.
It is amazing how everybody has become an expert on Jesus and Christianity, even elements of the predominantly agnostic/atheistic Euro-American gay propagandist lobby are acting as if they are devout christian theologians out to show that Christ approved of sexual deviance. Even the world famous christian theologian, The Most Reverend Elton John declared that Jesus Christ was a compassionate practitioner of sexual deviance !!!
I am very happy that this gay marriage thing in the Northern Hemisphere is unfolding before our horrified African eyes because it indicates that any move to decriminalize deviant sex will not end with the gay sex practitioners discreetly going about their business in private as implied by our pro-gay puppet commentators whenever they appeal to us to eschew our deep-seated antipathy towards western-style sexual depravity. We know that the same gay forces behind the court annulment of “Proposition 8” will be pulling the puppet strings of their Kampala-based local proxies in the unlikely event of a decriminalization in order to mobilize them to go outside the privacy of their bedrooms and demand unreasonably that the Ugandan people should publicly acknowledge and dignify their abhorrent sexual behaviour by——–
[1] allowing them to dress half naked or in clownish/outlandish clothing and parade the streets of Kampala as their Euro-American puppet masters do in San Francisco or New York City or Amsterdam or London.
[2] establishing a useless, sterile, self-defeating institution called “same-sex marriage” (gosh, I always laugh whenever I write that absurd string of words )
[3] allowing them to adopt another person’s orphaned kid since their hedonistic dangerous lifestyle is compulsorily sterile and childless, unless unorthodox means are used to procure a biological child.
Maazi,
This particular element of the “predominantly agnostic/atheistic Euro-American gay propagandist lobby” probably knows a bit more about christian theology than you suspect. But as for having puppet strings…. gee, we only can wish.
The judge found that how marriage has been tradtionally defined by religious groups or cultures over the centuries is not a compelling reason for the state to deny equal rights.
Even if most cultures have defined “marriage” heterosexually, not every culture and time has done so. Regardless, as the Judge has ruled in this case, tradition alone “cannot form a rational basis for law.” — “the state must have an interest apart from the tradition itself.”
So your argument is mainly Biblical? In a culture with tremendous spiritual and cultural diversity, is that a proper basis for civil law? Are you saying that people who don’t “observe that order ” (the way you believe that order is and ought to be) should not have equal civil rights? Why not?
Ann
I don’t need to hear anything further from you, Ann.
Your mantra about untruths and mis-representations is false, contrived, and pathetic and now it’s getting stale. You delusional hope that if you keep repeating it I’ll eventually agree with you is simply not going to happen.
So save your time. Really.
Ken,
I know there have been studies that infer this, however, I do not know how substantial or credible or conslusive they are.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 6:27 am
Then cite a case were the court ruled something was a violation of the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution Debbie.
Ahem — medically speaking, what are two things that lesbians and Roman Catholic nuns tend to have in common?
(1) They’re LESS likely than “women in general” to have ever been on the Pill;
(2) They’re MORE likely than “women in general” to develop breast cancer.
That’s right — lesbians, as a group, and RC nuns, as a group, have elevated rates of breast cancer — which cannot be the fault of the Pill, since lesbians and nuns tend not to use the Pill.
But what risk factor for breast cancer do lesbians and nuns tend to have in common, statistically, that sets them apart from women in general?
Never getting pregnant, having babies and breastfeeding them.
Ken,
Au contraire to ‘modern’ notions, I happen to act (or, at least, try to) on spiritual principles; those being derived from Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Cut-to-the chase, Ken, I’m a Catholic. Now, after you’ve stopped gasping and before you start pitying me for being deceived, old-fashioned, in need of some ‘real’ counseling while ensconced in a rubber room; allow me another moment to really turn your head.
There is no such thing as “non-violent” crime or “non-violent” wrong behavior. There are spiritual principles at work in our universe, just as there are physical laws. What I do in public and in secret affects you, Ken, and vice-versa. If I sit down to watch some porn, I’ve not only injured myself but you, Ken. I don’t walk away from that experience unaffected, but wounded. And, as we are social creatures, that woundedness affects everyone.
So, when you or I demand our “civil rights” to marry someone of the same-sex, we strike a mortal blow to society. ‘Ab’normality (perverse, deviant) has no rights. (Please, understand, Ken, I’m not saying you as a person are perverse or deviant). I am speaking from a Aristotelian/Scholastic point of view. A view which happens to be little understood today.
When I speak of abnormal behavior, I’m not strictly speaking of uncommon behavior. Abnormal behavior is behavior that is physically and morally dangerous to ourselves and others. The results of that behavior don’t necessarily demonstrate immediately in society, as they often do individually. The results of the 1930 Lambeth Conference in which the Anglicans approved artificial birth control, the first major Christian denomination to do so, didn’t manifest their widening social destructive consequences until the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision: the decision that allowed abortion nationwide. However, concomitant with artificial birth control came the destructive consequences to women who used the Pill, which became available in the early ’60’s. Women died of heart attack, stroke, cancer, and were plagued with all sorts of unhealthy physical and emotional changes long before the accredited AMA and FDA said anything.
The fuller consequences of artificial birth control will not be experienced until we as a society permit euthanasia, which seems quite likely to happen in the not-too-distant future.
Your kindness to me, Ken, should not permit you to lie to me, or support me in my bad behavior. You are not being truly kind and good to me to tell me it’s OK to have an abortion, if I happen to be pregnant and in difficult circumstances. Your kindness to me should not permit you to say it’s OK for me to watch porn, even though some judicial body (SCOTUS) happens to think ‘porn’ falls under free speech, etc. Your kindness to me should not support me if I’m messing around with another woman, under the pretext of it’s OK, you’re entitled to be happy, etc. (At least, that’s how I see it).
Same-sex sexual behavior is unnatural, abnormal and has destructive physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences individually and socially. It’s not just me that thinks that, Ken. Confusing the digestive system for the reproductive system (at whatever end) is not healthy, no matter how we want to dress that up.
Have homosexuals been discriminated against, and treated poorly. Of course. No argument from me on that issue. However, so have many other persons been discriminated against, treated badly, been harmed. That is no excuse for me to expect ‘rights’ that are not mine, nor to upset the social fabric to accommodate my unhealthy interests.
At the end of the day, Ken, you and I are world’s apart in our views. I don’t see race as being nearly the same discriminatory thing you do. If I’m white, I’m white morning, noon, and night … and, nothing I can do will change that … no behavior of mine changes my skin color. Skin color is not abnormal.
If I’m homosexual, which I am, I may never have my sexual orientation change; but, I surely can change my behavior. I can surely adapt my behavior to social constructs that support healthy views; no matter, how pained, lonely and isolated I may feel at times. When I can no longer differentiate the good and from the bad, the true from the false, the beautiful from the ugly; I have no vision except my blind attempts at satisfying abnormal and unnatural impulses.
Ken, what I’ve just written is not an attempt to be demeaning, condescending, or discourteous to you. If it sounds that way, I apologize. It is simply an attempt to share the other side with you, which I’m sure you may be familiar with … or not.
To the extent that there’s a difference, the difference might be that Jewish women (even in the “Ultra-Orthodox” community) are relatively well educated — or at least, educated enough to know that US civil law supersedes Jewish religious law and protects their right to NOT be bound by the decisions of the religious court. But in contrast, immigrant Muslim women (read: “disobedient Muslim wives”) might be less educated about what their rights are under US civil law, making them more vulnerable to abuse by Muslim religious courts that might encourage them to sign their rights away.
And for “disobedient wives”, one might possibly substitute “homosexuals” or “apostates and other dissidents from the religious law”.
But in any case, the probable worst-case outcome of legitimizing these “Sharia courts” is NOT that non-Muslims as a whole would be subject to Sharia, but rather that certain disadvantaged Muslims would be bullied by their community into submitting to Sharia law, and prevented from seeking the protections of U.S. civil law.
P.S. I don’t mean to say that Orthodox Jewish women are never abused by husbands who claim a religious right to do so. Nor do I mean to say the plight of immigrant Muslim women is uniquely awful — I’m aware of cases among immigrant Hmong (a minority group from Vietnam) where Hmong-American women suffered needlessly because they weren’t aware of the extent to which US law protected them from abusive men. My main point is that “creeping Sharia” in the US is primarily a danger to Muslim-Americans who don’t want to be bound by Sharia.
I just wanted to know if you had an opinion on it — based on your understanding of the Bible and God’s will. I know the condition is rare, but it still raises important moral /Biblical questions — should they be allowed to marry? If gender-ambiguous people could, why not same sex couples?
The question wasn’t whether or not such a person would “seek medical treatment and try to live as normal a life as is possible.” Like you, I would assume that they most likely would — if they had the resources. But, people in other cultures might not have access to such sophisticated medical care. And perhaps not everyone would choose to undergo such treatment. Some might choose to leave their bodies as they are — and still want to get married.
I brought it up because of your unwavering insistence that the Bible clearly allowed marriage only to opposite sex partners. BUt the Bible does not seem to speak to this situation, so how does one decide what is “moral” in this case? I wondered if you had given any thought as to whether or not gender-ambiguous people (like the one in the article) should be allowed to marry.
I accept that you haven’t given it enought thought to “weigh in on the question intelligently.” Fair enough. You have answered the question. I have given this question a lot of thought over the years and concluded that civil marriage should not be limited to those of clearly opposite gender. Of course, I base this on a different understanding of the Bible and of its application to civil law than you hold.
Suppose the eunuch had asked, “See, here is a church and a minister. What hinders me from being married?” I wonder if Phillip would have used The eunuch’s condition as a reason to deny the request? If they could be baptized, is there any reason to suppose that they should have been denied other sacraments of the church?
Eddy,
I read the online edition of the New York Times and Washington Post fairly regularly, so I am well aware of the Birthers and the “Obama-Was-Born-In-Kenya” conspiracy theory. In fact, one of the birthers—a Mr. Jerome Corsi—- went to Kenya to promote his book on the conspiracy theory, but the government down there arrested and deported him for “operating without a valid work-permit”.
David,
One should be far more concerned with how some, maybe most, of these supposed “religious” institutions sought to participate in furthering prop 8. Using lies and playing on people’s fears are hardly honorable ways to go about this. They discredited themselves by their own actions.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jun 14, 2011 at 6:29 pm
“This judge has articulated very well for me why Walker’s minority status does not disqualify him.”
An interesting comment given your initial opinion about Walker. What changed your position on him?
Personally, I dislike the general dismissive atttitude towards gay families. Why does my marriage (recognized by both my church and my state) negatively affect hetero marriages? Why do heteros feel negative about marriage because people like me are married? That makes no sense to me.
My kids deserve to have married parents. My husband and I deserve to have the protections and resonsibilities of marriage. We contribute to this culture and our family does not deserve to be used as the scapegoat for those who disrespect their own marriages and families.
ken,
I am still finding it difficult to find the exact language. Here is how Akin describes it:
So it would appear that as long as they are not performing official duties, they can do what they want. Off site. Out of uniform. NOT AS A CHAPLAIN.
In other words, sure Corp. Jones can say the words “do you take..” but he CANNOT say the words “what God has joined together” because those words are the duties of a chaplain, not of some guy off the street.
The chaplain’s restriction is to his practice of religion.
That is a valid worry and concern.
Interestingly, I worry a bit the other direction. It is my perception – and while I am not authoritative on this, I do try and follow it – that marriage has actually fared better in places where gay couples have become not only allowed but expected to participate.
I think France erred this week. Parliament voted down a gay marriage provision. That is particularly concerning because in France young heterosexual couples have been entering PACS instead of marriage – they aren’t as “serious” and don’t have the same obligations. It really would behoove them to consider encouraging marriage instead of having multiple options (and maybe fix whatever is seen as too burdensome in marriage before it dies altogether).
But it is not unreasonable for folks to worry that allowing gay people to marry will cause marriage to lose it’s sacredness.
Of course, they have an obligation to inspect those worries. To have “worries” that are never questioned or inspected isn’t really worry – it’s just prejudice. Yet real worries are valid and those who have such concerns should indeed be keeping a close eye on Spain and Canada and New Hampshire, etc., to see if marriage has lost its value or, perhaps, increased in stature.
And I’m glad that Perry v. Schwarzenegger put that question to the experts. It resolved the issue – for me anyway – and the testimony should be considered. But I can understand that it may not be enough for others and that they still have a ways to go before they are convinced.
Which is why I kinda prefer the federalist approach that we’ve taken over the past decade. We can compare Massachusetts to Alabama and Vermont to Louisiana.
No. Gay couples in ALL states can have religious same-sex weddings. The government just doesn’t recognize those marriages in most states. No amount of DOMA laws or constitutional amendments can prevent gay or lesbian couples from holding weddings in churches or at our homes or at the park or wherever.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jun 15, 2011 at 10:29 am
“This is a different position than I was in 4 years ago.”
My question was about your stance, on Walker, about 10 months ago not 4 years.
ex. your very 1st post on this thread:
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 4, 2010 at 5:07 pm
“An odd decision…forgone, once you knew who was overseeing the case.”
you then followed up with several posts suggesting (and linking to other articles that did the same) Walker’s decision was biased because he was gay.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ May 18, 2011 at 5:10 pm
“Having a chaplain officiate is, by definition, having a religious wedding in precisely the same way that having a Catholic priest or Reform rabbi or United Methodist Church minister officiate makes it a religious wedding.”
What you are missing Timothy is that clergy are also allowed to officiate civil marriages, mostly as a matter of convenience. Here’s how a civil marriage works. A couple files for a marriage license. then in front of a government representative they swear to be each others “lawfully wedded husband/wife” (or just spouse, the exact wording can vary from state to state), and each sign the marriage license, along with the government representative who acts as witness that the couple has sworn to whatever specific oaths the state requires. Now, these government representatives can be judges, justices of the peace, county clerks, military base/ship commanders, ambassadors and clergy. Many times the state required oaths are simply incorporated into the religious ceremony and it is just a matter of quickly signing the paper work while the guests file out of the church/temple/synagogue.
so telling clergy they can’t officiate a same-sex wedding is saying they can’t administer the STATE oaths and sign the marriage license.
I have seen nothing about the Akin amendment that indicates it restricts religious ceremonies or even that restricts clergy from officiating same-sex CIVIL marriage outside of their official military duties (i.e. off base on their own time). And until you can actually show me that language of the amendment that says it applies to religious ceremonies, I will consider your claims to be as accurate as those that claim state laws allowing same-sex marriages apply to religious ceremonies.
Ken,
It is important in this debate, I think, to not talk like an expert in a field you do not know. :). Opinions are just that…especially legal ones by non-legal participants.
I have been trying to acknowledge minority status for GLBT based not upon irrevocable identifiers such as gender or skin color or national origin. To date, those are hard to find.
To me it is more like minority status based upon religious identification. Sensations and beliefs united in an identification and a community. It is imperfect, but it works for me.
It fits with many facts and it has the added benefit that I need not agree with the identification as a “fact” in order to support someone’s right to see themselves and the world that way.
Latter Day Saints and Fundamentalist Christians are at odds, but equally protected under the law. Both have fundamental sensations about themselves and the order of the universe and are applying established beliefs and facts as well as personal beliefs and facts to form an identity and build a supportive community.
This is a different position than I was in 4 years ago.
Gay marriage is a very difficult nexus for those of us who believe elevating marriage is good for the culture and protection of the weak and the vulnerable is the duty of good government; add to this the concern that a court undermine unilaterally, the will of the people and the acknowledgment by anyone of a political mind that California Government is incredibly DYSFUNCTIONAL.
One can also be concerned with the reaction of those who sought to discredit religious institutions for participating in Prop 8; and for missing that minority status for GLBT is still an issue for other minorities: African Americans in particular.
As the case develops, facts and precedents are well articulated and I become better informed, when people don’t call me names, I worry less about how I are perceived and I can learn.
Still worried about the state of marriage…and whether in seeking to protect this minority group (already protected through civil unions), will have a negative effect on the culture’s general value of marriage as a sacred institution.
Or I suppose he could dissect his ministerial license from his employment and perform marriage as, say, a UCC minister. Out of uniform.
But I think it irrefutable that restricting what a minister can do is best described as a troubling restriction on religious freedom. So it is with bafflement that I read Tony Perkins describe this limitation of a chaplains abilities and freedoms this way:
And please do not tell me that Tony Perkins actually believes what he said.
Hi, David Blakeslee. About your statement above, I’m wondering if the culture has any longer “a general value of marriage as a sacred institution”. From my perspective, and I know I sound like a broken record on this, but the value of marriage came apart with the acceptation of artificial birth control (at the Lambeth Conference in 1930). From that point on, the most intimate act between a married man and woman, whose primary purpose was the “openness to life”, became sterile (if artificial birth control was used), occurring in the early 60’s. The use of artificial control became almost de rigueur for many married couples: condoms, birth control pills, IUD’s, inserted hormonal rods, diaphragms, vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc.
Following that, came the natural progression for legalized abortion, to follow thru on sterility for the ‘mistakes’ of the generative process. Cut-to-the-chase, sexual pleasure without the consequences of children, was seen as OK by many, if not most. Whether the churches speak out against this, the average church-goer has opted for some form of artificial birth control. So, the married sexual act became pretty much a ‘homosexual’ act in two ways: sexual pleasure was paramount, sterility a goal. Although the ‘parts’ still fit together in a natural way (although oral and anal sex is far more common now), the act itself, using artificial birth control, became ‘intrinsically disordered’: the exact same condemnation stated of homosexual acts. This similitude of most str8 sexual activity to homosexual activity has been talked about by many theologians.
How then can a str8 society that is essentially partaking of homosexual behavior not eventually move to marriage being OK for gay couples? Why shouldn’t it? I think, at least I do, that somehow we live in a make-believe world of yesteryear, where “marriage was a sacred institution”, and everything is peaches and cream, a world seen thru rose-colored glasses. Ain’t so. Furthermore, it’s not us homosexuals that are to blame for where we’re at. We’re rather late to the party. If you str8 folks can have your cake and eat it too, and call it right; why not us?
The kicker, for me anyway, is that in most states, you can have a religious same-sex marriage blessing. In most of those same states, you cannot have a legally recognized secular same-sex marriage.
ken,
As best I can tell (I’ve had trouble finding the exact language of the amendment), this would ban chaplains (and indeed, all military personnel) from conducting same-sex weddings of any sort. As it is chaplains they are targeting, I am assuming that they had religious weddings in mind.
Yes, I agree that this legislation is discussed in the context of defending DOMA. So is virtually every other matter which even slightly impacts same-sex couples, even if the language is clear that it is not same-sex married couples. (And, indeed, I’ve heard language from legislators about DOMA when the issue wasn’t even about couples, just plain ol anti-gay bigotry).
HERE’S THE ISSUE
The federal government is prohibited from expanding or limiting religious functions (and chaplains perform religious functions) that are sectarian in nature and which advance certain faiths but not others. That is the very essence of the First Amendment.
I can’t think up a similar violation that would not have riots in the streets… perhaps tax code?
So… unless you have language that shows that this is limited to chaplains being barred from performing civil marriages (and unlikely notion) please don’t accuse me of being as unethical as anti-gay activists. I don’t intentionally lie or distort. Unlike anti-gays, my religious beliefs don’t encourage me to lie for “moral” reasons.
My take is that ‘the people’–the same ones that make ‘reality TV’ thrive–rule! God bless ’em!
David,
If we’re talking about California yes, but this is not true for most gay people in most places. As long as the rights and privileges are the same, then I don’t mind the state calling these marriages civil unions, but that’s just me. Unfortunately, civil unions, at least those in most other places, don’t confer the same rights and benefits on this minority group as marriage would.
This judge has articulated very well for me why Walker’s minority status does not disqualify him.
Found here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_TRIAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-14-03-07-03
More:
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html
Jon,
Exactly! And NO amount of DOMA laws can prevent us from calling our unions marriages! Because that is precisely what they are, despite what the state may recognize.
David,
Regardless of where we fall on any particular issue, this is such a profound and powerful statement that I want to post a larger segment of it:
Your interest in equal protection and due process is the exact same as mine, or Mildred Loving’s, or Oliver L. Brown’s, or that of the poorest immigrant or any Rockefeller or Kennedy. I love that.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 17, 2010 at 8:03 am
“When someone can answer the question, “How is a man equal to a woman and vice versa (how are the two interchangeable)?” … then you will have redefined rational.”
In marriage men and women are equal under the law. Differences in how the spouses where treated (based on the sex of the spouse) have been eliminated.
I suspect I’m taller than Michael and probably have a greater reach than he does. So should laws be written to favor me rather than him because I have a longer reach than he does?
Everyone (regardless of their sex) has different attributes and abilities. However, that doesn’t automatically mean that laws should be written to favor some people over others. Such laws must have a rational reason for favoring some people over others. Ex. since the country benefits from greater levels of education, laws giving tax benefits to those achieving a higher level of education would be rational. However, giving tax benefits to people who have longer arms is not. Just as denying the benefits of marriage to gays was shown not to be rational in the Prop. 8 trial.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Aug 17, 2010 at 5:05 pm
“And the Ninth is demanding that they prove their standing in their September 17 filing.
If they don’t have standing, then this ruling will apply only to California and Proposition 8 and not have precedent outside the Ninth Circuit.”
There is a possibility I hadn’t thought of. The higher courts could choose to avoid this case by ruling they don’t have standing to appeal. However, Walker’s ruling could easily be applied to the other states in the district, so for those opposed to gay marriage, this ruling would be more than just writing off CA but all of the 9th district (of which I believe all the other states in the 9th have passed some anti-gay-marriage law).
It will be interesting to see what happens if the appeal is dropped (either by the defense or court ruling).
Debbie: I do not want to get into a debate over Scripture. I am not “proof-texting. You asked how a man be equal to a woman? In terms of how God loves us, we are equal. That’s all I was trying to say by citing the Scripture — yes, I meant Gal. 3: 28.
You are certain that I would not accept as rational or reasonable your answers to the questions I raised above. Try me. Give me your strongest argument against same-sex marriage.
Apart from your Biblical stance against gay marriage, what compelling civil reason can you present that I should not have the rights I mentioned above?
Why should heterosexual couples have superior rights and benefits?
Why GOP reaction is muted as judge affirms gay marriage rights
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csmonitor.com%2FUSA%2FPolitics%2F2010%2F0807%2FWhy-GOP-reaction-is-muted-as-judge-affirms-gay-marriage-rights%3Fsms_ss%3Dfacebook&h=f46ae
For the times they are a changin’. 🙂
Not sure how this verse can be interpreted to address gender equality…
He meant Galations 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” A very poor attempt at proof-texting to make a point. Paul is speaking of the inheritance of God’s chosen people, through the covenant with Abraham — that the covenant came even before the Law.
I have never thought that the appeal to what “marriage has always been” is very convincing. I don’t know many women who would want to go to “what marriage has always been” more than 150 years ago. Go back further and it gets downright wacky.
I know that no one wants Biblical marriage. All that stuff about impregnating your sister-in-law and having to marry the guy who rapes you may have been great for that culture but I’m awfully glad we’ve decided to let those traditions melt away.
Did anyone notice that word ‘virtually’? The truth is that opponents to the decision cannot say ‘has been defined as an opposite-sex union by every society throughout history’. The word ‘virtually’ is a red flag…there either ARE or HAVE BEEN exceptions. The use of the word ‘virtually’ also means that the opponents know this.
Timothy — And that’s what the Judge concluded, based on the evidence presented in the trial:
He also found that the Plaintifs were not seeking a new right or a new definition of marriage:
Eddy
There are, as you say, more than one possible translation. For me, I look to the totality of the gospel message to see it I get any clues.
Those who see the gospel through the lens of rules and legality will find Leviticus as a confirmation of the sinfulness of behaviors. If you think the Bible is about behavior, then you’re going to find anything in it to be about behavior.
Others see the Bible as being about justice and mercy. And anything in it will be viewed through that lens. Others who see it as a call to know God will use that lens. Those who see it as a collection of wisdom will use that lens.
And I know that we have somehow been able to apply eternal biblical truth to issues of slavery, male dominance, racial inequality, demons, and a whole host of issues which simply had no ambiguity and still survived. The faith will survive this challenge as well.
The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno)
Which is why Paul used “arsenokoitaiarseno”.
Oh. Wait. He didn’t.
Yes, I did read the statement.
Ken, many gay families are a mix of previously married men and women who divorce and find a gay partner/spouse, bringing the kids along for the ride. Lesbians who “marry” or otherwise partner up have a notorious high separation or divorce rate, and they are more likely to have one partner artificially inseminated so they can pose as parents of their own children. None of it is healthy family, in my opinion and in the opinions of many social scientists.
This is a fascinating argument.
You start with the premise that the Bible is infallible inextricably tied to the premise that your understanding of the Bible is correct. This “way of living” (as you put it) cares nothing about empirical evidence, it dismisses as impossible or illogical (a non sequitur) even the consideration of anything which contradicts your premises.
Or, as might be said in Blazing Saddles:
Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts!
How do you deduce that, sir? Knowing Christ. Can you do that empirically? Can you respect Scripture, even where you have doubts about it? That’s where I start and end.
Well, you surmise incorrectly. How do you make the leaps of logic that you do, Timothy? How do we get from a person having a constitutionally protected religious belief to projecting that belief onto others? You hear and see what you want to, regardless of the stinkin’ facts. It’s that infernal chip on your shoulder.
Jon, I think a lot of those who voted for, supported, and funded Proposition 8 assumed that we would graciously sit back and say, “oh well”. After all, we didn’t do anything anywhere else. The general assumption – oh, heck, part of the Prop 8 campaign – was that gay people didn’t really want marriage anyway, and “we can agree to disagree on this matter.”
But we gay Californians did not agree to disagree. That’s saved for things like ice cream flavors and papal infallibility. When it comes to institutionalized inferiority, we will not agree that discrimination is just as valid as equality.
The gay community collectively said, “this is not acceptable. Not to us. Not anymore.”
A cultural shift happened on November 8, 2011. I did not even see how important that day was… but I should have. I should have noticed that protests were not limited to California. There were protests over my state’s initiative in Washington, DC and Chicago, IL and Nashville, TN and Fargo, ND and Stillwater, OK and Sault Ste Marie, MI and Moscow, ID and in dozens of places around the country, some of which I’d never heard of. There were protests in London and Paris and Amsterdam and around the globe. Like the June 26, 1969 Stonewall Riots, this was an event bigger than it seemed.
And, for the first time, some very decent people realized that their votes on the legal status of gay couples actually hurt people. That gay folk really do want equality. That the things they told themselves about “real gays, not those activists” were simply not true; “my hairdresser Jim” was no more content with an unjust system than “my maid Irene” was in 1962.
And that is, I believe, why we have seen acceleration in the change in views since that time. Sometimes people – good people – really do have to be convinced that you care before they will begin to care.
The Kincaid two-step. Dodged the real question.
Only Southerners get to say that. You’re not qualified.
I’m sorry. I though that was obvious to anyone who has the slightest interest in the subject. I know that it’s been referenced many many times at this site.
But perhaps one of the better illustrations on the shifting public opinion can be seen at Nate Silvers New York Times feature. Silver applies regression smoothing techniques to polling data and finds that the shift from majority opposes to majority supports has already occurred.
What, then, do we call this kind of fallout?
Well, let’s see.
We have an individual who gave a significant sum of money, attended rallies, spoke to the press, and lent his name and reputation to an effort to take away existing marriage rights from a group of people.
And we have members of that group saying, “I don’t want to be represented by this person. His name and reputation are linked to an effort to deny me civil equality.”
Proposition 8 is a pretty good example.
As they say in the South, Debbie, well bless your heart
Ya know something, Debbie, being in my community has qualified me so say all sorts of things. Colorful phrases are part of my culture.
But I’m not going to let you goad me into saying anything that will let you put on your poor mistreated martyr hat. I’m just gunna smile… as a good Southern Lady, I’m sure you know the smile. You, after all, are qualified.
carole,
Yes, one can surf the internet for stories about Gays Behaving Badly. It certainly happens. And this is one of the more objectionable.
What a great word. It leaves open the possibility there is always more to discover.
Lynn David–
Thank you. You illustrated my point better than I could…the Greeks had several words for different types of homosexual behavior and, by your account, did not have a unique word for a man loving a man…but shared the word aphrodisia. So, the words already in use did not speak simply and plainly to the notion that a man is not to lie with a man as with a woman and Paul needed to coin one that conveyed the essence of that wordy phrase. And, it seems that that understanding wasn’t seriously questioned for 1900 years give or take a few.
Now you’re a mind reader? I thought that was an affront to your god?
The Greeks had a name for the most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was “paiderastia” meaning “boy love.” There were terms which described the older lover, the erastes, courts a boy, the eromenos. In ancient Greece, there never was a word to describe homosexual practices in general. They were instead simply part of aphrodisia, love, which included men and women alike.
It was considered shameful when a man with a beard remained the passive partner (pathikos) and it was even worse when a man allowed himself to be penetrated by another grown-up man. The Greeks even had a pejorative expression for these people, whom were called kinaidoi. They were the targets of ridicule by the other citizens, especially comedy writers. For example, Aristophanes (c.445-c.380) shows them dressed like women, with a bra, a wig and a gown, and calls them euryprôktoi, “wide arses”.
So why shouldn’t Paul use any of those terms?
Since Paul was usually concerned with idol worship and the practices associated with that which included the long-time middle eastern practice of the kadesh – the holy ones – male and female prostitutes (as in Romans 1). It’s just as reasonable that Paul was speaking of this practice.
…
Perhaps.
Who knows? I don’t. But I think that it’s pretty evident that “Paul’s clear words” were anything but clear.
To me, that ambiguity may be inspired by God. Perhaps the Holy Spirit led Paul to use terms that may have been adequate for that time but allowed for a future understanding that was just too far outside of the Jewish culture or what would be socially acceptable.
One of the things that I marvel about in Scripture is that often the language is such that those who first heard it had one understanding. But as time, experience, and science have changed culture, the language was broad enough to allow for a new understanding.
Surely it required the inspiration of God so that Scripture was not so rigid, so inflexible, that our faith did not die out at the discovery of a globe or the industrial revolution or the identification of germs or atoms or DNA.
When you miss the actual reasoning behind the lesbian makeovers, it’s so easy to ridicule it. The women had issues of dissassociation with their gender that led them to reject cultural aspects of femininity and, at times, to actually cultivate a masculine look. (We can rant all we want to about how we shouldn’t be responsive to either the whims or the norms of culture but the reality is that we are immersed in it. And, if we plan to relate in and to our culture, it helps not to stick out like a sore thumb.)
Men and football had some similar motivations. However, many men did find it interesting but shunned it for ‘unhealthy reasons’…fear of failure, a sense of rejection, feelings of incompetence. I daresay that ‘men and football’ never approached the level of ‘women and makeovers’ but largely because there were other effective ways to confront those fears and feelings.
Do you have even one example of an individual who was kicked out of a church based on effeminate appearance or behavior alone?
Randy’s saying that he is ‘effeminate’ is only saying that by today’s cultural norms some of his mannerisms are deemed ‘effeminate’ and that he’s not overly concerned about it because he is able to discern between culture’s voice and God’s voice. (You could put Christ Himself in a redneck bar and a fair portion of the crowd would judge Him to be effeminate.)
Timothy–
Perhaps Paul didn’t want to get caught up in the Greek (and other) cultural distinctions (I think specifically of the man/boy love and of raping conquered enemies)…so he coined a word that left off those cultural trappings and said “Look, for a man to bed sexually with a man” is wrong…and left all the various reasons, excuses and justifications out of it.
In just the past five posts or so, I think we have proven that these passages are not as self-evidently clear as Debbie insists they are. Even the reference she used, who claims their meaning is “self-evident”, then admits they are “neologisms” that “are correctly understood in our contemporary context when they are applied.”
Context, Meaning, History. Tradition. Interpretation. Application. Personal opinion. No reader of Scripture can be free of these things. We cannot “know”, for sure, what Paul meant. All we can do is “strongly believe”. What he may have meant by “malakoi” seems to have several possible meanings, as does “aresenokoitai”. There is no monolithic unanimity of opinion among scholars or true believers in Jesus on the meaning and application of these verses in particular — or of the Bible as a whole.
Personally, I think Paul was referring to something very specific that his readers saw everyday — particular practices of his day, temple prostitution, pederasty. But that’s just my humbly offered, though educated opinion. Other well-educated and sincere Christians disagree. Faithful congregations and denominations disagree. This is nothing new.
This has always been true of the Christian Church — from the very outset, there were disagreements on the meaning and interpretation of Scripture. It had even been so since before Christ. It’s human nature. No person ought to claim perfect knowledge of it. We owe each other the Christian charity to disagree and still consider each other followers of Christ.
Exodus likes to insist that homosexuality, is, at its roots a confusion about “true masculinity” and “true femininiry”. They even used to host make-overs to teach lesbians how to apply false nails, do their make-up and tease their hair. All to make them look and feel more “feminine”. Gay men were encouraged to play footbal. They didn’t seem to stop to think how such images were deeply rooted in cultural sterotypes, not the Bible.
Recenly, Randy Thomas openly bragged about how he was not ashamed of his own “effeminacy” — and yet there are those Christians who would argue that “effeminacy” is clearly condemned by Paul and if not repented of will result in not inheriting the Kingdom of God. For some of the things Randy is now proud of, Christians in times past might have kicked him out of the church — citing solid Biblical reasons for doing so.
My point is, that these passages — and many other passages in the Bible — are not “self-evidently clear”. They require study, prayer, research and discussion, reliance on the Holy Spirit for guidance — and just a bit of Christian tolerance and patience for those believers who may see them differently. The only thing that is “self-evidently clear” is that the Bible is not — not because it is not divinely inspired — but because people are people.
Timothy,
Sigh. The battle armor is heavy and exacts a toll. Body and mind have to rest now and then. Life is short.
The title (“Christians mock gays at shocking Easter service”) was intriguing and appeared either as a link on my homepage among the listed stories in the news or on the site Hot Air, don’t remember which. Was surprised when the actual story was the opposite, not surprised by the antics of the crowd as I live near the City. Commonplace there.
While I have your ear, a trivial point-you mentioned opera isn’t big among gays on the West Coast. I haven’t attented a performance in NYC since the late 1990s, but we usually attend a performance every couple of years, sometimes more often, depending on the choices, and there seem to be many gay men in attendance and at the symphony as well. Can’t speak about the LA ,Seattle, nor Vancouver scenes, however.
Debbie
So I asked twice and twice you have danced around and tried to talk your way out of giving an answer. Well, I know what it means when you do that. And, yeah, so does everyone else, Debbie. No one is fooled.
You don’t want to answer the question, Debbie, because you don’t think it would serve your agenda to be on record about what you really believe.
So it’s time for a new question.
To what extent do you hate religious freedom – other, of course, than your own, Debbie?
Do you want to padlock the doors of UCC churches? Or are you just content with laws that ban their chaplains from practicing their faith?
I’m not sure where that place will be for civil unions in the USA. Most states that have outlawed gays from legally marrying through constitutional amendments have also banned the state from allowing civil unions and domestic partnerships as well. Plus, I can’t see the religious right allowing civil unions to stand unmolested. They haven’t in the past. Examples, they continue to attack Washington State’s marriage-lite domestic partnership law. Michigan’s legislature is trying to financially penalize state universities that offer domestic partnership benefits to gay and unmarried employees’ partners. And NOM and the Catholic Church and all of those other anti-gay marriage groups fight civil unions when they come up before state legislatures just as strongly as they fight against marriage equality. They use the same exact arguments: pastors will get arrested for speaking out against gays; kids will be taught graphic gay sex lessons in kindergarten, etc.
Heck, you yourself Debbie have stated that the repeal of DADT is a step towards legalizing marriage equality. And yet civil unions – which actually address the spirit of marriage – don’t?
Regardless, I agree that there’s a practical purpose for civil unions. But legal marriage already exists and it doesn’t make sense to me to replace it with a marriage-lite solution. Marriage for gay couples has been legal in Iowa for over two years and Massachusetts for 5 or 6 or 7 years. I’ve seen none of the boogey-man scenarios playing out. Creating a secondary quasi-marital status just promotes a weakening of marriage itself. IMHO.
Teresa, states are not in opposing positions on the definition of marriage in traditional family courts. Marriage is marriage is marriage in every state for a man and a woman. Whether or not sperm-bank babies are born to more straight women (married to men or single), it remains the only way for lesbian couples to have children “of their own.” In time, as you say, we may have a federal law to cover same-sex marriage. We don’t now, and children are being impacted. Of course, single mothers of sperm-bank children don’t have a partner to argue over custody with.
(And Jon, I realize your kids are just fine. We’re not talking about you.)
Debbie
As your last comment did not answer the question, I will ask it again:
Jon,
This, of course, is completely bogus.
Debbie and the others at Jerry Falwell Jr.’s church like to pretend that this fight was state v. state. It supports their contention that no one should be allowed to have civil unions anywhere because it infringes on the rights of someone somewhere to keep gay people treated inferior. Yeah, it’s a pretty disgusting argument.
In reality, a local Virginia judge tried to do something contrary to federal law and impose him views on a Vermont court. It went all the way up to the Virginia Supreme Court (yeah, the traditional marriage state) where they said, “No, we put long standing tradition of recognizing venue ahead of anti-gay bigotry.”
So there was no state v. state conflict. It was just a judge who thought that his values override those of other states.
Teresa,
I’ll take this a bit out of order for ease of answering:
Partly. In Romer v. Evans, SCOTUS said that Colorado could not set up homosexuals as a class of people upon which to impose restrictions (this was, I believe, the initiation of the SCOTUS recognition that gay people exist as such). In Lawrence v. Texas it went a step further. While Justice Kennedy approached the issue from an individual’s right to privacy, Justice O’Connor’s concurrence was based on equal protections of a class of people.
The legal evolution since that time has been towards viewing gay people as a class of people.
Not to get too technical, but there is a test which the court uses to determine the extent to which a class of people can be segregated for disparate treatment.
1. Are they a unique class of people based on a shared immutable trait? For example race would qualify while bowlers would not. (This does not speak to the outliers – people who could reasonably “change their race” like Lena Horn or Michael Jackson – but to the group as a whole)
The evidence seems to support sexual orientation as an immutable trait observed within the demographic.
2. Have they been subjected to discrimination? This is pretty much not in question.
3. Are they politically powerless?
This is not a question about political allies, but rather about the group’s ability to assert power absent popular goodwill. It’s pretty evident that gay folk can’t even get a Democratic controlled Senate to support non-discrimination policies, much less marriage equality.
Meeting this test would put gay people into a category that would require “heightened scrutiny” of any laws that set them apart for disparate treatment.
Sort of… if gay people are a “protected class” (i.e. heightened scrutiny applies) then any arguments that the anti-gay-marriage group would bring would have to show a very compelling state interest.
And, yes, they would need to prove their assertions.
But If gay people are not a protected class then the group would only have to meet a reasonableness test (that is, if a reasonable person could believe that allowing same-sex marriage destroys ‘marriage’ as a concept, then it can be banned.
A reasonableness case assumes that the law is legal unless shown otherwise; a heightened scrutiny case assumes it is not unless shown otherwise.
So if a community believes that strip clubs lead to increased crime – a reasonable person could believe that, so strip clubs could be banned. But if a community believes that Asian strip clubs lead to increased crime, then the courts will assume that it is unconstitutional and will really need some convincing to find otherwise.
In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the court found that heightened scrutiny was the standard. However it also found that Proposition 8 could not even stand up to a reasonableness test because – other than establishing a religious view – the supporters did not (and presumably could not) present any arguments that would leave a reasonable person agreeing with their assertions.
When the Department of Defense prepared to defend DOMA, they applied the test to the situation and found that heightened scrutiny was the only level they could see. And they simply had no arguments that could withstand heightened scrutiny.
They had no argument to make, so they informed the House that they could not defend the law.
Yes. Like abortion, Jews owning property, mixed-race marriage, black children attending the same schools as whites, and many other issues, majority voting will not settle the issue.
Yes. That’s what I’m saying.
That was uncalled for. Way off the mark. You may also keep your wild speculations to yourself.
From a prior comment of mine:
Following is a peek into The Nature of Law; and, how a view, Legal Positivism, has basically taken the tact that whatever is the prevailing ‘majority’, social fact, constitutes Law; as opposed to the view that a foundational, moral structure should guide legal decisions.
Both quotes taken from The Nature of Law Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Knowing that I’m enamored of Natural Law, why can’t a legal argument be drawn from the Traditional Moral Norms of society for a case against same-sex marriage? This has nothing whatsoever, necessarily, to do with religious belliefs; but, rather, social mores that have never waxed or waned in social acceptation of homosexuality … not withstanding the attempts to appeal to Greek, or late Roman civilizations.
Whatever… Just keep your church friends away from my boys. I’d hate for them to end up in Argentina.
Although everyone here knows I’m opposed to same-sex marriage, some of what you’ve stated, Debbie, seems to impact str8’s more significantly. I have no statistics in hand, but I’d bet most sperm-bank babies are for str8 women … many of those single mothers.
Sexual fluidity among women can and does occur; but, again, without statistics in hand, only anecdotal observation, it seems many str8 women (usually older) are transitioning to being lesbian. A real study should be done on this, as we may gain some real insights about women and where they register on the gay/str8 scale.
Do states now square off against each other when str8 marriages go sour? I have no idea, but I would think in time the same laws that apply for str8’s with children, divorce, etc., would apply equally to same-sex marriages/divorce with or without children.
I may behoove some here to visit the Straight Spouse Network website, and listen to the horror stories of str8 spouses and what their homosexual partners have done, with and without children.
I guess I don’t see how same-sex marriage, children or not, will be handled any differently than str8 stuff. I see a difference in my own moral understanding; but, not in the America of today.
Any thoughts?
Teresa,
I’m pretty familiar with the SSN. And yeah some of the spouses have done some pretty crappy things (that’s the story you hear about pretty much any ex-spouses). And some of the spouses tried hard but it just didn’t work (which is the other thing you year about ex-spouses). Just people.
SSN provides a great service to people who really have no where else to turn. Most folk just have no idea what to say when your spouse comes out. They do yeoman’s work.
About a third of SSN folk break up immediately, about a third try to keep it going for a while and eventually break up, and about a third stay married in some form or fashion (but not often in the traditional marriage paradigm).
But the one thing that I find interesting about the SSN is that they are committed to gay rights, especially marriage rights. As Amity Pierce Buxton says, “If they could marry each other then they wouldn’t marry us and screw up our lives.”
Teresa, here’s a couple articles of interest:
The Catholic Case Against Gay Marriage
“The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage”
Carole,
You know something…. if the armor is heavy, then put it down. You don’t have to wage war, you know. You really don’t
Let’s wage peace instead.
I hope you get a chance to get to the opera. While it’s not my thing, I can appreciate the passion of the style.
Timothy, I was referencing our specific discussion, in which you leaped to the conclusion that my saying the Constitution protects freedom of religious thought/beliefs really meant I was projecting my own beliefs onto you or others.
The rest of your snarkiness I’ll ignore. Time to get onto other things anyway.
Richard, there will be a practical place for civil unions. We are approaching that time.
My oh my. Goodness gracious, how very uncouth of me.
So let’s look back on the conversation and see where it was that I started dancing, though I’m not entire sure that I’m qualified to do a two-step. (you don’t mind if I reference a show tune, though, do ya?).
Now it seems that here I thought I was talking about the constitutionality of anti-gay marriage amendments, but it turns out that I really was dancing around the rather obvious real question.
That makes me… smile
Regarding imposing religious views on the constitution as “sacrosanct”…it seems to me to be impossible not to do.
From some of the Ten Commandments
To mild commandments, modified “do not be drunk with wine…” (laws forbidding pubilc drunkenness).
I think this argument about Imposing Religious Beliefs is simplistic and frankly dishonest: What those in the GLBT community are doing is arranging Morals in a hierarchy, and placing Individual rights for Authenticity and Safety and Fairness above public demands for sexual morality.
It is all morals…that is why they assail those who disagree with them from the Moral Argument against prejudice.
See CS Lewis: The Abolition of Man.
Regarding the above video, If this happens yearly it is on a level of Contempt similar to Fred Phelps.
Debbie,
At whatever point it was that you decided that we were no longer talking within the context of anti-gay marriage amendments but were instead talking about your own personal religious beliefs, you forgot to inform me.
No, that time has passed. Now marriage is on its way.
The time for marriage is approaching and approaching quickly. I project that marriage equality will be present in every state in the country (and every country in the Americas) within a decade.
perhaps not…
Mary,
Are you aware that the brains of gay men function in some ways like the brains of heterosexual women? For example, research shows that the way that gay men register spacial orientation on average is more similar to that of women (landmark based) than men (directional).
As you noted above, there are variations, but on the whole the way that brains function between the sexes does not seem to hold true when sexual orientation comes into play.
Who said anything about the establishment of …? I was referring to the protection of religious freedom and thought. Rather obvious, I thought.
Eddy, I’m simply trying to speak about how attractions to the opposite gender are healthy, wholesome, and good. That is all. Attractions to the same gender are consider, by the Church, as “intrinsically disordered”. I’m not being a victim here. I’m not talking about how many str8 people have problems; or, how many gay people don’t. I’m not talking about difficulties with that. Nothing along those lines.
Just the plain simple fact, that sexual attractions to the opposite gender is according The Natural Law … it’s right, good, true, beautiful. Sexual attractions to the same gender are deviant; against the Natural Law.
I think, Eddy, you may be reading way too much into what I’m saying. I don’t care how many str8 people are troubled, etc. … or, how many gay people are or aren’t.
The plain, simple, long-held social, religious view is that sexual attractions to the opposite gender is what God intended … sexual attractions to the same gender are deviant, “intrinsically disordered” because they go against The Natural Law … the complementarity of male/female.
I’m not personalizing this to myself, Eddy. Simply laying out the Church’s view. I’m not seeing in this, myself as a victim.
I don’t think the above will make this any clearer. But, I’ve tried.
Debbie,
I don’t know what that means. Do you mean that minorities are tyrannically overpowering the majority and forcing them to treat them equally? Did you mean something else?
But if someone is denying the due process and equal access of any majority members, then I’m right there with you in Constitutional protections for them.
The Declaration of Independence is not our governing document of law. It just isn’t. But this does allow me a brief segue…
Pennsylvania former Senator Santorum was talking on the Fox debate about why he thinks gay people have no rights. He said something similar. It seemed contradictory, until I listened more closely.
So I’m finally understanding that in some circles in the country, the focus isn’t on the rights but on who granted them. And because it’s the Creator, this means God. And thus, because God is granting rights, he would never grant rights that are in disagreement with his values. So thus, when the Creator endowed rights, he didn’t endow them to gay people or gay couples.
Is this what you meant?
Yes. You are right. No credible evidence has been presented so far.
Yes, as I said, “a desire to impose religious beliefs by means of law on those who do not hold such beliefs.”
The US Constitution specifically prohibits the establishment of religious beliefs as sacrosanct.
Almost.
If, indeed, it could show a state interest that created stable families, that might justify intentional discrimination against a class of citizens. But “what it sees” is not a standard that allows for intentional discrimination – especially that based in malice.
And secondly, no one really believes that the motivation is “stable families”. That simply isn’t true. It just isn’t.
And here’s how I know… If it were proven to you without a matter of doubt that legally recognized same-sex marriage would positively impact stable families, you would still oppose it due to your religious views.
This proposition was a purely religious endeavor. Yes, not every voter was religious, but virtually every dollar, ever yard sign, every volunteer, and every other support was due to religious belief.
Clarification: I have six brothers. The evangelicallly married one and the Catholic one are two different people.
Cannot even begin to count the number of posters, school “rules”, community actions that are endorsed on public school grounds. One school district even has a pledge said every morning on how to be a helpful citizen – that is in addition to the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
Or, better, work within the church and community organizations to strengthen education, support and resources provided for married couples and families. I do think we should make it harder for couples to marry. Comprehensive premarital counseling ought to be a prerequisite. Welfare needs to overhauled and no-fault divorce out to be done away with.
No, that’s a major talking point.
Michael,
What makes sense is between the individual and God. Most of everything else is no one else’s call.
Yes. And that was precisely the logic of Judge Walker.
Well, it often is the same thing.
For example, when an activist judge sees the language of the US Constitution to include the rights of “any person” and that judge decides to exclude some people from the definition of “any person” because of his own religious convictions or the religious convictions of others, then he is engaging in both theocracy and judicial activism.
I think that the only time that God, Himself, weighed in on civil governmental structure, he preferred judges, but he anointed a king anyway.
Yeah, that sounds about right. I’m not overly concerned about whether there is only one penis or two.
And as I said earlier, if it said ‘romantic feelings’ rather than just ‘feelings’, I’d consider it a reasonably complete definition as well. And, it would cover those implausible but possible exceptions I presented that you chose to mock simply because you perceive me to be ‘the other side’.
No, Debbie, no impact on “those who voted for it”.
Their life doesn’t change one iota… other than the extent to which they can coerce the life of others – which is a “right” they never really had.
And no impact on public education. None. Zero.
No one is forcing anyone into a same-sex marriage so this doesn’t even make sense.
Stephen, what else do children grow up to do? Run entire countries, from top to bottom. Strong marriages that produce disciplined, educated and morally astute adults are state-sanctioned and accorded certain benefits because they are in the best interests of the state and its future maintenance.
Sigh. I know. I mentioned him in relation to birth control. He refused to impregnate Tamar and disobeyed God.
I’ll speak for myself as I don’t know who “you all” are. Is “yesterday’s news” a reference to history, perchance? If it is, I’ll refer to an earlier comment of mine in this thread wherein I quoted from C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters” on The Historical View and how it is used to lull the ignorant into hell. Otherwise, you may want to tell us what you mean by the phrase.
We all have the same impatience toward misinformation. And these matters have a vital bearing on us all.
No, it’s a major concern.
And I’ve got no patience left for your arrogance.
I assumed we all were astute enough to understand that marriages were marriages, regardless of whether or not they produced children. This is a point we ought to be able to dispense with. That said, it also ought to be commonsense knowledge that marriage is an institution, a primary purpose of which is to beget children in the best of all possible environments. Children ought not to be brought forth outside of marriage, but childless marriages are marriages, nonetheless.
Because gay people are entitlement whiners instead of victims, and because gay people have all the rights of straight people, and because it’s tax time, I’ll share a bit of something I wrote up:
But of course that fake victim requirement is not nearly so difficult as the real victim situation of where one has to sit on a bus.
Unless, of course, we aren’t assigning “real” and “pretending” based on whether we thing the group is deserving of discrimination.
Only if you hate the principles of freedom and equality. Freedom lovers believe that you must justify each restriction. Autocrats, theists, tyrants, and other totalitarians believe that each freedom must be justified.
I want others to treat me with true love, which means telling me the truth I need to hear, even when I don’t like it. Christ commanded that I first love God (i.e., know Him and obey all His commandments) and then that I love my neighbor as myself. That is what I seek to do. I may mess up, but opposing same-sex marriage is not one of those occasions.
No. This is just the way that some branches of Christianity get around Jesus.
“True Love” is not some special “love that looks to everyone around it like discrimination, cruelty, and animus but really is love because I say so.” And loving him as yourself really doesn’t mean “the way I want to be treated now” but instead “the way I’d want to be treated if I were in his sinful condition and needed to be made miserable so that I would learn that sin doesn’t pay.”
Jesus didn’t say “love your neighbor as yourself if you were like your neighbor.” Nor did he call us to “tell the truth they need to hear.” He never called his followers to mistreat others. There would be no need for such a commandment; self-righteousness already leads us in that direction. Jesus didn’t need to say “Take rights from the sinners. Hate their sin.” We already do that on our own.
Jesus instead gave a very difficult commandment (one which Throbert noted above was previously given by Hilel). To love God and love your neighbor. In the way he said it, it appears that Jesus believed that you love God through loving your neighbor.
Your religious tradition teaches the opposite. First you have to “obey all His commandments” and then after that we’ll get around to that neighbor thing. But loving the neighbor gets to turn into hating his sin and “telling him the truth he needs to hear” conveniently justifying doing exactly what you already want to do.
Hey, it just as if Jesus had never mentioned the Good Samaritan (and even without the truth he needed to hear) or that Corinthians 13 were snipped right out. Because justifying your desire to live in direct opposition to Jesus’ commandments has you making all sorts of logical leaps.
Debbie, you’re lying to yourself. And, of course, it’s obvious why you have to do so.
Because if you ever really stopped, if you ever said to yourself, “how do I want to be treated and am I treating gay people that way” you would not like the answer you would have to give.
And I’m sorry if you are offended. Truly. I don’t want to hurt you.
You are the self-deceived one here, Timothy. I am not a “good person.” I am cursed with the same dual nature you have (spirit and flesh). I want others to treat me with true love, which means telling me the truth I need to hear, even when I don’t like it. Christ commanded that I first love God (i.e., know Him and obey all His commandments) and then that I love my neighbor as myself. That is what I seek to do. I may mess up, but opposing same-sex marriage is not one of those occasions.
This is the lie that you tell yourself in order to bolster your own need to simultaneously think of yourself as a good person and also treat others in a way that you would not want to be treated.
It is the lie that lets you tell yourself that you are a Christian while doing the opposite of what Christ commanded.
😀
I want a black magic marker to highlight Ken’s last comment with.
Wow. You do find creative ways to subvert logic. Freedom is a writ-large, overarching, God-given principle that cannot be put in your little gay idea box. You have the same freedoms I have, Timothy. What you want is a special entitlement. Because you want it. And you are willing to hold your breath and turn blue until you get it.
Um, not sure about this. To my knowledge, there is no substantial, credible, definitive, scientific, medical or psychological conclusion that verifies your statement. Until there is one, there will continue to be just opinions.
As to this point, I, and most people agree. Many things that attach themselves to us, are unchosen.
Not too sure about this either – perhaps for some, but to others there are degrees and dimensions that are not all immutable
You might or might not be right about this. There are too many differing opinions from too many different people, including those who are are gay, to say with any kind of certainty what the genesis of homosexual orientation is. A less discerning mind might believe the statenment you made, however, many would not.
Timothy,
I never said this and it is not my position. You are saying something that is untrue. I really wish you could understand how this kind of tactic reflects poorly on you and your credibility. You are interjecting your hypothosis into a paragraph using some of your words and some of mine and saying that it is my position and not an uncommon one. This is not telling the truth. People notice and once again your credibility is in jeopardy. Just be cool – practice integrity, say what is true and don’t try to make something true or believable when it just isn’t.
Ann,
I’ve been trying valiantly to get you to explain what you mean by why some folks – African-Americans – are real victims but gay folk are not.
You may think that is strains my credibility to point this out to you. But I think by this point it’s pretty clear to everyone that in your mind gay folks are “sense of entitlement that has nothing to do with being a true victim.”
Oh, you can say that “regardless of their orientation” or change the subject to Pakistani women, but the truth is clear. Your real reason for disparaging those fake victims is because you need to portray “the individual who feels discriminated against because they cannot currently marry someone of the same gender” as not a “true victim.”
It has nothing to do with what they are experiencing, it has to do with how you view your beliefs.
I can respect an honest assessment that might say “I oppose same-sex marriage for reason XY and Z but I do recognize that it is burdensome on gay people to be denied equality.”
You are choosing instead to diminish the inequality and act as though those who are suffering “have a sense of entitlement that has nothing to do with being a true victim.” Because if they aren’t real victims, then you don’t have to consider that as part of the equation.
I got my negatives backwards:
And loving him as yourself really does mean “the way I want to be treated now” not “the way I’d want to be treated if I were in his sinful condition and needed to be made miserable so that I would learn that sin doesn’t pay.”
Beg parden, but the burden of a compelling reason is on the tiny minority that is trying to turn the world upside down.
Again, the burden of compelling arguments of how same-sex marriage would improve society is on those pushing for it. Do I go up to another person and say, “I am going to burn your house down. Now give me a compelling reason why I shouldn’t do it.”? Even if I think I have a dang good reason, I am likely going to be hauled off to jail. Consequences.
Never heard of transgender people?
Oh, and there is NO WAY that I live up to the “love your neighbor as yourself” commandment. I’m FAR FAR more loving to myself.
Where can I get one of those extra-wide paintbrushes? You know, the ones that paint in such broad strokes?
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm
“Do you think what is happening in other countries cannot happen here? ”
With regards to islamic fascism, no it can’t happen here. And I suspect your fears about the US becoming an islamic nation ruled by sharia law stem from watching too much Glenn Beck and other such fear-mongers.
“And still no clear and compelling reason other than “we want it, we’re hurt” is offered for same-sex marriage. ”
You still don’t get it Debbie? There doesn’t need to be a clear OR compelling reason FOR same-sex marriage, there needs to be a clear AND compelling reason AGAINST it.
“but not for me to defend heterosexual marriage for the greater common good? Why? ”
Because you can’t give any reasonable arguments (unsubstantiated claims about the downfall of civilization aren’t reasonable) how gay marriage would in any way harm straight marriage.
“We have people wanting “equal access” to both genders, as if the Constitution could somehow rearrange their chromosomes.”
No clue what you are talking about here.
Regarding “Individualism” as a right … If there is one overarching theme that Oswald Chambers continually hammered home in his messages, it was the problem of individualism, i.e., maintaining one’s right to self over against submission to Christ. It effects us all, men and women, gay or straight. Think of the war over that one word — submission — within marriages. It is frequently viewed as a mutual thing, but many Christians (including women) hold that God intended for men to be the head to whom their wives can submit when they submit themselves to God’s authority. Vertical alignment. Of course, each of us is to be submitted to God first. None of us in really in charge, though we imagine we are.
I also find it interesting to go back to the Genesis 3 curse: “Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you” (Gen. 316). Is this where it all began?
Jayhuck,
I din’t think you understand the use of correlations as a scientific research tool. Groups are matched for age, socioeconomic status and so forth and then compared. Since we can never control all variables, we cannot assert causes, only scientific correlations.
The Theory of Industrialization breaking down the family, is constructed on a macro level where hardly any matching of variables can be made…it is not even scientically correlative. It is a reasonable and plausible theory.
I have not asserted that “toxic homes” are better than single parent homes. If you read carefully, you will see that this is your distortion.
I want to bring back dial telephones and letter writing and the test pattern and the national anthem at sign-off time.
I have a rotary phone in my kitchen. It tok my 10-year-old WAY too long to figure out how to use it. Depending on your POV, it’s both a curse and a blessing. I no longer can participate in phone polls that require answers by touch-tone responses. OTOH, it makes it difficult to call the cable company or the phone company when there are problems and they insist on touch-tone responses.
I don’t write leters as much as I should, but I still send cards regularly to my grandmother.
and detailing his shortcomings… I don’t think you extolled his shortcomings, for the record 😉
I have been holding my tongue to allow David and Timothy to address this sticking point between them. I only wish to add that I have never seen David vilify anyone here or lash out unjustly. He has, understandably, expressed strong opinions about the issues at times. We all have. He has called out individuals on both sides of the aisle when their actions merited it. Someone has to do it.
Timothy, I also believe when you have chosen the high road, as David pointed out, it has moved the conversation forward in a meaningful way. I have appreciated that, too.
I think we all need to just take a deep breath before saying anything we may later regret. I have failed to follow my own advice on occasion, to my sorrow. Words can wound deeply. It is indeed hard to oppose an idea without appearing to be attacking the purveyor of it. But we are adults and we can discern the difference.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 19, 2011 at 10:04 am
“But gays are forever saying traditional marriages cannot be harmed by same-sex marriage, therefore, it follows that there could be no benefit to straight couples by upholding Prop 8.”
But there is significant harm to gays who wish to marry by upholding prop 8. Which is why it should be struck down. However, my point was that for proponents of Prop. 8 to argue that only a straight person could be unbiased in his ruling, is to argue that there is no need for prop. 8 in the 1st place.
Dear Timothy,
I am writing this a third time, once due to our e-mails not connecting, just now because a crash in my word processor.
I think if you look closely you can see the difference in the two comments
The first is directed at an individual (Timothy) who has a public identity and a political advocacy position. In that regard, he is tempted by such a role to distort the position of his opponents, use polarizing language and assail the motivations and “true agenda” of his opponents. He does this not with political figures alone or public policy advocates, he does it to people commenting on this blog. Other public figures with similar needs control the debate through the use of polarizing and provocative terms to achieve the political outcome they desire. Bahati and Sempa are the two I cited, Fisher and Lively are others. If not careful, these people devolve into simple propagandists.
See Gollum, “My Precious.”
The second comment has as to do with “Christians” generally, an amorphous group we agree, who are smeared by political activists using the darkest most corrupt examples of “Christian” politics: Sempa, Bahati, and Fisher. Oh, lets not forget Fred Phelps. This is a tool of the propagandist as well and should be rightly confronted.
One is a group who have members of diverse political persuasions, the other is an individual, who has created a public identity and a clear public policy goal and engages in specific, well proven, tactics in order to accomplish that goal.
Timothy,
you may want to double check the “contact me” e-mail link through BTB, that is how I sent the original e-mail.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 19, 2011 at 11:52 am
“There is effrontery, but unconstitutional harm is a rebuttable presumption. ”
I didn’t say “unconstitutional harm.” I said gays were harmed by laws banning marriage. What is unconstitutional is that the government has no justification in denying gays the right of marriage. And “status quo” has NEVER been a valid reason for discrimination.
“But how can anyone argue that Walker had nothing to gain from the outcome?”
what did Walker have to gain that would prevent him from being able to render an unbiased opinion?
“The law of averages says most court cases will be judged by heterosexuals. We have to accept that, bias or not.”
This matter has nothing to do with the law of averages. It has to do with you (and others) claiming Walker is biased simply because he is gay. And none of you have been able to point to anything in his rulings (either during the trial or in his declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional) that indicates any bias.
I want to bring back dial telephones and letter writing and the test pattern and the national anthem at sign-off time. 🙂
David Blakeslee,
Instead of penning the paragraphs of prose extolling Timothy’s virtues and shortcomings, have you tried just apologizing? I you have then *I* am sorry, but it sure seems an easier thing to do.
Please forgive the alliteration. I could not help myself this morning 🙂
The word “gay” also has connotations of being fussy, uncool, and generally tiresome to have around.
Teresa,
I often think/wish people would start out realizing that if they are interacting with or observing another person, they we are automatically on equal terms with that individual because we are both human beings. Going from there, one can then start the distinguishing process – I am a girl and you are a girl, I like sushi and you do not (hypothetical), I love the Dodgers and Lakers and you like ballet (hypothetical), etc. Often, I think we start in the reverse – we pick out the things that are small and, through a process of elimination, eventually the other person does not meet our qualifications of being equal as a human being. If, conversly, there are enough of those things to qualify that individual to be a person equal to us as a human being, then, well, they are accepted as such. Distinguishing charactersitics that make one unique does not equate to them being unequal.
If that’s what I did, Debbie, I apologize. “Leap up and strike out at people” is not at all kind, gracious, loving.
Yes, I do. However, this doesn’t take away from the fact of how others present themselves. Why is it that when I say I’m homosexual; but, attempting to live chastely … that is incorrect, for you? I’m sure you can understand that denies my experience, strength and hope. It connotes “never being worthy”. I don’t think I’m the only one to see it that way.
I will also strive hard to be measured in my comments in the future. It’s nice to know, Debbie, you’re human, too! 🙂
Whew, more light bulb moments.
I identify as a sinner, not as a saint or holy. I identify as an alcoholic; because, that’s what I am. I identify as Catholic; because, that’s what I am. I identify as an Italian-American; because, that’s what I am. I identify as a homosexual; because, that’s what I am. I guess I go on what I am, or have/continue to have experienced.
I thought everybody did this. Learn something new every day.
Debbie,
Okay, I misunderstood what you meant by: “ I am trying to understand why you would refer to people who refuse to accept help for themselves as the very people who helped you. That sounds like the blind leading the blind to me.”
I’ll not attempt to translate.
Timothy,
I’m not sure why it is important for you to believe this or what benefit you get from portraying yourself as a victim. Having said that, I will again repeat the truth for you to consider – what you perceive as verbal abuse from others directed toward you is no different from the verbal abuse and verbal bullying you have inflicted on a continuous basis to many here. It is my belief, subject to correction with more information, that David B. was referencing you and others who have displayed untruths and mis-representations here. When I have made you and others aware of these untruths and asked for retractions and/or apologies, my efforts have been met with contempt. If you think these things go un-noticed, you are wrong. Your credibility and reputation has been harmed. You ask others to do what you are unwilling to do yourself. David B. was comparing tactics and methods that could be perceived as propoganda (untruths) – as an activist, I have experienced you engaging in such. If you would have corrected what was asked of you, or stopped the verbal abuse/bullying when asked to, perhaps you would be considered a man of integrity and moral character who is more interested in preserving your credibility and reputation, rather than have your uncorrected tactics be compared to others who are unwilling to correct their’s either.
If you have perceived my words to accommodate the portraying yourself as a victim, then I understand your request. If you make a decision to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, then you might see and think and believe things differently and in a more accurate way.
Teresa, could you have an overly sensitive chip on your shoulder? Something appears to be bothering you deeply about identifying as homosexual. You are ever ready to leap up and strike out at someone for causing you to feel inferior. You are not inferior, nor can anyone make you feel that way unless you give them permission. I certainly don’t wish to have a misunderstanding come between us. I will strive hard to remember to stay away from certain phrases in the future. I have areas of sensitivity, too, based on my past struggles.
Timothy,
Good observation.
Debbie, ah, I own this is my fault. I should have used “kindness and care”, when I spoke of “love”. I apologize for my lack of improper wording.
“Kindness and care” vs. “pastoral correction” … can be, and I use “can be” very observantly, worlds apart.
No, Timothy. We “ex-gay” types know how to visit the sick, care for widows and orphans and do all manner of things for people in need in the name of love and or just plain neighborliness. Love for us is not tied up in witnessing the truth — with heaps of sugar-coated grace — to them. Please don’t attempt to be my personal Holy Spirit. You have, of course, done us the favor of illustrating once again what it is that galls people here about your “Gnostic insights.”
Or, to put it in context (and you know this is not what I believe, personally)
A person tempted to steal would not identity as a thief, so why should a person tempted towards same-sex sexuality identify as a homosexual?
It goes to whether you see sexuality in terms of whom you are attracted to, or if you see it in terms of whether your desires are holy.
Well, that is awfully uppity of them, isn’t it? The effrontery!!
Yes, indeed! That’ll show them to stay in their place.
Eddy et al:
This is more of a gray area than you make it seem. I don’t think I’ve ever met a conservative Christian that speaks this way – at the very least they haven’t ever described their identity as “in Christ” in the way you stated it above. The bigger problem I have with this idea though is this long-standing conservative assumption that all gay people define themselves only, or primarily by their sexual identity, and I think this is false. I am a Christian, a gay man, a significant other, a nurse, a friend, a son, a brother, a volunteer, etc. I don’t see myself as a gay man before any of these other roles
I find this hard to believe by the mere fact that they use the term gay when describing themselves, even if it is ex – gay. This term brings sexuality to the forefront, whether the people using it intend it to or not. It makes sexuality important, even if it is simply used to describe the sexual identity they seek to leave behind.
True. Though I suspect it is less intentional than cultural.
Both communities can be, at times, rather insular. And all insular communities develop language patterns and usage that become a unique dialect. Even things which seem quite obvious to each community can have entirely different meanings in slightly different communities, (much less those with little interaction)
Consider the phrase “freedom in Christ”
That language has entirely different meaning when spoken in an evangelical Christian church, a Black church, and a predominantly gay church. Each is talking about a different form of bondage and thus freedom has different connotations.
And that’s all from people within the faith.
Eddy, in my opinion, you’re going beyond my original meaning. I’m talking about a str8 person’s normal attractions, whether married or single. I’m not talking about the bleeding edge of behavior. For a healthy, str8 person, if they have attractions, they are called to deal with them as their state in life calls for; but, having those attractions is not disordered, in and of themselves.
However, for the homosexual, the attractions are themselves disordered … and, considered ‘intrinsically’ disordered … not objectively disordered.
There’s a huge difference in what I tried to say; and, what you are saying. In fact, Eddy, you are saying homosexuals are like pederasts, masturbators, etc.; although, unwittingly.
I repeat, again, the homosexual is defined by the fact of the attractions; and, these attractions, are in and of themselves, considered ‘intrinsically disordered’ … in and of themselves. Lust is not ‘intrinsically’ disordered if the object of the lust is opposite gender.
This is not my reasoning, Eddy, this is the Church’s.
Debbie,
My question is, who is blind and who is not? I have a feeling the answer is going to be very subjective. The person who has walked through the minefield is going to be different depending on your perspective 🙂
@All,
When I speak about the Church, I’m not talking about the Catholic Church only. I’m speaking about all conservative, Christian Churches.
Jayhuck
Yes it does, to their way of thinking.
It impinges on their right to hold privilege.
It impinges on their right to define socially acceptable.
It impinges on their right to determine what will be taught in secular schools.
These are all concerns that drive those who oppose same-sex marriage. They fear that if same-sex marriages are allowed, then it sends a message to their children that is in conflict with the values they seek to instill.
Those opposed to same-sex marriage want for hetero marriage to be held up as an idea. They fear that it will lose that privileged spot if gay people can marry as well.
They believe that society is best when families consist of one man, one woman and 2.5 kids, with the man working and the woman raising the kids. They accept that this cannot be achieved in ever instance, but they will to keep it as the family structure towards which to strive. And any other structure that is treated equally will threaten that ideal.
If you took away all of the arguments that lie in giving special status and privilege to ‘one man, one woman’ marriage, there would be little left.
But in a just society, privileges are not given based on sexual orientation.
Debbie,
Hate, intolerance and prejudice begets hate, intolerance and bigotry does it not? Perhaps its time to stop that?
Er, I meant prejudice, but bigotry will work since the two often go hand in hand
Teresa# ~ May 5, 2011 at 10:37 am
“Simply laying out the Church’s view. ”
And not just the catholic church’s view either. Many others still claim being gay is unnatural. NARTH still claims it is disordered.
Fortunately, such attitudes are dying out.
Mary,
That is true but you appear not to try and understand what *I* was saying before you jumped in. I completely understood what Debbie is saying, and I never doubted for a minute that it is true that men and women are different, so I have no idea what you are insinuating here.
You can lump all men with all men? Really? When it comes to personality traits? What personality traits are there that all men share? I would like to know this.
For a moment – try to understand what someone is saying before jumping into an explanation of what you are thinking and how you percieve the world. Just for a moment. Men and women truly are different creatures. The brain is different in hundreds of ways thus the body is different and so are the ways we think, feel, look etc…. There are huge variations of course between men and huge variations between women – but for the most part – you really can lump men with men and women with women.
There are more differences between myself and a man than between Debbie and I as separate individuals.
You are right, Teresa. Clear as a bell. While we can all be considered as disordered in some way — tainted with original sin — there is no mistaking that homosexual attractions have always been seen by the majority of people and the Church as intrinsically disordered and unnatural.
Eddy
No. I think I’ll let you just make assumptions.
But if you want to discuss my point – that often miscommunication is as much cultural (community based) as intentional – I might discuss that with you.
Our republic, imperfect as it is, still works better than any other system of government.
Yes. That is because our Constitution protects minorities from an out of balance and out of check majority.
Were it not for our Constitution and Judiciary, white total control of government would have never allowed for civil rights or the overturn of Jim Crow laws. The will of the people was in favor of discrimination.
Were it not for our Constitution and Judiciary, there would still be “no sale to Jews” provisions in property deeds. The will of the people would have upheld them.
Were it not for our Constitution and Judiciary, there would still be “sodomy laws” criminalizing gay people. The will of the people in a dozens states favored defining gay people as criminals. (some states still have them on the books even though they are unconstitutional just to remind gay people of their place)
And were it not for our Constitution and Judiciary, marriage bans will not be overturned in the very near future. The will of the people in some states would uphold them.
Yes, Eddy, in my opinion, you are correct in your observation. That is some of the problem with the use of the term: same-sex attraction. No one has friends they are not attracted to, something they like about the other person. In my opinion, the term is ill-suited.
I’m sorry, Eddy, for my part in what you term wrangling. I think there were sensitive issues being touched in the conversation.
Ann, you have nothing at all to be sorry for or about. I certainly took no offense at your comments. I saw conversations were being mixed. I apologize for sounding exasperated in my last comment.
All’s well, Ann, don’t worry. 🙂 🙂
I will never argue that differences between the sexes do not exist. What I think is up for debate is the just how different the two are.
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 10, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“I am all for reading such documents…but I am more impressed by bright scholarly folks in the profession who can comment with authority that Judge Walker manifested repeated skepticism toward the law and nearly naive endorsement of every argument brought against the law.”
“Bright, scholarly” folks would have read the transcripts and motions, before commenting on the accuracy/bias of the opinion. A scholarly critic would have supported his opinions with actual references to other court opinions to show how Walker’s was biased; to show how Walker’s comments were not in keeping with legal opinion. Not simply played to the prejudices of his audience.
You do not have to be a legal expert to know that the defense was terrible in this case. All you have to do is read the court transcripts.
David you’ve made claims before about “critical analysis” of Walker, but you have yet to cite any.
Ken, the reason that statement is entitled “Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents” is this up-front acknowledgment: “Most individuals who have a lesbian and/or gay parent were conceived in the context of a heterosexual relationship.” Remember, it was written in 2002. It also, however, says this:
The statement still talks a good deal about gay parenting, in general. I submit that the data would be even more damaging for sperm-bank babies. As it is, they are comparing gay families formed out of a previous divorce with straight stepfamilies formed similarly. The statement maintained at the time these constituted most gay parenting arrangements.
Debbie,
Thank you for clarifying that your sole argument is an appeal to theocracy (submission to “moral authority”). While, as a Christian who knows history, that idea is abhorrent to me, I appreciate that you finally were willing to take the argument to the place where we all knew it was based.
Ken, I know that your intentions are good, but it doesn’t look very likely that folks some folks here will take the time or effort to actually read and review the case. They have made up their minds. Don’t confuse them with the facts.
I don’t know if Maazi has read the decision. He seems very well educated and informed, so I hope that he will. In any event, I think he made an excellent point.
The experts were “scared off”? Ken, if this is so, it doesn’t say much for how deeply these expert witnesses really care about the “welfare of children” or the terrible threat that marriage equality poses to the family, to the nation and to society! Where is the strength of their conviction? If they want to be “moral” they cannot also be cowards.
Also, if is true (as the proponents claimed in court) that the witnesses feared for their personal safety, why didn’t they produce any evidence of such threats to their witnesses? Threatening letter, emails, etc.? Isn’t harassing or threatening witnesses illegal? If they can prove that this was the case, wouldn’t that be grounds enough for a “do-over”?
I have heard this lame excuse more times than I can count — Scientific evidence that gays can change their sexual orientation is suppressed by the powerful gay lobby. “Tens of thousands of people who have successfully become heterosexual are frightened to come forward. Experts won’t testify in court due to concerns for their safety. I don’t buy it. Don’t these folks have a backbone? Are they all wimps?
Has anyone read the entire decision? Anyone? Bueller?
(BTW: Just noticed I left the “t” off of “effort” in my earlier post to Eddy. I apologize for my typos and for any confusion this might have caused to the reader.)
That comment is very telling about you David, and it’s not pretty.
The judge seems to have ruled that fear and prejudice were not grounds to deny equal protection under the law. Good for him.
As Rachel Maddow pointed out, there were 80 findings of FACT in favor of overturning Prop 8, and none in favor of keeping the prohibition.
Once you know who was overseeing the case, you can gain real respect for Judge Walker’s absolute fairness in considering the evidence in reaching his meticulous and exact 138-page decision. He was scrupulous to the utmost degree precisely because of “who was overseeing the case” – himself, a gay man who had to work three times as hard as a straight one would have done in order to justify the same conclusions.
An odd decision…forgone, once you knew who was overseeing the case.
Eddy -Cool! I am glad that you will make an effor to know what you are talking about. I accept that you do not intend to read the entire decision –even though is’s only 138 pages, not 158. As I said, I do not make the rules as to who can comment here — Warren does that.
I never said that those who choose to remain ignorant of what the decision actually says have no right to comment — only that I will not argue with them about it. I am making the “rule” for myself, not for them. I will keep my eyes open for someone who says they have read it. We have an understanding.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15677141?nclick_check=1
Having followed the trial as it happened (and read a lot of the transcripts), I can’t see how Judge Walker could rule in favor of the defense. I predict what will happen is the defense will appeal claiming that the “threat” of televised proceedings scared off their experts and hurt the defense. And at either the Circuit Court or Supreme Court level they will agree and send it back down for a re-trial.
Another blow to Dominionists.
I understand that she’s getting ready. She’s polished up the horns on the sides of her hat.
Why was it so hard for you to see that I was never claiming to know everything in the first place. Only a fool can make such a claim. I know some things for certain. They are important things.
Thank you. I’ll take all the prayer I can get.
“arsenokoitai”–first half means ‘man’, second half means ‘bed’–with the implication of sex. (Our word ‘coitus’ is a derivative.) So many have traditionally interpreted it as ‘man in bed with man for the purpose of sex’.
Lots of murkiness. Do we emphasize ‘man’ to the exclusion of two women? Do we dig culturally and find any clues? One popular spin is that it didn’t refer to the natural and loving homosexuality that we know today but rather to men who were naturally straight having sex with other men.
“malakos” was traditionally translated as ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’. However, much of what our culture deems to be ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’ doesn’t seem to be the root meaning of the term. Many suggest that it was purposely juxtaposed with arsenokoitai…and that it referred to those who purposely cultivated and flaunted softness and effeminacy for sexual reasons…the male prostitutes of the time.
Obviously, those understandings, while traditional are not universal. From my experience, most of those who have ‘studied’ the terms have done so from a position of bias. This goes for both sides. That is why I queried earlier if the other terms from 1 Corinthians 6, specifically ‘adulterers’ and ‘fornicators’ had been ‘studied’ to the same extent. When we jump right to the middle of the list, it suggests that, for some reason, those words are more important to us…and is a signal to be wary of potential bias impacting the study and its results.
So what we have here, according to you, is Paul writing a letter to the Corinthians about something they had never heard of and knew nothing about. Greeks, of course, knew nothing at all about same-sex behavior (all of the classics notwithstanding) and the Jews couldn’t even imagine it.
Yet, so as to be very very clear, Paul made up words that no one used to discuss this unknown concept which the church at Corinth really needed to hear about. Because of its very unknown nature.
Do you know how irrational that sounds?
And then to have the arrogance to assume that while no Jews or Greeks knew what Paul was talking about, you do.
I think that I’m beginning to share Micheal’s concerns. It isn’t just that you think that the Scripture is inerrant, but rather that you think that your understanding of it is inerrant as well.
See, Debbie, you are still confused. You are still having difficultly in recognizing that you are not God.
I wasn’t mocking God, I was mocking your woefully uninformed pronouncements.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha
he he chortle giggle snort guffaw gasp ho ho ho
Whew. You really made me laugh there.
Paul’s words are so “clear” that he actually didn’t use real words. Paul could have selected from the current language and used what everyone else used. But, nope. He selected words that didn’t exist anywhere else. He just made ’em up.
I can accept that Debbie is so certain that she is right that it becomes indisputable fact and that she feels comfortable telling others what the Maker of the Universe thinks.
I don’t claim such direct and irrefutable knowlegde. I just have my faith, my beliefs — and those beliefs have changed over time for me. The confidence that He loves me and that I am saved by His grace has not.
Yes, I believe it is.
I have that same “blessed assurance” of my own relationship with God through Christ. I also have a deeply personal relationship with Him. I believe that we are both saved by grace — not by our opinions about the Bible. I have assurance of my salvation and of God’s undying love. What I don’t have is the absolute conviction that my understanding of the Bible (including Paul) is the one-and-only, infallible, absolutely correct one. Do you believe that you have some sort of special, infallible knowledge of what every passage of Scripture means? I don’t think any believer of the Bible should slaim such a thing — since Paul clearly says that we don’t have such absolute knowledge in this life. I believe only God has that.:
Paul says: “What we know now is partial, then it will be complete — when we behold him face-to-face”. When you assert that your understanding is the only possible correct and true one, you behave as though you have already reached that level of knowledge. And you have not. I don’t believe any of us has.
No. My real beef is with you, not what you believe. Not with the Bible. Not with the “early Church fathers (who, by the way, got into heated arguments about what the Bible required and what it did not, remember? Faithful followers of Jesus have always had disagreements about the meaning of Scripture and its application.
I am not trying to “strike down your beliefs”. I actually admire the strength of your convictions. I am trying to point out that they are your beliefs — not the facts. By “beef” is not with the Bible. My “real beef” is with you (Debbie) and your lack of humility that there is at least some possibility that you (Debbie) may have it wrong. Does that thought ever occur to you? If it doesn’t, that’s truly frightening.
I don’t think so. Political correctness has thrown the muck in.
From the Christian Research Institute/Journal:
You’re a braver soul than I am, Timothy. “God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that will he also reap.”
I was also curious, and ventured a guess, that perhaps phrases like “other opinion” or “other status” and “without distinction” could and should include orientation — or at least should not exclude gay people. Perhaps I should have said:
All people have these rights. ALL. I offered my opinion. That’s all. Then I looked into it some more — and realized that is was highly unlikely that the framers of the UN Declaration on Human Rights even brought up the subject in the 1940’s.
At last! Thanks. Debbie, Why was that so hard? I fully acccept that you are convinced that the Bible prohibits gay sex and gay marriage. That is your belief and you are entitled to it.
And I mean this sincerely — I appreciate your prayers for me. I pray for you and Eddie as well — as my sister and brother in Christ. I suspect that when we all get there, we will all have to admit how little we actually knew.
clarification:
And while I am certain that I could hunt up a marriage from SOMEONE in the Bible that would match Debbie’s idea of marriage, I can’t think of any at the moment.
That’s supposed to read “It would make fools of all believers, and Christ himself.”
Michael, Paul’s words are very clear on the subject of homosexuality. It is not a partial statement that is couched in uncertainty. A soverign God would not allow errant human teaching to be canonized Scripture for 2,000 years. What a cruel joke that would be! It would makes of all believers, and Christ himself.
God’s Word is sensible to searching and clear enough in the main. Of course He does not reveal every mystery in the universe to us. If He did, we’d be God. But the greater truths are discoverable here and now. “The heavens declare His glory.” The Spirit of Truth was given to all believers.
You make a mockery of God’s truth and belie your own faith with all your talk of doubt. You want to be right with all your heart. That’s no enough. God grants us clarity and wisdom and knowledge in proportion to our obedience. Or we can stay blind for a lifetime.
I am not wrong about what marriage is meant to be. If I can’t be certain about that, when it is so clear in Scripture, I am incapable of knowing anything.
There is nothing more to add to this.
Michael, do you believe that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”? Those are the words of Paul to Timothy. It seems to me those with a liberal bent want to canonize every word from Christ (even when they don’t understand them), yet to exclude Paul, who was a chosen apostle of Christ. and whose ministry brought the Church to folks like you and me — Gentiles.
You get hung up on my “certainty.” Why? If I have a deeply personal relationship with Christ — and I do — why should I not have that kind of blessed assurance? It seems to me, then, your real beef is with Christ, or the early Church fathers or those who canonized Scripture. You want to strike me down for my beliefs? Why not strike down the original messenger, if you can?
You are confused about what constitutes humility. Humility is a servant of the Lord, prostrate before him as he contemplates his abject poverty and hopelessness apart from his savior. Humility is realizing that He is God and I am not. Humiity is realizing that His truth is the wellspring of life.
When did I ever say that? If they had a man sleeping with his mother-in-law (the chief reason Paul wrote the letter to them), I suspect they had more than an inkling that homosexuality existed. Human nature didn’t suddenly show up in Corinth. It was always there. Why the Greeks apparently had no word for it is anyone’s guess.
As for the rest of what you said? Gee, you really toddled off the reservation with that comment, Tim.
There are other passages in the Old and New Testaments which, when taken together with the 1 Cor. 6:9 one, confirm what Paul meant. It’s not just this one verse, of course.
Timothy–
Debbie did not say that they had never seen or heard of it but simply that there was on word for it. So she wasn’t saying that it was an ‘unknown concept’ as you suggest but rather that it was one that there wasn’t a quick ‘buzzword’ for. And this is quite understandable. (Now I’m wondering when, how and why the words ‘heterosexual’, ‘homosexual’, ‘bisexual’ and ‘transsexual’ were coined.)
Funny. I didn’t talk about doubt. I talked about faith.
Faith is flexible and strong. Faith allows questions to come because it knows that it can withstand challenge.
I have found in my life that those who are the least receptive to questions, those who are least willing to listen to facts, those who hold the very strongest to their certainty and who rely most on recitation of scriptures to “prove” that what they see with their own eyes is not true, are those who are really the most afraid of doubt.
They fear doubt. Desperately.
Because if there is even the slightest chink in their rigidity, if there is even the slightest consideration that any single matter of dogma might be wrong, then they are unsure and lost and scared and have nothing to hold onto. Their god is not the Creator, their god is their religion.
This is not to say that Debbie fits in this category. That’s up to her to decide.
Yes indeed. Some of us open our eyes and look to the leading of the Spirit. Others close our eyes, refuse to even read the facts, deny any evidence and live in a place of carefully constructed certainty.
So clear in Scripture. Oh so ever so very very clear clear clear in Scripture.
Right.
I wrote this some time back but I think it’s good for today’s discussion:
WHAT WE CAN LEARN ABOUT MARRIAGE FROM THE BIBLE
From Adam we learn that there is not need for a marriage.
From Seth we learn that procreation with your sisters is OK.
From Abraham we learn that a man can marry his sister – and lie about it. We also learn that if your wife is barren, she can give you her maid to impregnate.
From Lot’s daughters we learn that if you don’t have a man and you want a child, you can always just get your father drunk and have sex with him.
From Jacob we learn that a wife can be purchased by seven years of labor. We also learn that it is acceptable to deceive a groom into marrying the wrong woman and the marriage is valid. We also learn that having two sisters as wives is a blessing.
From Onan we learn that a man is obligated to impregnate his brother’s widow. We also learn that when having sex with your sister-in-law, you are not supposed to pull out before ejaculating (it’s wicked in God’s sight).
From Salmon we learn that your son born of a prostitute will bring recognition and honor to your name for millennia and your descendant will be the Messiah.
From Ruth we learn that a woman belongs to her husband’s family even after his death. We also learn that premarital seduction is honorable.
From David we learn that marriage (to one of your several wives) is for establishing connection into the royal family. We also find that if you kill a man to take his wife, she’ll provide you an heir who will be both wise and wealthy.
From Solomon we learn that a man can have as many wives as he can afford – along with twice as many concubines.
From Joseph we learn that if your fiance becomes pregnant – not by you – marry her anyway.
Paul tells us some very interesting things about marriage: It’s better never to marry (unless you can’t control your passions). And if do have a spouse and they are not a believer, then if s/he leaves you, let them go.
Even Jesus had some opinions about marriage: be sure to have enough wine at the ceremony and second marriages are adultery (even if the ex-spouse is a non-believer).
Yes, there is so much we can learn about marriage from Scripture. But one thing is clear: The idea of “one man, one woman” marriage may indeed be “traditional” but it certainly isn’t Biblical.
Of course some of those marriages had horrible consequences. But they were the norm, the heros, the biblical example. And while I am certain that I could hunt up a one-man-one-woman marriage from SOMEONE in the Bible, I can’t think of any at the moment.
Holy Crap!!! This thread had gone quiet for a couple of days and I came across something that was actually connected to the topic and brought it here for discussion and all that came of it was two days of word-wrangling with Michael. And now, suddenly it’s back to kindergarden tit for tat spurred by Jayhuck revisiting out of the blue a comment that was made some 25 days ago. Approx. 500 comments have transpired since then, wow! If I didn’t know any better, I’d say this site is addicted to contention.
Shaking my head in disgust and signing off.
Some countries still consider private, consenting, homosexual activity between adults to be a “crime”. It would make sense that these countries would want to exclude sexual orientation under the umbrella of “everyone” being “entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind”. Perhaps it would be easier just to come of with the list of those they think should be excluded.
What troubles me about your line of thinking, Debbie, is not your belief in a Divine Creator or that you believe that truth has a source. I strongly believe those things, too. No, what disturbs me is your insistence that your belief — your understanding of the Bible and of God’s will is a fact — and not your own opinion.
You and I are human. We have limited knowledge and what we do have is not perfect. Not until we we see Him face-to-face. You have no more reason to assert that your beliefs are “facts” than I do. It is this “What I believe is “the truth” that is the most dangerous aspect of any sort of fundamentalism or extremism.
Why do you continually exclude yourself from the equation? Your fallibility? Your prejudices? Where is the humility? Where is the possibility that you may have some things wrong? Why not say, with a little bit of true Christian charity, “I believe”?
God to Timothy: “Let me know how that is working for you.”
I dont’ think they need to. I think they have it covered in the preamble and first couple of ariticles. Everyone. All. Perhaps they should have started the document with an exhaustive list of all the invalid exclusions that humanity has offered for injustice throughout the ages and say, “None of these apply. When we say “all”, we really mean every human being has these rights.”
I really don’t know Eddy, but I suspect that “sexual orientation” was not mentioned in the document because many nations believe that sexual orientation should be an exclusion for human rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_LGBT_rights
A little side musing: When Paul wrote the words “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”, do you suppose he meant “including this letter I’m writing”?
Do we suppose that Paul believed his own writing to be sacred scripture and the inspired word of God?
I agree that we both have it. I would suggest that one way to begin would be to stop saying things like “…God says”, or “…the facts are…”, or “…the Bible says” without qualification — and insert the words: “I believe that …”, or “It is my conviction that …, or “It is my understanding that …”
With this in mind, I promise I will do my best speak my own mind and admit that these are expressions of my faith, my beliefs — and not presume to know or speak with certainty about what God thinks. Can we at least agree to adopt that general approach?
I agree. It would have been. Fortunately, we still can “be a fly on the wall” so to speak. The United Nations Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity was only introduced in 2008 — and the disussions are still ongoing. It will be interesting to see how that discussion goes. I suspect it will be very much like the discussion here in the US regarding same-sex couples having the right to marry.
I suspect that personal prejudice, religion and tradition will be the main opposition to human rights being applied to all people, regardless of orientation or gender identity. Those prejudices will die hard. — as they did with issues like racial equality and women’s rights. Many of those prejudices still exist, even though it’s now illegal to deny human rights because of them.
My best guess is that if they had tried to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the original UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, that the whole document would have been stalled forever in debate. Just as the US Constitution might have been if folks had insisted that it abolish slavery, racial discrimination and give women the right to vote.
At least by 1948, most countries could agree that “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” My hope is that someday, words like “without distinction”, “other opinion” and “other status” will be universally understood to indicate that “all” really does mean “all.”
That’s exacltly what I’m talking about! I guess I don’t need to read, study or pray or search out God’s will for my life — or even bother exerting the effort. I could just ask you.
And I’m sorry but I believe that is illogical. They said ‘all’ but still felt the need to list specifics…I’ll maintain my curiosity about why, when they listed so many other specifics, that they omitted that important one.
Oversight? purposeful omission? no unanimous consensus that ‘orientation’ should be included? no universal application? some other reason?
I will have a curiosity while you will have a conclusion. It seems best we leave it there.
In Honor of Women’s Equality Day and the 19th amendment, here’s a little “herstory” lesson. It is my prayer and firm belief that someday, all US citizens will have equal civil rights and we will wonder how anyone could have sensibly and reasonably argued against it.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dt1cD0vVoA_U&h=e0bdd
Not going to hold my breath…even asking a question on this website brings on the heat.
I would hope that we’d recognize when we are dismissive, when we refuse to think outside of our own box, when we refuse to allow others to think or talk other than by our own script. I would hope that we stop picking up on one sentence or one word that an ‘opponent’ says to take exception to while ignoring the rest of what they said. (The miracle: “I get what you’re saying in your first paragraph but I’m not sure if I agree with your conclusion that…”) And I would hope that we’d learn to be more open in how we question and in how we respond to being questioned.
To Debbie (who – whether she will ever acknowledge it or not – doesn’t actually speak for God):
It’s working pretty well, thanks. God’s divine revelation continues to work in His people. More and more are looking to see how their faith speaks to the way they treat gay people and with every passing year more and more come to find that God’s radical welcome is inclusive and joyous. More and more Christians are finding that the gospel is good news indeed rather than a message of legalism, literalism, and bondage to the law and sin paradigm.
And it is a wonderful thing. As the Holy Spirit leads, certainty gives way to faith. And faith leads to charity and decency.
And while some (the Southern Baptist Convention, for example) continue to ratchet up their roarings and wailings, much of Christendom is becoming inclusive and supportive and celebrate God’s great goodness and their recovery from rigidity and hidebound narrow-mindedness.
Amen! Now if we’ll only grasp that both sides have the problem.
Okay, I’ll accept that ‘many nations believe that sexual orientation should be an exclusion for human rights’ as a valid possible answer to the riddle.
I wish I had been a ‘fly on the wall’ as they discussed this though…hearing the arguments for and against exclusion would have been interesting if not enlightening.
Wow! That’s quite a list of things not to exclude based on…and yet it still omits ‘orientation’.
I sympathize with your own feelings on the matter however I still ponder why the oversight or omission of ‘orientation’. And, I still think, that if it was an accidental oversight, they need to include it. Seems we’re having international debates re issues relating to orientation, an International Bill of Rights ought to mention that categorization if they are going to list all those others.
I’ve come to believe that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty.
Faith gives assurance that allows for questions. It invites input, measures the possibilities and applies truths. Faith is flexible and fluid and applicable across the unexpected.
Certainty, however, is rigid and hard. Any crack in certainty can lead to its shattering, so it must be protected from all threat. All conflicting facts must be ignored or dismissed; certainty demands it. It can never be questioned or challenged or (worst of all) allow any thought outside of that which is prescribed.
Faith can look at same-sex marriage like it does any issue. It can listen, look at the facts, challenge the presumptions, and apply eternal principles. Faith can come to conclusions that may be surprising or challenging or counter-intuitive.
Certainty, on the other hand, is threatened by facts, ideas, challenges. Certainty chooses instead to refuse to listen and simply quote texts.
Were that many women “trapped” in “loveless” or abusive marriages in the ’50s and ’60s? Or did folks like Better Friedan (The Feminine Mystique) convince them they were entitled to more than being lackluster housewives? There have been various women’s movements in history. That pendulum has always swung to and fro. It seems to need a catalyst. Today, we see a somewhat reactionary push for moms to stay home with children. I did it. Glad I did.
Let us not forget the many good marriages we have and have had among us. I’ve been blessed to have seen many examples. Plenty of women have had no difficulty in finding fulfillment in being wives and mothers. They see it as a worthy career. Or they may sandwich child-rearing between the phases of life where they choose to work.
Many people, men and women, tend to cite the influence their mothers had on their lives. Many strong women, sadly, have had to step up to partly fill the role of a slacking husband and father. Of course, it sometimes goes the other way.
And yes, it is problematic for conservatives to chime in about the horrors of gay marriage when marriage in general has taken such a hit from within. Entitlement mentality already got to us.
The question Debbie still remains: why did all those Christian women take the bait, join the ranks of the “freed woman”? Betty Friedan didn’t make Christian women’s choice for them.
Each Christian woman had/has an individual choice, individual responsibility … Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinhem, Germaine Greer didn’t make anybody, do anything. That’s a cop-out for Christians.
As to a reactionary movement, that’s about over with this newest depression upon the economy … small as that movement is/was.
Scapegoating feminists, gays, Jews, Muslims (whoever the du jour group) doesn’t wash at the end of the day. Christianity has ceased to be (sometime ago) much of an influence upon society; except to scream, “those bad guys are the fault”. We need to look in a mirror; and, realize “those bad guys” are us.
Teresa,
Eddy,
I agree with you!
Oh, I don’t disagree with you in the least, Teresa. I do think there are a number of influences that helped push us over the edge. But we were already going over. They were just opportunists.
Yes, Ann, we lost something along the way in family closeness. Large extended families were micro-communities once upon a time. And faith was also at the center of it. The bonds were unbreakable. Industrialization was part of it, as has already been opined. Agrarian communities became fewer. And forgive me, but I think Darwinism had its role to play, as well.
Better (LOL) is Betty.
ooops.. tag on partial sentence there at the end
David B.
We agree that ‘good citizenship’ and a host of other factors – including down stream factors – are all legitimate points that the state could put forward to defend its law disallowing polygamous marriage. They are also legitimate points to oppose same-sex marriage.
My point is not that my rights trump anything the state could present. Indeed, if i were convinced that same-sex marriage would result in pending doom, I’d be opposed.
It is just that – so far – the arguments against it haven’t held up to scrutiny. Some are legitimately and honestly held, but they don’t seem to have substance. Perry was the first case in which the courts said, “bring in your evidence, bring in your witnesses, bring in your science, let’s get to the bottom of this.”
And while there are those who think that Judge Walker was biased, Having read the transcripts, I can’t see how any judge could use the evidence presented and come to any other conclusion (but, I am also biased).
All the “down stream” stuff, when presented clearly illustrated good, not harm. For example, the Prop 8 Supporters came in with a chart that showed that after civil unions were granted in scandinavia there was a downturn in marriage. The plaintiffs came in with the exact same chart… except that theirs was not limited to four carefully selected years. When you saw the bigger picture, it was obvious that marriages had been dropping for decades and that the part after civil unions was actually where the deadfall started to slow and right after was where it leveled off.
David,
Are you telling me that the words to use should go something like this:
Senator Jones from North Whoodunk ran on a pro-gay platform and opposed the bill to bar gay people from adopting. On the other hand, Senator Smith from South Whoodunk took the advocating a traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman view and supported the bill.
Hmmmm… No. I don’t think that works.
And while I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt about your intentions to find terms absent of value judgement, you failed utterly.
I don’t know a single gay person who thinks of our efforts as “broadening the definition of marriage.” The whole “definition of marriage” mantra is a talking point trotted out by anti-gay activists.
An equally appropriate statement could be
Applying civil law equally to all citizens verses restricting access to rights based on sexual orientation.
See. No implied rancor on anyone’s part.
So as I categorically reject your incredibly ridiculous notion that I term my quest for civil equality as though it’s some imposition on you, I have to consider your objections for what they are.
You seek to avoid any language that reflects negatively on anti-gay policies that people endores, heterosexist presumptions that they may espouse, and homophobic statements that they may praise.
I’ve considered your objections, attempted to accommodate you, and now have found your complaint to be unreasonable. Not just impractical, but based in the idea that very bad, very destructive, and very harmful ideas should be shielded from criticism lest the people who are espousing the very bad, very destructive, and very harmful ideas think that my criticism equates to simplistic polarizing labels to describe well intentioned people.
It doesn’t.
First, it is dishonest to equate criticism of an idea with “polarizing labels”. That’s nonsense and I’m not going to play along with it any longer.
Second, there has been of late a blurring of the difference between “I disagree” and horrible personal accusations. You have been more guilty than most. I am not receptive to you lecturing me that I should avoid “simplistic polarizing labels” while I have NEVER seen you criticize ANYONE for personal attacks on me – not my views, but me.
Finally, underlying your expectations is the presumption that I should be respectful towards views that hurt my life, are based in horrific presumptions, and if directed towards any other group you would call bigotry. I will be respectful in attempting to reach people, but I will not be respectful of the views. They are evil.
I totally agree with allowing polygamists to marry.
I’m less convinced, however, that we should begin allowing agents of the government to issue marriage licenses to polygamists — there are arguments for and against doing this.
However, if we as a society choose not to legally recognize polygamous marriages, I emphatically reject the claim that this amounts to “forcing” the majority’s religious beliefs on the polygamists. A man who wants to have multiple wives is free to civilly marry one woman while being religiously married to other women who cohabitate with him.
@All,
In spite of my personal opinions, I’ve recently read where countries (Sweden, as one) where new marriages had dropped off; the years after permitting same-sex marriage, the marriage rates increased … and, not due to same-sex coupling figures, but removing them from the stats … str8 marriages increased.
Stats were adjusted for population increase, etc. This was certainly an unexpected consequence, I’m sure, that most people never thought would happen.
Timothy,
yeeyeeeyeeyeeeyee (queazy, ill-at-ease). This is where I see something entirely different happening.
The rancorousness of the marriage debate makes more cynics than it does converts. The myopic view of traditional values as “haters” reinforces a counter culture move toward libertine and highly individualistic choices in the name of freedom and a right to demand the tolerance of the larger culture.
It is one of the reasons why I have had concerns with terms like “anti-gay” when applied too broadly to the marriage debate.
Christians have never held out Brittany Spears, or Dennis Rodman, other heterosexuals as their examples of why marriage needs to be “kept” from homosexuals…
Christians have an elevated view of marriage that they feel has been lost in recent decades in the popular culture, this lower view of marriage has had a demonstrable correlative effect on the quality of life for women and children.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 5:37 pm
“To be clear, Jayhuck, Marinelli makes a distinction between “civil marriage” and “holy marriage.” Not sure how many Christians will be able to go there with him, but he is entitled to feel as he does. ”
I suspect a majority of christians understand the distinction between civil and religious marriage. I have yet to hear of any christians claiming atheists who civilly married aren’t really married. Are you claiming they aren’t married? And I don’t mean aren’t married in the church, I mean aren’t married under the law.
Timothy,
It strains your credibility because you said something that was untrue. You could have chosen otherwise, and didn’t. You lied and it has not gone unnoticed.
Ann# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 8:50 am
“I’m not sure how to respond to your impression”
How about responding to my question instead. I’ll repeat it here:
Do you, Ann, believe gays are victims of discrimination in this country?
Ann–
Judge Kincaid has read your heart and has declared his judgement. Not everyone sees it his way (despite his generalized summary that they do). But just like Judge Judy, there’s no point in arguing. The judge’s decisions are final—well, at least in his own mind.
No, it is not a fact Ken so there is nothing that is quite telling, unless you want to make an incorrect assumption. This is what I actually said:
I know there have been studies that infer this, however, I do not know how substantial or credible or conslusive they are.”
I’m not sure how to respond to your impression as it is not based on a truth and is something that you have created and I cannot fix.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 10:03 am
“Those in the gay marriage camp say that polygamy is at least a straw man…as they do the argument that broadening a definition of marriage weakens a definition. At worst they say it is mean spirited or a scare tactic…or worse.”
It is actually worse than a straw man argument. It is an attempt to link gay marriage to something (in many people’s minds) the majority disagree with even more. It is the same tactic (although a little more subtle) many conservatives used by bringing up incest, child molestation and bestiality whenever they talked about homosexuality. Gay marriage and polygamous marriage are 2 completely separate things, with separate arguments for/against them.
If you (or anyone else) wishes to challenge the government prohibition on polygamous marriage, you are free to do so, but that has NOTHING to do with gay marriage.
You needn’t worry, Timothy. That’s your game, not mine.
“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:27, Ref: Lev. 19:18, Deut. 6:5).
It’s all there. If I love God with all that I am — mind, body, soul, spirit — I cannot fail to love others as He wants me to because I will understand His heart and be identified with his interests in others. If I remember that Jesus is even now interceding before the Father for me and all believers, praying along the lines of his prayer in John 17 (“that they may all be one, even as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be in Us …”), then I will not fail to see Christ’s love for me nor to treat others with true Christ-love. Christ is both truth and love, embodied in one. And so must I be.
“For whom the LORD loves, He reproves” (Prov. 3:12, Rev. 3:19). It’s an unavoidable truth. Let’s not forget to factor His love for us into the equation.
If this were 1986, Debbie would be saying the same stuff about people, but swap “Muslim” for “Communist.”
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 10:03 am
“The scientific data for a biologic deterministic reason for same sex attractions is weak, but real.”
Timothy didn’t say attractions are solely determined by biology (if he did, I would have challenged that assertion). However, we do know there are biological factors. It is not known the extent they play in determining attractions, but it is clear biological factors play a role. Which is what timothy was saying and Ann was trying to claim wasn’t conclusive.
The Judge was biased. He even SIGNED gay.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=166704399994
@ Mary,
Because the government benefits from people coupling in longterm relationships: they live longer, use less medical resources, are less likely to have drug and alcohol problems and are more likely to raise their children with less government assistance….
Many government benefits are meant to reflect the lower costs (for the government) associated with long term relationships.
We can post date all our marriage licenses to read “civil unions”—I think your solution is the most respectful of all involved…but I don’t think it would change anything.
Thanks Warren. Has there been an attempt to get the feds to step up re Social Security etc for civil unions? This is a somewhat major concern and, for that alone, I’d recognize the merits of pursuing marriage over civil unions.
———————
Thanks, Dave. That thoroughly justifies the 2 months of anguish and several confrontive meetings my friend went through to defend their right to be assessed on merit and practice alone.
The Engardio quote is six comments above yours. Michael Bussee posted it.
Not sure why this wasn’t also a topic here on the blog but I feel it’s timely given the statements that seem to indicate that the rights of conservatives are not being threatened in any way:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Feblast.aacc.net%2Fcounsel_alert_lawsuit.htm&h=41d36
Share and Enjoy!
Why doesn’t our government get out of the marriage business (granting special financial incentives to marry) , make a civil unions legal for hetero and homo couplings and then let the church (whatever church you go to) marry or bless your union.
There are no federal benefits with civil unions at the state level. Social security, etc…
Civil Unions and Marriage: What’s the Difference?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html
Here are some of the things I have been hearing here (and elsewhere) from people upset about the decision:
(1) The judge is gay.
(2) He prohibited qualified witnesses from testifying.
(3) He manipulated the case.
(4) He discriminated against Christians.
I suspect many of the folks who have made such comments have also refused to read it. It’s an important part of US legal history, an important part of civil rights history — and it raises some every important Constituional questions — questions that I believe are worth reading the decision in order to have intelligent conversation about it.
People are certainly entitled to make any judgements or accusations they choose, to read it or not read it, etc. I have now read it four times — along with many articles, both pro and con, analyzing the ruling.
It would be nice to be able to discuss the case with someone else who has made the effort. But you guys will do, I guess.
You see, that’s the problem. “Marriage equality” is a non sequitur. There are no marriages equal to (in the eyes of the state — which accords them benefits because they benefit society, as David pointed out — or the eyes of social observers or the Church) those comprised of one man and one woman.
Others have observed that the pro-gay rationale Judge Walker used might just as well be used to legalize polygamy. What is the hard evidence that either gay or traditional marriages are superior to polygamous ones?
Gavin Newsom? Anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom
I know I am breaking my own rule about not responding to people who have decided not to educate themselves about the ruling by refusing to actually read it, but I have broken my own rules before, so here goes:
That’s the same question the judge asked, only in reverse. What compelling reasons do we have, backed up by actual evidence, to believe that straights can do marriage better? Or parent better? What compelling secular interest does the state have to deny marriage equality? There wasn’t any — at least not presented in court.
I haven’t read the entire determination so I can’t engage Michael on this…can anyone else cite the specifics of the ‘inferior benefits’ of ‘civil unions’? Are there some inferior benefits that are universal throughout the U.S.? Are there some that some states have addressed and others have overlooked? Are there states that offer equal benefits to both those who are married and those who are coupled in a civil union?
Eddie said..
Didn’t see Engardio’s comments .. perhaps I missed them in my fast scrolling… at any rate .. I did look at the link you provided .. I also went to the ADF site to see what they were doing about it directly and read down through some of their suit. According to the news article on ADF they have had cases like this before and been quite successful at them .. so I am guessing this will have the same outcome.
Quite bluntly .. I am tired of all the phobic statements coming out of Christian resources. Time and time again I have investigated these claims and found that either we won the case (but kepty whining about it anyway) or that the issue was no where near what the spin doctors had spun it out to be. I guess we’ll have to wait and see on this one. If its anything like the other successes .. ADF will succeed and then Christian resources will whine and complain about what *might* have happened.
concerned# ~ Aug 6, 2010 at 2:46 pm
“The fact that some did not speak out against this bias judgement is nothing new. ”
How have you determined that the judgement was biased?
David, you sound like Judge Walker. He said that the evidence presented in court backed this up — that the government and society actually benefit by affirming marriage equality — for all of the reasons you listed.
There is not enough data to make such a determination. The study I cited above showed that married gays and lesbians (especially lesbians) in Norway and Sweden outpaced heterosexual married couples in divorces. Those countries have had gay marriage longer than we have. It’s about all we have statistically for now.
Perhaps more compelling evidence would come from the children of gay unions, but, again, it will take time for the maladaptive effects to become evident or attention-getting. What compelling reasons do we have to believe gays can do marriage better than the rest of us? And if divorce is harmful enough for the average kid, how much more so might it be for the child raised in a gay home? Are they not already subjected to harassment from their peers for having two moms or two dads? Is the sandbox not rough enough already for kids?
In the end, the people will get what they want — enough rope to hang themselves with.
Ken, the statement I cited that concluded lesbian-parented children fared as well as children of divorced parents was not complimentary of lesbian parenting.
This 2005 study points to the higher divorce rates among lesbians in Norway and Sweden:
It must be pointed out that gay marriage has been around for a relatively short time, not long enough for any comprehensive studies. Why should it matter to you or anyone else what I believe about the effects of marriage on gay or lesbian parents? I am not a social scientist. If you want my commonsense opinion, then, no, I can’t see marriage as contributing to gay couples’ stability, parenting or no parenting, in the long run. Look at how unstable it has become for straight couples.
By the way, what the limited studies have shown is that some weigh financial stability and education (gays have an edge there) over mother-father role modeling in declaring that gay-parented families are superior or equal to mom-dad-parented ones. I say how can these children be so stable when something essential to their development is always going to be missing? It may not be easily observed or measured, but it’s there. And in adulthood, it will make its presence known. Family engineering is a social experiment as harmful as eugenics, in my opinion.
William,
Thank you. That’s exactly the phrase I was searching for.
Debbie,
And I think we have plenty of evidence so far that allowing gay marriage does not impinge on other people’s rights.
Debbie,
And we don’t always do a good job of this!
For myself, and only myself, it is a hard pill to swallow that I’m different in a really essential way. Not just a characteristic of I’m left-handed in a right-handed world; or, I’m taller than the average bear. But, in a way, that deprives me of some good I that I truly desire; but, unable to acquire. Is this the end of the world, absolutely not; but, I understand the wanting to see myself as not “disordered” … if that makes sense.
Teresa,
There was a time when being left-handed in a right-handed world was also a bit of a bitter pill. The Bible clearly viewed left-handed people as undesirable. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. The sheep are on God’s right hand, the goats on his left. And there is not a single instance in scripture – ever, at all – in which left-handedness is given God’s sanction.
Just a few decades ago, left-handed children were forced to use their right hand. The crayon was taken from the left and put in the right. Some functioned fairly decently, some not as well, some suffered greatly in an environment that required proficient use of the right hand for all educational pursuits.
Our language even reflects that historical bias. The word “sinister” literally means left-handed.
But that prejudice is mostly gone. It seems that references to “the right hand of the Father” were not actually indication of God’s judgment. Who knew?
Personally (this is me) I believe that much of the social discrimination against gay people will also to a large extent wind up on the dustbin of history.
All of which doesn’t speak to your point. Even if society had no problem at all, you still would. And that is something that is yours to resolve.
I am not suggesting a course of action.
But let me share with you that – for me – I simply stopped believing that I was disordered. The church is wrong. Once I stopped taking it for granted that the religious condemnation of my innate orientation was either just or holy, that burden went away. All the contradictory application of rules, all of the love/hate paradigm that seems to only resemble rejection, all of the double-speak, all of that no longer required me to make logic leaps.
For me (and I speak only for me) everything became simpler and, frankly, more aligned with what I know of God.
That is my testimony.
Teresa,
OK, I picked the KKK example only because it was an easy one to use to illustrate my point, but its not a great example by any means. I don’t want to compare people who hold religious views that run counter to mine as being like the KKK members (I have too many religious conservatives in my life, who I care about, to use such a simplistic and likely offensive example), so here is one that may work better. Lets talk about non-Christians, or atheists. I think there are many Christians, especially conservative Christians, who would disagree with beliefs of other faiths, or with those who don’t believe in God at all. You still don’t see people, other than Dominionists perhaps, who want to try and outlaw the practicing of these particular beliefs, or non-beliefs as it were. Is that better – I hope so 🙂
Teresa,
You do that by respecting each others’ views while understanding the other should have the same rights as you do, whether you agree with them on various issues or not.
I think it is possible as long as we are not taking our personal religious views and attempting to draft them into law. This is the rub I believe. We can each hold steadfastly to our beliefs without impinging on the rights of others. This may be a bad example, but I think all of us would agree that the KKK have a right to their beliefs, but we don’t agree those beliefs should be enshrined into law. Perhaps a less inflammatory example might be about those who hold religious beliefs against interracial marriage. No one is suggesting that they do not have a right to those beliefs, but I doubt anyone, at least here, is going to campaign to have those beliefs legislated.
This agreement that those who disagree with us deserve the same rights is one of those things that simply makes it easier to practice the Golden Rule.
It is, and it also can fall into the realm of the specific sins you cited, Teresa.
That is a point that truly needs to be made, Eddy. Thank you.
Eddy
If your point was that miscommunication was cultural then I guess we are in agreement.
Tim,
Absolutely. The gay community has a responsibility to make sure that the people who do not agree with them are also protected. Of course this all becomes even more complex and problematic when we are talking about religious groups providing goods and services to the public.
Ann
This is an interesting question. And it’s also an ironic one.
The truth is that sexual orientation does often dictate what one buys at the store and where one banks. And almost none of that is based in attraction.
Religious and/or societal rejection of gay people (and during this comment I use “gay people” to mean “same-sex attracted people who select their life partner in congruence with their attractions”) has resulted in some peculiar business decisions.
I disagree with Teresa about the meaning of orientation. I think that what Teresa is describing is one’s sexuality rather than one’s sexual orientation. Orientation (like the base word suggests) explains the gender to which one is oriented (one’s own, or another). Sexuality is all of the warm fuzzy, hand holding, stars stuff (along with the, ahem, gets ya going stuff) and (I believe) is experienced rather similarly between orientations (other than the gender).
Sexual orientation speaks to the gender of how one’s romantic, sexual, emotional, and spiritual attractions are directed. It carries assumptions about behavior and identity, but these are secondary to the defining characteristic of attraction.
However, as with all attributes that are identified and segregated, the resulting community has many many secondary cultural practices.
Consider African Americans. This is a culture that – while mainstreaming more today – was for many generations segregated, excluded. And consequently music, art, expression, values, and even linguistics evolved uniquely.
So too have gay people developed culture, or more accurately cultures. There is nothing about same-sex attraction that would naturally lead to enjoying opera. But for gay men on the East Coast in the decades before the turn of the century, opera was part of one’s culture. On the West Coast, gays hate opera. (these are, of course, generalizations).
These are social responses to a community. If all your friends enjoy Lady Gaga, well eventually that becomes a part of your social experience.
And when you are an oppressed people – and surely no one will doubt that during the 70’s – 90’s (and currently in part of the country) gay people were actively oppressed – one does what one can to encourage tolerance and support. If a bank is willing to run an ad in a gay themed newspaper, gay people rewarded that bank. So, yes… in a way sexual orientation directs the way in which banks are selected.
This also is reflected in other areas. For example, a culture that punishes those same-sex attracted people who court, date, and commit and rewards those who hide their orientation and put up a social front is (and this has to be obvious) going to result in furtive sexual outlets and less meaningful sexual expression.
And here’s the irony: much of the “homosexual lifestyle” that is loudly condemned as being hedonistic is the direct result of social and religious rejection of homosexual persons. Heck, much of the “homosexual lifestyle” that can be identified in any manner is the result of a community arising out of segregation and social survival.
But – and here’s the important part – these manifestations of community are not sexual orientation. And absent social oppression or segregation, eventually many of these manifestations will disappear.
But one will not. Ultimately, the core of orientation – the sex to whom one is romantically, sexually, emotionally, and spiritually attracted – is not socially constructed. As many a rural-raised gay man or woman can tell you, one experiences these attractions absent any social queuing as to their possibility.
shifting gears…
This is a common thought. Often those who see themselves as tolerant and accepting share a view that it’s “no one’s business.” But that is a perspective that in most situations is applied in one direction.
It’s is obviously everyone’s business when a man is married to a woman. He wears a ring, he has her picture on his desk, he talks about her and his kids and his inlaws and where to go on his anniversary, and all of the many many many daily life situations that include being heterosexual and married.
Think for a moment, do you know any heterosexual married people who have not in some way informed you of their marriage.
Additionally, no one seems to think that single heterosexuals should keep that fact no one’s business. Younger straight singles are quite public about whom they are dating. In fact, this is the first question one is asked when seeing an old acquaintance after a time. Aunt Susan always asks, doesn’t she?
And even those straights who are not as young are quick to inform others that they are still in the market if you know of anyone.
But after time, a single that is no longer in the young sow your oats age and who doesn’t speak about their status gets asked less. Partly its to save embarrassing the person. But, I believe, partly it’s the “no one’s business” issue. Forks are afraid that the confirmed bachelor and the old maid might be, ahem, in the “no one’s business” category and they just don’t want to know.
I suggest, Ann, that while this is on the surface an admirable position, it is not realistic. And it places a burden on gay people that it does not place on heterosexuals.
If sexual orientation is a private secret matter, it only is so for those whose sexual orientation is not proudly displayed on their hand, desk, conversation, christmas card, and endless minutia of their lives.
One problem with more ‘conservative’ viewpoints is this idea that ‘Natural Law’ can be neatly defined. I don’t think it can, especially as both science and spirituality are in reality on-going journeys of discovery.
Sexual preference is good case in point. In recent years, a good deal of research has been done, and it has become clear that same-sex attraction is a ‘fact of life’ in hundreds of species of animal. This is all part of ‘nature’, isn’t it?
As far as gay marriage is concerned: this is really a matter of how society should be organised, and is therefore the subject of socio-political choice. ‘Natural Law’ (whatever that is!) doesn’t really come into it, in my view.
I believe that for a good many gay people – the ones whom I have encountered – these other attributes are not really presumed to be part of sexual orientation at all.
I don’t know anyone, Eddy, who would find it odd or peculiar that your sister is heterosexual. Nor anyone who thinks that liking sports is exclusively straight (which would be odd considering the gay sports bars).
And I don’t think that we are avoiding that discussion. Or, at least, not within the gay community.
Teresa,
No hackles…
That is your opinion. I once held much of the same views so I can’t fault you for believing as you do. My father shares your views. That doesn’t make you evil or self-hating or whatever it is that you fear will be thrown at you.
But, of course, I firmly believe that you are wrong.
Dang it, Jayhuck (I am not yelling that). There you go again. I was willing to be done with that.
How do we draft our “personal” religious views into law? Let’s see, individuals vote and a good many of them also hold to personal religious views. So they must leave religion (and morality) at the voting booth door? Or maybe they call for riots and storm the Capitol, holding their Congressmen and Senators at gunpoint until they pass the laws they believe ought to be passed.
What about drafting personal nonreligious views into law? For that, I guess we mount a hate campaign against any law firm retained by the House of Representatives that is defending a law the President and Attorney General decide needs to be thrown out.
On what do you base that assessment, Timothy? The poll of the day? Such a statement needs attribution.
You’re the best , Mr, Kincaid.
You use this statement in response to mine.
And when I ask you to elaborate by saying
You reply with:
Odd, I thought my point was that miscommunication was cultural (Christian vs psychological) and used the word ‘oblivious’ to suggest that it wasn’t intentional. You gave that statement a ‘true…but’ rating.
And you used the quote that I led this comment with as approximately half of your explanation…apparently I’m off-base for asking you to elaborate but you’d sure be willing to discuss.
…scratching my head as I exit…everyone feel free to assume what you will, you know how well that works here.
Debbie,
Perhaps its a pendulum thing, but you are factually mistaken. Currently, the majority understand homosexuality as not being immoral or, as you put it, outside God’s box.
Timothy,
It is precisely this limitation of such terms that has kept me from using them in this debate…I have been pretty rigorous in this regard because such terms attempt to leverage the debate by implying my opponents are anti-marriage or anti-family.
In other words, you have made my point.
Please:
No…hate has always been hate for me. As my friends struggled with unwanted SSA 25 years ago I felt no disgust for them, only compassion. I grieved losing them as friends, not because I demanded holiness from them, but because they needed to be away from our Christian community. I still pray for and wonder about them and hope they are well.
I am fully capable of understanding and articulating my own motives; repetitively you seem to need to “illuminate” me as to unseen motives. In AA they call it taking someone else’s inventory.
I have repetitively told you what my motives are…I have never assumed you are “trying to destroy marriage for the rest of us,” do you really need to assess my motives other than those I have explicitly stated?
Broadening the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians verses advocating a traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman. Not a difficult set of ideas, that imply no rancor in our opponents.
David,
As I said, you need not agree.
And Boswell is extremely careful not to do the hard sell. He was an interesting guy, he always insisted that he was not the final word, that other research should be done, that contradicting perspectives might be supported by further review. He tended to present his stuff kinda like “here’s a possibility that based on my research seems likely.”
I think what is so compelling about him is that he introduced ideas that were REVOLUTIONARY when he wrote them. Extreme. Wild.
The very idea that the Bible may not be clear in its condemnation of homosexuality or that the Clobber Passages might be either misinterpreted or perhaps not as clear as believed was simply bizarre. And same-sex unions involving romance being officiated by the church? Preposterous! Impossible!
And all the other parties would jump in to pooh-pooh his ideas and dismiss him as a radical activist out to distort history or a self-deluded Catholic who desperately wants an “out.” And then they would go look at his research.
But his research was so thorough that even if they didn’t come to the same conclusions, they had to admit that his theories had substance. And over time, his views have provided a basis for discussion that could not have existed without them.
And some, who originally found them fanciful came to agree.
I am not at all surprised that your friend came to different conclusions. I’m not dismissing his research, he may be right.
But one thing that Boswell notes at the beginning is that it is extremely seldom that anyone other than gay people notice the existence of same-sex eroticism in history. It simply isn’t within the realm of possible for most straight folk – men especially – to see as “the most likely explanation” something that for them would not even be a possibility.
Take, for example, a simple sentence, “Joe met his coworker Sarah for dinner late that night.”
There is more than one possible was to look at this sentence. Yeah, it might be work, but Joe’s wife may want to pay attention.
Yet “Joe met his coworker Gary for dinner late that night” invariably is seen by straight guys as having only one possible explanation. No other possible scenario comes to mind.
(I remember the angry denial by Irving Stone, author of The Agony and The Ecstasy, that Michelangelo could not possibly have been homosexual. He had studied his life in detail never noticing what was obvious and evident to anyone even slightly open to the facts. This sort of thing is amusingly constant.)
find it common that gay folk pretty much
This reminds me of an essay I wrote a couple years ago about Michelangelo’s incredibly pagan sculpture that is commonly known as Cristo della Minerva — or as I like to call it, “Jesus Hunky Christ!”
David B
I agree that it would be good for trends to reverse on marriage and, especially, marriage stability.
I am just speculating but I think that, oddly enough, the battle over marriage rights has been good in a way for marriage. It has gotten the country talking about what marriage means and portrayed it as something worth fighting for.
And it diffused some of the “marriage is patriarchal and sexist” message that some had been pushing.
By the way, I am rereading Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell. I had forgotten his ability to take a huge amount of very complex material and make it readable. I highly recommend this book.
As a Protestant, I don’t put much value in the Tradition of the Catholic Church – or, at least, I don’t see it as on par with Scripture. So I don’t see his discoveries as having much effect on doctrine. But nevertheless it is fascinating.
Agree or disagree with his conclusions (and while scholars may differ over interpretation, his scholarship on the matter is unquestioned), you come to discover pretty quickly that what we think of as “marriage” is very very different from what many of our ancestors thought of as marriage. We don’t have words that fit their view and they didn’t have words to fit ours.
I highly recommend the book. It is both challenging and enjoyable.
Timothy,
My friend would probably agree…especially the proper interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah…the Fundamentalist view here is a complete corruption and has led to a perversion of what homosexuality is.
I am glad you have found someone who asks spiritual questions of the past in a thought-provoking manner. His early death is a tragedy.
Regarding:
I remember as a 12 year old my father taking me to the Sistine Chapel and telling me the story that Michelangelo was a homosexual. That was 40 years ago. He marveled how difficult that would have been for him and the irony of him being the greatest Vatican artist of his day.
I am familiar with Boswell’s interpretation. A good friend of mine has studied some of the same material…and come to different conclusions.
The eroticization of our culture generally does not make these retrospective analysis very fruitful or accurate; you are correct:
It is important to note that for centuries, for many, women were treated merely sexual containers to breed children; not thought of as equals or partners or companions of any sort.
Male friendships were much more peer and companion based; a relationship of equals…a vibrant and loyal affection may have been more likely without being homosexual.
It is difficult to find that kind of warmth and regard in male friendships in the USA, as so much posturing and competition seems to be necessary in our form of masculinity. They certainly are not represented in the popular culture.
That is also possibly true. I guess some day we’ll know.
With all due respect, I really think that your perception of who is calling people names has little reflection on reality. Yeah the extremes are hurling insults at each other, but there are no credible and representative gay organizations out there who are calling Christians or conservatives “haters” that I know of. Even when the word is accurate.
I do think, David, that perhaps what you are objecting to is not really the names that you say are being assigned. I think that perhaps you object to the fact that many people – younger people especially – are viewing positions in opposition to gay equality in the same way that you or I view positions in opposition to racial equality.
It may not be that anyone is calling anyone a “hater” but rather that
Gay folk aren’t doling out the “haters” moniker so much. Could it be that you are actually upset at the shifted cultural perceptions that are now – unlike say 20 years ago – receptive to seeing such things as being hateful? Or am I incorrect?
We have had this discussion many many times. So rather than repeat my points, let me ask you:
1) Should any words exist to describe positions / views / perspectives / policies that are based in opposition to gay rights / liberties / goals? Or should we simply not have any words that allow us to acknowledge that some policies, etc., are formulated as opposition to the gay movement’s goals?
2) if so, what words (other than long run on sentences) can be used? If the media, the culture, and everyone here uses “pro-gay” to describe one side of the debate, what is the other side called?
“Pro-family” and “Pro-marriage” seem oxymoronic to describe a movement to deny a family the right to legally form a marriage. And the second one is especially confusing because I’ve heard it used to indicate support for a pro-gay marriage bill. (And besides, let’s be real. If a position, policy, group, etc. is opposed to everything that gay people want, it really isn’t pro anything as much as it is simply …. well, I need a word here.)
David B –
Would you mind elaborating on this? What do you mean when you talk about “quality of life for women and children”?
This is precisely why its important to make distinctions between civil and religious marriage. Allowing Christians to have their views on marriage upheld without also having them forced on others who do not agree with them is important.
OK. I got it. I am not asking you to change your convictions about what you think God wants. You seem to be absolutely sure of His intent on this issue.
Personally, I find that a bit over-confident, but that’s fine. We all have the right to our opinions and freedom of conscience.
Marriage Equality will not rob you of that right — or any of your rights — including the right to believe that I am wrong.
In the USA, religion or beliefs about the Bible are not the foundation of our mutual civil rights. The Constitution is — it affirms certain inalienable rights — and that’s the way I hope it remains.
CNN Belief Blog Interviews Alan Chambers About Prop 8 and Gay Rights
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.exodusinternational.org%2F2010%2F08%2F10%2Fcnn-belief-blog-interviews-alan-chambers-about-prop-8-and-gay-rights%2F&h=ddbb3
Thanks, Timothy. That makes sense.
Or to paraphrase Judge Walker:
It appears to me that the Ninth Circuit and the SCOTUS are likely to find that the Intervenor-Defendants simply don’t have standing to appeal. The defendants are the Governor and Attorney General and both have declared that they do not intend to appeal the decision.
Based on case law, it seems that the court is usually dubious of the claims of proposition preparers. And the Ninth is demanding that they prove their standing in their September 17 filing.
If they don’t have standing, then this ruling will apply only to California and Proposition 8 and not have precedent outside the Ninth Circuit.
I wonder whether declaring what God’s opinion is on a civil issue can best be seen as taking God’s name (authority) in vain?
The Declaration has no legal authority, nor does it “inform” our laws. And the idea that it is an “articles of incorporation” is an charming fiction. Although it contains a beautiful (and ultimately world-changing) statement about a revolutionary notion (equality), it is primarily a list of grievances against King George.
Further, appealing to Nature and Nature’s God displays an ignorance about both theology and history. These (like Providence and Creator) were Deist terms designed to get around (not support) theocracy. Nature and Nature’s God were hands-off, big picture demideities. Today we might say “bestowed by the Cosmos” or a “Greater Power” or even “all that is” – all inclusive terms that do not imply any doctrine or dogma. The closest that either document comes to appealing to Christianity or its god would be the term “Supreme Judge of the world.”
You missed it? Really? It’s right on the same line as the law for straight marriage.
Of course, I’m being silly. Neither the Declaration or the Constitution mention marriage at all (despite the best efforts of some very determined people who don’t like the concepts of equality).
Both do, however, discuss ideas and principles.
For example, the Declaration says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Suppose we took that literally. Wow!! Liberty to live as you choose and pursue what makes you happy. Even if someone else doesn’t like it. Even if your happiness is that of marital bliss.
The only way to get around that, Debbie, is to decide (in Bryan Fischer fashion) that “all men” doesn’t include gay men. Or that in writing “liberty and pursuit of happiness” they really meant “liberty to the extent that the Bible allows and pursuit of such happiness as meets the approval of the Southern Baptist Convention.”
As for the Constitution, it didn’t discuss equality until 1868 with the 14th amendment. This was inspired primarily to address the rights of people who had been slaves, but – as is true of much of our defining principles – it was not written narrowly so as to apply only to one people. It was, after all, talking about ideas, not incidents.
When it comes to civil marriage rights, this one is tough to get around. We know that gay people were born here and are citizens. And that pesky term “privileges or immunities” doesn’t let us say “marriage is a privilege, not a right”. And few people of good will would claim that denying gay people the right to marry does not abridge their privileges or immunities. Further, few people of good will would argue that it does not deprive gay people of liberty or property (to the extent that gay people are taxed differently and must pay for legal services to obtain such very limited protections as can be achieved).
And, other than comics and scamps, no one suggests that a referendum that is designed for no other purpose than to exclude one demographic from a section of code does not deny them the equal protection of the laws, in the common vernacular.
Those really aren’t up for debate. And the “will of the people” is exactly what the Constitution was seeking to repress. “The people” most definitely did not think that African descendants were due to equal treatment with European descendants.
Thus, if we really and honestly do wish to abide by the Constitution, the question MUST be, was there due process and are equal protections being denied? That is, in legalspeak, are the restrictions necessary or are they animus?
That is what Perry v. Schwarzenegger sought to answer.
Ann,
Okay. Well, you are making a distinction between “real victims” and those who just portray themselves as such. I’m trying to understand it.
So (and correct me if I’m wrong), African-Americans are true victims. Those gay people who portray themselves as victims are not.
Is that what you are saying?
And I am uncertain as to how you are making the distinction as to who those “some individuals who identify as gay.” As this is in the context of marriage rights, are you including in these some individuals, those gay people who compare restriction on marriage for gay people to restrictions on marriage for black people?
And are these “some individuals” limited only to those who identify as gay? Or do others who support same-sex marriage rights using the race comparison also misusing victimhood?
Specifically: Did Coretta Scott King and Mildred Loving misuse the civil rights comparison when they endorsed marriage equality? Did they incorrectly confuse real victims with those only portraying victimhood?
Specifically: When, in 2003, civil rights leader John Lewis wrote the following, was he insulting African-Americans or confusing ‘real’ and ‘portraying’ victims:
It is true that many African-Americans distinguish between civil rights for them and civil rights for gay people. However, many of the pioneers do not.
No, you are mistaken.
CNN has some good exit polling information that breaks down the vote demographically.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
Interestingly, it was a fairly close vote along most demographic lines with the expected shifts for age, education, and income. The variances were:
Gender: this is an odd one. Unlike most polling, gender wasn’t strongly determinant.
Race: whites and asians voted no and hispanics and others voted yes but all with small margins (high 40’s, low 50’s). African Americans voted yes 70-30.
Geography: the cities v. the rural and suburbs. Coastal cities near the bay area were overwhelmingly opposed. Los Angeles and neighbors were mixed (the vote difference in Los Angeles County was less than 600). Farmland and desert voted strongly yes.
Age: under 30 voted no by 61-39; over 65 was the opposite. and inbetween was about 55-45 yes.
Education and Income: the more education, the more likely to vote no. Income, once you got above 30K, followed the same trend and was probably related. However below 30K was strongly no, which probably relates to age.
Party & political ID. Liberals and Democrats were strongly no . Republicans and conservatives were strongly yes. Independents and moderates were no by about 55-45.
Married and children: Being married and having children under 18 were strong indicators. These demographics voted yes in big numbers (suggesting that Prop 8’s targeted advertising was effective).
Religion: This was a yes or no matter – sharply. Those who attend church weekly or more voted yes by more than 80%. Those who do not attend voted no by about the same. And infrequent attendees voted no by about 60-40.
Of course, these are all based on exit polling and, as such, are limited.
Not relevant, Timothy? You wanted to talk about victimization — and only of gays, as no one else matters to you. I said that it will be moot if/when we have Sharia here. Gays will then be in no position to lobby. In other words, we have bigger fish to fry, enemies common to us both. Do you think what is happening in other countries cannot happen here?
By laws that segregate gays for the purpose of discrimination, I presume you mean marriage laws. And still no clear and compelling reason other than “we want it, we’re hurt” is offered for same-sex marriage.
It’s OK for you to redefine marriage and build up a tiny subgroup of people who cannot establish a set of common criteria for why they are the way they are into a suspect class whose rights are being infringed upon, but not for me to defend heterosexual marriage for the greater common good? Why?
We have people wanting “equal access” to both genders, as if the Constitution could somehow rearrange their chromosomes. It can’t do that any more than it can make a meaningful, natural, profitable-for-society conjugal union out of people of the same sex.
+1
Really? Why not? Rome fell. So can the good old US of A.
Debbie
What about on the Moon. Should we discuss laws on the Moon? Well… as they – and the laws in Sharia nations – are not relevant to this discussion, let’s not let them distract us. I’m sure we are in agreement about whether Sharia law aught be given consideration in the US. But that is not germane.
Let’s stop and look at that pairing. It’s a common rhetorical step: confirm the facts of the other argument but follow it with a dismissal.
But let’s not do that. Instead, why don’t we acknowledge that regardless of what goes on in Saudi Arabia, here in the United States, in Virgina where you live, there are real living breathing gay victims who are hurt by laws which segregate them from the rest of society for different treatment.
Whether or not you agree with such laws, it is inhumane to ignore or deny that they hurt people. Whether or not a law that treats people differently is correct or right or valid or good, to ignore or deny the people that are hurt is behavior that in other contexts would be called sociopathic. And, as I know that you are not a sociopath, I know that you are able to recognize this fact.
A right that I don’t have. And this is because you say so?
The US Constitution disagrees with you. It says that I have a right to equal access – yes, just as good as your right. Even if your church doesn’t like it. Even if you don’t like it.
Thank you Timothy – I just wasn’t sure and stand corrected.
All men are created equal, Timothy. Yes. Not all ideas or ideologies. We are endowed by our Creator (that’s Almighty God in any language) with equality in that we have the same worth, dignity and basic human rights. Gay marriage is a man-made invention or convention, not a God-created right. To be denied same-sex marriage is not to be devalued as a human being. It is recognizing that there are best ways of doing things, and that society can determine what makes it function best, what best fosters the well-being of its citizens. We will never be able to have a utopia in which someone is not offended by coveting what someone else has.
I do not see a comparison between the color of skin one is born with, and ultimately discriminated against, to those who are attracted to their same gender.
True. You do not.
It is irrefutable that the direction of ones attractions is at least partly based in biology, is unchosen, is – for the overwhelming percentage of such persions – immutable, and is likely set either at birth or in the early years of life. For linguistic shorthand in this one instance, and recognizing the caveats, we could say “born with”.
It is irrefutable that gay people experience discrimination. No, it really is irrefutable. This is fact, not opinion.
So, in essence, your position is:
This is not an uncommon position.
Timothy,
I do not see the comparison between the color of one’s skin and sexual orientation. Skin color or ethnicity is obvious and understood as a physical distinction that the person was born with. Sexual orientation is something that is not obvious and, in most cases, no known until or unless the person wants it to be known. Some individuals, regardless of their orientation or race or gender have a sense of entitlement that has nothing to do with being a true victim. A true victim, at least to me, is someone like the Pakistani woman in jail over perceived blasphemy. She is now reportedly gravely ill with, I think , chicken pox, because of her incarceration and it’s unsanitary condition. I cannot compare her with the individual who feels discriminated against because they cannot currently marry someone of the same gender. One, at least to me is a true victim and the other one is not.
I cannot speak to the examples you asked me to as I have respect for their opinions, even if I do not share them.
There are some individuals, who are gay, and portray themselves as victims. After awhile, and especially comparing them to true victims, one can see how insincere the portrayal is.
Throbert McGee# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 1:28 am
“But would you agree, ken, that Prop 8 in CA was vastly less anti-gay than Question 1 in Maine?”
Which was in turn less anti-gay than the virginia law that says no contracts recognizing gay relationships are to be recognized. Which is still less than laws that criminalized gay behaviour.
Totally irrelevant question, Ken. Quit beating your drum. I will address your earlier relevant question below.
I guess I wasn’t clear — my point was not to defend the Pill, but rather to address your claim here…
I wanted to make the point that the characteristic nun behavior of letting their wombs lie fallow for their entire lives is physically dangerous to the self insofar as it increases the breast cancer risk — making it, by your standards, “abnormal.”
And being a Catholic priest is also physically dangerous, and thus abnormal, because a lifetime of not ejaculating (NB: Catholic priests don’t masturbate, because that would be a mortal sin!) increases a man’s risk of prostate cancer.
As to whether the abnormal condition of celibacy that the Church inflicts on its religious men and women is morally dangerous — well, “dangerous” is a strong word, but there’s definitely something a bit reckless about permitting celibates to develop theories of sexual morality that everyone else has to follow. As G.B. Shaw astutely observed, “Why would anyone take the Pope’s advice on sex? Anything the Pope knows about sex, he shouldn’t.”
On this, Teresa, I somewhat agree — in fact I would say that the gay community suffers from an ongoing plague of non-judgmentalism. Gay people will tolerate every form of vice and wacky opinions among themselves, as long as you don’t have bad hair, are opposed to circumcising baby boys, and avoid voting Republican. But if you want to use dangerous drugs or have promiscuous sex or treat your rectum like the Holland Tunnel, far too many gay people will not be falling over themselves in their non-rush to not judge you, because judging is mean.
However… just so there’s no confusion, are you aware that there’s more to homosexuality than simply “messing around”? I can see why it wouldn’t be a kindness to support you if “messing around” is all you’re doing, but if you should ever find yourself in a stable, committed, mutually loving and sexually active relationship with another woman, Teresa, then OF COURSE it would be a kindness to support you!
Whoa… “at whatever end”? Do you seriously believe that oral-genital sex is ANYWHERE NEAR penile-anal sex in terms of health risks? If so, you’ve been misinformed, my dear. Not only are cunnilingus and fellatio both vastly less risky for practically all STDs compared with anal sex, but going down on a man or a woman is no riskier than penis-in-vagina intercourse for most STDs (and when it comes to HIV transmission, both cunnilingus and fellatio are, literally, about 1/10th as risky as vaginal intercourse).
And “homosex” can be even safer than that — the acts known as tribadism or scissoring (for women) and frot (for men) don’t involve any kind of penetration at all, so risks for most types of STDs are extremely low.
But while I don’t see any physical danger in “scissoring” or “frot”, they are nonetheless, homosexual acts. In the absence of physical danger, what moral danger do you see in these acts, Teresa?
Throbert,
Apples and oranges, but nice try. Try sticking to statistics of str8 women, particularly married women (or sexually active women) and their cancer rates: those using the Pill and those not using the Pill. Also, look at the rates for age differentiation for onset of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke, etc. of those women on the Pill and those not using the Pill.
I need not remind you, Throbert, that because of the incidence of these myriad bad effects, the hormone level of the Pill was reduced. The “side effects” of the Pill are still all there; but, age of onset is somewhat later. The psychological side effects of the Pill are also present. All the “side effects” of the Pill are still happening, right here, right now, today.
I tend to believe individual stories, that can vary greatly, about how one views their own personal sexual identity and how they respond to that belief. The issue that seems irreconciable, at least for now, is when others do not believe them. I think this should be at least acknowledged, and hopefully considered. My first thought on why one would not believe them is because homosexuality is still somewhat of a mystery for anyone who is not homosexual. There are so many assumptions made, based on sterotypes, about what homosexuals should be, that none of them can be accurate. What seems to get lost is the individual. We still do not have any substantial scientific or psychological research that tells us anything about orientations that could be considered conclusive. There are so many questions and few answers. How can the issue of different orientations be explained so that it is more understood? How can this be done with so many nuances attached to it? Who is credible enough, unbiased enough, who hasn’t been coerced to backtrack their original statements, and who has substantial and sustaining credentials to opine with any certainty on this so that the mystery is removed and understanding takes it’s place?
I really appreciated and understood Theresa’s thoughtful and intelligent post 4/10 @3:27. It spoke tthe spirit of truth to/for me.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 1:53 pm
“The US Constitution disagrees with you. It says that I have a right to equal access – yes, just as good as your right. Even if your church doesn’t like it. Even if you don’t like it.”
Unless She (or her church) can show just cause why you should be denied such equal access. However, as the Prop 8 case showed, there isn’t any valid cause in the case of gay marriage.
Maybe not Rosa Parks, but there have always been light-skinned blacks who were able to “pass as white” if they chose to do so. Similarly, “passing as Gentile” was historically an option chosen by some Jews in order to avoid anti-Semitism. And the personal moral dilemma of “passing” has been a recurring theme in both African-American and Jewish literature and art: “Yes, I probably ‘pass’ successfully and it would advantage me to — but about those who can’t possibly ‘pass’? And why should I have to pass for what I’m not? What right does the majority have to demand this of me?”
It is if a law is being violated. Not if a foundational principle speaking to nature or “Nature’s God” is being disregarded. The Constitution is often misapplied these days. And sometimes it is simply moot.
Sorry, that was Lynn David’s question I was referring to about Sharia (Shari’Ah). He asked about proof of infiltration.
All the proof ever needed came in the form of a large cache (two truckloads worth) of secret archived Muslim Brotherhood documents recovered from the concealed sub-basement of a Northern Virginia house in a 2004 search by law enforcement officials. The documents, dating back to 1991, listed 29 Muslim-American organizations (CAIR is now also on the list) that Sharia adherents had vowed to work through to subvert American culture. They have bragged about their successes, in fact. The Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008 (prosecuting Islamic terrorist funding in the guise of a charitable organization) highlighted these documents.
The credo of the Muslim Brotherhood is to “destroy Western civilization from within.” If they can’t wage jihad through violent means (their first preference), then they are to do it through stealth means. The MB documents recovered revealed their plans to infiltrate government, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the military, penal institutions, media think tanks, political entities and academic institutions. And they were to aggressively target non-Muslim religious communities in the name of ecumenicalism.
If you are an American taxpayer, then you are complicit in a Sharia-compliant scheme through AIG’s seemingly innocuous Muslim insurance/investment program. We funded it to the tune of more than $1 billion.
Throbert has a follow-on question:
Not so. They are still Muslims and still alive. Christians and Jews have three options: convert, be made slaves or be killed.
That is also not what I said David! I said there is no evidence to show that stable single parent homes are worse than toxic double parent homes. You seemed intent on making the point that single parent homes were bad and double parent homes were good regardless of the environment. At the very least it appeared that was implied. You should probably re-read my posts before you go launching accusations at me.
Actually I do have a fairly decent understanding of what is meant by the term correlation. You seemed to imply causation above and all you have to show it seems is correlation. As of yet, you don’t seem to have proved causation.
Still amazed that David’s use of the word ‘data’ warranted the judgement
“To assume that a gay judge’s orientation has any bearing on a decision is to assume that a gay person is incapable of impartiality. I consider such assumptions to be contemptuous.” AND the conversation that ensued never did talk about the content of the link.
Regarding citations for my above assertions:
See Andrew Cherlin: The Changing American Family and Public Policy
Judith Wallerstein: Second Chances
The data on domestic violence came from a text on criminology and psychology…can’t remember.
The assertion about “loveless” or, better said, unfullfilling marriages came from a presentation given by a lecturer at a National Marriage Conference (secular).
The movement you all fail to cite is “Individualism” as a right…it has been especially destructive in the hands of heterosexual males.
Getting back to the point about which this dust-up between Timothy and David B. began, here and here is more relevant news about Judge Walker.
I had said I believed Walker was correct in his “slippery slope” assessment. But now that he has revealed his 10-year same-sex relationship, I think there is a valid case for his decision to be vacated. It is also troubling that he is using video clips of the Prop 8 hearing in his talks while no ruling I am aware of has unsealed the footage.
Very difficult, as the wealth differential, medical care and longevity issues associated with industrialization make for powerful variables that cannot be duplicated in agrarian societies.
…I think.
Best to invite a sociologist into this discussion!
My nephew, BTW, was completely invested in your hypothesis to include living in India for a few years amongst the people. He found their sense of community and connection amazing, and their vulnerability to illness and poverty terrifying.
D Blakeslee
Well, there certainly is a world of difference in how Michelangelo and Bernini saw David.
Debbie–
The post of yours I referred to was directed to Timothy and repeated some of his exact words in your rebuttal. If you were responding to Throbert’s scenarios, I’m sure I’m not the only one who was confused.
David,
Sorry, missed this. That would make sense. My understanding of correlation as it applies to the fields of sociology and psychology , I’m sure, is not as good as yours. Would it be that difficult to design a study to test the correlation between industrialization and the breakdown of the family? I mean, if the correlations you are asserting exist, are they the symptoms of some larger problem? If we try and treat the symptoms and not the cause, would that not be problematic? I’m just throwing ideas out 🙂
I don’t know, Trobert. I certainly don’t think so.
Maybe you hang out with a different crowd.
Debbie, could you elaborate on the above. It certainly seems to corroborate the Pauline NT verses. However, many Christian ministries now accept women ministers, teaching men is part of that.
How do you reconcile these statements? How does 1/2 the world not have some voice in public forums?
That’s what I said. And I disagree that most gay couples are in the disparate income situation. All couples who are earning roughly equivalent income (this would not be the case for two men, especially?) are being penalized. I’ve seen examples that place the taxation penalty higher than you say, but I am not an accountant.
Timothy,
You are so gifted with words: “villification…campaign…slurs.” You are a wordsmith.
Collecting them in a sentence doesn’t make them true…but they can be effective anyway, which furthers my assessment of your style. Each word is a “punch” or a “stab,” but you are punching at the air…because your words are unconnected to the facts.
You asked for an explanation, and I gave you a thoughtful one that contrasted your identity as an individual and your behavior here “from time to time” with the labels and comparisons that are cast at a group. There is a real difference.
Leadership carries with it responsibility…I hope someday you can publicly confront Wayne Besen on his demeaning and manipulative writing style…it is a repetitive attack on double minorities: those with unwanted same sex attractions. You have said that you disagree with him, but since the gay rights movement is profiting politically from his style, it may be hard for you to publicly condemn him.
You don’t like to note the many times I have heartily agreed with your more thoughtful assessments, or how I deeply believe you have moved the argument forward in this whole debate when you have shown fidelity to the facts and emphasized the need for humanity and respect.
Numerous times you have assumed what my heart and motives are…you remind me of some of the Pastors and Elders and friends I have had over the years who claimed such Moral Clairvoyance.
You come from a community and are seeking to protect a community; I think there are plenty of listening ears here. When you bring the style of verbal humiliation you are undermining a great good you are trying to accomplish.
Unless that isn’t your task…unless your task is to drive people away from this site or to humiliate them into silence. I have noticed that some people who were frequent visitors here now only come occasionally.
But I don’t know your heart.
Dear David,
It must indeed have been an inconvenience to write – for the third time – a justification for why it is appropriate to accuse me of being comparable to Ssempa and Bahati but not appropriate for others to make such a comparison.
I suspect that it went beyond inconvenient and approached distressing.
After all, it does appear to be a startling example of the exact opposite of the Golden Rule. I mean, how often is it that someone complains about something being done unto them in the exact same wording as they did unto others?
So while it may have been more convenient to address this seeming inconsistency privately, I am actually pleased that the email somehow wasn’t delivered and the word processor somehow crashed. It is fortuitous in that it allows for the explanation to be presented at the same venue as the behavior.
And somehow that seems only right.
To clarify, for those who may have missed it and may be wondering what this exchange is about, let me set the stage.
Amidst a discussion in which I was seeking to help clarify the meaning of a word (heterosexist) introduced by another commenter, you decided that this was a good opportunity to attack me, writing the following:
This was not a stand alone event. Rather, there has been a very long pattern in which you have engaged in a campaign of personal vilification. It had reached the stage where after being absent from the comments section here for several weeks (perhaps longer), I returned to find that you were still slurring me and attributing positions to me in comments to threads I had not even read.
So I responded:
If you addressed this issue or apologized at some point or promised to avoid personal attacks, I did not see it.
However, a few days later, you posted a comment on another thread containing the following:
As you believe it “a needless, polarizing and hopelessly generalizing blunt act of aggression” to compare Christians to Bahati and Ssempa, I inquired whether this included me. So now I am receiving your answer.
And, it seems, the answer is no.
Not only do you feel entitled to compare me to Bahati and Ssempa and feel such a comparison is apt, but your response was to double down, increasing the comparison to Fisher and Lively.
I will not address your fresh batch of accusations and slurs. I know them to be false. And they are, for this discussion, beside the point. All that matters is that you simultaneously feel the victim to mostly-imaginary slights but that you use such victim mentality to justify doing worse to others.
As evident from your response, you will not cease in your personal attacks but will only increase them. You will make baseless accusations which, ironically, describe your behavior and not my own.
This is unfortunate. I had hoped that an appeal to decency might be effective. I had, now obviously futilely, hoped that facts, logic and reason might give us some common ground. Clearly that was unduly optimistic on my part.
You, David Blakeslee, have in this latest comment exposed your heart. All I see is darkness.
Timothy Kincaid
Debbie
Okay. We can agree that it would be better for society to encourage marriage by reducing taxes below what they would be for single people. That would be, to me, wise policy.
But being treated the same (or almost so) as single people is not penalizing married people, is it? It was categorizing this as a marriage penalty that had me disagreeing with you. Rather it is a “equal income” penalty, if anything. It simply is the case that marrying doesn’t bring down your taxes if you have the same income.
As for gay men making the same income, I don’t have the figures but I don’t see it as any kind of norm. As a quick check (and it isn’t statistically valid) I randomly selected four male couples from our database. It may just be these four, but I was surprised at how disproportionate they were (like one over 100K, the other under 20K). It isn’t unusual for one to focus on work and the other on the home. And, of course, some will have similar income.
But gays are forever saying traditional marriages cannot be harmed by same-sex marriage, therefore, it follows that there could be no benefit to straight couples by upholding Prop 8.
I never maintained at the time of the hearing that Judge Walker’s decision should have been vacated — there were no provable grounds for it then. I did not agree with it, not believe it to be based in the Constitution.
Teresa, I don’t read the Genesis verse as alligning God’s declarations with Pauline teaching. Unless it would point to Romans 7. I just think we are meant to view it for what it is — God judging and disciplining mankind (and Satan) after the fall. I believe it points to the never-ending war in this life over authority — God vs. mankind and man vs. woman within marriage.
Jayhuck,
I was using your statement above and you seemed to be asking me to defend an argument I had not made.
Toxic homes are a problem…if unrepairable, making sure one gets out is a start, making sure one does not make the same mistake again is even better.
Divorce is no cure…if the person who leaves makes the same or similar mistake again.
Divorce as a solution to a marital crisis tends to lead to divorce as a solution to a marital crisis. Statistically, if you divorce once, chances greatly increase you will divorce again and chances increase greatly that you will divorce even again.
Just data.
That is also not what I said David! I said there is no evidence to show that stable single parent homes are worse than toxic double parent homes. You should probably re-read my posts before you go launching accusations at me.
Actually I do have a fairly decent understanding of what is meant by the term correlation. You seemed to imply causation above and all you have to show it seems is correlation. As of yet, you don’t seem to have proved causation.
Eddy, I was addressing Throbert’s scenarios. Seems to me couples with equivalent income filing jointly (taking advantage of all the deductions they can share) ought not be made to pay higher taxes than couples with disparate income filing jointly, if there is an issue there. It doesn’t affect me personally. I’ll have to talk to some more accountants to get their take on it. I don’t think anyone has addressed how the Bush tax cuts impacted this, other than me. Those cuts went through 2010, from my understanding. So this could be an issue facing us this tax year and beyond.
Yes, Eddy — but not “kind of like”. As you pointed out, it is indeed a summary — for folks who may not want to actually read the whole thing. Consider it Cliff Notes. 🙂
I am certain that if I had started offering opinions on Alan Chambers’ latest book or on something more important like the Uganda Anti-homosexuality Bill — while making it very plain that I had not read these sources and had no intention of doing so — that I would have caught holy hell from some of the more frequent commenters on this blog.
That’s not a rule, just Warren’s suggestion. Not asking anyone to wallow in shame and I cannot make rules that they must read it. That’s up to them. As far as I know, there is no provision in the Constitution that outlaws voluntary ignorance.
I guess we’ll have to let Michael explain then.
That is not at all what that means, Timothy. Where do get that idea? You are referring to a system where people are forced to submit to some person as a moral authority or agent. I am only speaking of individuals privately submitting to God (realizing He is the source of all that is good and owner of all they are stewards of), which I presume will then be worked out in their public lives.
David B.
I would agree. But we should not assume that we know what they are or automatically dismiss decisions that we don’t live with presumptions about the motives or character of judges. In this instance, other than those who are anti-gay activists and only just now hearing about him, Judge Walker is considered by left and by right to be careful, thorough, and fair.
Tell you what — I will not state any opinions about the trial transcript until I have read it. Instead, I will limit my opinions about the decision to the text and analysis of the decision itself — which I have read 4 times now. Here are the findings of fact from the decision: .
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn’t require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy “are well-documented in human history.”
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents’ “assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
10. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union.”
11. “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.”
12. “Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.”
13. “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/prop-8-overturned-the-facts-not-the-law-matter/60957/
Gee — if I keep this up, you guys won’t have to read it. We will have quoted nearly all of it for you, sparing you the time and energy.
There’s a heck of a lot of flurry on this thread but a genuine shortage of actual communication. Rather than respond and elicit yet another shame-based line from you, I think I’ll step away from this conversation altogether.
Sure, no shame meted out there.
Or there.
Or there.
David,
I don’t know. I’ve heard from some who claim to have experienced change in orientation. But I’ve also heard from some who once made that claim, only to retract it. And I’ve heard from Jones and Yarhouse that the “change in orientation” is more related to a redefinition of terms which don’t hold up to inspection.
For me, that is still an open question.
If it does occur it is EXTREMELY rare. So rare that those former ex-gays I know say that they’ve never ever during their years in ex-gay ministries came across anyone who did experience a real change in orientation.
BUT… it may exist rarely.
I’m inclined to think this is correct.
I’m with you there.
But you lose me completely when you go off talking about behavior and that because decreasing heterosexual promiscuity is behavior related therefore we should define orientation as behavior.
Sorry, that ship has sailed and I’m not going to swim back and play the what if game.
While that is a statement without any observable merit and thus dismissible out of hand, it is true that maturity in some may change presumptions about heterosexual superiority.
I cited the extravagant price yesterday…Warren did too…at the same time that he admonished us to abandon the Roots detour. You even thanked him for the redirection. Given that AND the fact that I said I wanted to take my leave of this conversation, I have serious concerns about you. Do you forget these things so quickly? Are you reluctant to see me leave the conversation? is it some twisted need for the last word? A feeble stab at one last parting shot? Whatever…it makes no sense. That detour ended yesterday when Warren spoke to it. Please honor that and my desire to leave this conversation.
OK — you got me Eddy. I am trying to shame you (and others) into reading it. Didn’t work, did it? I should know better.
There was a third part you left out, Michael. That’s where I fit in.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 12, 2010 at 6:36 am
“I am well aware that some of you believe with all your hearts that genuine love and a desire for lifelong commitment ought to be enough to secure the right to marry whomever you please. But it’s not. Marriage has a higher purpose. Some of you feel righteously indignant over this because it appears to be a slight. It’s not fair. Maybe not, but God never promised us His will would appear fair to us in the short term.”
Unfortunately Debbie, you are talking about the WRONG type of marriage. This debate isn’t about religious marriage it is about CIVIL marriage. And you (nor anyone else) are not allowed to enforce YOUR particular interpretation of YOUR particular version of YOUR particular religious text on anyone else.
Now I do agree with your statement that “love and a desire for lifelong commitment …” are not enough to be allowed to marry. The state can (and does) put certain restrictions on who can marry (ex. minimum age limits, consent etc). However, the state must have a compelling state interest in imposing those restrictions. And simply because people don’t like gays isn’t a compelling interest.
LOL. I try very very hard NOT to have Glenn Beck influence my thinking to any great degree.
Aug 10, 4:39 PM EDT — All Mexican states must recognize gay marriages
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_MEXICO_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=CTDAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Tow articles on the ABA Supports Ending All “Legal Barriers” to Marriage Equality
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/10/American_Bar_Association_Backs_Marriage_Equality“
Here’s the text of the resolution. No one says you have to read it.
http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08/aba-supports-ending-all-legal.html
RE: Glenn Beck – I have only watched him a couple of times and both times he could not put two sentences together without heaving in exasperation and starting a new thought which at the end produced a non-sequitur of epic proportions.
Having said that, he quoted a non-Christian who made a lot of sense (Thomas Jefferson) and therein lies his benefit to this debate. Beck is correct I believe in that the nation is being sold to foreign interests to maintain an artificially affluent life. The debt problem which Beck harps on is a serious threat, right up there with the threat of Islamic totalitarians. Sally Kern was wrong, gays don’t rank in that league.
Debbie, got it.
Your own perspective, not facts about the case. That’s kinda what the Proponents did — and why they lost. The Judge wanted facts.
Dave# said:
For what it’s worth, I think Anne Rice feels much the same way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0GU1YdxFr4
He is, predictably, working with the only tools he has.
Geez Ken, I’m on your side. Just looking for a level playing field. I get the idea of the semantics. I’m just not as impressed with the need.
Warren didn’t even write about it here. 🙁
This article on Judge Walkers decision, generated over 1,500 comments. But the Appeal decision which affirmed, didn’t even merit a blurb, sigh.
Yes I know Warren, you have been busy with Uganda. It is just something I noticed, that it is very important to millions of sexual minorities in the States and this is a very big deal for Americans on both sides of the issue. I know you have a job and a family and don’t blog full time so it is hard, you have to make choices on what you want to focus on.
It would have been nice if there was even a short article on it as I have some things to say about it. If you read the dissent from Judge Smith he references an Amici brief that references over 100 studies that show that children do poorly with parents who are of the same sex.
That has to be the Amici brief from NARTH which I brought to this website previously. Now a Federal Judge is using that Amici brief from NARTH as true and valid, and using it in his decision. These are the types of topics related to the 9th Circuit ruling that would have made for good discussion on your blog.
When you have the time it would be nice to see an article on it, that is all I am saying, and I am disappointed that time has not yet permitted it.
Brad Pitt
as
Judge Walker
George Clooney
as
David Boies
Martin Sheen
as
Theodore B. Olson
I read on another website that Kevin Bacon will be playingthe ottorney for the opposing side Charles Cooper.
Ken I can’t wait for tonight. Hopefully I will see a comment or two from you while it is playiing.
I will be watching.
David –
Forgive me. I did not realize from your post that those words were a direct quote from the article. My favorite part is probably the last paragraph:
David –
Well now I have to ask. Do you think the logic behind this appeals court decision was questionable? If so, why?
And besides this thread is still here for updates on Prop 8.
(reposted from University of Utah professor: NARTH article “unscientific and irresponsible”
Close, the 1st hearing is to determine if the video can be released. The 2nd hearing is about whether Walker’s decision should be thrown out because he is gay.
the CA supreme court has already ruled that prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal. (http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2011/11/17/breaking-ca-supreme-court-rules-prop-8-proponents-do-have-standing-to-appeal/)
“Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they already possessed, to obtain from the state, or any authorized party, an important right – the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.” ~ Judge Reinhardt, 2/7/12
?”Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.
The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.
In a separate decision, the appeals court refused to invalidate Walker’s ruling on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html
True Ken, true, however I did not even know this thread existed until I saw a comment from David Blakeslee in the “Recent Comments” section on the right. I was not around here in August of 2010.
For the most part we are encouraged to stay on topic and so I generally do that. There wasn’t any recent topics about this so I didn’t interrupt a different topic to bring it up. Keep in mind that I, nor any recent followers of Warrens blog, would not have known about this old article.
If you read the dissent from Judge Smith he references the amici brief showing over 100 research reports that are negative towards sexual minorities, that has to be the NARTH amici. If we get a topic on it, I’ll go look up the link to NARTH’s amici brief.
Tonight 7:45 PT Americans for Equal Rights (AFER) is streaming live “8” a play about the prop 8 trial. I’m curious to see what others who read the transcript of the trial think about the play.
Details are at: http://www.afer.org/live/
Alan Chambers once said that he objected to marriage equality for gays because if that option had been available to him he “certainly would have chosen it.” Really? I wonder if had a “special someone” in mind?
He seemed to be saying that people like him should not have equal rights because that would make it less likely that he – and others like him – would come to Christ. Legal inequity to promote Christian evangelism? He also lamented the end of Sodomy Laws for a similar reason, suggesting that laws should enforce religious beliefs:
Now, conceding that Exodus’ attempts to mold public policy were probably not the best use of its time, money and energy and admitting that marriage equality is probably inevitable, he seems to be whistling a different tune. Now Exodus officially denounces criminalization of consensual gay sex. Now, he thinks that society is bending in the direction of “accepting the humanity of gay and lesbian people” and that we are “entering a time when we are more compassionate and loving toward people who deserve our compassion”. Quite a turnabout! I agree with him that that is the primary mission of the Church – not trying to legislate its interpretation of the Bible – but really living it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlBIR7MHtaY
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 10, 2010 at 10:00 am
” What you are referencing doesn’t include gay parents who have children through artifical insemination or surrogacy, or through adoption. It is only referring to children who have gone through a parents divorce.
No, it’s not, Ken. It’s talking about children raised in gay-parented (like stepparented) families.”
The section you referenced was only comparing children of divorced parents (of whom some where lesbian and some where straight). It was NOT comparing children of divorced parents to ALL children of lesbians (i.e. including those who conceived through artificial insemination or who adopted). Your claim that children parented by lesbians have the same outcomes as children who’s parents have been divorced is NOT supported by that tech report.
You couild not be more wrong about this! The findings of fact in the case proved that they cannot marry the person they love or enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual couples do. That’s a violation of the Constitution. We want the same rights, not new or different ones. And it looks like, in spite or your religious prejudice, we may finally get them.
Timothy Kincaid,
Studies on Change are like studies on Harm…very few and poorly constructed.
I think we agree Change occurs (in actual orientation), right?
I think we agree it is rare, right?
I think we agree that it is more common in women than in men, right?
I don’t think we have figured out what the mechanism of that change is:
a. Misidentification in the first place.
b. Spontaneous remission of SSA
c. Religious motivations
d. Treatment interventions
e. Coercive social pressure
f. Experience
Nicholosi is unable to prove his arguments in part because his theory is flawed in its grandiosity and its unwillingness to explain “the exceptions to the deterministic model.”
In addition, the notion of change, if it refers to change only in attractions, is quite restrictive. Expecially as this strict definition is unequally applied the the psychological sciences:
a. Change, generally is measure in a reduction of behavior
b. Change, generally is measure in increase of a desired behavior
It is this odd, perfectionistic definition which psychology and advocacy groups bring to bear on this topic, which they would never apply so strictly topics like “improving marriage; anger management; task avoidance; relapse prevention; depression, anxiety.”
Heterosexual men with multiple sexual partners that they find egocentric and pleasant may seek treatment even though this is not a mental illness; it is likely they will consider change a reduction in undesired behavior and an increase in desired behavior.
The goal of increasing the desired behavior may be greatly facilitated decreasing the promiscuous attractions…but it is not necessary for a satisfied client.
Psychology bases the foundation of its credibility on this kind of change in every area it seeks to touch: from education, to business, to terrorist interrogation to social science to individual and family therapy.
Only in the research on SSA are we asked of psychology to change “all of the target feelings” as the measure of success.
I believe this bias is present in this statement:
Maturity in some may change sexual orientation.
Whether or not one chooses to read the actual decision before offering opionions about it, here’s one conservative who has read it, and thinks the Judge got it right.
My Fellow Conservatives, Think Carefully About Your Opposition to Gay Marriage By Margaret Hoover, Published August 10, 2010, FoxNews.com:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fopinion%2F2010%2F08%2F09%2Fmargaret-hoover-prop-gay-rights-marriage-conservatives-civil-rights%2F&h=ddbb3
If one person can do it, then the supposition is false, isn’t it?
No. Not that one person can do it, but rather that “an individual may” do it. The burden in law is not met by a “one person” test.
The one person test only works in political rallies and on TV. In court, the course of direction has to be open to all people who so choose, and we have clearly demonstrated that virtually no people who so choose may change their orientation.
In his 138 pages, Judge Walker made 55 pages of Findings of Fact. Walker was looking for facts, not what you call “God’s truth.” He looked for evidence, not just Bible passages.
Although I’m sure you would prefer that our judicial system be based on theocratic dictates (like Iran’s), I am very glad that it is not. I don’t want judges reading religious texts of any denomination to decide what is factual.
You see, Debbie, I believe in objective truth.
How about idolatry? It comes in a variety of forms, and you have pointed out some of the other egregious ones.The Church also has its high places and idols.
Shifting gears, thanks, David, for this. It’s been brought up here before. Apparently needs to be repeated:
Mary# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 7:07 pm
“So make civil unions possible for all. I really don’t see the big deal. Understandably, gays feel discredited when their marriage is not recognized. I stand by my proposal. The government should get out of the marriage business and leave that to churches. Civil unions should be recognized. All are the same.”
If churches are so upset about having to share the word marriage with gays, then let the churches change what they call them. They can be “religious unions.” And if you want more on why the word is so significant I would suggest you read some of the plaintiffs own testimony from the trial. You can get it here:
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/hearing-transcripts/perry-trial-day-1-transcript/
From Katami: from the middle of p. 88 (line 15) to top of p. 90. Then again from p. 115, line 23.
From Perry: pp. 142-147 (description of her marriage to her partner compare this to Katami’s comments on page 115 line 23.)
Stier: p: 172.
Although would encourage you to read ALL of the testimony of Zarrilo, Katami, Perry and Stier.
And if you want a better understanding of how marriage is not just a religious institution, then the testimony of Nancy Cott (plaintiffs expert on the history and significance of marriage).
Eddy,
Yes, that was WAY off topic.
But, interestingly, the judge did inspect the evidence about whether there is consensus as to what determines an orientation. He found:
This was, of course, based on testimony by expert witnesses. They didn’t discuss non-sexual event quashing.
I would put a not after may. So what? He says, she says ad infinitem. Where does the circle begin and end?
Timothy — as the Judge pointed out in his decision, even the proponents of Prop 8 seemed to have NO trouble defining what they meant by homosexuality.
Maybe I am missing the point. Is idolotry illegal in the US? Should it be? How about adultery? Sex before marriage? Shacking up? Having kids out of wedlock? Swinging? I am against those things or “moral” grounds, but I would not deny marriage equality to those who do them. Would you?
It is one thing for the church to take the moral stand that all sex outside of hetereosexual marriage is sin. It is quite another to use those beliefs to deny equality under the law. I think the church needs to focus on teaching by example. Using one group’s beliefs to deny equal rights to others is not a good example.
LOL. Debbie, I’d let that hand slap for not reading the entire determination roll off. A while back several people were disparaging the theory of ‘roots’ to homosexuality. Like a fool, I presumed that they’d actually read and understood the concept they were bashing. Instead they had a sound bite or two from Nicolosi and no sense of the original theory. (I believe it was Michael who actually admitted that he hadn’t read my booklet from 1980 and then promised to acquire and read a copy. It’s actually around 100 pages less than this judges determination.) My bad for not attempting to publicly shame all those who comment on the roots theory without reading the original.
Ooops! Beware the deflection. Last time I brought this up, I was chastised for claiming that I developed the roots theory. I DID NOT develop the theory but I was primarily responsible for applying it to homosexuality.
LOL. Is this way off topic. I don’t think so. As yet, there is no consensus as to what determines an orientation and few studies re the non-sexual triggers for sexuality. (An increased sexual desire related to a bad day at the office–or it’s opposite: Coming home to a person you normally desire sexually and the non-sexual events of the day have quashed your desire.) If we don’t even fully understand the components of sexuality, how can we speak with any sense of absoluteness to mutability or immutability?
If one person can do it, then the supposition is false, isn’t it? I did it. Of course, “religious mediation” presumes someone is mediating. Is the someone God? Perhaps you’d like to get his sworn testimony.
Yes, quite clear. Truth and logic? Is that what Judge Walker provided in his 132 pages of opinion? I repeat, he does not inform my decisions. I wonder how much of God’s truth (the biblical record) he has read. Walker is but a fading whisper in the halls of time.
Ken: A commenter on another blog (who goes by a ‘handle” only (no first and last name) posted the claim that Walker had not allowed witnesses to testify. The commenter admitted they had not read the decision.
If they had, I doubt they would have made such an outlandish statement. The commenter also claimed that Walker “manipulated the case” but could not say how.
Debbie: It’s 136 pages — and you might be able to answer the question yourself if you would take the time to actually read it. BTW: I never made judgements about the “Roots” booklet or presumed to know what was in it. Can Eddy kindly supply the full name of the author and a link as to where I might obtain it?
No Debbie,
It isn’t he said she said. Let’s be honest and look at these two statements.
Actually, Debbie, Jones and Yarhouse provided evidence that an individual may not change his sexual orientation through religious mediation. In fact, a lot of individuals may not… all of them in the study, to be exact.
The crux of it is the phrase “fare just as well.” Why not say, “fare just as poorly”? This is hot air.
Oh, no you don’t pull that cheap shot! Millennia of history and social observations have set the bar where it is, to say nothing of God. Not I. Those doing the engineering are the ones who mess with the norm.
The essential thing missing from gay parenting is obviously the opposite sex. Which sex is the more dispensable one in your opinion, Ken? Male or female? Which do we lop off, gonads or ovaries? While role does not matter?
I could use the same rationale to justify things that would curl your toes.
Michael Bussee# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“Here are some of the things I have been hearing here (and elsewhere) from people upset about the decision:
.
(2) He prohibited qualified witnesses from testifying.”
Who is claiming Walker prohibited a qualified witness from testyfing? And who was the witness?
I know he allowed one unqualifed expert to testify (over the Plaintiffs objection).
That’s Blankenhorn.
Eddy# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 12:58 pm
“Has there been an attempt to get the feds to step up re Social Security etc for civil unions? This is a somewhat major concern and, for that alone, I’d recognize the merits of pursuing marriage over civil unions.”
There are a host of other rights/priviledges granted at the federal level for marriage (including allowing a non-citizen spouse to remain in the country). However, currently, even allowing gay marriage at the state level doesn’t entitle gay couples to those benefits because of DOMA. Which I believe is currently being challenged.
And there was an attempt by Congress to allow same-sex partners to stay in the US (same as spouses are) under immigration law, however, I don’t think it ever came up for a vote. But attempting to grant all the rights, priviledges and responsibilites of marriage on a case by case basis for gay couples would be extremely difficult.
Debbie,
You are making a fallacy in logic. One cannot “prove” a negative.
In other words, the burden is not for on the side of proving that orientation can never ever in any possible imaginable circumstances be altered, but rather on the side of those who claim that it can.
I need not prove that you have not changed your orientation, I need simply to demonstrate that there is no known method by which one may do so if they were so inclined. And, I’m sure you will agree, there is none.
Yes, God can do as he wishes. He could choose to turn a gay person straight; he could also choose to turn them into an ostrich. But He certainly hasn’t given us any indication that He has a desire to do either of these.
And appealing to miracles and divine intervention is SURELY not the standard that we want our legal system to apply.
Incidentally, the innateness of sexual orientation is actually not what this case rested upon – though it did address the issue. This case rested on law.
Your turn.
No, I am not mistaken. Homosexuality has never been proven to be immutable. Was the other side able to provide conclusive evidence that homosexuality is not immutable? Neither side could do it because it is unprovable, either way. Are we going to remove “in God We Trust” from our money because we cannot prove He exists?
The innateness of sexual orientation (or not) is not what this case should have rested upon. That the defense took that bait is sad. How would you go about proving either hypothesis, Timothy? Can you prove that I, who once had significant same-sex attractions, and now have none, am lying? Can I prove I am not? No and no.
What is the point of belaboring the change thing? Are there “no effective methods” of transformation? Is there no God? Did Jesus heal or not? Is that history or fiction? Now, let’s set about “proving” it all.
I suspect that if I had been making judgements about the Ugandan Bill while admitting that I had not actually reading it — and had intention of doing so — that some of you would have objected.
Race is immutable. Homosexuality has never been proven so.
Actually, you are mistaken. Judge Walker specifically requested that the defense answer the question as to whether orientation is immutable. They were unable to present any evidence that orientation is NOT immutable.
And, as anyone who follows the only available information on change therapy would have to agree, there are no effective methods currently available that are known to be able to alter sexual orientation.
So the judge was forced to conclude that:
This is, incidentally, an astonishingly direct response. Most people at least pretend that facts, truth and logic play a part in their thinking but it’s refreshing to hear the honest truth that none of that matters in the slightest to you.
Timothy,
You are a scholar, are you not? Sexual Orientation does change, spontaneously at times! More often in woman, than in men. And it is rare.
Courts and judges using science to establish facts is worthy and largely good.
It can be corrupted by advocacy groups or manipulative attorneys and ignorant agenda driven judges…or later science can make prior rulings obsolete.
The biological origins of homosexual attraction are weak, the assertions about such biological origins have been exaggerated, and that it differs for the two genders.
Why? What if we make your side the negative? You make one claim, we make another. Who gets to make the distinction? And, absence of proof is not proof of absence, as the adage goes. The side in the Prop. 8 case that brought the suit ought to have had the burden of proof on it.
David Blakeslee,
Your position seems to be that gay judges are incapable of impartiality due to pressures put on them by the gay community. This fails on three accounts:
1. Judge Walker is not, contrary to what you and other anti-gay advocates have been claiming, “openly gay”. The Chronicle did not call him “openly gay” and in fact mentioned that he is not public with his sexuality, whatever it may be.
Therefore your assertion that his “primary support system is likely in the gay community [and he] is under extraordinary pressure on a very personal level to make a decision that community will support” is based on false information.
His primary support system is likely not in the gay community.
2. Gay people – including Judge Walker – are more that just a walking stereotype. Each individual has other facets which contribute to their thinking.
For example, Judge Walker is a Republican and has for decades been part of the Republican community. It would be bizarre to insist that the gay community (of which he may or may not be a part) would subject him to “extraordinary pressure” but that the Republican community would exert none at all.
And I think we can agree that the Republican community is not likely to have exerted pro-gay-marriage pressure.
3. Judge Walker has already demonstrated an ability to make decisions that are not popular within the gay community. He was instrumental in blocking the Gay Olympics from using the name “Olympics”.
I happen to think he was right in doing so – the name belongs to the Olympic Committee and if they want to be bigoted in their decisions as to who can use the term, well I think they should have the right to do so.
But this was not a popular position. In fact, when Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Walker to the bench, Nancy Pelosi led the fight that blocked his appointment because he was believed to be anti-gay. It wasn’t until under George Bush (Sr) that Walker was confirmed.
ken,
The Supreme Court has already addressed the “I’m skurrrred of Teh Gehs. They may say mean things to me” argument.
In Doe V. Reed, the SCOTUS said 8-1 that those who sign petitions are not protected from having their identity disclosed. They said that while some instances may exist in which there is a real threat, it needs to be proven and supported, not just baseless fear mongering.
Justice Scalia was downright mocking:
I doubt that the court is going to be sympathetic of “Oh but my peers with snub me.”
Debbie,
When it comes to the evidence, I think David Boies, co-council on this case, said it best:
Deprive them of the right to vote? Who is doing this? I want names.
In their various court battles, Jehovah’s Witnesses have done much, perhaps ironically as in this case, to extend civil liberties to all Americans:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fforum%2F2010-08-06-engardio05_ST_N.htm&h=56c7d
The judge did not think that hoping for rare spontaneous change is a standard of immutability that could be legally applied. Do you disagree with any of the following words:
Debbie,
Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young were both experts for the defense until they decided not to testify. However, the plaintiffs did enter their depositions as testimony and Judge Walker did address them within his ruling:
Explain this to me, please. Where has this “infiltration” occurred? And if it has occurred is it any different from Jewish peoples in New York being able to submit their civil (not criminal) matters to their own courts? Or anyone else – that is both parties to a cause – going out and hiring a prominent lawyer or retired person of letters/law to act as a judge in a civil matter?
I really want to know, because I keep hearing this same ‘rant’ from what I consider the lunatic fringe of the ultra-con right (folk named Fischer and Kincaid come to mind). So enlighten me would you.
All humanity exists in nature, even gay people, even perhaps the various gods of gay people.
…
Blakeslee,
You are correct that poly-marriage will be considered by the courts. And it will be up to the states to defend the prohibition.
Personally, I believe that there is adequate legal argument to keep marriage limited to two people. The issues of inheritance, divorce, and consent seek to me to preclude more than two.
But I hope that we agree that those of us who disapprove of multiple partner legal recognition do not insist that our indignation and disapproval are sufficient to veto their rights.
Debbie,
No, Debbie.
I can understand that your opinion on the case may be that ” the always-accepted definition of marriage” was the matter under debate, but that is not what the case hinged on.
What the case hinges on is what the lawsuit addresses. In this case, the plaintiffs sued because they were denied the ability to register their marriage due to Proposition 8. They argued that this violated their constitution right to equality under the law.
The question then is not whether people voted, but whether their constitutional right was violated.
Well, certainly. Otherwise they would not have so voted.
Yes they do. And should in the future Randy Thommason file a lawsuit claiming that his constitutional right to deny marriage to gay people has been violated, then that question will be addressed.
It likely will not go far.
Because while each person has the right to vote, there is not constitutionally guaranteed right to veto the constitution.
The people of California did not have the right, for example, to vote George W. Bush a third term even if they really really wanted to. Or the right to deny property ownership to women. Or to deny tax exemption to Southern Baptists.
Even if it is the will of the people.
Because that is what a Constitution means. If every vote was determined to be the will of the people and could veto the Constitution, then it would be pointless and meaningless to even have one.
The supporters of Proposition 8 gave it their best defense. They hired the very talented and highly regarded Charles Cooper. It was not that the chose inexplicably not to defend it, but that their defense could not hold up to examination.
As I said before, there may well exist some defense of laws that treat opposite-sex couples one way and same-sex couples another that is compelling and holds up to scrutiny. I simply haven’t heard it. And neither did the court.
I think that if you read that again, you may see the inherent contradiction.
There was absolutely no question whatsoever that gay couples were not being treated equally. That isn’t up for dispute. And surely, even the most hardcore of those opposed to the rights and freedoms of gay people will agree that unequal treatment was the whole point of Proposition 8.
The question was whether it is constitutionally permissible to treat gay people differently from straight people. And that was what the case was about: whether the state had a good reason for unequal treatment.
If “their sensibilities” is the same as “Timothy’s belief that he is entitled to equality under the law and ought not be relegated to some separate lesser status”, then yes, you are correct. It was an affront.
(Remember, Debbie, I live in California. “They” is me.)
This statement assumes that rights can be doled out to gay people by straight people according to whim or desire. It presumes that gay people do not have rights granted by the Constitution.
It assumes that it is up to you or straight people or legislators or society at large to decide what rights to give to gay people. But in order for that assumption to be true, gay people would have to be excluded from the Constitution.
Now no doubt some people believe this. Heck, Fischer believes that Muslims are excluded from the Constitution. But I doubt that you are one who believes that gay people are not entitled to the same Constitutional coverage as heterosexual people.
So then – if you accept the premise that gay people are entitled to rights (not given at the largesse of heterosexuals but entitled) granted by the Constitution, then the only question is whether denying them rights can be justified by the state.
Which wins the “and everyone agrees with me” argument. But that is not a legal argument, it’s only an emotional one. And it isn’t any more effective in court than it is with Mom when we’re eight.
So you’ll have to forgive me for being silly when I reply: well if everyone else voted to jump off the bridge, would you?
Ann# ~ Apr 10, 2011 at 2:15 pm
“The problem is that some do not feel gays are discrimminated against as they are just as eligible for all the rights that other people have.”
Many people believed Elvis was still alive years after his death. Many people believed the US government actually blew up the World Trade Center. Just because someone believes something doesn’t make it true. Currently, in CA, they are not eligible for the right of marriage. Hopefully that will be changing as the case works it way through the appeals process.
“They do not have a disability or compelling disadvantage that would prevent them from fullfilling the eligibility requirements.”
Under your reasoning, neither did Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter.
“They become ineligible, as do others, who do not want to follow the eligibility requirements that we all have to follow. ”
Do you think the Loving decision was wrong then?
” ” Prop 8 was just the latest in a long history of anti-gay laws.”
Again, I am not sure if most would concur that Prop 8 is an anti-gay law or one that was needed to re-affirm established eligibility requirements for marriage.”
Prop 8 was specifically designed to remove the right of marriage that gays had in CA. Of course it is anti-gay. Just as the grandfather clauses in the south were specifically designed to prevent blacks from voting.
Debbie: Would you have read the decision if the judge had agreed with you? If not, why not? Even for the sake of curiousity — just to see how the case was argued and how the judge came to his decision? I would.
It’s a fascinating civics lesson if nothing else — and has bearing on the whole issue of the will of the majority versus the Constitutional rights of the minority. Suppose the issue at at hand was a law that limited religious freedom only to Christians…
ken
Yes, and Mildred Loving noted that fact when she endorsed marriage equality.
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“Dear me, ken, take a deep breath and relax.”
Teresa, wake up and smell the coffee.
See I can give condescending quotes too, doesn’t really help the conversation though does it?
“” When was the last time you actually interviewed for a job Teresa?”
About six weeks ago, as a matter of fact.”
and is for a job after you graduate?
“I do not wear a “sandwich board” sign that says, ”
You never answered my question about whether you have a partner. If you do (or eventually get one), do you plan on keeping her hidden? Not referencing her at work or bring her to the office x-mas party? People identify their orientation every day in many different ways Teresa, that doesn’t mean they are wearing a sandwich board or have it tattooed on their foreheads.
“They could have easily opted to be more discreet and prudent, no? Of course, ken, you would see the choice of being discreet and prudent as somehow offensive.”
No, I see the suggestion that they SHOULD BE more “discreet and prudent” as offensive. Just as the phrase “just keep your head down and mouth shut boy” is offensive. Just as the suggestion that someone shouldn’t ask for a “prayer break” but instead ask for a “smoke break” then discreetly go off and pray. and many other cases where minorities are asked to just keep quiet and be happy with what they have rather than ask for equality.
“Society owes me nothing, but to protect me from true harm … life, limb, education, occupation, housing. In my estimation, ”
and in many places in the US you (because you are gay) don’t get the occupation/housing protections.
“When a black person interviews for a job … they’re black, up-front, blunt and candid … that’s it. When you show up, ken, unless you’ve got tattooed across your forehead, “I’m gay”, you’re just another average Joe looking for a job. You have a choice, ken, about what you disclose; to whom, when, and where. Can you see that difference? Can you, at least, acknowledge that someone else’s history is not your history?”
discrimination doesn’t just occur on a job interview Teresa. It happens when the government passes laws denying a group of people basic rights. Or that allow the police to routinely harass a minority group. Or when people accept the most outlandish stereotypes as an accurate representation. As I said before I know there are differences between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement, but they are very similar. and I’m not the only person who sees that. Coretta Scott King saw them as well and said she believed her husband also would have considered the gay rights movement as a logical extension of the civil rights movement. I’m very familiar with many forms of bigotry (based on race, religion, orientation, gender etc). And they all have the same root cause, ignorance about the “other” and the belief that the differences make the “other” inferior.
The other important question seemed to be “Should we restrict the rights of a particular group of people when there is no compelling interest for the State to do so?” I think the answer is No.
Ann
Whether one sees a lack of respect depends on how one views gay people.
Bishop Harry Jackson does, indeed, find the comparison between the quest for rights for black people and gay people to be offensive. Jackson opposes equality for gay people and, as he does not oppose equality for himself, he does not wish to be compared. It offends him.
On the other hand, Benjamin Todd Jealous, the president of the NAACP, is not offended by such comparisons. He does not consider gay people inferior or assume that any comparison with gay people is an offense.
Ken,
I know, however, it is true that some, if not more than 50%, feel this way, so it does make a difference.
Neither had a disability, however, they did have racial prejudice from others as a disadvantage. I do not see a comparison between the color of skin one is born with, and ultimately discriminated against, to those who are attracted to their same gender.
Wrong that there was initially a law against interracial marriage or wrong that it was over turned?
I am not disagreeing with you – I said I am not sure if most would concur that Prop 8 is an anti-gay law or one that was needed to re-affirm established eligibility requirements for marriage.”
I absolutely believe and wish this:
No apology necessary.
Re: Emily K,
Heterosexuals making such decisions should be assessed as well, especially if they forbid gay marriage…for bias. It is data that may have wrongly effected their decision.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 1:57 pm
“I don’t think Joseph Smiths advocacy for polygyny (thanks for the better term), was rooted in his belief that women abandoned by their husbands through divorce or death should be cared for…this argument, made with more verifiable truth could be made today and be an overall social good”
except in Joseph Smith’s time, wives were little more than property and women had very few rights. things have changed considerably since then, and I am very much opposed to setting women’s rights back over a 100 years.
I don’t know why polygamy and polyamory have any bearing on this discussion since Prop. 8 was only really challenged, to my knowledge by gays. The other movements are underground.
That aside, I will reiterate that denying gays the right to marry each other is denying them a means of pursuing happiness, not equal protection under the law. But there are other people groups in this country who would seek happiness in ways that contraindicate the general welfare of its people. And this nation was established on an ideology that sees the flow of authority as being from God to the people to the government (so says our Declaration of Independence, the “why”; the Constitution provides the “how”).
And I would point out that there is new information pertinent to this thread: a study from the Williams Institute concluding 1.7 percent of the U.S. adult population identifies as gay or lesbian (1.8 percent identify as bisexual). That’s about 4 million adults who identify as gay. Contrast that with about 13 percent of the U.S. population that is black (according to the U.S. Dept. of Justice). The civil rights comparison falls flat.
LOL. Comparing the gay struggle to blacks is OK with Ken despite the differences that Teresa elaborated because it’s analogous…but comparing the gay marriage justification to polygamy or gyny or what have you is wrong because…well because Ken thinks so.
Translation: If I fall to prove that homosexuality per se has destructive physical consequences, and likewise fail to prove that homosexuality per se has destructive emotional consequences, as a last resort I reserve the right to pull some destructive spiritual consequences out of my hat. And since the spiritual consequences largely pertain to the hereafter, they are — conveniently! — un-disprovable.
Stand by, movin’ goalposts comin’ through!
P.S. I was raised Catholic, too, Teresa; I know how the shell game works.
This impression doesn’t appear to be based on facts. I’ve just skimmed through this entire thread and can’t find ‘many’ who admitted they had not and would not read it and had already made up their minds that the decision was wrong.
Debbie said that she had read it. I acknowledged that I only read 40 pages…but then I didn’t say that my mind was made up or that the decision was wrong. I also can’t find where Mary said that her mind was mind up and that the decision was wrong. Others weighing in were David Blakeslee and concerned. (Did I miss anyone?)
So Michael’s generalized statement isn’t true especially when you see that the word ‘they’ that leads the second sentence refers back to the ‘many’ from sentence one. Five rarely qualifies as ‘many’; two never does.
The gay marriage decision by Walker may be upheld and be very sound…if there are flaws in the way he admitted testimony or limited testimony…that will become more evident under review, although the fact that it is going to be reviewed by the 9th Circuit, which tends to be more libertine, suggests it will be upheld at that level of appeal.
If it is…and perhaps rightly so.
Logically, I think the next level will be exploring the ramifications of polyamory for several reasons:
1. Unlike Gay marriage, polyamory has a strong and vibrant representation currently in many cultures.
2. Unlike Gay marriage, polyamory has a strong religious history that even predates monogamous heterosexual unions, and is currently endorsed in many religious settings.
3. To my knowledge there are no scientific studies which justify refusing extending marriage rights to poly amorous partners (open to new information here).
@ Debbie:
There it is again, “might refer”. Thanks. That is what I have been suggesting all along. “Might”. “Perhaps”, “Maybe”. That seems much more reasonable than insisting that you know without a doubt that you have it right. There might be other ways of looking at Scipture that may have validity.
This “might refer” seems to sugest that people of faith may not be “mocking God” if they question the traditional understanding of this passage. It is not Unchristian to question. Which leads me to ask: How can you be sure that the first Greek word self-evident — and without doubt — means “homosexual” when you concede that the second word (“might”, “perhaps” and “maybe”) could mean something that we’re not quite sure of?
@ Eddy:
I am suprised that you would say so. I seems like a good discussion to me. I think it’s a prety civil and intelligent exchange of ideas on the possible meaning of this passage. And maybe true Christians can give each other the grace to disagree.
Is there some new approach or perspective that you have to offer that you think we ought to be discussing? I would be very open to hearing it. It would be very interesting and perhaps very beneficial to approach the Biblical discussion in a new way. Instead of complaining that it’s “same old, same old”, can you present a fresher viewpoint or approach?
That’s a great question and shows that Paul’s words were not self-evidently clear. “Maybe” — says Debbie. “Perhaps” says Eddy. That’s all I was really asking for — the “maybes”. The “perhaps”. The possibility that there may be other explanations. That’s “faith”. Leaving our hearts and minds open to other possibilities while holding fast to our Blessed Hope.
We all have certain beliefs. None of us should claim certainty or presume to speak for God. When some folks say that they believe the Bible is “inerrant in it’s original manuscripts” they seem to overlook that we don’t have the original manuscripts — and that they people who recorded Paul’s words, who translated them into various languages and who interpret them today are all fallible human beings. They leave themselves — and the possibility that they may have it wrong — out of the equation. I think that’s a huge mistake.
Still with the LOL! But its’ a rather sad laugh. David reawakened this thread with a link to a seemingly unbiased article that was news connected to the Proposition 8 story. That’s all he did. “This adds data about the decision” were his only words…and the conjectures and insinuations swiftly followed.
And yes, there was new data. Even though the judge just came out, it seems this wasn’t a complete surprise to anyone involved and yet no protest was made. The link didn’t elaborate much other than to quote the judge himself…with full sentence quotes that didn’t appear to be biased sound bites.
I find the attacks and insinuations against David to be baseless. I could envision Timothy or Jayhuck sharing the very same link with the same brief lead-in that David used with not one personal attack or insinuation to follow. But with David there was a need to dissect his six lead in words and charge them with dark meaning and intent.
That’s probably the only thing upon which christians will agree.
That is because the word does not mean effeminate (except in a reference to music). It means “soft” – in general; and more specifically it means ‘morally soft’ in the context of the Biblical use. That is a general statement concerning all persons. It is not as written in the Greek a reference to gay people, except that the prejudices of Christianity over the years have made it so. They associated ‘softness’ in a male to effeminancy. Why should the passage be directed only towards males? Cannot a woman also be morally soft?
No, thank you. I’m not at all interested in arguing my case. Nor do I insist that it is a “clear” interpretation of the Bible.
That’s your MO, Debbie, not mine. I’m not the one married to certainty and insisting that I speak for God. I know that I’m human.
Having read a great deal on the subject – and observed the character of some of those who are considered to be the definitive source for non-gay-supportive interpretation (if Gagnon is a man of God, then so is Fred Phelps) – I’ve come to my conclusions. You’ve come to others.
Why, of course you do, Debbie.
As I said, you start with your conclusions and look for support. I wouldn’t expect you to do anything other than rest your case on this particular essay.
Nor would i ever expect you to even consider reading any alternate perspectives. As you have told us over and over, you already know exactly how I feel about gay marriage and homosexuality.
I didn’t think it was “brilliant”. I simply thought it was the right decision considering the evidence and arguments presented in court. The point is, I would have cared enough to read it either way– because the issues involved (particularly the constitutional ones) are important. Should the courts overrule a statute if it violates the Constitution? I think the answer is Yes.
Lynn David,
I’ve also hear it to mean “foppish”, a term that generally is used for heterosexual men who are consumed with self-image, leisure, pleasure, and indolence.
This would be consistent with a certain class of Romans and may have been an indictment of the rich and powerful who may have been perceived as abusing their position and oppressing the poor.
But, again, I cannot be certain.
That’s also overlaying one’s 20th/21st century thinking on that of a 1st century writer.
.
According to Perseus, ??????????? [malakosomos?] means effeminate (LSJ – Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon).
.
Here is the Perseus entry concerning malakos and morality:
…
Mary,
I had the impression that you used a more holistic view also. You come to different conclusions than I do, but considering that there are hundreds of denominations who have different takes on various scriptures (and often disagree within each denomination) that shouldn’t surprise us.
I’ll read it at some point but based on my skimming, there is absolutely nothing there that I haven’t read before – probably in the original source. But having read a large number of books from various sources (try slogging through Boswell’s footnotes some time) I don’t find it convincing, compelling, or even persuasive.
Generally this debate comes down to Camp A finding authority in Scripture X and Camp B finding authority in Scripture Y and both arguing over the meaning of Scripture Z.
Michael, not that I want to go back and beat that old dead horse, but there was one basic question being decided in the Prop 8 case, was there not? The question: Should California’s initiative to define marriage in its constitution as between one man and one woman, as approved by the voters, stand? The implied sub-question was, Or can a court trump the will of the people if it deems it has standing to do so?
Now, no matter how many “brilliant” things Judge Walker may have written in his opinion, or no matter how horribly the ADF defended Prop. 8, is there anything new that could be added to the question? Not from where I sit. He interpreted the constitution one way. Lots of people see it another way. It’s as plain as that.
Suppose the case had been reversed and Prop 8 had failed. Suppose, then, a suit had been brought by a plaintiff who felt his and the people’s constitutional rights had been violated and the court ruled in favor of that plaintiff. How brilliant would the judge’s opinion have seemed to you then?
Thanks, Mary.
I skimmed the article but It’s pretty much the apologetics for the conservative interpretation. It’s definitely one perspective, opinion and view.
I’ve heard Genesis quoted as God’s definition of what He expects. But reading too much into that would leave one thinking that God wants us to marry our sisters. (why is it that some who insist on scriptural literalism never see where that leads?)
These essays (from all sides) seem to come from a desire to prove a point and to look for Scriptures the defend a perspective. It is interesting, but it isn’t (to me) informative. Lately I’ve come to view scripture much less from a “yeah but what does this verse say” approach and more holistically.
I guess I’ve become less of a Paulite and more of a Christian. If a verse doesn’t fit with the theme of Jesus’ message, then clearly it isn’t being understood correctly so I tend to set those aside for later contemplation.
I’m sure this horrifies some who fear questioning anything, much less the appropriateness of a scripture verse, but that’s where I am in my journey and I’m ok with it.
Timothy,
You might read that essay in it’s entirety. I gave me new insight on the word homosexual. When you feel up to it.
Some here seemed to question the effeminate designation for the word. I also can see how it might refer to the receptive gay male partner. But there really is nothing new under the sun, and I have seen references to ancient transgendered types.
Timothy,
No it doesn’t horrify me. I also try to view scritpture from a holistic point of view. Don’t know how you get the incest thing out of it but hey, that’s how you read it. As well, I try to stick with the red letters of Christ, too. But I still can’t make homosexuality work from my perspective on theology.
Ok… Warren’s website does not accept Greek letters.. thus the string of question marks.
Perhaps you could make your scriptural case for that “extravagant welcome” here, Timothy. I’d be interested in seeing it. And while you’re at it, you might explain how that “clear” interpretation of the Bible is any less rigid than mine is.
Let’s not forget that men wrote the Bible – not God! We say the Bible is the “inspired” word of God, but that word inspired means different things to different Christians and many different Christian groups understand the Bible in completely different ways.
So men wrote the Bible – (Heck, the church didn’t even put the Bible together until the 4th century) – men err – they make mistakes – it stands to reason there could be problems with the inspired Word!
What I find so striking is that everyone has overlooked the genesis story of God’s intention and our creation. One may quibble over Paul’s words, or one may refer to our origins. Here’s an interesting essay on the theology of heterosexuality
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/SexualImmorality/Homosexuality/Homosexuality_PSition_Paper.pdf
Also there is mention and documentation of the word Paul uses. Worth the read.
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 11:59 am
“I find it less than respectful to African Americans to constantly refer to race as analogous to sexual orientation, as tif heir journey is equal to our journey”
Equal, no. analogous. yes. And I will continue to point out the similarities as I have been doing.
“A black man or woman can’t hide the fact of their color, can’t wake up and get on with life as different than the color they are … neither, can we white folks.”
Simply because a group can hide their differences, doesn’t make it alright to discriminate against that group. Do you think it is okay to deny rights to hispanics, jews, muslims, etc?
“Gay people are perfectly capable of getting on in life, especially today, with great jobs, wonderful housing, little to no harassment”
I dare you to claim there is “little to no harassment” of gays to the parents of matthew shepard, tyler clementi, seth walsh, or any other the other many gays who died because of this “little to no harassment” you claim exists.
“Often we gay people do very well financially, as has been noted in any number of sources. We are, for the most part, well educated.”
What sources?
“No one looks at us when applying for a job, or housing and, immediately concludes anything about us except what’s on our resume.”
really, even if that resume including being president of a gay student org in college?
what if the applicant asks if the company offers healthcare for same-sex domestic partners? Further, many companies will now do online searches of potential applicants (and perhaps see they were president of the gay student org, or have pics of their same-sex partners on their facebook page), and not just look at what is on the resume. When was the last time you actually interviewed for a job Teresa?
In many states (fortunately less and less) gays CAN still lose their jobs or housing just for being gay.
“Those of us who are gay, and not black, need to take a second look at this constant refrain of the gay and black journey as similar.”
It is similar. In fact if you compare they arguments against gay marriage with those in the Loving v. Virgina case you see the arguments are almost the same. The one notable distinction is that in the gay marriage case they argued that the LACK of procreation as a justification for denying gays the right to marry. While in the Loving case it was procreation that they argued was the problem.
“It is not self-evident to me that any of my civil rights are being violated in any way when the State denies my “right to marry”.”
It was to the plaintiffs in the prop 8 case. Just curious Teresa, do you have a partner? And if so do you share any property with her (house, condo, car etc)?
” It seems to me in this case that society is defining and protecting those institutions necessary for its health and preservation.”
And how does denying gays the right to marry protect marriage?
Thankfully the courts did just this in the cases; Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education
It is data…and after a lengthy appeal may turn out to have corrupted his judgment or so enhanced it that it becomes a landmark example of how “our personal narrative” as judges can be properly tempered to create good law.
My bad. I should not have generalized. I am glad that many took time to read the entire decision. And that only some elected not to.
Theresa,
I’m not sure if you take compliments well, however, the above statement/comment is just one of the reasons I find you so credible and fair and why I respect what you write. Thank for for pointing out what should be obvious to us all. Your ability to use critical thought, and articulate it, is very appreciated.
As long as we’re going back in time on this thread, I just wanted to re-quote Lynn David’s excellent post from 31 Aug 2010:
I agree with Lynn’s general point that any or all of those terms were already available to Paul instead of his neologism arsenokoitai, if exploitative pederasty or drag-queen prostitution is what he meant to condemn.
The only thing I would add, as by-the-way trivia, is that Aristophanes’ hilarious term euryprôktoi is more anatomically precise than the English translation “wide-assed” or “wide asses” — the -prokto- part refers specifically to the anus or rectum, and not to the buttocks, for which the word was pyg?. Thus, if Aristophanes had meant to say “big butts” in the Sir Mix-a-Lot sense, he would’ve more likely used a term like eurypygoi (or something like that — I’m no expert on Greek word formation). In contrast, euryprôktoi connoted something closer to that infamous “g**tse.cx” shock photo on the Innerwebs.
Anyheeew, I do take minor issue with Lynn’s conclusion:
The one problem with this theory is that here, too, in the case of the Hebrew term kadesh, there were already existing Greek terms that Paul could’ve used. In the Greek Septuagint translation of the Jewish Bible, the masculine form kadesh in Deut. 23:17 is rendered with two words: porneu?n (which in various contexts can mean “rentboy” or “john” or “pimp,” but in all cases refers to a male somehow involved with prostitution) and teliskomenos, (which means something like “acolyte” or “male consecrated to a particular cult” ).
So if Paul — as a Hellenized Jew who would’ve been familiar with the Septuagint translation — had meant to specifically condemn male temple prostitution, he could’ve used some compound of porneu?n and teliskomenos.
But, instead, he used arsenokoitai, which denotes “male in a bed with male” and thus connects very directly and literally to the language of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 — but there’s no linguistic connection to the kadesh of Deut. 23:17, nor to the angry mobs of Sodom (Gen 19) and Gibeah (Judges 19) who wanted “to know” the male guests.
So the pertinent question — to which we don’t really know the answer — is, “How did Paul interpret Lev. 18:22 and 20:13?”
Ken–
Can you rephrase that statement so that it doesn’t appear to be contradicted by this bit of info that Debbie supplied much earlier in the thread?
Thanks.
@ken, et. al.
I find it less than respectful to African Americans to constantly refer to race as analogous to sexual orientation, as tif heir journey is equal to our journey. A black man or woman can’t hide the fact of their color, can’t wake up and get on with life as different than the color they are … neither, can we white folks.
Gay people are perfectly capable of getting on in life, especially today, with great jobs, wonderful housing, little to no harassment. Often we gay people do very well financially, as has been noted in any number of sources. We are, for the most part, well educated. No one looks at us when applying for a job, or housing and, immediately concludes anything about us except what’s on our resume. Those of us who are gay, and not black, need to take a second look at this constant refrain of the gay and black journey as similar.
Secondly, as a gay woman, (and this is just my opinion),
I agree with this quote from Debbie. It is not self-evident to me that any of my civil rights are being violated in any way when the State denies my “right to marry”. It seems to me in this case that society is defining and protecting those institutions necessary for its health and preservation.
Hmmm, that’s what I get for trying to cut-and-paste vowels with macrons…
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 8, 2011 at 5:01 pm
“The implied sub-question was, Or can a court trump the will of the people if it deems it has standing to do so?”
The answer to this question is yes. The courts have “trumped the will of the people” every time a law has been overturned as unconstitutional. A primary purpose of the courts is to prevent the majority from subjugating the minority.
“He interpreted the constitution one way. Lots of people see it another way. It’s as plain as that.”
Except that those people who “see it” the other way can’t seem to present a constitutionally valid reason to justify denying gays the right of marriage.
“Suppose the case had been reversed and Prop 8 had failed. Suppose, then, a suit had been brought by a plaintiff who felt his and the people’s constitutional rights had been violated and the court ruled in favor of that plaintiff. How brilliant would the judge’s opinion have seemed to you then?”
this argument doesn’t make sense. If the prop 8 vote failed rather than passed, what grounds would there be for a suit? Further, any suit would still essentially be about denying gays the right of marriage.
It’s true. I did not recall how many actually refused to read it. My recollection was that many had refused to read it because they disagreed with it. That annoyed me greatly. If I am mistaken, I am sorry.
I admit I did not take time to review the entire thread, as Eddy did. He is obivously more detail oriented than I am. I apologize to any person who may have actually taken the time to read the entire decision.
P.S. – Theresa,
I did not include this very important part of your comment to my response above. I cringe when I see or hear anyone make the comparison between race and sexual orientation – I guess, not for the obvious that it is not a comparison at all, rather, for the lack of respect for African Americans or others around the world.
My apology! My post should have read… “Thankfully the courts did just this in the case of Brown vs Topeka Board of Education . This decision effectively undid the earlier ruling of Plessy vs Ferguson
Blakeslee: This ads data about the decision
Blakeslee: Its just data Timothy, kind of like if a KKK member was making a decision about voting rights;
Blakeslee: Having all the data that might bear on the decision is a pretty standard way of dealing with analyzing the decision. Withholding relevant data ads unnecessary mystery.
and
Blakeslee: The assumptions are all yours
Okaaaaay
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 8:57 am
“Timothy, the Prop 8 case hinged on, not a “protection” of gay people or their rights, but a protection of the always-accepted definition of marriage for the greater good. ”
You really do need to read the transcripts/opinion Debbie, at the very least, find a better source of information about the issue. The case was about how the right of marriage was taken away from gays in CA and whether it was constitutional for the people of CA to do that.
“The people who voted in the majority believed it to be in the best interests of their state to preserve the benefits of marriage as they have been traditionally.”
And at one time the majority believed blacks were inferior to whites and it was in their (the white majority) best interest to prevent black children from attending the same schools as white children. they also believed it to be in the best interests to “preserve the benefits of marriage as they have been traditionally” and not allow the races to inter-marry. However, just because someone believes something, doesn’t make it true.
“It is not self-evident that “equal protection” of gays is being violated by not allowing them to marry. ”
It is to everyone but you Debbie (and others who want to legislate their beliefs).
Timothy, the Prop 8 case hinged on, not a “protection” of gay people or their rights, but a protection of the always-accepted definition of marriage for the greater good. The people who voted in the majority believed it to be in the best interests of their state to preserve the benefits of marriage as they have been traditionally. They have constitutional rights, as well. That the defense chose inexplicably not to defend Prop 8 does not mean it was not defensible.
It is not self-evident that “equal protection” of gays is being violated by not allowing them to marry. Prop 8 was an affront to their sensibilities. Discrimination in the workplace, in housing or in any other realm than marriage is another matter. Same-sex marriage is still a rebuttable presumption. And every time the people have voted on it, they have voted in favor of traditional marriage.
Debbie
What I see here are two questions. And I’ll deal with the second one first.
Can a court overturn the vote of the people if it sees such a vote to be in violation of the US Constitution? Or, to add an emotional content, can a court overturn the will of the people?
That wasn’t really a question in Perry v. Schwarzenegger because it is not a legal question. While this does play well in rhetorical debate (and indeed was front and center in media) no one disputes the ability of the judicial system to overturn laws – even very popular laws – that violate the constitution.
So the only real question which the court addressed was
And the answer was no, it violates the equal protections and due process provisions of the US Constitution.
That truly depends on whether gay people are entitled to the same protections as other people or if the restrictions were of such significant need that it overrode the equal protections principles. I suppose that someone could have come up with an argument that was so compelling that the court would have to accept that different treatment was acceptable in these circumstances. They did not.
The fact that I’ve never hear that compelling argument doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means I’ve never heard it.
Well kinda.
It isn’t really how people “see” the Constitution as much as it is how they see gay people.
If one accepts the premises that:
1. Gay people exist, intrinsically and immutably. While some people testify to a changed orientation, for nearly all this demographic their orientation is fixed.
2. There has been a long history of discrimination against people who are gay and all laws passed that disadvantage them need to be inspected in this light.
3. A majority vote of people cannot be the sole determinant as to whether a subset is granted equality under the law.
then the question becomes whether a law is based on a legitimate purpose or on a desire to exclude an unpopular demographic. Because laws intended solely to exclude an unpopular demographic are unconstitutional, by everyone’s interpretation.
There was a preponderance of evidence that Proposition 8 was purposefully intended to exclude gay people. No one credibly denied that.
So the only question which Perry could answer was that of legitimate purpose. And whether that purpose was sufficient to justify unequal treatment.
And it was on that question that the supporters failed. Miserably.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Except the marriages (in other cultures/religious history) you are referring are better termed “polygyny” (one husband, many wives). And regulate women to a subservient role in marriage. And while there are no scientific studies, there are significant legal impediments to polygamous marriage (which I’ve posted before). Now, as I have said before, if someone would present a fair, workable scheme for allowing polygamous marriage I’d be happy to consider it, but to date no one has.
this is why I consider the polygamous marriage argument to be no more than an red-herring by those opposed to gay marriage. An misguided attempt to muddy the waters hoping to hide the fact they have no constitutionally sound arguments against gay married. so they attempt to link it to something else trying to avoid any real discussion of the issues.
I think it’s on topic since this discussion has included much discussion on how “marriage” ought to be defined. I was curious to hear how those in favor of Prop 8’s definition of marriage as a strictly male/female contract would deal with such a case. If you think it’s off topic, there is no need for you to respond to it.
You see, under civil law, “marriage” is not a “sacred covenant before God”.
(Emphasis mine.)
And you have every right not to participate.
I never said that morality evolved from a vacuum, Debbie. Good and evil, right and wrong, although universally recognized concepts, are a mystery. The belief in a Creator, however reasonable it may be, does not solve the mystery.
Firstly, as Ayer pointed out, there is no necessary logical connection between having any degree of power, including the power to create the universe, and being morally good.
Secondly, unless we accept, as Dodgson put it, that “Right and Wrong rest on eternal and self-existent principles, and not on the arbitrary will of any being whatever” and that “God wills a thing because it is right and not that a thing is right because God wills it”, right and wrong simply cease to have any meaning beyond what the Creator happens to want and doesn’t happen to want, and there is no reason why we should trouble our heads over them – except perhaps that we’re afraid of him and think that he’ll get stroppy with us if we don’t do what he wants.
I believe that the discussion of ‘responding Biblically to the intersexed and to post-op transsexuals’ is WAY OFF TOPIC in “Proposition 8 Overturned”.
We have enough conflict and confusion over matters where the Bible appears to speak clearly…that never lead to resolve but rather to a stream of tit for tat responses. Purposely introducing areas where the Bible is even less clear in a conversation that is already marked with anti-Christian/anti-religious/anti-Bible hostility strikes me as a tad absurd.
Only to the extent that it has to do with protecting basic rights — like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Teaching other “moral” values is the role of the family and the church — not the state.
Sorry, Michael, but I was chastised by our blog-meister on this very thread for a detour that had a connection to comments (a recurring theme has been criticism for not reading the entire determination yet engaging in the conversation…so I brought up an example where you all did the same thing.)
By making this observation about this new detour that you have introduced, I was offering both a word of caution and restraint to those who are biblically-minded and also explaining why I won’t be participating in the detour.
Philosopher: To Defeat Gay ‘Marriage’ Conservatives Must Defend Traditional Sexual Morals in General
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081914.html
Full Interview
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081913.html
Michael Bussee# ~ Aug 24, 2010 at 8:32 pm
ditto.
And I get tired of people posing theological arguments as a form of nit picking and undermining, when they have no interest in exploring the issues they raise by quoting various scriptures.
Morality is an issue in civil law. Civil law in general is often an expression of various moral understandings first written down in religious documents.
The fact that gays and lesbians are fighting for their right to marry has some of its roots in Moral Law (equality…see the New Testament-niether Jew nor Greek, but all one in Christ).
So this argument is necessarily religious, civil, moral and secular.
If we really want to protect the “sanctity of marriage” as a “sacred covenenant before God”, how about we toughen up the regulations on who can get married and who can officiate?
The current qualitifications for marriage in California? An opposite sex coiuple who can fill out and pay for a marriage license. That’s about it. The current qualifications for who can solemnize this “holy” arrangement? Almost anyone it turns out, even the Cookie Monster.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/marriage-anyone-it-took-me-5-minutes-to-become-a-minister/
As a christ follower, I agree with that statment. It takes time, study, and practice to be authentic. I’m still working on it. And it irks me to see that there is a pick and choose sort of style to interpreting the bible and people just don’t like to admit it.
Mere mortals moralizing, William. Morality no more evolved from a vacuum than mankind from some primordial slime. There is an active Creator who was behind it all. It takes far more faith to believe otherwise than to just give up and accept that.
Timothy–
Yes, it appears that we kinda agree on the premises underlying the point I was trying to get across. I don’t take that as cause for celebration since I didn’t thing I was saying anything either questionable or controversial in those premises. The fact that you now agree (with some possible slight reservation) only demonstrates to me how impossible actual communication is here. In short, it took an hour or more of writing on my part to get you to agree (with some possible slight reservation) to something that I see as an observable reality. The thought of trying to move beyond the premise to the actual substance of what I was trying to say looms as an exhausting and likely impossible task. Not to worry! To you, my ‘substance’ is a ‘talking point’; to me, it’s a ‘concern’. I need to accept that unfortunate difference and pursue this concern with others who share the concern rather than here.
All three areas are impacted. Let me dispense with the rhetorical. The will of the voters was usurped by one judge. That’s an impact, a serious one. Public education, already largely influenced by pro-gay propaganda (like SB 777 in California), will only now be more so. More students will be attuned to “social justice” while growing more illiterate and history-deprived by the day. And those who would consciously object to recognizing same-sex marriage on moral grounds will, nevertheless, be forced to support it and will be sued if they refuse to be accommodating. You knew perfectly well what I meant by this.
I am sure that the late Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (alias Lewis Carroll) was right in adopting the axiom that “that the ideas of Right and Wrong rest on eternal and self-existent principles, and not on the arbitrary will of any being whatever.”
Once we start saying that right and wrong depend on God’s ipse dixit, we find ourselves in a never-ending circular argument:
“Why should we pay any attention to what God says?”
“Because what God wants is right and what he doesn’t want is wrong.”
“How do we know that what he wants is right and what he doesn’t want is wrong?
“Because God says so.”
“Why should we pay any attention to what God says?”
“Because he wants us to.”
“Why should we pay any attention to what he wants us to do?”
And so it goes on.
Bertrand Russell expressed it well when he wrote:
“Theologians have always taught that God’s decrees are good, and that this is not a mere tautology: it follows that goodness is logically independent of God’s decrees.”
And again:
“If the only basis of morality is God’s decrees, it follows that they might as well have been the opposite of what they are; no reason except caprice could have prevented the omission of all the ‘nots’ from the Decalogue.”
Or as another Oxford philosopher, A.J. Ayer, put it:
“The point is that moral standards can never be justified merely by an appeal to authority, whether the authority is taken to be human or divine. There has to be the additional premiss that the person whose dictates we are to follow is good, or that what he commands is right, and this cannot be the mere tautology that he is what he is, or that he commands what he commands.”
People knew about right and wrong, even if they disagreed about exactly what was right and what was wrong, before a single word of the Bible was written.
Keep in mind, Debbie, that includes you, too. Like many religious folks in the past who righteously supported racial and gender discrimination on “moral” and “Biblical” grounds, you speak with a tone of absolute certainty.
But, being “mere mortal”, they were wrong — and you may be as well. You remind me very much of Sister Aloysius Beauvier in the film “Doubt”. Have you seen it?
They learn it from people who learn it from people, ad infinitem? Right. How did the first person learn it?
Just a thought. If the founders of this country were basing the constitution on the bible, they could have voted to make the bible the constitution. That didn’t happen. Instead they argued over the rights of men and how they would be represented (to later include freed slaves and women.) I do wish that the so called christians would realize this nuance of our constitution. Whether or not a person agrees with the usefulness of homosexuality or heterosexuality, is not the question. The debate is whether or not people are free to choose whom they will marry , build their assets and invest their future.
Because, behind all the arguments over marriage, it all comes down to one thing. Those who oppose marriage equality do so because they oppose equality.
I truly do not mean to be in the least argumentative, but no, I strongly believe you are mistaken.
Thinking and caring people can oppose or favor many things in life and “opposing equality” is rarely the reason for their positions.
Men and women, cats and dogs, plants and animals, young people and older people, Californians and Texans, (you get the idea) are different. To know they are different, to say they are different, and yes, even to treat them differently at times is often the wise thing to do.
Communication breaks down, unfortunately, when we speak of differences, especially when people with stance #1 pronounce they know the motives of people with stance #2 or stance #3 or #4, and especially when the only motives they can conceive of are evil or unfair or selfish or otherwise negative.
The word “equality” is often tossed around as if it were a salad ingredient. I stand on my earlier point–different does not mean “not equal’; in the same vein, “same” doesn’t mean “equal” or ensure equality.
“So do you support the past unequal treatment of women under the law?”
Don’t insult me. You want me to scream, “Damn right, I support fair treatment for only me, myself, and I. Screw everyone else”?
Women and their supporters used the amendment process to get the vote.
You are not, if you are gay, being treating unequally. Like any other man or woman over 18, you may marry one person of the other gender. It’s your choice to do so or not to. Surely you know that tens of thousands, perhaps millions of American couples do not get hitched because they are romantically in love with one another. That happens for some, but not many. In some cases, one partner is “in love” while the other isn’t. Marriage is chosen for many reasons; to create children (the biological imperative of mate selection, the process of selecting a mate who is fit and can produce fit offspring is at work here); to rear the nuclear family to maturation in order the formation of an extended family; to ensure financial security through a division of labor, etc.
Many who do not find what they wish in a mate or who do not find the reasons for marriage to be compelling, do not marry. It is their choice. You have the same choice. Their choice, your choice, no discrimination.
blewis# ~ Aug 19, 2010 at 1:37 pm
” They see an obvious biological difference and they understand the millenia of social difference based on that biology, and no, I won’t go into all the biological, anthropological, societal, cultural, etc. reasons as to why that is. It’s fruitless to do so since the differences are obvious to all, even to those who would deny them.”
So do you support the past unequal treatment of women under the law? Should women be re-regulated to 2nd class status under the law? Your comments above apply just as well to the differences between men and women as they do to the differences between opposite and same sex couples. Using your reasoning women should never have been given equal status in marriage.
The flaw in your reasoning is that although there are differences (whether between men and women or straights and gays) those differences are not significant enough to justify the discriminatory policies you support. Further, you are ignoring the similarities between straights and gays.
Well… not really.
I don’t think any of us have a one-size-fits-all idea of marriage. If we think “what is a marriage”, we may get Disney princess ideas, but when we reverse the question and say “is that a marriage” we don’t really use that criteria.
If a 45 year old man loses his wife to a car accident, we kinda expect that he’ll remarry after a grieving period. We sort of expect it. But we don’t generally assume that it will be for the purpose of having kids.
And we’ve all run into the couple who say that they don’t intend on having kids and inside our head we think, “yeah, that’s a good idea.” But we still think of them as married.
And one of the questions you hear A LOT now of young couples is, “do you plan on having kids right away or waiting?”
In fact, come to think of it, we really don’t think of marriage at all in terms of parenting. Yeah, that’s a part of the way we think about many marriages, but it isn’t automatic.
I can’t figure out what you mean here. Who is wanting the pie? Why shouldn’t they have a piece? Is this the brother thing you were talking about earlier?
Timothy–
Never mind.
Sometimes you just gotta say ‘it’s not worth the bother’. I’d only clarify my point one more time to have you dissect it needlessly as you did with the ‘No…not really….etc.’.
Okay
No, I don’t believe it really is a concern. I’ve yet to encounter a person who thinks that their marriage is in anyway redefined. They are not genuinely concerned about how heterosexual marriages will change, because they know that they won’t.
It isn’t the definition of marriage that concerns them, it’s the qualification for marriage. They know that it will continue to be the same, but that now restrictions are lifted against people that they don’t want to allow in.
It’s a bit like those who worried that if they let black people in their country club then it would materially change the meaning and purpose of the club. But that really only made sense if the meaning and purpose was to exclude black people.
And once the rules changed they found that nothing had changed. The purpose and meaning (definition) of their club was just what it always was. And they realized that this was not really what they had been concerned about all along… they just needed an excuse that sounded like it was based on the club rather than the people they were keeping out.
Eddy,
I think I misunderstood your point:
Yes I agree
Yes I agree
At times, for some folk, if they don’t think at all about it. Sure.
So I guess we end on a note of kinda sorta agreement.
Honest to God, I feel like I’m in the twilight zone or something. Did you get that I wasn’t saying that marriage is ‘mommy, daddy and the kids’? Did you get that I said that’s the way A LOT of people see it. BECAUSE it’s not something they give much thought to. You say ‘marriage’, they hear ‘family’. They think ‘family’; they think mommy, daddy and the kids.
BUT THAT’S ENTIRELY BESIDE THE FRIGGIN POINT! The point was that marriage is a word and a concept that conjures up different images for different people. So I used the extremes of the spectrum. And I also pointed out that the ‘with kids’ image isn’t unique to religious folks. I didn’t say it was right but I did suggest that it was popular. IN FACT, I sided with the judges definition but thought it could benefit by the addition of one word.
Please! You win! I give up! My point is without value or place in this conversation! I’m letting it go. I said ‘never mind’ only toTimothy because I thought you had taken leave of the conversation. Anyway, I’m letting it go. Please do the same.
And I maintain that IS a concern. Please understand that I’m not even against this judges determination! But I do see this as a fairly big deal and it is my nature to look to the future. I firmly believe that ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’…and, if this determination carries any weight outside of California or outside of district 9, it would be a good thing to ‘iron out the kinks’.
And, no, the kinks I’m referring to are not related to abuse of the system by homosexuals. As the joke line goes “It’s not all about you.” I simply believe 1) that most people haven’t given it a second thought and believe ‘marriage, you know, marriage, everybody knows what marriage is’…but a fair number (and not just religious) have an image of ‘mommy, daddy and the kids’ while the spectrum runs to the other side as in the judges definition where kids aren’t mentioned at all. But we let the word just roll by assuming we’re all talking about the same thing. 2) that some people, when they are shaken from the notion of ‘mommy, daddy and the kids’ are going to say…’hey, how come I can’t have a piece of that pie too?’ 3) that, even if number two is a remote possibility, the time to stitch up the loophole is now.
Under current Calirfornia law, to be “married” a couple does not have to want kids, plan to have kids or be able to have kids. They can hate kids. They don’t have to know a thing about parenting. They don’t have to show that they the skills to be good parents.
They don’t have to have any particular belief in God. They don’t have to go to church. They don’t have to believe the Bible. They don’t have to agree to any particular moral standards. They don’t have to think of their relationship as “sacred” or as a spiriutal “covenant”.
They don’t have to be employed or able to work. They don’t have to know about budgeting. They are not required to live together. They don’t have to be monogamous. They don’t have to have sexual interest in each other. They don’t have to have sex at all. They don’t have to be of the same sexual orientation.
They don’t have to be psychologically or emotionally compatible. They don’t have to have communication or conflict resolution skills. They don’t have to treat each other with respect or kindness. They don’t have to have similar hobbies or interests. They don’t have to love each other. They don’t even have to like each other.
All they have to be is one man and one woman and able to give consent to be legally marrried. And pay for a marriage license. On the other hand, a same-sex couple can have all of the things I mentioned above, but not the legal and financial benefits of marriage. How is that anything but unjust?
My dad died suddenly of leukemia at age 55. My Mom was terribly shocked and deeply depressed. She missed the comfort, the structure, the companionship and commitment she found in marriage. She wanted to marry again. Kids were out of the question. She had had a complete hysterectomy years before. She wanted to be married with all that had meant to her.
Other people may think of marriage only or mainly in terms of “mom, dad and the kids” — but that would be very simplistic and would overlook the deeper feelings, the deeper needs and the deeper meanings of “marriage”. “Domestic Partnership” would not do for her. My Mom wanted her family, her church and her culture to see her as a “married” woman — having made a spiritual and legal commitment to live with someone and love someone until death — a person she truly loved body, soul and spirit.
That’s what I want too. I have no proof, but I believe that’s what I believe most people want. Kids are primary for some. But certainly not for all — and if we limit the right to marry to those who desire to have kids and can have kids, what about the rest of the world that just want to live in a “married” state with all that they means for them, emotionally, romantically and legally? Someone to enjoy life with? Someone to grow old with? Someone to hold you as you die?
Marrige, for me and for many, is about sharing life together in a legal, romantic, emotional, psychological and spiritutal union. It becomes an indentity, if you will. Two become one. You and I become “we”. That’s what “marriage” means to me. Why should that legal right be based on gender or sexual orientation? Why shoudl same-sex couples have to pay the same taxes for something less than marriage?
Mom/dad and kids is a wonderful ideal — and may be the best setting for child-rearing, but marriage should not be — and is not — the exclusive right of the reproductive couples. There is simply no compelling reason for the state to deny any couple that right on the basis of gender or orientation.
Eddy,
In Hawaii you can.
There they have something called Reciprocal Beneficiaries which allow a few limited benefits to adults living together regardless of relationship. It doesn’t include taxes but some insurance I think.
They created it to avoid giving gay relationships any recognition. The point was to say “your relationship is of no more importance that roommates” – and, yes, it was intended to be offensive. But it exists.
And some brothers do sign up, I believe.
blewis
Actually, you’re close. But you have the parties backwards.
It isn’t that we want the state to say that we are “the same”; rather we just want the state to stop saying that we are inferior.
Because, behind all the arguments over marriage, it all comes down to one thing. Those who oppose marriage equality do so because they oppose equality.
They believe that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality and that opposite sex couples are inherently superior to same-sex couples and they want the government to reinforce their bias.
It isn’t that same-sex couples are insisting that the government say that they are the same. It’s that those who oppose same-sex couples are insisting that the government say that they are inferior.
As you illustrate:
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 19, 2010 at 7:15 am
“ow do people otherwise instinctively understand right from wrong? If morality cometh not from God and the biblical revelation of Him, then where does it come from? A vacuum? A man?”
People do not “instinctively” understand right from wrong. People LEARN it as children (and not all of them do). From their parents, relatives, teachers, and society in general.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 19, 2010 at 11:36 am
” And if it does, where does the redefining stop?”
At the point which the state can show how it has a rational reason for denying the changes.
Michael did a fine job answering your comments about what the founding fathers thought about marriage (and other rights) so I won’t repeat that here.
During the testimony, the judge asked the Proponents whether it would be constitutional to restrict marriage only to those couples who can or intend to beget children. They said that it would be inconvenient to do so and that it would be an intrusion on the privacy of that couple.
Let me repeat that. It would be intrusive to base marriage on what the Proponents said marriage should be based on. So instead of inquire of heterosexuals whether they are barren or intend to have children, the solution is to restrict gay people altogether.
That is either the least logical explanation I’ve ever heard, or the most arrogant and elitist.
I sure messed up my previous comment. Here’s how it should look:
Jayhuck, your points are well-taken. I agree. Each individual has the freedom to choose their own values, beliefs, behavior. If we want to condemn another, again that’s our freedom of choice.
And, you do understand, I know, that what I express is my opinion. I’m trying for the most part not to proselytize you … sometimes, I wanna do that, but I know that’s not how I’d like to be treated.
Since I love assigning blame to other people (:)), I simply want to note that the condition of our society … if perceived as going to hell in a handbasket … lies at the feet of conservative, Christian heterosexuals.
Debbie,
Honestly, when I see conservative Christians doing things like they did in Iowa, I have to ask myself if they can see how they might be bringing about their own downfall. Their viewpoints are increasingly becoming unpopular, and their tactics even more so. I would think they should at least be one of the groups championing our system of checks and balances – even if it is just to protect themselves.
Jon, I don’t believe bitter recrimination is the best tool in your kit. And you surely don’t know me any better than I know your state.
I recall a nasty school board battle (it made national news) in my California town back in the ’90s during which the Christian majority were recalled because of their conservative views on curriculum and their “pro-family” views in general. People were bused in from other counties and cities — maybe even states — to loudly interrupt school board meetings and distribute propaganda materials. That’s small potatoes compared to a statewide battle, but “all politics is local politics,” as the saying goes. We also know candidates (new ones and incumbents) at local, state and national levels were targeted for ousting during the last election by both liberals and conservatives. Those campaigns got pretty nasty.
Jayhuck,
I am not trying to support same sex marriage, but I am trying to highlight a reasoned argument for doing so. And I don’t mind if I get some credit for it :).
The campaign against Iowa’s Supreme Court was led by a failed candidate for governor and funded with millions and millions of dollars paid by out-of-state groups like NOM and the AFA. The same folks have been trying to impeach the remaining justices ever since. The anti-retention campaign woul’ve gone nowhere without those out-of-state groups.
Now, why do some gays think other people find this behavior, OK? As a gay woman, I find this particularly offensive on several levels. And, we wonder why “others” find gay behavior ‘un’natural.
Yes, Carole, I agree.
Jayhuck, I didn’t forget it. Actually, you’re affirming what I said:
Birth control … what is an unwanted pregnancy? Does it mean, geez, I wanted to fool around; but, I didn’t want this to happen? Does it mean, a woman can now act like a man in the sexual realm? Does it mean, the most intimate, physical union of two people is divorced from one of its two primary purposes; and, now has only one purpose … ?
If that is the case, then conservative, Christian heterosexuals have absolutely no moral ground on which to stand telling any homosexual they cannot engage in same-sex sexual behavior. If sexual behavior among conservative, Christian heterosexual married couples is rendered sterile by any number of means: the pill, iud, condoms, sodomy, oral sex, etc., then what moral ground can they put forth to condemn same-sex sexual behavior?
I don’t know, guys. The “hell in a handbasket” blame can be spread among a whole assortment of people/groups.
This video was shot Easter Sunday. (Warning, graphic pics that many will find blasphemous.)
I haven’t seen this nor heard references to it from any major network source. Good thing from the perspective of gay and lesbian lobbying groups, I’d imagine.
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/04/27/christians-mock-gays-at-shocking-easter-service/?singlepage=true
Yes, Iowa and California both were battle grounds that attracted outside interest and help. This tactic has been used by the other side, as well. States are entitled to fight their own battles.
Jayhuck, whether voting or pressuring, citizens are exercising their voices and redressing grievances. The check/balance in the case of elections is the next election. Public pressure on officials or organizations has its place. But it can go too far or backfire. We ought to be above sour-grapes brawling. We should win fairly and lose graciously, and determine to wage a better campaign the next time.
Shouldn’t this apply to other countries, as well?
You know what, Debbie? After scrolling through the link in Carole’s Comment, I’m sorta questioning the whole nonjudgmental kindness idea.
If public approval/voting is the final say on the matter, where are the checks and balances? How is this different than having a Dictator in power?
Teresa,
It probably means different things to different people/couples. My question would be what is the purpose of sex? You as a conservative Christian obviously have an answer to that question, but not everyone is a conservative Christian or Catholic or even religious. So sex means different things to different people. You approach it from your POV but you have to realize there are others.
Why don’t they just live as they feel they should? They are free to condemn whomever they want to condemn and to use or not use these devices as they see fit. Why force others to bend to their viewpoints? Just because the pill is out there does not mean people have to use it.
Debbie,
I’m struggling to figure out why you try to keep comparing public pressure on individuals or private companies with people voting?
Please name one case of out-of-state pro-equality forces dumping miilions into any successful campaign for gay marriage equality or ousting any anti-equality judge. Iowa Supreme Court justices faced an unprecidented assault on them. You don’t live here, Debbie. It was pure fear-mongering used against them. You would’ve loved it. “if they found DOMA unconstitutional, what else might they do to attack your family?” My favorite was the church that financed an eHarmony parody ad that thanked the Iowa Supreme Court for allowing brothers and sisters to get married.
To their credit, our justices did lose graciously. The winners immediately turned around and began demanding the immediate resignation or barring that impeachment of the reamaining justices.
I’m sure it’d be nice if those gay and lesbian couples in California had just graciously sat back and said “oh well” when their marital rights eliminated by popular vote. Trust me, if/when my family gets torn apart by the votes of my fellow Iowans, I won’t just sit back and say “oh darn”. You wouldn’t either if your family was literaly destoyed by others around you like that. Then again, our families aren’t real or worth anything positive to you anyway, so it’s easy to say that people like me shouldn’t be all sour grapey.
That can cut both ways. Were Iowans merely exercising their constitutional right to vote in judges who they feel will uphold the Constitution, or vote out those who they feel will not? Or was this political thuggery? You said earlier, Jayhuck, that it was wrong for people on either side of the issue to be harmed. What, then, do we call this kind of fallout?
Debbie,
Amen 🙂
Jayhuck, I have been quite clear in saying many times that marriage is being destroyed from within by self-centered men and women, and not by the “bogeyman” of same-sex coupling.
The culture of life: allowing children to be born is a big part of it. Those who counter with “Born into what?” have a point. As our Judeo-Christian values crumble, so goes the foundation upon which families are built. And if that foundation is strong, then we won’t need cradle-to-grave government welfare programs, will we? We will have a culture that affirms and enhances life from beginning to end.
Debbie,
Let’s be clear – If Its on life support, it is so because of heterosexuals, not because of anything homosexuals have done
“No, no, no — my god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way!”
That may be true, sad as it is, but its frightening to see things happen like what occurred in Iowa where people, through what you would probably call political thuggery, were convinced to vote out judges who were simply doing their job. Those kinds of things scare me
Mary,
OK – now this is something I understand and would agree with – to a certain degree anyway.
David,
I read the article and I’ve re-read your post and I’m still struggling to figure out exactly what you are trying to say. Do you now support same sex marriage?
I think this was one point Kirk and Madsen were trying to make in their (erstwhile) book, After the Ball.
The pressure to cultivate an atmosphere of nonjudgmental kindness toward gays and lesbians is a good thing. What that ends up doing to conservative institutions and to the Church will be interesting to see. And how it all will relate back to traditional marriage — either to strengthen it or weaken it — also will prove to be a watershed event. Marriage is not going to flatline in our time. But it is on life support.
FWIW, I was intrigued by other information in the AP story I referred to above concerning attitudes among Virginians about abortion. Conservatives are more supportive of “a woman’s right to choose” to abort here than they are of same-sex marriage. The culture of life and of Judeo-Christian values is under assault. But some in the gay community seek to resuscitate the culture of marriage, while at the same time, being perceived as destroying it by many conservatives.
Its probably time I go to bed 🙂
Do you realize what a non sequitur that statement is, Timothy? How would a Christian who knows Christ and respects the Scriptures (that’s not a “religious view,” it is a way of living) ever conceive of seeing same-sex marriage as positively impacting the institution of marriage? At best, they might see it as not negatively impacting it, but merely being a footnote in history.
Here you go Mary – Its discussing the same analysis with perhaps a more palatable title for you:
Men and Women Are Psychologically Similar… to varying degrees
Debbie,
What exactly is meant by a phrase like this? Life at all costs? Life regardless of quality? I am truthfully not an abortion advocate except in a few instances, but I get aggravated when there is talk about life, but little else.
Oh wow – talking about God’s box – that really is problematic isn’t it?
More questions impacting same-sex marriage … these are of a legal nature.
Is it Constitutional for large religious denominations to directly fund political views through advertisements, commercials, etc.?
Has there ever been a SCOTUS case determining that religious denominations funding certain political views do not jeopardize their tax-exempt status?
Where is the line drawn concerning impacting civil discourse using tax-exempt funds?
Is this a murky area, where large donations are channeled through shadow corporations/groups that pose difficulty in tracing these donations?
Debbie,
I saw the results of that Washington Post poll yesterday. I am happy to see public opinion shifting, but I still hope and pray for protection for people on both sides of this issue.
Checking in after a break.
There is an interesting opinion piece in the Washington Post criticizing Ron Paul’s logical progression in applying libertarianism to the legalization of drugs and prostitution. The following paragraph is poignant:
Same sex couples are trying to create (out of nearly nothing, and with very little cultural support) the conservative institutions that will support them in a generally hostile world. Heterosexuals went about this several thousand years ago.
They need heterosexuals help to do this, because we are the overwhelming majority and our hands are on the levers of power at nearly every level of government, church, schools and associations; and through disgust, humiliation and shame we can continue to marginalize them.
Conservative arguments for protecting marriage and strengthening it have their greatest power when applied to heterosexuals…libertine philosophies applied to heterosexual marriage hurts women and children.
Conservative philosophies, applied to glbt communities which have been characterized as libertine; and exploited by libertine values, will stabilize, protect and strengthen them.
Article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-land-of-second-rate-values/2011/05/09/AFD8B2bG_story.html
In the final analysis, Jon, we will all die as footnotes in history. This blog is examining the issue of same-sex marriage from all points of view. Warren reports, we decide, more or less. We only reflect society, which is at odds on it.
Timothy has not yet attributed his statement about public opinion shifting on the issue, but just today, the AP reported on a Washington Post poll from Virginia, widely seen as a “battleground state” in upcoming elections. It says 47% now are for same-sex marriage and 43% are opposed, while 55% support adoptions by gay couples. In 2006, 56% of Virginians voted for a constitutional marriage amendment, making it one of the 31 states to have done so. Virginia’s amendment is not being challenged at this point. But it is only a matter of time before it is. Polls and votes don’t always match up, of course.
Jon, you and others here who support same-sex marriage or are the very face of it ought to be pleased that time is on your side. Don’t be insulted that I pointed out Timothy’s non sequitur. History will affirm you. None of us can say for certain what eternity will do.
Yes I am aware of the research. And of course, there are many people whose gender is indistinguishable either in the brain or through a physical examination of the body or the DNA. Those are not seen in the broad human experience yet happens enough to give pause to the question of sexual and gender orientation. As a Christain, I believe in the dichotomy of the sexes and their complimentary aspects. Also, as a Christian, I believe that we live in a world that is not so black and white. There are variations in gender and sexuality. It is really a private matter between a person and thier maker.
Pretty much ends the conversation, doesn’t it. At best, our families aren’t too terribly terrible. Nothing good over there. Move along. Move along…
My god, is a little God, he reigns, from…. Isn’t there a song there somewhere ? 😉
The people who are elected or appointed to do so, regardless of beliefs. I am STILL going to pray for more of them to submit to godly authority.
Isn’t it interesting how “progressives” are doing that very thing, but in reverse? They are doing all in their power to tear down the Christian ethic.
A Screwtape refresher, FWIW;
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 10, 2010 at 8:27 am
“That is why I said children in gay families “fare no worse” than those in other stepfamilies and why the report is not really complimentary of gay parenting.”
What you are referencing doesn’t include gay parents who have children through artifical insemination or surrogacy, or through adoption. It is only referring to children who have gone through a parents divorce. And it is complementary of gay parents because it says in that situation gay parents do JUST AS WELL in dealing with it as straight parents do. Your personal biases are preventing you from recognizing this fact.
“Something you won’t finding this technical statement is this: It is common knowledge that lesbians tend to have trouble suppressing their hatred for men.”
And I doubt you will find it in ANY research. Because again, this statement is your personal bias, not actual research.
“There is absolutely no way a child will not be adversely impacted by living in an environment where these feelings will spill over.”
And yet again, the research into lesbian parents doesn’t support this claim.
It seems to me that you have a strong dislike for lesbians Debbie, and that your personal biases are significantly impacting your ability to honestly evaluate evidence regarding them.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 10, 2010 at 7:52 am
“And are we excluding from a child’s well being, Ken, the essential need to bond with the same-sex parent and have the unique influences of the opposite-sex parent to round out his or her emotional and social development?”
Who says it is essential (besides you)? Can you cite me any research supporting that claim? If it is essential as you keep claiming why is there so much research showing that children with single gender parents are just as well off as with opposite gender parents?
Dave, the studies on lesbian or gay parenting are scant in comparison to those on parenting, in general. The latter has been observed for many centuries. Other studies are borrowing from the gold standard.
No, it’s not, Ken. It’s talking about children raised in gay-parented (like stepparented) families.
It occured to Alan Chambers of Exodus, who said this to Christianity today:
I agree with him, even though I find it more than a little bit ironic that he would say so — considering how much money, time and energy Exodus has spent doing that very thing.It also occurred to several of the other Christian leaders quoted in the Christianity Today article, for example: Scot McKnight, professor in religious studies at North Park University:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/42.11.0.html
The topic here is this one thing, Dave. We could broaden it to discuss all sorts of parallel things. I don’t like that the courts gave us abortion on demand and no-fault divorce any more than you do. Man is inherently wicked. Can you change that?
And are we excluding from a child’s well being, Ken, the essential need to bond with the same-sex parent and have the unique influences of the opposite-sex parent to round out his or her emotional and social development? How do we get to do that? Who decides, I repeat, which of those influences is not necessary? We sure have a lot of child development experts running around these days. A child’s welfare is a heavy price to pay for a social engineering experiment.
I am going to take a few minutes to check my comments and the studie I cited. I may have accidentally juxtaposed two studies. If I did, I will set the record straight.
Frankly Debbie .. I think your concern for a child’s welfare is a big joke … and a red herring. If Christians (and yes there are other Christians here besides yourself) realy ‘cared’ about children’s welfare like they ‘care’ about the homosexuality issue .. they would be working to make divorce illegal and remarriage illegal as well since neither honors God … But of course we’ll never do that despite all the evidence to the contrary concerning the harm that comes to children from divorce and the social struggles of the blended family which some of your research seems to confirm.
Whether you accept either a 2% or 10 % figure for how many people are gay .. that still leaves you with a 90 to 98% heterosexual population…. a heterosexual population where the divorce rate of churched and unchurched people is the same. Perhaps this is yet another area where the sovereignty of God got missed.
If you are going to talk the sovereignty of God and His rule in our lives perhaps you should broaden the field to include everything .. not just this one thing. I am weary of hearing divorce ridden churches complain about the alleged harm that can come to children raised by same sex couples when they can’t even take care of their own. This .. to me .. is the height of hypocrisy from people that should know better.
The reallity is that we live in a country where personal freedom and liberty is paramount regardless of your religous or political persuasion. Thus all sorts of religions exist and are practiced here including witchcraft and devil worship. (I have a nephew who worships the devil so I mean no insult here). I wonder .. from a Christian point of view .. what harm would come to the children of these types of families… and if harm would come then why do we do nothing about it.
I am rambling a bit with this last paragraph but I am simply pointing out that there are many things in our country (and even in our churches) that we are doing nothing about. So it seems a bit hypocritical, self righteous, and .. yes.. perhaps even bigoted when we make this issue the center of all our ills and worthy of a fight that has cost millions upon millions of dollars.
Here, ladies and gentlemen of 2050, we see clearly stated the unreasoning animus of the bigot circa 2010. With nothing but ignorance and ill-will to support her we can clearly see in this particular example how she confuses her own opinion for some kind of universal law. Should further examples be needed we have this:
Though it may be painful now to read such nonsense it’s important for us to remember what this particular kind of bigotry looked like. No, it’s not pretty. And no, it makes no sense. But it was widespread at the time and gave those who lived within it a sense of entitlement. Though it may be difficult, the better course for us today is to pity them even if we now can’t begin to understand their obsessions.
Unfortunately for your side, that’s not the way the Founding Fathers set up our system of government.
Some folks are suggesting the the Judge can’t rule impartially because he’s gay. I guess we would have to use this same logic and argue that closeted “same-sex-attracted” legislators shouldn’t vote on gay issues.
Eddie said..
Your welcome Eddie … And I suppose your one friend’s experience in one situation justifies the endless misrepresentation of cases world-wide and the lies and slander and vilification aginst gay people everywhere.
DId it ever occur to you or (assuming you are not part of this) to anyone in the church that if they had not made gay and lesbian people their ultimate political spiritual enemy to be defeated at all cost then people (like your friend) might not experience situations like this where their views are disrespected and viciously opposed???
IMHO we are getting exactly what we deserve. The most basic principle we have from Jesus is to love your neighbor as yourself .. to treat others as you want to be treated .. something we fail miserably at in this area. I wonder if it will ever occur to the church that the oppression (real or imagined) that it is allegedly experiencing might actually be God’s judgement for not following this principle of Christ. I wonder if anyone ever thought of the possibility that defending the concept of refusing to hire people because they are gay and refusing to allow them to marry may ultimately backfire … And that such a concept actually paves the way for someone to refuse to hire them because they are a Christian.
On the mutability issue, a read of the Iowa decision would be instructive for those who care to review it.
Essentially the court says there that changing orientation need not be an all or nothing issue. In other words, if one person does it, that does not mean all people can easily do it if at all. Immutability in the legal sense does not require a strict test. The court there ruled that the state cannot compel people to change in order to avoid a discriminatory application of rights.
I can tell you as a veteran of those matters that the biggest reason social conservatives have been interested in ex-gays has been due to what seemed like a counter argument to gays who said orientation was immutable. As it has become clear that orientation change is infrequent and complicated, the courts, as in Iowa, has said the state runs afoul of the 14th Amendment to try to require change in a basic attribute in order to avoid unequal treatment.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 4:32 pm
“The crux of it is the phrase “fare just as well.” Why not say, “fare just as poorly”? This is hot air.”
Not the point I’m making. Your statements implied that the Tech report you cited implied the following:
A child raised by a lesbian couple (ANY LESBIAN COUPLE) would be just as bad off (or well off) as a child who’s parents have divorced. The tech report DOES NOT say that at all. However, I’m beginning to suspect that what you are actually doing is taking pieces from different research papers and inappropriately using them to form a conclusion not supported by the research.
“The essential thing missing from gay parenting is obviously the opposite sex. Which sex is the more dispensable one in your opinion, Ken? Male or female?”
Neither (or either). All of the research I’ve read indicates that the gender of the parents raising a child is irrelevent (with regards to the well being of the child), whether it be one of each, 2 males or 2 females. And as I stated before, even if the research where to show that one of these combinations to have less desirable outcomes for children than the others (ex. research as shown with single parents), that doesn’t mean the we (or the government) should tell those people they can’t be parents, but that we should try to help them to be better parents.
Marriage as it is in our government, comes with financial benefits. If christians are upset about the word then just use the word union. Let marriage be handled in the church. That levels the playing feild for everyone.
This thread is not about the Roots booklet. Stick to the thread, please. There is not a comparison in any event. That booklet is out of print and only available for a price. Judge Walker’s decision is available free and is relevant to the thread.
If you want a fuller response to reparative drive theory from my point of view, go here.
To me, it makes sense that if you are going to opine on the opinion from Walker, that you should read it. If you are going to opine on the legalities of gay marriage and where the issue goes from here legally, you should read the opinion. If you are going to opine on gay marriage from some other point of view, then one may certainly do that from your own perspective.
It gets confusing when people comment on various aspects of the law, when they have not read the law or the opinion which is based on Walker’s understanding of the law.
The real issue legally in my view is the 14th Amendment and whether or not the state has a compelling interest to restrict state privileging of marriage to straight couples.
Warren, thanks for the re-direction. Also, this makes complete sense to me and I will try to abide by it:
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 3:02 pm
“You see, that’s the problem. “Marriage equality” is a non sequitur. There are no marriages equal to (in the eyes of the state — which accords them benefits because they benefit society, as David pointed out — or the eyes of social observers or the Church) those comprised of one man and one woman.”
Incorrect. In MA, CT, VT, IA, and NH opposite sex marriage have the same legal recognition as same-sex marriages.
“What is the hard evidence that either gay or traditional marriages are superior to polygamous ones?”
This is a misunderstanding of Walker’s decision. He didn’t simply rule that because the defense couldn’t show that opposite-sex marriages were superior to same-sex marriages that the CA Amendment should be overturned. He ruled that the defense could show no reason why the state should treat them differently.
However, polygamous marriages would not work in our legal system and that is why they should not be allowed. Now for the record if someone could design a fair, workable system for polygamous marriages I’d give it serious consideration. I don’t think it is possible.
The study Debbie cited concluded that “The limited data available indicate that gay and lesbian couples may be less stable than married heterosexual couples”
It also showed that:
Unlike some, I do my homework.
If you re-read my earlier comment, I did not suggest that you passed judgements about the booklet; I did suggest though that you were one of several who made disparaging comments about ‘roots theory’, taking a sound bite or two from Nicolosi. At the time, and now, I suggest that it sounds like Nicolosi had read my booklet and, in part, based some of his theories on it. I then cited that you admitted to not having read it and expressed that you were going to rectify that immediately…even suggesting that you’d look for it on Amazon. (I have seen it there but extremely overpriced! We used to sell them for $3 each; last time I checked Amazon was asking for around $30!) You ask for the full name of the author but I believe that would hinder rather than help the search. LOL. Did you miss where I said it was a book I wrote? Perhaps that would be a real strong clue as to the author’s name. And, in my ministry days, I never used my full name. I went with ‘Ed’. I just searched using my name and ‘roots’ and a number of viable links popped up.
ken,
I’ll go back to what David Boies said about the difference between claims on TV or the internet and actual real science:
Mary,
Some countries (France, for example) only have civil marriage for heterosexuals. The church offers a separate rite that holds religious, but no legal, importance and is not a necessity to be considered “married.”
Here, some say that marriage is religious and only religion should decide who gets to be married. But ironically, gay people can get religiously married in all 50 states. The United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalists, the Metropolitan Christian Church, Reform Judaism, some Quakers, and a lot of independent churches offer same-sex marriage.
It is only that in 45 states, the State refuses to recognize these religious marriages as having any validity.
You mean this one? If so, you are right. I am on a very limtied income and never got around to reading it. Amazon.com has got to be kidding if they think I would pay this much for a used book by a relatively unknown author.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=ed%20hurst%20axe
I think I found it cheaper here:
http://www.keysministry.com/EBREAD.HTM
That’s more like it. I can afford $3.50. I promise I will read it and post a full review. The Prop 8 decision, by contrast is free and is available here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL
So make civil unions possible for all. I really don’t see the big deal. Understandably, gays feel discredited when their marriage is not recognized. I stand by my proposal. The government should get out of the marriage business and leave that to churches. Civil unions should be recognized. All are the same.
Here’s Debbie’s link: http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/14/5/251.abstract
Well said, Warren. The Judge in this case agreed.
Eddy.
Then perhaps, just perhaps, you might want to – oh, I don’t know – limit your contribution to less than – say, maybe – a dozen or so emails?
Teresa
Yes, you make a good point.
There are some who hold to the “you haven’t tried hard enough” line to justify what is plain ol’ nastiness. I think most ex-gay groups have moved from the “pray hard enough” blame-game and now see their role as more “help you live holiness whatever your attractions are.” (while maybe still holding to some of the “you should wear lipstick” perspective).
And there are plenty in the church who would assert that they are not opposed to homosexually attracted persons, per se. But sadly, when it comes right down to it, it doesn’t really matter if one agrees doctrinally or lives as holy a life as they could come up with, they want nothing at all to do with same-sex attracted persons.
On that point I think Exodus is right on mark. And their efforts to introduce that conversation is valuable to everyone who is outside of the macho-man-submissive-wive paradigm, no matter where we fall on the sexuality or identity scale.
And I do think that things are changing to some extent. Even the most vehement of opponent to gay rights will, at least nominally, make some “we love the strugglers” comments. And that is movement in the right direction, I suppose.
Ann,
I am sincere. If you see where I have attacked or slurred individuals, I really do want to make that right.
Oh, how true, this statement is. I say this from the perspective of being Catholic, and what the Courage Group acts like. Their stated goal is “Chastity”; but, with that statement comes NARTH literature everywhere. We’re never quite good enough, no matter what we do … please, please change is always the subtle, and oftentimes not so subtle, message.
And, the people leading these ministries (not just Courage) often seem to relish having “us as their little project”. See how oh so loving we are, we’re helping these deviant, perverted, disordered, ‘damaged goods’.
I’m sure rape victims feel much like this. They’re never quite good enough anymore, no matter how hard they try.
Timothy,
I believe you.
Timothy addressed Ann on a specific matter of cheering on and of a circle of supporters for that. That’s what I spoke to and I stand by it.
Could this be considered somewhat like the Christian proposition of: “separating the sinner from the sin” … “we love the sinner, but not the sin”?
Is the assumption the person assuming as well as the proposition assumed?
Let’s just say that I reliably use(d) satire and sarcasm to point out absurdities
Jayhuck–
NO. That should be evident by the sentence I wrote that began with “I accused you of judging” (translation: I judged you of judging.) I’m sorry that my words are seldom clear enough for you.
@All,
Perhaps, at the core of all our differences, sometimes voiced amicably, sometimes not, is the feeling that, I think, all same-sex attracted persons feel at some point in their lives, usually early on … I’m not worthy of being loved … I’m so different, I’m damned … if I tell you who I am, you’ll spurn me, hate me, tell me I am truly an awful, damned person and the sooner I’m dead the better.
Of course, all humans have feelings of not being worthy; but, I would venture to say most don’t have the deep, core, abiding aloneness, alienation, marginalized feelings, reinforced socially at every opportunity, even now, but more subtly, that most homosexuals deal with. This is not proclaiming a victim status, it’s simply pointing out a fact. A fact that, I think, most therapists will agree with. Telling us we’re playing the victim, is oftentimes a method of trying to shut down the conversation.
David Blakeslee made the following comment:
Please, correct me if I’m wrong; but, is there really any homosexual who at some point in their life hasn’t hoped/wished/prayed/begged God, or some higher power, someone, anyone to take away this orientation? Those of us who have learned to accept, even be happy, with our homosexuality; still carry deep wounds and scars; and, most of us still are wary and somewhat fearful of str8 persons … especially, those who tell us what we should feel, how we could really change if we wanted to, and what our life should be like.
As much as I don’t like the overarching analogy of homosexuality to African Americans; there certainly are social similarities that can’t be denied.
I don’t have a ‘dog in the stake’ on the David B./Timothy discussion; but, I sure value the conversation here. Sometimes, my feelings get hurt. Sometimes I’m sure, my comments may wound others (not intentionally), for which I apologize. The topics discussed on this blog are very sensitive areas for most of us. I guess being mindful of others, and their feelings and journey, is worthy of consideration when we comment in this virtual world.
Eddy,
Are you implying that you don’t judge in the same way you are accusing Timothy of judging?
Timothy,
There are not an insubstantial number of str8 people (mainly) who disagree, and oftentimes vehemently, that your above statement is false. Not so?
But, come to think of it, isn’t that what most of the ex-gay movement is all about … if you choose hard enough … manifested by enough prayer, makeup, makeover, sports for men, manning-up, etc., you’ve made the right choice?
Ann,
I think we just had this discussion a bit ago, didn’t we? I asked you to kindly show where I had leveled slurs and attacks against people, and you chose not to. Perhaps it was for some undisclosed reasons, or perhaps it was because you realized then (but have since forgotten) that I attack ideas and presumptions and inequalities and prejudices and biases – but generally not the people who hold them.
I am quick to point out the prejudices behind positions- without calling the individual “prejudiced” (unlike how some treat me, Ann, I don’t actually “call names”) Apr 11, 2011 at 8:35 pm
I am ready to point out the nature of an argument and its logical conclusions (as I often do with you, Ann, something you call “distortions”) – without accusing the individual of holding the malice present in such conclusions.
And I reliably use satire and sarcasm to point out absurdities – without calling the individual a propagandist or accusing them of using “tools of propaganda” to get their way.
Yet, Ann, if you would care to point out slurs and attacks I have leveled against people at this blog, I will gladly and sincerely apologize. But this time I ask something of you in return.
If you cannot find such slurs and attacks, will you be the lone sole voice to reprimand David? I know it would mean stepping out of the comfort of the circle of those who cheer on the abuse, and I know if might even feel like betrayal, but are you willing to do it?
Here’s a spanking fresh example:
No one is cheering, Timothy. And there isn’t any ‘circle’. I’ll have to recheck but only Ann and I–and Jayhuck– seem to have weighed in. (And Throbert made that drama comment…) Hardly qualifies as ‘cheering on’…we all want it to end.
Question: when David brought the link and you responded with
are you saying that you weren’t inferring that David was guilty of such contemptuous assumptions?
I, for one, took it that way since it seemed to be the tone of your entire response. If that wasn’t your intent, could you 1) explain how it wasn’t connected to/directed at the person you were responding to AND 2) consider how such statements come across if you don’t actually explain that that isn’t what you meant.
I have accused you of judging. It is that statement and others delivered in a similar style that led me to those accusations. A convincing answer to #1 from the previous paragaph might even garner an apology from me.
I am wondering if this bill might calm some fears?
Bill Seeks to Further Define Separation of Church & State for California Marriages
http://laist.com/2010/01/27/bill_seeks_to_define_separation_of.php
This is fun:
In the end, I think that is what it comes down to. Argue theologically with us, but then state clearly, our faith is of no interest to you. Then tell us we don’t know how to practice the faith you have no interest in.
Some religious folks have claimed that Judge Walker’s ruling would force ministers to marry same-sex couples. Not so. Even under existing law, ministers may solemnize a civil marriage, but they are not required to do so.
Walker’s ruling changes nothing in that regard and does not limit religious freedom in any way. This new bill should help make it clear that — even if same-sex marriage is upheld by the courts — ministers would not be forced to officiate if they had religious objections.
Well, the bickering doesn’t seem strange to me at all after all I lived in America for quite a while. My opinion is that as far as your Culture Wars are concerned, the sharp disagreements are anything but amicable. The opposing sides of the Culture Wars are always hostile and almost intolerant of each other’s viewpoint. Name-calling is very common, especially from the pro-gay side who get overly emotional and start throwing around cheap insults. Anyway, in many African societies—but by no means all of them—-consensus is valued more. Disagreements may be there, but in order to forge a consensus compromises are usually made by the opposing sides. The American way is to wage zero-sum adversarial battles to the death using whatever state-sanctioned means available (e.g. pro-gays use the court system and anti-gays use popular referendum to duel on the issue of “same-sex marriage”).
Michael,
There is sooo much ambiguity about what defines a gender biologically. And intersexed individuals occur more often than previously thought. I wonder, how exactly does the ultra conservative deal with this? Personally, I think God has it all in his hands. But it does bring up many issues to be answered by legalistic people.
Actually, it’s not “tearing us apart.” Our diversity is our greatest strength. Americans have always been a contentious bunch. We rather prefer it that way. We actually write the freedom to be different into our laws.
And, we disagree on almost everything — different political viewpoints, different relgions. Different lifestyles. Individuality and freedom are highly prized here. It must seem strange to you, but it’s an integral part of our history and culture.
Michael Bussee# ~ Aug 23, 2010 at 11:32 pm
“I am wondering if this bill might calm some fears?”
Unlikely. I suspect that the people who started these rumors are already aware that clergy can’t be required to solemnize civil marriages. However, that doesn’t stop them from spreading these rumors. It has also be brought up many times already that clergy can’t be forced to solemnize marriages against their beliefs.
Suprised, but pleased that you would.
I don’t see it as particularly “religious”, but think I understand where you are coming from, and can respect that feeling.
It would be interesting to check the whole list of rights and benefits currently afforded to straight couples to review which ones you might want to reserve for opposite-sex couples. I am pretty familiar with the rights, benefits and responsibilites of married couples and I can’t think of any that I would not extend to same-sex couples. But it’s an interesting point.
Again, I understand the fear, but I do not share the feeling. I strongly support the free exercise of religion, including the right to say the something is “sin”.
I don’t think public schools ought to be involved in “advocacy” of any particular moral/religious view. I am very conservative in that regard. That’s the job of families and churches, not the public school system.
What does the Bible say about cases like this? Should a person with “XY” chromosomes be allowed to marry another person with “XY” chromosomes? Does she have to have all the female parts? How much is “enough”? How would the Bible deal with persons who had both sexual organs or who were genetically or physically ambigous in terms of their gender?
I’m a Woman with Male Chromosomes — Katie Baratz thought she was a typical teenage girl — until her parents let her in on the shocking truth that changed her life forever.
http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/articles/woman-with-male-chromosomes
The reason I am asking is that I think I sometimes assume that I know what your opionions are without asking you. That is unfair. Again, you are under no obligation to answer.
Even though it may not be useful to continue to the conversation, I will probably continue to post my throughts and some links to articles about this because it is an issue that really interests me.
Please do not take this as a request or demand for you to respond to my posts if you would rather not do so. You have every right not to engage in the discussion. Perhaps someone else might want to.
And, as I said, my request for your personal opinions on the two questions I posed are not a demand that you do so. Just asking — if your would care to state your own opinion on them. If not, fine.
Such passages have been put forth to justify mistreatment of women, but the Bible must be read in historical context as well as in application to the present. Paul made it clear that he believed only men were qualified to give spiritual instruction to men. I happen to agree with that, still today.
Women had significant roles in helping to grow the Church, even in the early days. The NT book of Acts makes it clear that women had a respected place in missions work. I do believe submission has been largely misunderstood. Today, woman have much more freedom, but they also are, sadly, in a kind of bondage due to the extremes of feminism. And it has left men in a state of confusion about what manhood is. Stanley Crouch has a very good recent commentary about sexual freedom that is not, by the way.
Yes, Michael, all that’s true. Previously there weren’t many requirements for marriage other than you both be of age, you both consent, and you are one male and one female. It has been noted that homosexuals want that last portion modified.
It appears that the modification will happen but that there will still be no pre-screening for drugs, alcohol, prior criminal history, good citizenship, or anything beyond being of age and able to give free consent.
Aren’t we kind of in the place where any usefulness has gone out of this conversation and where the conversation itself, even if it miraculously turned productive, would have zero impact on what actually happens in California?
You can have any last words, Ken. I’m done with this circus. I ought to have called Walker an intellectual elitist and not a snob. My apologies to the man. He did snub a large group of people, nonetheless.
I will make sure that I am perfectly clear in any future references to the AAP report that lesbians parent differently in lesbian partnerships than they do in straight ones.
Debbie,
Your saying it doesn’t make it so.
Oh, I suppose their sense of entitlement was impacted. Or perhaps they will feel some emotion after having been told that they can’t exert their will on others. Or maybe even they will feel sad that their whims are not being upheld by the courts.
But no, their lives are not impacted.
Absolutely none of which has anything to do with marriage law.
I know that you HATE the idea that schools don’t reinforce anti-gay stereotypes. But sorry, here in California they don’t. And marriage law is not what caused the change.
Well, no I don’t. But I can guess.
I’m supposing that you are imagining that some county clerk will be forced to treat gay people the same as his other customers. Is that it?
He won’t be able to take his government paycheck and still discriminate against some taxpayers. Oh, boo hoo.
As for anyone else, discrimination against gay folk is already illegal and has nothing to do with marriage law.
Personally, I am not in favor of removing the male/female requirement for marriage.
I feel that the institution of marriage has been in serious jeopardy for decades and it has been very difficult to have any positive impact. I feel a major change such as no longer requiring it to be opposite gender will only impede those efforts.
At the same time, I am deeply disturbed by self-righteous people who feel they deserve all the rights and entitlements that go with marriage but deny those rights and entitlements to others. Like you, I know gay couples whose love and committment to one another surpasses that of many heterosexuals. I wish that marriage wasn’t the vehicle for the fair meting out of rights and entitlements.
This has me caught somewhere in the middle. I would not speak out against gay marriage; neither would I speak out in favor of it. I also wouldn’t vote. Instead, I would try to convey the concerns that I have…for both sides.
I am deeply concerned about the bashing of conservatives. While some of it is deserved, there is MUCH that is simply part of a strategy of polarization. I pledge to expose it and challenge it whenever it raises its head. I am also deeply concerned about the tendency of some to see America as a “Christian nation”. We ARE NOT and we weren’t intended to be! We are made up of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, etc. This land is their land too. And nowhere were Christians ever handed a trump hand.
At the same time, though, I reject the notion that Christians are to stay away from politics. We are not Egypt or Rome of the Bible times…we don’t have Emperors and Pharoahs. We have elected officials. Each individual (adult) Christian possesses the right to be involved in the political processes. And a Christian can and should decide (and/or argue) from their point of view. The fact that that view is Biblically-based doesn’t trump in American politics; however, the view can’t be dismissed just because it’s Biblically-based either.
If we haven’t made adultery or fornication illegal, then we shouldn’t be singling out consenting homosexuals either. (Personally, I believe that, for the most part, fornication and consensual homosexual activity differ from adultery in that they don’t have ‘victims’. I view adultery (and ‘cheating’) as particularly despicable and wish they were illegal. (I tossed in ‘cheating’ because adultery seems to apply only to marriage.)
Important afterthought: This should fit somewhere in what I’ve written but I haven’t the energy to go back and work it in seamlessly. One of the most horrific travesties of the self-righteous is when they deny ‘end of life’ rights to a gay partner. (Sorry, there’s probably a better term for it.) Married or not, if two people had a life together, that MUST be respected. To deny hospital visitation to a gay partner is one of the most despicable acts I can imagine. Forbidding a life-partner from attending a funeral is right up there too. Depriving the partner of reasonable inheritance rights is there too. If the only way to stop that bullshit is to allow for gay marriage, I detest those practices so much that it could move me out of my middle position.
That Walker was relying on established “facts” is debatable. And, believe it or not, Ken, I actually can think for myself. Critical thinking is the best part of education. Sadly, it is going by the wayside as “social justice” takes its place. Want to see young folks being told what to think? Visit a college classroom on a liberal liberal arts campus.
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 24, 2010 at 1:18 pm
“Argue theologically with us, but then state clearly, our faith is of no interest to you.”
Except I wasn’t arguing theology (or even religion). You edited the part where I said the debate was about CIVIL law, not religious law.
My reference to 1 Timothy 2 11-12 was to point out to Debbie that there were biblical passages that have been used to justify misogyny after she implied there weren’t any. And to point out what I see as hypocrisy in many christians (only adhere to the parts of the bible that are inconvenient for YOU but not for ME).
Finally, it was not I who brought religion into this debate. and for the most part I will avoid it. But frankly, I get a little tired of christians who keep telling me (and others) that I should obey their particular interpretation, of their particular version of their bible.
1) Adultery though is grounds for the dissolution of a marriage.
2) There is some debate about who ‘the effeminate’ are but it’s likely that they wouldn’t be pursuing an opposite sex marriage.
3) Up until gay marriage is allowed in California, from this list adultery is the only behavior that excludes homosexuals as possible participants.
4) And, it’s not strictly true that homosexuals can’t get married in California…only that they can’t marry each other.
Many folks oppose marriage equality on Biblical grounds — and turn to passages like 1 Corninthians 6:9-10 to support their position.
Immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy people, alcoholics, slanderers, swindlers, the effeminate and homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, — but of this group, only homosexuals can’t get married in California.
Yes, I suppose we are. What we do here wil have no impact on what the courts eventually decide. I am still curious, though, as to your personal opionion on the matter. Have you stated it? Are you in favor of removing the male/female requirement for civil marriage? If not, why not?
And if I may, I don’t know if I ever asked you personal opinion about whether or not you believe that consenting homosexual behavior between consenting adults in private should be legal. Of course, you are under no obligation to state your personal views on these questions. I am just curious.
The same applies to Judge Walker. And you.
Not in California.
http://www.divorcesupport.com/divorce/California-Grounds-for-Divorce-438.html
I thought we already got the “render to Caesar … and render to God” stuff covered in this discussion. We have to recognize same-sex marriages under civil law. We do not have to recognize them as covenant marriages. God still gets the last word.
Mary,
Today the California legislature changed what the state recognizes. No longer will it recognize “marriage”, but henceforth will recognize “civil marriage.”
You get a gold star today. And a smiley face. And maybe even a cookie.
blewis
Although we hear that a lot, it actually isn’t true.
If a gay man marries a woman there is an automatic presumption of invalidity:
If there is inheritance, her family can sue in court and the presumption is that he defrauded her
The Catholic Church considers it grounds for annulment
Legal protections (such as the right not to testify) are challengable by prosecutors
INS would throw him in jail for immigration fraud
The IRS could charge tax fraud
and your Aunt Mabel would never consider it to be a “real marriage”.
In 45 states, there is absolutely no one whom a gay person can marry on the same legal and social grounds as a straight person.’
But even were that true, it is a very foolish argument. This is akin to the idea that it would be constitutional to make everyone attend Mass because it treats everyone the same whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Jews or Muslims.
As supreme court Justice Ginsburg noted, “A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews”.
blewis# ~ Aug 20, 2010 at 12:53 am
“Don’t insult me. You want me to scream, “Damn right, I support fair treatment for only me, myself, and I. Screw everyone else”?”
No, I want you to see how you are using the same arguments that have been used to support discrimination in the past.
“Women and their supporters used the amendment process to get the vote.”
but not to get equality in marriage. Nor have many minorities used the amendment process to obtain many of the rights they have now.
“Like any other man or woman over 18, you may marry one person of the other gender. It’s your choice to do so or not to.”
but gays ARE NOT allowed to marry the person they are attracted to and wish to form a committed long-term relationship with. Again a similar argument to the one you just gave was attempted in the Loving v. Virginia case. It didn’t work either.
I just want to know …. Is everyone finished degrading or dismissing everyone else’s beleif system?
Oh, believe me, I do.
Just an apologist, Michael. I never have found any scriptural basis for making women subservient or being racist. Have you? If there is no assurance (Hebrews 11:1), then this is all a meaningless game.
Timothy,
Umm… I’ll take the cookie. Thank you.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm
“I never have found any scriptural basis for making women subservient ”
I’m guessing that is because you really didn’t want to:
1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NIV)
I’m sure you are going to rationalize away why these passages don’t apply to you, but I don’t really care. I posted these passages to show you how others have used the christian bible as a reason to keep women subservient.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 21, 2010 at 7:02 am
“”Your saying it doesn’t make it so.”
The same applies to Judge Walker. And you.”
Judge Walker supported his comments with facts from the trial and previous court rulings. Your comments appear to be supported by nothing other than your own prejudices (although, i suspect you are getting some of your information from places like AFA or Focus on the Family).
If I am not mistaken, even convicted sex offenders can get legally married in California. Just no same-sex couples — even if they are law-abiding, tax-paying, church-going, hard-working, God-loving people. In contrast, almost any opposite sex couple can.
blewis,
Really?
Okay. If your point is that different things should be treated differently, then how about this: let gay people marry and let straight couples have civil unions.
End of conversation.
It seems to me that many folks who think same-sex marriage should be illegal because of Biblical prohibitions against gay sex should also be opposed to other types of sinners marrying. But they’re not. Their standards for who should be able to marry seem very low.
Proponents of Prop 8 seem really to be concererned primarily about the genders of the couple — not their religious beliefs, their character, their morality, their fertility, their ability to be good parents, etc. As long as they’re opposite sex, are able to give consent and can pay the fee, they don’t object.
A straight person’s attractions ARE considered disordered IF they are directed to the very young, if they are expressed only through masturbation, if they render marital fidelity as impossible, if they are compulsively promiscuous and if they exhibit fixations.
Debbie,,
That is true Debbie. Where the teaching comes from however depends, to some extent, on your point of view
Debbie…
This is a lovely sentiment. It was accompanied by:
Now I think that any reasonable person would see how those could be perceived as “hateful, condemning words that wound.” So perhaps they could have been not quite so…. colorful.
And then we come to the point of your article:
On behalf of all gay people – and as their spokesman – may I officially offer this advice: don’t bother.
Really. Don’t bother.
If you come offering “tough love” and “rebuke”, the sort that looks like malice, your “hand of grace” will indeed be slapped away.
This is not just a gay thing. I can’t think of anyone, anyone at all, who would not slap away the hand that came full of what appears to be malice. We have no need for tough love or rebuke. We don’t see this as the spirit of charity.
Frankly, my community would prefer that you continue with your “truth grenades.” You’ve lost the war, thanks in no small part to those truth grenades. The culture has passed the tipping point where it has come to see gay people as valued members of the community and those who share your perspective as “hypocritical, anti-homosexual and too political.”
Now is not the time to call for a peace treaty on your terms. We believe in peaceful coexistence, but we will only accept full equality.
It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Church loves the appearance of consistency more than it loves homosexual persons.
Eddy, this is exactly what I thought. And, actually, AA’s 4th Step about taking a searching and fearless moral inventory doesn’t take all that long. So, AA’s are not that introspective. Treatment Centers though have become a place where all of that is much used. Although most don’t believe it here, alcoholism is very unlike homosexuality.
And, having been around some ex-gay groups, the “then move on to lead a less introspective life” can take a very long time.
Conservative gay Christians often describe their identity as ‘in Christ’ because they are talking to people who are fixated on sexual identity as predominate. I believe it often says more about the person demanding or perhaps only requesting that they identify by their sexuality than it does about the person who answers ‘in Christ’.
Another reason for the ‘in Christ’ explanation is that, contrary to popular belief, the ex-gay is usually not consumed by introspection. They don’t assess day by day whether they are a measure further from gay identification or a measure closer to straight identification…they find themselves on a daily walk with Christ, knowing that, for today at least, they don’t have a partner of either gender and aren’t in pursuit of a partner of either gender. So the whole concept of labelling themselves by a sexual orientation is of no import or consequence to them…it only matters to the person who wants to know their label.
They further recognize that society in general has thrown a whole bunch of garbage their way that they can’t or haven’t yet sorted out on their own with respect to sexuality. I still recall that as a young Christian, some people were trying to change my laugh. “It’s a gay laugh” was something I heard from more than a few. It’s true that my laugh is very different…unlike the laugh you’ll hear from most any straight. But it took me a few years to realize that it’s also unlike the laugh I’ve heard from any gay person. And, I’m attending the funeral on Thursday of the woman who told me years later…at my own dad’s funeral…”Oh my, do you know you have your father’s laugh?” (LOL. I guess dad didn’t laugh out loud too much around the house.)
Comments earlier reminded me of a young woman from the next town. She was the consummate tomboy. She could outperform any boy her age in sports. She even had the nickname “The Tank”. She was, as I recall, THE lesbian image complete with being the captain on the girls softball team with more than a few lesbian friends. As a gay man myself, I waited for the day of her coming out. Instead she got engaged to one of my older brothers and eventually married him. My cousin and I were discussing the family over the weekend and marveled that this brother, who anyone would have considered ‘the least likely to succeed’, actually turned out to be the most successful. My cousin summed it up neatly. “She drove him to succeed.”
And it’s true, She can still rule in most any athletic competition with people her age (and probably up to 10 years younger). And, SHE rules the roost. The roost now has 3 grown children and a grandchild…and, of course, my brother. By gender generalizations, she is NOT typically feminine but she is most definitely heterosexual…most definitely fulfilled in her marital relationship with my brother…thrives on motherhood…is more than competent in the kitchen. But an outsider who met her apart from the family that is the center of her life would still perceive her as gay.
LOL. I used to worry about my brother…’how does he put up with such a strong-willed woman?’ But it’s not a problem to him. She works but he is still primary provider and he’s got a constant ‘honey-do’ list that trusts in his mechanical, construction, and engineering capabilities. Their relationship is unconventional by most standards but it works for them…and, judging by the way their children have turned out, it works for them too.
Teresa
For some gay people a “gay identity” is the very core of their being. But I think most folk have a gay identity pretty much in the same way that they have a religious identity or an ethnic identity or national identity or a hobby identity or an other identity that makes it easier to function in life.
Identities allow you to make decisions based on possible problems. If you are Catholic, it’s helpful to keep that in mind when considering a move to Amish country. If you are same-sex attracted, that’s a useful thing to know when considering marriage.
But other identities tend to all be accepted without question. If a left-handed, Irish-American Methodist Lesbian is asked to “identify with Christ” it isn’t because she’s left-handed.
Which makes me suspect that the reason that others not only insist that they don’t have a gay identity, but that you should not either, is because if both you, they, and I have no such identity, then their life is easier. For whatever reason.
As Alan Chambers said, gay people should not be allowed to marry because if they were when he was living a homosexual life then he would have been trapped in a gay marriage.
Thank you Teresa. I think most people understand the congruence betwen how one identifies themselves (orientation) and how they express themselves sexually. What some people do not understand is the identity without the expression. Using the word sexuality to define an identity without attaching sexual expression to it is a very important thing for people to learn and understand.
Teresa,
Not all do Teresa. I personally know a few Christians who still identify as gay because they don’t like the term ex-gay, but for all intents and purposes are ex-gay. Much of this boils down to the way we see these terms. Some people view ex-gay as necessary for them, as Eddy does, and some do not. I think that Eddy, and many others, understand that to identify as gay means, among other things, accepting your orientation as normal and natural – as good. Others do not view identifying as gay in this way. Its about the way each of us understands and defines these terms for ourselves, and these “understandings” can sometimes vary – wildly. 🙂
Re ‘self help’ …My bad, I was using the ‘less than nit-picky ‘ meaning conveyed in this article:
That’s cool , though, as long as the objective of missing my point was accomplished. Rock On!
Thanks for all the information, Eddy and Jayhuck, and your input, also, Debbie. I think I’m being too literal about some terms. “Ex-gay clearly mentions their homosexuality” as something no longer there, in my mind.
Ex-drug user, ex-prostitute means no longer using drugs, no longer in the sex trade. Ex-gay for Mary means she’s no longer homosexual; she’s str8. Ex-gay for Debbie means she’s no longer homosexual; she’s str8. Ex-gay for you, Eddy, means, if I understand correctly, you’re no longer associated with the lifestyle … but, you’re not str8, either.
Can I safely say that I can’t conclude much of anything by the term ex-gay? For some, it may mean complete ‘change’. For others, it simply means leaving what’s now commonly called the ‘lifestyle’; however, that plays out. For still others, it may mean leaving the lifestyle, and choosing chastity.
And, actually a person using the term gay doesn’t really say anything much more than they’re homosexual. We can jump to conclusions about their sexual behavior; but, we ought not, too.
My looking for a “one size fits all” nomenclature for what terms mean in sexual orientation is an exercise in futility. Each person can choose what term they think best describes them, for whatever reason they see fit.
One does have to agree though, that if we don’t have a consensual vocabulary to start with, words that have a common definition; it’s quite useless to think we’ll have any discourse beyond that, that is meaningful. We spend all our time trying to discover what one is really saying behind the term.
Anyone in involved in any ‘self help’ group first engages in a tremendous amount of introspection. AA has their members take ‘a fearless moral inventory’. Overeaters keep diaries to chart what makes them cheat on their diet. For the ex-gay, there is a good bit of inventorying going on at the start…and it’s often intensive. But most people come to grips with their basic issues: triggers (things that seem to aggravate temptation), habit responses, emotional vulnerabilities…and then move on to lead a less introspective life. Most move to a place where they are only introspective when they’ve had a sexual encounter contrary to their goal or when they feel barraged by sexual thoughts or temptations. (A popular truism is “You can’t stop the sparrows from flying over your head but you CAN stop them from building a nest in your hair.”)
Jayhuck,
Really??? So, now we have another component to the term ex-gay. For some, it means accepting that my orientation is unnatural. Is that right, Jayhuck? So, if my orientation is not good (which, I’ve gone out of my way to show is inextricably linked to who we are), what does that say about me, as a person? Here’s the rub, isn’t it?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Sexuality:
Whew, this opens another topic, for another time.
Teresa-
Thank you.
I shared once long ago–long before you started blogging here–that ex-gay is actually a term of identification. I was around when the term was coined and other terms were bandied about. “Heterosexual”? No, I’m not there. “Straight”? I may now be ‘on the straight and narrow’ but NO, I’m not ‘straight’ by the commonly accepted definition. “Celibate”? A bit closer but still doesn’t quite capture the essence and still might be misleading. So we coined ‘ex-gay’ largely because where we came from did, to varying degrees, define who we are today.
I was born and raised in Pennsylvania (and, as an aside, never had any intentions of moving back. That made me an ex-Pennsylvanian and I sometimes described myself as such. On hearing this, people could and did expect to find traces of Pennsylvania in me…my dialect, my love for trees, my ‘East Coast’ way of thinking and talking…and other attributes as well. That’s what was intended with the term ‘ex-gay’. We are ‘ex’ …from there–from gay. Our mindset is going to be a bit different; what we deal with in the day to day is going to be a bit different. “But you Christians have an understanding on some level of ex-ness. You’ve already accepted ex-drug users, ex-prostitutes, and exes of a host of more everyday sins. Please hear the ‘ex’ but please also understand that it’s where we came from. Christ has called us; Christ has accepted us; please do the same.”
“Ex-gay” clearly mentions “their homeosexuality”.
Teresa–
I think you might be asking too much from a term. You pointed out how the term ex-gay was lacking because it could mean a variety of experiences. But consider the term straight. It can mean married or single. It can be the guy openly ogling the halftime cheerleaders and it can be the guy who tries not to think sexually of any woman but his wife. It can refer to somone who’s celibate–someone who’s monogamous–someone who sleeps around–someone who pays for it–someone who gets paid. Someone who’s single…someone who’s married…someone who’s a virgin…someone who’s not…someone who’s celibate for life….someone who is celibate for the time being. It can be someone who exudes sexual prowess and someone who is timid, awkward or fearful.
“Ex-gay” purposely has a little wiggle room…both in the ‘ex’ and in the ‘gay’. (Some never had any homosexual experience; some never partook of or identified with ‘the lifestyle’.)
Eddy, str8 always means opposite-gender attraction. All the examples you’ve given are really incidental to the point. Please, I’m not being testy here. But, whether someone’s ogling, someone’s single, someone’s sleeping around, etc., are simply examples of str8 behavior … opposite-gender attraction.
Ex-gay has a lot more than just wiggle room, in my estimation. It can mean, I’m now str8, and once I was gay. Or, anything in-between. To me, and perhaps only me, it’s a term that’s really very nebulous … and, ultimately meaningless for conversation, until you burrow beneath.
Teresa,
Exactly! 🙂
Eddy, you are indeed typing on “eggshells’ :). We’re talking past each other in this conversation, I suspect. It’s the age-old, “I know you heard what I said, but I’m not sure what you think you heard is what I said”.
Life is not a bowl of cherries for anyone. Agreed. A good many married people are unhappy people. I know that, also, up-front and close. People seldom live “happily ever after” in this life. Agreed. I get what you’re saying, Eddy. But, that is not my original point of this whole conversation.
My original point was simply that str8 people “can look”, “can find”, “can do”, “can ask”. That’s all. Whether the “can look” looks; “can find” finds, “can do” does, “can ask” asks is quite immaterial. It’s the “can” that’s important. The “can” immediately identifies who they are. That’s the essence of my original point. Along with the point that a good many people, most often conservative Christians, think that orientation/sexuality is not part of what gay people are.
Here’s the original converstion:
Debbie said:
My response:
Where it seemed to get off-track is when the concentration became about str8 people defining their orientation, and how tough they were having it. The whole point of the original Comment is not “how tough” some str8 people have it finding a mate. I’ll concede that point.
My point was that gay persons who have chosen a different path are being asked in subtle and not so subtle ways to distance themselves from their orientation. Suddenly, I’m being told that my orientation can be/should be not alluded to, or really, really, really should be … my identity is in Christ.
My contention is not whether str8 people ever find what they’re looking for. My contention is “the looking” is part of who they are. No one in the Christian Community is telling them to set that orientation aside, identify differently than who they are. Why should they? Their orientation is a normal given … as it should be.
I’ll let the matter rest.
It’s not just “those” people who tend to do that. Perhaps those of us who have struggled with something that we believe threatens to get between us and Christ (and it is not just sexual orientation that may be perceived as an idol) insist on putting the focus back on him.
The following is an open question to all.
Jayhuck,
Yep. That’s for sure.
I think I should change the little St. Francis quote I used above:
In my case, to read:
“Preach the Gospel always; if necessary, keep quiet”!! 🙂
Thanks for the response, Debbie. Why have you used the word ‘idol’ in describing sexual orientation? To say what one is, in my opinion, is not about idolatry.
I’m still perplexed as to the avoidance of many; and, in relation only to sexual orientation that identity is described as “in Christ”.
I have never thought a str8 person talking of themselves as mother, husband, whatever, as being idolatrous. They’re simply stating who they are. It’s wonderful to hear and see that. It’s a joyous expression, often, of what they’re about in life.
Perhaps, I’m being a dolt here; but, it’s still not clicking with me as to why many conservative, gay Christians seem to avoid in all possible ways, mention of their homosexuality.
If we’re about what we think our relationship with Our Lord calls us to, why the avoidance? And, please, I’m not saying being gay is one’s only identity, focus, lens
I don’t see my homosexuality as getting between me and Christ, by any means. Rather, I can state with St. Paul: “Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.” It’s one of His Ways that has drawn me to have a relationship with Him.
I don’t want to accuse anyone of my misperceptions. I simply want to understand the reasoning of others. If I hide my homosexuality in circumstances that might be helpful to have known, behind the words: “my identity is in Christ” … for me, that would probably indicate that I’m ashamed of being homosexual. I can’t take my own response as indicative of what others are thinking.
Teresa,
I think this is an issue with which we all struggle 🙂
Debbie said:
I totally agree, Debbie.
Here’s the essential question for me to you:
Why do conservative, gay Christians usually, most often, pretty much, nearly always, a lot … describe their identity as “in Christ”. And, I mean disowning their homosexuality, their orientation …
Why?
Debbie,
The state also has a duty to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority and to ensure that all people are treated fairly under the law.
Teresa, I’m afraid the more you attempt to expound on orientation, the more muddled the issue becomes. Eddy’s point in his last comment (that we may confuse what about us is part of our “normal” make-up and what is not) is well-taken.
I just don’t understand the point you are making with this statement and what follows it:
Is gender (sex) fixed for us at birth (save for the condition of being intersexed)? Do sex organs have a pre-determined role? What role do temperament and environment or nurture play in our development? If a man is a man and a woman is a woman, according to chromosomes and hormones, then how does one’s orientation move in the other direction? On the one hand, it sounds like you are saying these things are pre-purposed (or fixed), and on the other, that they are not. Is homosexuality a random, meaningless occurrence or is this mystery knowable?
I do understand this:
To be complementary is not just to fit together sexually, I believe you are saying. True. There is strength protecting weakness, providing vs. maintaining the “nest,” leading vs. following, action vs. intuition, etc., as you say. “One flesh” is a unit that is designed to work because of this complementarity. But the essence of masculinity and femininity grow out of something that originated somewhere. Science, or our understanding of it, is still in submission to the Creator.
What “other” does a homosexually oriented person seek? Seems that person seeks “like.” Or is it more “another part of me that completes me” rather than “the other who completes me”? Why would many people not view that as “disordered” thinking, contrary to the normal order of things? Of course, if all of nature is fallen, it is easy to imagine folks putting little stock in it. They can easily forget there is a God who fits into a void in their being and puts things right, even when the world seems to be chaotic.
And Throbert, if nature is fallen, then what is Natural Law? And why does Paul speak of godliness being foolishness for “the natural man”?
@ All,
Let me be clear as to what I’m not saying. I haven’t the faintest clue as to how orientation originates: str8, gay or bi. My own personal opinion is that it is combination of biological, physiological, and psychological components. So, I’m not speaking about origination of orientation.
I am, also, not speaking about identity. I don’t care a tinker’s dam how people want to identify themselves. I can identify as a moon rock … this has nothing to do with my conversation about sexual orientation.
I am, also, not speaking about stereotypical masculine or feminine gender characteristics … this man seems more gentle, that woman seems more athletic.
What I am trying to say, is that sexual attractions to the “other” are manifestations of a deeper need, a longing for another to walk through life with, a desire for companionship … “It is not good for man to be alone”. That deep sense of committed union with another; emotionally, physically, sacrificially, most often follows our biology. That hand-in-glove fit usually follows male/female … the completion (in the natural sense) of a number of those underlying things that make a man a man; and a woman a woman.
Debbie said it best, here:
Spot on, Debbie.
That wanting to be fulfilled in our complement is hardly just sexual attraction; although, sometimes, that’s how the ball gets rolling. The whole tango in the dance of life, that which builds families, society … our desire for another to complete ourselves … our ability to relate to another to accomplish this … that’s all wrapped up in orientation.
Debbie said:
Yes, again, Debbie. This is exactly what is considered Natural Law. The complement of two like, yet unlike, fitting together … in a myriad of ways, to make a new “one” … and, it’s not just sexual attractions that make this up.
Now for some of us, that “other” is not at all complementary, in the natural sense. It is ‘unnatural’ … and, I don’t mean this is a demeaning way. The deep, underlying orientation, that manifests itself at times, through same-sex sexual attractions is seeking another that is not the ‘other’.
Debbie again:
What you’ve said here, Debbie, is essential. For many of us homosexuals, our orientation is immutable, fixed, enduring. Our sexual attractions may be mitigated, become less. Our exterior dress may be altered (such as the clothes we wear, makeup, jewelry, etc.); but our underlying desire for another, the “other” we seek for true intimacy is not the natural “other”; it is, indeed, the “like”.
For myself, and only myself, it is a hard pill to swallow that I’m different in a really essential way. Not just a characteristic of I’m left-handed in a right-handed world; or, I’m taller than the average bear. But, in a way, that deprives me of some good I that I truly desire; but, unable to acquire. Is this the end of the world, absolutely not; but, I understand the wanting to see myself as not “disordered” … if that makes sense.
So, it’s right if you agree with it (Judge Walker’s ruling) and wrong if you don’t (Prop 8)?
That same-sex marriage is essential for gays to be treated equitably under the law is still a rebuttable presumption. The state still has a duty to define marriage in the way it believes will best serve the common interest, taking into account that 95 percent or more are not homosexual.
I’m sure it’s a hard pill for anybody to swallow, if that happens to be one’s lot. What on Earth is God up to with allowing that? For me, it helps to remember that the world is disordered in many ways. And I cannot escape that I intersect with that. When I want to find some sense of peace about it or meaning in it, I go to God’s word and I go to my knees. I meditate and wait for the Spirit to “seek its own” — for whatever illumination God is going to give me. It comes by degrees, usually.
Regardless of each person’s particular belief system.
Not sure how much this may help, but FWIW, here is something from Oswald Chambers that speaks in some ways to what we are discussing. He was giving advice mainly to future preachers and teachers. But he was doing it through universal truths. This is from My Utmost for His Highest (May 5):
He says salvation was “God’s great thought.” Could we plug other things into that sentence? How about making “them male and female”? And here’s something to chew on: Was humanity always meant to be ordered in one way, yet went another way (flesh vs. spirit) only after the fall? Didn’t God realize that man would fall because angels fell? So was human nature, then, his great, mysterious and unfathomable thought from the beginning? What did/does it mean to be created in God’s image and yet to be flesh?
Debbie,
That’s all I’m talking about.
Oh please Debbie! We’ve answered this question before and you know that is not true. It is not asking people to change their beliefs, it is asking that the secular state treat people *fairly*! There is a big difference and you know it. To play the kind of game you are playing is annoying.
Debbie,
You will probably find as many different answers to this question as there are Christian denominations in this country.
Debbie,
What would I call this? Pre-post modern claptrap? 😉 They are different Debbie, but its more important not to lump all men or all women under some kind of umbrella and recognize that ALL people are different from each other in important ways. And I’m sorry, but what I said is true, at least when it comes to the idea of complementarity – the personality is more important. If you look at the types of things people hold up as complementary, they tend to be personality traits.
Yes, yes, and yes.
And, this essence of femininity and masculinity is the gird that drives orientation. Most often, that essence, underpinning what we’ve now come to call orientation, is for the natural complement of a man for a woman and vice versa … The Natural Law, Natural Order.
I guess I should have said modern (modernist) claptrap, right?
For people in general, yes. But we are discussing humanity in its subset of male and female.
Ann–
Most definitely!
There’s such a confusion between gender identity and sexual identity and—it’s all such a touchy subject that it’s difficult to approach with people.
Teresa brought up the Amish and seemed to think that it explains her way of looking at things. To me, it does just the opposite. Standards of maleness and femaleness can change per culture, per religion, per race…it’s the disassociation with the standard of one’s own culture that leads many, in my opinion, to assume they are different.
Much earlier in this conversation, introspection seemed to be regarded as a bad thing. And it certainly can be when it’s tainted by self-doubt and biases. But healthy introspection can lead a person to discover the truth about themselves and about their feelings. (That’s not a bad thing for a Christian when you go with the presupposition that it was God who drew us to Him. Whatever we are deep down inside, He found a responsive heart and can work with all the rest. Introspection that goes through the filter that ‘there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ’ can be very enlightening and freeing.)
I cited earlier how I came to realize that some of my ‘desires towards men’ were actually just normal desires for acceptance and belonging. Without introspection I wouldn’t have learned that. Some of my other ‘attractions’ were other misguided emotions. For me, envy was a major one. I might find myself staring at a guy…even obsessing about a guy…but then realized that there was no way I desired sex or any form of physical contact with that person. What the heck was going on? Healthy introspection revealed that I wasn’t dealing with lust but rather with envy. I was dissatisfied with my own looks, build, confidence, competence and was constantly fixated on those who had what I wished that I had.
Another revelation was that I saw straights as ‘others’…as ‘different’ but then I started taking note of what things I was responding to that were simply stereotypes. “Men like sports”…not all men do. “Men are mechanically minded”…not all men are. “Women like domestic things”…not all do and some men do. “Women are sensitive”…not all are and men can be too. I realize that that is far too simplistic to be the answer for everyone. There are those who blog here who can testify that none of those stereotypes blind-sided them…but it’s puzzling that so many seem to have a sense of their orientation that goes beyond sexual attraction but it’s unchartered waters. What is it beyond their sexual attraction that people see as intrinsic to their sexual orientation?
It’s an important question. Some Christians from a homosexual background wage war with parts of themselves that they think are part of their homosexuality. Other Christians falsely label some things that aren’t sexual as part of homosexuality. Conversely, some gays view parts of themselves as a part of their God-given homosexuality…things that might truly be God-given but aren’t really a part of homosexuality at all. We often hear the rebuttal…”there’s more to us homosexuals than sex”. I agree…but then why is it presumed that the ‘more’ is somehow part of a homosexual orientation? I’m not saying it isn’t; I’m saying the conversation never goes there…we never really discuss those things that people presume are part of their homosexual orientation and so the mysteries remain.
We may come full circle in this discussion over and over, Jayhuck. No, there is no need to “yell.” We ought to have agreed to disagree a good many comments ago. So, here’s my hand on it. We can be done.
So are you saying, Debbie, that a necessary condition for the acceptability of a sexual relationship is that it be analogous to plug and a socket or to a lock and a key – or even, perhaps, to a nut and a bolt? I can’t say that I’ve ever had a relationship like that, but it doesn’t bother me one bit; I don’t feel that I’ve missed out.
That’s postmodern sentiment. Or claptrap, to use your expression. There is an essence to femininity and masculinity — something quintessential. Men and women are different in important ways. That is not to say that people can’t and don’t defy stereotypes. We are more complex than that. But we can’t pretend the two concepts don’t exist.
Debbie,
For the discussion above though I thought we were talking about complementarity as it pertains to homosexual and heterosexual persons?
Debbie,
This idea of complementarity has much more to do with personality than it has to do with the sex of the person.
Honestly, for the most part, I think the homosexual person seeks the same things that heterosexuals seek. One of those things would be someone who complements them.
Whoa! Throbert, your train car jumped the track there. I made a statement in passing earlier about the majority of people and the Church seeing homosexuality as unnatural. I made no reference to Natural Law, and certainly not to the Church’s views on it. It was not a judgmental statement, just a factual one. I didn’t say that we ought to presume the majority’s judgment or even the Church’s declaration are to be seen as God’s will. And I don’t “appeal” to fickle, fallen society on anything.
The majority of people do have a sense of right and wrong — even if the pendulum has to swing a bit before they see what’s right. The majority hold to a set of common values, rooted in Judeo-Christian tenets. Therefore, the majority understand homosexuality as being outside God’s box.
Ann, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Sexual orientation is a significant part of who we are – a significant part of our temperament, personality, etc. Attractions are just
I’m not sure why others seem to be dismissive of orientation or attractions indicating orientation.
Another question I would put to Teresa and Debbie: If you believe that the Church teaches correctly about homosexuality being against Natural Law, why do you feel the need to back this up by appealing to “the majority” or “society”?
I mean, the majority of people around the world don’t agree that Jesus was the Son of God and came to save mankind from sin.
So if you believe that the majority of humanity is in error on this rather central question, what business do you have quoting the majority’s opinion on homosexuality?
I’m reminded of the conservative Christians who say, “Homosexuality is a sin — but even if you don’t believe the Bible, the Qur’an says the same thing!”
Of course, these Christians certainly don’t trust the Qur’an when it asserts that Jesus was never crucified at all, and that Jesus was a second-rank prophet who was sent merely to prepare the way for Muhammad, who is God’s greatest and final prophet. (The only point on which the Qur’an agrees with the Christian NT about Jesus is the claim that his mother was a virgin.)
So what these Christians say, in effect, is “The Qur’an is mainly a huge pack of lies written by Satan. Well, except for the verses where the Qur’an condemns homosexuality — those are the Gospel Truth!”
I guess the obvious question is: Why do you agree with the Church and society that same-gender sexual attractions are “not up to snuff” with The Natural Law?
Do you believe this because it’s what your own first-hand experience as a homosexual woman has taught you, or do you believe it because you’re uncomfortable being in disagreement with the Church and society?
Eddy and Ann, yes I’m saying there’s a lot more than sexual attractions in orientation … and, it’s not baggage.
There’s a big difference, with sexual attractions being only a part “that’s the draw”. It’s part and parcel of testosterone vs. estrogen … part of biology of a penis vs. a vagina … part of providing and protecting vs. nourishing and nurturing.
My, why oh why, do we have different genders if we’re interchangeable. Orientation is one half of God given nature seeking its complement in the other.
Of course, we can all point to atypical persons; especially, today when our society sees persons as androgynous. Yeah, there are plenty of tomboy femmes or butch women that are not gay … but, at the end of the day; they’re not men. And, vice versa for men.
If you’re close to Amish/Mennonite country (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan) take a trip and see the old-fashioned, stereotypical duties that applied to men and women. Simply, because our technology has permitted women to do things that were traditionally male jobs is no indication that women have somehow become men.
Orientation is part of the temperament, personality of a man and woman … part of the biological, physical, spiritual makeup of a person. It involves the thinking of a person … a woman doesn’t think like a man, or vice versa. Orientation is part of gender, biology. Orientation is how you relate to others. A str8 male relates entirely differently to women than a gay male does … and, it’s not just sexual attractions; and, str8 women relate differently to men than gay women do.
If you both think orientation is simply sexual attractions, then I guess we’ve come to an impasse. Learning to control your sexual attractions doesn’t change your orientation … doesn’t change how you relate to men and women.
Actually, I take that back — the Qur’an also briefly refers to the “feeding of the multitudes” miracle and some miraculous healings by Jesus, though it does so in the context of reaffirming that Jesus was a prophet authorized to do these things, and not the Son of God.
So what?
Do I even need to point out to you, Debbie, that over the long run of mankind’s history, billions of people believed that owning other human beings as property was entirely moral; and billions of people believed that the Earth was a flat disc around which the Sun revolved?
If you are comfortable with accepting that billions of people could have been totally f*cking mistaken on both those points, why the heck do you insist on crediting “the majority and the Church” with sound judgment on the matter of homosexuality?
Teresa–
It could be because you aren’t explaining what YOU are talking about when you use the word ‘orientation’. You appear to be ‘packing some baggage’ into the definition other than simply being sexually attracted to members of ones own gender. I think Ann has been asking you to explain what else, besides physical sexual attraction, you see as a part of ‘orientation’.
Earlier I spoke of my sister in law, her best friends were female athletes; she was/is possessed of a dominant nature; she’s never had a high regard for frilly, untra-feminine attire; she prefers her hair short. Yet she’s hetero in her sexual attractions. What are you alluding to in temperament and attraction, apart from sexual attraction, if anything at all?
Please don’t get sidetracked by my examples re my sister in law…I’m only using that as an example of some aspects that some people consider to be tell-tale signs of orientation. The real communication-furthering question is “What do you see, apart from physical sexual attraction, that is indicative of or a part of a homosexual orientation?”
Ann, if I’ve missed the point, please let me know.
Eddy,
Has anyone ever suggested that it is? I don’t believe I have.
Teresa,
Since I, nor anyone else, knows definitively or conclusively, the causation of same gender attractions, we can only have opinions about it. I have an opinion about it, however, that opinion does not include sinful or deviant. To the point of how we respond to feelings and thoughts – I think that always makes a difference. While we cannot, for the most part, control feelings that come to us – often in overwhelming ways, we can control how we respond to them.
Up to snuff with the natural law – I completely agree with this. When you say “attractions are only manifestations of an inward orientation” – what do you mean? Also – what do you mean by “sexual orientation is a significant piece of who we are.”? By most accounts, people will just accept this statement but have a lingering inner question about the meaning of it. Does it determine what you buy at the grocery store or how you drive or what bank you use? How does it make you who you are and how is that so, so different from anyone else?
I cannot answer this because I do not feel this way about you. I will say that I know this is very real for you and that I value what you say about it.
Teresa, I am not a big fan of organized religion so what the church teaches is not that important to me. They teach one thing and invariably, leaders breach that trust by doing the thing they tell others not to do.
I do not know how to quantify thoughts and feeling and attractions – David Blakeslee once said “The unfortunate thing about the human condition is that feelings don’t have an I.Q.” I thought that was pretty accurate. How that can be rolled over to being intrinsically disordered, I am not sure. No one knows how same gender attractions come to us. There are so many dimensions and degrees of how we are all made up and how that plays out in life. Why does the church need to know anything about you that they will not, or pretend not, to understand?
Ann, I’m not quite sure what you’re asking with these questions.
… means, one’s sexual attractions reflect a sexual orientation: str8 has opposite gender sexual attractions, gay has same gender sexual attractions, bi both.
… mean it makes the world go round, metaphorically speaking. A str8 orientation for most, is the drive to seek a mate, become one through marriage, make a family, build society, live as a couple through ups-and-downs, etc. It’s the romance, razzle dazzle, stars in your eyes, spring in your step, lighter than air feeling that some experience in knowing that this is the one … or, the love that comes softly for the many that desired a family and found the one, but didn’t experience that spring fever feeling, but grew into a genuine respect, tenderness, depth of feeling for the other. No matter, the beginning, it all should rest on the willingness to sacrifice oneself for one’s mate, however that plays out by gender.
What I’ve just explained is the traditional model of society, Ann … man, woman, marriage, family, society. Sexual orientation is a/the driving force of all that.
Homosexuals desire the same things str8 persons do, btw. Gender complementarity just doesn’t enter the equation. Should it, is the central question.
Ann, I’m not sure what you’re really asking here? Are you asking what makes the difference between a man and a woman … male vs. female … the battle of the sexes … the age-old questions?
I am intrigued by a way of thinking that fails to recognize another person of the same sex as “other”, and which imagines that a gay person can see another person of the same sex only as “part of me”. Claptrap par excellence.
Interestingly enough, some Muslim scholars take the view that a form of ‘gay marriage’ can be justified: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10480987
Teresa,
I was asking for clarification and appreciate your answers. You seem to be saying that who we are attracted to (sexual orientation?) is a significant part of one’s life – their temperment, personality, who they are. I was just wondering what the differences were. According to some others, there is no difference, just who they are attracted to.
Eddy,
You have it right.
I was very curious about what exactly the components were to orientation that would make someone so different than anyone else. Most people get the same gender attractions and sex part but do not understand how orientation (attractions) affect all the other aspects of an individual to such a significant degree and why. Perhaps some of the mystery that goes with the word orientation would be diminished if it were understood. Teresa is so grounded with truth and common sense about her convictions that I was particularly interested in her answers.
When a person says their sexual orientation is a significant part of who they are, there is a mystery surrounding that. Most people will act like they understand this statement from another, however, they will not have a clue – only assumptions. Does it mean how they have sex and with whom or does it mean what they buy at the grocery store. If it is a significant part of who they are, how different is it from others and why the need for distinction? Actually, it is really none of anyone’s business unless the statement is made and then the mystery and unasked questions, and, more than likely the assumptions begin.
The many people I know who have been involved in one way or another with either physical attractions, relationships, or both with the same gender, have told me they are no different and don’t want to be thought of as different than anyone else. The many people I know who are no longer involved in same gender sexual relationships and who no longer identify as gay have told me they are really no different from anyone else and don’t want to be thought of as so. This all makes sense to me.
Eddy, I have another thought/question/comment that I think you will understand.
Do you think this is why people in general – not necessary groups of people – do not know what to believe about orientation and all the myriad of meanings that go with it?
Well, that would be consistent… but not as valuable a weapon in today’s Culture War.
Debbie: Have you read the decision or not?
You claim their is “abundant evidence” of such a compelling secular purpose. Where is it? More importantly, why wasn’t it presented in court? Proponents of Prop 8 spent tons of money trying to scare the public into believing that marriage equality posed some huge threat to heterosexual marriage, childen and society.
The Judge saw through that. Proponents of Prop 8 couldn’t come up with one credible witness or any reasonable evidence to prove that it does pose such a danger. Face it. They didn’t have the experts or the evidence — because if they had, they surely would have presented it. They lost — fair and square.
Vermont starting allowing gay civil unions in 2000. We definitely had “divorcing” (what else to call it?) gay couples from those early unions. Before that, they just shacked up and broke up. Same effect on the kids, no?
David Roberts:
Pretty is not a value of mine in this debate.
Understanding the power of biases and the tyranny of individualism is a concern of mine.
A gay man whose primary support system is likely in the gay community is under extraordinary pressure on a very personal level to make a decision that community will support. How much more marginalized and reviled would he have been if he had chosen to uphold the law?
It would have been a terrifying choice that required immeasurable courage.
Way too much to ask.
Please keep your thoughts on beauty to yourself and discuss the facts.
David
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 5, 2010 at 12:30 pm
“The American Academy of Pediatricians in a 2002 “Technical Report” concluded that children “of divorced lesbian mothers [separating is a high likelihood for lesbian couples] grow up in ways very similar to children of divorced heterosexual mothers.” ”
I’m curious about the phrase: “divorced lesbian mothers” In 2002, gays weren’t allowed to marry so how could they be divorced? Was this study conducted on data from another country? Or do they simply mean separating (rather than divorcing). Are couples who are married more or less likely to separate than couples who are just co-habitating (or in a domestic partnership)?
Also, the other experts you cited, Nathanson and Young were on the defendants (proponents) witness list. However, they withdrew (like many of the experts). The defense claimed it was due to the threat of the trial being broadcast. Personally, I suspect it was because many of their experts realized after the depositions that the Plaintiffs were going to do a very good job of discreting them on the stand.
Debbie — if you have accesss to all that “abundant evidence” and know of any real experts who might be able to present it convincingly” in court, you might want to considering passing on the information to the attorneys who are appealing the decision. Looks like they could really use your help. They failed miserably to present any of it this time around.
Note to all commenters — seriously consider reaing the entire decision before you offer uninformed opionions. Presenting personal opinions based on your own moral values or prejudices is what caused the Proponents to lose in court..
Michael, the way to know the Constitution is to read it. I have no desire or need (or ability) to get inside the head of a judge. I know marriage and parenting from the inside out and I can read history. And the Bible.
Here’s what old Screwtape says about us humans:
I’m with him. Add to that list judicial fiat.
Oh gee, Debbie, I don’t know. Maybe to have a better idea of what you are talking about? Maybe to be a better student of this topic on which you claim to have abundand evidence? To be a better informed citizen? To gain a better understanding of the Constitution and the Courts?
As I said, no use arguing with the uninformed. It only makes your “side” of this argument look more ignorant of the facts than it already does. It reminds me of folks who refused to look into the heavens because they believed for sure that the world was flat.
I’ll talk to Eddy, assuming he gets around to reading the whole thing. Maybe that’s why Proponents lost. They didn’t do their homework. Why should they? They already know what they believe. For that, the Judge gave them a big fat “F” — and they deserved it.
If moral values was all the defense offered, it failed for good reason. Not because moral values ought not be considered, but because in today’s political climate (and this ruling is politics as usual) one has to go farther than that. There is abundant evidence that argues traditional marriage and child rearing are better for society, much of it presented by gays themselves, who can see the greater good.
But, apparently, you can rule away a state’s 10th Amendment rights.
I am not laying down any “rules”. That’s Warren’s job. It’s his blog. Debbie is free to comment or not comment — and to be as uninformed as she chooses. I am saying that I choose not to argue with her about it since she refuses to educated herself on the decision.
Yes, I am calling on everyone to read it — you, Dave, Ken — everyone. I think they could learn a lot about the process. I strongly urge them to do so, but I have no power to “mandate” that they read it. I can’t punish them or send them to the principles office. If they choose to remain ignorant of it, that’s their choice.
They have the right not to read it. If they have made up there minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts of the case, that’s their business. However, I will, from this point on, only respond to people who have read the entire decision and can give page and line reference — as you suggested that I should.
I would hope that all commenters here would take the time to educate themselves and read the entire 138 page decision before passing judgement on it. I have.
Michael–
Cool! If I make further comments, I will do my best to know what I’m talking about even if haven’t read the entire determination. But, since I don’t intend to do that, I will happily accept that reading the entire 158 pages is not a requirement for posting on this thread AND even more happily accept that YOU won’t be responding to my comments but will instead limit yourself to those who have read the determination in its entirety.
Note to Debbie .. in mentioning the Loving vs Virginia I was simply showing that the Supreme Court can overrule a state if what the state puts out violates U.S. Constitutional principles.
Also .. I would urge you to read decisions such as this one. Otherwise you are left to other people’s conclusions and interpretations. I can’t tell you how long I did that … until … one day .. I decided to read things for myself … boy was I surprised. .. Surprised at how much event the people I agreed with at the time were spinning a tale. Ever since then I always try to read the entire documentation. Just some thoughts …
Blessings to you .. Dave
Ken–
That’s an excellent ‘catch’…Yeah, how could they be considered divorced if they were never allowed to marry in the first place?
Decisions like this are going to make things a lot tougher for religious conservatives. They’re going to have to try to convince people to be “moral” voluntarily — by using persuasion, showing love and setting a good example.
Michael–
You are free, of course, to not dialogue with those who have not read all the pages of the determination. I believe though that you overstep your role as a participant when you attempt to lay down rules for commenting. I agree with you that a person ought not to pass judgement on this determination without reading it but that does not preclude other areas of comment: considering what implications this determination might have on a national scale…evaluating the supremes rights over the local mandate…credible evidence that should have been presented but wasn’t.
As for me, I have commented on the parts that I have read…what the ‘witnesses’ presented and I skimmed to the conclusions based on what the ‘witnesses’ presented.
I believe, though, that a person could start with page 54 and, from there, depending on what particular point they were speaking to, should only be mandated to read those particular findings and the conclusion based on them.
If you plan to persist with your hardline approach that a person must read the entire document, I feel you must challenge EVERYONE who comments. You are requesting accountability from Debbie and I but haven’t requested it of Dave or Ken.
Or to put it another way, it’s like trying to discuss “Grapes of Wrath” with someone who has only read the Cliff Notes — or who “already knows how they feel” about the Depression, so why should they bother with Steinbeck?
Carry on. I will try to find someone who has actually read the book.
This is from the blog Caffeinated Thoughts:
I am particularly interested in how this will play out for Kagan. Won’t it be ironic if she is seated on the high court when this appeal reaches it?
Debbie, I’m a tax accountant.
A couple with disparate income will pay less than a couple with equal income. But both will pay less than two individuals in the same circumstances.
Example One
Fred and Susan each make 50K . After personal exemptions, they each pay tax of 5,950 for a total of 11,900.
If Fred and Susan were married and filed jointly, they would pay tax of 11,894, or a few bucks less than if they were single, but no advantage or penalty.
Example Two
Ronnie makes 80K and pays 13,550. Jay makes 20K and pays 783 for a total of 14,388.
Ronnie and Jay would save big time by marrying, 2,439 less.
Most couples, gay or straight, are more like Ronnie and Jay than Fred and Susan. There are situations in which a ‘penalty’ actually can result (being single would result in fewer overall taxes) but that’s pretty rare.
Of course you can run the numbers yourself if you disagree.
How on earth did anyone ever get the idea that gay men are histrionic drama queens?
As I see it, there could be one positive benefit to come out of same-sex marriage for all married couples. This comes to mind because it’s tax time again. The marriage penalty, i.e., taxing married couples who file jointly rather than separately at a higher rate if their income is fairly equal, is a burden that the Bush administration sought to rectify. Who knows now what will become of those cuts? I can’t see Obama moving in that direction.
Seems to me that gay couples (especially men) are likely to have more equal incomes than most of their straight counterparts, unless one is choosing to stay home with children. And the gay lobby is powerful and tends to make things happen in Washington. I would think they would want to get behind eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
Just thinking out loud.
Timothy, the marriage penalty is not a fiction. It is misreported as such. As many as 42 percent of married couples filing jointly with roughly equivalent incomes pay considerably more taxes than those who file jointly with disparate incomes. In other words, a couple where one spouse makes $80,000 and the other makes only $20,000 will pay less taxes than a couple where both spouses make $50,000 if both couples file jointly. Look it up.
Timothy–
Your pronouncement against David is quite serious and bloggers would want to verify the full context of the comments you’ve quoted. Could you provide links or topic titles to the three quotes you’ve just supplied?
The third one simply references ‘another thread’ but I’m particularly puzzled by the first one. You provided the time and date stamp (March 25, 2011, 10:22 AM) but this thread was dormant at that time.
Thanks.
Jayhuck,
I am also thinking that recreational drugs, that have become more assessible and popular, have added to the deterioration of the home/family life. Back in the day, or even now, rolling one up did not create the kind of harm that the drugs of today do. Alcohol used to be a major problem that families didn’t knew what to do with until the formation of AA. Many men came back from world war 2 very damaged, both physically and emotionally and turned to alcohol. The same with the Viet Nam war, except drugs were added.
I think the end of innocence we had in the 50’s and early 60’s ended with the assasination of JFK and was topped off with the Tate/LaBianca murders in Los Angeles in 1969, courtesy of Charles Manson.
Nobody who hasn’t experienced it will ever understand it, Teresa. I don’t know how they can. They can be caring and they can be a friend, but the are always walking a few steps behind us instead of with us.. Many of the things that bring us pain or confusion in this world are commonly shared by most people. This isn’t.
Teresa,
p.s. – forgot to also thank you for the essay on kindness – I copied it and will refer to it often. One of my neighbors is Catholic and she attends “Adoration” every Thursday and explained it to me. It touched me deeply.
Timothy,
It isn’t?? 🙂 🙂
Debbie, sexuality is as transient as life is transient. As long as one is breathing, one has sexuality. I would add that certainly as we grow and change, our sexuality is being informed by our experiences. The rub comes when we get into debate about the “mutability” of sexuality.
The Catholic Church has allowed a number of definitions to float around without discouraging or supporting any. The Scholastic definition (St. Thomas Aquinas) is that man is a rational animal: composed of body and soul. They are distinct, and yet not distinct, insofar as you can’t have one without the other, so-to-speak.
Identity is really a new thing on the block, at least to me. For the purposes of this blog, I identify as a gay woman. However, in my life, I’m just me … gender non-conforming at times, and all. I would have been mystified several years ago if someone were to ask me how I identify. What?? Sometimes I’m a first-generation Italian-American. Other times, I’m Catholic. Other times, I’m Libertarian. Other times, I’m single. Most often, I’m a pain in the butt. But, if someone were to press the matter, or had a good gaydar, I’d say I’m a homosexual. And, because this identification business has become so nebulous, and so non-definitional; I find it has become more a hindrance than a help.
No, Debbie, that is precisely what I am not saying, over and over. What I am saying over and over is that our sexuality (not sex) permeates who we are. I am saying over and over, the sexual act has nothing to do with our sexuality, per se.
You are however a sexual being within all else. There’s no way to separate our humanity from our gender, or from our sexuality. None.
Debbie, you seem to be equating sex with sexuality. The sexual act is not what I’m speaking about, at all. A man or a woman does not have to consummate a relationship in a sexual way to be either a man or a woman. A man or a woman does not have to consummate a relationship in a sexual way to be a heterosexual or a homosexual. The act is not the sexuality; but, may be used as an expression of the sexuality. We are not fractured beings without sex; although, there would be no beings to be fractured without sex.
No, Debbie, I don’t believe this to be the case; although, there’s been plenty of words and attempts to make this seem so.
I think the latter quote says very succinctly exactly what I’m trying to say.
The current saying by some ex-gay groups of: “the opposite of homosexuality is holiness” is really a misunderstanding of the highest order. There is no opposite to one’s sexuality, when sexuality is understood in its proper sense. There certainly can be behavior modifications in one’s sexual actions; but, there can never be removal of one’s sexuality from their humanity. To imply otherwise, is to deny one’s personhood.
Hi Teresa,
I think you have hit on something very important that is not understood by many as it is personal to each one of us. Can you describe what sexuality is in its proper sense so that it is understood? If this is too personal of a question, please accept my apology for asking and disregard the question.
Eddy,
I am not sure how we are all interpreting the word sexuality and how it connects to an identity and how that identity defines someone – perhaps others are getting it but I am not (nothing new).
There seems to be a confusion between aspects of gender and aspects of sexuality. I’m not sure where the muddling is or how to address it.
I think it’s time to make a distinction. I believe our humanity permeates our being. That is common to us all. I am not a sexual being, above all else. That is a layer of me. I have a sex, i.e., female. Half of the reflection of the image of God. People don’t stop and think about being heterosexual because it is the norm. This is what you are saying, over and over. OK.
Is it more a case of people rejecting something essential about their sex, i.e., their maleness or femaleness? You are a female, Teresa, same as I am. Does a woman have to be able to consummate a sexual relationship to be a woman? Does a man? Or is that a social requirement we have added? For that matter, what is the difference between a female and a woman? Are we fractured beings without sex? Why?
Q. Who has the most to gain by promulgating the notion that homosexual orientation is “not part of what gay people are”?
A. Deeply closeted homosexuals who are living behind a flimsy facade of a heterosexual marriage despite having no heterosexual desires; and possibly also a few heterosexuals who for whatever reason don’t like their own heterosexuality, and resent that they don’t have a natural instinct to “abide”, as St. Paul had (or claimed to have); but most of all, guilt-wracked bisexuals who do feel heterosexual attraction but are also conscious of having homosexual attraction, which they hate and resent and wish would go away;
But in contrast, the healthy heterosexuals who joyously accept their own heterosexuality as a gift from God and a fully integrated part of “who they are” should tend to assume likewise about the homosexuality of homosexuals, and should have the least reason to make the ridiculous claim that “sexual orientation is not part of who you really are.”
So, in short, I believe that conservative religious squeamishness in speaking about homosexuality speaks to the relatively high prevalence of bisexual attraction, and a failure to provide appropriate pastoral care and guidance for the bisexually attracted.
(And by “appropriate pastoral care” I don’t mean giving bisexuals license to go out and have homosexual sex; I mean teaching them that their homosexual attractions are a part of their total God-given nature, just as their heterosexual attractions are, and it’s not the case that the heterosexual feelings come from God and the homosexual feelings come from Satan.)
Throbert, you’ve packed a lot into the above statement. However, haven’t you’ve found some homosexuals who claim that “sexual orientation is not part of who you really are.” My contention throughout this discussion is that the term ex-gay is part of that idea. The idea that my identity is now “in Christ” … means what? Their sexuality has disappeared. They’re now some human being existing in the world absent sexuality … and, I don’t mean messing around. I mean sexuality as affectivity. Suddenly, that’s been stripped from them.
You’ve now added a new a whole new dimension with bi-sexuality:
I accede to your knowledge in this area. I know squat about bi-sexuality; except it’s usual definition … sexually attracted to both genders.
Oh joy. I get to be the 1,200th commenter in this thread. 🙂
I got to thinking (uh-oh!) that perhaps we are meant to view sexuality in general as not being imbued with all that we imagine it to be. It is a part of our created being. It has a purpose, a procreative one for the most part. But like all things that give pleasure, it can bring both honor and dishonor to God. All good things can be subverted by our base nature.
I accept human sexuality as one of God’s mysteries.We won’t fully understand it this side of paradise. I think to the extent that we have wanted to recreate God in our own image, we have worshiped sex and made it an indispensable part of our identity. Likewise, we have placed human relationships above the relationship we are to have with God, forgetting that He can satisfy us supernaturally in very real ways and bring deeper meaning to our lives.
I cannot get past the clarity of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments with regard to homosexuality being a subversion of our sexuality. On every level, to include the very way our bodies are formed, it is unnatural and proscriptive. I see much around me that I can accept as never intended by God, but nevertheless is a part of His permissive will (Teresa, you and I talked about this recently). We are not permitted to turn our backs on any individual affected by those things, whatever they are.
We don’t have to dissect every item in a laboratory or seek to unravel its mystery. People are people, and we are all in this life together. The same God loves us all, and He commanded us to love one another. I am content to let Him deal with each life as He sees fit. One day, I may desperately need again to be the recipient of human love and understanding. I must never forget where I’ve come from.
I think Warren would better be able to answer these questions or statements. So, I’ll defer to his professional experience on this, in that capacity.
I will, however, take a stab at it from my perspective. Yes, Ann, most often sexuality is certainly tied into our gender. Sexual identity is a whole other thing, sometimes. For those people whose gender and sexuality are congruent; and, congruent with social norms; everything works fairly smoothly. To be fairly simplistic and rather old-fashioned, an example: a woman who loves handwork, cooking, raising children, dressing frilly, keeping a home, loving her man, sacrificing for her husband and children, emotionally loving her husband as a woman, being ‘obedient’ to her husband … hey, her sexuality and her gender are congruent. If society supports that view, everything is congruent. Everybody’s happy.
For some of us, who have been labeled as gender non-conforming, our sexuality actually is congruent with our gender non-conformance. This has nothing whatsoever to do with having ‘sex’ with the same-gender. For those onlookers from that old-fashioned world, we’d be labeled as tomboy femmes, or butch. From my perspective only, we’re not so much into the frilly, makeup, girly stuff. Our heads think differently. Our likes and dislikes are probably different. Many of us like men, quite a bit in fact; but, find it very, very difficult (or impossible) to emotionally bond with men. Our experience of the world is different: much of this is sexuality (whatever it’s etiology). But, there is no confusion about being a woman. I know I’m a woman; and, for the most part like being a woman. My expression of my gender, informed by my temperament, sexuality, etc. is not the norm, necessarily.
This is kind of a baseline, and certainly simplistic; and, only from a homosexual woman’s point of view. Varieties spin off from these.
Welcome back, Ann,
Your question, Ann, is not personal, at all. Sexuality, understood as relational is our ability to be social beings, at all levels of intimacy. It is an intrinsic part of our personality; and, is expressed in a myriad of wonderful ways toward others. Our sexuality is part of our capacity as humans to ‘be’ … if you can understand that.
My sexuality, as a woman, will be different than a man’s; but, no matter the gender, we share ‘sexuality’ as a big part of who we are. Ann, you, as a heterosexual woman, see, act, react, smell, touch, hear, speak, sense life through the prism of your sexuality. Although, Ann, although you are unique as an individual, you share many characteristics in common with other heterosexual women in varying degrees: part of your uniqueness. You are given to nurture and nourish life. To see through your heart; and, less through your head … nothing demeaning about this. You love for a man to provide and protect you, so you can be about the business of caring for others; principally, your children. You can emotionally bond with a man in a deep and meaningful way.
If you never engage in intercourse, Ann, doesn’t negate all the underlying characteristics of your sexuality. Being married with children is simply a manifestation of your sexuality in a certain context. Your sexuality is part of who you are: celibate or not. Our sexuality is part of who we are: celibate or not.
My being a homosexual, Ann, doesn’t mean that my sexuality disappears because I’ve chosen to have a partner or not have a partner. The way I experience life as a homosexual woman, Ann, is somewhat different than how you experience life. A deep part of that experiential is through the frame of our sexuality.
An example or two should help. Long before it became somewhat fashionable with women, I loved sports … not only the doing, but the watching. I love automobiles, planes, trains, motorcycles and ships. I enjoy knowing how they work, how they look, seeing them in motion. I enjoy ‘industrial sublime’: large factory complexes, electrical generating complexes; especially, at night. However, along with you, Ann, I love babies and toddlers.
The statement now made by some ex-gay groups that “the opposite of homosexuality is holiness” is foolish. There is no opposite to sexuality, whether it be hetero, homo, or bi. To foist upon a homosexual the thought that their sexuality must disappear before they’re acceptable is unkind; and, is saying not so subtly, who we are as persons is not acceptable; although, they probably don’t mean it that way.
David — have you read the enire decision or are choosing to be ingorant, too — and just post someone else’s opinion about it? The proponents’ witness didn’t seem to offer anything by way of substantial evidence. It just wasn’t there.
The quote is from the article you cited. I have “slogged through it” two times now and am starting again. The Judge searched for evidence — for testimony from expert witnesses. Where was it? Where were they? Too chicken to testify according to the Proponents’ lawyers.
They simply failed to prove their case. They lost fair and square. They are going to have to do a much better job if they expect a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court. The majority cannot votes away the rights of a minority unless there is some compelling secular reason to do so. Proponents would love to use the US governement to enforce their fears, religious beliefs and moral moral upon others. It won’t work.
Really, don’t start trying to catch up with the typos since they are ‘adundant’. 🙂
Seriously, I KNOW that you know how to spell and am aware of your eye problems, I brought up the typo that I did because that one had several possibilities.
(My inside source on the grandchildren is the grandmother. She has kept in contact with me periodically over the years and now, we’re connected through the magic of Facebook.)
I finally finished the whole ruling. A few notes on things that may be missed in this ruling.
1st. Walker has ruled (without explicitly saying it) that sexual orientation is a suspect class:
(p. 122):
Whether GLB folks are a suspect class has been something the Supreme Court as never ruled (and I believe has specifically avoided ruling on). If the SC continues to avoid making that ruling then this classification will have a significant impact on any other gay rights cases that come up.
However, since his ruling isn’t based on strict scrutiny (he has ruled the defense hasn’t even met the lessor requirement of rational basis), the defense may not try to appeal this classification. And even if they do, higher courts may chose to not address it, since the decision would stand even if he didn’t make this ruling.
Walker was clever in his ruling as well. He points out that strict scrutiny applies (and not just because he ruled gays are a suspect class, but also because it involves a fundamental right), but then he rules that they didn’t even meet the lower requirement of a rational basis. So to appeal, the defense can’t just argue they met the rational basis test.
It will be interesting to see what tack the defense tries on appeal. I still think their best attempt would be to argue for a re-trial (do-over).
Interesting that Proponents of this measure are terrified for the welfare and safety of children, yet don’t have the guts to defend those children and that position in court.
The experts with the “adundant evidence” that marriage equality is a grave threat to children, marriage and society need to cultivate some courage. Maybe the Wizard has some in his bag.
This wasn’t necessary:
The one typo that I brought to the forefront actually made another word…and there were two other possible words that could have been intended. I really don’t think we’d have the same problem with ‘effor’.
I already knew that. She’s a great lady even though she and I seem to have very different taste in friends. 🙂
Oops. Left the “d” off Grandchildren. Bad vision bites.
Let’s not forget that all of this has its roots in Gavin Newsome’s idea of love and marriage.
Eddy — Thanks for the good wishes on the good news about my Granchildren. You must have some inside sources. 🙂
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm
“A gay man whose primary support system is likely in the gay community is under extraordinary pressure on a very personal level to make a decision that community will support. How much more marginalized and reviled would he have been if he had chosen to uphold the law?”
Do you have any evidence of bias in Walker’s decision? Can you point to any part of the trial or his decision where he failed to up hold the law? Do you have any indication of bias on Walker’s part?
Do you believe a Catholic judge would be incapable of rendering an impartial decision in an abortion rights case?
Do you believe a black judge would be incapable of being impartial in a trial of a white man accused of a racial beating of a black man?
Here’s a clip of the two attorneys who won the Prop 8 case. They think it will be “very difficult to overturn on appeal.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkdDNHTYvGE&feature=player_embedded
Michael–
Thanks for the clarification(s). I’ve had two separate links to the document but they both act up on my computer. (Although one was from here and one was from a facebook friend, I think they are the same link.) I’ve gone through screen freezes where the page won’t advance, then it will suddenly advance way ahead (Probably responding to the fact that I had hit the arrow key a hundred times whle it was frozen), the screen going to a white out effect, a toolbar popping up arbitrarily…and, frankly, I’ve got other concerns on my plate right now that don’t allow me the luxury of fighting through all that.
BTW: Congrats on the kiddos coming home.
I am all for reading such documents…but I am more impressed by bright scholarly folks in the profession who can comment with authority that Judge Walker manifested repeated skepticism toward the law and nearly naive endorsement of every argument brought against the law.
Apparently, it is typical for judges to find flaws, weaknesses and strengths in both sides of the argument and then come to a conclusion based upon the facts.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/05/gerard-bradley-proposition-ruling-marriage-sex-california-judge-bias/
Debbie,
I know that you were discussing homosexuality, not homosexual people, and it was our difference in views about homosexuality that I was pointing out.
I’m not sure what you mean about the burden of understanding each other, etc. But I do hope that my piece gave you a view into how gay people see evangelical efforts which “have a heart” for them.
Timothy, I was not saying those things about homosexual people. The self-righteous and ignorance comment was meant more for other Christians. I was making a blanket statement about all of humanity. That’s the one thing we will always in common.
Timothy, thank you for taking the time to answer my question, and to also share with us part of your spiritual journey. The following statement that you made is a place I’m trying to move to:
I find this so very difficult to do; especially, when I feel threatened, or allow my feelings to be hurt. It’s not my job to convict anyone, or judge anyone; but, I often go where angels fear to tread.
The rub comes for all of us, I think, when a definite topic comes up, such as same-sex sexual behavior: how do we remain kind, gracious, civil, loving when we view the topic from a different lens? This has me stymied.
Thoughts?
Debbie, your Comment, which includes this paragraph above, is very kind and understanding. I would like to add to your first sentence, that those of us who are homosexual don’t often wear a neon sign or Scarlet Letter outwardly; but, interiorly, as in The Scarlet Letter, we carry that brand. We live daily with the realization that to expose ourselves may carry some tough consequences; not the least of which, is rejection; which for all humans, gay or str8, is tough to bear.
I was listening yesterday to C.S. Lewis’, Mere Christianity, and I was at the point about Marriage, and Divorce. C.S. Lewis seemed to have all the answers; but, when push came to shove for him, he married a divorcee, Joy Gresham. Lewis did not even share his decision with one of his best friends, J.R.R.R. Tolikien. We never know what life has in store for us; and, how we will respond when our intellectual little lives are faced with the heart’s cry. We can talk the talk easily enough when it’s someone else’s life; but, we it becomes our own … where are we then? Can we walk the talk?
Thobert,
I responded to Teresa before reading your short tale of the Garden. I found in it parallels to my own perspectives on faith.
Teresa and Debbie et al., for background on where I’m coming from theologically and philosophically, you might want to read this story — which, as I explain in the linked blog post, was not written by me, but made a profound impression on me when I read it as a teenager.
Such a profound impression that 20 years later, I found the story again in a library book and went to the trouble of transcribing it for the Web.
Read the story, Throbert. Nice. I was drawn to mythology and fantasy as a youngster, too, and enjoyed the suspension of disbelief. But I chose to grow up and grow into my faith. I am His child.
Moving on, Eddy. We’ll drop it.
Timothy, an individual with same-sex attractions does not necessarily wear a neon sign or Scarlet Letter that condemns him everywhere he goes, but it is a sad thing to think of this person wanting the freedom to follow the kind of path his straight friends are following, without condemnation. This pain is not something we easily unravel.
I cannot find it in my heart to heap more guilt on gays than they already may feel, if they are trying to reconcile their faith with their sexual desires. Everyone has to follow their own path, and trust God to see them through. The Holy Spirit teaches and comforts us. Christ understands that all flesh is weak. I know he has great compassion for every kind of affliction or pain that exists. Since his prayer in John 17 is for all believers today, I know he is ever interceding for us, through all circumstances. So there is hope for us all.
I can’t “fix” homosexuality. I can’t eradicate self-righteousness and ignorance. I must trust God to care for and comfort those He has created. What I can do is “comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God” (2 Cor. 4). That is precisely what believers are to do for one another, and no one is to be excluded from that healing balm. Beyond that, we are to love our “enemies.” We are to treat with compassion the “strangers” in our land. We don’t have to understand them or approve of all they do to care for them.
Debbie,
I know it isn’t wise to step in as interpreter – especially when Eddy is involved.
But what I think he is saying is (I apologize if I get it wrong):
Conservative Christians often say that they see homosexual sin and heterosexual sin as the same. Anything other than that which is ordained by God as holy is sin and it’s all the same. What that may be true by that definition, it does not apply to people the same.
(Let’s not confuse the matter with folks like me. Let’s just keep this in the confines of conservative theology.)
When it comes down to what Mr. or Miss Young Christian can or should do, the options are startlingly different.
Mr. HeteroChristian meets a lovely young lady. Courts her. Begins to double date. Holds hands. Falls in love. Kisses goodnight on her porch for half an hour. Plans a wedding. And then – glorious then – comes the wedding night. And if he screws up somewhere in between… well, at least there was the wedding which makes it all okay going forward.
Ms. HomoChristian stares out the window, politely turns down a fellow or two, and sighs.
Because while there is a path and a venue that is acceptable for the expression of sexuality for heterosexuals, none at all exists for homosexuals.
Some same-sex attracted people have found the possibility of a heterosexual marriage. But others, including some here, have not and let’s acknowledge that absent the miraculous are not much likely to.
The town whore can marry and gain virtuousness in the sight of God, the church and the community. She can delight in sex every hour on the hour provided it is with her husband. She can be a total sex fiend and provided that hubby goes along, no one at all is going to question it.
But the same-sex attracted person can never, ever, ever experience that joy. Not any time. Not any where. Not with anyone. And not under any conditions.
But that isn’t all. The Church welcomes the town whore and demonstrates that she is an evidence of God’s grace. The same-sex attracted person… well, maybe it wouldn’t be wise to let him teach the boys’ Sunday School class… temptation, you know.
The burden on same-sex attracted persons is simply not comparable to that on opposite-sex attracted persons.
And I’m not writing this to argue for a change in theology. I’m just point out that it probably wouldn’t hurt for the Church to maybe acknowledge it.
Throbert said:
I think I need to make an amends to everyone here; and, to my Catholic Faith, which I hold dear. I made light of, and by so doing became complicit with Throbert’s ridicule of the Catholic Faith and its present head.
Whatever, Throbert, you believe about Catholicism is your business; and, how you wish to present that in a public forum is again your responsibility. However, and I don’t need to tell you this as your intelligence is more than adequate to know this, others have the same right to disagree with your assessment … an assessment not given in fact, but sarcasm, ridicule, mockery, and just plain mean-spiritedness.
Whether, anyone here wants to admit it or not, Catholicism built quite a bit of what’s become known as Western Civilization. It’s philosophy of Scholasticism, and its consequent exposition of the Natural Law is still in effect. Not because it’s Catholicism’s law; but, because it’s God’s Law … sort of like, gravity … deny it if you will, but jumping from a tall building will leave proof enough of the denial.
St. Thomas Aquinas is classically held to be unequaled in his development of Augustine and Aristotle. We midgets of today, who pride ourselves on being oh, so smart, can’t begin to reason and understand much of what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church knew and understood.
Yes, the Catholic Church, in her human element, has scandal, and that will not go unpunished; but, the Catholic Church has perdured through millenia, and will continue to do so; despite attacks from within and without. She was here long before any of us were born; and, She, as well as the rest of Christianity, will be here long after we’re dead.
Do what you all will with this Comment. That is immaterial to me. I simply could not let my accession to human respect go unamended. I love Our Lord and Christianity; and, I need to stand up for that, as much, if not more, for Him and for me, as for all of you.
I read him correctly and you did not, Throbert. He clarifies for us:
Now to the “intra-cultural” question. Teresa and I are not from different cultures, IMHO. We are both women, both Christians (she Catholic, I Protestant), both have experienced same-sex attractions, and both believe our faith proscribes acting on them. Did I miss anything? Just semantics confusion, not cross-cultural confusion.
The “stupid bigot” comment was engendered more by what Throbert said than by what you said, Eddy. There seems to be some kind of (prevailing?) sentiment here that conservative Christians are required to hate gays and check their brains at the church door, if indeed they have any at all. Warren’s recent rants against certain loudmouth conservative Christians may have helped inadvertently contribute to such a perception, or at least atmosphere.
Are we clear now?
Teresa, if one is making the point that a particular group of Christians believes (or you think they believe) something, it does not necessarily go without saying that they are following the Bible to the letter on it.
Since I am about to drop off the radar for the evening, I just wanted to say to Eddy I am not trying to be an ogre. Maybe I’m being impish in that I am playing the devil’s advocate. Eddy’s normally a good communicator, so it may just be that I was not being a good listener. If we were all communicating at peak level, I don’t think we’d need 1,000-plus comments in this thread. 🙂
Debbie, I don’t understand what you mean by this statement. Could you elaborate a little more on this? I’d appreciate it.
Here’s what you originally said, Eddy:
Then you said:
When you said “only” the first time, it sounded as if you were downplaying heterosexual sexual sin. But I think you were saying you meant only those Big Three categories were considered sin in the conservative camp. You then went on to say “much is not regarded as sin.” That rates another “Huh?” So what are the others in the “much” category, pray tell?
And what did you mean by “all” homosexual behaviors? I presume you were trying to make a distinction between committed gay relationships and all else involving homosexual sex. Otherwise, how do you separate “adultery, fornication and lasciviousness” among heterosexuals from the same sins among homosexuals? Is temptation a “behavior” in this context (or as Jesus said, looking at someone with lust)?
Robert,
This is the best thread, evah! We get to talk about all kinds of stuff, totally unrelated to whatever the thread was about. It’s sorta like a little chat room where we test our social skills, or lack thereof.
I’m sure Warren is quite happy that the children are amusing themselves in the virtual playpen.
p.s. Robert, I’ve heard through the grapevine you have front row seats for the upcoming Pope John Paul II beatification … right next to BXVI. You will behave properly, won’t you? It’s a Natural Law thing! 🙂
In this case, it’s intra-cultural.
I suggest that those who want to use the term “conservative Christian” in the context desired here just go on and say “stupid bigot.” It’s more honest.
>:)
By the way, lest I create any confusion or ill will with my reference to “Warren’s rants” about those loudmouth conservative Christians, let me say that I support what Warren is doing there. Someone needs to examine their claims and hold them accountable for misleading people.
Debbie, I’m glad that you explicated further your reference to “Warren’s rants”. I was a bit confused about this.
Yes, indeed. These claims, some of them outlandish, simply add more fuel for those who see conservative Christianity as ridiculous, and without philisophical/theological/cultural merit.
And, to you as well, Debbie, and your entire family, as we travel through Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and the glorious and joyous, Easter Sunday!
Debbie–
You did NOT read me correctly. I cited three examples of heterosexual sin that the Bible does address: adultery, fornication and lasciviousness
Timothy Kincaid’s last post is the most touching and one of the more meaningful things I’ve read here. And I for one thank him for writing it.
…this is the thread that never ends
Yes, it goes on and on, my friends!
Some people put some posts on it, not knowing what it was,
Till Warren 86’s it, we’ll drone on just because…
Debbie said:
This is exactly right, Debbie. You didn’t miss anything.
Hee-hee-hee… no relation! I’m still searching for my significance.
Throbert –
Oh wow Robert – LOL – I was laughing so hard I had to step away from the computer for a few minutes. 🙂
Its beginning to look like Old Home Week here at the Prop 8 Thread. 1,084 comments and counting
That’s why Exodus uses the term “counterfeit” to describe all such gay relationships. Alan Chambers says that gay Christians are “decieved”. And another ex-gay leader (Andy Comiskey) has said that there is no such thing as “gay love” — only “immature lust and infatuation.” For Exodus, the “opposite of homosexuality is holiness” — which means that homosexuality can never be.
Heh. I wanted to use the “never not sinful” construction to emphasize that for conservative Christians, the idea of having a church-sanctioned “Blessing of the Union” ceremony for homosexual couples is way beyond the realm of possibility, rather than a Biblically justifiable innovation (which is how some liberal Christian and Jewish denominations see it — as an innovation, but one that doesn’t contradict Scripture).
Where did Eddy claim that conservative Christians give a pass to hetero sexual sin??
What I understood him to say is that conservative Christians recognize “fornication, adultery, and lasciviousness” as sins in both heterosexual and homosexual contexts, but validates heterosexual married sex as non-sinful.
For conservative Christians, however, there is no “validating context” analogous to heterosexual marriage in which homosexual acts may be shared and mutually enjoyed by a couple in a non-sinful way.
OK, bring it, Eddy. LOL.
If those leading the gay marriage charge really were just interested in the “advantages” bestowed by the states upon those who are deemed legally married, then they’d advocate solely for those rights, all of which they already have in the state of California under the legal state of civil unions.
If they wanted the sometimes ironically termed marriage tax advantage extended to them by the federal government, they’d do the same.
Walker himself revealed what they really want–a conferring upon them of society’s conclusion that marriage between a man and woman is the same as that between that a man and another man or as that between a woman and another woman. Walker, and those who advocate as he does, are obfuscating —or maybe I am wrong here–maybe it’s not obfuscation as much as it is an inability to understand, a bias which blinds–by conflating the words “same” and “equal.” Their strategy is to argue that allowing civil unions but not marriage equates to the “separate but equal” policies of the pre-civil rights era, an argument which does over like a lead balloon with blacks and other racial minorities.
Most Americans do not wish to argue a “separate but equal” treatment for gays. What they do understand is that a union between those of the same gender is not the same as that between that of those of differing genders. They see an obvious biological difference and they understand the millenia of social difference based on that biology, and no, I won’t go into all the biological, anthropological, societal, cultural, etc. reasons as to why that is. It’s fruitless to do so since the differences are obvious to all, even to those who would deny them.
Different doesn’t mean unequal. Makes people wonder about motive.
It isn’t. That is one person’s – yours – view of what marriage means in the USA circa 2010. Historically, marriage has been about property and inheritance. Children add to the husband’s store and guarantee his old age. It used to be that the father of the bride brought his virgin daughter (white dress, veil) to deliver her hand into her new master’s hand, ie her husband’s. She had no legal standing apart from his and neither did her children; they were all his property. Marriage has traditionally been a way to pass on property to one’s children; usually the oldest son and hence in England the law of primogeniture. Marriage cannot be defined once and for all because it is a cultural construct and must change to accommodate the culture of the day. This vaunted ‘Biblical marriage’ doesn’t exist. Adam and Eve were never married, they merely had children together who all seemed to marry each other. The Old Testament model is polygamy. In the New Testament – and since we are supposed to be Christians that should be our authority – Jesus told his his hearers to leave their mothers and fathers, their husbands and wives, their children, and to give away all their possessions if they would follow him.
As to the constitution: it doesn’t specifically allow a lot of things; universal suffrage, the right not to be enslaved, etc. Like marriage, the constitution is constantly evolving. Our current court recently ruled in favor of the institutionalized bribery of congress on a scale never before seen. A ruling which would no doubt have astounded Benjamin Franklin. Let them also rule to give my marriage, entered into legally in Canada though not recognized by my own government in despite of the taxes I pay and the jobs created by my and my husband’s work, civil standing. Let our ideas evolve.
The difficulty is that old ways of thinking are comfortable and seem ‘right’. So much so that we can no longer see them for what they are. Like dried flowers they remind us of what was once living but which is now lifeless, desiccated and inert.
Yes, Debbie, but as you say, “That’s the way it works.” People’s religious beliefs about what the Judge of all mankind says cannot form the basis for legislation. Similarly, even if, for example, the judge himself/herself is a convinced Spiritualist, alleged testimony from the Other Side cannot form any part of the basis for legislation.
If this is true, then instead of finding that marriage should also include gays, the judge should have found that marriage is simply not the state’s business. Rather than include a new group in the existing definition, he should have taken a step towards eliminating state-sanctioned marriage for everyone.
LOL. I think Mary suggested this days ago! By eliminating state-sanctioned marriage, everyone would be on the same footing trying to secure rights and benefits based on their partnering.
He didn’t rule that marriage “should also include gays”. He ruled that a California law that limited marriage to opposite sex couples violated US law. He ruled that you couldn’t exclude people on the basis of religious beliefs, personal prejudice, gender or orientation.
And he couldn’t have ruled that “marriage is simply not the state’s business” because that was not the issue before him. The issue was the constiutionallity of Prop 8. Regarding Mary’s suggestion, If voters want to change the designation to “Civil unions for all with equal rights” — striking the word “marriage” from the books — I suppose they could do that. But why? That would be a heck of a lot more complicated and expensive than striking down one unconstitutional amendment.
ken
Not automatically. The ruling only found that Proposition 8 was based in animus and that no rational basis was presented.
This does not presume that an amendment in, say, Oregon was based in animus. But it certainly does give precedent.
Judge Walker agrees with you.
Then we should toughen up laws on who can reproduce. Make having babies out of wedlock illegal. Require that non-married couples use contraception under state supervision. Pass some laws on which straight couples can procreate based on things like age, maturity, economic status and psychological well-being. Make divorce tougher..
According to the first creation story, Gen 1:26, God makes Adam and Eve at the same time (after the creation of the animals) and tells them to be fruitful and multiply. It is in Gen 2:7 that God creates Adam first and Eve second. In this second version the animals are created after Adam but before Eve. These two accounts have become conflated but are clearly not the same.
Old Testament or New?
It was necessary because, throughout human history, churches and governments have tried to deny many basic human rights (including the right to marry and form a family) because of those things.
Our own Constituition had to be amended numerous times — often after bloody struggle — to make it clear that these basic human rights were for all people, were inalienable — and really should have been self-evident in the first place.
Yes, Michael,
And, isn’t your complaint that churches and governments have tried to deny this right to marry to gays? So, if it (to specify a invalid reason for exclusion) was necessary for race, nationality and religion, why not for orientation?
I dunno, Why then WAS it necessary to say ‘due to race, nationality or religion’? Here’s your question back at ya: Why should the right have anything to do with race, nationality or religion?
I think that’s deliberate. Marriage is a universal human right that should not be denied on the basis of gender or orientation.
I don’t think that’s necessary. Why should the right have anything to do with sexual orientation or procreation?
I’m glad it’s telling. But what is it telling? That I hold to faith in a divine creator? Good. That I demand facts that are facts and not factoids? Good. That truth has a source? Good.
Two same-sex parents know a thing or two about living together and one-sided parenting. They do not know what it’s like to have a father or mother in the picture unless they’ve done it before.
No. I think you are really reading way too much into this. Marriage is the basic family unit, the foundation, with or without kids — marriage is the “fundamental group” and is a fundamental right. This article is not about an obligation or expectation to do anything.
It’s about the basic human right of “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, (to) marry and to found a family ” — if they so choose. It is saying that no one has the right to deny them this basic human freedom.
Debbie,
This is very telling of you and of others who hold so strongly to their beliefs that no amount of facts will sway them. That’s honestly downright scary.
A married lesbian couple I know, who love their two daughters, also know a thing or two about parenting and marriage.
As a gay man who grew up in the 60s, who did not even conceive of the idea of marriage for gays and lesbians until late in the Reagan administration; I sure felt as if my life had been devalued even more than for the simple fact that I was gay. The fact that two gay men or two lesbians are to be denied by society the welcoming and affirmation of their respective families and friends just because of their love for another of their same gender is a significant devaluation of their lives. Perhaps the greatest there should come to be, that their love not be acknowledged. It is a killing of the spirit, an attempt at the destruction of their emotional well-being. Just how is that ever good for a society?
Please keep your mythical and inhumane gods away from the defining points of my freedom.
Oh dear Lord, Shariah Law hysteria has made it into the thread, the latest choice for the hip demagogue. All we need now is a senator with a secret list. You can shut this one down now Warren, all reason has left the building.
Having said that I lied, please point out where my statement was false.
Timothy,
Your valiant attempts cannot yield you the answer you are soliciting because it is not what I said.
Here is what I said –
Yes, and my admiration and respect and support goes to those who do not seek the temporary and false benefits of portraying themselves as a victim or trying to compare themselves to others who have been true victims.
Later in the thread, I cited the example of the Pakistani woman who is in prison for perceived blasphemy. To me she is a victim and not someone who wants to marry their own gender and is currently ineligible to do so.
Timothy–
Thanks for noticing my consistency. I find generalizations to be destructive rather than productive in meaningful conversations and find that pronouncing judgements on those we converse with to be non-productive as well.
BTW: I’m wondering if the Parable of the Talents should be retitled as the Parable of the Victims.
Ann,
Warren covers this pretty well. One good substantial, credible and conclusive study was the one on identical twins. If I recall correctly (though I can’t now find it) the scandinavian researcher corresponded with Warren and applied an estimate as to the extent that genetics alone plays in orientation (i recall it being around half) and the remainder is either pre-natal or early life not-genetic factors (which may or may not be biological).
Ann,
I’m not finding where I misrepresented your position.
Victims: Pakistani woman, African-Americans
those who have a sense of entitlement that has nothing to do with being a true victim: someone who wants to marry their own gender and is currently ineligible to do so
You keep expressing the same view but denying that it is “what you said.” Where, exactly, am I incorrect in assessing your position?
Because, to me, it really does appear that you see “victim” through the lens of who you sympathize with. If you agree with them in their perspective and views, they get to be a victim. If you happen to believe that they should be denied what they are requesting, then they “have a sense of entitlement” and are “pretending to be victims.”
Am I incorrect in that?
Ok… but that doesn’t answer the question in the least. For one, just what did they do to promote sharia in the USA? How did they subvert American culture – was it by converting some Americans to Islam? Because then you just sound rather trite with these statements. If that is all they are doing then these documents could be analogous to soem that the Vatican have produced concerning evangelizing countries like India.
So we now have Muslims in government positions, just how does that meant that a silent jihad is going on? Or that sharia is going into effect for all Americans. Have these “infiltrators” into American government been ferreted out and charged with treason or some such crime?
Otherwise, all I am hearing from you is hyperbole.
Ooops…my bad! Not the parable of the talents but the parable of the workers.
Oy. I cannot even begin to answer such a frivilous comment that has nothing to do with the truth.
Timothy,
You receive only artificial and temporary benefits from lying Timothy – I am asking you again to stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.
Eddy,
As usual, you have very good words of wisdom and I will follow them. Thanks 😀
I did not say that you said those words. Of course you didn’t say those words. In fact, you spent several comments trying hard NOT to say exactly what you meant.
Ann,
It seems to me that rather than hear what I’m saying and rather than addressing the issue as to whether same-sex couples are experiencing hardship, you are choosing to focus on “I didn’t say that” and in accusing those who do point out the hardship of just acting out of entitlement.
That does not change the facts.
Ya know, the ones that you don’t seem to have any desire addressing at this point.
Eddy,
I see that your contribution to the conversation is consistent.
Timothy,
Someone needs to take the shovel away from you. You are again putting words in my mouth that I never said. Please stop.
see, u guise?? thats why we should only EV0R have straight, white, conservative, Protestant, middle-age men determining court decisions. They’re the only ones that would not have a bias for any situation involving the downtrodden. Everybody would be too distracted by their menstrual cycles, tryin’ to do a favor for the brotha from the ‘hood, or making it easier to teach little kids about anal sex between two men.
David B –
Do you honestly believe this? If so, I owe you an apology 🙂
I don’t recall if David had, but many of the usual commenters here admitted that they had not and would not read it. They had already made up their minds that the decision was wrong.
Timothy,
The assumptions are all yours.
Oops, you did it again.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 7, 2011 at 10:04 pm
“White, republican, legally trained…all data.”
but not all relevant.
“If it can be demonstrated that his orientation resulted in biased judgment, then it will very relevant.”
did you read his decision and/or the trial transcripts David? Did you see any evidence of such bias? Has any credible source given any evidence that his orientation biased his decision? Would you be suggesting his orientation biased his judgment if he where straight?
FWIW, Judge Walker is right about the slippery slope. Who can say whether or not his sexual orientation had a bearing on the Prop. 8 case? That is between him and God. We ask judges to be as impartial as humanly possible. There are good ones and bad ones. But I would not want to be the person who began taking us down the road to litmus tests for judges other than their knowledge of the law and their willingness (as demonstrated by their history) to uphold our Constitution. Their race or ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation cannot be qualifiers. And judges who are elected can ill afford to be political activists. That is the best check the system has, in addition to the appeals process.
I doubt David read any such thing 😉
White, republican, legally trained…all data.
If it can be demonstrated that his orientation resulted in biased judgment, then it will very relevant.
As the same could be said if he was Hispanic, democratic, legally trained and heterosexual.
Having all the data that might bear on the decision is a pretty standard way of dealing with analyzing the decision.
Withholding relevant data ads unnecessary mystery.
BTW…sad he had to be in the closet for so many years…hope he gets a lot of support now that he is out.
Just as a quick update. A 3 member panel of the 9th Circuit court heard appeals arguments for Proposition 8 yesterday (12/06/2010). You can watch the 2.5 hour hearing here:
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/12/06/HP/R/41535/Ninth+Circuit+Court+to+hear+California+Proposition+8+Case.aspx
The 1st hour was devoted to arguments about whether the defendants have standing to appeal.
the 2nd hour (starting about 1:08:31 in the video) was devoted to arguments about the case itself. Interestingly, the defendants (i.e. supporters of Prop. 8) didn’t try to argue that their trial case was unduly harmed by the “threat” of cameras (i.e. that they lost several experts because of this). Apparently, the
defendants lawyers aren’t interested in a re-trial, and seem to be sticking with the “marriage is for procreation and that is why the State discriminate against same-gender couples” argument.
I think Theresa Stewart (SF City Attorney arguing for the plaintiffs) gave a good argument (her argument starts about 02:18:15) about why the “procreation” argument for opposite gender marriage doesn’t apply. And also give a good argument how rational basis (the weakest standard enforcing rights) still isn’t met at about 02:21:10.
Whoops, that should be “supporters of Prop 8” not a Prop “smilely”
Sure… if being gay were like being a KKK member.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 7, 2011 at 9:04 pm
“Its just data ”
But is it relevant data? that tact that you posted this article implies that you seem to think so. Is that correct, do you think Walker’s orientation is relevant?
If so, how is it relevant?
Its just data Timothy, kind of like if a KKK member was making a decision about voting rights; or a fundamentalist judge was making a decision about placing the 10 commandments in a courtroom or making a decision about marriage rights.
Well, oddly enough, it doesn’t add data.
Unless, of course, we assume that it is relevant that a black judge might be assigned to a racial discrimination case or that a Christian judge might not assume recusal on a religious discrimination case.
To assume that a gay judge’s orientation has any bearing on a decision is to assume that a gay person is incapable of impartiality. I consider such assumptions to be contemptuous.
This ads data about the decision:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011/04/judge-who-struck-down-prop-8-confirms-hes-gay
David B –
All you have are correlations! The same type of correlation can be made about industrialization. You have NO data to show that” toxic” home environments are better than stable single-parent home environments.
Eddy,
My argument is that the real culprit is industrialization, and it is the one thing that has truly led to the breakup of the family.
Teresa,
I think in some part it is an older generation looking back with nostalgia and rose-colored glasses on previous generations. Putting those families/generations on pillars without critically analyzing them. We all do it. I’m guilty of it as well
Eddy,
Sorry for the sarcasm. It may well be a little of both. I don’t think the breakdown is good for society. But if the larger problem is in fact industrialization, how do we deal with that? That genie is already out of the bottle, so I suppose we have to try and deal with the symptoms as best we can.
Teresa,
Non-violent, means non-violent…not closeted. I am sorry for your suffering in closeted violence.
No nostalgia here, just sociological trends and correlations which are disappointing for women and children.
I do not know how to have this discussion with you to the exclusion of overtly Atheistic regimes which were incredibly brutal and colonial in nature at a time when human rights were in ascendancy and Western colonialism was in decline.
Regarding:
One could ask, “Why did barbarism overcome the Roman Empire? and was this conquering complete and final?”
I would answer, “Because expediant power is always more effective in the short run than principled power. And secularism, like barbarism, has not conquered completely or finally.”
No Timothy – not gay people, rather some individuals who identify as gay and seek the benefit of portraying themselves as victims.
Ann# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 4:53 pm
“Speaking of Proposition 8, is it true that most African Americans and Hispanicswho voted, voted for it?”
A large majority of the black vote (about 70%) voted in favor of prop 8. Not so much with the latino vote, is I recall it was only a little over 50% of the latino voters who voted in favor of prop. 8.
Debbie, I don’t understand this sentence? Because I’m pursuing chastity, doesn’t mean I’m no longer homosexual. Perhaps, this is a misunderstanding of the definition of words, e.g., celibacy. Celibacy is not synonymous with chastity; although, celibates are chaste. Celibates are men and women who take religious vows; that’s it’s classic definition.
Homosexuals are men and women who are attracted (emotionally and sexually) to people of the same gender. Being chaste does not alter that, does it? Am I supposed to hide this fact?
Have I misconstrued something?
In my own personal understanding of love, and loving behavior to others; there is no us vs. them, I’m in … they’re out, I’m right … they’re wrong, I’m good … they’re bad, I’m home … they’re a prodigal.
Those people in my life, Debbie, that witnessed most to me of love are the very people you would “shake the dust off and move on”. They visited me when I was sick, they comforted me when I mourned, they accepted me for a friend as I was.
In my experience, those that were the most Christian were the least loving. But, that’s simply my experience.
Please, understand, Debbie. I’m not implying that you are unloving. What I’m trying to say is that there’s a disconnect here somehow.
Debbie and Teresa,
Here is my perception, on the distant chance that it may add value:
Teresa, you are using the words “homosexual” and “identity” to reflect your experience. They reflect what you observe. You are same sex attracted, so you say “homosexual”.
Debbie, you are using the same words as ideals. You believe that identity should be based not on what is experienced but on what is sought. So you see Teresa’s identity as homosexual as denying possibility of change.
This naturally leads to confusion.
I hope that was helpful.
Teresa-
Actually, Teresa, the people leading these ministries don’t fit that caricature at all. MOST come from a gay background and don’t feel that distant from the gay people they are trying to reach. Rather than seeing gays ‘as their little project’, they do specialize on gays but only as a group that Christians were abysmal in reaching out to before. The notion thay they see gays as especially deviant, perverted ,disordered, or damaged isn’t what they are selling. They do believe the behavior is sinful and fallen, though, and want to extend a complete Gospel message to them as well. (By complete, since they view it as a sin, they believe the Gospel offers the grace and power not to engage in that sin.)
Timothy-
Thanks for counting my posts. Have you counted yours? Really–comments as to how often a person posts are just a tad off point. Sometimes a person feels compelled to post again because the person they are addressing misses the point, dodges the question, or posts repeatedly themself. (for example, the four posts in a row that I got from Jayhuck that Warren deleted.)
What am I missing here? You’ve thrown this one out several times as a claim that David is comparing you to Bahati and Ssempa:
As I read that, I hear: ‘To attack Christians in general as haters…to call Christians anti-gay…to compare Christians to Phelps, Bahati, Ssempa or Lively…that seems to be needless, polarizing and a hopelessly generalizing act of aggression.’ Where do you read that he compared you to them?
Dictionary definition of Propaganda:
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
A Propagandist is one who does the spreading.
Timothy’s elaboration on Propaganda:
Note that nothing in the dictionary definition says that they only seek to deceive. Nothing says that they have ‘no interest in the truth’. David has commented on Timothy’s skills and gifts as a commenter; he has said that he has been challenged and sometimes corrected by Timothy’s comments. I submit that David was not maligning Timothy’s character, demeaning his person or discounting his views but was speaking to the one aspect of Timothy’s communications that occasionally surface here that obstruct conversation.
I receive such remonstrations from Jayhuck, from Timothy, from Ken and from David Roberts. Jayhuck suggests that I only speak from bias; Timothy’s latest comments are in his recent posts, Ken—well Ken is just Ken, and David Roberts has suggested several times while I was in a conversation that only closed minds are present. And, unlike David’s comments to Timothy, they seldom balance it with any word suggesting I have any worth at all. (Not complaining–I know full well the company I’m in.)
Teresa-
Earlier today I think you addressed the dynamic dynamic very well.
Night all. I’ve got a performance review in the morning and want to appear rested and energetic.
Teresa,
I think that is a sad fact of human nature. It’s very hard to see ourselves as the same as “those in need” or that our good deeds are not proof of our inherent goodness.
This makes it sound all so easy. Yet the nephew and niece I spoke of both desire marriage and family; both are growing worried that ‘love may never find them’–or that they may never find it. Can you share the magic secret that can grant them their desire ‘at any time’?
I know many straights–many ‘getting older’ single straights–who haven’t found their bliss. Many of those who don’t hold to conservative Christian values can ‘play around’; they can do the sex thing without marriage or relationship. Predictably, it ‘meets their need’ but the sense of fulfillment is short lived. Over the years I’ve wondered whose lot is the saddest.
I honestly don’t feel that my lot in life (or yours) is worse than the lot of those straights with conservative sexual values who are ‘still looking’.
Careful there. I find you to be a very thoughtful commenter however I said that I thought that my lot and yours weren’t any worse. It’s a stretch on your part to suggest that I’m trying to decide for you what you think merely because I expressed that opinion.
It’s the nature of this blog beast that we are all trying to influence each other’s opinions and points of view. Not sure why that particular comment struck you as ‘trying to decide for you’.
This question misses a whole lot of straight people. I visited today with a niece and a nephew both in their 30’s and unmarried. They can’t lay claim to any of the defining words in your list—not to ‘engaged’ either. I’ve got four others, all in their 20’s–they can’t lay claim either. It’s actually married people who get to define themselves by their orientation and that line of definition isn’t as rigid as it once was. My best friend and his partner both refer to the other as their ‘husband’; many gays and lesbians now enjoy the title of ‘father’ or ‘mother’–even a few ‘grandmothers’ and ‘grandfathers’.
I think our early Fathers might get hung up over natural law as proscribing homosexuality. But who knows?
Paragraph 3, Beginning of sentence 2:
I should have finished that thought … some str8 people are piqued by the fact that a gay person says they’re gay. They want homosexuals to not mention that little fact; although, their orientation is worn on their sleeve.
BTW, Debbie, the article was, in my opinion, well written. I’m not sure Washington and Lincoln would have found much trouble, though, with same-sex marriage. I think they would pretty much be Libertarians. Unless it were to be disruptive in any way, social concord and peace, I’m not sure they’d give a hoot about it.
They were, after all, not Christians; and, both I think can be considered Deists.
FWIW, I played off Lincoln’s healing words in a recent commentary that addresses this topic we all love/hate to discuss. I don’t much care for the title the editor gave it, but it is here.
Timothy, indeed it is.
I enjoy history; especially, the Civil War era and Reconstruction. The following is the last part of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. The sentiment is so beautiful, the wording exquisite, it almost brings tears to one’s eyes when contemplated. This from a man who was not a Christian. Where have we Christians missed the boat?
Certainly, we can paraphrase (plagiarize) the last paragraph for our own ‘civil war’ (sometimes, not so civil 🙂 ) discussion on the world of same-sex attraction.
“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives each of us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in; to bind up each other’s wounds; to care for all who have borne the battle–to do all which we can to achieve and just and lasting peace among ourselves.”
I said I read it, remember? I already get that you entirely reject my viewpoint, and further, that you believe I am incapable of rational thought. You, apparently, just don’t get what that does to any conversation we may have.
If you read the words I’ve typed, you’ll find that I do not apply labels to people or brand anyone. If you think I called someone smug, read my words again.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 13, 2011 at 8:22 pm
“No, I am saying you lack that ability, at least to perform it reliably and accurately; which makes you quite normal. I don’t use that ability except in the office when I have a lot more data and can check out my assumptions and so on. ”
And you’ve determined I lack this ability based on what exactly?
“The problem with blogging here and elsewhere is how quickly people are prone to judging the motives and attitudes of others rather than dealing with the words chosen.”
And you’ve never noticed me trying to clarify people positions or verify my assumptions about people here (similar to what you might do in your office David)?
p.s. I never did get that email. The one in which you were going to explain why gay people shouldn’t compare Christians to Ssempa and Behati but that it is entirely appropriate for you to compare me to the two men.
Cuz I’m still confused about that issue. That doesn’t yet make logical sense to me.
oh, and my email address is [email protected]
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 13, 2011 at 10:05 am
“Ken,
I don’t know what is being said…other than the actual words on the page. Interpreting motives or underlying messages is a very inexact science.”
Really David, you want to hide behind that. You are a psychologist and have been counseling people for how many years? You really want to say you lack the ability to discern the bias in this statement (and the similar ones you’ve read/see/heard people say about gay marriage)?
Jayhuck,
The sociological data I refer to is concurrent and from those demonstrable differences it reasonable to conclude that a breakdown in values about sexuality, fidelity creates more babies out of wedlock and so forth.
Pre-70’s values about sexuality seemed to get this, in a nutshell. :). No rose colored glasses. Families today that are marriage based, non-violent, that do not place childbearing before marriage tend to be better for women and for children.
Timothy,
I think I answered your question above:
I don’t care what you do with NOM…I have not advocated for them or even tracked what they are doing. I have been concerned when you use simplistic polarizing labels to describe well intentioned people here who have no political association but are sharing beliefs and perceptions.
Ken,
No, I am saying you lack that ability, at least to perform it reliably and accurately; which makes you quite normal. I don’t use that ability except in the office when I have a lot more data and can check out my assumptions and so on. The problem with blogging here and elsewhere is how quickly people are prone to judging the motives and attitudes of others rather than dealing with the words chosen.
Timothy and DAvid B –
This hints at some of the things I’ve been thinking about. The post 50’s ideologies that DAvid B seems to disdain did not appear out of nowhere. The concerns that women and others expressed about marriage were not generally lies. Women were enslaved by marriage to different degrees. If the family structure was perfect and happy and nothing was wrong, then you wouldn’t think you would have seen the reaction against it that you did. But that was not the case. Women were trapped in not just loveless but sometimes abusive, violent and passionless marriages without anyway of leaving them and their kids had to suffer in that kind of environment. And these children grew up to make the kinds of laws that David B does not like. Wow
DB
What is that on? I’m trying to recall research that address that specific issue and I can’t think of any.
Again, I don’t know the studies on this…
I suspect, however, that “loveless relationships” which are not hostile or angry or vengeful or violent probably should stay together for the kids. After all, “i don’t love you but I like you” is not really that awful of a partner especially if you agree on priorities like kids, spending, respect.
But then again, I doubt that these folk divorce nearly enough to be considered a significant contributor to the ills of divorce.
There is one glaring flaw in that argument. If they did such a great job at raising their kids… then how did their kids come up with the values that you think destroyed marriage?
If we are looking for the family structure that worked best, we perhaps should not look to the one that preceded chaos, but rather to the ones whose kids did not cause chaos.
But then we’re at a place where women couldn’t even vote or, often, own property in their own name.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 13, 2011 at 6:03 pm
“No nostalgia here, just sociological trends and correlations which are disappointing for women and children.”
What trends are you referring to? do you have any pointers to data or studies about this?
David,
Much to my frustration, we seem to be proving each other’s points.
I have been trying for, oh I don’t know – a year or so, to have you commit to some language that won’t raise your objections. I thought that this time I was as absolutely direct as I could possibly be.
You just ignored my questions. Just like I hadn’t tried. Didn’t even acknowledge that I’m trying here, David. C’mon, work with me.
I one time dated someone who had trouble picking what restaurant to go to. So I would list a few: Coyote? no. Marix? no. Palermo? no. that French place? no. ummmm Dennys? oh god no. Well where to you want to eat? name some more.
That’s kinda what I’m getting here. You keep saying “no” to any language whatsoever that you think implies some negative motivation on the part of anyone who opposes what gay folk are seeking. (I don’t see ‘anti-gay’ as inherently pejorative, especially to those who think that ‘pro-gay’ is a negative quality. But if that doesn’t fly, what can?)
As I asked earlier
What, for example, is a word you will accept in describing the Naitonal Organization for Marriage?
I used to say ‘supporters of traditional marriage’ or ‘opposes same-sex marriage’ or something like that. Then they decided to broaden their scope and are now spending money to keep gay people from being able to adopt. And they’ve taken up the ‘gays are diseased’ thing and recently photoshopped a picture of a kid in front of a gay pride flag holding up a sign that says “help”.
So they aren’t just about marriage any more. Now that are full fledged… whatever that word is.
I’m not willing to just ‘not talk about it’ so either you have to give me something to work with or I just have to dismiss your objections as being unreasonable.
What else can I do?
Teresa# ~ May 11, 2011 at 5:38 pm
“Civilly, the State would have to permit same-sex marriages and recognize them as being alike to str8 marriages; but, each religious denomination has the right to deny homosexuals same-sex marriage within their churches. Is that what you’re saying, Timothy?”
The argument that religious organizations will be forced to marry gay couples is nothing more fear-mongering, based on false information, brought up by those opposed to same-gender marriages.
NO CHURCH has EVER been forced by the state to perform a religious marriage contrary to the beliefs of the religion. Nor has any CLERGY been forced to officiate a state marriage contrary to his or her religious beliefs.
I thought you said you had no intention of reading his decision. How would you know?
Maazi-
Just in case ‘birthers’ doesn’t translate cross-culturally: the ‘birthers’ are those who challenge Obama’s presidency based on the possibility that he was born on foreign soil. One particular thread (Berg v Obama) started here on this website on November 11, 2008 and has had 2, 664 comments. Everytime it appears that it has finally run its course, there will be another flurry of new posts.
Others–
Let’s not overlook that Rome had Emperors whose rule was passed on by succession and/or appointment while we have voting and elections both for our rulers and, occasionally, for issues of importance. This explains, in part, the hows and whys of expressing criticism towards our leaders and policies.
Warren,
I agree that Jesus was speaking to the understanding of his followers, not to civil law; that would be consistent with his entire ministry. And this is even more startling when we consider that in Israel at the time of his ministry, religious law was intertwined with civil law.
Ironically, it was this very decision to speak to the heart and not to the legalism that so infuriated his opponents. Had Jesus used his influence to rail about the evils of Caesar and to call for a return to Judaic Law, his critics would have delighted in him.
Debbie,
Warren has discussed this before, but perhaps you were not part of that discussion.
The term “eunuch” is often assumed to be castrati or perhaps those whose sex organs are not properly developed. But research into the issue reveals that this term included a wider range of sexual minorities, including those who were developed sexually complete but who had no interest in the opposite sex.
Socially, these people were considered interchangeable – often freaks – much in the same way that some today have difficulty understanding that not all gay men wear dresses. Perhaps a somewhat comparable term today is what some call “queer”, a term that incorporates gay, transgender, asexual, and other non-heterosexual people.
Some scholars believe that when Jesus spoke of eunuchs it was inclusive of same-sex attracted people.
What I believe about the condition is that it is an unfortunate cross for one to have to bear. I don’t know anyone with it. It is presumed one will seek medical treatment and try to live as normal a life as is possible. I’ve not given much thought to this condition relative to marriage. I don’t even know enough about it to weigh in intelligently on that. And I still wonder why you thought it needed to be brought up in this discussion.
I think that’s circuitous reasoning, Michael. Clearly, intersexed people were born with that condition. It would be God’s will for their lives. The jury is still out on gays. You are just coming it from a back door. It’s the same old question: inborn or not? Jesus spoke of those who were eunuchs from birth. He did not speak of anyone being homosexual from birth.
This also what I believe.
Debbie,
If I can speak to Micheal’s issue for just a moment…. I think Michael is addressing the problems with speaking about scripture in terms of absolutes. I think much of Christ’s ministry was in tearing down absolutes (observing the Sabbath, etc.) and showing that this way of thinking harms people. Surely rules, for the sake of rules, are not God’s will for our lives.
And that is one of the problems with the way the Church addresses male/female issues. The Rules say that a man has a role and a woman has a role and they should stay in them. But if the Rules serve to harm anyone, then we need to do as Jesus did and question the Rules and their application.
And we can start by asking, “What is a man? What is a woman?”
That may sound ridiculous, but in very real terms it matters. Is a man someone with XY genetics? Is it a person with a penis? Is it someone who is masculine? Is it someone who is attracted to women?
Because each of these has exceptions, and insisting that the Man’s role must be observed (or that marriage is for a Man and a woman) requires some agreement about what comprises a Man.
I find it interesting that the very first convert to Christianity was a eunuch and not a Man – or not in the sense that most in the church would define him. In demanding that the Rules apply to civil law and are God’s unwavering will on marriage, we ignore that these marriage Rules don’t even apply to the very first convert to the faith.
I think that when we think too much that This Is What God Wants, we can miss that Jesus spoke to the exceptions and not to the Rules.
I care. I would really like to know what you believe about this and why. How does one decide?
Of course, never. As Paul said, it is through the Law that I learn I am a sinner. But the Law (rules) cannot do what Christ does. It only creates awareness.
I, too, find it interesting that the first recorded Gentile convert was an Ethiopian eunuch.
Obviously. Can you answer the question? Should gender-ambigous folks or transsexuals be allowed to marry?
Maazi – We have a long way to go to reach the record (the birthers have us beat there).
Timothy – I think this passage is a core passage on the topic. As you know, I have written on it and think Jesus is referring to sexual minorities. I do not believe here that He teaches anything about civil law, rather only how marriage should be regarded by His followers.
Michael,
I choked when I read this. Our public schools teach all sorts of values which are an extension of State values.
It seems the task of the State to create a set of values which are not religiously bound to teach our children, the next generation, in schools.
Traditionalists have been fighting for 60 years to curb this power, especially in the area of Sex Education.
Moral behavior is always taught by the state through Civil Law and through Criminal Law. Most laws are written in response to oversights in morality that allow the Exploiters of the world openings to do their mischief.
Please consider removing this cliche from your arguments, as it cannot fit the facts or the immense power of the State and Federal government to moralize and educate.
More powerful perhaps than the Catholic Church ever was.
Gee, Michael. In the whole gay marriage scheme of things, who cares who marries whom?
Of course you do! As I have said time and time again, ad nauseum, you have every right to express yourself here in any manner you please— just as I do. I have never implied otherwise. It’s Dr. Throckmorton’s blog, not mine. And if Dr. Throckmorton wants to start a discussion on the Bible and homosexuality, I would be happy to participate. I am not stopping him.
I still think my question about whether those with gender ambiguity should be allowed to marry has merit. If you don’t have an answer or don’t want to reply, fine. I wasn’t really asking you. I wondered how others might think –particularly Debbie. I stand by my question. If no one cares to address it, that is perfectly OK too. I’ll live.
And David, I also stand my my belief that the State should not be teaching “morality”. The state should be about protecting the rights of its citizens. The fact that the state has the power to “moralize” doesn’t mean it should. I believe in a clear separation of Church and State. One exception: I think the state should teach that it is “immoral” to deny other citizens equal protection under law.
Ah, you’re particularly interested in Debbie’s reply. Now why would that be? You pretend to a sincere curiosity but then you want to hear from Debbie, who you and Ken have consistently been dismissing. Gotta wonder if you’re looking to ‘further your understanding’ or if you’ve pulled a straw man out of the closet in the hopes that you can further bash her viewpoints (and, by extension, other conservatives).
Another curiosity is that YOU were at least loosely connected to Melodyland. As one of the leaders of EXIT, you were likely in a better position to seek out and understand Melodyland’s thought processes with regard to the post-operative transsexuals. Did they give it much thought? prayer? Did they seek advice from you or others from EXIT or other ministries? If so, what advice was given? Were they unanimous in their decision? Did they give their blessing to the marriages automatically based on the reassigned gender or did they counsel or evaluate the individuals? In this circumstance, your actual experience might outweigh any hypotheticals that others might offer.
I base my position on Scripture first, and on sociology, second.
Timothy made a good point about Jesus addressing those who could not marry, or at least not be able to sexually perform in a marriage. I fail to see what bearing your intersex fixation has on the gay marriage debate.
I am not “pretending” anything — and I object to you saying that I am. You sure don’t like it one bit when I assume to know your motives. I would appreciate it if you would stop assuming to know mine.
Assume what you will, but I am sincerely asking how folks who believe that the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is only “male and female” would deal with these situations. Does it prohibit marriage for these folks?
I am not trying to “bash” Debbie’s position. I disagree with her, but I accept that she believes the Bible prohibits gay sex. That’s certainly her right. I am asking what we are to do when the Bible is silent on an issue — or unclear. She bases her objection to same-sex marriage squarely on the Bible.
Does the Bible address this? How are we to decide on the “morality” of something when the Bible is not clear on an issue? Should gender-ambigous folks or transsexuals be allowed to marry? If she chooses not to respond, that is her business.
The leaders of Melodyland never asked us our opinion on these matters and we never offered it. They rarely asked our opionion on anything. I think the whole “gay/ex-gay” issue made them very uncomfortable. They basically ignored us, but would publicly brag that they had a “ministry” that “delievered” gays. I would not have known what advice to give anyway. I know this: we had several “post-op” women in the church. Melodyland’s position seemed to be that if the person has gone through sex-change before accepting Christ, that they were now fully female in the eyes of the Church — literally “a new creature” — accepted by Jesus as a woman, with all the rights of other Christian women — including the right to marry.
If they had accepted Jesus prior to seeking sex change, Melodyland discouraged it. How they came up with this, I have no idea. It seemed to me that they were making it up as they went along. I do not know if all of the leaders fof Melodyland felt this way. I imagine some did not. All I know, is that as long as the transsexual looked and acted convincingly female and had gone through reaasignment prior to conversion, they considered it part of “her past” and did not object.
Speaking of the biblical perspective on intersexed or transgendered, scripture may not be quite as silent as we assume. Matthew 19:
What I find striking is that when his disciples complained about a no-divorce clause being so severe, Jesus didn’t talk about whether or not it is better to marry. Instead he began talking about those who were sexual minorities, excluded, outsiders to the whole marriage paradigm.
I’m sure others will find different meaning in this passage of scripture (and, indeed, I’ve heard it used to deny any measure of civil rights to gay couples) but it seems to me that Jesus was saying that his contemporaries were putting a LOT of emphasis on the RULES of marriage, but not considering the pain, exclusion, or separation of those who don’t fit those rules so well or those who the rules hurt.
The “no divorce” clause seems to be to be a matter of protection of women in a society in which a divorced woman was without resources or rights. But Jesus didn’t stop at defending women.
It’s interesting.
Teresa,
I, for one, have no desire to return to a non-capital based feudal system. No thank you.
Debbie,
It would be interesting to compare the amount of children in residential foster care facilities today compared to the 50’s. I know during the depression, there were many homeless families and many children were given up just due to sheer poverty. Even then, to give up a child due to poverty, caused immeasurable pain, even though it was done to protect the child or children. After that horrible time, it seemed like families would do just about anything to stay together. Often they lived very simple lives but were sustained by being a unit. If there was an issue of an unplanned child or tenuous financial hardships, other family members would step in to fill the gap. It does not seem like this too much now – too many children are living in facilities rather than with extended family members and they are all too aware that they are there because they were neglected or abused or their parents are in jail or just didn’t want them – and no other family member did either. I know first hand the negative impact that can have for the rest of one’s life. I was just wondering if there was a difference then to now with this situation. Also, other than religious charities, were there more volunteers back then than now who quietly went about visiting, mentoring or teaching these children about “outside”? I wanted to distinguish between religious charities and other volunteers because I think, sometimes, religions call for people to volunteer so it is done out of obligation, whereas, others might do it of their own volition.
I know it has been a long time since so many of our relatives passed through Ellis Island, but it seems so interesting how the family ties were so strong then. I recently visited the Tenament Museum in NYC and was amazed at how the immigrant families lived in such tight quarters. They were able to sustain their religions and cultures – still have Mezuzahs on the door post. Family meant everthing to them. Breaking apart was not a consideration as they put so much effort into staying together. No sure, however, I do think the extremes that the women’s movement went to, had something to do with it.
Anyway, sorry if this is off topic – your post got me pondering 🙂
Debbie and Ann, right on with what you said. But, I have a bit of a different perspective for the “root” of the problem. I think it was Christianity’s capitulation on usury, which started in the latter half of the 15th Century … mid-1400’s. We have no idea today about how the only thing Our Lord was angered over has been for centuries a rotting influence on Christianity.
Once upon a time, money was considered as a medium of exchange. It was not fruitful of itself. Alas, however, as the merchant class arose; especially, in Venice and Rome, money began to be fertile in and of itself, sought after for what it could do as it multiplied for the lenders to a now mercantile class. It bought goods, and more goods, properties, power, elevated status, etc. The Catholic Church, and later, Lutheranism and Calvinism, accommodated themselves very nicely to this new economy, quite simply usury in different garments … Christianity, jesuitically, found justification for each step in this process … until today, we no longer understand Our Lord’s words: “you have made of this Temple a den of thieves”.
I’ll place here again, John Henry Cardinal Newman’s very apt words:
Interesting discussion on feminism and its impact on marriage and culture.
I think we can all agree that:
* kids in the 60’s were reacting to what they grew up with. They saw the status quo as damaging and debilitating to women and it would be foolish to entirely disregard their first-hand experiences.
* as Debbie noted, all generations rebel against the last. So we can’t take the 60s generation’s rejection of the social norms of the 40s and 50s as though it were an epiphany on which to build the future.
* very few women want to return to the days when Steve Jones’ wife Sally (nee Smith) not only couldn’t go by her maiden name, Sally Smith, but literally had no identity of her own. She was referred to as “Mrs. Steve Jones”.
* neither reviling or romanticizing the days before effective birth control is of any value. This change – the ability to have the pleasure of sex without (or with reduced) risk of pregnancy – changed everything. And it’s pointless to argue whether that change is for the better or the worse. Ain’t no one going back. No one – other than Catholic Hierarchy and a small percentage of the Catholic faithful – wants to remove birth control from our culture.
* we have some serious problems. Our current system has resulted in too many family structures in which children are impoverished, women are overburdened, and men are denied quality bonding with their kids.
* the gay folk didn’t contribute much to the impoverished kids, overburdened women dynamic. That was well under way when gay folk were still criminalized in a dozen states. Nor will gay marriage much impact this – any increases or decreases to children living impoverished would be a drop in the bucket. Gay marriage is neither the cause nor the solution.
* there are no easy answers.
Theresa,
Right, and I would also like to add that one need not have been a Christian to make the choice to follow some of the extremes this movement went to. Some parts of the movement brought awareness to important issues, however, I think it lost some of that positive recognition when it went to extremes.
Oh wow! Its always interesting to come back and see where the conversation has gone 🙂
Tim,
Yeah – I can get behind that list 🙂
Debbie.
Well… partly. But let’s be careful not to romanticize.
These micro-communities were in many ways patriarchal fiefdoms in which property was owned by the head of the family and all the other members were subject to his whim. When the industrial revolution offered children the opportunity to escape such control, many leaped at it even if it meant a decrease in living conditions. The sense of self-determination had higher value than what the micro-community offered.
Nor should we assume that faith was integral to such structures. It certainly is in those that still exist (Amish, Fundamentalist Mormon, etc.), but the presence of faith in family-based micro-communities may have simply been a product of the age. It may have simply been concurrent (along with buggy whips and gas lamps) rather than causal.
The National Anthem at sign off time FTW! No offense to our wonderful anthem, but I still get sleepy when I hear it sung 😉
Debbie said:
Yes, Debbie, there are. They can and should to it when states pass laws that violate equal protection and due process — ike when racial segregation, bans on inter-racial marriage and sodomy laws were struck down, for example. Here’s how Judge Vaughn explains it:
That’s why we have three branches of government. Courts are there to insure that the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority, no matter how strongly they may disapprove of that minority on religious or moral grounds.
In that spirit, I will do my best to refrain from labeling proponents of Prop 8 as “conservatives” — and simply call them “proponents”.
The proponents’ witnesses shared personal opinions (of the NARTH variety) that were strongly contradicted by the overwhelming evidence presented in court. You cannot vote away someone else’s 14th amendment rights.
The fears, speculations, opinions, prejudices and religious values of the proponents of Prop 8 were not sufficient reason to do so. The majority cannot take away the rights of a minority unless there is some compelling rationale for the State to do so. The proponents failed to show that rationale. They only showed their prejudice.
Oh, brother. This passive-aggressive nonsense has run its course here, Timothy. Be the man and just own up to what you really feel. You are free to do so. How about we just disagree agreeably and leave it at that?
I don’t “want” or need for you to say anything in particular. I have no ulterior motives in anything I say. We each have a viewpoint. They clash. Such is life. Adults can generally handle that without pitching a hissy fit. Just try to keep your comments content-focused and fact-based rather than speculative or ad hominem attacks against the person you disagree with, please.
Teresa,
Maybe I erred in assuming that we were talking about a bigger concept than what is said on this particular thread at this particular site. I was trying to speak about how Debbie’s approach – however sincere – is not going to be well received by homosexual people within the gay community.
We are not unfamiliar with talk about “we are all sinners”. This is not a novel approach. It come’s with baggage.
Every so often we get evangelists with a heart for the homosexual who set up in the heart of West Hollywood to tell us the good news that Jesus loves us and that our sin is no greater than their own.
The last one put up an “apology” sign for how the church had treated the gay community. She was also passing out Joe Dallas’ book and gave an interview about how she felt so bad for those trapped in such a horrible lifestyle.
She didn’t last very long.
But, ya know, I’m not sure that there is much interest here as to what the gay community thinks. So I guess that my comment wasn’t appropriate.
I’m gonna jump in here and say that I found the following statement by Debbie to be welcoming and gracious.
In my opinion, remember it’s just me, I think we gay people can tend to be ultra-sensitive to others remarks, opinions, ideas. I know I certainly have been; and, at times, still am on occasion.
Timothy:
Timothy, aren’t you actually saying that Debbie is smug by the rest of your sentence above? Why does it have to be heard as ‘smug’? Isn’t the person hearing a sentence just as responsible for their own feelings? “It’s our reaction to an event, not the event itself that makes us feel the way we do”, right?
I get it, Timothy, about how some statements certainly can be hurtful. I’ve been the recipient of them. But, I’m also becoming aware (slowly, I’ll admit) that what someone else says or does, doesn’t necessarily mean I have to be hurt by it.
In the final analysis, Timothy, are you trying to imply that we, conservative Christians (not matter what stripe), are not entitled to voice our opinion? If we do voice our thoughts, you’ll brand us as smug, condescending, judgmental … which, of course, we can choose to ignore … but the conversation has for all intents and purposes really ceased.
Yes, Jayhuck, they do. But I don’t call faith in Jesus Christ a religion. Because I don’t know any man-made religion that can make this claim: “It’s Friday, but Sunday’s Comin’.”
Debbie,
I think you are more than capable of rational thought. But you do come from a different viewpoint and are, in my opinion, quite often inclined to start with the premise that your viewpoint is all that matters.
I mean, what did you want, Debbie?
Did you want for me to say, “Oh, Debbie, it doesn’t matter that what you said is a clear example of how good-intentioned people blow it when they talk to gay people. I’ll just say nothing so that you can feel that I’m respecting your thinking.”
I respect your rational thought enough to counter what you say, challenge the presumption, and try to present another way of seeing things (you might notice that some folks don’t inspire my response).
And be honest. You thought that you had presented the ideal oh so very very Christlike approach. Right?
And, it is, in a way. Christ did tell us that our own shortcomings are of far more importance to God and our interaction with Him than someone else’s huge egregious horrifying sin.
I’m just pointing out that when gay folk have heard that approach it has been accompanied with an amount of smugness that you usually only find in a Prius-driving, Greenpeace-funding, no-fur, vegan actress campaigning for Darfur.
p.s. I’m not saying you are smug… just that it’s how that will be heard.
I have not been watching this thread for awhile preferring to spend time on the church state thing. A reader contacted me about this comment and so I looked in.
I am removing comments related to the Lisa Miller case. I don’t fault people for wondering what is going on but I am not interested in getting the blog anywhere close to the legalities in this case.
Let me add that I completely disagree with Lisa Miller’s decision to flee the country and hope that all involved in aiding her are brought to justice. In my opinion, there was nothing Christian in the approach that was taken. Unless I start a thread on the issue, I will delete comments about it.
Debbie
Except… that I don’t agree that homosexuality (or homosexual behavior) is sin. And that really is the disconnect that the Evangelical world has when it come to gay folk.
I’m not saying this is you, Debby… it’s just a segue..
Quite often Evangelicals think its a two-way street. They repent for being judgmental and rejecting, and gay folks repent of being homosexual. And then only one half of that happens.
Gay folk say, “yes, you were judgmental and rejecting. Thanks for the apology and what are you going to do to make up for it?”
This is not what Evangelicals expect.
And when the gay folk refuse to agree that ‘homosexuality is not God’s best plan for your life”, they see it as a hardened heart that rejects God and then further justification for further rejecting attitudes. “Well, I tried. I went to the gays in love and humility and they laughed in God’s face!!”
We hear things like:
“I’m not saying I’m any better”
“We all are sinners”
“God loves us all the same”
“I judge my own sin first”
And I just KNOW that the person saying them is trying so very very hard to “have a heart for the homosexual” and “meet him on his own terms”. And they have it so very very wrong.
All these phrases are very good and very true. But they have nothing to do with approaching gay folk.
And when gay people hear these things from folk who believe that being gay is sin, they sound less like apology and more like arrogance and condescension (like those “I’m sorry that you misunderstood me and got offended” apologies which imply that I’m right and you’re an overly sensitive idiot).
If you want to know how the “all are sinners” talk sounds to gay folk, think of having a mission to the Democrats and coming in love and humility to say, “well, there are time when I too am stupid and misguided.” That only works if the Democrats think that Democrats are, by nature, stupid and misguided.
So I very much doubt “I hate my own sin” is the starting place. Or not if it includes assumptions about what is sin and who has it. (And as sin talk has justified decades of abuse, gay folks are not particularly receptive to that starting place)
I really do recommend reading my commentary.
Eddy, thanks for the caveat. I appreciate it… and I totally understand what you mean.
Well said.
Eddy
No. There is not a comparison.
Whether or not Michael (or I or anyone) seeks to convince you of his views, he is not seeking to impact your life at all through the legal system.
We are not seeking that the courts “justify your beliefs”. That is a common claim by anti-gay activists, but it simply isn’t true.
We seek, rather, legal equality through the courts. Social equality can only come through persuasion. So it would be foolish and futile to seek “justification of beliefs” – especially those about God – through the courts.
But I truly cannot say the same for the opposite side.
In their latest filing this week, Chuck Cooper (lead attorney for the Proposition 8 Proponents) argued that religious belief is a proper reason for denying rights to gay people and that moral disapproval was justification for unequal treatment.
I’m really not making that up or exaggerating.
They are seeking that the courts “justify their beliefs”. Because, unlike our side, they truly want to impact the lives of people who disagree with them.
I don’t mind that anyone try to convince me of their moral code. I’ve sat through a lot of sermons in my time and some I’ve enjoyed immensely. And some have even persuaded me to be a better person.
But when it goes from persuasion to law is where i really see the difference.
Pro-marriage folk only are trying to change their own lives and don’t want to change the way that the law impacts anyone else. Anti-marriage folk aren’t trying to change the way the law impact them, they only are trying to impact the lives of gay people.
And that’s wrong.
In the sense that case law establishes legal precedent, sure.
Gay couples will have the same access to marriage licenses as other couples.
It is currently illegal in California to deny services to persons based on sexual orientation, whether it be marriage invitations or civil unions invitations. So nothing has changed at all in that matter.
Any church can deny on moral grounds the use of their church facility for any reason. Nothing has changed at all in that matter.
No. Or not any more so than mixed-race marriage is the law of the land. Or that mixed-religion marriage is the law of the land. Or that Hindu marriage is the law of the land. Or that Elvis impersonator marriage is the law of the land.
No new law exists. Rather, illegal and unconstitutional restrictions of one minority from access to the law that all others share have been lifted.
Correction: in a previous post I said “law based on the 9th amendment” that should be “law based on the 9th Commandment”
Atheists as theocrats. Doesn’t seem to work with my dictionary.
“a person who rules, governs as a representative of god or a deity, or is a member of the ruling group in a theocracy, as a divine king or a high priest.”
Paraphrasing an argument against equal rights under the law:
Doesn’t this sound a lot like those who Oppose Marriage equality? Actually it’s a BIblical argument from 1884 against equal rights for women, based on what the Rev. Prof. H. M. Goodwin, believed the “judge of all mankind says”.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bible-researcher.com%2Fwomen%2Fsuffrage.html&h=7812c
Debbie,
It is, for me, problematic to ask questions like this and use words like beginning when it comes to Gods’ thoughts. I appreciate how C.S. Lewis discusses time and God in his book Mere Christianity. He states that God is not bound by time or space, like we are. We see events as happening in the past, present or future, but He does not. Lewis likened God’s view of time to drawing a line on a piece of paper. The line represents time. When we look at the line we see it all at once, generally, not just pieces of it. This is, Lewis says, how God sees time – All at once. There is no past, present or future to him. I personally tend to agree with this idea 🙂
This quote, referencing statistics from Sweden, appears on a gay website, loveandpride.com: “Gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce within eight years and lesbian couples 167 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.”
Note it’s from a gay source.
Whose God at the center? Yours? Are you suggesting that only Conservative Christian marriages are legitimate in the eyes of God? What about atheists who marry? Or Wiccans? Or any number of possible religious or non-religious approaches to marriage.?
How about marriages performed in front of a Judge with no mention of God and no intention of making “a sacred covenant with God at its center? Or Las Vegas marriages where Elvis officiates? Are these any less “marriages”?
Maybe we should just take rights away one by one until all sinners repent. Let him (or her) without sin, deny the first right.
Judge Walker did not “make a new law”. He ruled that existing rights cannot be denied because of religious prejudices — to do so violates the US Constitution. The Proponents failed to show why the State should deny equal rights on the basis of gender or orientation..
In terms of “force” — the way it is now, I am forced to pay equal taxes –but have fewer benefits. I am forced to pay more for less. You, on the other hand, still have the same rights as before — and more benefits under law — just you had before this ruling. Is that fair?
No law should bne based on “Biblical morality”. That’s not the purpose of the law. Promoting “Biblical morality” is the job of the Chruch, not the State. Civil law should be based on protecting equal civil rights.
Those are not “my rules”, Debbie. Like it or not, those are the rules set out by the Founders of our nation.
This is for whomever of posterity may come behind us here and read this tiresome chain of contention:
Paul had to form a new word for homosexual behavior because there was no Greek word for such an unnatural concept in the ancient lexicon, nor was it a concept that most God-fearing Jews wanted to imagine. And claiming an apostle of Christ, chosen by him to suffer many things in taking the gospel message to the Gentiles, made something up is, indeed, a mockery of God.
One day, Timothy, you will have occasion to remember all these discussions when you come into the presence of the living Christ. I can’t say whether that will be a sad or a joyful day. I pray for you.
The backdrop of all of this, was a century that went through two world wars, 100 million dead, devastating poverty, tens of millions of refugees, ascendancy of colonialism that robbed indigenous peoples of their land and wealth, the political rise of communism that enslaved millions more. The 50’s and 60’s were the last flowers of a plant with no root.
Christianity by the mid-twentieth century became window-dressing for a spiritually bankrupt peoples … the libertines had won the day; and, not without complicity of the average me and you.
No Michael,
No fire and brimstone, that is your exaggeration on what I have said and is once again an attempt to use sarcasm to shut up anyone who sees things differently than you. I am only to familiar with is time of imbalance in a decision that. Don’t accuse me of not understanding because I have not read this. I have lived the descrimination that has come about from this kind of judicial political correctness and it is very harmful without the fire and brimestone, which by the way I have never believedin. The harm comes slowly and gradually, but it is there, first goes the freedom of expression within our academic institutions, then we see the descrimination shown in Eddy’s post. You don’t have to look far to see the examples, you just have to remove the plank in your eyes that are blocking you from seeing what is happening.
No I don’t. Please explain. What exactly are you saying, Concened? My point is that on one hand proponents of Prop 8 say that gays present a horrible threat to kids and the family but they are too lily-livered to stand up and speak out.
Grow a pair for heaven’s sake! Stand by your convictions. Step up and speak out. If you have evidence, share it. Why are you guys so frightened of gay people?
Afraid we might want to redecorate your house or something? Fear is a lousy way to live. It’s time to come out of your closets. Being proud of yourself and your beliefs is liberating. We can give you some tips on how it’s done.
BTW — have any of you besides Ken gotten around to actually READING the decision yet? I suspect that most of the folks here that insinuate that the Judge was biased are so biased themselves that they don’t dare actually read his decision.
Sorry, wrong link. Here’s the correct one.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/343140/august-05-2010/how-to-ruin-same-sex-marriages?xrs=share_fb
Just a side note? As an ex gay (FLOABW) I don’t discuss my experiences with many people for fear of retalition either through job discrimination, social discrimination etc…. Many people will never know my story because the opposition is so loud (not always correct) but so loud that it isn’t worth the personal insults nor the energy it takes to rebut, refute, counter all the misinformation that gets said os “speculated”.
Have the spin-masters now decided to call it ‘Marriage Equality’ rather than ‘Gay Marriage’? And is that their way of discounting the opinions of those who are against ‘gay marriage’ for other reasons? (I think primarily of those people we know who are gay and oppose gay marriage…they don’t seem to fit into that tidy box.)
Challenging Judge Walker — Critics of the decision overturning California’s anti-gay marriage law are suggesting the judge is homosexual.:
An excerpt:
http://www.theroot.com/views/challenging-judge-walker?page=0,1
I have trouble with the assertion that they ‘keep coming back’. Are you suggesting that since the determination opponents ‘keep coming back’ to these three notions; if so, can you provide a few examples. “Keep” suggests continual and “coming” suggests present tense.
Two excerpts from the Huffington Post article posted above:
The article concludes with this excerpt:
The entire article is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/why-gay-opponents-hated-a_b_679887.html
Hope this clears up any confusion that my earlier attempt at “cut and paste” may have created.
And it’s not just the courts. It’s millions of Americans who think so too — gay, straight, Christian and non-Christian who support marriage equality instead of rule by Christian Conservatives.
Even Alan Chambers thinks that Christians (I assume he is including Exodus) did not spend their time, money and energy wisely by fighting so hard against equal rights for gays — and should have been more focussed on showing the true love of God instead. What a concept!
http://blog.exodusinternational.org/2010/08/10/cnn-belief-blog-interviews-alan-chambers-about-prop-8-and-gay-rights/
But even if Marriage Equality is overturned, Alan says most gay people don’t really care about discrimination laws equal rights or gay marriage anyway. He doesn’t say how he came to this conclusion. He just makes the claim — with no real evidence to back it up — much like the Proponents of Prop 8 did when they failed to make their case.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmvN06V_U0S8&h=f46ae
Will The Right Sacrifice California to Save Marriage Amendments Elsewhere?
From an audio clip of David Barton talking with Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders of the American Family Associationdiscussing the Prop 8 ruling:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/will-right-sacrifice-california-save-marriage-amendments-elsewhere
Proposition 8 appeal may not reach Supreme Court — By Maura Dolan and Lee Romney
http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/08/15/news/national/free/id_409609.txt
Same-sex marriage is about equality, not religion — O.C. Allen
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/15/Allen.same.sex.marriage.pulpit/
Michael–
I strongly urge you to use the cut and paste method when providing quotes and to only use the quote marks or feature when you are actually quoting. This not only promotes accuracy but makes you more aware when you delete a sentence or two or when you rephrase or summarize a portion of the words. (Deletions can be addressed with the …; rephrasings or summarizations need to go OUTSIDE the quotes.) (I don’t think these are ‘Eddy rules’; I believe they are standard rules of written communication. Someone please correct me if it turns out these aren’t rules anymore.)
In this instance, I’m still looking for the first two sentences of your quote in the text of the article. I find the words ‘rational basis’ in quotes in the article but that sentence does not conclude that the claim ‘cannot be demonstrated’ but rather that it was a ‘disastrous legal strategy’.
I do not believe you had any wrong intent.The rephrasing wasn’t major. However, it does alter the conclusion from ‘disastrous legal strategy’ to ‘cannot be demonstrated’ and further omits that the conclusion re the ‘rational basis’ was Bradley’s not Black’s.
I’ve been searching online dictionaries and encyclopedias to see which have politically correct definitions (and explanations) of marriage. It would seem that the wording “man and wife” would now be obsolete with “husband and wife” following shortly thereafter. Much could be resolved simply by replacing with the word ‘spouse’ but I’m certain there will still be a few linquistic hurdles to face.
Excerpt from “Olson / Boies respond to appeal for stay”
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/
The arguments against Marriage Equality have remained essentially the same from the beginning — moral/religious objections, tradition, procreation, parenting, instability of gay unions, etc.
Examples abound and are easy to find for anyone who is willing to make the effort. All these issues were raised during the trial but the Proponents could not provide soild evidence of expert testimony to back them up.
Emphasis mine.
Correction — the above is an “excerpt”, not “except”. 🙂
Judge Walker: I Doubt Prop 8 Ruling Can Be Appealed
An except:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/judge-walker-i-doubt-prop_n_681224.html
LIFTED.
Why doesn’t Glenn Beck cover gay marriage? Because he doesn’t believe it’s a threat to the nation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/glenn-beck-gay-marriage-n_n_679691.html
Why Gay Opponents Hated and Feared the Proposition 8 Trial
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/why-gay-opponents-hated-a_b_679887.html
This PSA was brought to you by the good folks at GLSEN. Just saying’. 🙂
Before I take my leave from this discussion, I think it’s important to share a few final thoughts with all those I’ve engaged with here. This is a divisive topic, and always will be. And while I have been debating ideas, I am keenly aware that behind those opposing ideas are real flesh and blood people.
We all live and breathe under the same heaven, and one Savior died for us all to satisfy the wrath of a holy God. A lot of people find that thought disturbing, but not me. Christ loves the whole world. He suffered unimaginably for it. Yet, he cannot allow some things in God’s holy economy. Marriage is not something to be toyed with at man’s whims. It is the very metaphor for Christ’s relationship with the Church, his Bride.
I am well aware that some of you believe with all your hearts that genuine love and a desire for lifelong commitment ought to be enough to secure the right to marry whomever you please. But it’s not. Marriage has a higher purpose. Some of you feel righteously indignant over this because it appears to be a slight. It’s not fair. Maybe not, but God never promised us His will would appear fair to us in the short term.
I’ve had opportunities to see God at work in individual lives, especially over the past few years. It’s a humbling thing. I’ve listened to women pour their hearts out over how much they hurt because they are struggling to reconcile their feelings for other women with their desire to know God and be in His will. I wanted to somehow take their pain away, and yet I know it to be an essential part of life. As I offered them compassion, I also knew I had to offer them truth. I had to get myself out of the way and let God be God. I would never want to stand before Him one day and have to answer for why I interfered with His purpose in another’s life because it pained me to see that person suffer.
Why would God allow this passion in some and not provide an outlet for it? I don’t know. Perhaps He offers a glorious outlet that most of us simply don’t seek or see. Perhaps gays are chosen for something sublime and don’t realize it. I also believe God never wastes a wound. A very dear friend and mentor, who went home to be with the Lord last week, taught me that. God is too kind to allow suffering without a purpose and too holy to allow truth to be obfuscated by pleasure or short-sightedness without consequences. Often sorrow is the very door through which we come to know God. It is also the greatest foothold for Satan, the Father of Lies. I also believe he has perverted our passions and helped to whip up the fury that has erupted over this debate.
It has probably been apparent that my recent rereading of The Screwtape Letters greatly impacted me and refocused me on what is truly important. I hat tip Warren for reminding me to revisit that book. I highly recommend it.
The greatest thing I can offer anyone is intercessory prayer. I pray that the Spirit of Truth will enlighten us all and imbue us with compassion for one another. I will continue to stand for truth because I know its power in every life. It is the highest form of love.
“Equality is the soul of liberty; there is, in fact, no liberty without it.” -Frances Wright” — From California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s Facebook status today, on the lifting of the stay on the Prop 8 decision.
Prop 8 stay ends next week, setting stage for California gay marriage[
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0812/Prop-8-stay-ends-next-week-setting-stage-for-California-gay-marriage
Warning: This vid is NOT on the topic at all but I think it’s one that people here can ALL share an appreciation for. Here’s hoping it has some real impact!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS0GVOQPs0
Wanda Sykes commenting on ‘That’s so gay’…
CNN Poll is First To Show Majority Support for Gay Marriage
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/cnn-poll-is-first-to-show-majority.html
Goodie. Then again we are in agreement.
Churches can go with what they think is a sacred covenant with God at its center and the State can go with equality. My church does, yours doesn’t and all is good.
Let’s just say ‘the folks at GLSEN’…I still haven’t forgotten or forgiven Fistgate.
Yes, I do use these words as interchangeable; because, most people that I would talk to, know what these terms mean in common, everyday parlance. When I’ve attempted to use the term, “same-sex attracted”, I’ve been given blank stares and questioned as to what that means.
The terms are neutral for me. They don’t have the baggage that others are attributing to them; at least, for me. Perhaps, though, Throbert’s sentence applies to me: 🙂
Debbie said:
Debbie, I think we should allow each other room to identify as we please. I have no wish to change that you prefer the word, “recovered”; nor, do I want to tell you that you shouldn’t use the term, “redeemed”.
Isn’t this the start of graciousness to one another? Each person’s spiritual journey, and relationship with Our Lord, is uniquely just that … each person’s. My own personal opinion about this, is that if we quibble about how we identify, after adequate explanation … and, we’re still at “hammer and tongs” with one another about these relatively small things, we’ll sure as heck never “bridge the gap” with anyone. It shows how far I am from my Christian identity. However, in the end, this is just my opinion.
Teresa–
I empathize with the semantical confusion. Psychology uses the term ‘homosexual’ to include both behavior and desire; the Bible doesn’t go with a noun or a label but speaks to what you do (verb). People speak here from the language of the gay community and others speak from the mindset of the Christian community. In many circumstances, a Christian wouldn’t label you a liar if you were only tempted to lie–regardless of how ongoing and persistent those temptations were. It’s the doing that makes the label stick.
But we live in a world where psychological jargon is pervasive. An alcoholic is a person with an ongoing desire for the effects of alcohol. Consider though that we might label a person as an alcoholic but not a drunkard. Many would view ‘alcoholic’ as including even the desire to drink while reserving ‘drunkard’ for one who is still engaging in excessive drinking. No such distinction has been accepted for homosexuality. Homosexuals who stopped engaging in homosexuality often migrated to one of two label choices: ex-gay or celibate. Both terms leave a little to be desired. And semantic debate and confusion continues.
Timothy said–
I understand this. I have friends who ask me why I bother. But, unlike Timothy, I sometimes find value in words other than my own or from people other than those who are squarely ‘on my team’. (And, honestly, I don’t think Timothy really meant nothing of value…that’s just more of that abusive ‘propaganda talk’ that some of us have been trying to curtail.)
While I await your explanation, I will point out that anyone believing what you have (satirically) said there would be pretty far off the mark. You might want to read Romans 7 and 8 again to get my perspective.
Throbert, can I be part of the six? Please? I hate being left out. It hurts my feelings; and, I just wanna stamp my two-year-old toddler feet (which, btw, I’ve been doing all day)!! 🙂 🙂
Timothy, what you wrote above about the legalism trap could have served as a teaching lesson in my old group. In fact, it is an apt synopsis of Robert McGee’s book, “The Search for Significance.” You’ve heard me mention it before. I am not quite sure what point you were making about me and my beliefs with what you said. You’ll have to explain.
Hey, it applies to me, too — at least, I’ve definitely got the fussy/pedantic part covered, and my coolness has often been questioned. 🙂
We may be having yet another confusion between church usage and psychological usage. The church, apart from psychological usage, has long considered it a disorder because it conflicts with what they believe to be God’s created order. Definition 2: an irregularity. Psychology once termed it a mental illness, later a disorder and still later ‘not a problem’. Psychology even went one step further suggesting that it’s a disorder not to be at peace with your homosexuality. Definition 4: a disturbance in mental health functions.
By and large, I believe conservative Christians feel that a disposition towards homosexuality means that the child or young person has been afflicted somehow (emotionally, psychologically, spiritually). Hence, an irregularity. Many others, however, (including the bulk of the psychological community) believe that it is a natural and normal variation. Hence, the disorder would be in not accepting it as such for ones self.
If one thing is clear from this website, the two groups cited rarely have matching definitions for the terms they use; neither makes great effort to fullly understand the usage of the other; and (I fault the conservative Christians more for this one) sometimes use that fancy sounding terminology oblivious to the landmines of miscommunication.
I don’t want to make assumptions, please elaborate on the different forms of bondage these churches are referencing when they say ‘freedom in Christ’.
Timothy: I suspect many people (some gay some straight) do feel this way. My gay friends didn’t feel that opposite-sex marriage was inferior, per se. They treasure the relationship they have. They just thought the Biblical defintion was “one man/one woman” — but they also firmly believe that all couples should have equal rights.
They couldn’t see “what all the fuss was about labels” since they believed that “marriage” and “civil unions” were equal in terms of rights and responsiibilites. Once they looked at the facts, they changed their minds. They label doesn’t matter to them very much. Equality under the law does.
Prop. 8 Supporters Fight to Block Marriages
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/16/Prop_8_Supporters_Fight_to_Block_Marriages/
Actually, Wiki didn’t do a bad job:
Michael,
1) I appreciate your follow up report re your friends. One suggestion though. “Marriage Equality” is the brand spanking new term. Your friends actually never said (note the past tense) they were against “marriage equality”; they said they were against “gay marriage”. Now that they understand that the issue IS equality, they favor both ‘marriage equality’ and ‘gay marriage’.
2) My friend opposes ‘gay marriage’ for other reasons. He holds a certain contempt for straights and straight systems and believes that gays are meant to be a unique expression of humanity. Therefore, he objects to their efforts to try to emulate straights. He doesn’t see much worth emulating…views it as a compromise…and sees it as a rejection of the ‘free spirit’ that he sees as a basic component of the gay life. He understands and supports the desire for equal rights and benefits but thinks that marriage isn’t the best way to acquire those rights and benefits.
Since they have changed their thinking, they call it “Marriage Equality” too, since they feel it is more accurate. They don’t think there should be any legal difference depending on gender or orientation.
Eddy,
“Marriage equality” is not a very new term. It has been the term of choice for the gay community for quite some time. But it is not exactly used in the same way as “same-sex marriage”
Technically, states do not enact gay marriage; In Massachusetts law there is nothing called “gay marriage”. Rather, the laws have been changed to eliminate restrictions on same-sex couples, giving them equal access. So when discussing laws, the term best suited is “marriage equality”, implying equal access.
When discussing an individual marriage, however, you’d still say “same-sex marriage” (which is more accurate than “gay marriage”).
So you would say, “State X’s legislature passed the marriage equality bill on Tuesday and same-sex marriages will be legal next week. Gay couples are already making appointments,”
Michael,
I’ve seen those transitions a lot over the past decade.
When Vermont got civil unions, plenty of gay folk thought “oh, well that second tier status is good enough for us.” But in recent years many gay people are starting to ask themselves, “Hey, wait a minute. Why should I accept anything less than anyone else.”
Timothy,
Time will tell, I don’t know how we can get to a courtroom without all of these arguments being voiced and giving people the benefit of the doubt as we collect the data, in the context of human rights and so forth.
And:
This is my understanding as well…but I am more interested in reversing trends; which seemed to be occurring in the late 80’s and 90’s in the USA. “Leveling off” at the current point in time sets in motion an every growing burden on public institutions to do things more poorly that families used to do better.
EEK!
Mary, is this simply an observation; or, an observation with a judgment that “the rights of women” are wrong?
To be clear, Jayhuck, Marinelli makes a distinction between “civil marriage” and “holy marriage.” Not sure how many Christians will be able to go there with him, but he is entitled to feel as he does.
In thinking about David’s question, I readily concede that marriage has suffered greatly for a variety of reasons, most of them selfish ones. That failing likely does give people pause when it comes to whether or not they should oppose same-sex marriage. It is also true that public policy has adversely affected marriage. Marriage tax penalties and welfare subsidies have discouraged couples from marrying while making it easier for women to bear children out of wedlock.
From the above link:
Civil marriage is marriage, Ken, if the State deems it so.
Ken,
I cannot get past your new found accusatory and negative tone toward me. The assumptions you have made have been unneccessary and, for sure, untrue. I no longer feel safe sharing any of my thoughts with you, therefore, do not look forward to an answer to your question. I have commented on this blog from it’s inception when Dr. Throckmorton invited me to. You can read any of these comments and more than likely get all the answers you need or want.
Debbie,
I think you are likely right that this issue is, ultimately, already set for determination. And, yes, God will sort everything out in the end.
That’s a very good question, David.
I guess I keep hoping that at some point I can make a connection. It isn’t working so far, but maybe some day.
I will say that the process has been an introduction into some of the viewpoints and perspectives that, living in Los Angeles, I can sometimes forget. The presumptions that would be seen as horribly offensive here, still seem normal and accepted in other communities.
And it reminds me of how far we have to go. Just on this thread alone I’m reminded that to have gay people compare their struggle with yours is inherently offensive and that the burdens of inequality can not only be dismissed completely (poof, gone, no interest whatsoever) but are actually treated with scorn by those who see them as entitlement whining.
However, I also have hope. I do know that some of what I write does sink in. Naturally, aint nobody gunna admit it, but on some level at least it gets out there. It may not be considered (due to the source) but it is a seed that can be watered by others.
But, yeah. It gets wearying. I mostly dislike the incessant put-downs, the slurs, the meanness at times. (I laughed out loud when I was compared to Bahati and Ssempa in one thread and just a few days later gay folk were chastised for comparing Christians to Bahati and Ssempa – something I’ve not seen much of). But I know that most of it isn’t really personal, I’m just standing in as a representative.
That and the deliberate blockades to communication (you can’t use any words that describe attitudes or behavior that hurts gay people because it’s “calling names” even when you very carefully explain that a perspective or position is anti-gay, not necessarily the person). Yet even there, I think headway has been made. There is now some understanding that when our community uses a term we actually are trying to communicate an idea rather than just spew hate at Christians.
But I probably will take a break again for a while. I know its time to go when I find myself writing what I’m thinking rather than flat statements of fact without opinion. And I’ve been expressing opinion a bit lately. And try as I might, the person nastiness of some of it does get to me and I find myself responding – which is a very bad idea.
But I expect that I’ll be back. I do tend to do that.
David B –
Fair enough. Thank you!
Timothy, I, too, had thought that connecting might make a difference. I’m not sure it ever will here. It is depressing at times. It’s hard to really listen, isn’t it? I have heard many things that have opened my mind and my heart in these several years of conversations (or food fights). But it’s been like a roller coaster ride. Too much conviction and angst, too little courtesy. We’ve all been guilty of it. We just can’t make these issues noncontroversial. They are what they are. The closest we’ve been to making it meaningful is when we can step back and breathe and remember the two great commandments.
I am just too weary of all the debate. It accomplishes nothing. I have decided that I am going to invest my ministry efforts primarily in prayer from now on. Before anything comes out of my mouth, it needs to be going to God’s ears first. I believe in the “ministry of the interior.” That’s what we need most.
As I’ve said several times, you all are going to win gay marriage and other things. It’s only a matter of time, and not that much, I think. God will sort out everything in the long run. I trust Him.
All –
Did you hear about Louis Marinelli’s relatively new support for marriage equality? He helped organize the NOM Support Marriage bus tour in 2010 and started the Protect Marriage site on Facebook. I appreciate his words:
Louis Marinelli supports marriage equality
Jayhuck,
Sorry I haven’t answered this before:
No…and the same may be true of Gay marriage.
Blakeslee,
I think that we can agree that not many people really desire to ban same-sex marriage out of fear of polygamy. I just haven’t found – or heard of – anyone who is okay with same-sex marriage but the fear of multiple-spouse marriage is so real that they are willing to sacrifice their support for same-sex marriage, just in case.
I don’t think that is your position. I doubt that your views on same-sex marriage are hinged on polygamy concerns.
And for good reason. The two are not really related to each other.
I can see how someone concerned about marriage and morality and legal structure might think that polygamy is relevant to the discussion. Both polygamy and same-sex marriage are about marriage, after all, and both are currently banned (in most states). And I can see how someone might think “I oppose both these marriage structures, so I can talk about them as though they were related.” It not right to wonder if one could lead to the other?
But I don’t think that concept applies well to other situations. One can dislike both artichokes and rum raisin ice-cream without thinking that including one on a menu will lead to the other.
And to gay people, the connection is even less obvious: “Polygamy isn’t our community’s problem. In fact, in the US the polygamists cults hate us (and here I think hate is an accurate term). Why should we be responsible for what your allies do?”
I see it as both irrelevant to the subject and – often times – just a tool used when no real argument can be found.
To me, “slippery slope; polygamy’s next” seems as bizarre as “slippery slope; arranged marriages next” or “slippery slope; mail order brides next.”
It’s a separate issue, with separate arguments. And regardless of whether gays are granted equality in marriage matters or driven back into the closet with repressive laws, polygamy will at some point make it’s case.
I don’t think that polygamy will be found to be constitutionally protected. You think it might.
But here’s the rub: If I had to choose, I would rather allow polygamist to marry than I would to force my religious beliefs on them. It the only reason for not allowing polygamist marriage is because I don’t like it, then I’d be a big hypocrite to insist that my religion gets to dictate.
I agree with the defintion in the ruling. I don’t think the “essence” of marriage is defined by gender, sexual orienation or someone’s opinion on Biblical law. It’s a legal contract. Beyond that, it is what each couple makes it.
Yes, although I do not always live by it, that’s the law written in my heart. Laws like “stone your kids if they disobey” or “kill women who are found not to be virigins on their wedding night” are not. Those laws violate the “love your neighbor as yourself” clause.
Are you asking for the legal definition in California before Prop 8? I am sure a review of California Marriage Laws prior to Prop 8 would provide that answer.
Prop 8 added a new provision to the California Constitution, to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California:
Michael,
I am asking ‘what is marriage?’ When it all boils down, what is marriage. It’s not a test where the answers are graded. It’s a question as a basis for discussion.
Debbie,
I appreciate the viewpoints you shared, however, we’ve had no disputes over marriages where the couple has either chosen to remain childless or where biologically they couldn’t reproduce. Are you suggesting that where there is no family, there is no marriage? Or perhaps that the married couple IS a family? If the latter is the case, what would rule out a gay couple?
My one brother and his wife have been married for over 25 years but have no children. On the other hand, gay couples have acquired families. What makes my brother’s marriage a true marriage and invalidates the gay one?
Not trying to be testy…trying to get at the essence of ‘what is a marriage’.
From Judge Walker’s Findings of Fact in this case:
Based on the evidence presented at trial, he ruled that Prop 8, which amended the California Constitution to limit the right of marriage to male/female couples, violated the US Constitution.
People have a right to vote, but they cannot “vote away” your rights. If a majority of people in California opposed Christianity, they could not enact a lproposition to make it illegal. That would be a violation of the US constituion. People do not have the “right” to vote away the rights of others.
In terms of public education, this ruling does not require that public school teachers tell children that homosexuality is OK with God or that “gay is good” — as the proponents of Prop 8 tried to scare parents into believing. It doesn’t require that they teach anything about morality or the Bible. If a child asked if same-sex marriage was legal, the teacher would state the facts: “Yes, people of the same sex can marry in some states and countries, but not in others.”
As to taking away some right to “conscientious objection”, what the heck are you talking about? This rulling did not remove anyone’s right to live or in accordance with their conscience. People who morally object to same-sex marriage would be breaking no law if they expressed their opionions about it or chose not to marry a same-sex partner. This ruling does not remove any rights. It removes Prop 8.
So for those of you who missed the live broadcast you can see it at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlUG8F9uVgM&feature=plcp&context=C39ee498UDOEgsToPDskJhBbjMvjCtsP7SBD-Gxhgh
Note, the play doesn’t start until about 30min into the video.
Overall, I thought it was a pretty good representation. I liked the way it started with the closing arguments then presented the witness’ testimony via flash-back as the lawyers highlighted it in the closing arguments.
However, I didn’t like how they kept saying that the opposition to the release of the trial video was some nefarious scheme to hide the truth. Several of the witnesses did not want to be videoed, and the courts ruling was that they did not have to be videoed. So claiming it is a scheme to hide the truth is dishonest, there are other reasons people wouldn’t want to be on video besides that.
So for those of you who missed the live broadcast you can see it at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlUG8F9uVgM&feature=plcp&context=C39ee498UDOEgsToPDskJhBbjMvjCtsP7SBD-Gxhgh
Note, the play doesn’t start until about 30min into the video.
Overall, I thought it was a pretty good representation. I liked the way it started with the closing arguments then presented the witness’ testimony via flash-back as the lawyers highlighted it in the closing arguments.
However, I didn’t like how they kept saying that the opposition to the release of the trial video was some nefarious scheme to hide the truth. Several of the witnesses did not want to be videoed, and the courts ruling was that they did not have to be videoed. So claiming it is a scheme to hide the truth is dishonest, there are other reasons people wouldn’t want to be on video besides that.
I will be watching.
Brad Pitt
as
Judge Walker
George Clooney
as
David Boies
Martin Sheen
as
Theodore B. Olson
I read on another website that Kevin Bacon will be playingthe ottorney for the opposing side Charles Cooper.
Ken I can’t wait for tonight. Hopefully I will see a comment or two from you while it is playiing.
Tonight 7:45 PT Americans for Equal Rights (AFER) is streaming live “8” a play about the prop 8 trial. I’m curious to see what others who read the transcript of the trial think about the play.
Details are at: http://www.afer.org/live/
David –
Forgive me. I did not realize from your post that those words were a direct quote from the article. My favorite part is probably the last paragraph:
David –
Well now I have to ask. Do you think the logic behind this appeals court decision was questionable? If so, why?
True Ken, true, however I did not even know this thread existed until I saw a comment from David Blakeslee in the “Recent Comments” section on the right. I was not around here in August of 2010.
For the most part we are encouraged to stay on topic and so I generally do that. There wasn’t any recent topics about this so I didn’t interrupt a different topic to bring it up. Keep in mind that I, nor any recent followers of Warrens blog, would not have known about this old article.
If you read the dissent from Judge Smith he references the amici brief showing over 100 research reports that are negative towards sexual minorities, that has to be the NARTH amici. If we get a topic on it, I’ll go look up the link to NARTH’s amici brief.
And besides this thread is still here for updates on Prop 8.
“Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they already possessed, to obtain from the state, or any authorized party, an important right – the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.” ~ Judge Reinhardt, 2/7/12
?”Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.
The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.
In a separate decision, the appeals court refused to invalidate Walker’s ruling on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html
Yes I know Warren, you have been busy with Uganda. It is just something I noticed, that it is very important to millions of sexual minorities in the States and this is a very big deal for Americans on both sides of the issue. I know you have a job and a family and don’t blog full time so it is hard, you have to make choices on what you want to focus on.
It would have been nice if there was even a short article on it as I have some things to say about it. If you read the dissent from Judge Smith he references an Amici brief that references over 100 studies that show that children do poorly with parents who are of the same sex.
That has to be the Amici brief from NARTH which I brought to this website previously. Now a Federal Judge is using that Amici brief from NARTH as true and valid, and using it in his decision. These are the types of topics related to the 9th Circuit ruling that would have made for good discussion on your blog.
When you have the time it would be nice to see an article on it, that is all I am saying, and I am disappointed that time has not yet permitted it.
SGM – In case you haven’t noticed, I have been a little preoccupied…
Warren didn’t even write about it here. 🙁
This article on Judge Walkers decision, generated over 1,500 comments. But the Appeal decision which affirmed, didn’t even merit a blurb, sigh.
SGM – In case you haven’t noticed, I have been a little preoccupied…
Though technically upheld, Walker was strategically reversed. His decision was an idealistic stretch. The appeals court substituted a calculated straddle. Its jurisprudential logic may be questionable, but its political logic is impeccable.
Not at all coincidentally, the court’s ruling relies heavily on a precedent written by the Supreme Court’s swing vote, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is sympathetic to gay rights but probably not ready to order gay marriage. The decision could not have been more strategically targeted if it had begun with the three words, “Dear Justice Kennedy.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gay-marriage-ruling-california-politically-shrewd-article-1.1019338#ixzz1ltJrJvoi
Though technically upheld, Walker was strategically reversed. His decision was an idealistic stretch. The appeals court substituted a calculated straddle. Its jurisprudential logic may be questionable, but its political logic is impeccable.
Not at all coincidentally, the court’s ruling relies heavily on a precedent written by the Supreme Court’s swing vote, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is sympathetic to gay rights but probably not ready to order gay marriage. The decision could not have been more strategically targeted if it had begun with the three words, “Dear Justice Kennedy.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gay-marriage-ruling-california-politically-shrewd-article-1.1019338#ixzz1ltJrJvoi
More:
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html
The 9th District Court of appeals upheld Walker’s overturning of Prop 8.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-violates-constitution-appeals-court-finds/
For more details about what may happen next you can go here:
http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/02/07/breaking-proposition-8-ruled-unconstitutional-by-9th-circuit-panel/
The next big issue to be decided is if Walker’s stay on implementing is ruling (i.e preventing CA from performing more gay marriages) remains or is lifted.
Another issue the appeals court ruled on was that Walker being gay was NOT grounds to throw out his decision.
It will be interesting to see what the Prop 8 proponents next move will be.
The 9th District Court of appeals upheld Walker’s overturning of Prop 8.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-violates-constitution-appeals-court-finds/
For more details about what may happen next you can go here:
http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/02/07/breaking-proposition-8-ruled-unconstitutional-by-9th-circuit-panel/
The next big issue to be decided is if Walker’s stay on implementing is ruling (i.e preventing CA from performing more gay marriages) remains or is lifted.
Another issue the appeals court ruled on was that Walker being gay was NOT grounds to throw out his decision.
It will be interesting to see what the Prop 8 proponents next move will be.
(reposted from University of Utah professor: NARTH article “unscientific and irresponsible”
Close, the 1st hearing is to determine if the video can be released. The 2nd hearing is about whether Walker’s decision should be thrown out because he is gay.
the CA supreme court has already ruled that prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal. (http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2011/11/17/breaking-ca-supreme-court-rules-prop-8-proponents-do-have-standing-to-appeal/)
That is a valid worry and concern.
Interestingly, I worry a bit the other direction. It is my perception – and while I am not authoritative on this, I do try and follow it – that marriage has actually fared better in places where gay couples have become not only allowed but expected to participate.
I think France erred this week. Parliament voted down a gay marriage provision. That is particularly concerning because in France young heterosexual couples have been entering PACS instead of marriage – they aren’t as “serious” and don’t have the same obligations. It really would behoove them to consider encouraging marriage instead of having multiple options (and maybe fix whatever is seen as too burdensome in marriage before it dies altogether).
But it is not unreasonable for folks to worry that allowing gay people to marry will cause marriage to lose it’s sacredness.
Of course, they have an obligation to inspect those worries. To have “worries” that are never questioned or inspected isn’t really worry – it’s just prejudice. Yet real worries are valid and those who have such concerns should indeed be keeping a close eye on Spain and Canada and New Hampshire, etc., to see if marriage has lost its value or, perhaps, increased in stature.
And I’m glad that Perry v. Schwarzenegger put that question to the experts. It resolved the issue – for me anyway – and the testimony should be considered. But I can understand that it may not be enough for others and that they still have a ways to go before they are convinced.
Which is why I kinda prefer the federalist approach that we’ve taken over the past decade. We can compare Massachusetts to Alabama and Vermont to Louisiana.
David B.
I get what you are saying about religious identity and am not arguing that. I am just making some observations which were inspired by the following:
I think that it may be hard to find irrevocable identifiers such as we tell ourselves exist for gender or skin color or national origin. I’m not sure those identifiers are really that distinct or that real.
Take race, the “biggie” in this example. We sorta have collectively come to an agreement on race… but our agreement really doesn’t fit any description.
Race certainly isn’t defined by skin tone. I’m a “white man” who has natural skin coloring that is quite often darker than a good many of the Hispanics I know – and sometime darker than some black people. My white friend Brian has Portuguese ancestors and if he spends a summer in the sun is darker than most of the black people we know. (For some reason, I know a number of black guys that you’d never know until they told you)
And it isn’t features, either. I have a good friend who – unlike most people in his family – has very dark skin, about the color of dark chocolate. But his features are not ‘typical for black people’.
My half Blackfoot / half Italian friend has distinctly “Asian” eyes. (I mean, at times, truly cartoon eyes – the crescent moon ones you see in Japanese Anime. I didn’t know eyes actually could look like that.)
And sometimes it’s all a matter of “hey, just pick one”. My friend Aaron had one parent who was black, one from india, and was raised by a white couple in Colorado. The EEOC is perfectly fine with whatever race he picks, so long as it isn’t American Indian.
And national origin may have an exact meaning (as in John McCain was born in Panama and is therefor American) but it generally mean “ethnicity”. Which again is a bit vague. I have a Filipino friend who looks Chinese and a Filipino friend who looks Hispanic.
And although the most recent immigrant in my lineage came here in the 1890’s (and the next most recent in the 1840’s) before the Statue of Liberty was erected or Ellis Island opened, some folks think I don’t look “like an American” and very frequently get the question “where are you from”?
We tend to follow where we perceive the discrimination to be to determine race and ethnicity. Barack Obama is remarkable in that no black man has ever been president so he’s our First Black President. In Kenya, he’d be their First White President. And Tiger Woods would not be as interesting as a Major Thai Golfer, so he’s Black.
We are comfortable with these less-exact definitions because we know that for most of us, race really is definable and discernible. There is no question about the race of my friend James – nor is there any question that though James is better educated, more articulate, far far better dressed than me, and a VP in an international company, no one is going to walk up to me at the Met (as someone did James) and say, “excuse me young man, can you show me to my seat” (while he stood there in a custom made tuxedo and $500 shoes).
So, because racial prejudices are real, we let the fuzzy area be a little fuzzy.
I don’t think sexual orientation is all that dissimilar. There are clearly gay folk who will always be gay folk, clearly straight folk for life, clearly bisexual folk, and some for whom the definitions are fuzzy.
Personally, I dislike the general dismissive atttitude towards gay families. Why does my marriage (recognized by both my church and my state) negatively affect hetero marriages? Why do heteros feel negative about marriage because people like me are married? That makes no sense to me.
My kids deserve to have married parents. My husband and I deserve to have the protections and resonsibilities of marriage. We contribute to this culture and our family does not deserve to be used as the scapegoat for those who disrespect their own marriages and families.
Hi, David Blakeslee. About your statement above, I’m wondering if the culture has any longer “a general value of marriage as a sacred institution”. From my perspective, and I know I sound like a broken record on this, but the value of marriage came apart with the acceptation of artificial birth control (at the Lambeth Conference in 1930). From that point on, the most intimate act between a married man and woman, whose primary purpose was the “openness to life”, became sterile (if artificial birth control was used), occurring in the early 60’s. The use of artificial control became almost de rigueur for many married couples: condoms, birth control pills, IUD’s, inserted hormonal rods, diaphragms, vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc.
Following that, came the natural progression for legalized abortion, to follow thru on sterility for the ‘mistakes’ of the generative process. Cut-to-the-chase, sexual pleasure without the consequences of children, was seen as OK by many, if not most. Whether the churches speak out against this, the average church-goer has opted for some form of artificial birth control. So, the married sexual act became pretty much a ‘homosexual’ act in two ways: sexual pleasure was paramount, sterility a goal. Although the ‘parts’ still fit together in a natural way (although oral and anal sex is far more common now), the act itself, using artificial birth control, became ‘intrinsically disordered’: the exact same condemnation stated of homosexual acts. This similitude of most str8 sexual activity to homosexual activity has been talked about by many theologians.
How then can a str8 society that is essentially partaking of homosexual behavior not eventually move to marriage being OK for gay couples? Why shouldn’t it? I think, at least I do, that somehow we live in a make-believe world of yesteryear, where “marriage was a sacred institution”, and everything is peaches and cream, a world seen thru rose-colored glasses. Ain’t so. Furthermore, it’s not us homosexuals that are to blame for where we’re at. We’re rather late to the party. If you str8 folks can have your cake and eat it too, and call it right; why not us?
David,
One should be far more concerned with how some, maybe most, of these supposed “religious” institutions sought to participate in furthering prop 8. Using lies and playing on people’s fears are hardly honorable ways to go about this. They discredited themselves by their own actions.
David,
If we’re talking about California yes, but this is not true for most gay people in most places. As long as the rights and privileges are the same, then I don’t mind the state calling these marriages civil unions, but that’s just me. Unfortunately, civil unions, at least those in most other places, don’t confer the same rights and benefits on this minority group as marriage would.
David B.
I get what you are saying about religious identity and am not arguing that. I am just making some observations which were inspired by the following:
I think that it may be hard to find irrevocable identifiers such as we tell ourselves exist for gender or skin color or national origin. I’m not sure those identifiers are really that distinct or that real.
Take race, the “biggie” in this example. We sorta have collectively come to an agreement on race… but our agreement really doesn’t fit any description.
Race certainly isn’t defined by skin tone. I’m a “white man” who has natural skin coloring that is quite often darker than a good many of the Hispanics I know – and sometime darker than some black people. My white friend Brian has Portuguese ancestors and if he spends a summer in the sun is darker than most of the black people we know. (For some reason, I know a number of black guys that you’d never know until they told you)
And it isn’t features, either. I have a good friend who – unlike most people in his family – has very dark skin, about the color of dark chocolate. But his features are not ‘typical for black people’.
My half Blackfoot / half Italian friend has distinctly “Asian” eyes. (I mean, at times, truly cartoon eyes – the crescent moon ones you see in Japanese Anime. I didn’t know eyes actually could look like that.)
And sometimes it’s all a matter of “hey, just pick one”. My friend Aaron had one parent who was black, one from india, and was raised by a white couple in Colorado. The EEOC is perfectly fine with whatever race he picks, so long as it isn’t American Indian.
And national origin may have an exact meaning (as in John McCain was born in Panama and is therefor American) but it generally mean “ethnicity”. Which again is a bit vague. I have a Filipino friend who looks Chinese and a Filipino friend who looks Hispanic.
And although the most recent immigrant in my lineage came here in the 1890’s (and the next most recent in the 1840’s) before the Statue of Liberty was erected or Ellis Island opened, some folks think I don’t look “like an American” and very frequently get the question “where are you from”?
We tend to follow where we perceive the discrimination to be to determine race and ethnicity. Barack Obama is remarkable in that no black man has ever been president so he’s our First Black President. In Kenya, he’d be their First White President. And Tiger Woods would not be as interesting as a Major Thai Golfer, so he’s Black.
We are comfortable with these less-exact definitions because we know that for most of us, race really is definable and discernible. There is no question about the race of my friend James – nor is there any question that though James is better educated, more articulate, far far better dressed than me, and a VP in an international company, no one is going to walk up to me at the Met (as someone did James) and say, “excuse me young man, can you show me to my seat” (while he stood there in a custom made tuxedo and $500 shoes).
So, because racial prejudices are real, we let the fuzzy area be a little fuzzy.
I don’t think sexual orientation is all that dissimilar. There are clearly gay folk who will always be gay folk, clearly straight folk for life, clearly bisexual folk, and some for whom the definitions are fuzzy.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jun 15, 2011 at 10:29 am
“This is a different position than I was in 4 years ago.”
My question was about your stance, on Walker, about 10 months ago not 4 years.
ex. your very 1st post on this thread:
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 4, 2010 at 5:07 pm
“An odd decision…forgone, once you knew who was overseeing the case.”
you then followed up with several posts suggesting (and linking to other articles that did the same) Walker’s decision was biased because he was gay.
Ken,
It is important in this debate, I think, to not talk like an expert in a field you do not know. :). Opinions are just that…especially legal ones by non-legal participants.
I have been trying to acknowledge minority status for GLBT based not upon irrevocable identifiers such as gender or skin color or national origin. To date, those are hard to find.
To me it is more like minority status based upon religious identification. Sensations and beliefs united in an identification and a community. It is imperfect, but it works for me.
It fits with many facts and it has the added benefit that I need not agree with the identification as a “fact” in order to support someone’s right to see themselves and the world that way.
Latter Day Saints and Fundamentalist Christians are at odds, but equally protected under the law. Both have fundamental sensations about themselves and the order of the universe and are applying established beliefs and facts as well as personal beliefs and facts to form an identity and build a supportive community.
This is a different position than I was in 4 years ago.
Gay marriage is a very difficult nexus for those of us who believe elevating marriage is good for the culture and protection of the weak and the vulnerable is the duty of good government; add to this the concern that a court undermine unilaterally, the will of the people and the acknowledgment by anyone of a political mind that California Government is incredibly DYSFUNCTIONAL.
One can also be concerned with the reaction of those who sought to discredit religious institutions for participating in Prop 8; and for missing that minority status for GLBT is still an issue for other minorities: African Americans in particular.
As the case develops, facts and precedents are well articulated and I become better informed, when people don’t call me names, I worry less about how I are perceived and I can learn.
Still worried about the state of marriage…and whether in seeking to protect this minority group (already protected through civil unions), will have a negative effect on the culture’s general value of marriage as a sacred institution.
My take is that ‘the people’–the same ones that make ‘reality TV’ thrive–rule! God bless ’em!
David Blakeslee# ~ Jun 14, 2011 at 6:29 pm
“This judge has articulated very well for me why Walker’s minority status does not disqualify him.”
An interesting comment given your initial opinion about Walker. What changed your position on him?
David,
Regardless of where we fall on any particular issue, this is such a profound and powerful statement that I want to post a larger segment of it:
Your interest in equal protection and due process is the exact same as mine, or Mildred Loving’s, or Oliver L. Brown’s, or that of the poorest immigrant or any Rockefeller or Kennedy. I love that.
This judge has articulated very well for me why Walker’s minority status does not disqualify him.
Found here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_TRIAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-14-03-07-03
Jon,
Exactly! And NO amount of DOMA laws can prevent us from calling our unions marriages! Because that is precisely what they are, despite what the state may recognize.
No. Gay couples in ALL states can have religious same-sex weddings. The government just doesn’t recognize those marriages in most states. No amount of DOMA laws or constitutional amendments can prevent gay or lesbian couples from holding weddings in churches or at our homes or at the park or wherever.
The kicker, for me anyway, is that in most states, you can have a religious same-sex marriage blessing. In most of those same states, you cannot have a legally recognized secular same-sex marriage.
Or I suppose he could dissect his ministerial license from his employment and perform marriage as, say, a UCC minister. Out of uniform.
But I think it irrefutable that restricting what a minister can do is best described as a troubling restriction on religious freedom. So it is with bafflement that I read Tony Perkins describe this limitation of a chaplains abilities and freedoms this way:
And please do not tell me that Tony Perkins actually believes what he said.
ken,
I am still finding it difficult to find the exact language. Here is how Akin describes it:
So it would appear that as long as they are not performing official duties, they can do what they want. Off site. Out of uniform. NOT AS A CHAPLAIN.
In other words, sure Corp. Jones can say the words “do you take..” but he CANNOT say the words “what God has joined together” because those words are the duties of a chaplain, not of some guy off the street.
The chaplain’s restriction is to his practice of religion.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ May 18, 2011 at 5:10 pm
“Having a chaplain officiate is, by definition, having a religious wedding in precisely the same way that having a Catholic priest or Reform rabbi or United Methodist Church minister officiate makes it a religious wedding.”
What you are missing Timothy is that clergy are also allowed to officiate civil marriages, mostly as a matter of convenience. Here’s how a civil marriage works. A couple files for a marriage license. then in front of a government representative they swear to be each others “lawfully wedded husband/wife” (or just spouse, the exact wording can vary from state to state), and each sign the marriage license, along with the government representative who acts as witness that the couple has sworn to whatever specific oaths the state requires. Now, these government representatives can be judges, justices of the peace, county clerks, military base/ship commanders, ambassadors and clergy. Many times the state required oaths are simply incorporated into the religious ceremony and it is just a matter of quickly signing the paper work while the guests file out of the church/temple/synagogue.
so telling clergy they can’t officiate a same-sex wedding is saying they can’t administer the STATE oaths and sign the marriage license.
I have seen nothing about the Akin amendment that indicates it restricts religious ceremonies or even that restricts clergy from officiating same-sex CIVIL marriage outside of their official military duties (i.e. off base on their own time). And until you can actually show me that language of the amendment that says it applies to religious ceremonies, I will consider your claims to be as accurate as those that claim state laws allowing same-sex marriages apply to religious ceremonies.
ken,
Are you seriously arguing that chaplains perform civil marriages? I don’t think that is very likely. What function would they serve?
I’m finding it difficult to follow your logic and fear that you are simply stretching in order to keep to your initial assertion. I hope not.
So let’s go back to the beginning.
A chaplain is a religious role. Chaplains are preachers. Their work is, by definition, religious. The functions that a chaplain provides are religious functions.
Having a chaplain officiate is, by definition, having a religious wedding in precisely the same way that having a Catholic priest or Reform rabbi or United Methodist Church minister officiate makes it a religious wedding.
Religion + wedding = religious wedding.
In fact, to be a chaplain you have to be a Catholic priest or Reform rabbi or United Methodist Church or ordained by some denomination and your service as a chaplain is entirely dependent on your good standing in that faith. if you church defrocks you, you can’t be a chaplain. Because what chaplains do is religion.
You can have a civil marriage either with or without a religious component (in five states). And you can have a religious marriage without civil recognition everywhere.
But you can’t have a civil marriage without a religious component if you include a preacher and have it blessed. That’s what makes it a religious ceremony.
Telling a chaplain “you cannot officiate at same-sex weddings” is, by definition, restricting a religious task, whether or not there is a wedding license.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ May 16, 2011 at 9:19 pm
“The federal government is prohibited from expanding or limiting religious functions”
And what are you basing your claim that the government is doing this on, Timothy?
“(and chaplains perform religious functions) ”
they also perform a secular function, which is solemnizing civil marriage (generally concurrent with a religious marriage). Nor are military chaplains the ONLY military personal who can sign CIVIL marriage certificates. And I suspect this amendment would apply to ALL military (and civilian federal employees) on military bases (and perhaps other federal land) who are allowed to solemnize CIVIL marriage.
“unless you have language that shows that this is limited to chaplains being barred from performing civil marriages (and unlikely notion) please don’t accuse me of being as unethical as anti-gay activists. ”
Or perhaps since YOU made the initial claim, you should provide the language of the amendment showing it applies to religious marriages. and if you don’t want to be accused of being as unethical as anti-gay activists, then don’t use their tactics (i.e. claiming legislation about civil marriage applies to religious marriages).
“I don’t intentionally lie”
many anti-gay activists aren’t lying either, they actually believe what they say.
It’s a bit similar to the proposed legislation by some southern legislator (I’ve forgotten the details) who wanted to make it a criminal offense (with jail time) for any pastor to conduct a same-sex wedding.
That one didn’t go very far, but it didn’t get the outrage that it deserved either.
ken,
As best I can tell (I’ve had trouble finding the exact language of the amendment), this would ban chaplains (and indeed, all military personnel) from conducting same-sex weddings of any sort. As it is chaplains they are targeting, I am assuming that they had religious weddings in mind.
Yes, I agree that this legislation is discussed in the context of defending DOMA. So is virtually every other matter which even slightly impacts same-sex couples, even if the language is clear that it is not same-sex married couples. (And, indeed, I’ve heard language from legislators about DOMA when the issue wasn’t even about couples, just plain ol anti-gay bigotry).
HERE’S THE ISSUE
The federal government is prohibited from expanding or limiting religious functions (and chaplains perform religious functions) that are sectarian in nature and which advance certain faiths but not others. That is the very essence of the First Amendment.
I can’t think up a similar violation that would not have riots in the streets… perhaps tax code?
So… unless you have language that shows that this is limited to chaplains being barred from performing civil marriages (and unlikely notion) please don’t accuse me of being as unethical as anti-gay activists. I don’t intentionally lie or distort. Unlike anti-gays, my religious beliefs don’t encourage me to lie for “moral” reasons.
Jayhuck# ~ May 14, 2011 at 2:48 am
“But it does apply to religious marriages that are performed for military personnel, at least on navy bases, but it is still religious in nature – or am I wrong about this?”
I haven’t read the actual language of the amendment, but I doubt it. Everything I’ve read about it indicates it refers to DOMA and DOMA is about civil marriage.
I believe Timothy is doing what anti-gay marriage opponents do, taking a proposed law about civil marriage and claiming it applies to religious marriages.
Jayhuck# ~ May 14, 2011 at 2:48 am
“But it does apply to religious marriages that are performed for military personnel, at least on navy bases, but it is still religious in nature – or am I wrong about this?”
I haven’t read the actual language of the amendment, but I doubt it. Everything I’ve read about it indicates it refers to DOMA and DOMA is about civil marriage.
I believe Timothy is doing what anti-gay marriage opponents do, taking a proposed law about civil marriage and claiming it applies to religious marriages.
Ken,
But it does apply to religious marriages that are performed for military personnel, at least on navy bases, but it is still religious in nature – or am I wrong about this?
Timothy Kincaid# ~ May 13, 2011 at 7:37 pm
“But the greater threat to our republic is the attack on religious freedoms. I think that the mainline denominations need to wake up to the fact that this really has little to do with gay people and a whole lot to do with whose religion gets to order the others around.”
I disagree and I think you are making too much of the situation.
1st of all, I don’t think this amendment applies to RELIGIOUS marriages, only CIVIL marriages. Remember, this legislation is only re-enforcing DOMA (which doesn’t apply to religious marriages, just civil ones). I still haven’t been able to read the exact wording of the amendment, do you have a link to it?
2nd, even if it was as bad as you claim, this would hardly be the 1st time some congressman put forth an unconstitutional piece of legislation in order to score political points.
@ Timothy : I think your main point above is absolutely key – the dangers of conflating power politics with a particular ‘brand’ of religion are huge.
ken,
yes it would be a financial increase – perhaps – on couples (though some denominations are so aggrieved by the injustice that they have often volunteered their services), and I think that unfair and based on anti-gay bigotry. (I mean it really is extremely spiteful)
But the greater threat to our republic is the attack on religious freedoms. I think that the mainline denominations need to wake up to the fact that this really has little to do with gay people and a whole lot to do with whose religion gets to order the others around.
Debbie Thurman# ~ May 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“The sperm-bank baby phenomenon for lesbians is problematic, any way you cut it.”
Only when those lesbians aren’t allowed to marry and 2nd parent adoptions aren’t allowed. However, in the case where marriage is allowed, the legal situation is no different than a straight married couple that uses a sperm bank (ex. when the husband is infertile).
And for lesbian couples that aren’t married, that case is no different than an unmarried straight couple using a sperm bank.
The only situation that is unique to lesbian couples would be if one partner donated the egg while the other partner had the fertilized egg implanted and carried it to term.
“Especially for women, who most folks here acknowledge are more sexually fluid than men, same-sex unions with children can be a can of worms.”
Why would it be any different than an opposite-sex union with children? The sexual fluidity in women isn’t only in one direction.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ May 12, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“Yesterday, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo) introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which would bar Defense Department employees from conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies. It passed 38-23.”
As I understand it, it would do more than bar chaplains from performing marriages, It would also bar the use of base facilities, ex. the officers or enlisted clubs, from being used for same-sex ceremonies as well, and that would financially effect gay service members since having to rent civilian halls would cost significantly more.
It’s about PRIORITIES, Eddy.
I’m sure you, Debbie, Teresa and Timothy understand. (No need to reply!)
Richard–
I’m not happy observing this farce of a conversaton either but can you explain why you only directed your comment to Debbie? This thread has tolerated numerous detours including a detour or two back to the actual topic–with many players participating in the detours. And THIS topic is Prop 8. Can you elaborate on your comment. Lots of caps and bold…suggests strong feelings. They just didn’t come through clearly.
UGANDA!
So, it seems in the final analysis, au contraire to Throbert’s statement below, the majority vote/opinion will decide yeah or nay for same-sex marriage. Either we see a slim majority by popular vote, 51%, or a slim majority in SCOTUS … 5/4 … this ends up being majority rule. No matter how SCOTUS opinions read, ultimately it’s majority vote.
The same business others have here on this blog who use polls to show that now the “majority” is on their side. The same business that elections decide issues … by majority. The same business that parties try to stack SCOTUS so that majorities follow their views.
It is interesting to see, however, that we homosexuals are not a monolith … just like every other group.
Woo-Hoo a direct answer!!
And another direct answer.
And, as I expected, you believe that the federal government can pass laws which restrict the religious freedoms of others.
Nothing surprising there.
Debbie
PLEASE STOP. It’s UGANDA, not Prop 8! Leave it for now. PLEASE!
Sorry. “Sue” is use.”
What part of that was unclear to you, Timothy? I do not support civil unions (duh!). Society will to the extent that my objections won’t matter. And I will have to be “cool” with that, won’t I? Life will go on.
I believe the question you have your shorts in a knot over is, do I believe the government is restricting the religious freedom of chaplains by mandating that they follow federal law? No, I don’t. You used the word sacrament, as if the government has some sort of ecclesiastical authority. It doesn’t. Chaplains take an oath and they know they are federal employees when they sign up. Will they be able to sue a conscientious objector kind of defense, either way here? Maybe. Don’t know.
Are you also asking if a chaplain can use his ordination as a minister to marry a same-sex couple off of a military reservation, if his denomination supports that? I don’t know. He/she is a federal employee, and would have to abide by federal law and military regulations. I don’t know how that pertains to private, off-duty ministerial affairs. My answer is the government does not have the authority to restrict basic religious freedoms for a chaplain. It does have the authority to set regulations and enforce the law.
Jon,
Don’t be deceived. You guessed correctly. Debbie absolutely does not support civil unions. Or domestic partnerships. Or reciprocal benefits. Or probably even shared library cards.
All of the “I didn’t say that” and “why would you think that” are just tactics of diffusion which are supposed to distract us from the fact that a question wasn’t answered.
(You will notice that this will not elicit a response with any actual clarification, just some slurs against me, some righteous indignation, some “Warren, he’s picking on me”, some “I never said that”, or some other diversionary tactic)
Because we are a constitutional republic, not a Catholic state.
Jon,
This, of course, is completely bogus.
Debbie and the others at Jerry Falwell Jr.’s church like to pretend that this fight was state v. state. It supports their contention that no one should be allowed to have civil unions anywhere because it infringes on the rights of someone somewhere to keep gay people treated inferior. Yeah, it’s a pretty disgusting argument.
In reality, a local Virginia judge tried to do something contrary to federal law and impose him views on a Vermont court. It went all the way up to the Virginia Supreme Court (yeah, the traditional marriage state) where they said, “No, we put long standing tradition of recognizing venue ahead of anti-gay bigotry.”
So there was no state v. state conflict. It was just a judge who thought that his values override those of other states.
Debbie
So I asked twice and twice you have danced around and tried to talk your way out of giving an answer. Well, I know what it means when you do that. And, yeah, so does everyone else, Debbie. No one is fooled.
You don’t want to answer the question, Debbie, because you don’t think it would serve your agenda to be on record about what you really believe.
So it’s time for a new question.
To what extent do you hate religious freedom – other, of course, than your own, Debbie?
Do you want to padlock the doors of UCC churches? Or are you just content with laws that ban their chaplains from practicing their faith?
Teresa,
I’m pretty familiar with the SSN. And yeah some of the spouses have done some pretty crappy things (that’s the story you hear about pretty much any ex-spouses). And some of the spouses tried hard but it just didn’t work (which is the other thing you year about ex-spouses). Just people.
SSN provides a great service to people who really have no where else to turn. Most folk just have no idea what to say when your spouse comes out. They do yeoman’s work.
About a third of SSN folk break up immediately, about a third try to keep it going for a while and eventually break up, and about a third stay married in some form or fashion (but not often in the traditional marriage paradigm).
But the one thing that I find interesting about the SSN is that they are committed to gay rights, especially marriage rights. As Amity Pierce Buxton says, “If they could marry each other then they wouldn’t marry us and screw up our lives.”
Teresa, here’s a couple articles of interest:
The Catholic Case Against Gay Marriage
“The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage”
From a prior comment of mine:
Following is a peek into The Nature of Law; and, how a view, Legal Positivism, has basically taken the tact that whatever is the prevailing ‘majority’, social fact, constitutes Law; as opposed to the view that a foundational, moral structure should guide legal decisions.
Both quotes taken from The Nature of Law Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Knowing that I’m enamored of Natural Law, why can’t a legal argument be drawn from the Traditional Moral Norms of society for a case against same-sex marriage? This has nothing whatsoever, necessarily, to do with religious belliefs; but, rather, social mores that have never waxed or waned in social acceptation of homosexuality … not withstanding the attempts to appeal to Greek, or late Roman civilizations.
That was uncalled for. Way off the mark. You may also keep your wild speculations to yourself.
Whatever… Just keep your church friends away from my boys. I’d hate for them to end up in Argentina.
Teresa, states are not in opposing positions on the definition of marriage in traditional family courts. Marriage is marriage is marriage in every state for a man and a woman. Whether or not sperm-bank babies are born to more straight women (married to men or single), it remains the only way for lesbian couples to have children “of their own.” In time, as you say, we may have a federal law to cover same-sex marriage. We don’t now, and children are being impacted. Of course, single mothers of sperm-bank children don’t have a partner to argue over custody with.
(And Jon, I realize your kids are just fine. We’re not talking about you.)
Although everyone here knows I’m opposed to same-sex marriage, some of what you’ve stated, Debbie, seems to impact str8’s more significantly. I have no statistics in hand, but I’d bet most sperm-bank babies are for str8 women … many of those single mothers.
Sexual fluidity among women can and does occur; but, again, without statistics in hand, only anecdotal observation, it seems many str8 women (usually older) are transitioning to being lesbian. A real study should be done on this, as we may gain some real insights about women and where they register on the gay/str8 scale.
Do states now square off against each other when str8 marriages go sour? I have no idea, but I would think in time the same laws that apply for str8’s with children, divorce, etc., would apply equally to same-sex marriages/divorce with or without children.
I may behoove some here to visit the Straight Spouse Network website, and listen to the horror stories of str8 spouses and what their homosexual partners have done, with and without children.
I guess I don’t see how same-sex marriage, children or not, will be handled any differently than str8 stuff. I see a difference in my own moral understanding; but, not in the America of today.
Any thoughts?
The DADT repeal is unequivocally linked with same-sex marriage, as the Navy’s recent announcement demonstrates. That was my earlier point.
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions and outright marriage for gays are both already here (Delaware is the latest state). Richard asked if I thought it would be “socially useful” (practical was my word) for us to have same-sex civil unions. Of course it would be, whether I support the idea or not. Society will overrule me.
The Miller-Jenkins case illustrates one of the biggest concerns people have over same-sex civil unions or marriage, and that is the welfare of children. Here, we’ve had the first-ever state to affirm civil unions for gays pitted against a traditional marriage state (but I mentioned a poll the other day that shows that may be changing for Virginia). An innocent child (with rights and wishes of her own, though still a minor) has been caught in the middle.
The sperm-bank baby phenomenon for lesbians is problematic, any way you cut it. Especially for women, who most folks here acknowledge are more sexually fluid than men, same-sex unions with children can be a can of worms. And barring a federal same-sex marriage law, states will continue to square off against each other in the courts when these unions go sour. How far are we from everybody being cool with this? Any crystal balls out there?
Jon,
Don’t be deceived. You guessed correctly. Debbie absolutely does not support civil unions. Or domestic partnerships. Or reciprocal benefits. Or probably even shared library cards.
All of the “I didn’t say that” and “why would you think that” are just tactics of diffusion which are supposed to distract us from the fact that a question wasn’t answered.
(You will notice that this will not elicit a response with any actual clarification, just some slurs against me, some righteous indignation, some “Warren, he’s picking on me”, some “I never said that”, or some other diversionary tactic)
Because we are a constitutional republic, not a Catholic state.
You have expressed strong concerns about DADT repeal and specifically cited fears about marriage as a potential fall-out for that concern. That’s how I base my assumption about your opinion on civil unions.
Of course, there’s also your involvement with the whole Miller/Jenkins child custody mess and their former civil union relationship that colored my assumption about your opinion.
If you’re cool with civil unions, I apologize.
Teresa,
I’ll take this a bit out of order for ease of answering:
Partly. In Romer v. Evans, SCOTUS said that Colorado could not set up homosexuals as a class of people upon which to impose restrictions (this was, I believe, the initiation of the SCOTUS recognition that gay people exist as such). In Lawrence v. Texas it went a step further. While Justice Kennedy approached the issue from an individual’s right to privacy, Justice O’Connor’s concurrence was based on equal protections of a class of people.
The legal evolution since that time has been towards viewing gay people as a class of people.
Not to get too technical, but there is a test which the court uses to determine the extent to which a class of people can be segregated for disparate treatment.
1. Are they a unique class of people based on a shared immutable trait? For example race would qualify while bowlers would not. (This does not speak to the outliers – people who could reasonably “change their race” like Lena Horn or Michael Jackson – but to the group as a whole)
The evidence seems to support sexual orientation as an immutable trait observed within the demographic.
2. Have they been subjected to discrimination? This is pretty much not in question.
3. Are they politically powerless?
This is not a question about political allies, but rather about the group’s ability to assert power absent popular goodwill. It’s pretty evident that gay folk can’t even get a Democratic controlled Senate to support non-discrimination policies, much less marriage equality.
Meeting this test would put gay people into a category that would require “heightened scrutiny” of any laws that set them apart for disparate treatment.
Sort of… if gay people are a “protected class” (i.e. heightened scrutiny applies) then any arguments that the anti-gay-marriage group would bring would have to show a very compelling state interest.
And, yes, they would need to prove their assertions.
But If gay people are not a protected class then the group would only have to meet a reasonableness test (that is, if a reasonable person could believe that allowing same-sex marriage destroys ‘marriage’ as a concept, then it can be banned.
A reasonableness case assumes that the law is legal unless shown otherwise; a heightened scrutiny case assumes it is not unless shown otherwise.
So if a community believes that strip clubs lead to increased crime – a reasonable person could believe that, so strip clubs could be banned. But if a community believes that Asian strip clubs lead to increased crime, then the courts will assume that it is unconstitutional and will really need some convincing to find otherwise.
In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the court found that heightened scrutiny was the standard. However it also found that Proposition 8 could not even stand up to a reasonableness test because – other than establishing a religious view – the supporters did not (and presumably could not) present any arguments that would leave a reasonable person agreeing with their assertions.
When the Department of Defense prepared to defend DOMA, they applied the test to the situation and found that heightened scrutiny was the only level they could see. And they simply had no arguments that could withstand heightened scrutiny.
They had no argument to make, so they informed the House that they could not defend the law.
Yes. Like abortion, Jews owning property, mixed-race marriage, black children attending the same schools as whites, and many other issues, majority voting will not settle the issue.
Yes. That’s what I’m saying.
Debbie
As your last comment did not answer the question, I will ask it again:
Teresa,
I think that the disagreement is not over homosexuality at all; rather, the disagreement is over who gets to decide.
One side believes that the Constitution (and the American way of life) is based on the rights of the individual to self determination. This side may find homosexuality to be natural. Or it may find homosexuality abhorrent, but find governmental control even more abhorrent. (when you hear someone say, “It’s a free country”, this is what they mean)
The other side believes that The Good overrides the rights of the individual and that imposing order is the proper role of government – often right down to the car you can drive, the food you can eat, and who you can marry. (when you hear someone say, “that shouldn’t be allowed” it is from this perspective)
Interestingly, an unprincipled person (one who judges based on their opinion of a matter rather than a set of principles) may jump back and forth depending on the situation.
For example, an unprincipled liberal may believe that the government cannot tell you who to marry but it can tell you not to eat saturated fats. And unprincipled conservative may tell you that the government has no right to tell him what fossil fuels to burn in his company but it does have the right to tell me with whom I can have sex in my bedroom.
And, of course, there are those who have a set of principles, but those principles are a fundamental belief in theocracy. Some who comment her come from that perspective.
Timothy, I have a Comment which is awaiting Moderation due to its length, I believe. It concerns The Nature of Law. Once that Comment is approved, I’ll engage a bit more on another side to Law.
For the time being, I’m beginning to understand a little more of what you’re saying, Timothy. So, a group that says allowing same-sex marriage destroys ‘marriage’ as a concept is burdened with proving that assertion. Is this right?
I believe you’ve stated that SCOTUS has already ruled that gays are a “class”, and, as such, cannot be discriminated against. Right?
So, majority voting will not ultimately settle this issue, much like what happened for abortion. The burden of proof (of harm, I guess) now lies at the feet of the opponents of same-sex marriage. I think that’s what you’re saying, Timothy.
I see now where you’re coming from. I didn’t really understand this piece.
Timothy, I have not seen the Akin proposal, but I imagine it came in response to the Navy’s announcement that it would authorize chaplains to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies aboard naval bases, which are considered federal property. DOMA still applies as long as it is law, so the Navy would be disregarding that law. I presume Akin et al wanted to be covered if/when DOMA bites the dust.
The “sacrament” argument takes this beyond civil marriage onto sacred/holy ground. To accord the sacrament of marriage to two same-sex individuals is to read into Scripture what I have not been able to find. To deny that, while realizing in a same-sex-marriage state the right to civil marriage still exists for those individuals, is not to deny their religious freedom. Of course, if DOMA goes down, then Congress will have no footing for such a law as Akin proposes and this discussion will have been academic. Right now, chaplains are under DOMA, which is a federal law.
Teresa
This is exactly correct.
Consider this: the Catholic Church does not recognized marriage if one party is divorced. Most Christian churches do not perform marriages for non-believers. Many Jewish rabbis will not officiate unless both parties are Jewish.
Yes. If those who oppose same-sex marriage can illustrate to a court that their reasons are not based in animus (i.e. are not just about banning gays) but have an actual state interest then such an interest could be considered.
Of course, the ‘C. of E. problem’ doesn’t arise in the US, since there is no ‘state church’, although it does appear to many of us that some in the US seem not to understand this and, in practice, to want to impose their perspective on their compatriots in a manner, and to an extent, that the C. of E. does not even consider doing!
for clarity…
What this means is that if a United Church of Christ chaplain wishes to conduct a legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, he is banned from doing so.
Rep. Akin will allow that chaplain to conduct those sacraments of which he approves, i.e. opposite sex marriages.
Debbie,
Your continued observations about me are so helpful. Why, without your informational asides, I might never know that I’m obtuse, obstinate, snarky, have a chip on my shoulder, and am just not qualified to say certain things. But fortunately I have you to keep me informed.
As for this question that I seem to be unable to locate (darn those elusive questions), I assume it has something to do with constitutionally protected religious beliefs. So I’ll address that.
The US Constitution protects the right to religious practice. It does so by forbidding the government to mandate, control, or establish religious practices, standards, sacraments, or doctrines. The founders rightly recognized that the establishment of one person’s beliefs as law infringes upon the ability of another to practice their faith.
But sometimes those who are arrogant and contemptuous towards the faith of others think that religious freedom means that they are free to impose religious beliefs on other. By force of law.
Let’s take an example out of today’s headlines, shall we. Yesterday, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo) introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which would bar Defense Department employees from conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies. It passed 38-23.
Interestingly, this doesn’t impact gay people at all. We can find another minister. And this isn’t about marriage recognition – no marriage will be either more nor less recognized due to this amendment.
This is purely a religious amendment and it only impacts chaplains. It asserts the dogma of one group of churches on dissenting churches and establishes Federally recognized rules for sacraments.
What this means is that if a United Church of Christ chaplain wishes to conduct a legal marriage in Massachusetts, he is banned from doing so. It matters not in the slightest what the Episcopal Church teaches, what a Congregational congregation professes, or what a Reformed Jewish rabbi expounds upon.
Doctrine, teaching, and personal beliefs of chaplains are now secondary to the religious agenda of politicians. A congressional body will now determine what sacraments a chaplain can perform.
This is a direct assault on the First Amendment.
Debbie, do you denounce this restriction on religious freedom?
I think, at this point, I would disagree with your analogy of religious beliefs and what our society accords those religious beliefs vis-a-vis homosexual beliefs, behavior, etc. I think you may be comparing apples and potatoes. Religious beliefs, in my opinion, are quite unlike sexuality or sexual orientation … and, not in the simplistic view, but in an essential quality.
However, I’d love to hear more of what you think about this, David.
In terms of social and legal practicalities, ‘civil partnerships’ in the UK are pretty much the same as, if not identical to, ‘civil marriages’. IMHO, this is as it should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnership_in_the_United_Kingdom
Under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, the current prohibitions, in England and Wales, on the use of religious readings, symbols and venues will be scrapped in due course. In the case the of the use of religious venues, this will have to involve the agreement of the religious organisation concerned (both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England have indicated that such agreement will not be forthcoming). Given the stated position of the C. of E., the one anomaly I could then see concerns the C. of E., because it is the ‘state’ church, and people have the right, after fulfilling certain conditions re. attendance, to be married in their parish church.
Same-sex marriages contracted in other jurisdictions (e.g. Canada) are recognised as civil partnerships in the UK.
Why do I say all this? Well, it is perhaps because, provided they are legally comparable to civil marriages, civil partnerships are really no different to civil ‘gay marriages’. One can draw two different conclusions from this: either that the same term should be used for both types of arrangement, or that it doesn’t really matter that different terms are used. (I can’t get too fussed about it, if I’m honest, especially while one is witnessing the deteriorating human rights situation in countries in, for example, Africa. One is thinking especially of Uganda, of course, with the Bahitler – whoops, I meant ‘Bahati’ – Bill and other matters.)
Theresa,
Well said, and agreed…but there is a convergence that can occur; which is outside the limitations of this duality.
The argument for equal rights status has been made based upon weak correlation with genetic determinants.
I think, once that is abandoned, much can be gained by fighting for rights based upon values similarly expressed in various religious protections.
Religion is not biologically determined, although spiritual activity appears inherent in human conduct…protecting an individual’s right to religious practice is based upon subjective sensations, beliefs about values and identity. Our society accommodates all sorts of religious practice, even to the point of absurdity.
Homosexuality as an identity is a newer phenomenon anthropologically, but may be reasonably incorporated under the human rights rubric as various religious practices are protected.
As religion runs counter to the rights of others (withholding reasonable medical care of children for example), it is hobbled by secular institutions. There is not reason why homosexual identity and “culture” cannot be similarly supervised, without being accused of bigotry or oppression.
David B., there is a foundational moral underpinning to the Constitution. Both sides appeal to morality, but from different perspectives.
I think where the initial disagreement starts is the split in views on “homosexuality” itself. One side views homosexuality as ‘dis’ordered, ‘un’natural, something to be changed if possible, if not; then something to be ameliorated, and submitted to a moral order, basically chastity.
The other side views homosexuality as normal, natural, ordered and is only a variation of sexuality; and, because this is so, all rights and privileges accorded to heterosexuals should be granted to homosexuals.
We really can’t speak to the Constitution aptly regarding homosexuality, if our basic starting point is so divergent. Both sides appeal to morals, but from a huge difference in application. Both make sense in the logic that proceeds from the basic premise.
I don’t believe there will ever be common ground on the issue of same-sex marriage, because there is no common ground as to the initial beliefs on homosexuality.
The DADT repeal is unequivocally linked with same-sex marriage, as the Navy’s recent announcement demonstrates. That was my earlier point.
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions and outright marriage for gays are both already here (Delaware is the latest state). Richard asked if I thought it would be “socially useful” (practical was my word) for us to have same-sex civil unions. Of course it would be, whether I support the idea or not. Society will overrule me.
The Miller-Jenkins case illustrates one of the biggest concerns people have over same-sex civil unions or marriage, and that is the welfare of children. Here, we’ve had the first-ever state to affirm civil unions for gays pitted against a traditional marriage state (but I mentioned a poll the other day that shows that may be changing for Virginia). An innocent child (with rights and wishes of her own, though still a minor) has been caught in the middle.
The sperm-bank baby phenomenon for lesbians is problematic, any way you cut it. Especially for women, who most folks here acknowledge are more sexually fluid than men, same-sex unions with children can be a can of worms. And barring a federal same-sex marriage law, states will continue to square off against each other in the courts when these unions go sour. How far are we from everybody being cool with this? Any crystal balls out there?
Teresa# ~ May 11, 2011 at 5:38 pm
“Civilly, the State would have to permit same-sex marriages and recognize them as being alike to str8 marriages; but, each religious denomination has the right to deny homosexuals same-sex marriage within their churches. Is that what you’re saying, Timothy?”
The argument that religious organizations will be forced to marry gay couples is nothing more fear-mongering, based on false information, brought up by those opposed to same-gender marriages.
NO CHURCH has EVER been forced by the state to perform a religious marriage contrary to the beliefs of the religion. Nor has any CLERGY been forced to officiate a state marriage contrary to his or her religious beliefs.
Welcome back, David B. Yes, it is “all morals”; however, they’re arranged. But, I contend that the ranking “moral” today is sheer numbers … the majority. We (meaning homosexuals) can cloak are moral order with the high-sounding phrases of “a class or group is being discriminated against”, fairness, etc.; at the end of the day, it’s can I move enough people to agree with me, regardless of what gets upended in the process.
Spinning a further discussion on what the Constitution says or doesn’t say, is certainly up to debate. Who would have thought that “a right to privacy” somehow found its ways into the Constitution … growing into Roe v. Wade in ’73.
Limiting this discussion to SCOTUS, which now is the be-all and end-all of what defines ‘discrimination’, ‘class of persons’, etc., the Constitution, at any given time, says whatever 5 black-robed men/women decide. Why else all the hoopla to convince people to vote for so-and-so, because they have an opportunity to “pack the Court” … so we need our guy or gal to win.
Following is a peek into The Nature of Law; and, how a view, Legal Positivism, has basically taken the tact that whatever is the prevailing ‘majority’, social fact, constitutes Law; as opposed to the view that a foundational, moral structure should guide legal decisions.
Both quotes taken from The Nature of Law Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
You have expressed strong concerns about DADT repeal and specifically cited fears about marriage as a potential fall-out for that concern. That’s how I base my assumption about your opinion on civil unions.
Of course, there’s also your involvement with the whole Miller/Jenkins child custody mess and their former civil union relationship that colored my assumption about your opinion.
If you’re cool with civil unions, I apologize.
I don’t recall being asked the question about civil unions here before, Jon. Why would you presume I would feel as you say?
Timothy, you are either posing as obtuse or you are. Never mind. I think just plain obstinate is more likely.
Debbie,
At whatever point it was that you decided that we were no longer talking within the context of anti-gay marriage amendments but were instead talking about your own personal religious beliefs, you forgot to inform me.
No, that time has passed. Now marriage is on its way.
The time for marriage is approaching and approaching quickly. I project that marriage equality will be present in every state in the country (and every country in the Americas) within a decade.
Carole,
You know something…. if the armor is heavy, then put it down. You don’t have to wage war, you know. You really don’t
Let’s wage peace instead.
I hope you get a chance to get to the opera. While it’s not my thing, I can appreciate the passion of the style.
Regarding imposing religious views on the constitution as “sacrosanct”…it seems to me to be impossible not to do.
From some of the Ten Commandments
To mild commandments, modified “do not be drunk with wine…” (laws forbidding pubilc drunkenness).
I think this argument about Imposing Religious Beliefs is simplistic and frankly dishonest: What those in the GLBT community are doing is arranging Morals in a hierarchy, and placing Individual rights for Authenticity and Safety and Fairness above public demands for sexual morality.
It is all morals…that is why they assail those who disagree with them from the Moral Argument against prejudice.
See CS Lewis: The Abolition of Man.
Regarding the above video, If this happens yearly it is on a level of Contempt similar to Fred Phelps.
Teresa,
I think that the disagreement is not over homosexuality at all; rather, the disagreement is over who gets to decide.
One side believes that the Constitution (and the American way of life) is based on the rights of the individual to self determination. This side may find homosexuality to be natural. Or it may find homosexuality abhorrent, but find governmental control even more abhorrent. (when you hear someone say, “It’s a free country”, this is what they mean)
The other side believes that The Good overrides the rights of the individual and that imposing order is the proper role of government – often right down to the car you can drive, the food you can eat, and who you can marry. (when you hear someone say, “that shouldn’t be allowed” it is from this perspective)
Interestingly, an unprincipled person (one who judges based on their opinion of a matter rather than a set of principles) may jump back and forth depending on the situation.
For example, an unprincipled liberal may believe that the government cannot tell you who to marry but it can tell you not to eat saturated fats. And unprincipled conservative may tell you that the government has no right to tell him what fossil fuels to burn in his company but it does have the right to tell me with whom I can have sex in my bedroom.
And, of course, there are those who have a set of principles, but those principles are a fundamental belief in theocracy. Some who comment her come from that perspective.
Timothy, I have a Comment which is awaiting Moderation due to its length, I believe. It concerns The Nature of Law. Once that Comment is approved, I’ll engage a bit more on another side to Law.
For the time being, I’m beginning to understand a little more of what you’re saying, Timothy. So, a group that says allowing same-sex marriage destroys ‘marriage’ as a concept is burdened with proving that assertion. Is this right?
I believe you’ve stated that SCOTUS has already ruled that gays are a “class”, and, as such, cannot be discriminated against. Right?
So, majority voting will not ultimately settle this issue, much like what happened for abortion. The burden of proof (of harm, I guess) now lies at the feet of the opponents of same-sex marriage. I think that’s what you’re saying, Timothy.
I see now where you’re coming from. I didn’t really understand this piece.
Timothy, I have not seen the Akin proposal, but I imagine it came in response to the Navy’s announcement that it would authorize chaplains to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies aboard naval bases, which are considered federal property. DOMA still applies as long as it is law, so the Navy would be disregarding that law. I presume Akin et al wanted to be covered if/when DOMA bites the dust.
The “sacrament” argument takes this beyond civil marriage onto sacred/holy ground. To accord the sacrament of marriage to two same-sex individuals is to read into Scripture what I have not been able to find. To deny that, while realizing in a same-sex-marriage state the right to civil marriage still exists for those individuals, is not to deny their religious freedom. Of course, if DOMA goes down, then Congress will have no footing for such a law as Akin proposes and this discussion will have been academic. Right now, chaplains are under DOMA, which is a federal law.
Teresa
This is exactly correct.
Consider this: the Catholic Church does not recognized marriage if one party is divorced. Most Christian churches do not perform marriages for non-believers. Many Jewish rabbis will not officiate unless both parties are Jewish.
Yes. If those who oppose same-sex marriage can illustrate to a court that their reasons are not based in animus (i.e. are not just about banning gays) but have an actual state interest then such an interest could be considered.
Of course, the ‘C. of E. problem’ doesn’t arise in the US, since there is no ‘state church’, although it does appear to many of us that some in the US seem not to understand this and, in practice, to want to impose their perspective on their compatriots in a manner, and to an extent, that the C. of E. does not even consider doing!
for clarity…
What this means is that if a United Church of Christ chaplain wishes to conduct a legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, he is banned from doing so.
Rep. Akin will allow that chaplain to conduct those sacraments of which he approves, i.e. opposite sex marriages.
Debbie,
Your continued observations about me are so helpful. Why, without your informational asides, I might never know that I’m obtuse, obstinate, snarky, have a chip on my shoulder, and am just not qualified to say certain things. But fortunately I have you to keep me informed.
As for this question that I seem to be unable to locate (darn those elusive questions), I assume it has something to do with constitutionally protected religious beliefs. So I’ll address that.
The US Constitution protects the right to religious practice. It does so by forbidding the government to mandate, control, or establish religious practices, standards, sacraments, or doctrines. The founders rightly recognized that the establishment of one person’s beliefs as law infringes upon the ability of another to practice their faith.
But sometimes those who are arrogant and contemptuous towards the faith of others think that religious freedom means that they are free to impose religious beliefs on other. By force of law.
Let’s take an example out of today’s headlines, shall we. Yesterday, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo) introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which would bar Defense Department employees from conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies. It passed 38-23.
Interestingly, this doesn’t impact gay people at all. We can find another minister. And this isn’t about marriage recognition – no marriage will be either more nor less recognized due to this amendment.
This is purely a religious amendment and it only impacts chaplains. It asserts the dogma of one group of churches on dissenting churches and establishes Federally recognized rules for sacraments.
What this means is that if a United Church of Christ chaplain wishes to conduct a legal marriage in Massachusetts, he is banned from doing so. It matters not in the slightest what the Episcopal Church teaches, what a Congregational congregation professes, or what a Reformed Jewish rabbi expounds upon.
Doctrine, teaching, and personal beliefs of chaplains are now secondary to the religious agenda of politicians. A congressional body will now determine what sacraments a chaplain can perform.
This is a direct assault on the First Amendment.
Debbie, do you denounce this restriction on religious freedom?
I think, at this point, I would disagree with your analogy of religious beliefs and what our society accords those religious beliefs vis-a-vis homosexual beliefs, behavior, etc. I think you may be comparing apples and potatoes. Religious beliefs, in my opinion, are quite unlike sexuality or sexual orientation … and, not in the simplistic view, but in an essential quality.
However, I’d love to hear more of what you think about this, David.
In terms of social and legal practicalities, ‘civil partnerships’ in the UK are pretty much the same as, if not identical to, ‘civil marriages’. IMHO, this is as it should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnership_in_the_United_Kingdom
Under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, the current prohibitions, in England and Wales, on the use of religious readings, symbols and venues will be scrapped in due course. In the case the of the use of religious venues, this will have to involve the agreement of the religious organisation concerned (both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England have indicated that such agreement will not be forthcoming). Given the stated position of the C. of E., the one anomaly I could then see concerns the C. of E., because it is the ‘state’ church, and people have the right, after fulfilling certain conditions re. attendance, to be married in their parish church.
Same-sex marriages contracted in other jurisdictions (e.g. Canada) are recognised as civil partnerships in the UK.
Why do I say all this? Well, it is perhaps because, provided they are legally comparable to civil marriages, civil partnerships are really no different to civil ‘gay marriages’. One can draw two different conclusions from this: either that the same term should be used for both types of arrangement, or that it doesn’t really matter that different terms are used. (I can’t get too fussed about it, if I’m honest, especially while one is witnessing the deteriorating human rights situation in countries in, for example, Africa. One is thinking especially of Uganda, of course, with the Bahitler – whoops, I meant ‘Bahati’ – Bill and other matters.)
Theresa,
Well said, and agreed…but there is a convergence that can occur; which is outside the limitations of this duality.
The argument for equal rights status has been made based upon weak correlation with genetic determinants.
I think, once that is abandoned, much can be gained by fighting for rights based upon values similarly expressed in various religious protections.
Religion is not biologically determined, although spiritual activity appears inherent in human conduct…protecting an individual’s right to religious practice is based upon subjective sensations, beliefs about values and identity. Our society accommodates all sorts of religious practice, even to the point of absurdity.
Homosexuality as an identity is a newer phenomenon anthropologically, but may be reasonably incorporated under the human rights rubric as various religious practices are protected.
As religion runs counter to the rights of others (withholding reasonable medical care of children for example), it is hobbled by secular institutions. There is not reason why homosexual identity and “culture” cannot be similarly supervised, without being accused of bigotry or oppression.
I’m not sure where that place will be for civil unions in the USA. Most states that have outlawed gays from legally marrying through constitutional amendments have also banned the state from allowing civil unions and domestic partnerships as well. Plus, I can’t see the religious right allowing civil unions to stand unmolested. They haven’t in the past. Examples, they continue to attack Washington State’s marriage-lite domestic partnership law. Michigan’s legislature is trying to financially penalize state universities that offer domestic partnership benefits to gay and unmarried employees’ partners. And NOM and the Catholic Church and all of those other anti-gay marriage groups fight civil unions when they come up before state legislatures just as strongly as they fight against marriage equality. They use the same exact arguments: pastors will get arrested for speaking out against gays; kids will be taught graphic gay sex lessons in kindergarten, etc.
Heck, you yourself Debbie have stated that the repeal of DADT is a step towards legalizing marriage equality. And yet civil unions – which actually address the spirit of marriage – don’t?
Regardless, I agree that there’s a practical purpose for civil unions. But legal marriage already exists and it doesn’t make sense to me to replace it with a marriage-lite solution. Marriage for gay couples has been legal in Iowa for over two years and Massachusetts for 5 or 6 or 7 years. I’ve seen none of the boogey-man scenarios playing out. Creating a secondary quasi-marital status just promotes a weakening of marriage itself. IMHO.
David B., there is a foundational moral underpinning to the Constitution. Both sides appeal to morality, but from different perspectives.
I think where the initial disagreement starts is the split in views on “homosexuality” itself. One side views homosexuality as ‘dis’ordered, ‘un’natural, something to be changed if possible, if not; then something to be ameliorated, and submitted to a moral order, basically chastity.
The other side views homosexuality as normal, natural, ordered and is only a variation of sexuality; and, because this is so, all rights and privileges accorded to heterosexuals should be granted to homosexuals.
We really can’t speak to the Constitution aptly regarding homosexuality, if our basic starting point is so divergent. Both sides appeal to morals, but from a huge difference in application. Both make sense in the logic that proceeds from the basic premise.
I don’t believe there will ever be common ground on the issue of same-sex marriage, because there is no common ground as to the initial beliefs on homosexuality.
Welcome back, David B. Yes, it is “all morals”; however, they’re arranged. But, I contend that the ranking “moral” today is sheer numbers … the majority. We (meaning homosexuals) can cloak are moral order with the high-sounding phrases of “a class or group is being discriminated against”, fairness, etc.; at the end of the day, it’s can I move enough people to agree with me, regardless of what gets upended in the process.
Spinning a further discussion on what the Constitution says or doesn’t say, is certainly up to debate. Who would have thought that “a right to privacy” somehow found its ways into the Constitution … growing into Roe v. Wade in ’73.
Limiting this discussion to SCOTUS, which now is the be-all and end-all of what defines ‘discrimination’, ‘class of persons’, etc., the Constitution, at any given time, says whatever 5 black-robed men/women decide. Why else all the hoopla to convince people to vote for so-and-so, because they have an opportunity to “pack the Court” … so we need our guy or gal to win.
Following is a peek into The Nature of Law; and, how a view, Legal Positivism, has basically taken the tact that whatever is the prevailing ‘majority’, social fact, constitutes Law; as opposed to the view that a foundational, moral structure should guide legal decisions.
Both quotes taken from The Nature of Law Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I don’t recall being asked the question about civil unions here before, Jon. Why would you presume I would feel as you say?
Timothy, you are either posing as obtuse or you are. Never mind. I think just plain obstinate is more likely.
Timothy, I was referencing our specific discussion, in which you leaped to the conclusion that my saying the Constitution protects freedom of religious thought/beliefs really meant I was projecting my own beliefs onto you or others.
The rest of your snarkiness I’ll ignore. Time to get onto other things anyway.
Richard, there will be a practical place for civil unions. We are approaching that time.
Timothy,
Sigh. The battle armor is heavy and exacts a toll. Body and mind have to rest now and then. Life is short.
The title (“Christians mock gays at shocking Easter service”) was intriguing and appeared either as a link on my homepage among the listed stories in the news or on the site Hot Air, don’t remember which. Was surprised when the actual story was the opposite, not surprised by the antics of the crowd as I live near the City. Commonplace there.
While I have your ear, a trivial point-you mentioned opera isn’t big among gays on the West Coast. I haven’t attented a performance in NYC since the late 1990s, but we usually attend a performance every couple of years, sometimes more often, depending on the choices, and there seem to be many gay men in attendance and at the symphony as well. Can’t speak about the LA ,Seattle, nor Vancouver scenes, however.
My oh my. Goodness gracious, how very uncouth of me.
So let’s look back on the conversation and see where it was that I started dancing, though I’m not entire sure that I’m qualified to do a two-step. (you don’t mind if I reference a show tune, though, do ya?).
Now it seems that here I thought I was talking about the constitutionality of anti-gay marriage amendments, but it turns out that I really was dancing around the rather obvious real question.
That makes me… smile
Ya know something, Debbie, being in my community has qualified me so say all sorts of things. Colorful phrases are part of my culture.
But I’m not going to let you goad me into saying anything that will let you put on your poor mistreated martyr hat. I’m just gunna smile… as a good Southern Lady, I’m sure you know the smile. You, after all, are qualified.
Debbie
Let’s set aside ‘religious ideology’ for moment. Do you not think that is socially useful to have some form of ‘gay marriage’ for those who, for whatever reason, genuinely believe that this is the best thing for them? (It might interest you to know that it appears that the leader of Catholic Church in England and Wales, Vincent Nichols, thinks that there is a place for civil unions in UK civil law, presumably on grounds of ‘practicality’. After all, both individuals and society can often benefit from people ‘pairing up’ in ways that are genuinely mutually supportive; such ‘pairings up’ can, and, I believe, often are, conducive to the ‘common good’.)
The Kincaid two-step. Dodged the real question.
Only Southerners get to say that. You’re not qualified.
carole,
Yes, one can surf the internet for stories about Gays Behaving Badly. It certainly happens. And this is one of the more objectionable.
Jon, I think a lot of those who voted for, supported, and funded Proposition 8 assumed that we would graciously sit back and say, “oh well”. After all, we didn’t do anything anywhere else. The general assumption – oh, heck, part of the Prop 8 campaign – was that gay people didn’t really want marriage anyway, and “we can agree to disagree on this matter.”
But we gay Californians did not agree to disagree. That’s saved for things like ice cream flavors and papal infallibility. When it comes to institutionalized inferiority, we will not agree that discrimination is just as valid as equality.
The gay community collectively said, “this is not acceptable. Not to us. Not anymore.”
A cultural shift happened on November 8, 2011. I did not even see how important that day was… but I should have. I should have noticed that protests were not limited to California. There were protests over my state’s initiative in Washington, DC and Chicago, IL and Nashville, TN and Fargo, ND and Stillwater, OK and Sault Ste Marie, MI and Moscow, ID and in dozens of places around the country, some of which I’d never heard of. There were protests in London and Paris and Amsterdam and around the globe. Like the June 26, 1969 Stonewall Riots, this was an event bigger than it seemed.
And, for the first time, some very decent people realized that their votes on the legal status of gay couples actually hurt people. That gay folk really do want equality. That the things they told themselves about “real gays, not those activists” were simply not true; “my hairdresser Jim” was no more content with an unjust system than “my maid Irene” was in 1962.
And that is, I believe, why we have seen acceleration in the change in views since that time. Sometimes people – good people – really do have to be convinced that you care before they will begin to care.
Proposition 8 is a pretty good example.
As they say in the South, Debbie, well bless your heart
What, then, do we call this kind of fallout?
Well, let’s see.
We have an individual who gave a significant sum of money, attended rallies, spoke to the press, and lent his name and reputation to an effort to take away existing marriage rights from a group of people.
And we have members of that group saying, “I don’t want to be represented by this person. His name and reputation are linked to an effort to deny me civil equality.”
How do you deduce that, sir? Knowing Christ. Can you do that empirically? Can you respect Scripture, even where you have doubts about it? That’s where I start and end.
Well, you surmise incorrectly. How do you make the leaps of logic that you do, Timothy? How do we get from a person having a constitutionally protected religious belief to projecting that belief onto others? You hear and see what you want to, regardless of the stinkin’ facts. It’s that infernal chip on your shoulder.
Mary,
On second thought, I think I misjudged what you were saying. I thought you meant visibility, not “leave it up to God” on morality.
I apologize.
I’m sorry. I though that was obvious to anyone who has the slightest interest in the subject. I know that it’s been referenced many many times at this site.
But perhaps one of the better illustrations on the shifting public opinion can be seen at Nate Silvers New York Times feature. Silver applies regression smoothing techniques to polling data and finds that the shift from majority opposes to majority supports has already occurred.
Well…
It’s really a private matter for those we would like to disappear and be invisible, isn’t it? The rest of the world need not be private.
This is a fascinating argument.
You start with the premise that the Bible is infallible inextricably tied to the premise that your understanding of the Bible is correct. This “way of living” (as you put it) cares nothing about empirical evidence, it dismisses as impossible or illogical (a non sequitur) even the consideration of anything which contradicts your premises.
Or, as might be said in Blazing Saddles:
Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts!
Timothy, this is a sticky wicket, no? I need correction if the following is wrong: So, SCOTUS could decide that same-sex marriage cannot be denied because homosexuals are a class of people. Civilly, the State would have to permit same-sex marriages and recognize them as being alike to str8 marriages; but, each religious denomination has the right to deny homosexuals same-sex marriage within their churches. Is that what you’re saying, Timothy?
If religious beliefs cannot be the sole basis for not allowing same-sex marriage is there indeed another basis upon which it can be denied?
The US Constitution specifically prohibits the establishment of religious beliefs as sacrosanct.
Who said anything about the establishment of …? I was referring to the protection of religious freedom and thought. Rather obvious, I thought.
Debbie,
What you said about the motivations behind Prop 8 was :
It seems to me that you are arguing that the constitution protects the passing of laws based on religious belief.
It does not. In fact, you have it exactly backwards.
Yes, your beliefs are strictly protected… but only for you. The constitution does not protect your projection of your beliefs onto me.
Religious beliefs cannot be the sole basis of legislation which discriminates against a class of people.
Mary,
On second thought, I think I misjudged what you were saying. I thought you meant visibility, not “leave it up to God” on morality.
I apologize.
Well…
It’s really a private matter for those we would like to disappear and be invisible, isn’t it? The rest of the world need not be private.
Timothy, this is a sticky wicket, no? I need correction if the following is wrong: So, SCOTUS could decide that same-sex marriage cannot be denied because homosexuals are a class of people. Civilly, the State would have to permit same-sex marriages and recognize them as being alike to str8 marriages; but, each religious denomination has the right to deny homosexuals same-sex marriage within their churches. Is that what you’re saying, Timothy?
If religious beliefs cannot be the sole basis for not allowing same-sex marriage is there indeed another basis upon which it can be denied?
The US Constitution specifically prohibits the establishment of religious beliefs as sacrosanct.
Who said anything about the establishment of …? I was referring to the protection of religious freedom and thought. Rather obvious, I thought.
Debbie,
What you said about the motivations behind Prop 8 was :
It seems to me that you are arguing that the constitution protects the passing of laws based on religious belief.
It does not. In fact, you have it exactly backwards.
Yes, your beliefs are strictly protected… but only for you. The constitution does not protect your projection of your beliefs onto me.
Religious beliefs cannot be the sole basis of legislation which discriminates against a class of people.
Thanks, Ken, for clearing up the matter of tax-exemption for churches, which are considered charitable organizations. I didn’t have a clear understanding of this at all.
The link is quite helpful.
Teresa# ~ May 10, 2011 at 9:49 am
“Is it Constitutional for large religious denominations to directly fund political views through advertisements, commercials, etc.?”
it isn’t a matter of an organization being religious or not, the issue is whether it is a charitable organization (churches are consider to be charitable organizations) under the IRS Tax code. And it isn’t a matter of the constitution, but the IRS Tax codes.
You can get an overview with links to more details here:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
Off of this page is an “Election Year Issues” link to a pdf file with IRS guidelines about what is or is not permissible.
“Has there ever been a SCOTUS case determining that religious denominations funding certain political views do not jeopardize their tax-exempt status?”
Not to my knowledge. However, in order for such a case to occur, the IRS would 1st have to deny a church it’s charitable (501c) status, which would then have to be challenged by the church.
“Where is the line drawn concerning impacting civil discourse using tax-exempt funds?”
There is no clear line drawn. However, the decisions are largely made by the IRS not the courts.
“Is this a murky area, where large donations are channeled through shadow corporations/groups that pose difficulty in tracing these donations?”
Not as it involves churches. A charitable organization trying to funnel money to a non-exempt organization risks losing 501c status regardless of whether that non-exempt org is political or not.
Thanks, Ken, for clearing up the matter of tax-exemption for churches, which are considered charitable organizations. I didn’t have a clear understanding of this at all.
The link is quite helpful.
Teresa# ~ May 10, 2011 at 9:49 am
“Is it Constitutional for large religious denominations to directly fund political views through advertisements, commercials, etc.?”
it isn’t a matter of an organization being religious or not, the issue is whether it is a charitable organization (churches are consider to be charitable organizations) under the IRS Tax code. And it isn’t a matter of the constitution, but the IRS Tax codes.
You can get an overview with links to more details here:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
Off of this page is an “Election Year Issues” link to a pdf file with IRS guidelines about what is or is not permissible.
“Has there ever been a SCOTUS case determining that religious denominations funding certain political views do not jeopardize their tax-exempt status?”
Not to my knowledge. However, in order for such a case to occur, the IRS would 1st have to deny a church it’s charitable (501c) status, which would then have to be challenged by the church.
“Where is the line drawn concerning impacting civil discourse using tax-exempt funds?”
There is no clear line drawn. However, the decisions are largely made by the IRS not the courts.
“Is this a murky area, where large donations are channeled through shadow corporations/groups that pose difficulty in tracing these donations?”
Not as it involves churches. A charitable organization trying to funnel money to a non-exempt organization risks losing 501c status regardless of whether that non-exempt org is political or not.
Blasphemy = not a good thing. But God’s still on the throne. It’s more sad than anything. Every time someone brings up this kind of stuff, someone else brings up Mardi Gras. Tit for tat, and there ain’t no pun intended in dat. Jesus, hunky or not, died for all of them/us.
Shouldn’t this apply to other countries, as well?
You know what, Debbie? After scrolling through the link in Carole’s Comment, I’m sorta questioning the whole nonjudgmental kindness idea.
Now, why do some gays think other people find this behavior, OK? As a gay woman, I find this particularly offensive on several levels. And, we wonder why “others” find gay behavior ‘un’natural.
Yes, Carole, I agree.
I don’t know, guys. The “hell in a handbasket” blame can be spread among a whole assortment of people/groups.
This video was shot Easter Sunday. (Warning, graphic pics that many will find blasphemous.)
I haven’t seen this nor heard references to it from any major network source. Good thing from the perspective of gay and lesbian lobbying groups, I’d imagine.
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/04/27/christians-mock-gays-at-shocking-easter-service/?singlepage=true
I sure messed up my previous comment. Here’s how it should look:
Jayhuck, your points are well-taken. I agree. Each individual has the freedom to choose their own values, beliefs, behavior. If we want to condemn another, again that’s our freedom of choice.
And, you do understand, I know, that what I express is my opinion. I’m trying for the most part not to proselytize you … sometimes, I wanna do that, but I know that’s not how I’d like to be treated.
Since I love assigning blame to other people (:)), I simply want to note that the condition of our society … if perceived as going to hell in a handbasket … lies at the feet of conservative, Christian heterosexuals.
Jayhuck,
I am not trying to support same sex marriage, but I am trying to highlight a reasoned argument for doing so. And I don’t mind if I get some credit for it :).
Jon, I don’t believe bitter recrimination is the best tool in your kit. And you surely don’t know me any better than I know your state.
I recall a nasty school board battle (it made national news) in my California town back in the ’90s during which the Christian majority were recalled because of their conservative views on curriculum and their “pro-family” views in general. People were bused in from other counties and cities — maybe even states — to loudly interrupt school board meetings and distribute propaganda materials. That’s small potatoes compared to a statewide battle, but “all politics is local politics,” as the saying goes. We also know candidates (new ones and incumbents) at local, state and national levels were targeted for ousting during the last election by both liberals and conservatives. Those campaigns got pretty nasty.
Please name one case of out-of-state pro-equality forces dumping miilions into any successful campaign for gay marriage equality or ousting any anti-equality judge. Iowa Supreme Court justices faced an unprecidented assault on them. You don’t live here, Debbie. It was pure fear-mongering used against them. You would’ve loved it. “if they found DOMA unconstitutional, what else might they do to attack your family?” My favorite was the church that financed an eHarmony parody ad that thanked the Iowa Supreme Court for allowing brothers and sisters to get married.
To their credit, our justices did lose graciously. The winners immediately turned around and began demanding the immediate resignation or barring that impeachment of the reamaining justices.
I’m sure it’d be nice if those gay and lesbian couples in California had just graciously sat back and said “oh well” when their marital rights eliminated by popular vote. Trust me, if/when my family gets torn apart by the votes of my fellow Iowans, I won’t just sit back and say “oh darn”. You wouldn’t either if your family was literaly destoyed by others around you like that. Then again, our families aren’t real or worth anything positive to you anyway, so it’s easy to say that people like me shouldn’t be all sour grapey.
Blasphemy = not a good thing. But God’s still on the throne. It’s more sad than anything. Every time someone brings up this kind of stuff, someone else brings up Mardi Gras. Tit for tat, and there ain’t no pun intended in dat. Jesus, hunky or not, died for all of them/us.
Debbie,
Amen 🙂
Yes, Iowa and California both were battle grounds that attracted outside interest and help. This tactic has been used by the other side, as well. States are entitled to fight their own battles.
Jayhuck, whether voting or pressuring, citizens are exercising their voices and redressing grievances. The check/balance in the case of elections is the next election. Public pressure on officials or organizations has its place. But it can go too far or backfire. We ought to be above sour-grapes brawling. We should win fairly and lose graciously, and determine to wage a better campaign the next time.
Debbie,
Honestly, when I see conservative Christians doing things like they did in Iowa, I have to ask myself if they can see how they might be bringing about their own downfall. Their viewpoints are increasingly becoming unpopular, and their tactics even more so. I would think they should at least be one of the groups championing our system of checks and balances – even if it is just to protect themselves.
The campaign against Iowa’s Supreme Court was led by a failed candidate for governor and funded with millions and millions of dollars paid by out-of-state groups like NOM and the AFA. The same folks have been trying to impeach the remaining justices ever since. The anti-retention campaign woul’ve gone nowhere without those out-of-state groups.
Teresa,
It probably means different things to different people/couples. My question would be what is the purpose of sex? You as a conservative Christian obviously have an answer to that question, but not everyone is a conservative Christian or Catholic or even religious. So sex means different things to different people. You approach it from your POV but you have to realize there are others.
Why don’t they just live as they feel they should? They are free to condemn whomever they want to condemn and to use or not use these devices as they see fit. Why force others to bend to their viewpoints? Just because the pill is out there does not mean people have to use it.
Jayhuck, I didn’t forget it. Actually, you’re affirming what I said:
Birth control … what is an unwanted pregnancy? Does it mean, geez, I wanted to fool around; but, I didn’t want this to happen? Does it mean, a woman can now act like a man in the sexual realm? Does it mean, the most intimate, physical union of two people is divorced from one of its two primary purposes; and, now has only one purpose … ?
If that is the case, then conservative, Christian heterosexuals have absolutely no moral ground on which to stand telling any homosexual they cannot engage in same-sex sexual behavior. If sexual behavior among conservative, Christian heterosexual married couples is rendered sterile by any number of means: the pill, iud, condoms, sodomy, oral sex, etc., then what moral ground can they put forth to condemn same-sex sexual behavior?
If public approval/voting is the final say on the matter, where are the checks and balances? How is this different than having a Dictator in power?
Debbie,
I’m struggling to figure out why you try to keep comparing public pressure on individuals or private companies with people voting?
I call it political thuggery and having one branch of government intimidate another branch into submission – It should disturb us all
Teresa,
That’s only part of the story though. Don’t forget that until the time of birth control, women also bore the brunt of the repercussions of sex. Men were free to sleep with as many women as they liked with little consequence. Birth control has also prevented many unwanted pregnancies, which I have to say must be seen as a good thing on some level. We could debate the good and bad of birth control until judgement day, but I just wanted to point out the other side.
That can cut both ways. Were Iowans merely exercising their constitutional right to vote in judges who they feel will uphold the Constitution, or vote out those who they feel will not? Or was this political thuggery? You said earlier, Jayhuck, that it was wrong for people on either side of the issue to be harmed. What, then, do we call this kind of fallout?
I think sometimes we forget our history, recent actual, and the institution of marriage. Marriage underwent its greatest assault with the acceptation of artificial birth control; and, later generalized acceptation of divorce and remarriage.
Artificial birth control introduced into our culture the foreign notion that sex had no consequences … seen only now as pleasurable and fun. Women, especially, were impacted; as we’ve always been the guardians of purity. Foreign notion, right? We, women, always had the most to gain and the most to lose in the sexual act. With the introduction of artificial birth control, came the unexpected, by most, the reintroduction of the objectification of women as only sex objects.
Along with artificial birth control came the idea of sterility associated with sexual intercourse. With few perceived bad consequences for str8 couples, (not so, in actuality) why not same-sex sexual behavior?
Divorce, now seen as almost a natural thing, only added putting marriage on life-support. Society kept itself intact by supporting marriage, even at its worst. There are institutions that are wholesome, healthy, and necessary for social integrity. Disregarding these will necessarily mean the dissolution of social cohesion. Individual liberty never trumps social mores.
Women and children, always the most vulnerable, suffer the most indignity at every level when society self-destructs.
The above are my opinions from a conservative, sociological point of view. One last comment on this: heterosexuals have to accept they are responsible for the dissolution of current society, if one sees it that way. We, homosexuals, didn’t make the average Tom, Dick, and Harry, Jane, Sue, and Mary fornicate, adulterate, abort, divorce, use artificial birth control, etc. It’s easy pickings to point the finger at someone else for one’s own shortcomings. Same-sex marriage isn’t going to destroy marriage; that was done long ago by heterosexuals.
Jayhuck, I have been quite clear in saying many times that marriage is being destroyed from within by self-centered men and women, and not by the “bogeyman” of same-sex coupling.
The culture of life: allowing children to be born is a big part of it. Those who counter with “Born into what?” have a point. As our Judeo-Christian values crumble, so goes the foundation upon which families are built. And if that foundation is strong, then we won’t need cradle-to-grave government welfare programs, will we? We will have a culture that affirms and enhances life from beginning to end.
Debbie,
What exactly is meant by a phrase like this? Life at all costs? Life regardless of quality? I am truthfully not an abortion advocate except in a few instances, but I get aggravated when there is talk about life, but little else.
Debbie,
Let’s be clear – If Its on life support, it is so because of heterosexuals, not because of anything homosexuals have done
I think this was one point Kirk and Madsen were trying to make in their (erstwhile) book, After the Ball.
The pressure to cultivate an atmosphere of nonjudgmental kindness toward gays and lesbians is a good thing. What that ends up doing to conservative institutions and to the Church will be interesting to see. And how it all will relate back to traditional marriage — either to strengthen it or weaken it — also will prove to be a watershed event. Marriage is not going to flatline in our time. But it is on life support.
FWIW, I was intrigued by other information in the AP story I referred to above concerning attitudes among Virginians about abortion. Conservatives are more supportive of “a woman’s right to choose” to abort here than they are of same-sex marriage. The culture of life and of Judeo-Christian values is under assault. But some in the gay community seek to resuscitate the culture of marriage, while at the same time, being perceived as destroying it by many conservatives.
That may be true, sad as it is, but its frightening to see things happen like what occurred in Iowa where people, through what you would probably call political thuggery, were convinced to vote out judges who were simply doing their job. Those kinds of things scare me
David,
I read the article and I’ve re-read your post and I’m still struggling to figure out exactly what you are trying to say. Do you now support same sex marriage?
Checking in after a break.
There is an interesting opinion piece in the Washington Post criticizing Ron Paul’s logical progression in applying libertarianism to the legalization of drugs and prostitution. The following paragraph is poignant:
Same sex couples are trying to create (out of nearly nothing, and with very little cultural support) the conservative institutions that will support them in a generally hostile world. Heterosexuals went about this several thousand years ago.
They need heterosexuals help to do this, because we are the overwhelming majority and our hands are on the levers of power at nearly every level of government, church, schools and associations; and through disgust, humiliation and shame we can continue to marginalize them.
Conservative arguments for protecting marriage and strengthening it have their greatest power when applied to heterosexuals…libertine philosophies applied to heterosexual marriage hurts women and children.
Conservative philosophies, applied to glbt communities which have been characterized as libertine; and exploited by libertine values, will stabilize, protect and strengthen them.
Article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-land-of-second-rate-values/2011/05/09/AFD8B2bG_story.html
More questions impacting same-sex marriage … these are of a legal nature.
Is it Constitutional for large religious denominations to directly fund political views through advertisements, commercials, etc.?
Has there ever been a SCOTUS case determining that religious denominations funding certain political views do not jeopardize their tax-exempt status?
Where is the line drawn concerning impacting civil discourse using tax-exempt funds?
Is this a murky area, where large donations are channeled through shadow corporations/groups that pose difficulty in tracing these donations?
Debbie,
I saw the results of that Washington Post poll yesterday. I am happy to see public opinion shifting, but I still hope and pray for protection for people on both sides of this issue.
In the final analysis, Jon, we will all die as footnotes in history. This blog is examining the issue of same-sex marriage from all points of view. Warren reports, we decide, more or less. We only reflect society, which is at odds on it.
Timothy has not yet attributed his statement about public opinion shifting on the issue, but just today, the AP reported on a Washington Post poll from Virginia, widely seen as a “battleground state” in upcoming elections. It says 47% now are for same-sex marriage and 43% are opposed, while 55% support adoptions by gay couples. In 2006, 56% of Virginians voted for a constitutional marriage amendment, making it one of the 31 states to have done so. Virginia’s amendment is not being challenged at this point. But it is only a matter of time before it is. Polls and votes don’t always match up, of course.
Jon, you and others here who support same-sex marriage or are the very face of it ought to be pleased that time is on your side. Don’t be insulted that I pointed out Timothy’s non sequitur. History will affirm you. None of us can say for certain what eternity will do.
I call it political thuggery and having one branch of government intimidate another branch into submission – It should disturb us all
Teresa,
That’s only part of the story though. Don’t forget that until the time of birth control, women also bore the brunt of the repercussions of sex. Men were free to sleep with as many women as they liked with little consequence. Birth control has also prevented many unwanted pregnancies, which I have to say must be seen as a good thing on some level. We could debate the good and bad of birth control until judgement day, but I just wanted to point out the other side.
I think sometimes we forget our history, recent actual, and the institution of marriage. Marriage underwent its greatest assault with the acceptation of artificial birth control; and, later generalized acceptation of divorce and remarriage.
Artificial birth control introduced into our culture the foreign notion that sex had no consequences … seen only now as pleasurable and fun. Women, especially, were impacted; as we’ve always been the guardians of purity. Foreign notion, right? We, women, always had the most to gain and the most to lose in the sexual act. With the introduction of artificial birth control, came the unexpected, by most, the reintroduction of the objectification of women as only sex objects.
Along with artificial birth control came the idea of sterility associated with sexual intercourse. With few perceived bad consequences for str8 couples, (not so, in actuality) why not same-sex sexual behavior?
Divorce, now seen as almost a natural thing, only added putting marriage on life-support. Society kept itself intact by supporting marriage, even at its worst. There are institutions that are wholesome, healthy, and necessary for social integrity. Disregarding these will necessarily mean the dissolution of social cohesion. Individual liberty never trumps social mores.
Women and children, always the most vulnerable, suffer the most indignity at every level when society self-destructs.
The above are my opinions from a conservative, sociological point of view. One last comment on this: heterosexuals have to accept they are responsible for the dissolution of current society, if one sees it that way. We, homosexuals, didn’t make the average Tom, Dick, and Harry, Jane, Sue, and Mary fornicate, adulterate, abort, divorce, use artificial birth control, etc. It’s easy pickings to point the finger at someone else for one’s own shortcomings. Same-sex marriage isn’t going to destroy marriage; that was done long ago by heterosexuals.
Its probably time I go to bed 🙂
Oh wow – talking about God’s box – that really is problematic isn’t it?
My god, is a little God, he reigns, from…. Isn’t there a song there somewhere ? 😉
“No, no, no — my god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way!”
Mary,
OK – now this is something I understand and would agree with – to a certain degree anyway.
Yes I am aware of the research. And of course, there are many people whose gender is indistinguishable either in the brain or through a physical examination of the body or the DNA. Those are not seen in the broad human experience yet happens enough to give pause to the question of sexual and gender orientation. As a Christain, I believe in the dichotomy of the sexes and their complimentary aspects. Also, as a Christian, I believe that we live in a world that is not so black and white. There are variations in gender and sexuality. It is really a private matter between a person and thier maker.
Pretty much ends the conversation, doesn’t it. At best, our families aren’t too terribly terrible. Nothing good over there. Move along. Move along…
Do you realize what a non sequitur that statement is, Timothy? How would a Christian who knows Christ and respects the Scriptures (that’s not a “religious view,” it is a way of living) ever conceive of seeing same-sex marriage as positively impacting the institution of marriage? At best, they might see it as not negatively impacting it, but merely being a footnote in history.
Who said anything about the establishment of …? I was referring to the protection of religious freedom and thought. Rather obvious, I thought.
perhaps not…
Mary,
Are you aware that the brains of gay men function in some ways like the brains of heterosexual women? For example, research shows that the way that gay men register spacial orientation on average is more similar to that of women (landmark based) than men (directional).
As you noted above, there are variations, but on the whole the way that brains function between the sexes does not seem to hold true when sexual orientation comes into play.
Here you go Mary – Its discussing the same analysis with perhaps a more palatable title for you:
Men and Women Are Psychologically Similar… to varying degrees
Mary,
You are absolutely wrong on this point. The idea that the brains of women and men is different is well over a century old.
What do you mean medical research recognizes the difference gender plays in the treatment of patients?
No Jayhuck – I know what you’re saying – you’ve been saying it for years. The idea that the brain of men and women is different is a fairly new. That is why medical research now recognizes the difference gender plays in the treatment of patients.
As far as popular media goes … I could really careless. One is a social observation and one is truly speaking of the science behind our gender differences.
I will never argue that differences between the sexes do not exist. What I think is up for debate is the just how different the two are.
For you Mary:
Men And Women Found More Similar Than Portrayed In Popular Media
Mary,
That is true but you appear not to try and understand what *I* was saying before you jumped in. I completely understood what Debbie is saying, and I never doubted for a minute that it is true that men and women are different, so I have no idea what you are insinuating here.
You can lump all men with all men? Really? When it comes to personality traits? What personality traits are there that all men share? I would like to know this.
For a moment – try to understand what someone is saying before jumping into an explanation of what you are thinking and how you percieve the world. Just for a moment. Men and women truly are different creatures. The brain is different in hundreds of ways thus the body is different and so are the ways we think, feel, look etc…. There are huge variations of course between men and huge variations between women – but for the most part – you really can lump men with men and women with women.
There are more differences between myself and a man than between Debbie and I as separate individuals.
Debbie,
I don’t know what that means. Do you mean that minorities are tyrannically overpowering the majority and forcing them to treat them equally? Did you mean something else?
But if someone is denying the due process and equal access of any majority members, then I’m right there with you in Constitutional protections for them.
The Declaration of Independence is not our governing document of law. It just isn’t. But this does allow me a brief segue…
Pennsylvania former Senator Santorum was talking on the Fox debate about why he thinks gay people have no rights. He said something similar. It seemed contradictory, until I listened more closely.
So I’m finally understanding that in some circles in the country, the focus isn’t on the rights but on who granted them. And because it’s the Creator, this means God. And thus, because God is granting rights, he would never grant rights that are in disagreement with his values. So thus, when the Creator endowed rights, he didn’t endow them to gay people or gay couples.
Is this what you meant?
Yes. You are right. No credible evidence has been presented so far.
Yes, as I said, “a desire to impose religious beliefs by means of law on those who do not hold such beliefs.”
The US Constitution specifically prohibits the establishment of religious beliefs as sacrosanct.
Almost.
If, indeed, it could show a state interest that created stable families, that might justify intentional discrimination against a class of citizens. But “what it sees” is not a standard that allows for intentional discrimination – especially that based in malice.
And secondly, no one really believes that the motivation is “stable families”. That simply isn’t true. It just isn’t.
And here’s how I know… If it were proven to you without a matter of doubt that legally recognized same-sex marriage would positively impact stable families, you would still oppose it due to your religious views.
This proposition was a purely religious endeavor. Yes, not every voter was religious, but virtually every dollar, ever yard sign, every volunteer, and every other support was due to religious belief.
On its face, I think most people would agree. I am not personally threatened nor impacted by it. But I do believe the jury is still out on what it may mean for children. And do we really know for certain it will not open other doors that would be best to remain closed? Is it possible some group may attempt to piggyback off same-sex marriage for ulterior designs? It’s a fair, non-bigoted question.
We ought always to be forbearing of one another. That’s what tolerance is supposed to mean. Forbearance does not necessitate accepting everything under the sun because someone somewhere is offended if we don’t.
Don’t forget it also protects the majority from the tyranny of the minority. That was not much of a concern way back when. Today, it is. And the judiciary is but one part of government. The Constitution established the separation of all its powers, and checks and balances against any one branch overstepping its authority.
We have it to keep it all in balance. The will of the people is not supreme. “Truths” that are “self-evident” — written into the Declaration of Independence. Discernment of truth is not universal, and what used to be more self-evident (that we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights rather than by man) is not today.
Correction: No credible evidence was presented. That was not the hearing to end all hearings on the matter.
Or a deeply held anthropological and religious belief that marriage is intended only for a man and a woman. In this country, such beliefs are sacrosanct and constitutionally protected. Moreover, the state has a vested interest in stable families, and in what it sees as constituting the best model, its prior failures in this regard notwithstanding.
Jayhuck
Yes it does, to their way of thinking.
It impinges on their right to hold privilege.
It impinges on their right to define socially acceptable.
It impinges on their right to determine what will be taught in secular schools.
These are all concerns that drive those who oppose same-sex marriage. They fear that if same-sex marriages are allowed, then it sends a message to their children that is in conflict with the values they seek to instill.
Those opposed to same-sex marriage want for hetero marriage to be held up as an idea. They fear that it will lose that privileged spot if gay people can marry as well.
They believe that society is best when families consist of one man, one woman and 2.5 kids, with the man working and the woman raising the kids. They accept that this cannot be achieved in ever instance, but they will to keep it as the family structure towards which to strive. And any other structure that is treated equally will threaten that ideal.
If you took away all of the arguments that lie in giving special status and privilege to ‘one man, one woman’ marriage, there would be little left.
But in a just society, privileges are not given based on sexual orientation.
Our republic, imperfect as it is, still works better than any other system of government.
Yes. That is because our Constitution protects minorities from an out of balance and out of check majority.
Were it not for our Constitution and Judiciary, white total control of government would have never allowed for civil rights or the overturn of Jim Crow laws. The will of the people was in favor of discrimination.
Were it not for our Constitution and Judiciary, there would still be “no sale to Jews” provisions in property deeds. The will of the people would have upheld them.
Were it not for our Constitution and Judiciary, there would still be “sodomy laws” criminalizing gay people. The will of the people in a dozens states favored defining gay people as criminals. (some states still have them on the books even though they are unconstitutional just to remind gay people of their place)
And were it not for our Constitution and Judiciary, marriage bans will not be overturned in the very near future. The will of the people in some states would uphold them.
Er, I meant prejudice, but bigotry will work since the two often go hand in hand
Debbie,
Hate, intolerance and prejudice begets hate, intolerance and bigotry does it not? Perhaps its time to stop that?
Debbie,
“Self evident” has never been the standard for any civil rights. If the only determinant as to whether a law was just is whether it was “the will of the people”, for what purpose would we have a Constitution?
Gay rights “activists” (like Jayhuck, me, and every other single solitary gay person who believes that they are entitled to equal treatment under the law) are probably not best served by following Debbie’s advice about the firmest ground. It is probably not to our advantage to agree that we are legally inferior and appeal only to the mercy of a phrase that is not even in the constitution.
Rather, we should recognize that a government is not just when it assigns one set of rules to the privileged and another to the disfavored. Oddly, this is a Christian principle. Sadly, some Christians are doing everything they can not to recognize this.
Absent some compelling reason, disparate treatment of groups of people is both legally wrong and (this will raise hackles) anti-Christ.
In the only trial on the facts, the courts asked for evidence for the claims about the compelling reason. No credible evidence could be presented.
Thus the courts found the only remaining basis lay not in any desire about society itself and solely in the way the proponents wish for gay couples to be treated. In other words, there is no evidence at all that anti-gay marriage bills are about “the children” or anything at all other than gay couples.
Which should be obvious to any honest person who has ever watch the TV ads for one of these campaigms. The courtroom is all about divorce rates and so forth, but the TV ad are all about scaring people about gay people and gay marriage. (Mommy, I heard at school that I can marry a princess…)
Evidence showed that the only purpose for anti-gay marriage amendments was the impact they would have on gay couples. They are designed solely to make gay couples legally inferior to heterosexual couples.
The motivations are either personal animus of some sort (including tradition-based prejudice) or a desire to impose religious beliefs by means of law on those who do not hold such beliefs.
Debbie,
And I think we have plenty of evidence so far that allowing gay marriage does not impinge on other people’s rights.
Thankfully, we do not have anarchy here in the U.S. We may have political thuggery at times. But both sides in any issue have every right to seek to persuade others to the best of their ability, and with civility. And we the people provide an essential check on tyrannical government. We can lawfully vote, talk to our elected representatives, write letters to the editor and engage in forums of all kinds, as we are doing here. When I think of force, I think of totalitarian rule or the branches of government out of balance and unchecked. Our republic, imperfect as it is, still works better than any other system of government.
Likewise, Jayhuck, when someone asserts having a “right” to something that isn’t self-evident (readily seen or accepted by most people), it is incumbent on that person or group to demonstrate that exercising that right will not impinge on other existing rights. And in the same-sex marriage arena, this sets up an inevitable showdown between the courts and the Constitution.
I have said previously that gay rights activists may be on their firmest ground when standing on the “pursuit of happiness” principle. When I brought up in another thread (one of the Jefferson ones) the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — essentially that the one is the spirit while the other is the letter of the law — I was told they are not related in that way. Aren’t they? Wouldn’t same-sex marriage advocates want them to be?
And we don’t always do a good job of this!
Tim,
Absolutely. The gay community has a responsibility to make sure that the people who do not agree with them are also protected. Of course this all becomes even more complex and problematic when we are talking about religious groups providing goods and services to the public.
Debbie,
Teresa,
I guess it goes to the “doing unto others”
I guess we have to ask ourselves if our position, in action, is a “doing”. And it does go both ways.
Those who share may views need to ever careful that we do not force people to do what we want. We must not force churches to conduct same-sex marriages. We must not force them to teach what we want them to teach.
Those who are on your side must ask yourselves… “If I pass this law that does not let a same sex couple have their marriage recognized, am I “doing” anything unto them.”
If you come to the conclusion that blocking marriage recognition is “doing”, then you have to ask yourself if it is a “doing” that you want others to do to you.
But it all falls apart when we start adding asterisks and making up lies. If I say, “well if I were that bigoted church I would want someone to set me straight” then I’m just fooling myself and giving myself permission to mistreat you.
Dang it, Jayhuck (I am not yelling that). There you go again. I was willing to be done with that.
How do we draft our “personal” religious views into law? Let’s see, individuals vote and a good many of them also hold to personal religious views. So they must leave religion (and morality) at the voting booth door? Or maybe they call for riots and storm the Capitol, holding their Congressmen and Senators at gunpoint until they pass the laws they believe ought to be passed.
What about drafting personal nonreligious views into law? For that, I guess we mount a hate campaign against any law firm retained by the House of Representatives that is defending a law the President and Attorney General decide needs to be thrown out.
On what do you base that assessment, Timothy? The poll of the day? Such a statement needs attribution.
Teresa,
No hackles…
That is your opinion. I once held much of the same views so I can’t fault you for believing as you do. My father shares your views. That doesn’t make you evil or self-hating or whatever it is that you fear will be thrown at you.
But, of course, I firmly believe that you are wrong.
For myself, and only myself, it is a hard pill to swallow that I’m different in a really essential way. Not just a characteristic of I’m left-handed in a right-handed world; or, I’m taller than the average bear. But, in a way, that deprives me of some good I that I truly desire; but, unable to acquire. Is this the end of the world, absolutely not; but, I understand the wanting to see myself as not “disordered” … if that makes sense.
Teresa,
There was a time when being left-handed in a right-handed world was also a bit of a bitter pill. The Bible clearly viewed left-handed people as undesirable. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. The sheep are on God’s right hand, the goats on his left. And there is not a single instance in scripture – ever, at all – in which left-handedness is given God’s sanction.
Just a few decades ago, left-handed children were forced to use their right hand. The crayon was taken from the left and put in the right. Some functioned fairly decently, some not as well, some suffered greatly in an environment that required proficient use of the right hand for all educational pursuits.
Our language even reflects that historical bias. The word “sinister” literally means left-handed.
But that prejudice is mostly gone. It seems that references to “the right hand of the Father” were not actually indication of God’s judgment. Who knew?
Personally (this is me) I believe that much of the social discrimination against gay people will also to a large extent wind up on the dustbin of history.
All of which doesn’t speak to your point. Even if society had no problem at all, you still would. And that is something that is yours to resolve.
I am not suggesting a course of action.
But let me share with you that – for me – I simply stopped believing that I was disordered. The church is wrong. Once I stopped taking it for granted that the religious condemnation of my innate orientation was either just or holy, that burden went away. All the contradictory application of rules, all of the love/hate paradigm that seems to only resemble rejection, all of the double-speak, all of that no longer required me to make logic leaps.
For me (and I speak only for me) everything became simpler and, frankly, more aligned with what I know of God.
That is my testimony.
Teresa,
OK, I picked the KKK example only because it was an easy one to use to illustrate my point, but its not a great example by any means. I don’t want to compare people who hold religious views that run counter to mine as being like the KKK members (I have too many religious conservatives in my life, who I care about, to use such a simplistic and likely offensive example), so here is one that may work better. Lets talk about non-Christians, or atheists. I think there are many Christians, especially conservative Christians, who would disagree with beliefs of other faiths, or with those who don’t believe in God at all. You still don’t see people, other than Dominionists perhaps, who want to try and outlaw the practicing of these particular beliefs, or non-beliefs as it were. Is that better – I hope so 🙂
William,
Thank you. That’s exactly the phrase I was searching for.
Teresa,
You do that by respecting each others’ views while understanding the other should have the same rights as you do, whether you agree with them on various issues or not.
I think it is possible as long as we are not taking our personal religious views and attempting to draft them into law. This is the rub I believe. We can each hold steadfastly to our beliefs without impinging on the rights of others. This may be a bad example, but I think all of us would agree that the KKK have a right to their beliefs, but we don’t agree those beliefs should be enshrined into law. Perhaps a less inflammatory example might be about those who hold religious beliefs against interracial marriage. No one is suggesting that they do not have a right to those beliefs, but I doubt anyone, at least here, is going to campaign to have those beliefs legislated.
This agreement that those who disagree with us deserve the same rights is one of those things that simply makes it easier to practice the Golden Rule.
Debbie,
Perhaps its a pendulum thing, but you are factually mistaken. Currently, the majority understand homosexuality as not being immoral or, as you put it, outside God’s box.
I believe that for a good many gay people – the ones whom I have encountered – these other attributes are not really presumed to be part of sexual orientation at all.
I don’t know anyone, Eddy, who would find it odd or peculiar that your sister is heterosexual. Nor anyone who thinks that liking sports is exclusively straight (which would be odd considering the gay sports bars).
And I don’t think that we are avoiding that discussion. Or, at least, not within the gay community.
Actually, Timothy, I don’t think we disagree that much, as you’ve expanded the “mere sexual attractions” to include emotional and spiritual. I think many people see orientation as only the “sexual attractions”. They further expand on this notion, that if they control or ameliorate these attractions, they are no longer gay. This is a very simplistic notion for orientation.
No Jayhuck – I know what you’re saying – you’ve been saying it for years. The idea that the brain of men and women is different is a fairly new. That is why medical research now recognizes the difference gender plays in the treatment of patients.
As far as popular media goes … I could really careless. One is a social observation and one is truly speaking of the science behind our gender differences.
Yes, Jayhuck, I understand exactly what you’re saying here. And, yes, my Christian Faith is core, central to me. Now, here’s the rub, Jayhuck:
How do we live in the tension of these two, what seem at times, diametrically opposed views? How do I “do unto you, what I would want you to do unto me”? How do I continue to love and respect persons, when I disgree with some positions they’ve taken, and vice versa?
Case in point: the original issue of this Post … same-sex marriage.
For the sake of discussion: Jayhuck, let’s pretend you’re for same-sex marriage … let’s say I’m not (which happens to be true). This is a core, sensitive, big-time issue for both of us …
How do we continue to love and respect one another … and, not the current lovey-dovey, I’m OK … you’re OK stuff … but the “malice toward none, charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right …” love and respect? Is this even possible?
Ann
This is an interesting question. And it’s also an ironic one.
The truth is that sexual orientation does often dictate what one buys at the store and where one banks. And almost none of that is based in attraction.
Religious and/or societal rejection of gay people (and during this comment I use “gay people” to mean “same-sex attracted people who select their life partner in congruence with their attractions”) has resulted in some peculiar business decisions.
I disagree with Teresa about the meaning of orientation. I think that what Teresa is describing is one’s sexuality rather than one’s sexual orientation. Orientation (like the base word suggests) explains the gender to which one is oriented (one’s own, or another). Sexuality is all of the warm fuzzy, hand holding, stars stuff (along with the, ahem, gets ya going stuff) and (I believe) is experienced rather similarly between orientations (other than the gender).
Sexual orientation speaks to the gender of how one’s romantic, sexual, emotional, and spiritual attractions are directed. It carries assumptions about behavior and identity, but these are secondary to the defining characteristic of attraction.
However, as with all attributes that are identified and segregated, the resulting community has many many secondary cultural practices.
Consider African Americans. This is a culture that – while mainstreaming more today – was for many generations segregated, excluded. And consequently music, art, expression, values, and even linguistics evolved uniquely.
So too have gay people developed culture, or more accurately cultures. There is nothing about same-sex attraction that would naturally lead to enjoying opera. But for gay men on the East Coast in the decades before the turn of the century, opera was part of one’s culture. On the West Coast, gays hate opera. (these are, of course, generalizations).
These are social responses to a community. If all your friends enjoy Lady Gaga, well eventually that becomes a part of your social experience.
And when you are an oppressed people – and surely no one will doubt that during the 70’s – 90’s (and currently in part of the country) gay people were actively oppressed – one does what one can to encourage tolerance and support. If a bank is willing to run an ad in a gay themed newspaper, gay people rewarded that bank. So, yes… in a way sexual orientation directs the way in which banks are selected.
This also is reflected in other areas. For example, a culture that punishes those same-sex attracted people who court, date, and commit and rewards those who hide their orientation and put up a social front is (and this has to be obvious) going to result in furtive sexual outlets and less meaningful sexual expression.
And here’s the irony: much of the “homosexual lifestyle” that is loudly condemned as being hedonistic is the direct result of social and religious rejection of homosexual persons. Heck, much of the “homosexual lifestyle” that can be identified in any manner is the result of a community arising out of segregation and social survival.
But – and here’s the important part – these manifestations of community are not sexual orientation. And absent social oppression or segregation, eventually many of these manifestations will disappear.
But one will not. Ultimately, the core of orientation – the sex to whom one is romantically, sexually, emotionally, and spiritually attracted – is not socially constructed. As many a rural-raised gay man or woman can tell you, one experiences these attractions absent any social queuing as to their possibility.
shifting gears…
This is a common thought. Often those who see themselves as tolerant and accepting share a view that it’s “no one’s business.” But that is a perspective that in most situations is applied in one direction.
It’s is obviously everyone’s business when a man is married to a woman. He wears a ring, he has her picture on his desk, he talks about her and his kids and his inlaws and where to go on his anniversary, and all of the many many many daily life situations that include being heterosexual and married.
Think for a moment, do you know any heterosexual married people who have not in some way informed you of their marriage.
Additionally, no one seems to think that single heterosexuals should keep that fact no one’s business. Younger straight singles are quite public about whom they are dating. In fact, this is the first question one is asked when seeing an old acquaintance after a time. Aunt Susan always asks, doesn’t she?
And even those straights who are not as young are quick to inform others that they are still in the market if you know of anyone.
But after time, a single that is no longer in the young sow your oats age and who doesn’t speak about their status gets asked less. Partly its to save embarrassing the person. But, I believe, partly it’s the “no one’s business” issue. Forks are afraid that the confirmed bachelor and the old maid might be, ahem, in the “no one’s business” category and they just don’t want to know.
I suggest, Ann, that while this is on the surface an admirable position, it is not realistic. And it places a burden on gay people that it does not place on heterosexuals.
If sexual orientation is a private secret matter, it only is so for those whose sexual orientation is not proudly displayed on their hand, desk, conversation, christmas card, and endless minutia of their lives.
For you Mary:
Men And Women Found More Similar Than Portrayed In Popular Media
Regardless of each person’s particular belief system.
Debbie,
The state also has a duty to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority and to ensure that all people are treated fairly under the law.
We may come full circle in this discussion over and over, Jayhuck. No, there is no need to “yell.” We ought to have agreed to disagree a good many comments ago. So, here’s my hand on it. We can be done.
So are you saying, Debbie, that a necessary condition for the acceptability of a sexual relationship is that it be analogous to plug and a socket or to a lock and a key – or even, perhaps, to a nut and a bolt? I can’t say that I’ve ever had a relationship like that, but it doesn’t bother me one bit; I don’t feel that I’ve missed out.
So, it’s right if you agree with it (Judge Walker’s ruling) and wrong if you don’t (Prop 8)?
That same-sex marriage is essential for gays to be treated equitably under the law is still a rebuttable presumption. The state still has a duty to define marriage in the way it believes will best serve the common interest, taking into account that 95 percent or more are not homosexual.
Ok Debbie – I don’t want to take us down a road where we start yelling at each other again. That is too draining for all involved. I just get irritated when people start labeling a complex issue with conservative catch words like: PC politics run amok. I hope you know it is more than that?
A child also can grasp the idea of a plug and a socket or a lock and a key. “Which of these things is not like the other?” Why obfuscate, indeed?
Debbie,
That’s all I’m talking about.
Oh please Debbie! We’ve answered this question before and you know that is not true. It is not asking people to change their beliefs, it is asking that the secular state treat people *fairly*! There is a big difference and you know it. To play the kind of game you are playing is annoying.
I really, really, really, really wish we could relegate to the dustbin of political correctness this notion of someone “forcing” his/her views on someone else just by strongly maintaining a position contrary to his/hers. If we are talking about government imposing regulations or laws, that’s one thing. But I know too well from my years of hanging out at this blog that is not what Jayhuck is referring to.
Who is forcing whom to do what? I’ve asked this question before, I believe. Does anyone here have the authority or the power to bend any of the rest of us to his/her will? If so, then please just go ahead and do it before we get to 1,300 comments! Please!
This thread is originally about a state where PC politics has run amok. That battle has led to two marriage initiatives (propositions) being put before the people for vote, the state’s Supreme Court ruling in opposition to one of those referenda (generating the second, a state constitutional amendment), and a federal court ruling (still being appealed and even pushed to be vacated) affirming the state high court’s ruling, both of which negated the people’s amending of their own constitution. Government by, of and for the people?
So, is the state and the federal government now forcing all Californians to accept same-sex marriage as constitutional in their state? Is that wrong or right, Jayhuck? It’s just “due process,” correct?
What’s the due process for people to discuss matters that they may disagree on?
BTW, that was a really good question of you to ask Teresa, and I have a feeling there is a great more to be pondered and posted about the topic before we are done 🙂
Debbie,
The comment that you replied to on Aug 18, 2010 at 1:30 pm was mine, not Jayhuck’s. So, if you agree that “We are all ‘other’ to each other in some sense”, why suggest that the “other” that a homosexually oriented person seeks is “like” or “another part of me that completes me”? It’s just poppycock.
The “other” who sexually complements a heterosexual person is a person of the other sex, but this is not the case for a homosexual person; the “other” who sexually complements a homosexual person is a person of the same sex, and that “other” is no more “another part of me that completes me” for a homosexual person than for a heterosexual person. Quite simple, really; a child can grasp it. What need is there to obfuscate it with a lot of verbiage?
On its face, I think most people would agree. I am not personally threatened nor impacted by it. But I do believe the jury is still out on what it may mean for children. And do we really know for certain it will not open other doors that would be best to remain closed? Is it possible some group may attempt to piggyback off same-sex marriage for ulterior designs? It’s a fair, non-bigoted question.
We ought always to be forbearing of one another. That’s what tolerance is supposed to mean. Forbearance does not necessitate accepting everything under the sun because someone somewhere is offended if we don’t.
Don’t forget it also protects the majority from the tyranny of the minority. That was not much of a concern way back when. Today, it is. And the judiciary is but one part of government. The Constitution established the separation of all its powers, and checks and balances against any one branch overstepping its authority.
We have it to keep it all in balance. The will of the people is not supreme. “Truths” that are “self-evident” — written into the Declaration of Independence. Discernment of truth is not universal, and what used to be more self-evident (that we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights rather than by man) is not today.
Correction: No credible evidence was presented. That was not the hearing to end all hearings on the matter.
Or a deeply held anthropological and religious belief that marriage is intended only for a man and a woman. In this country, such beliefs are sacrosanct and constitutionally protected. Moreover, the state has a vested interest in stable families, and in what it sees as constituting the best model, its prior failures in this regard notwithstanding.
Teresa,
Here’s an example; I assume you have given a great deal of thought to your particular beliefs. If I were to say to you I did not respect your decision to become a Christian, or went beyond that and attacked the reasons behind your decision, would you feel, to some extent, that by not respecting this decision, one that is important for you and obviously impacts you a great deal, that I am disrespecting you? This decision would seem to be tied directly to who you are as a person, or am I wrong about this?
Teresa,
What I was trying to address in that statement to you Teresa goes beyond merely respecting people and their decisions; however, I would have to say that sometimes, yes, you do have to respect those “decisions” and sometimes, yes, those decision are so intricately tied to who we are that “disrespecting” those conclusions is seen as disrespecting the person. If two people have studied, prayed over, given a great deal of time and thought to a particular issue and come to different conclusions/decisions, then I would hope those individuals would respect the other person’s conclusions.
The bigger problem I see occurs when one side or the other tries to force their particular “conclusions” on the other. This statement may very well take us down roads we’ve been down before, but its important to discuss.
Speaking of guns … we were, weren’t we … the above quote by Jayhuck is a loaded statement.
I have this teeny, tiny, itsy-bitsy, wee question for you, Jayhuck (and, others). I do respect others, at least try to, most of the time. But, do I have to respect your conclusions on issues to respect you? Can I separate the you, that’s you, from your decisions? Are some issues/decisions so intricately tied to who we are, that ‘disrespecting conclusions’ is seen as disrespecting our very selves?
Debbie,
“Self evident” has never been the standard for any civil rights. If the only determinant as to whether a law was just is whether it was “the will of the people”, for what purpose would we have a Constitution?
Gay rights “activists” (like Jayhuck, me, and every other single solitary gay person who believes that they are entitled to equal treatment under the law) are probably not best served by following Debbie’s advice about the firmest ground. It is probably not to our advantage to agree that we are legally inferior and appeal only to the mercy of a phrase that is not even in the constitution.
Rather, we should recognize that a government is not just when it assigns one set of rules to the privileged and another to the disfavored. Oddly, this is a Christian principle. Sadly, some Christians are doing everything they can not to recognize this.
Absent some compelling reason, disparate treatment of groups of people is both legally wrong and (this will raise hackles) anti-Christ.
In the only trial on the facts, the courts asked for evidence for the claims about the compelling reason. No credible evidence could be presented.
Thus the courts found the only remaining basis lay not in any desire about society itself and solely in the way the proponents wish for gay couples to be treated. In other words, there is no evidence at all that anti-gay marriage bills are about “the children” or anything at all other than gay couples.
Which should be obvious to any honest person who has ever watch the TV ads for one of these campaigms. The courtroom is all about divorce rates and so forth, but the TV ad are all about scaring people about gay people and gay marriage. (Mommy, I heard at school that I can marry a princess…)
Evidence showed that the only purpose for anti-gay marriage amendments was the impact they would have on gay couples. They are designed solely to make gay couples legally inferior to heterosexual couples.
The motivations are either personal animus of some sort (including tradition-based prejudice) or a desire to impose religious beliefs by means of law on those who do not hold such beliefs.
Thankfully, we do not have anarchy here in the U.S. We may have political thuggery at times. But both sides in any issue have every right to seek to persuade others to the best of their ability, and with civility. And we the people provide an essential check on tyrannical government. We can lawfully vote, talk to our elected representatives, write letters to the editor and engage in forums of all kinds, as we are doing here. When I think of force, I think of totalitarian rule or the branches of government out of balance and unchecked. Our republic, imperfect as it is, still works better than any other system of government.
Likewise, Jayhuck, when someone asserts having a “right” to something that isn’t self-evident (readily seen or accepted by most people), it is incumbent on that person or group to demonstrate that exercising that right will not impinge on other existing rights. And in the same-sex marriage arena, this sets up an inevitable showdown between the courts and the Constitution.
I have said previously that gay rights activists may be on their firmest ground when standing on the “pursuit of happiness” principle. When I brought up in another thread (one of the Jefferson ones) the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — essentially that the one is the spirit while the other is the letter of the law — I was told they are not related in that way. Aren’t they? Wouldn’t same-sex marriage advocates want them to be?
Teresa,
I guess it goes to the “doing unto others”
I guess we have to ask ourselves if our position, in action, is a “doing”. And it does go both ways.
Those who share may views need to ever careful that we do not force people to do what we want. We must not force churches to conduct same-sex marriages. We must not force them to teach what we want them to teach.
Those who are on your side must ask yourselves… “If I pass this law that does not let a same sex couple have their marriage recognized, am I “doing” anything unto them.”
If you come to the conclusion that blocking marriage recognition is “doing”, then you have to ask yourself if it is a “doing” that you want others to do to you.
But it all falls apart when we start adding asterisks and making up lies. If I say, “well if I were that bigoted church I would want someone to set me straight” then I’m just fooling myself and giving myself permission to mistreat you.
😉
How about my cool pink and brown shooting vest? Oops. I like guns. What does that mean? 🙂
Cool! Would that be pink armor, Debbie? I wanna be able to tell the guys from the gals. 🙂
Debbie,
Fair enough.
Teresa,
You did not raise my neck hackles 😉 I think you’ve articulated this idea before. I completely understand and respect how you view these issues to a great extent because you make it about you. You don’t try and impose your views on others and I appreciate that. 🙂 My sincere hope is that you will continue to respect those who have come to different conclusions.
Jayhuck, I think we can get off the personality horse now. Of course it matters.
Teresa, I am puttin’ on my armor here. 🙂
We’re doing our best, Debbie … 🙂 Hang in there.
For the sake of returning to our discussion within a discussion … I’m now gonna raise the hackles on some people’s necks. What I’m about to say, is what I’ve come to believe about homosexuality; and, my being a homosexual … oriented toward the “like” and not the “other” … as, generally understood; male with female, female with male … and, all that means for the essence of feminine and masculine.
I believe that homosexuality is a ‘dis’order … that it is ‘un’natural. I believe that seeking my complement in the “like” rather than the “other” (in a gendered sense, which has an essence of characteristics to gender) is unhealthy for me. As much as I would want that association, my pursuit of that “like” only serves to heighten that ‘dis’order.
For me, God does not give or take things, without offering recompense of inestimable worth. For me, that recompense is the beautiful virtue of ‘chastity’. Chastity allows me to become ordered in my ‘dis’order … allows me to be natural in my ‘un’naturalness … allows me to relate in good, wholesome, proper ways to both men and women. It allows me to be of service to others at my relational best.
I may never be fixed, or changed in my orientation toward the “like”; but, acceding to the truth that God desires of me for my homosexuality, chastity, gives me an ‘O’orientation that restores me to health.
OK, I now return you to our regularly scheduled broadcast of beating each other up. But, do try to remember guys, that I’m a woman; and, you’ll hurt my feelings and make me cry (oops, I forgot, I’m a gay woman, you never know what I’ll do) … so, try to act like gentlemen. 🙂 🙂
Actually, Timothy, I don’t think we disagree that much, as you’ve expanded the “mere sexual attractions” to include emotional and spiritual. I think many people see orientation as only the “sexual attractions”. They further expand on this notion, that if they control or ameliorate these attractions, they are no longer gay. This is a very simplistic notion for orientation.
Sorry – I meant same-sex couples 🙂
Yes, Jayhuck, I understand exactly what you’re saying here. And, yes, my Christian Faith is core, central to me. Now, here’s the rub, Jayhuck:
How do we live in the tension of these two, what seem at times, diametrically opposed views? How do I “do unto you, what I would want you to do unto me”? How do I continue to love and respect persons, when I disgree with some positions they’ve taken, and vice versa?
Case in point: the original issue of this Post … same-sex marriage.
For the sake of discussion: Jayhuck, let’s pretend you’re for same-sex marriage … let’s say I’m not (which happens to be true). This is a core, sensitive, big-time issue for both of us …
How do we continue to love and respect one another … and, not the current lovey-dovey, I’m OK … you’re OK stuff … but the “malice toward none, charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right …” love and respect? Is this even possible?
Debbie,
And sometimes two men are attracted to each other before personalities enter the picture. I did not mean to suggest that personality was the essence of homosexual attraction, I am suggesting it is the thing that creates complementarity between individuals.
What I *am* saying is that for there to be true complementarity, personalities have to fit together (to mesh) properly. You cannot put any two individuals together of the opposite sex and suggest that they complement each other, can you? The same would be true of opposite sex couples
No, we did not exactly agree because we have a discussion on two tracks. You want the two to meld into one. Gender complementarity, at its heart, is C.S. Lewis’ lock-and-key one-flesh mechanism (Mere Christianity). Your personality track is an overlay. Yes, personalities also blend into a harmonious unit within marriage. But men and women are intrinsically attracted to other qualities of each other before personality enters the picture. If personality were the essence of homosexual attraction, I don’t think we’d be seeing so many beefcake photos of half-naked men in gay magazines. It’s the sensual grid (as Mel White was known for saying) that gets us first
Ok Debbie – I don’t want to take us down a road where we start yelling at each other again. That is too draining for all involved. I just get irritated when people start labeling a complex issue with conservative catch words like: PC politics run amok. I hope you know it is more than that?
I’m not entirely sure what you mean, but I think we addressed the nature of the argument when we agreed that complementarity has more to do with personality than gender. Or did we agree?
I understand, for us to have the discussion we have to do it from our perspective being bound as we are by time.
A child also can grasp the idea of a plug and a socket or a lock and a key. “Which of these things is not like the other?” Why obfuscate, indeed?
I really, really, really, really wish we could relegate to the dustbin of political correctness this notion of someone “forcing” his/her views on someone else just by strongly maintaining a position contrary to his/hers. If we are talking about government imposing regulations or laws, that’s one thing. But I know too well from my years of hanging out at this blog that is not what Jayhuck is referring to.
Who is forcing whom to do what? I’ve asked this question before, I believe. Does anyone here have the authority or the power to bend any of the rest of us to his/her will? If so, then please just go ahead and do it before we get to 1,300 comments! Please!
This thread is originally about a state where PC politics has run amok. That battle has led to two marriage initiatives (propositions) being put before the people for vote, the state’s Supreme Court ruling in opposition to one of those referenda (generating the second, a state constitutional amendment), and a federal court ruling (still being appealed and even pushed to be vacated) affirming the state high court’s ruling, both of which negated the people’s amending of their own constitution. Government by, of and for the people?
So, is the state and the federal government now forcing all Californians to accept same-sex marriage as constitutional in their state? Is that wrong or right, Jayhuck? It’s just “due process,” correct?
What’s the due process for people to discuss matters that they may disagree on?
When you figure out how we remove male and female from that equation, let me know.
Mankind had a beginning, so it is appropriate to use the word in that context. God could have had the thought on an eternal time continuum, but we had a beginning.
And I am not looking for an answer to my questions. I am looking for us to ponder some things more deeply.
BTW, that was a really good question of you to ask Teresa, and I have a feeling there is a great more to be pondered and posted about the topic before we are done 🙂
Debbie,
The comment that you replied to on Aug 18, 2010 at 1:30 pm was mine, not Jayhuck’s. So, if you agree that “We are all ‘other’ to each other in some sense”, why suggest that the “other” that a homosexually oriented person seeks is “like” or “another part of me that completes me”? It’s just poppycock.
The “other” who sexually complements a heterosexual person is a person of the other sex, but this is not the case for a homosexual person; the “other” who sexually complements a homosexual person is a person of the same sex, and that “other” is no more “another part of me that completes me” for a homosexual person than for a heterosexual person. Quite simple, really; a child can grasp it. What need is there to obfuscate it with a lot of verbiage?
Debbie,
It is, for me, problematic to ask questions like this and use words like beginning when it comes to Gods’ thoughts. I appreciate how C.S. Lewis discusses time and God in his book Mere Christianity. He states that God is not bound by time or space, like we are. We see events as happening in the past, present or future, but He does not. Lewis likened God’s view of time to drawing a line on a piece of paper. The line represents time. When we look at the line we see it all at once, generally, not just pieces of it. This is, Lewis says, how God sees time – All at once. There is no past, present or future to him. I personally tend to agree with this idea 🙂
Teresa,
Here’s an example; I assume you have given a great deal of thought to your particular beliefs. If I were to say to you I did not respect your decision to become a Christian, or went beyond that and attacked the reasons behind your decision, would you feel, to some extent, that by not respecting this decision, one that is important for you and obviously impacts you a great deal, that I am disrespecting you? This decision would seem to be tied directly to who you are as a person, or am I wrong about this?
Debbie,
You will probably find as many different answers to this question as there are Christian denominations in this country.
Debbie,
For the discussion above though I thought we were talking about complementarity as it pertains to homosexual and heterosexual persons?
Yes, yes, and yes.
And, this essence of femininity and masculinity is the gird that drives orientation. Most often, that essence, underpinning what we’ve now come to call orientation, is for the natural complement of a man for a woman and vice versa … The Natural Law, Natural Order.
Teresa,
What I was trying to address in that statement to you Teresa goes beyond merely respecting people and their decisions; however, I would have to say that sometimes, yes, you do have to respect those “decisions” and sometimes, yes, those decision are so intricately tied to who we are that “disrespecting” those conclusions is seen as disrespecting the person. If two people have studied, prayed over, given a great deal of time and thought to a particular issue and come to different conclusions/decisions, then I would hope those individuals would respect the other person’s conclusions.
The bigger problem I see occurs when one side or the other tries to force their particular “conclusions” on the other. This statement may very well take us down roads we’ve been down before, but its important to discuss.
For people in general, yes. But we are discussing humanity in its subset of male and female.
Not sure how much this may help, but FWIW, here is something from Oswald Chambers that speaks in some ways to what we are discussing. He was giving advice mainly to future preachers and teachers. But he was doing it through universal truths. This is from My Utmost for His Highest (May 5):
He says salvation was “God’s great thought.” Could we plug other things into that sentence? How about making “them male and female”? And here’s something to chew on: Was humanity always meant to be ordered in one way, yet went another way (flesh vs. spirit) only after the fall? Didn’t God realize that man would fall because angels fell? So was human nature, then, his great, mysterious and unfathomable thought from the beginning? What did/does it mean to be created in God’s image and yet to be flesh?
I guess I should have said modern (modernist) claptrap, right?
I’m sure it’s a hard pill for anybody to swallow, if that happens to be one’s lot. What on Earth is God up to with allowing that? For me, it helps to remember that the world is disordered in many ways. And I cannot escape that I intersect with that. When I want to find some sense of peace about it or meaning in it, I go to God’s word and I go to my knees. I meditate and wait for the Spirit to “seek its own” — for whatever illumination God is going to give me. It comes by degrees, usually.
Debbie,
What would I call this? Pre-post modern claptrap? 😉 They are different Debbie, but its more important not to lump all men or all women under some kind of umbrella and recognize that ALL people are different from each other in important ways. And I’m sorry, but what I said is true, at least when it comes to the idea of complementarity – the personality is more important. If you look at the types of things people hold up as complementary, they tend to be personality traits.
That’s postmodern sentiment. Or claptrap, to use your expression. There is an essence to femininity and masculinity — something quintessential. Men and women are different in important ways. That is not to say that people can’t and don’t defy stereotypes. We are more complex than that. But we can’t pretend the two concepts don’t exist.
Speaking of guns … we were, weren’t we … the above quote by Jayhuck is a loaded statement.
I have this teeny, tiny, itsy-bitsy, wee question for you, Jayhuck (and, others). I do respect others, at least try to, most of the time. But, do I have to respect your conclusions on issues to respect you? Can I separate the you, that’s you, from your decisions? Are some issues/decisions so intricately tied to who we are, that ‘disrespecting conclusions’ is seen as disrespecting our very selves?
@ All,
Let me be clear as to what I’m not saying. I haven’t the faintest clue as to how orientation originates: str8, gay or bi. My own personal opinion is that it is combination of biological, physiological, and psychological components. So, I’m not speaking about origination of orientation.
I am, also, not speaking about identity. I don’t care a tinker’s dam how people want to identify themselves. I can identify as a moon rock … this has nothing to do with my conversation about sexual orientation.
I am, also, not speaking about stereotypical masculine or feminine gender characteristics … this man seems more gentle, that woman seems more athletic.
What I am trying to say, is that sexual attractions to the “other” are manifestations of a deeper need, a longing for another to walk through life with, a desire for companionship … “It is not good for man to be alone”. That deep sense of committed union with another; emotionally, physically, sacrificially, most often follows our biology. That hand-in-glove fit usually follows male/female … the completion (in the natural sense) of a number of those underlying things that make a man a man; and a woman a woman.
Debbie said it best, here:
Spot on, Debbie.
That wanting to be fulfilled in our complement is hardly just sexual attraction; although, sometimes, that’s how the ball gets rolling. The whole tango in the dance of life, that which builds families, society … our desire for another to complete ourselves … our ability to relate to another to accomplish this … that’s all wrapped up in orientation.
Debbie said:
Yes, again, Debbie. This is exactly what is considered Natural Law. The complement of two like, yet unlike, fitting together … in a myriad of ways, to make a new “one” … and, it’s not just sexual attractions that make this up.
Now for some of us, that “other” is not at all complementary, in the natural sense. It is ‘unnatural’ … and, I don’t mean this is a demeaning way. The deep, underlying orientation, that manifests itself at times, through same-sex sexual attractions is seeking another that is not the ‘other’.
Debbie again:
What you’ve said here, Debbie, is essential. For many of us homosexuals, our orientation is immutable, fixed, enduring. Our sexual attractions may be mitigated, become less. Our exterior dress may be altered (such as the clothes we wear, makeup, jewelry, etc.); but our underlying desire for another, the “other” we seek for true intimacy is not the natural “other”; it is, indeed, the “like”.
For myself, and only myself, it is a hard pill to swallow that I’m different in a really essential way. Not just a characteristic of I’m left-handed in a right-handed world; or, I’m taller than the average bear. But, in a way, that deprives me of some good I that I truly desire; but, unable to acquire. Is this the end of the world, absolutely not; but, I understand the wanting to see myself as not “disordered” … if that makes sense.
Eddy et al:
There were those gay people in the past who used to look at straight couples and envy the fact that they could get married and have a family (This may still happen to varying degrees). It appears this envy reached the point where they were able to convince themselves that they were attracted to women, enough so that they did end up getting married and have children, only to come out later in life when they were able to accept themselves for who they were. Its just another example of how envy can work in a different way.
We are all “other” to each other in some sense, Jayhuck. That’s a given that doesn’t need to be stated. This discussion-within-a-discussion is about sex, gender and orientation.
Eddy,
I couldn’t agree more with most of your statements regarding men and women above. I don’t know if I would go so far as to say that these stereotypes did not “blind side” me, but I learned early on that this was true of the sexes, because I met others (not gay) who did not fit these stereotypical models.
I think that last statement about sexual attraction and sexual orientation is a good question, but one that all people should ask themselves: gay and straight. Personally, I don’t see anything outside of attraction, which I assume includes physical, romantic and emotional attractions as well, as “intrinsic” to my orientation.
Debbie,
This idea of complementarity has much more to do with personality than it has to do with the sex of the person.
Honestly, for the most part, I think the homosexual person seeks the same things that heterosexuals seek. One of those things would be someone who complements them.
Eddy,
Has anyone ever suggested that it is? I don’t believe I have.
I am intrigued by a way of thinking that fails to recognize another person of the same sex as “other”, and which imagines that a gay person can see another person of the same sex only as “part of me”. Claptrap par excellence.
😉
How about my cool pink and brown shooting vest? Oops. I like guns. What does that mean? 🙂
Cool! Would that be pink armor, Debbie? I wanna be able to tell the guys from the gals. 🙂
Teresa, I’m afraid the more you attempt to expound on orientation, the more muddled the issue becomes. Eddy’s point in his last comment (that we may confuse what about us is part of our “normal” make-up and what is not) is well-taken.
I just don’t understand the point you are making with this statement and what follows it:
Is gender (sex) fixed for us at birth (save for the condition of being intersexed)? Do sex organs have a pre-determined role? What role do temperament and environment or nurture play in our development? If a man is a man and a woman is a woman, according to chromosomes and hormones, then how does one’s orientation move in the other direction? On the one hand, it sounds like you are saying these things are pre-purposed (or fixed), and on the other, that they are not. Is homosexuality a random, meaningless occurrence or is this mystery knowable?
I do understand this:
To be complementary is not just to fit together sexually, I believe you are saying. True. There is strength protecting weakness, providing vs. maintaining the “nest,” leading vs. following, action vs. intuition, etc., as you say. “One flesh” is a unit that is designed to work because of this complementarity. But the essence of masculinity and femininity grow out of something that originated somewhere. Science, or our understanding of it, is still in submission to the Creator.
What “other” does a homosexually oriented person seek? Seems that person seeks “like.” Or is it more “another part of me that completes me” rather than “the other who completes me”? Why would many people not view that as “disordered” thinking, contrary to the normal order of things? Of course, if all of nature is fallen, it is easy to imagine folks putting little stock in it. They can easily forget there is a God who fits into a void in their being and puts things right, even when the world seems to be chaotic.
And Throbert, if nature is fallen, then what is Natural Law? And why does Paul speak of godliness being foolishness for “the natural man”?
Debbie,
Fair enough.
Teresa,
You did not raise my neck hackles 😉 I think you’ve articulated this idea before. I completely understand and respect how you view these issues to a great extent because you make it about you. You don’t try and impose your views on others and I appreciate that. 🙂 My sincere hope is that you will continue to respect those who have come to different conclusions.
Jayhuck, I think we can get off the personality horse now. Of course it matters.
Teresa, I am puttin’ on my armor here. 🙂
We’re doing our best, Debbie … 🙂 Hang in there.
For the sake of returning to our discussion within a discussion … I’m now gonna raise the hackles on some people’s necks. What I’m about to say, is what I’ve come to believe about homosexuality; and, my being a homosexual … oriented toward the “like” and not the “other” … as, generally understood; male with female, female with male … and, all that means for the essence of feminine and masculine.
I believe that homosexuality is a ‘dis’order … that it is ‘un’natural. I believe that seeking my complement in the “like” rather than the “other” (in a gendered sense, which has an essence of characteristics to gender) is unhealthy for me. As much as I would want that association, my pursuit of that “like” only serves to heighten that ‘dis’order.
For me, God does not give or take things, without offering recompense of inestimable worth. For me, that recompense is the beautiful virtue of ‘chastity’. Chastity allows me to become ordered in my ‘dis’order … allows me to be natural in my ‘un’naturalness … allows me to relate in good, wholesome, proper ways to both men and women. It allows me to be of service to others at my relational best.
I may never be fixed, or changed in my orientation toward the “like”; but, acceding to the truth that God desires of me for my homosexuality, chastity, gives me an ‘O’orientation that restores me to health.
OK, I now return you to our regularly scheduled broadcast of beating each other up. But, do try to remember guys, that I’m a woman; and, you’ll hurt my feelings and make me cry (oops, I forgot, I’m a gay woman, you never know what I’ll do) … so, try to act like gentlemen. 🙂 🙂
Whoa! Throbert, your train car jumped the track there. I made a statement in passing earlier about the majority of people and the Church seeing homosexuality as unnatural. I made no reference to Natural Law, and certainly not to the Church’s views on it. It was not a judgmental statement, just a factual one. I didn’t say that we ought to presume the majority’s judgment or even the Church’s declaration are to be seen as God’s will. And I don’t “appeal” to fickle, fallen society on anything.
The majority of people do have a sense of right and wrong — even if the pendulum has to swing a bit before they see what’s right. The majority hold to a set of common values, rooted in Judeo-Christian tenets. Therefore, the majority understand homosexuality as being outside God’s box.
Sorry – I meant same-sex couples 🙂
Debbie,
And sometimes two men are attracted to each other before personalities enter the picture. I did not mean to suggest that personality was the essence of homosexual attraction, I am suggesting it is the thing that creates complementarity between individuals.
What I *am* saying is that for there to be true complementarity, personalities have to fit together (to mesh) properly. You cannot put any two individuals together of the opposite sex and suggest that they complement each other, can you? The same would be true of opposite sex couples
No, we did not exactly agree because we have a discussion on two tracks. You want the two to meld into one. Gender complementarity, at its heart, is C.S. Lewis’ lock-and-key one-flesh mechanism (Mere Christianity). Your personality track is an overlay. Yes, personalities also blend into a harmonious unit within marriage. But men and women are intrinsically attracted to other qualities of each other before personality enters the picture. If personality were the essence of homosexual attraction, I don’t think we’d be seeing so many beefcake photos of half-naked men in gay magazines. It’s the sensual grid (as Mel White was known for saying) that gets us first
I’m not entirely sure what you mean, but I think we addressed the nature of the argument when we agreed that complementarity has more to do with personality than gender. Or did we agree?
I understand, for us to have the discussion we have to do it from our perspective being bound as we are by time.
When you figure out how we remove male and female from that equation, let me know.
Mankind had a beginning, so it is appropriate to use the word in that context. God could have had the thought on an eternal time continuum, but we had a beginning.
And I am not looking for an answer to my questions. I am looking for us to ponder some things more deeply.
Eddy et al:
There were those gay people in the past who used to look at straight couples and envy the fact that they could get married and have a family (This may still happen to varying degrees). It appears this envy reached the point where they were able to convince themselves that they were attracted to women, enough so that they did end up getting married and have children, only to come out later in life when they were able to accept themselves for who they were. Its just another example of how envy can work in a different way.
We are all “other” to each other in some sense, Jayhuck. That’s a given that doesn’t need to be stated. This discussion-within-a-discussion is about sex, gender and orientation.
Eddy,
I couldn’t agree more with most of your statements regarding men and women above. I don’t know if I would go so far as to say that these stereotypes did not “blind side” me, but I learned early on that this was true of the sexes, because I met others (not gay) who did not fit these stereotypical models.
I think that last statement about sexual attraction and sexual orientation is a good question, but one that all people should ask themselves: gay and straight. Personally, I don’t see anything outside of attraction, which I assume includes physical, romantic and emotional attractions as well, as “intrinsic” to my orientation.
Ann–
Most definitely!
There’s such a confusion between gender identity and sexual identity and—it’s all such a touchy subject that it’s difficult to approach with people.
Teresa brought up the Amish and seemed to think that it explains her way of looking at things. To me, it does just the opposite. Standards of maleness and femaleness can change per culture, per religion, per race…it’s the disassociation with the standard of one’s own culture that leads many, in my opinion, to assume they are different.
Much earlier in this conversation, introspection seemed to be regarded as a bad thing. And it certainly can be when it’s tainted by self-doubt and biases. But healthy introspection can lead a person to discover the truth about themselves and about their feelings. (That’s not a bad thing for a Christian when you go with the presupposition that it was God who drew us to Him. Whatever we are deep down inside, He found a responsive heart and can work with all the rest. Introspection that goes through the filter that ‘there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ’ can be very enlightening and freeing.)
I cited earlier how I came to realize that some of my ‘desires towards men’ were actually just normal desires for acceptance and belonging. Without introspection I wouldn’t have learned that. Some of my other ‘attractions’ were other misguided emotions. For me, envy was a major one. I might find myself staring at a guy…even obsessing about a guy…but then realized that there was no way I desired sex or any form of physical contact with that person. What the heck was going on? Healthy introspection revealed that I wasn’t dealing with lust but rather with envy. I was dissatisfied with my own looks, build, confidence, competence and was constantly fixated on those who had what I wished that I had.
Another revelation was that I saw straights as ‘others’…as ‘different’ but then I started taking note of what things I was responding to that were simply stereotypes. “Men like sports”…not all men do. “Men are mechanically minded”…not all men are. “Women like domestic things”…not all do and some men do. “Women are sensitive”…not all are and men can be too. I realize that that is far too simplistic to be the answer for everyone. There are those who blog here who can testify that none of those stereotypes blind-sided them…but it’s puzzling that so many seem to have a sense of their orientation that goes beyond sexual attraction but it’s unchartered waters. What is it beyond their sexual attraction that people see as intrinsic to their sexual orientation?
It’s an important question. Some Christians from a homosexual background wage war with parts of themselves that they think are part of their homosexuality. Other Christians falsely label some things that aren’t sexual as part of homosexuality. Conversely, some gays view parts of themselves as a part of their God-given homosexuality…things that might truly be God-given but aren’t really a part of homosexuality at all. We often hear the rebuttal…”there’s more to us homosexuals than sex”. I agree…but then why is it presumed that the ‘more’ is somehow part of a homosexual orientation? I’m not saying it isn’t; I’m saying the conversation never goes there…we never really discuss those things that people presume are part of their homosexual orientation and so the mysteries remain.
Eddy,
You have it right.
I was very curious about what exactly the components were to orientation that would make someone so different than anyone else. Most people get the same gender attractions and sex part but do not understand how orientation (attractions) affect all the other aspects of an individual to such a significant degree and why. Perhaps some of the mystery that goes with the word orientation would be diminished if it were understood. Teresa is so grounded with truth and common sense about her convictions that I was particularly interested in her answers.
When a person says their sexual orientation is a significant part of who they are, there is a mystery surrounding that. Most people will act like they understand this statement from another, however, they will not have a clue – only assumptions. Does it mean how they have sex and with whom or does it mean what they buy at the grocery store. If it is a significant part of who they are, how different is it from others and why the need for distinction? Actually, it is really none of anyone’s business unless the statement is made and then the mystery and unasked questions, and, more than likely the assumptions begin.
The many people I know who have been involved in one way or another with either physical attractions, relationships, or both with the same gender, have told me they are no different and don’t want to be thought of as different than anyone else. The many people I know who are no longer involved in same gender sexual relationships and who no longer identify as gay have told me they are really no different from anyone else and don’t want to be thought of as so. This all makes sense to me.
Eddy, I have another thought/question/comment that I think you will understand.
Do you think this is why people in general – not necessary groups of people – do not know what to believe about orientation and all the myriad of meanings that go with it?
Eddy and Ann, yes I’m saying there’s a lot more than sexual attractions in orientation … and, it’s not baggage.
There’s a big difference, with sexual attractions being only a part “that’s the draw”. It’s part and parcel of testosterone vs. estrogen … part of biology of a penis vs. a vagina … part of providing and protecting vs. nourishing and nurturing.
My, why oh why, do we have different genders if we’re interchangeable. Orientation is one half of God given nature seeking its complement in the other.
Of course, we can all point to atypical persons; especially, today when our society sees persons as androgynous. Yeah, there are plenty of tomboy femmes or butch women that are not gay … but, at the end of the day; they’re not men. And, vice versa for men.
If you’re close to Amish/Mennonite country (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan) take a trip and see the old-fashioned, stereotypical duties that applied to men and women. Simply, because our technology has permitted women to do things that were traditionally male jobs is no indication that women have somehow become men.
Orientation is part of the temperament, personality of a man and woman … part of the biological, physical, spiritual makeup of a person. It involves the thinking of a person … a woman doesn’t think like a man, or vice versa. Orientation is part of gender, biology. Orientation is how you relate to others. A str8 male relates entirely differently to women than a gay male does … and, it’s not just sexual attractions; and, str8 women relate differently to men than gay women do.
If you both think orientation is simply sexual attractions, then I guess we’ve come to an impasse. Learning to control your sexual attractions doesn’t change your orientation … doesn’t change how you relate to men and women.
Teresa–
It could be because you aren’t explaining what YOU are talking about when you use the word ‘orientation’. You appear to be ‘packing some baggage’ into the definition other than simply being sexually attracted to members of ones own gender. I think Ann has been asking you to explain what else, besides physical sexual attraction, you see as a part of ‘orientation’.
Earlier I spoke of my sister in law, her best friends were female athletes; she was/is possessed of a dominant nature; she’s never had a high regard for frilly, untra-feminine attire; she prefers her hair short. Yet she’s hetero in her sexual attractions. What are you alluding to in temperament and attraction, apart from sexual attraction, if anything at all?
Please don’t get sidetracked by my examples re my sister in law…I’m only using that as an example of some aspects that some people consider to be tell-tale signs of orientation. The real communication-furthering question is “What do you see, apart from physical sexual attraction, that is indicative of or a part of a homosexual orientation?”
Ann, if I’ve missed the point, please let me know.
Ann, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Sexual orientation is a significant part of who we are – a significant part of our temperament, personality, etc. Attractions are just
I’m not sure why others seem to be dismissive of orientation or attractions indicating orientation.
Teresa,
I was asking for clarification and appreciate your answers. You seem to be saying that who we are attracted to (sexual orientation?) is a significant part of one’s life – their temperment, personality, who they are. I was just wondering what the differences were. According to some others, there is no difference, just who they are attracted to.
Ann, I’m not quite sure what you’re asking with these questions.
… means, one’s sexual attractions reflect a sexual orientation: str8 has opposite gender sexual attractions, gay has same gender sexual attractions, bi both.
… mean it makes the world go round, metaphorically speaking. A str8 orientation for most, is the drive to seek a mate, become one through marriage, make a family, build society, live as a couple through ups-and-downs, etc. It’s the romance, razzle dazzle, stars in your eyes, spring in your step, lighter than air feeling that some experience in knowing that this is the one … or, the love that comes softly for the many that desired a family and found the one, but didn’t experience that spring fever feeling, but grew into a genuine respect, tenderness, depth of feeling for the other. No matter, the beginning, it all should rest on the willingness to sacrifice oneself for one’s mate, however that plays out by gender.
What I’ve just explained is the traditional model of society, Ann … man, woman, marriage, family, society. Sexual orientation is a/the driving force of all that.
Homosexuals desire the same things str8 persons do, btw. Gender complementarity just doesn’t enter the equation. Should it, is the central question.
Ann, I’m not sure what you’re really asking here? Are you asking what makes the difference between a man and a woman … male vs. female … the battle of the sexes … the age-old questions?
Interestingly enough, some Muslim scholars take the view that a form of ‘gay marriage’ can be justified: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10480987
Actually, I take that back — the Qur’an also briefly refers to the “feeding of the multitudes” miracle and some miraculous healings by Jesus, though it does so in the context of reaffirming that Jesus was a prophet authorized to do these things, and not the Son of God.
Another question I would put to Teresa and Debbie: If you believe that the Church teaches correctly about homosexuality being against Natural Law, why do you feel the need to back this up by appealing to “the majority” or “society”?
I mean, the majority of people around the world don’t agree that Jesus was the Son of God and came to save mankind from sin.
So if you believe that the majority of humanity is in error on this rather central question, what business do you have quoting the majority’s opinion on homosexuality?
I’m reminded of the conservative Christians who say, “Homosexuality is a sin — but even if you don’t believe the Bible, the Qur’an says the same thing!”
Of course, these Christians certainly don’t trust the Qur’an when it asserts that Jesus was never crucified at all, and that Jesus was a second-rank prophet who was sent merely to prepare the way for Muhammad, who is God’s greatest and final prophet. (The only point on which the Qur’an agrees with the Christian NT about Jesus is the claim that his mother was a virgin.)
So what these Christians say, in effect, is “The Qur’an is mainly a huge pack of lies written by Satan. Well, except for the verses where the Qur’an condemns homosexuality — those are the Gospel Truth!”
So what?
Do I even need to point out to you, Debbie, that over the long run of mankind’s history, billions of people believed that owning other human beings as property was entirely moral; and billions of people believed that the Earth was a flat disc around which the Sun revolved?
If you are comfortable with accepting that billions of people could have been totally f*cking mistaken on both those points, why the heck do you insist on crediting “the majority and the Church” with sound judgment on the matter of homosexuality?
I guess the obvious question is: Why do you agree with the Church and society that same-gender sexual attractions are “not up to snuff” with The Natural Law?
Do you believe this because it’s what your own first-hand experience as a homosexual woman has taught you, or do you believe it because you’re uncomfortable being in disagreement with the Church and society?
One problem with more ‘conservative’ viewpoints is this idea that ‘Natural Law’ can be neatly defined. I don’t think it can, especially as both science and spirituality are in reality on-going journeys of discovery.
Sexual preference is good case in point. In recent years, a good deal of research has been done, and it has become clear that same-sex attraction is a ‘fact of life’ in hundreds of species of animal. This is all part of ‘nature’, isn’t it?
As far as gay marriage is concerned: this is really a matter of how society should be organised, and is therefore the subject of socio-political choice. ‘Natural Law’ (whatever that is!) doesn’t really come into it, in my view.
Teresa,
Since I, nor anyone else, knows definitively or conclusively, the causation of same gender attractions, we can only have opinions about it. I have an opinion about it, however, that opinion does not include sinful or deviant. To the point of how we respond to feelings and thoughts – I think that always makes a difference. While we cannot, for the most part, control feelings that come to us – often in overwhelming ways, we can control how we respond to them.
Up to snuff with the natural law – I completely agree with this. When you say “attractions are only manifestations of an inward orientation” – what do you mean? Also – what do you mean by “sexual orientation is a significant piece of who we are.”? By most accounts, people will just accept this statement but have a lingering inner question about the meaning of it. Does it determine what you buy at the grocery store or how you drive or what bank you use? How does it make you who you are and how is that so, so different from anyone else?
I cannot answer this because I do not feel this way about you. I will say that I know this is very real for you and that I value what you say about it.
Teresa, I am not a big fan of organized religion so what the church teaches is not that important to me. They teach one thing and invariably, leaders breach that trust by doing the thing they tell others not to do.
I do not know how to quantify thoughts and feeling and attractions – David Blakeslee once said “The unfortunate thing about the human condition is that feelings don’t have an I.Q.” I thought that was pretty accurate. How that can be rolled over to being intrinsically disordered, I am not sure. No one knows how same gender attractions come to us. There are so many dimensions and degrees of how we are all made up and how that plays out in life. Why does the church need to know anything about you that they will not, or pretend not, to understand?
Eddy
If your point was that miscommunication was cultural then I guess we are in agreement.
You’re the best , Mr, Kincaid.
You use this statement in response to mine.
And when I ask you to elaborate by saying
You reply with:
Odd, I thought my point was that miscommunication was cultural (Christian vs psychological) and used the word ‘oblivious’ to suggest that it wasn’t intentional. You gave that statement a ‘true…but’ rating.
And you used the quote that I led this comment with as approximately half of your explanation…apparently I’m off-base for asking you to elaborate but you’d sure be willing to discuss.
…scratching my head as I exit…everyone feel free to assume what you will, you know how well that works here.
Eddy
No. I think I’ll let you just make assumptions.
But if you want to discuss my point – that often miscommunication is as much cultural (community based) as intentional – I might discuss that with you.
Yes, Eddy, in my opinion, you are correct in your observation. That is some of the problem with the use of the term: same-sex attraction. No one has friends they are not attracted to, something they like about the other person. In my opinion, the term is ill-suited.
I’m sorry, Eddy, for my part in what you term wrangling. I think there were sensitive issues being touched in the conversation.
It is, and it also can fall into the realm of the specific sins you cited, Teresa.
That is a point that truly needs to be made, Eddy. Thank you.
A person has an infection…they have a cancer…they have a disease or infirmity…the person is not an infection, a cancer, a disease…
The notion of identifying oneself by ones sexuality dramaticallly increased in the last century. Before then we would have been people with homosexual temptations. And ALL Christians have temptations. Temptations are to sin…to go against God’s natural order with regard to any appetite.
Even what some consider to be their homosexual desire or appetite has a level of healthy and normal appetites (needs, desires) within it. I used to feel guilty about desiring close male friends…thinking it was an expression of my homosexuality. And, occasionally it was. But, more often than not, it was just a natural desire for same-gender friendship.
That said, I’m bowing out of this conversation. It’s turned into wrangling which is seldom, if ever, constructive or productive. My apologies for my part in that.
@All,
When I speak about the Church, I’m not talking about the Catholic Church only. I’m speaking about all conservative, Christian Churches.
Thanks, Debbie. I think it’s hard to step out of ourselves; and, simply talk about ideas. We all tend at times to take things personally; essentially, because we’re afraid and ashamed.
Here’s a little addition to the idea of disordered. Lust, fornication, adultery are not sins against nature. They are not “intrinsically disordered”. They are not unnatural. Lust and fornication are sins against temperance. Adultery is a sin against charity and justice. Anger, greed, gluttony, sloth are also sins against temperance or charity. That is why the Church speaks to these sins in a different tone than she does about homosexuality. Homosexuality is one of the few things classified as “unnatural”.
Thanks, Ann, for taking the time to share your thoughts on ‘attractions’. Now, I have something else for you and anyone else to think about, OK?
In your estimation, Ann, having attractions of whatever type, are no indication of sin, disorder, deviancy … our response is what makes the difference; according to our individual values. I hope I’ve understood you correctly.
Let’s say, however, you run into someone like me, who happens to agree with the Church and society that same-gender sexual attractions are “not up to snuff” with The Natural Law. I’m of the opinion that attractions are only manifestations of an inward orientation. BTW, this is not something I made up, and is the thought of many other persons. Sexual orientation is a significant piece of who we are. It’s part of our personality, temperament, helps make us who we are.
Here’s the question: if my attractions are “unnatural, ‘intrinsically disordered'”, and are manifestations of my orientation, which is “unnatural”; and, orientation is a significant piece of who I am … how am I, as me, not “intrinsically disordered” …?
This is where I have problems with what the Church teaches. I can’t see how a significant piece of who I am is “intrinsically disordered” … and not refer to “me” as “intrinsically disordered”. Where’s the limit for this, where the separation … and, how?
Ann, you have nothing at all to be sorry for or about. I certainly took no offense at your comments. I saw conversations were being mixed. I apologize for sounding exasperated in my last comment.
All’s well, Ann, don’t worry. 🙂 🙂
You are right, Teresa. Clear as a bell. While we can all be considered as disordered in some way — tainted with original sin — there is no mistaking that homosexual attractions have always been seen by the majority of people and the Church as intrinsically disordered and unnatural.
Teresa# ~ May 5, 2011 at 10:37 am
“Simply laying out the Church’s view. ”
And not just the catholic church’s view either. Many others still claim being gay is unnatural. NARTH still claims it is disordered.
Fortunately, such attitudes are dying out.
Teresa,
For what is is worth – my personal opinion – not the church’s or anyone or anything else is – who and what we are attracted to is out of our control – it is a spontaneous alert, and one that might be prolonged and/or enduring, that goes off in each one of us. I do not think it is disorderd or deviant or sinful. We always have a choice as to what we do or how we act on our thoughts and feelings and I believe that makes the difference in being congruent with who and what we value.
Teresa,
I am so, so sorry. I think I really did what you suggested I did and I apologize for it. To your other well said points – I completely agree.
Ann, you’re putting together 2 conversations that really have nothing to do with each other. What I’m talking about is not at all what Eddy’s talking about.
Please read my previously posted comment.
Ann, I don’t care a tinker’s dam about what people do with the attractions, how they can screw them up, how they don’t screw them up, what they lead to, what they don’t lead to.
I’ll repeat, for the umpteenth time, opposite gender sexual attractions, have been considered from time immemorial, as good, true, beautiful, the basis of family and society … and, they shall become one … by the Church as following The Natural Law … expressing what God intended.
Same gender sexual attractions are considered by society and by the Church, through culture after culture, as deviant; and, stated by the Church in her philosophy as “intrinsically disordered”.
That is my only point … the attractions … not people’s subsequent behavior.
Eddy, has another conversation started with bringing up how str8 people are screwed up, how they can lust, masturbate, fornicate, etc.
That’s not my conversation, Ann. That’s Eddy’s.
Eddy, I’m simply trying to speak about how attractions to the opposite gender are healthy, wholesome, and good. That is all. Attractions to the same gender are consider, by the Church, as “intrinsically disordered”. I’m not being a victim here. I’m not talking about how many str8 people have problems; or, how many gay people don’t. I’m not talking about difficulties with that. Nothing along those lines.
Just the plain simple fact, that sexual attractions to the opposite gender is according The Natural Law … it’s right, good, true, beautiful. Sexual attractions to the same gender are deviant; against the Natural Law.
I think, Eddy, you may be reading way too much into what I’m saying. I don’t care how many str8 people are troubled, etc. … or, how many gay people are or aren’t.
The plain, simple, long-held social, religious view is that sexual attractions to the opposite gender is what God intended … sexual attractions to the same gender are deviant, “intrinsically disordered” because they go against The Natural Law … the complementarity of male/female.
I’m not personalizing this to myself, Eddy. Simply laying out the Church’s view. I’m not seeing in this, myself as a victim.
I don’t think the above will make this any clearer. But, I’ve tried.
Teresa,
Yes, I agree – the direction of a person’s attraction to the opposite sex is considered healthy and good. That, in itself, does not mean anything though when it comes to how the person will act on that attraction or how their approach will be received by the person they are attracted to. I know this is a lot of nuance to what should seem like a simple situation but it is anything but simple and is definitely nuanced. When it comes to human relationsips, all bets are off as to how we will be affected. We can only be in control of our responses and often that takes a moment or two of composure first.
A person has an infection…they have a cancer…they have a disease or infirmity…the person is not an infection, a cancer, a disease…
The notion of identifying oneself by ones sexuality dramaticallly increased in the last century. Before then we would have been people with homosexual temptations. And ALL Christians have temptations. Temptations are to sin…to go against God’s natural order with regard to any appetite.
Even what some consider to be their homosexual desire or appetite has a level of healthy and normal appetites (needs, desires) within it. I used to feel guilty about desiring close male friends…thinking it was an expression of my homosexuality. And, occasionally it was. But, more often than not, it was just a natural desire for same-gender friendship.
That said, I’m bowing out of this conversation. It’s turned into wrangling which is seldom, if ever, constructive or productive. My apologies for my part in that.
Thanks, Debbie. I think it’s hard to step out of ourselves; and, simply talk about ideas. We all tend at times to take things personally; essentially, because we’re afraid and ashamed.
Here’s a little addition to the idea of disordered. Lust, fornication, adultery are not sins against nature. They are not “intrinsically disordered”. They are not unnatural. Lust and fornication are sins against temperance. Adultery is a sin against charity and justice. Anger, greed, gluttony, sloth are also sins against temperance or charity. That is why the Church speaks to these sins in a different tone than she does about homosexuality. Homosexuality is one of the few things classified as “unnatural”.
Thanks, Ann, for taking the time to share your thoughts on ‘attractions’. Now, I have something else for you and anyone else to think about, OK?
In your estimation, Ann, having attractions of whatever type, are no indication of sin, disorder, deviancy … our response is what makes the difference; according to our individual values. I hope I’ve understood you correctly.
Let’s say, however, you run into someone like me, who happens to agree with the Church and society that same-gender sexual attractions are “not up to snuff” with The Natural Law. I’m of the opinion that attractions are only manifestations of an inward orientation. BTW, this is not something I made up, and is the thought of many other persons. Sexual orientation is a significant piece of who we are. It’s part of our personality, temperament, helps make us who we are.
Here’s the question: if my attractions are “unnatural, ‘intrinsically disordered'”, and are manifestations of my orientation, which is “unnatural”; and, orientation is a significant piece of who I am … how am I, as me, not “intrinsically disordered” …?
This is where I have problems with what the Church teaches. I can’t see how a significant piece of who I am is “intrinsically disordered” … and not refer to “me” as “intrinsically disordered”. Where’s the limit for this, where the separation … and, how?
Teresa,
I think what Eddy is trying to point out is that people, whether they identify as straight or gay or anything in between, can and do have relational and character issues that are healthy and some that are not healthy. Because one is either straight or gay or however they choose to define themselves, does not, in itself, determine a person’s worthiness or happiness or contentment. It also does not determine whether they will find someone to love or that someone will love them or how that will all play out. Distinguishing oneself as gay or straight does not make one impervious to human emotions or human conditions that we all feel in one unique way or another nor does it make one a victim more than anyone else. It also does not absolve oneself from character flaws or behaving in unseemly or uncivil ways, nor the distinction that gives one integrity or ethics or moral codes to follow.
Eddy, please correct me if I am wrong about any of this.
Teresa,
For what is is worth – my personal opinion – not the church’s or anyone or anything else is – who and what we are attracted to is out of our control – it is a spontaneous alert, and one that might be prolonged and/or enduring, that goes off in each one of us. I do not think it is disorderd or deviant or sinful. We always have a choice as to what we do or how we act on our thoughts and feelings and I believe that makes the difference in being congruent with who and what we value.
Teresa,
I am so, so sorry. I think I really did what you suggested I did and I apologize for it. To your other well said points – I completely agree.
Or, Teresa, one could say that YOU have a victim fixation and that I challenge it.
To question 1: yes, and I believe that about gay people too.
To question 2: because you continue to speak in generalizations about ‘straights’ that ignore the many, many straights who don’t fit your generalizations.
Ann, you’re putting together 2 conversations that really have nothing to do with each other. What I’m talking about is not at all what Eddy’s talking about.
Please read my previously posted comment.
Ann, I don’t care a tinker’s dam about what people do with the attractions, how they can screw them up, how they don’t screw them up, what they lead to, what they don’t lead to.
I’ll repeat, for the umpteenth time, opposite gender sexual attractions, have been considered from time immemorial, as good, true, beautiful, the basis of family and society … and, they shall become one … by the Church as following The Natural Law … expressing what God intended.
Same gender sexual attractions are considered by society and by the Church, through culture after culture, as deviant; and, stated by the Church in her philosophy as “intrinsically disordered”.
That is my only point … the attractions … not people’s subsequent behavior.
Eddy, has another conversation started with bringing up how str8 people are screwed up, how they can lust, masturbate, fornicate, etc.
That’s not my conversation, Ann. That’s Eddy’s.
Teresa,
Yes, I agree – the direction of a person’s attraction to the opposite sex is considered healthy and good. That, in itself, does not mean anything though when it comes to how the person will act on that attraction or how their approach will be received by the person they are attracted to. I know this is a lot of nuance to what should seem like a simple situation but it is anything but simple and is definitely nuanced. When it comes to human relationsips, all bets are off as to how we will be affected. We can only be in control of our responses and often that takes a moment or two of composure first.
Teresa,
I think what Eddy is trying to point out is that people, whether they identify as straight or gay or anything in between, can and do have relational and character issues that are healthy and some that are not healthy. Because one is either straight or gay or however they choose to define themselves, does not, in itself, determine a person’s worthiness or happiness or contentment. It also does not determine whether they will find someone to love or that someone will love them or how that will all play out. Distinguishing oneself as gay or straight does not make one impervious to human emotions or human conditions that we all feel in one unique way or another nor does it make one a victim more than anyone else. It also does not absolve oneself from character flaws or behaving in unseemly or uncivil ways, nor the distinction that gives one integrity or ethics or moral codes to follow.
Eddy, please correct me if I am wrong about any of this.
Or, Teresa, one could say that YOU have a victim fixation and that I challenge it.
To question 1: yes, and I believe that about gay people too.
To question 2: because you continue to speak in generalizations about ‘straights’ that ignore the many, many straights who don’t fit your generalizations.
Dear me, Eddy, you seem quite intent on always looking to some deep, dark problem with str8 people having attractions and those becoming disordered. The point is simply a str8 person, not indulging in egregious behavior, has attractions … those attractions are considered ordered, healthy, good. I’m not talking about str8 people who have difficulties outside what we’re talking about. A healthy, str8 man or woman has attractions … those attractions are ordered, good, healthy. I’m not delving into some other bad behavior, that maybe somebody, somewhere has.
Don’t you believe, Eddy, there are str8 people who, for the most part, are pretty spiritually healthy, emotionally healthy? Why the fixation to always bring up behavior that’s not being talked about?
The confusion is understanding philosophical language applied, most especially, by the Catholic Church, who as I’ve indicated has a long and deep history associated with Augustiniasm, onto Scholasticism as applied to homosexuality and homosexuals. The Catholic Church, formally, plainly says that the psychological causes for homosexuality are unknown. She, as the institution, does not get into that argument. Courage, on the other hand, has bought into the NARTH concepts … although, I sense a timid backing off of that point.
As younger gay people choose a life of chastity, and have grown up in a more accepting culture, less will be willing to accept: “someone’s gonna fix me”. Just my opinion, though.
I don’t want to make assumptions, please elaborate on the different forms of bondage these churches are referencing when they say ‘freedom in Christ’.
Dear me, Eddy, you seem quite intent on always looking to some deep, dark problem with str8 people having attractions and those becoming disordered. The point is simply a str8 person, not indulging in egregious behavior, has attractions … those attractions are considered ordered, healthy, good. I’m not talking about str8 people who have difficulties outside what we’re talking about. A healthy, str8 man or woman has attractions … those attractions are ordered, good, healthy. I’m not delving into some other bad behavior, that maybe somebody, somewhere has.
Don’t you believe, Eddy, there are str8 people who, for the most part, are pretty spiritually healthy, emotionally healthy? Why the fixation to always bring up behavior that’s not being talked about?
The confusion is understanding philosophical language applied, most especially, by the Catholic Church, who as I’ve indicated has a long and deep history associated with Augustiniasm, onto Scholasticism as applied to homosexuality and homosexuals. The Catholic Church, formally, plainly says that the psychological causes for homosexuality are unknown. She, as the institution, does not get into that argument. Courage, on the other hand, has bought into the NARTH concepts … although, I sense a timid backing off of that point.
As younger gay people choose a life of chastity, and have grown up in a more accepting culture, less will be willing to accept: “someone’s gonna fix me”. Just my opinion, though.
True. Though I suspect it is less intentional than cultural.
Both communities can be, at times, rather insular. And all insular communities develop language patterns and usage that become a unique dialect. Even things which seem quite obvious to each community can have entirely different meanings in slightly different communities, (much less those with little interaction)
Consider the phrase “freedom in Christ”
That language has entirely different meaning when spoken in an evangelical Christian church, a Black church, and a predominantly gay church. Each is talking about a different form of bondage and thus freedom has different connotations.
And that’s all from people within the faith.
No, it only means that the directional aspect isn’t broken. That’s all. They can still be unhealthy in other areas and they could still be unhealthy sexually. (Promiscuous, licentious, lascivious, cold, frigid, repressed…)
We may be having yet another confusion between church usage and psychological usage. The church, apart from psychological usage, has long considered it a disorder because it conflicts with what they believe to be God’s created order. Definition 2: an irregularity. Psychology once termed it a mental illness, later a disorder and still later ‘not a problem’. Psychology even went one step further suggesting that it’s a disorder not to be at peace with your homosexuality. Definition 4: a disturbance in mental health functions.
By and large, I believe conservative Christians feel that a disposition towards homosexuality means that the child or young person has been afflicted somehow (emotionally, psychologically, spiritually). Hence, an irregularity. Many others, however, (including the bulk of the psychological community) believe that it is a natural and normal variation. Hence, the disorder would be in not accepting it as such for ones self.
If one thing is clear from this website, the two groups cited rarely have matching definitions for the terms they use; neither makes great effort to fullly understand the usage of the other; and (I fault the conservative Christians more for this one) sometimes use that fancy sounding terminology oblivious to the landmines of miscommunication.
Eddy, I didn’t agree with you about disordered attractions (I don’t think); especially, about the fact that homosexual attractions are considered “intrinsically disordered” … just the mere fact of their presence is “intrinsically disordered”. Not so, with a str8 person’s attractions. The mere fact of a str8 person having attractions signifies a healthy person. I did not wander off into egregious behavior on the part of str8 people, or others. “Intrinsically disordered” has a very specific meaning philosophically … meaning by its very ‘thing-ness’, by its very being, it is a violation against the Good, the True, the Beautiful … and, The Natural Law.
Careful there, Eddy. Your objective was certainly accomplished, right?
Ann, I can only share my experience, strength and hope. I don’t want to extrapolate my journey as someone else’s. Other’s may have a different take on this.
Last question, first. Homosexuality is defined as a broader word, by some. It’s easier to define homosexual as “a person having a sexual orientation/attraction towards persons of the same sex … being sexually attracted to persons of the same gender”. Homosexuality can sometimes be defined as including same-sex sexual behavior, as well as the sexual attractions. I don’t understand homosexuality as including same-gender sex; only, the state of being a homosexual, if that makes sense.
First question: the Catholic Church, which seems to have a longer and broader history in philosophy uses the wording for same-sex sexual attractions as “intrinsically disordered” … meaning of “their very nature”, those attractions violate the “Natural Law”. I think, but don’t know specifically, other conservative Christian Churches probably think along the same lines.
An example: if a str8, single woman sees a man and is attracted sexually, (as well as other ways) … that’s not wrong, at all. It’s very nature, in fact, is wholesome, good, wonderful. Of course, we may say, if she pursues having out-of-wedlock sex, that may be “objectively disordered” … but, even, here; the sexual act is not “intrinsically disordered” … the act in the way of the “Natural Law” is intrinsically ordered to the good; but, objectively in the moral order wrong. Big, big difference. The attractions are good; in fact, may lead the woman to pursue dating, and ultimately, marriage.
Quite frankly, Ann, I’m not quite sure yet what I think or feel about this “intrinsically disordered” attribution to same-sex sexual attractions. At the moment, I’m ambivalent. I do, however, see it as very dangerous territory for the very reasons I’ve explained in prior comments. Mainly, that attractions are only manifestations of our underlying orientation. Sexual orientation for most people on the planet, I believe, think, feel; is immutable. Most str8 people don’t wander off at some point in life and become gay; and vice-versa. Does it happen? Sure. The percentage though is probably relatively small, in my opinion.
Sexual orientation is certainly not the be-all and end-all of who we are; but, in my opinion and others, it is a very big chunk of who we are. Attractions are a very small piece of orientation. The larger portion of orientation is the relational piece … how we relate as humans … how that plays out in our day-to-day life. It’s not something that someone wakes up one day and says, hey I don’t want to wear those jeans today … I’m gonna change them.
So, to tell a homosexual that their “attractions” are “intrinsically disordered” is, in my opinion, saying that who we are as persons is “intrinsically disordered”. It’s a very fine line … and, the Church attempts to try to separate the two; but, in my estimation, does a very lousy job of it.
Teresa,
I’m glad to hear that you agree with me about the disordered attractions.
The statement I responded to was:
Given that you and Debbie chose to go off on a tangent over my use of ‘self help’, I had to wonder if you needed to clarify either what you meant by ‘straight’ or what you meant by ‘never’.
Teresa,
I’m not sure who you are referring to when you say it is seen as an intrinsic disorder to our nature. Do you feel this way? Also, when you refer to homosexuality, are you referring to same gender sex or something else?
Ann, I don’t disagree at all with your sentiments expressed above. The first sentence in the above quote; however, is answered several different ways in response to same-gender sexual attractions. And, for a group of homosexuals, it does matter what their attractions are, for a variety of different reasons: one of them being, unwanted same-gender sexual attractions. Another group feel their spiritual journey is consonant with covenanted, monogamous relationships, etc.
I appreciate, Ann, that, for you, it doesn’t matter what your attractions are at any given moment; it’s what you do with them. The rub comes Ann, when homosexuality is not seen as a temptation like anger, gluttony, gossiping; but, rather as an ‘intrinsic disorder’ to our nature. Those who would argue that same-gender sexual attractions are the same have simply not understood, at least in my opinion, the huge difference that sexual attractions are part of. It’s the reason people marry and raise families. It’s the building block of society. It makes society. It’s fundamental to who we are as beings made of flesh and blood. It’s the blocks, the glue, the makings of new persons. It’s makes tomorrow possible for our world.
I can certainly understand that an attraction can be overcome; but, our orientation, for some of us, isn’t overcome. Same-gender sexual attractions are the least manifestation of being a homosexual; although, played out, seem to take center stage.
You may very well be right, Ann, in what you say here. Perhaps, if those “most people” you’re talking about had the courage to tell themselves who they are attracted to at various times in their lives … we’d all be a lot more understanding of one another … maybe.
No, it only means that the directional aspect isn’t broken. That’s all. They can still be unhealthy in other areas and they could still be unhealthy sexually. (Promiscuous, licentious, lascivious, cold, frigid, repressed…)
Eddy, I didn’t agree with you about disordered attractions (I don’t think); especially, about the fact that homosexual attractions are considered “intrinsically disordered” … just the mere fact of their presence is “intrinsically disordered”. Not so, with a str8 person’s attractions. The mere fact of a str8 person having attractions signifies a healthy person. I did not wander off into egregious behavior on the part of str8 people, or others. “Intrinsically disordered” has a very specific meaning philosophically … meaning by its very ‘thing-ness’, by its very being, it is a violation against the Good, the True, the Beautiful … and, The Natural Law.
Careful there, Eddy. Your objective was certainly accomplished, right?
Teresa,
I am really not a believer in organized religion, especially when the egos of men and women, who are leaders, are involved. If I listen to, pray to, or try to live up to the superior expectations (which often are hypocritical) of organized religions and their leaders, then all that energy has gone to the wrong place instead of where I think it should go – to the One I really believe in and Who I really want to listen to and follow and align my life to. For me, who I am atttracted to at any given time in my life, is not important – not do I think it is important to Who I am devoted to spiritually. What is important, at least to me and my spirituality, is how I respond to temptations that would interfere with with my spiritual evolvement.
I honestly think if most people would have the courage to tell you who they are attracted to at various times in their lives, you would be surprised.
Ann, I can only share my experience, strength and hope. I don’t want to extrapolate my journey as someone else’s. Other’s may have a different take on this.
Last question, first. Homosexuality is defined as a broader word, by some. It’s easier to define homosexual as “a person having a sexual orientation/attraction towards persons of the same sex … being sexually attracted to persons of the same gender”. Homosexuality can sometimes be defined as including same-sex sexual behavior, as well as the sexual attractions. I don’t understand homosexuality as including same-gender sex; only, the state of being a homosexual, if that makes sense.
First question: the Catholic Church, which seems to have a longer and broader history in philosophy uses the wording for same-sex sexual attractions as “intrinsically disordered” … meaning of “their very nature”, those attractions violate the “Natural Law”. I think, but don’t know specifically, other conservative Christian Churches probably think along the same lines.
An example: if a str8, single woman sees a man and is attracted sexually, (as well as other ways) … that’s not wrong, at all. It’s very nature, in fact, is wholesome, good, wonderful. Of course, we may say, if she pursues having out-of-wedlock sex, that may be “objectively disordered” … but, even, here; the sexual act is not “intrinsically disordered” … the act in the way of the “Natural Law” is intrinsically ordered to the good; but, objectively in the moral order wrong. Big, big difference. The attractions are good; in fact, may lead the woman to pursue dating, and ultimately, marriage.
Quite frankly, Ann, I’m not quite sure yet what I think or feel about this “intrinsically disordered” attribution to same-sex sexual attractions. At the moment, I’m ambivalent. I do, however, see it as very dangerous territory for the very reasons I’ve explained in prior comments. Mainly, that attractions are only manifestations of our underlying orientation. Sexual orientation for most people on the planet, I believe, think, feel; is immutable. Most str8 people don’t wander off at some point in life and become gay; and vice-versa. Does it happen? Sure. The percentage though is probably relatively small, in my opinion.
Sexual orientation is certainly not the be-all and end-all of who we are; but, in my opinion and others, it is a very big chunk of who we are. Attractions are a very small piece of orientation. The larger portion of orientation is the relational piece … how we relate as humans … how that plays out in our day-to-day life. It’s not something that someone wakes up one day and says, hey I don’t want to wear those jeans today … I’m gonna change them.
So, to tell a homosexual that their “attractions” are “intrinsically disordered” is, in my opinion, saying that who we are as persons is “intrinsically disordered”. It’s a very fine line … and, the Church attempts to try to separate the two; but, in my estimation, does a very lousy job of it.
Teresa,
I’m glad to hear that you agree with me about the disordered attractions.
The statement I responded to was:
Given that you and Debbie chose to go off on a tangent over my use of ‘self help’, I had to wonder if you needed to clarify either what you meant by ‘straight’ or what you meant by ‘never’.
Teresa,
I’m not sure who you are referring to when you say it is seen as an intrinsic disorder to our nature. Do you feel this way? Also, when you refer to homosexuality, are you referring to same gender sex or something else?
Ann, I don’t disagree at all with your sentiments expressed above. The first sentence in the above quote; however, is answered several different ways in response to same-gender sexual attractions. And, for a group of homosexuals, it does matter what their attractions are, for a variety of different reasons: one of them being, unwanted same-gender sexual attractions. Another group feel their spiritual journey is consonant with covenanted, monogamous relationships, etc.
I appreciate, Ann, that, for you, it doesn’t matter what your attractions are at any given moment; it’s what you do with them. The rub comes Ann, when homosexuality is not seen as a temptation like anger, gluttony, gossiping; but, rather as an ‘intrinsic disorder’ to our nature. Those who would argue that same-gender sexual attractions are the same have simply not understood, at least in my opinion, the huge difference that sexual attractions are part of. It’s the reason people marry and raise families. It’s the building block of society. It makes society. It’s fundamental to who we are as beings made of flesh and blood. It’s the blocks, the glue, the makings of new persons. It’s makes tomorrow possible for our world.
I can certainly understand that an attraction can be overcome; but, our orientation, for some of us, isn’t overcome. Same-gender sexual attractions are the least manifestation of being a homosexual; although, played out, seem to take center stage.
You may very well be right, Ann, in what you say here. Perhaps, if those “most people” you’re talking about had the courage to tell themselves who they are attracted to at various times in their lives … we’d all be a lot more understanding of one another … maybe.
Eddy, in my opinion, you’re going beyond my original meaning. I’m talking about a str8 person’s normal attractions, whether married or single. I’m not talking about the bleeding edge of behavior. For a healthy, str8 person, if they have attractions, they are called to deal with them as their state in life calls for; but, having those attractions is not disordered, in and of themselves.
However, for the homosexual, the attractions are themselves disordered … and, considered ‘intrinsically’ disordered … not objectively disordered.
There’s a huge difference in what I tried to say; and, what you are saying. In fact, Eddy, you are saying homosexuals are like pederasts, masturbators, etc.; although, unwittingly.
I repeat, again, the homosexual is defined by the fact of the attractions; and, these attractions, are in and of themselves, considered ‘intrinsically disordered’ … in and of themselves. Lust is not ‘intrinsically’ disordered if the object of the lust is opposite gender.
This is not my reasoning, Eddy, this is the Church’s.
Teresa,
I am really not a believer in organized religion, especially when the egos of men and women, who are leaders, are involved. If I listen to, pray to, or try to live up to the superior expectations (which often are hypocritical) of organized religions and their leaders, then all that energy has gone to the wrong place instead of where I think it should go – to the One I really believe in and Who I really want to listen to and follow and align my life to. For me, who I am atttracted to at any given time in my life, is not important – not do I think it is important to Who I am devoted to spiritually. What is important, at least to me and my spirituality, is how I respond to temptations that would interfere with with my spiritual evolvement.
I honestly think if most people would have the courage to tell you who they are attracted to at various times in their lives, you would be surprised.
When Christ gives new life and new vision, we need not worry about who is leading whom through the minefield or who is doing the teaching. Seek him and let him govern. He separates the wheat from the chaff. It’s not for us to do.
A straight person’s attractions ARE considered disordered IF they are directed to the very young, if they are expressed only through masturbation, if they render marital fidelity as impossible, if they are compulsively promiscuous and if they exhibit fixations.
When Christ gives new life and new vision, we need not worry about who is leading whom through the minefield or who is doing the teaching. Seek him and let him govern. He separates the wheat from the chaff. It’s not for us to do.
Debbie,
My question is, who is blind and who is not? I have a feeling the answer is going to be very subjective. The person who has walked through the minefield is going to be different depending on your perspective 🙂
Debbie,
I could not have wished a better explanation of submission. The people who ascribe to this notion however have come to different conclusions about Faith, Christianity and what it means to be gay
Debbie,,
That is true Debbie. Where the teaching comes from however depends, to some extent, on your point of view
Debbie,
I could not have wished a better explanation of submission. The people who ascribe to this notion however have come to different conclusions about Faith, Christianity and what it means to be gay
It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Church loves the appearance of consistency more than it loves homosexual persons.
Timothy, excellent comment explaining your view on “hard to grasp” meanings. In my opinion, Catholicism does state that the attractions are not sinful; but, behind that statement lies a whole minefield of stuff, that, to me, is not so homosexual friendly. One big premise is that it’s “us vs. them” … the ‘us’ being striving for reorientation, as you said, or for chastity vs. ‘them” … teh gays and teh gay lifestyle. You cannot say you’re gay or lesbian, and certainly you wouldn’t want to state your political views if contrary to what the “inner circle” deems correct.
It’s really all so dis-spiriting. The very place I’d like to have a home, is the last place I’ll go now. Another example, same-sex attractions are not sinful; but, they are considered ‘disordered’. A str8 person’s attractions may not be sinful; and, they are never considered disordered. Now, there’s always the caveat, “that you are not your attractions”; which, I’ve tried a number of times in the last few days to say it’s really impossible to separate part of me, from another part of me. If they’re not my attractions, who’s are they?
Yes, I can do things to lessen them, ameliorate them; but, I can tell you from personal experience that you can, also, think they’re no longer a problem … but, given a significant life-altering event; you may hell to pay for disregarding who you are.
I find it difficult for the Church to tell me my attractions are disordered; but, I’m not myself, also, disordered. To me, it’s another word game; but, that’s just me. A case in point as an example: recently John Henry Cardinal Newman was made a Blessed. Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman lived with Ambrose St. John for approximately 32 years. When Ambrose St. John died, Newman was unconsolable for some time. Newman, also, asked to be buried alongside Ambrose St. John. It’s pretty much a talked about view, that Newman was gay; but, chaste.
Here’s an opportunity for the Church to “walk the talk” about how gays can reach sanctity. Someone that gay, Christians who opt to follow the right as they see the right, can look up to … someone like them to admire … someone that the Church recognizes as who the person was. Did they choose to do this? No.
I’m simply having a hard time reconciling my Faith with the Church. It’s OK for me to be homosexual. It’s what Our Lord is permitting for me, at this time. The Courage Group, which represents the Church in this area, never ceased the drumbeat of disordered. I am not disordered; and, I refuse to be bullied into acting against my own self-interest. I refuse to listen to subtle and not-so-subtle implications to remember the ‘disorder’. I refuse to listen to a Church that won’t acknowledge our lives as worthwhile.
Eek, I’m done with my rant! Remember, these are my opinions only. Many other ex-gays may have entirely different experiences, mainly positive. I acknowledge and applaud that. It however has not been my experience.
Thank you, again, Timothy for your view.
Eddy, FWIW, your 9:46 point last night was not lost on me.
FYI, that does not apply to my perspective. For me, it means submitting everything about myself to Christ so that it is put under his will. In doing so, I am seeking to be identified with his death and resurrection (Gal. 2:20). Reorientation as something to seek can become an idol all its own. How a servant of Christ experiences transformation is between that person and Christ.
Re ‘self help’ …My bad, I was using the ‘less than nit-picky ‘ meaning conveyed in this article:
That’s cool , though, as long as the objective of missing my point was accomplished. Rock On!
Teresa,
In thinking further on this, I have an additional observation. I think it is useful do deconstruct the word game which this aphorism utilizes.
The way the game is played is this:
1) take a word that has more than one meaning or application;
2) use one meaning in the first half;
3) use another meaning in the second
4) assign a morally superior position to the second half, thus implying that disagreement is either an attack on faith or an evidence of spiritual weakness.
In this instance:
1) use “identity” or “identify”. It can mean either something that one voluntarily associates with or it can mean an attribute that is detected or even a pledge of devotion or loyalty.
2) a “gay identity” generally is an association with an attribute that is detected. Virtually no one ever “identifies” as gay without this being an application of an identifier on what is already perceived. It’s like a racial identity in the way it is acquired.
So the first part of “I don’t identify as gay” means, literally, “My predominate experiences of attraction are not towards the same-sex” Or, perhaps, if intent is taken into consideration, “I do not wish to experience same-sex attraction”
3) use “identify with Christ” in the religious vernacular.
So the second part means, literally, “I pledge my affiliation to the message of Christ”
4) to Christians, it is unquestionably morally correct to align with Christ. This is adequately distracting to keep most folk from looking too closely at the structure and literal meaning of the phrase:
“My predominate experiences of attraction are not towards the same-sex, but instead I pledge my affiliation to the message of Christ”
Outside of Christian circles, this simply doesn’t make any sense. The first half has nothing to do with the second. And so they think, “meh, there they go again with their crazy talk.”
But taking intent into the equation, we get
This seems a little less odd to those who believe that accepting that one experiences same-sex attraction is, in and of itself, contrary to the message of Christ.
This is not the stated belief of Christianity – especially Catholicism. The public position is always that experiencing same-sex attractions is not sinful.
However, I think you would agree that an underlying unstated position of many both within and without the ex-gay movement is that if you REALLY want to pledge devotion to Christ, then you cannot accept the existence of same-sex attractions within yourself and must, instead, strive towards heterosexuality.
So saying “I don’t identify as gay, I identify with Christ” is a way of saying that the only morally acceptable option is to seek reorientation… without actually coming right out and saying it.
Eddy
I just read about a research project:
Some researchers found that the sooner that a gay man’s orientation is disclosed, the more likely that they will be perceived negatively by straight men. It was a study in which subjects listened to an interview with a person and reported their impressions. If the “dating” question was early in the interview the impressions were stereotyped, if it was at the end of the interview, they were less so.
My take on this was that the disclosure of orientation flavored the perceptions of the participants in the study.
And I think your laugh story fits well with this. Knowing that you were ex-gay, the perceptions of your laugh were filtered through their stereotypes and it became a “gay laugh”.
which is, after all, the definition of success.
Timothy, excellent comment explaining your view on “hard to grasp” meanings. In my opinion, Catholicism does state that the attractions are not sinful; but, behind that statement lies a whole minefield of stuff, that, to me, is not so homosexual friendly. One big premise is that it’s “us vs. them” … the ‘us’ being striving for reorientation, as you said, or for chastity vs. ‘them” … teh gays and teh gay lifestyle. You cannot say you’re gay or lesbian, and certainly you wouldn’t want to state your political views if contrary to what the “inner circle” deems correct.
It’s really all so dis-spiriting. The very place I’d like to have a home, is the last place I’ll go now. Another example, same-sex attractions are not sinful; but, they are considered ‘disordered’. A str8 person’s attractions may not be sinful; and, they are never considered disordered. Now, there’s always the caveat, “that you are not your attractions”; which, I’ve tried a number of times in the last few days to say it’s really impossible to separate part of me, from another part of me. If they’re not my attractions, who’s are they?
Yes, I can do things to lessen them, ameliorate them; but, I can tell you from personal experience that you can, also, think they’re no longer a problem … but, given a significant life-altering event; you may hell to pay for disregarding who you are.
I find it difficult for the Church to tell me my attractions are disordered; but, I’m not myself, also, disordered. To me, it’s another word game; but, that’s just me. A case in point as an example: recently John Henry Cardinal Newman was made a Blessed. Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman lived with Ambrose St. John for approximately 32 years. When Ambrose St. John died, Newman was unconsolable for some time. Newman, also, asked to be buried alongside Ambrose St. John. It’s pretty much a talked about view, that Newman was gay; but, chaste.
Here’s an opportunity for the Church to “walk the talk” about how gays can reach sanctity. Someone that gay, Christians who opt to follow the right as they see the right, can look up to … someone like them to admire … someone that the Church recognizes as who the person was. Did they choose to do this? No.
I’m simply having a hard time reconciling my Faith with the Church. It’s OK for me to be homosexual. It’s what Our Lord is permitting for me, at this time. The Courage Group, which represents the Church in this area, never ceased the drumbeat of disordered. I am not disordered; and, I refuse to be bullied into acting against my own self-interest. I refuse to listen to subtle and not-so-subtle implications to remember the ‘disorder’. I refuse to listen to a Church that won’t acknowledge our lives as worthwhile.
Eek, I’m done with my rant! Remember, these are my opinions only. Many other ex-gays may have entirely different experiences, mainly positive. I acknowledge and applaud that. It however has not been my experience.
Thank you, again, Timothy for your view.
Eddy, FWIW, your 9:46 point last night was not lost on me.
FYI, that does not apply to my perspective. For me, it means submitting everything about myself to Christ so that it is put under his will. In doing so, I am seeking to be identified with his death and resurrection (Gal. 2:20). Reorientation as something to seek can become an idol all its own. How a servant of Christ experiences transformation is between that person and Christ.
Teresa,
In thinking further on this, I have an additional observation. I think it is useful do deconstruct the word game which this aphorism utilizes.
The way the game is played is this:
1) take a word that has more than one meaning or application;
2) use one meaning in the first half;
3) use another meaning in the second
4) assign a morally superior position to the second half, thus implying that disagreement is either an attack on faith or an evidence of spiritual weakness.
In this instance:
1) use “identity” or “identify”. It can mean either something that one voluntarily associates with or it can mean an attribute that is detected or even a pledge of devotion or loyalty.
2) a “gay identity” generally is an association with an attribute that is detected. Virtually no one ever “identifies” as gay without this being an application of an identifier on what is already perceived. It’s like a racial identity in the way it is acquired.
So the first part of “I don’t identify as gay” means, literally, “My predominate experiences of attraction are not towards the same-sex” Or, perhaps, if intent is taken into consideration, “I do not wish to experience same-sex attraction”
3) use “identify with Christ” in the religious vernacular.
So the second part means, literally, “I pledge my affiliation to the message of Christ”
4) to Christians, it is unquestionably morally correct to align with Christ. This is adequately distracting to keep most folk from looking too closely at the structure and literal meaning of the phrase:
“My predominate experiences of attraction are not towards the same-sex, but instead I pledge my affiliation to the message of Christ”
Outside of Christian circles, this simply doesn’t make any sense. The first half has nothing to do with the second. And so they think, “meh, there they go again with their crazy talk.”
But taking intent into the equation, we get
This seems a little less odd to those who believe that accepting that one experiences same-sex attraction is, in and of itself, contrary to the message of Christ.
This is not the stated belief of Christianity – especially Catholicism. The public position is always that experiencing same-sex attractions is not sinful.
However, I think you would agree that an underlying unstated position of many both within and without the ex-gay movement is that if you REALLY want to pledge devotion to Christ, then you cannot accept the existence of same-sex attractions within yourself and must, instead, strive towards heterosexuality.
So saying “I don’t identify as gay, I identify with Christ” is a way of saying that the only morally acceptable option is to seek reorientation… without actually coming right out and saying it.
Eddy
I just read about a research project:
Some researchers found that the sooner that a gay man’s orientation is disclosed, the more likely that they will be perceived negatively by straight men. It was a study in which subjects listened to an interview with a person and reported their impressions. If the “dating” question was early in the interview the impressions were stereotyped, if it was at the end of the interview, they were less so.
My take on this was that the disclosure of orientation flavored the perceptions of the participants in the study.
And I think your laugh story fits well with this. Knowing that you were ex-gay, the perceptions of your laugh were filtered through their stereotypes and it became a “gay laugh”.
which is, after all, the definition of success.
Of course, we all have blind spots, and we need to remain humble and open to teaching. We are constantly learning and growing. But someone has to do the teaching. We don’t lead from our blindness, but rather from the new vision Christ has given us.
Debbie, but don’t you think we’re all blind in many ways? We’re always sort of in a state of “we don’t know, what we don’t know”. We tend to think, at least I do, that when we’re ‘better’ than before, some healing has occurred, that we ‘get it’. That is a dangerous place to stay in. It’s what fosters the endless cycle of hubris: the thinking that we’ve got it; at least, in my estimation. Even the person we think is “really over the edge” in some way has something to teach us.
Yep. As long as we are not aspiring to be like the blind leading the blind (Matt. 15:14), we can help each other. We must all remember where Christ found us and where we have come to. It takes someone who has walked through the minefield to lead others through it.
Well, I guess, Debbie, we can’t give away what we don’t have. I agree with you wholeheartedly on your description above:
Actually, The Church is the last place I’d look now for comfort and help. I’d much rather stay within the A.A. structure, which models for me what Church should be like … a place where one beggar helps another beggar where to find bread. We are all beggars in the final analysis.
A “hospital for sinners” means every last person in the Church.
Sure. Taking one well-known program, Celebrate Recovery (not the one I was a part of, BTW), Step 12 says, “Having had a spiritual experience as the result of these steps, we try to carry this message to others and to practice these principles in all our affairs.” I have always liked the concept of recyled grace, which is a term that Pastor David Seamands (“Healing for Damaged Emotions”) came up with. To me, that is what Step 12 is all about.
I believe many churches are failing to realize the great need for and the power in this kind of discipleship to those who are hurting. The Church was always meant to he a “hospital for sinners” and a place for people with all manner of hurts to be welcomed and given hope. Too many congregations seem to be “whited sepulchers” or museums that display how happy we appear on the outside, ignoring the brokenness on the inside. In my humble opinion.
Debbie, this is absolutely true. The First Step starts with the word “We”. “We” is us, other people in the Program, and “God as we understand God” (Higher Power). The last thing a 12-Step Program is, is “self-help” from every aspect.
I’m not quite sure I see this in the same way you do, Debbie. Could you explain this a little more; especially, the last sentence?
.
A proper moral self-inventory is necessary, and is one of the “Christ-centered 12 steps,” as well as it is for AA or other step recovery groups. But self-help is not the same as Christ-help. Yes, one must be willing to get up and do the work, but there is strength in the body, i.e., in those who come alongside and walk with the one in recovery. Most of all, there is strength in submission to Christ. “When I am weak, I am strong,” wrote Paul. The first step is realizing you are not the one in control. Self-help is a misnomer.
Spiritual transformation is a process that does not necessarily move along a predictable continuum. And the x-factor is the work of the Holy Spirit, who searches our hearts and even prays for us when we cannot find the words (Romans:8:26-27). Some folks find themselves revisiting earlier steps in the process when they have fallen. Perhaps the most healing and powerful step is the 12th, which is essentially recycling the grace you have received to others (2 Cor. 1:4). It’s a form of discipleship that is decidedly lacking in many churches today.
Typically, ex-gay groups meet once a week. It is the nature of most self-help meetings to be introspective. One should not presume that people live the rest of their weeks at that level of introspection.
Of course, we all have blind spots, and we need to remain humble and open to teaching. We are constantly learning and growing. But someone has to do the teaching. We don’t lead from our blindness, but rather from the new vision Christ has given us.
Of course, we all have blind spots, and we need to remain humble and open to teaching. We are constantly learning and growing. But someone has to do the teaching. We don’t lead from our blindness, but rather from the new vision Christ has given us.
Debbie, but don’t you think we’re all blind in many ways? We’re always sort of in a state of “we don’t know, what we don’t know”. We tend to think, at least I do, that when we’re ‘better’ than before, some healing has occurred, that we ‘get it’. That is a dangerous place to stay in. It’s what fosters the endless cycle of hubris: the thinking that we’ve got it; at least, in my estimation. Even the person we think is “really over the edge” in some way has something to teach us.
Yep. As long as we are not aspiring to be like the blind leading the blind (Matt. 15:14), we can help each other. We must all remember where Christ found us and where we have come to. It takes someone who has walked through the minefield to lead others through it.
Yep. As long as we are not aspiring to be like the blind leading the blind (Matt. 15:14), we can help each other. We must all remember where Christ found us and where we have come to. It takes someone who has walked through the minefield to lead others through it.
Well, I guess, Debbie, we can’t give away what we don’t have. I agree with you wholeheartedly on your description above:
Actually, The Church is the last place I’d look now for comfort and help. I’d much rather stay within the A.A. structure, which models for me what Church should be like … a place where one beggar helps another beggar where to find bread. We are all beggars in the final analysis.
A “hospital for sinners” means every last person in the Church.
Well, I guess, Debbie, we can’t give away what we don’t have. I agree with you wholeheartedly on your description above:
Actually, The Church is the last place I’d look now for comfort and help. I’d much rather stay within the A.A. structure, which models for me what Church should be like … a place where one beggar helps another beggar where to find bread. We are all beggars in the final analysis.
A “hospital for sinners” means every last person in the Church.
Sure. Taking one well-known program, Celebrate Recovery (not the one I was a part of, BTW), Step 12 says, “Having had a spiritual experience as the result of these steps, we try to carry this message to others and to practice these principles in all our affairs.” I have always liked the concept of recyled grace, which is a term that Pastor David Seamands (“Healing for Damaged Emotions”) came up with. To me, that is what Step 12 is all about.
I believe many churches are failing to realize the great need for and the power in this kind of discipleship to those who are hurting. The Church was always meant to he a “hospital for sinners” and a place for people with all manner of hurts to be welcomed and given hope. Too many congregations seem to be “whited sepulchers” or museums that display how happy we appear on the outside, ignoring the brokenness on the inside. In my humble opinion.
Sure. Taking one well-known program, Celebrate Recovery (not the one I was a part of, BTW), Step 12 says, “Having had a spiritual experience as the result of these steps, we try to carry this message to others and to practice these principles in all our affairs.” I have always liked the concept of recyled grace, which is a term that Pastor David Seamands (“Healing for Damaged Emotions”) came up with. To me, that is what Step 12 is all about.
I believe many churches are failing to realize the great need for and the power in this kind of discipleship to those who are hurting. The Church was always meant to he a “hospital for sinners” and a place for people with all manner of hurts to be welcomed and given hope. Too many congregations seem to be “whited sepulchers” or museums that display how happy we appear on the outside, ignoring the brokenness on the inside. In my humble opinion.
Debbie, this is absolutely true. The First Step starts with the word “We”. “We” is us, other people in the Program, and “God as we understand God” (Higher Power). The last thing a 12-Step Program is, is “self-help” from every aspect.
I’m not quite sure I see this in the same way you do, Debbie. Could you explain this a little more; especially, the last sentence?
Debbie, this is absolutely true. The First Step starts with the word “We”. “We” is us, other people in the Program, and “God as we understand God” (Higher Power). The last thing a 12-Step Program is, is “self-help” from every aspect.
I’m not quite sure I see this in the same way you do, Debbie. Could you explain this a little more; especially, the last sentence?
.
A proper moral self-inventory is necessary, and is one of the “Christ-centered 12 steps,” as well as it is for AA or other step recovery groups. But self-help is not the same as Christ-help. Yes, one must be willing to get up and do the work, but there is strength in the body, i.e., in those who come alongside and walk with the one in recovery. Most of all, there is strength in submission to Christ. “When I am weak, I am strong,” wrote Paul. The first step is realizing you are not the one in control. Self-help is a misnomer.
Spiritual transformation is a process that does not necessarily move along a predictable continuum. And the x-factor is the work of the Holy Spirit, who searches our hearts and even prays for us when we cannot find the words (Romans:8:26-27). Some folks find themselves revisiting earlier steps in the process when they have fallen. Perhaps the most healing and powerful step is the 12th, which is essentially recycling the grace you have received to others (2 Cor. 1:4). It’s a form of discipleship that is decidedly lacking in many churches today.
.
A proper moral self-inventory is necessary, and is one of the “Christ-centered 12 steps,” as well as it is for AA or other step recovery groups. But self-help is not the same as Christ-help. Yes, one must be willing to get up and do the work, but there is strength in the body, i.e., in those who come alongside and walk with the one in recovery. Most of all, there is strength in submission to Christ. “When I am weak, I am strong,” wrote Paul. The first step is realizing you are not the one in control. Self-help is a misnomer.
Spiritual transformation is a process that does not necessarily move along a predictable continuum. And the x-factor is the work of the Holy Spirit, who searches our hearts and even prays for us when we cannot find the words (Romans:8:26-27). Some folks find themselves revisiting earlier steps in the process when they have fallen. Perhaps the most healing and powerful step is the 12th, which is essentially recycling the grace you have received to others (2 Cor. 1:4). It’s a form of discipleship that is decidedly lacking in many churches today.
Typically, ex-gay groups meet once a week. It is the nature of most self-help meetings to be introspective. One should not presume that people live the rest of their weeks at that level of introspection.
Typically, ex-gay groups meet once a week. It is the nature of most self-help meetings to be introspective. One should not presume that people live the rest of their weeks at that level of introspection.
Its probably best that I just bite my tongue!
Eddy et al:
This is more of a gray area than you make it seem. I don’t think I’ve ever met a conservative Christian that speaks this way – at the very least they haven’t ever described their identity as “in Christ” in the way you stated it above. The bigger problem I have with this idea though is this long-standing conservative assumption that all gay people define themselves only, or primarily by their sexual identity, and I think this is false. I am a Christian, a gay man, a significant other, a nurse, a friend, a son, a brother, a volunteer, etc. I don’t see myself as a gay man before any of these other roles
I find this hard to believe by the mere fact that they use the term gay when describing themselves, even if it is ex – gay. This term brings sexuality to the forefront, whether the people using it intend it to or not. It makes sexuality important, even if it is simply used to describe the sexual identity they seek to leave behind.
Eddy, this is exactly what I thought. And, actually, AA’s 4th Step about taking a searching and fearless moral inventory doesn’t take all that long. So, AA’s are not that introspective. Treatment Centers though have become a place where all of that is much used. Although most don’t believe it here, alcoholism is very unlike homosexuality.
And, having been around some ex-gay groups, the “then move on to lead a less introspective life” can take a very long time.
Anyone in involved in any ‘self help’ group first engages in a tremendous amount of introspection. AA has their members take ‘a fearless moral inventory’. Overeaters keep diaries to chart what makes them cheat on their diet. For the ex-gay, there is a good bit of inventorying going on at the start…and it’s often intensive. But most people come to grips with their basic issues: triggers (things that seem to aggravate temptation), habit responses, emotional vulnerabilities…and then move on to lead a less introspective life. Most move to a place where they are only introspective when they’ve had a sexual encounter contrary to their goal or when they feel barraged by sexual thoughts or temptations. (A popular truism is “You can’t stop the sparrows from flying over your head but you CAN stop them from building a nest in your hair.”)
Eddy, thank you for your thoughtful Comment. Ironically, the ex-gay was at one time consumed by introspection; or, else, why the need to go through all the ex-gay groups, therapies, etc. You’ve been involved at one time in those ministries; and, can you tell us that people who used your services weren’t consumed at one time by introspection?
When they finally come to acceptation of who they are “in Christ”, is when that introspection becomes less necessary. No?
Conservative gay Christians often describe their identity as ‘in Christ’ because they are talking to people who are fixated on sexual identity as predominate. I believe it often says more about the person demanding or perhaps only requesting that they identify by their sexuality than it does about the person who answers ‘in Christ’.
Another reason for the ‘in Christ’ explanation is that, contrary to popular belief, the ex-gay is usually not consumed by introspection. They don’t assess day by day whether they are a measure further from gay identification or a measure closer to straight identification…they find themselves on a daily walk with Christ, knowing that, for today at least, they don’t have a partner of either gender and aren’t in pursuit of a partner of either gender. So the whole concept of labelling themselves by a sexual orientation is of no import or consequence to them…it only matters to the person who wants to know their label.
They further recognize that society in general has thrown a whole bunch of garbage their way that they can’t or haven’t yet sorted out on their own with respect to sexuality. I still recall that as a young Christian, some people were trying to change my laugh. “It’s a gay laugh” was something I heard from more than a few. It’s true that my laugh is very different…unlike the laugh you’ll hear from most any straight. But it took me a few years to realize that it’s also unlike the laugh I’ve heard from any gay person. And, I’m attending the funeral on Thursday of the woman who told me years later…at my own dad’s funeral…”Oh my, do you know you have your father’s laugh?” (LOL. I guess dad didn’t laugh out loud too much around the house.)
Comments earlier reminded me of a young woman from the next town. She was the consummate tomboy. She could outperform any boy her age in sports. She even had the nickname “The Tank”. She was, as I recall, THE lesbian image complete with being the captain on the girls softball team with more than a few lesbian friends. As a gay man myself, I waited for the day of her coming out. Instead she got engaged to one of my older brothers and eventually married him. My cousin and I were discussing the family over the weekend and marveled that this brother, who anyone would have considered ‘the least likely to succeed’, actually turned out to be the most successful. My cousin summed it up neatly. “She drove him to succeed.”
And it’s true, She can still rule in most any athletic competition with people her age (and probably up to 10 years younger). And, SHE rules the roost. The roost now has 3 grown children and a grandchild…and, of course, my brother. By gender generalizations, she is NOT typically feminine but she is most definitely heterosexual…most definitely fulfilled in her marital relationship with my brother…thrives on motherhood…is more than competent in the kitchen. But an outsider who met her apart from the family that is the center of her life would still perceive her as gay.
LOL. I used to worry about my brother…’how does he put up with such a strong-willed woman?’ But it’s not a problem to him. She works but he is still primary provider and he’s got a constant ‘honey-do’ list that trusts in his mechanical, construction, and engineering capabilities. Their relationship is unconventional by most standards but it works for them…and, judging by the way their children have turned out, it works for them too.
Timothy,
It isn’t?? 🙂 🙂
Its probably best that I just bite my tongue!
Its probably best that I just bite my tongue!
Teresa
For some gay people a “gay identity” is the very core of their being. But I think most folk have a gay identity pretty much in the same way that they have a religious identity or an ethnic identity or national identity or a hobby identity or an other identity that makes it easier to function in life.
Identities allow you to make decisions based on possible problems. If you are Catholic, it’s helpful to keep that in mind when considering a move to Amish country. If you are same-sex attracted, that’s a useful thing to know when considering marriage.
But other identities tend to all be accepted without question. If a left-handed, Irish-American Methodist Lesbian is asked to “identify with Christ” it isn’t because she’s left-handed.
Which makes me suspect that the reason that others not only insist that they don’t have a gay identity, but that you should not either, is because if both you, they, and I have no such identity, then their life is easier. For whatever reason.
As Alan Chambers said, gay people should not be allowed to marry because if they were when he was living a homosexual life then he would have been trapped in a gay marriage.
Eddy
I respect that for you.
If one accepts that there will always be a few who cannot find “that perfect someone” for whatever reason, then it isn’t necessarily that bad of a thing to be part of that group. Some are perhaps, ahem, not gifted in the looks, charm, or social skills department. Some may be too independent minded. Some may be same-sex attracted. Some may just be a victim of circumstances. That’s life.
For me, I don’t accept that being same-sex attracted should dictate that you cannot find a life mate, and one of the same sex. But those are my values and yours are yours.
And I can honor your point.
Debbie…
This is a lovely sentiment. It was accompanied by:
Now I think that any reasonable person would see how those could be perceived as “hateful, condemning words that wound.” So perhaps they could have been not quite so…. colorful.
And then we come to the point of your article:
On behalf of all gay people – and as their spokesman – may I officially offer this advice: don’t bother.
Really. Don’t bother.
If you come offering “tough love” and “rebuke”, the sort that looks like malice, your “hand of grace” will indeed be slapped away.
This is not just a gay thing. I can’t think of anyone, anyone at all, who would not slap away the hand that came full of what appears to be malice. We have no need for tough love or rebuke. We don’t see this as the spirit of charity.
Frankly, my community would prefer that you continue with your “truth grenades.” You’ve lost the war, thanks in no small part to those truth grenades. The culture has passed the tipping point where it has come to see gay people as valued members of the community and those who share your perspective as “hypocritical, anti-homosexual and too political.”
Now is not the time to call for a peace treaty on your terms. We believe in peaceful coexistence, but we will only accept full equality.
Teresa,
p.s. – forgot to also thank you for the essay on kindness – I copied it and will refer to it often. One of my neighbors is Catholic and she attends “Adoration” every Thursday and explained it to me. It touched me deeply.
Teresa,
Truly Lincoln was a wise man. Able to see the big picture even when the most immediate view held little encouragement. And always somehow in possession of words that would live long after he did.
Thank you Teresa. I think most people understand the congruence betwen how one identifies themselves (orientation) and how they express themselves sexually. What some people do not understand is the identity without the expression. Using the word sexuality to define an identity without attaching sexual expression to it is a very important thing for people to learn and understand.
Debbie, sexuality is as transient as life is transient. As long as one is breathing, one has sexuality. I would add that certainly as we grow and change, our sexuality is being informed by our experiences. The rub comes when we get into debate about the “mutability” of sexuality.
The Catholic Church has allowed a number of definitions to float around without discouraging or supporting any. The Scholastic definition (St. Thomas Aquinas) is that man is a rational animal: composed of body and soul. They are distinct, and yet not distinct, insofar as you can’t have one without the other, so-to-speak.
Identity is really a new thing on the block, at least to me. For the purposes of this blog, I identify as a gay woman. However, in my life, I’m just me … gender non-conforming at times, and all. I would have been mystified several years ago if someone were to ask me how I identify. What?? Sometimes I’m a first-generation Italian-American. Other times, I’m Catholic. Other times, I’m Libertarian. Other times, I’m single. Most often, I’m a pain in the butt. But, if someone were to press the matter, or had a good gaydar, I’d say I’m a homosexual. And, because this identification business has become so nebulous, and so non-definitional; I find it has become more a hindrance than a help.
Eddy,
I am not sure how we are all interpreting the word sexuality and how it connects to an identity and how that identity defines someone – perhaps others are getting it but I am not (nothing new).
I think Warren would better be able to answer these questions or statements. So, I’ll defer to his professional experience on this, in that capacity.
I will, however, take a stab at it from my perspective. Yes, Ann, most often sexuality is certainly tied into our gender. Sexual identity is a whole other thing, sometimes. For those people whose gender and sexuality are congruent; and, congruent with social norms; everything works fairly smoothly. To be fairly simplistic and rather old-fashioned, an example: a woman who loves handwork, cooking, raising children, dressing frilly, keeping a home, loving her man, sacrificing for her husband and children, emotionally loving her husband as a woman, being ‘obedient’ to her husband … hey, her sexuality and her gender are congruent. If society supports that view, everything is congruent. Everybody’s happy.
For some of us, who have been labeled as gender non-conforming, our sexuality actually is congruent with our gender non-conformance. This has nothing whatsoever to do with having ‘sex’ with the same-gender. For those onlookers from that old-fashioned world, we’d be labeled as tomboy femmes, or butch. From my perspective only, we’re not so much into the frilly, makeup, girly stuff. Our heads think differently. Our likes and dislikes are probably different. Many of us like men, quite a bit in fact; but, find it very, very difficult (or impossible) to emotionally bond with men. Our experience of the world is different: much of this is sexuality (whatever it’s etiology). But, there is no confusion about being a woman. I know I’m a woman; and, for the most part like being a woman. My expression of my gender, informed by my temperament, sexuality, etc. is not the norm, necessarily.
This is kind of a baseline, and certainly simplistic; and, only from a homosexual woman’s point of view. Varieties spin off from these.
Teresa,
Let me also say that it really does not matter to me how identities are defined or formed – I respect you a LOT – what you feel and how you think is not to be justified to anyone – I am just trying to grasp the word sexuality as to an identity definition.
Eddy, thank you for your thoughtful Comment. Ironically, the ex-gay was at one time consumed by introspection; or, else, why the need to go through all the ex-gay groups, therapies, etc. You’ve been involved at one time in those ministries; and, can you tell us that people who used your services weren’t consumed at one time by introspection?
When they finally come to acceptation of who they are “in Christ”, is when that introspection becomes less necessary. No?
I disagree with this statement. Are we spiritual beings in a body or physical/sexual beings with a spirit? What would the Catholic Church say? Our highest nature is spiritual. What do you say to a transgender person? That he/she only possesses humanity in his/her birth sex? Sexuality may be a transient thing for a variety of reasons.
No, I don’t think so. Sexuality speaks to sensuality, desirability, physicality, desire and more. I am using sex as maleness or femaleness. Gender is a relatively new synonym for sex. FWIW, the dictionary has this note on the usage of the words sex and gender:
There seems to be a confusion between aspects of gender and aspects of sexuality. I’m not sure where the muddling is or how to address it.
Thank you Teresa for taking the time to write all that. I actually don’t think I have ever shared any personal information about myself so I cannot address what you wrote about that part.
My general thoughts are that most people, including myself, do not understand the meaning of sexuality as defined as an identity. Many women and men, regardless of their orientation, enjoy the same things, think the same way, and are adverse to the same things. I think your point about sexuality and the understanding of it is essential. I still do not get the connection and that is why I asked. I understand how children from various backgrounds and cultures can and do relate to the world and people in many different ways and often this world view stays with them throughout a lifetime. I understand how incarceration can alter a person’s view of the world when they are released back into society. I understand how adults who have experienced hardship can look at life differently. I understand how sexual, emotional and physical abuse can alter how someone might think of themselves and others and the world. I also see how positive experiences can shape our confidence, change our hearts, give us future resilience where we had none before, and how beliefs that once were staunchly defended, are now looked upon with a different perspective. We are all different because of our experiences. I understand being attracted to the same gender and not having any attraction to the opposite gender can affect how we fit into the world. I understand how being attracted to the opposite gender and not at all to the same gender can cause a disconnect for understanding between people. I just do not understand the word sexuality – not sex – and how it defines an identity that guides how we think. Are you equating the word sexuality identity to gender identity? Is that what I am missing?
Welcome back, Ann,
Your question, Ann, is not personal, at all. Sexuality, understood as relational is our ability to be social beings, at all levels of intimacy. It is an intrinsic part of our personality; and, is expressed in a myriad of wonderful ways toward others. Our sexuality is part of our capacity as humans to ‘be’ … if you can understand that.
My sexuality, as a woman, will be different than a man’s; but, no matter the gender, we share ‘sexuality’ as a big part of who we are. Ann, you, as a heterosexual woman, see, act, react, smell, touch, hear, speak, sense life through the prism of your sexuality. Although, Ann, although you are unique as an individual, you share many characteristics in common with other heterosexual women in varying degrees: part of your uniqueness. You are given to nurture and nourish life. To see through your heart; and, less through your head … nothing demeaning about this. You love for a man to provide and protect you, so you can be about the business of caring for others; principally, your children. You can emotionally bond with a man in a deep and meaningful way.
If you never engage in intercourse, Ann, doesn’t negate all the underlying characteristics of your sexuality. Being married with children is simply a manifestation of your sexuality in a certain context. Your sexuality is part of who you are: celibate or not. Our sexuality is part of who we are: celibate or not.
My being a homosexual, Ann, doesn’t mean that my sexuality disappears because I’ve chosen to have a partner or not have a partner. The way I experience life as a homosexual woman, Ann, is somewhat different than how you experience life. A deep part of that experiential is through the frame of our sexuality.
An example or two should help. Long before it became somewhat fashionable with women, I loved sports … not only the doing, but the watching. I love automobiles, planes, trains, motorcycles and ships. I enjoy knowing how they work, how they look, seeing them in motion. I enjoy ‘industrial sublime’: large factory complexes, electrical generating complexes; especially, at night. However, along with you, Ann, I love babies and toddlers.
The statement now made by some ex-gay groups that “the opposite of homosexuality is holiness” is foolish. There is no opposite to sexuality, whether it be hetero, homo, or bi. To foist upon a homosexual the thought that their sexuality must disappear before they’re acceptable is unkind; and, is saying not so subtly, who we are as persons is not acceptable; although, they probably don’t mean it that way.
Eddy
I respect that for you.
If one accepts that there will always be a few who cannot find “that perfect someone” for whatever reason, then it isn’t necessarily that bad of a thing to be part of that group. Some are perhaps, ahem, not gifted in the looks, charm, or social skills department. Some may be too independent minded. Some may be same-sex attracted. Some may just be a victim of circumstances. That’s life.
For me, I don’t accept that being same-sex attracted should dictate that you cannot find a life mate, and one of the same sex. But those are my values and yours are yours.
And I can honor your point.
Hi Teresa,
I think you have hit on something very important that is not understood by many as it is personal to each one of us. Can you describe what sexuality is in its proper sense so that it is understood? If this is too personal of a question, please accept my apology for asking and disregard the question.
Teresa,
Truly Lincoln was a wise man. Able to see the big picture even when the most immediate view held little encouragement. And always somehow in possession of words that would live long after he did.
Teresa,
Let me also say that it really does not matter to me how identities are defined or formed – I respect you a LOT – what you feel and how you think is not to be justified to anyone – I am just trying to grasp the word sexuality as to an identity definition.
I disagree with this statement. Are we spiritual beings in a body or physical/sexual beings with a spirit? What would the Catholic Church say? Our highest nature is spiritual. What do you say to a transgender person? That he/she only possesses humanity in his/her birth sex? Sexuality may be a transient thing for a variety of reasons.
No, I don’t think so. Sexuality speaks to sensuality, desirability, physicality, desire and more. I am using sex as maleness or femaleness. Gender is a relatively new synonym for sex. FWIW, the dictionary has this note on the usage of the words sex and gender:
No, Debbie, that is precisely what I am not saying, over and over. What I am saying over and over is that our sexuality (not sex) permeates who we are. I am saying over and over, the sexual act has nothing to do with our sexuality, per se.
You are however a sexual being within all else. There’s no way to separate our humanity from our gender, or from our sexuality. None.
Debbie, you seem to be equating sex with sexuality. The sexual act is not what I’m speaking about, at all. A man or a woman does not have to consummate a relationship in a sexual way to be either a man or a woman. A man or a woman does not have to consummate a relationship in a sexual way to be a heterosexual or a homosexual. The act is not the sexuality; but, may be used as an expression of the sexuality. We are not fractured beings without sex; although, there would be no beings to be fractured without sex.
No, Debbie, I don’t believe this to be the case; although, there’s been plenty of words and attempts to make this seem so.
I think the latter quote says very succinctly exactly what I’m trying to say.
The current saying by some ex-gay groups of: “the opposite of homosexuality is holiness” is really a misunderstanding of the highest order. There is no opposite to one’s sexuality, when sexuality is understood in its proper sense. There certainly can be behavior modifications in one’s sexual actions; but, there can never be removal of one’s sexuality from their humanity. To imply otherwise, is to deny one’s personhood.
Thank you Teresa for taking the time to write all that. I actually don’t think I have ever shared any personal information about myself so I cannot address what you wrote about that part.
My general thoughts are that most people, including myself, do not understand the meaning of sexuality as defined as an identity. Many women and men, regardless of their orientation, enjoy the same things, think the same way, and are adverse to the same things. I think your point about sexuality and the understanding of it is essential. I still do not get the connection and that is why I asked. I understand how children from various backgrounds and cultures can and do relate to the world and people in many different ways and often this world view stays with them throughout a lifetime. I understand how incarceration can alter a person’s view of the world when they are released back into society. I understand how adults who have experienced hardship can look at life differently. I understand how sexual, emotional and physical abuse can alter how someone might think of themselves and others and the world. I also see how positive experiences can shape our confidence, change our hearts, give us future resilience where we had none before, and how beliefs that once were staunchly defended, are now looked upon with a different perspective. We are all different because of our experiences. I understand being attracted to the same gender and not having any attraction to the opposite gender can affect how we fit into the world. I understand how being attracted to the opposite gender and not at all to the same gender can cause a disconnect for understanding between people. I just do not understand the word sexuality – not sex – and how it defines an identity that guides how we think. Are you equating the word sexuality identity to gender identity? Is that what I am missing?
I think it’s time to make a distinction. I believe our humanity permeates our being. That is common to us all. I am not a sexual being, above all else. That is a layer of me. I have a sex, i.e., female. Half of the reflection of the image of God. People don’t stop and think about being heterosexual because it is the norm. This is what you are saying, over and over. OK.
Is it more a case of people rejecting something essential about their sex, i.e., their maleness or femaleness? You are a female, Teresa, same as I am. Does a woman have to be able to consummate a sexual relationship to be a woman? Does a man? Or is that a social requirement we have added? For that matter, what is the difference between a female and a woman? Are we fractured beings without sex? Why?
Debbie, I disagree with tying homosexual behavior with homosexuality. In my mind, the two are not the same.
I think we have to dissect this; because, the implication behind ex-gay, no matter what Faith group, is disastrous for many people. In my opinion, telling someone you’re unnatural; but, oh by the way, we really don’t want to look behind what we’re saying … we just get to say it, can be very damaging.
I guess I can’t say this too often. Beneath the ways are bodies are formed, lies a whole integrated personality that includes our sexuality (be it heterosexuality or homosexuality), that cannot be extricated from who we are. The way we think, mannerisms, relate, occupations, hobbies, and on and on. Sexuality is not sex. Sexuality is a core part of who we are.
Debbie, your heterosexuality permeates your very being. It plays out, exudes from your every pore, all day, every day. We don’t consciously realize any of this; but, it’s a fact. Because homosexuality is not the norm, because it’s seen as (ab)normal, deviant, perverted; conservative Christian Churches, especially, can’t come to grips with the essential fact that for a significant number of homosexuals … our homosexuality can’t be extricated from our personality anymore than heterosexuality can be removed from str8 persons’ personality.
We have been made by God as social beings. The relationship with God does not transcend in a natural way His creation of the world. His Word starts almost immediately with relationship with another. Certainly, relationship with God is very important; but, it in no way eliminates or diminishes man’s requirement for others … real, live human beings.
One last comment: Christianity has an abysmal record of transforming people’s hearts; at least, the way it’s presented in most Christian Churches. That it has changed some people’s behavior, I concede; however, behavior is not heart. In every relationship of men with men, it’s had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a proper, good, right response. Examples: slavery, race relations including miscegenation; women’s place in the Church (still a bugbear in some Churches) and in the home; sexuality.
Oh joy. I get to be the 1,200th commenter in this thread. 🙂
I got to thinking (uh-oh!) that perhaps we are meant to view sexuality in general as not being imbued with all that we imagine it to be. It is a part of our created being. It has a purpose, a procreative one for the most part. But like all things that give pleasure, it can bring both honor and dishonor to God. All good things can be subverted by our base nature.
I accept human sexuality as one of God’s mysteries.We won’t fully understand it this side of paradise. I think to the extent that we have wanted to recreate God in our own image, we have worshiped sex and made it an indispensable part of our identity. Likewise, we have placed human relationships above the relationship we are to have with God, forgetting that He can satisfy us supernaturally in very real ways and bring deeper meaning to our lives.
I cannot get past the clarity of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments with regard to homosexuality being a subversion of our sexuality. On every level, to include the very way our bodies are formed, it is unnatural and proscriptive. I see much around me that I can accept as never intended by God, but nevertheless is a part of His permissive will (Teresa, you and I talked about this recently). We are not permitted to turn our backs on any individual affected by those things, whatever they are.
We don’t have to dissect every item in a laboratory or seek to unravel its mystery. People are people, and we are all in this life together. The same God loves us all, and He commanded us to love one another. I am content to let Him deal with each life as He sees fit. One day, I may desperately need again to be the recipient of human love and understanding. I must never forget where I’ve come from.
Debbie, I disagree with tying homosexual behavior with homosexuality. In my mind, the two are not the same.
I think we have to dissect this; because, the implication behind ex-gay, no matter what Faith group, is disastrous for many people. In my opinion, telling someone you’re unnatural; but, oh by the way, we really don’t want to look behind what we’re saying … we just get to say it, can be very damaging.
I guess I can’t say this too often. Beneath the ways are bodies are formed, lies a whole integrated personality that includes our sexuality (be it heterosexuality or homosexuality), that cannot be extricated from who we are. The way we think, mannerisms, relate, occupations, hobbies, and on and on. Sexuality is not sex. Sexuality is a core part of who we are.
Debbie, your heterosexuality permeates your very being. It plays out, exudes from your every pore, all day, every day. We don’t consciously realize any of this; but, it’s a fact. Because homosexuality is not the norm, because it’s seen as (ab)normal, deviant, perverted; conservative Christian Churches, especially, can’t come to grips with the essential fact that for a significant number of homosexuals … our homosexuality can’t be extricated from our personality anymore than heterosexuality can be removed from str8 persons’ personality.
We have been made by God as social beings. The relationship with God does not transcend in a natural way His creation of the world. His Word starts almost immediately with relationship with another. Certainly, relationship with God is very important; but, it in no way eliminates or diminishes man’s requirement for others … real, live human beings.
One last comment: Christianity has an abysmal record of transforming people’s hearts; at least, the way it’s presented in most Christian Churches. That it has changed some people’s behavior, I concede; however, behavior is not heart. In every relationship of men with men, it’s had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a proper, good, right response. Examples: slavery, race relations including miscegenation; women’s place in the Church (still a bugbear in some Churches) and in the home; sexuality.
Throbert, you’ve packed a lot into the above statement. However, haven’t you’ve found some homosexuals who claim that “sexual orientation is not part of who you really are.” My contention throughout this discussion is that the term ex-gay is part of that idea. The idea that my identity is now “in Christ” … means what? Their sexuality has disappeared. They’re now some human being existing in the world absent sexuality … and, I don’t mean messing around. I mean sexuality as affectivity. Suddenly, that’s been stripped from them.
You’ve now added a new a whole new dimension with bi-sexuality:
I accede to your knowledge in this area. I know squat about bi-sexuality; except it’s usual definition … sexually attracted to both genders.
Eddy, str8 always means opposite-gender attraction. All the examples you’ve given are really incidental to the point. Please, I’m not being testy here. But, whether someone’s ogling, someone’s single, someone’s sleeping around, etc., are simply examples of str8 behavior … opposite-gender attraction.
Ex-gay has a lot more than just wiggle room, in my estimation. It can mean, I’m now str8, and once I was gay. Or, anything in-between. To me, and perhaps only me, it’s a term that’s really very nebulous … and, ultimately meaningless for conversation, until you burrow beneath.
Q. Who has the most to gain by promulgating the notion that homosexual orientation is “not part of what gay people are”?
A. Deeply closeted homosexuals who are living behind a flimsy facade of a heterosexual marriage despite having no heterosexual desires; and possibly also a few heterosexuals who for whatever reason don’t like their own heterosexuality, and resent that they don’t have a natural instinct to “abide”, as St. Paul had (or claimed to have); but most of all, guilt-wracked bisexuals who do feel heterosexual attraction but are also conscious of having homosexual attraction, which they hate and resent and wish would go away;
But in contrast, the healthy heterosexuals who joyously accept their own heterosexuality as a gift from God and a fully integrated part of “who they are” should tend to assume likewise about the homosexuality of homosexuals, and should have the least reason to make the ridiculous claim that “sexual orientation is not part of who you really are.”
So, in short, I believe that conservative religious squeamishness in speaking about homosexuality speaks to the relatively high prevalence of bisexual attraction, and a failure to provide appropriate pastoral care and guidance for the bisexually attracted.
(And by “appropriate pastoral care” I don’t mean giving bisexuals license to go out and have homosexual sex; I mean teaching them that their homosexual attractions are a part of their total God-given nature, just as their heterosexual attractions are, and it’s not the case that the heterosexual feelings come from God and the homosexual feelings come from Satan.)
Teresa,
Exactly! 🙂
Teresa–
I think you might be asking too much from a term. You pointed out how the term ex-gay was lacking because it could mean a variety of experiences. But consider the term straight. It can mean married or single. It can be the guy openly ogling the halftime cheerleaders and it can be the guy who tries not to think sexually of any woman but his wife. It can refer to somone who’s celibate–someone who’s monogamous–someone who sleeps around–someone who pays for it–someone who gets paid. Someone who’s single…someone who’s married…someone who’s a virgin…someone who’s not…someone who’s celibate for life….someone who is celibate for the time being. It can be someone who exudes sexual prowess and someone who is timid, awkward or fearful.
“Ex-gay” purposely has a little wiggle room…both in the ‘ex’ and in the ‘gay’. (Some never had any homosexual experience; some never partook of or identified with ‘the lifestyle’.)
Jayhuck,
Really??? So, now we have another component to the term ex-gay. For some, it means accepting that my orientation is unnatural. Is that right, Jayhuck? So, if my orientation is not good (which, I’ve gone out of my way to show is inextricably linked to who we are), what does that say about me, as a person? Here’s the rub, isn’t it?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Sexuality:
Whew, this opens another topic, for another time.
Thanks for all the information, Eddy and Jayhuck, and your input, also, Debbie. I think I’m being too literal about some terms. “Ex-gay clearly mentions their homosexuality” as something no longer there, in my mind.
Ex-drug user, ex-prostitute means no longer using drugs, no longer in the sex trade. Ex-gay for Mary means she’s no longer homosexual; she’s str8. Ex-gay for Debbie means she’s no longer homosexual; she’s str8. Ex-gay for you, Eddy, means, if I understand correctly, you’re no longer associated with the lifestyle … but, you’re not str8, either.
Can I safely say that I can’t conclude much of anything by the term ex-gay? For some, it may mean complete ‘change’. For others, it simply means leaving what’s now commonly called the ‘lifestyle’; however, that plays out. For still others, it may mean leaving the lifestyle, and choosing chastity.
And, actually a person using the term gay doesn’t really say anything much more than they’re homosexual. We can jump to conclusions about their sexual behavior; but, we ought not, too.
My looking for a “one size fits all” nomenclature for what terms mean in sexual orientation is an exercise in futility. Each person can choose what term they think best describes them, for whatever reason they see fit.
One does have to agree though, that if we don’t have a consensual vocabulary to start with, words that have a common definition; it’s quite useless to think we’ll have any discourse beyond that, that is meaningful. We spend all our time trying to discover what one is really saying behind the term.
“Ex-gay” clearly mentions “their homeosexuality”.
Teresa,
Not all do Teresa. I personally know a few Christians who still identify as gay because they don’t like the term ex-gay, but for all intents and purposes are ex-gay. Much of this boils down to the way we see these terms. Some people view ex-gay as necessary for them, as Eddy does, and some do not. I think that Eddy, and many others, understand that to identify as gay means, among other things, accepting your orientation as normal and natural – as good. Others do not view identifying as gay in this way. Its about the way each of us understands and defines these terms for ourselves, and these “understandings” can sometimes vary – wildly. 🙂
Teresa-
Thank you.
I shared once long ago–long before you started blogging here–that ex-gay is actually a term of identification. I was around when the term was coined and other terms were bandied about. “Heterosexual”? No, I’m not there. “Straight”? I may now be ‘on the straight and narrow’ but NO, I’m not ‘straight’ by the commonly accepted definition. “Celibate”? A bit closer but still doesn’t quite capture the essence and still might be misleading. So we coined ‘ex-gay’ largely because where we came from did, to varying degrees, define who we are today.
I was born and raised in Pennsylvania (and, as an aside, never had any intentions of moving back. That made me an ex-Pennsylvanian and I sometimes described myself as such. On hearing this, people could and did expect to find traces of Pennsylvania in me…my dialect, my love for trees, my ‘East Coast’ way of thinking and talking…and other attributes as well. That’s what was intended with the term ‘ex-gay’. We are ‘ex’ …from there–from gay. Our mindset is going to be a bit different; what we deal with in the day to day is going to be a bit different. “But you Christians have an understanding on some level of ex-ness. You’ve already accepted ex-drug users, ex-prostitutes, and exes of a host of more everyday sins. Please hear the ‘ex’ but please also understand that it’s where we came from. Christ has called us; Christ has accepted us; please do the same.”
Thanks for the response, Debbie. Why have you used the word ‘idol’ in describing sexual orientation? To say what one is, in my opinion, is not about idolatry.
I’m still perplexed as to the avoidance of many; and, in relation only to sexual orientation that identity is described as “in Christ”.
I have never thought a str8 person talking of themselves as mother, husband, whatever, as being idolatrous. They’re simply stating who they are. It’s wonderful to hear and see that. It’s a joyous expression, often, of what they’re about in life.
Perhaps, I’m being a dolt here; but, it’s still not clicking with me as to why many conservative, gay Christians seem to avoid in all possible ways, mention of their homosexuality.
If we’re about what we think our relationship with Our Lord calls us to, why the avoidance? And, please, I’m not saying being gay is one’s only identity, focus, lens
I don’t see my homosexuality as getting between me and Christ, by any means. Rather, I can state with St. Paul: “Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.” It’s one of His Ways that has drawn me to have a relationship with Him.
I don’t want to accuse anyone of my misperceptions. I simply want to understand the reasoning of others. If I hide my homosexuality in circumstances that might be helpful to have known, behind the words: “my identity is in Christ” … for me, that would probably indicate that I’m ashamed of being homosexual. I can’t take my own response as indicative of what others are thinking.
Debbie,
That’s true. Any one of our identifications may become idolatrous whether its gay, straight, wife, husband, parent, our career…..
It’s not just “those” people who tend to do that. Perhaps those of us who have struggled with something that we believe threatens to get between us and Christ (and it is not just sexual orientation that may be perceived as an idol) insist on putting the focus back on him.
The following is an open question to all.
Jayhuck,
Yep. That’s for sure.
I think I should change the little St. Francis quote I used above:
In my case, to read:
“Preach the Gospel always; if necessary, keep quiet”!! 🙂
Teresa,
I think this is an issue with which we all struggle 🙂
Sorry for that, Eddy. I agree and apologize that some of my responses were testy.
Identity is a core issue for me: a sensitive area. So, I can easily get off track with trying to be gracious, and “go for the jugular”. I need to be especially careful; and, take time and distance before I comment. I’ll try 🙂 🙂 to be more careful in the future.
Debbie said:
I totally agree, Debbie.
Here’s the essential question for me to you:
Why do conservative, gay Christians usually, most often, pretty much, nearly always, a lot … describe their identity as “in Christ”. And, I mean disowning their homosexuality, their orientation …
Why?
LOL. I was going to go to the identity issue next…experimenting with a ‘one issue at a time’ tack…but seeing how labored this one issue was, I changed my mind about attempting to go there.
Oddest part for me was beginning with a sense like I was conversing with a friend and then sensing a measure of hostility in response.
Letting the matter rest is an excellent idea under the circumstances.
Whether or not het Christians can or cannot look for and whether or not het Christians can or cannot succeed at finding potential spouses, this gay Christians feels extremely blessed to have the love and support of his husband and family to share life with — even on those days that the kids drive me nuts.
Eddy, you are indeed typing on “eggshells’ :). We’re talking past each other in this conversation, I suspect. It’s the age-old, “I know you heard what I said, but I’m not sure what you think you heard is what I said”.
Life is not a bowl of cherries for anyone. Agreed. A good many married people are unhappy people. I know that, also, up-front and close. People seldom live “happily ever after” in this life. Agreed. I get what you’re saying, Eddy. But, that is not my original point of this whole conversation.
My original point was simply that str8 people “can look”, “can find”, “can do”, “can ask”. That’s all. Whether the “can look” looks; “can find” finds, “can do” does, “can ask” asks is quite immaterial. It’s the “can” that’s important. The “can” immediately identifies who they are. That’s the essence of my original point. Along with the point that a good many people, most often conservative Christians, think that orientation/sexuality is not part of what gay people are.
Here’s the original converstion:
Debbie said:
My response:
Where it seemed to get off-track is when the concentration became about str8 people defining their orientation, and how tough they were having it. The whole point of the original Comment is not “how tough” some str8 people have it finding a mate. I’ll concede that point.
My point was that gay persons who have chosen a different path are being asked in subtle and not so subtle ways to distance themselves from their orientation. Suddenly, I’m being told that my orientation can be/should be not alluded to, or really, really, really should be … my identity is in Christ.
My contention is not whether str8 people ever find what they’re looking for. My contention is “the looking” is part of who they are. No one in the Christian Community is telling them to set that orientation aside, identify differently than who they are. Why should they? Their orientation is a normal given … as it should be.
I’ll let the matter rest.
Debbie,
That’s true. Any one of our identifications may become idolatrous whether its gay, straight, wife, husband, parent, our career…..
Sorry for that, Eddy. I agree and apologize that some of my responses were testy.
Identity is a core issue for me: a sensitive area. So, I can easily get off track with trying to be gracious, and “go for the jugular”. I need to be especially careful; and, take time and distance before I comment. I’ll try 🙂 🙂 to be more careful in the future.
This most recent turn in the discussion points to the widespread belief that human relationships are the be-all, end-all of life. They are definitely part of the grand scheme of our Creator. We do need each other, but we can easily put too much stock in intimacy with other people. Seeking Him first tends to make all other desires pale in comparison and gives us perspective on life, regardless of our struggles or the hand life has dealt us. Just a bit of food for thought.
LOL. I was going to go to the identity issue next…experimenting with a ‘one issue at a time’ tack…but seeing how labored this one issue was, I changed my mind about attempting to go there.
Oddest part for me was beginning with a sense like I was conversing with a friend and then sensing a measure of hostility in response.
Letting the matter rest is an excellent idea under the circumstances.
Whether or not het Christians can or cannot look for and whether or not het Christians can or cannot succeed at finding potential spouses, this gay Christians feels extremely blessed to have the love and support of his husband and family to share life with — even on those days that the kids drive me nuts.
I totally agree. But the point that I obviously failed to make is that the path of ‘keep looking’ comes complete with it’s own frustrations and dispappointments. Further, that ongoing quest, if it becomes a primary focus of a single’s life, can derail them. It’s most definitely a ‘different world’ but I don’t feel that it is necessarily better, easier or more desireable than the path that I am on or the path that you are on.
(I feel like I’m typing on eggshells. I could have ended that last sentence with ‘than gay, conservative Christians’ but can’t shake the expectation that someone would take me to task for generalizing that ‘gay, conservative Christians’ cannot pursue a monogamous, committed same-sex relationship. Your path and mine are not the same path but they do share the belief that pursuing sexual fulfillment homosexually is not what God intended.)
This most recent turn in the discussion points to the widespread belief that human relationships are the be-all, end-all of life. They are definitely part of the grand scheme of our Creator. We do need each other, but we can easily put too much stock in intimacy with other people. Seeking Him first tends to make all other desires pale in comparison and gives us perspective on life, regardless of our struggles or the hand life has dealt us. Just a bit of food for thought.
I totally agree. But the point that I obviously failed to make is that the path of ‘keep looking’ comes complete with it’s own frustrations and dispappointments. Further, that ongoing quest, if it becomes a primary focus of a single’s life, can derail them. It’s most definitely a ‘different world’ but I don’t feel that it is necessarily better, easier or more desireable than the path that I am on or the path that you are on.
(I feel like I’m typing on eggshells. I could have ended that last sentence with ‘than gay, conservative Christians’ but can’t shake the expectation that someone would take me to task for generalizing that ‘gay, conservative Christians’ cannot pursue a monogamous, committed same-sex relationship. Your path and mine are not the same path but they do share the belief that pursuing sexual fulfillment homosexually is not what God intended.)
Eddy, I suspect that generalizing “your lot and mine” as the same is why I responded the way I did. Because we’re both gay and conservative Christian does not mean that our “lots” are the same. Does that make sense? How each of us adapt to life’s circumstances is our own spiritual journey.
I’m still of the opinion that str8 single people “can keep looking” if they’re intent on marrying, if they’re seeking a coupled life … which is a whole different world than gay, conservative Christians.
Careful there. I find you to be a very thoughtful commenter however I said that I thought that my lot and yours weren’t any worse. It’s a stretch on your part to suggest that I’m trying to decide for you what you think merely because I expressed that opinion.
It’s the nature of this blog beast that we are all trying to influence each other’s opinions and points of view. Not sure why that particular comment struck you as ‘trying to decide for you’.
Eddy, I hope I didn’t imply that being gay and chaste was any worse. But, different it is; and, it would be foolish to deny this. I would venture to say, from all the str8 people I’ve known, that those that wanted to get married … got married. That’s my experience only. And, to tell the truth, the issue wasn’t about looking for bliss. They wanted someone in their life; and, by doing the footwork, they found it.
But, here’s the rub, Eddy. They can “still look”. I can’t. Period. That’s a huge difference; and, whether you want to decide for me what I think about my lot in life is really outside your purview.
This makes it sound all so easy. Yet the nephew and niece I spoke of both desire marriage and family; both are growing worried that ‘love may never find them’–or that they may never find it. Can you share the magic secret that can grant them their desire ‘at any time’?
I know many straights–many ‘getting older’ single straights–who haven’t found their bliss. Many of those who don’t hold to conservative Christian values can ‘play around’; they can do the sex thing without marriage or relationship. Predictably, it ‘meets their need’ but the sense of fulfillment is short lived. Over the years I’ve wondered whose lot is the saddest.
I honestly don’t feel that my lot in life (or yours) is worse than the lot of those straights with conservative sexual values who are ‘still looking’.
Eddy, I suspect that generalizing “your lot and mine” as the same is why I responded the way I did. Because we’re both gay and conservative Christian does not mean that our “lots” are the same. Does that make sense? How each of us adapt to life’s circumstances is our own spiritual journey.
I’m still of the opinion that str8 single people “can keep looking” if they’re intent on marrying, if they’re seeking a coupled life … which is a whole different world than gay, conservative Christians.
Eddy, I hope I didn’t imply that being gay and chaste was any worse. But, different it is; and, it would be foolish to deny this. I would venture to say, from all the str8 people I’ve known, that those that wanted to get married … got married. That’s my experience only. And, to tell the truth, the issue wasn’t about looking for bliss. They wanted someone in their life; and, by doing the footwork, they found it.
But, here’s the rub, Eddy. They can “still look”. I can’t. Period. That’s a huge difference; and, whether you want to decide for me what I think about my lot in life is really outside your purview.
They you for the correction; and, the further explication. However, at any time, your str8, single friends can well assume all the ‘trappings’ of marriage, that would be congruent with their faith beliefs, if they’re currently conservative Christian.
Ah, yes, certainly, our world is changing. So, the old, rigid defining identities, once enjoyed only by str8 people, are now being assumed by gay persons. I need to remember that. Thank you, again, for pointing that out.
I happen to know a significant number of current, partnered lesbians, who were once in married, str8 relationships that had children from those marriages.
I have to remember that having the identity of mother or father, no longer can it be assumed marriage is involved … str8 or gay … odds are about even for that.
It’s the Wild, Wild West in our social mores … all changed in far less than a person’s lifetime. Perhaps, the time is not too far off, that str8, married couples will feel out-of-place. 🙂
This question misses a whole lot of straight people. I visited today with a niece and a nephew both in their 30’s and unmarried. They can’t lay claim to any of the defining words in your list—not to ‘engaged’ either. I’ve got four others, all in their 20’s–they can’t lay claim either. It’s actually married people who get to define themselves by their orientation and that line of definition isn’t as rigid as it once was. My best friend and his partner both refer to the other as their ‘husband’; many gays and lesbians now enjoy the title of ‘father’ or ‘mother’–even a few ‘grandmothers’ and ‘grandfathers’.
I think our early Fathers might get hung up over natural law as proscribing homosexuality. But who knows?
Teresa, my position has been that our most significant identity is found in Christ, regardless of what else is a part of us. I speak for a population of undetermined size, but not for all who experience same-sex attractions as incongruent with their faith. I know you see it a bit differently.
We are part and parcel of everything we have experienced, in a way. If homosexuality is to be taken as a significant part of your identity, I have no problem with that. I have a pretty good idea by now of where you are coming from.
My dictionary lists all these words as synonyms for identity: individuality, self, selfhood; personality, character, originality, distinctiveness, differentness, singularity, uniqueness. I find some of those would fit for you.
Paragraph 3, Beginning of sentence 2:
I should have finished that thought … some str8 people are piqued by the fact that a gay person says they’re gay. They want homosexuals to not mention that little fact; although, their orientation is worn on their sleeve.
BTW, Debbie, the article was, in my opinion, well written. I’m not sure Washington and Lincoln would have found much trouble, though, with same-sex marriage. I think they would pretty much be Libertarians. Unless it were to be disruptive in any way, social concord and peace, I’m not sure they’d give a hoot about it.
They were, after all, not Christians; and, both I think can be considered Deists.
This is a wonderful quote! 🙂
Debbie, several questions back for you concerning the bolded words: why do str8 people get to define themselves by their orientation; to wit, husband, wife, mother, father, married, rings, etc.? Why am I always being covertly told, my orientation is not part of my identity? “Nor were they to remain a permanent part of my identity”. What of those of us that same-sex attractions to remain a permanent part of our identity?
I understand you are no longer are same-sex attracted. I’m not offended by what you’ve said; but, I am troubled by it. Troubled, because those of us, no matter what the etiology of homosexuality, who still are homosexual seem to be told in subtle ways, that our orientation is something we can set on a shelf, and go about our business. My orientation is far more than me wanting to go to bed with a woman, which is almost insignificant. The fact is it’s the way my brain thinks, the occupation I chose, the hobbies I have, some mannerisms that I have, things I read, the way I relate to both men and women. It’s not a garment I can toss off at will; and, slip on another more ‘acceptable’ to others. It is part of my identity. However, when I say that; most conservative Christians bristle at that. Why?
Human sexuality is not about sex. It’s about relationship, affectivity. It’s woven through ourselves, our personalities, our temperament. It troubles me that str8 people, and some ex-gays (not meaning you, Debbie), have to continually state their same-sex attraction is not their identity; and, thereby, it seems to me, to be an attempt to separate themselves from other homosexuals who believe differently … and, not in that nebulous term “the lifestyle”. Certainly, it’s not every last thing; but, it’s as much of their identity as their ancestry, their blood line, etc.
The core of the debate is: homosexuality is either an orientation that may be ‘ab’normal (not common), but part of diversity in nature; or, that it is a ‘disordered’ condition (broken, unhealthy, etc.) that needs to be modified, fixed, changed, hidden, not alluded to if possible … but, we’ll allow you to say you’re gay, if you follow the rules.
The issue is fraught with nuance, sensitivity on both sides, good will on both sides mainly, and genuine misunderstanding on/of both sides.
“Preach the Gospel always; if necessary, use words”.
FWIW, I played off Lincoln’s healing words in a recent commentary that addresses this topic we all love/hate to discuss. I don’t much care for the title the editor gave it, but it is here.
Timothy, indeed it is.
I enjoy history; especially, the Civil War era and Reconstruction. The following is the last part of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. The sentiment is so beautiful, the wording exquisite, it almost brings tears to one’s eyes when contemplated. This from a man who was not a Christian. Where have we Christians missed the boat?
Certainly, we can paraphrase (plagiarize) the last paragraph for our own ‘civil war’ (sometimes, not so civil 🙂 ) discussion on the world of same-sex attraction.
“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives each of us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in; to bind up each other’s wounds; to care for all who have borne the battle–to do all which we can to achieve and just and lasting peace among ourselves.”
They you for the correction; and, the further explication. However, at any time, your str8, single friends can well assume all the ‘trappings’ of marriage, that would be congruent with their faith beliefs, if they’re currently conservative Christian.
Ah, yes, certainly, our world is changing. So, the old, rigid defining identities, once enjoyed only by str8 people, are now being assumed by gay persons. I need to remember that. Thank you, again, for pointing that out.
I happen to know a significant number of current, partnered lesbians, who were once in married, str8 relationships that had children from those marriages.
I have to remember that having the identity of mother or father, no longer can it be assumed marriage is involved … str8 or gay … odds are about even for that.
It’s the Wild, Wild West in our social mores … all changed in far less than a person’s lifetime. Perhaps, the time is not too far off, that str8, married couples will feel out-of-place. 🙂
Teresa, my position has been that our most significant identity is found in Christ, regardless of what else is a part of us. I speak for a population of undetermined size, but not for all who experience same-sex attractions as incongruent with their faith. I know you see it a bit differently.
We are part and parcel of everything we have experienced, in a way. If homosexuality is to be taken as a significant part of your identity, I have no problem with that. I have a pretty good idea by now of where you are coming from.
My dictionary lists all these words as synonyms for identity: individuality, self, selfhood; personality, character, originality, distinctiveness, differentness, singularity, uniqueness. I find some of those would fit for you.
This is a wonderful quote! 🙂
Debbie, several questions back for you concerning the bolded words: why do str8 people get to define themselves by their orientation; to wit, husband, wife, mother, father, married, rings, etc.? Why am I always being covertly told, my orientation is not part of my identity? “Nor were they to remain a permanent part of my identity”. What of those of us that same-sex attractions to remain a permanent part of our identity?
I understand you are no longer are same-sex attracted. I’m not offended by what you’ve said; but, I am troubled by it. Troubled, because those of us, no matter what the etiology of homosexuality, who still are homosexual seem to be told in subtle ways, that our orientation is something we can set on a shelf, and go about our business. My orientation is far more than me wanting to go to bed with a woman, which is almost insignificant. The fact is it’s the way my brain thinks, the occupation I chose, the hobbies I have, some mannerisms that I have, things I read, the way I relate to both men and women. It’s not a garment I can toss off at will; and, slip on another more ‘acceptable’ to others. It is part of my identity. However, when I say that; most conservative Christians bristle at that. Why?
Human sexuality is not about sex. It’s about relationship, affectivity. It’s woven through ourselves, our personalities, our temperament. It troubles me that str8 people, and some ex-gays (not meaning you, Debbie), have to continually state their same-sex attraction is not their identity; and, thereby, it seems to me, to be an attempt to separate themselves from other homosexuals who believe differently … and, not in that nebulous term “the lifestyle”. Certainly, it’s not every last thing; but, it’s as much of their identity as their ancestry, their blood line, etc.
The core of the debate is: homosexuality is either an orientation that may be ‘ab’normal (not common), but part of diversity in nature; or, that it is a ‘disordered’ condition (broken, unhealthy, etc.) that needs to be modified, fixed, changed, hidden, not alluded to if possible … but, we’ll allow you to say you’re gay, if you follow the rules.
The issue is fraught with nuance, sensitivity on both sides, good will on both sides mainly, and genuine misunderstanding on/of both sides.
“Preach the Gospel always; if necessary, use words”.
No kidding.
And it’s frustrating, isn’t it?
Sometimes I’ll spend time trying hard to stay within the bounds of what can be discussed only to be berated in a string of comments with accusations about things i didn’t even say. The questioning of a view turned into being called names.
It’s sooooo difficult.
I spend most of my social time with folks who disagree with me vehemently on religion and politics. My social circle is either non-religious or have been deeply hurt by religion and hate it. They also are far far far more to the left than I am.
So I’m pretty used to disagreement.
But I am not at all used to the personalization of views. This is the only place where my thinking a view is wrong is equated with calling the viewholder a bigot. I have to admit I’m not used to the concept.
If you read the words I’ve typed, you’ll find that I do not apply labels to people or brand anyone. If you think I called someone smug, read my words again.
Timothy, but don’t most of the discussions end up short of consensus, resolution? Just take the current debate on the Founding Fathers and Christianity as the basis of Our Country. Short of dragging these men out of their graves and resuscitating them, folks seem bent on casting their own views on them.
It seems to be the human condition, unless really worked on, that we find what we’re looking for and throw away the rest. We’re all tied up into being ‘right’; because, we’re scared to death of what it means to be wrong. We can’t separate ourselves from our views/opinions. Everything becomes personal.
Taken this to its final end, ti’s what generates hostility, anger, war. Life becomes our little boxes of: us vs. them, we’re in .. you’re out, we’re right … you’re wrong, we’re good … you’re bad. Sad, really.
Debbie stated:
Actually, I think it’s the last thing adults can handle. Usually, most adults try not to get into discussions regarding politics or religion. Unless, the participants are of like-mind, these discussions usually end up just short of shouting matches. Of course, some involved just shut up and try to move on with a different conversation.
I’m not too sure any of us actually socialize to a great extent with people of differing views other than our own. And, I don’t mean the casual neighborhood party, office party kind of socializing. I mean the friendship kind of socializing.
Maybe it’s just me, but the more conservative Christians I know, or the really politically involved folks (right or left), seem to hang out only with the clan … “birds of a feather” kind of thing. The old saying, “show me who your friends are, and I’ll know who you are” seems to be apt here.
Timothy said:
Debbie said:
Teresa said:
I guess these questions go out to all of us here: Can we really have an intelligent conversation when our views are so radically opposed, when the topic is so integral to who we are? (We’re not talking here, folks, you like Coke and I like Pepsi). Do we really have underlying motives of wanting to convince “the other side” (no matter what side) that they’re wrong and we’re right … you’re stepping on my toes, and it hurts, please don’t do that. Can someone who’s not gay (homosexual/same-sex attracted) really understand what this means for someone’s person and someone’s life?
Just musing; but, I’m not quite sure of the answers to these questions for myself.
Teresa,
Apologies for the last paragraph on the above comment. It was included to make a point to Debbie. The rest is my real response.
Debbie,
This is a passive-aggressive comment:
See, it’s all “oh I’m so wrong” while really being a dig at the other person.
This was an attempt to communicate:
(and I got no points for comedy… sigh)
And this was an effort to soften the previous and make it not seem like an attack
And, finally, this thread has completely devolved to pointlessness, hasn’t it?
Teresa,
Maybe I erred in assuming that we were talking about a bigger concept than what is said on this particular thread at this particular site. I was trying to speak about how Debbie’s approach – however sincere – is not going to be well received by homosexual people within the gay community.
We are not unfamiliar with talk about “we are all sinners”. This is not a novel approach. It come’s with baggage.
Every so often we get evangelists with a heart for the homosexual who set up in the heart of West Hollywood to tell us the good news that Jesus loves us and that our sin is no greater than their own.
The last one put up an “apology” sign for how the church had treated the gay community. She was also passing out Joe Dallas’ book and gave an interview about how she felt so bad for those trapped in such a horrible lifestyle.
She didn’t last very long.
But, ya know, I’m not sure that there is much interest here as to what the gay community thinks. So I guess that my comment wasn’t appropriate.
No kidding.
And it’s frustrating, isn’t it?
Sometimes I’ll spend time trying hard to stay within the bounds of what can be discussed only to be berated in a string of comments with accusations about things i didn’t even say. The questioning of a view turned into being called names.
It’s sooooo difficult.
I spend most of my social time with folks who disagree with me vehemently on religion and politics. My social circle is either non-religious or have been deeply hurt by religion and hate it. They also are far far far more to the left than I am.
So I’m pretty used to disagreement.
But I am not at all used to the personalization of views. This is the only place where my thinking a view is wrong is equated with calling the viewholder a bigot. I have to admit I’m not used to the concept.
Timothy, but don’t most of the discussions end up short of consensus, resolution? Just take the current debate on the Founding Fathers and Christianity as the basis of Our Country. Short of dragging these men out of their graves and resuscitating them, folks seem bent on casting their own views on them.
It seems to be the human condition, unless really worked on, that we find what we’re looking for and throw away the rest. We’re all tied up into being ‘right’; because, we’re scared to death of what it means to be wrong. We can’t separate ourselves from our views/opinions. Everything becomes personal.
Taken this to its final end, ti’s what generates hostility, anger, war. Life becomes our little boxes of: us vs. them, we’re in .. you’re out, we’re right … you’re wrong, we’re good … you’re bad. Sad, really.
Debbie stated:
Actually, I think it’s the last thing adults can handle. Usually, most adults try not to get into discussions regarding politics or religion. Unless, the participants are of like-mind, these discussions usually end up just short of shouting matches. Of course, some involved just shut up and try to move on with a different conversation.
I’m not too sure any of us actually socialize to a great extent with people of differing views other than our own. And, I don’t mean the casual neighborhood party, office party kind of socializing. I mean the friendship kind of socializing.
Maybe it’s just me, but the more conservative Christians I know, or the really politically involved folks (right or left), seem to hang out only with the clan … “birds of a feather” kind of thing. The old saying, “show me who your friends are, and I’ll know who you are” seems to be apt here.
Timothy said:
Debbie said:
Teresa said:
I guess these questions go out to all of us here: Can we really have an intelligent conversation when our views are so radically opposed, when the topic is so integral to who we are? (We’re not talking here, folks, you like Coke and I like Pepsi). Do we really have underlying motives of wanting to convince “the other side” (no matter what side) that they’re wrong and we’re right … you’re stepping on my toes, and it hurts, please don’t do that. Can someone who’s not gay (homosexual/same-sex attracted) really understand what this means for someone’s person and someone’s life?
Just musing; but, I’m not quite sure of the answers to these questions for myself.
Teresa,
Apologies for the last paragraph on the above comment. It was included to make a point to Debbie. The rest is my real response.
Debbie,
This is a passive-aggressive comment:
See, it’s all “oh I’m so wrong” while really being a dig at the other person.
This was an attempt to communicate:
(and I got no points for comedy… sigh)
And this was an effort to soften the previous and make it not seem like an attack
And, finally, this thread has completely devolved to pointlessness, hasn’t it?
Oh, brother. This passive-aggressive nonsense has run its course here, Timothy. Be the man and just own up to what you really feel. You are free to do so. How about we just disagree agreeably and leave it at that?
I don’t “want” or need for you to say anything in particular. I have no ulterior motives in anything I say. We each have a viewpoint. They clash. Such is life. Adults can generally handle that without pitching a hissy fit. Just try to keep your comments content-focused and fact-based rather than speculative or ad hominem attacks against the person you disagree with, please.
I’m gonna jump in here and say that I found the following statement by Debbie to be welcoming and gracious.
In my opinion, remember it’s just me, I think we gay people can tend to be ultra-sensitive to others remarks, opinions, ideas. I know I certainly have been; and, at times, still am on occasion.
Timothy:
Timothy, aren’t you actually saying that Debbie is smug by the rest of your sentence above? Why does it have to be heard as ‘smug’? Isn’t the person hearing a sentence just as responsible for their own feelings? “It’s our reaction to an event, not the event itself that makes us feel the way we do”, right?
I get it, Timothy, about how some statements certainly can be hurtful. I’ve been the recipient of them. But, I’m also becoming aware (slowly, I’ll admit) that what someone else says or does, doesn’t necessarily mean I have to be hurt by it.
In the final analysis, Timothy, are you trying to imply that we, conservative Christians (not matter what stripe), are not entitled to voice our opinion? If we do voice our thoughts, you’ll brand us as smug, condescending, judgmental … which, of course, we can choose to ignore … but the conversation has for all intents and purposes really ceased.
p.s. I’m not saying you are smug… just that it’s how that will be heard.
Debbie,
I think you are more than capable of rational thought. But you do come from a different viewpoint and are, in my opinion, quite often inclined to start with the premise that your viewpoint is all that matters.
I mean, what did you want, Debbie?
Did you want for me to say, “Oh, Debbie, it doesn’t matter that what you said is a clear example of how good-intentioned people blow it when they talk to gay people. I’ll just say nothing so that you can feel that I’m respecting your thinking.”
I respect your rational thought enough to counter what you say, challenge the presumption, and try to present another way of seeing things (you might notice that some folks don’t inspire my response).
And be honest. You thought that you had presented the ideal oh so very very Christlike approach. Right?
And, it is, in a way. Christ did tell us that our own shortcomings are of far more importance to God and our interaction with Him than someone else’s huge egregious horrifying sin.
I’m just pointing out that when gay folk have heard that approach it has been accompanied with an amount of smugness that you usually only find in a Prius-driving, Greenpeace-funding, no-fur, vegan actress campaigning for Darfur.
I have not been watching this thread for awhile preferring to spend time on the church state thing. A reader contacted me about this comment and so I looked in.
I am removing comments related to the Lisa Miller case. I don’t fault people for wondering what is going on but I am not interested in getting the blog anywhere close to the legalities in this case.
Let me add that I completely disagree with Lisa Miller’s decision to flee the country and hope that all involved in aiding her are brought to justice. In my opinion, there was nothing Christian in the approach that was taken. Unless I start a thread on the issue, I will delete comments about it.
I said I read it, remember? I already get that you entirely reject my viewpoint, and further, that you believe I am incapable of rational thought. You, apparently, just don’t get what that does to any conversation we may have.
Eddy, thanks for the caveat. I appreciate it… and I totally understand what you mean.
Well said.
Debbie
Except… that I don’t agree that homosexuality (or homosexual behavior) is sin. And that really is the disconnect that the Evangelical world has when it come to gay folk.
I’m not saying this is you, Debby… it’s just a segue..
Quite often Evangelicals think its a two-way street. They repent for being judgmental and rejecting, and gay folks repent of being homosexual. And then only one half of that happens.
Gay folk say, “yes, you were judgmental and rejecting. Thanks for the apology and what are you going to do to make up for it?”
This is not what Evangelicals expect.
And when the gay folk refuse to agree that ‘homosexuality is not God’s best plan for your life”, they see it as a hardened heart that rejects God and then further justification for further rejecting attitudes. “Well, I tried. I went to the gays in love and humility and they laughed in God’s face!!”
We hear things like:
“I’m not saying I’m any better”
“We all are sinners”
“God loves us all the same”
“I judge my own sin first”
And I just KNOW that the person saying them is trying so very very hard to “have a heart for the homosexual” and “meet him on his own terms”. And they have it so very very wrong.
All these phrases are very good and very true. But they have nothing to do with approaching gay folk.
And when gay people hear these things from folk who believe that being gay is sin, they sound less like apology and more like arrogance and condescension (like those “I’m sorry that you misunderstood me and got offended” apologies which imply that I’m right and you’re an overly sensitive idiot).
If you want to know how the “all are sinners” talk sounds to gay folk, think of having a mission to the Democrats and coming in love and humility to say, “well, there are time when I too am stupid and misguided.” That only works if the Democrats think that Democrats are, by nature, stupid and misguided.
So I very much doubt “I hate my own sin” is the starting place. Or not if it includes assumptions about what is sin and who has it. (And as sin talk has justified decades of abuse, gay folks are not particularly receptive to that starting place)
I really do recommend reading my commentary.
Then I will just say, “He is risen, indeed!”
Debbie,
Actually, there are, but lets save that for another time/thread. I prefer to enjoy the mostly good will that seems to be permeating this thread of late 🙂
Happy Easter to all. The proper greeting in Orthodox Churches is to simply say, Christ is Risen! 🙂
Eddy,
I really do understand that for some gay people there is indeed a “lifestyle” involved with the identification, and I mean that in the way in which you spoke about it above. I think its important for people to know, though, that just because you identify as gay, this does not mean some kind of lifestyle automatically follows. Heck, there are a few people who have commented on this blog who identify as gay but are celibate for religious reasons :). I identify as gay and were there to be some stereotypical requirements for membership to this id, I would have had my card revoked long ago 🙂
Then I will just say, “He is risen, indeed!”
Debbie,
Actually, there are, but lets save that for another time/thread. I prefer to enjoy the mostly good will that seems to be permeating this thread of late 🙂
Happy Easter to all. The proper greeting in Orthodox Churches is to simply say, Christ is Risen! 🙂
Eddy,
I really do understand that for some gay people there is indeed a “lifestyle” involved with the identification, and I mean that in the way in which you spoke about it above. I think its important for people to know, though, that just because you identify as gay, this does not mean some kind of lifestyle automatically follows. Heck, there are a few people who have commented on this blog who identify as gay but are celibate for religious reasons :). I identify as gay and were there to be some stereotypical requirements for membership to this id, I would have had my card revoked long ago 🙂
I’ve had attractions for women–was close to getting engaged once–but I wasn’t sure that the attractions I had were enough to commit to a lifetime relationship. A Christian with conservative values doesn’t have the special permission to sample heterosexual sex prior to the marriage committment. I did NOT enjoy kissing and hand-holding but I didn’t like that with guys either.
Generally speaking, I reckognize attractive men and women but seldom envision any person as a prospective partner. LOL. Not sure if that’s a by-product of years of self-discipline or a natural by-product of aging.
I hope that’s wnough of an answer; I try not to analyze myself so much anymore.
Eddy,
Thank you for clarifying the term; and, what it means for you.
For me, Eddy, if I ever were to use the term ex-gay, which I couldn’t, it would mean that I was no longer homosexual. It would mean, for me, that I was attracted to men, sexually and could relate well emotionally to men. It would mean, for me, that I could and would really want to marry a man, and give that man the relationship that he is entitled to with a str8 woman.
Those things I’ve just described, Eddy, are impossible for me (at least, right now, and if I were a betting person, ’til the grave). So, on a need to know basis, I openly tell persons, I’m gay/homosexual/same-sex attracted … whatever, they all mean the same to me; but, I’ve chosen to live a chaste life.
Mary and Debbie are truly ex-gay, if I understand correctly. They’re str8; although, had a period of time of having same-sex attractions … but, not now.
Can I correctly say that this is the case for you, Eddy? Sheesh, I hope this isn’t too personal. If it is, just skip the whole thing, Eddy. The thing is, it’s taking me awhile to understand where each person who blogs here is coming from.
It’s unfair of me to lump people in one big bucket of “gay/homosexual” … when, in fact, they aren’t. It’s unfair of me to think there can’t be ‘change’ … homosexual to str8 … when there can be. It’s unfair of me, Eddy, to consider you a homosexual when you’re not now.
I can dialog better with people, if I understand who they are, and a bit about their journey. This is in all areas, not just sexual orientation, e.g., religion, culture, nationality, where we grow up, etc. I can try to see “through their eyes and heart”, so-to-speak; or, at least attempt to.
I’ve had attractions for women–was close to getting engaged once–but I wasn’t sure that the attractions I had were enough to commit to a lifetime relationship. A Christian with conservative values doesn’t have the special permission to sample heterosexual sex prior to the marriage committment. I did NOT enjoy kissing and hand-holding but I didn’t like that with guys either.
Generally speaking, I reckognize attractive men and women but seldom envision any person as a prospective partner. LOL. Not sure if that’s a by-product of years of self-discipline or a natural by-product of aging.
I hope that’s wnough of an answer; I try not to analyze myself so much anymore.
Teresa–
To me, ‘ex-gay’ means primarily ‘out of the gay lifestyle’. (Others: Please note: she asked what it means to me. I realize there are many gays who don’t identify with ‘lifestyle’ but I was in one…my friends, my music, my clothes, where I chose to live, the bars and restaurants I chose to frequent, the way I noticed people…it was all dominated by a gay theme. I also refer at times to the ‘hippie lifestyle’ I identified with prior to coming out.)
For others, ‘ex-gay’ can take on variations of meaning…from “I no longer do that” to “I now find fulfillment in a hetero relationship”; it seldom if ever means “I have amnesia and forget that I once found pleasure and a measure of fulfillment in same gender sexual relations and/or relationships.”
Agreed that the church has most definitely given tacit approval to issues like birth control and divorce/remarriage; I strongly suspect that within a generation they will respond to homosexuality in a similar manner.
Like that. 🙂
Debbie, it sure does start the conversation on the right footing. In the final analysis, we all just beggars showing one another where to find B(b)read.
I’ve been listening a lot lately to Pastor/Doctor Greg Boyd, with whom I find a lot in common in his spirituality. I especially like his t-shirt statement: “It’s Against My Relationship, to have a religion”
Eddy, 25 years ago is a very, very short time ago in regards to the Catholic Church. In 1955, the entire Catholic Church throughout the world had 93 annulments granted, IIRC. That’s a short time ago, Eddy. Today, the Catholic Church in America, alone, has approximately 50,000 annulments per year.
I think this is an excellent statement; and, one that is very helpful to remember.
I’m not sure, Eddy, what you mean by being ‘ex-gay’. Can you elaborate a bit more on this? I know for some persons, it means they’re no longer homosexual. They’re now str8. For others, it can mean they’ve chosen to live a chaste life; but, still have same-sex attractions. For others, it means … I’m not sure. I would like to be able to understand what that term means for you, Eddy.
I, also, think, Eddy, that although we can only guess what each individual, little, church building group might do; there’s no doubt that the Christian Church in America today … whatever stripe … has tacitly approved divorce and remarriage, artificial birth control, etc. If not, they’d have no parishioners.
Eddy,
Thank you for clarifying the term; and, what it means for you.
For me, Eddy, if I ever were to use the term ex-gay, which I couldn’t, it would mean that I was no longer homosexual. It would mean, for me, that I was attracted to men, sexually and could relate well emotionally to men. It would mean, for me, that I could and would really want to marry a man, and give that man the relationship that he is entitled to with a str8 woman.
Those things I’ve just described, Eddy, are impossible for me (at least, right now, and if I were a betting person, ’til the grave). So, on a need to know basis, I openly tell persons, I’m gay/homosexual/same-sex attracted … whatever, they all mean the same to me; but, I’ve chosen to live a chaste life.
Mary and Debbie are truly ex-gay, if I understand correctly. They’re str8; although, had a period of time of having same-sex attractions … but, not now.
Can I correctly say that this is the case for you, Eddy? Sheesh, I hope this isn’t too personal. If it is, just skip the whole thing, Eddy. The thing is, it’s taking me awhile to understand where each person who blogs here is coming from.
It’s unfair of me to lump people in one big bucket of “gay/homosexual” … when, in fact, they aren’t. It’s unfair of me to think there can’t be ‘change’ … homosexual to str8 … when there can be. It’s unfair of me, Eddy, to consider you a homosexual when you’re not now.
I can dialog better with people, if I understand who they are, and a bit about their journey. This is in all areas, not just sexual orientation, e.g., religion, culture, nationality, where we grow up, etc. I can try to see “through their eyes and heart”, so-to-speak; or, at least attempt to.
Teresa–
Just for the record, that annulment was approximately 25 years ago. Not sure where you got the notion of recent.
With regards to my other brother, he and his girlfriend had approached a number of churches hoping to have a church wedding. All but one cut them off cold when they learned that they were ‘living in sin’. It was the church that lived out the truth of ‘love the sinner; hate the sin’ that changed their lives.
I don’t know a single person. straight or gay, who heard the words ‘love the sinner hate the sin’ or ‘love the sinner but not the sin’ in a one to one pastoral or counseling setting. It’s a philosophy that many churches strive to live by and gets more exposure in the contest of a sermon or a mission statement.
There are churches that won’t accept a chaste homosexual (or an ex-gay) into leadership but I don’t believe that it’s because they feel the blemish from that sin doesn’t quite wash through the sacrifice of Calvary. It seems more of a response to the ‘once gay always gay’ hype. “We see you as clean and justified–just as much as we are–but everything we hear and read indicates that it’s likely you will fall back into it.” When that’s coupled with doubts about any single person, whether straight or gay, being able to remain chaste for a lifetime…well, it’s not a risk many are willing to take.
I do however know of ex-gays or celibate homosexuals who enjoyed leadership roles. I never aspired to be a pastor but assumed various leadership positions that were not withheld from me due to my being from a gay background.
It occurred to me this morning that we all need to be careful of our generalized perceptions. I pass a dozen or more churches on my way to work or while on errands. All that I really KNOW about them is clues from their name, what they post as sermon titles and the look of people I see coming and going. This is even true of the church I can see from my window as I type. I can guess or assume their responses to homosexuality, abortion, divorce and remarriage but I must honestly admit that I don’t KNOW. My experience as an ‘out there’ ex-gay tells me that I can help shape their response.
I think we should all be willing to say first, “I hate my own sin.” Perhaps that starts the conversation off on the right foot.
Teresa–
To me, ‘ex-gay’ means primarily ‘out of the gay lifestyle’. (Others: Please note: she asked what it means to me. I realize there are many gays who don’t identify with ‘lifestyle’ but I was in one…my friends, my music, my clothes, where I chose to live, the bars and restaurants I chose to frequent, the way I noticed people…it was all dominated by a gay theme. I also refer at times to the ‘hippie lifestyle’ I identified with prior to coming out.)
For others, ‘ex-gay’ can take on variations of meaning…from “I no longer do that” to “I now find fulfillment in a hetero relationship”; it seldom if ever means “I have amnesia and forget that I once found pleasure and a measure of fulfillment in same gender sexual relations and/or relationships.”
Agreed that the church has most definitely given tacit approval to issues like birth control and divorce/remarriage; I strongly suspect that within a generation they will respond to homosexuality in a similar manner.
Like that. 🙂
Debbie, it sure does start the conversation on the right footing. In the final analysis, we all just beggars showing one another where to find B(b)read.
I’ve been listening a lot lately to Pastor/Doctor Greg Boyd, with whom I find a lot in common in his spirituality. I especially like his t-shirt statement: “It’s Against My Relationship, to have a religion”
Eddy, 25 years ago is a very, very short time ago in regards to the Catholic Church. In 1955, the entire Catholic Church throughout the world had 93 annulments granted, IIRC. That’s a short time ago, Eddy. Today, the Catholic Church in America, alone, has approximately 50,000 annulments per year.
I think this is an excellent statement; and, one that is very helpful to remember.
I’m not sure, Eddy, what you mean by being ‘ex-gay’. Can you elaborate a bit more on this? I know for some persons, it means they’re no longer homosexual. They’re now str8. For others, it can mean they’ve chosen to live a chaste life; but, still have same-sex attractions. For others, it means … I’m not sure. I would like to be able to understand what that term means for you, Eddy.
I, also, think, Eddy, that although we can only guess what each individual, little, church building group might do; there’s no doubt that the Christian Church in America today … whatever stripe … has tacitly approved divorce and remarriage, artificial birth control, etc. If not, they’d have no parishioners.
Teresa–
Just for the record, that annulment was approximately 25 years ago. Not sure where you got the notion of recent.
With regards to my other brother, he and his girlfriend had approached a number of churches hoping to have a church wedding. All but one cut them off cold when they learned that they were ‘living in sin’. It was the church that lived out the truth of ‘love the sinner; hate the sin’ that changed their lives.
I don’t know a single person. straight or gay, who heard the words ‘love the sinner hate the sin’ or ‘love the sinner but not the sin’ in a one to one pastoral or counseling setting. It’s a philosophy that many churches strive to live by and gets more exposure in the contest of a sermon or a mission statement.
There are churches that won’t accept a chaste homosexual (or an ex-gay) into leadership but I don’t believe that it’s because they feel the blemish from that sin doesn’t quite wash through the sacrifice of Calvary. It seems more of a response to the ‘once gay always gay’ hype. “We see you as clean and justified–just as much as we are–but everything we hear and read indicates that it’s likely you will fall back into it.” When that’s coupled with doubts about any single person, whether straight or gay, being able to remain chaste for a lifetime…well, it’s not a risk many are willing to take.
I do however know of ex-gays or celibate homosexuals who enjoyed leadership roles. I never aspired to be a pastor but assumed various leadership positions that were not withheld from me due to my being from a gay background.
It occurred to me this morning that we all need to be careful of our generalized perceptions. I pass a dozen or more churches on my way to work or while on errands. All that I really KNOW about them is clues from their name, what they post as sermon titles and the look of people I see coming and going. This is even true of the church I can see from my window as I type. I can guess or assume their responses to homosexuality, abortion, divorce and remarriage but I must honestly admit that I don’t KNOW. My experience as an ‘out there’ ex-gay tells me that I can help shape their response.
I think we should all be willing to say first, “I hate my own sin.” Perhaps that starts the conversation off on the right foot.
Eddy, thank you for this input. I’m assuming (always a bad thing to do) that you’re speaking of divorce and remarriage?
Eddy, I will not expound on the recent Catholic Church’s annulment proceedings. Suffice to say, it’s been likened to Catholic divorce. Your former sister-in-law’s annulment means she can remarry. A divorced person in the Catholic Church always has been able to receive the church sacraments, if they do not remarry. Remarriage is the key to the problem for divorced people. There have always been valid reasons for separating: spousal abuse, dangerous addictions etc. These have not been reasons to remarry, however.
The crux of the matter, Eddy, that we were discussing is the use of the phrase: “love the sinner, hate the sin”. This phrase, I can only guess, was never applied to the cases you have exampled. How your church handles cases of “unacceptable” behavior, doesn’t imply denigrating their person.
Stop sleeping together and get church counseling, before you get married, is no threat to a person’s dignity. Were they told: “we love you as sinners, but hate the sin”. I suspect not. They more than likely were told, this is what you have to do, to be able to get married in this church. You’re OK if you do this. Eddy, do you understand that the implication of the phrase: “love the sinner, hate the sin” implies to me, you’re never OK whatever you do?
Tell me, Eddy, what would your church do, if a homosexual couple arrived in your church, and sought counseling? Could I make a guess as to what phrase would be used in their case? Could I hazard a guess, they’d have a lot of hoops to jump through, even if they gave up their relationship? “We love the sinner, but hate the sin.”
Will your church accept an out, chaste, same-sex attracted person into leadership? If not, why not? Does your church even believe there are chaste homosexuals?
Clarification: I have six brothers. The evangelicallly married one and the Catholic one are two different people.
Teresa–
The churches I’ve been involved with will accept a divorced person into membership and fellowship but will not allow them to assume any position of leadership. (My heart was torn for the women involved–3 that I remember–because they were godly women whose husbands had cheated on them…)
When my brother and his girlfriend wanted to get married with the blessings of a local evangelical church, they were required to stop sleeping together and to attend church counseling.
My youngest brother cheated on his wife even before they were married. The Catholic church annulled their marriage so his wife can stilll partake in all of the church sacraments.
I like this too. Trying to even explain that doesn’t seem to work sometimes.
Eddy, thank you for this input. I’m assuming (always a bad thing to do) that you’re speaking of divorce and remarriage?
Eddy, I will not expound on the recent Catholic Church’s annulment proceedings. Suffice to say, it’s been likened to Catholic divorce. Your former sister-in-law’s annulment means she can remarry. A divorced person in the Catholic Church always has been able to receive the church sacraments, if they do not remarry. Remarriage is the key to the problem for divorced people. There have always been valid reasons for separating: spousal abuse, dangerous addictions etc. These have not been reasons to remarry, however.
The crux of the matter, Eddy, that we were discussing is the use of the phrase: “love the sinner, hate the sin”. This phrase, I can only guess, was never applied to the cases you have exampled. How your church handles cases of “unacceptable” behavior, doesn’t imply denigrating their person.
Stop sleeping together and get church counseling, before you get married, is no threat to a person’s dignity. Were they told: “we love you as sinners, but hate the sin”. I suspect not. They more than likely were told, this is what you have to do, to be able to get married in this church. You’re OK if you do this. Eddy, do you understand that the implication of the phrase: “love the sinner, hate the sin” implies to me, you’re never OK whatever you do?
Tell me, Eddy, what would your church do, if a homosexual couple arrived in your church, and sought counseling? Could I make a guess as to what phrase would be used in their case? Could I hazard a guess, they’d have a lot of hoops to jump through, even if they gave up their relationship? “We love the sinner, but hate the sin.”
Will your church accept an out, chaste, same-sex attracted person into leadership? If not, why not? Does your church even believe there are chaste homosexuals?
If Warren sees this, could you please disregard the 8:04 pm second attempt, and approve the 7:55 pm post?
Teresa–
The churches I’ve been involved with will accept a divorced person into membership and fellowship but will not allow them to assume any position of leadership. (My heart was torn for the women involved–3 that I remember–because they were godly women whose husbands had cheated on them…)
When my brother and his girlfriend wanted to get married with the blessings of a local evangelical church, they were required to stop sleeping together and to attend church counseling.
My youngest brother cheated on his wife even before they were married. The Catholic church annulled their marriage so his wife can stilll partake in all of the church sacraments.
“I hate Dr. Strangelove and 2001 and Clockwork Orange and The Shining and Full Metal Jacket…
…but I love Stanley Kubrick!”
If a Christian were to say to me, “I love you, Rob, but I hate your seven-year homosexual relationship with Juan M. and your three-year homosexual relationship with Don O.,” it as silly as saying “I love this director but I hate nearly all of his movies, including all of his greatest achievements.”
And note that I’m not even getting into whether it’s “mean-spirited” or not; I’m saying that there’s an absurd illogic to it.
So whether it offends me personally is beside the point; the main thing is that it offends reason when someone says, “I love you, but I hate the relationships that brought out the very best in you, simply because those relationships did not conform to my idealized standard.”
Ack, just got a comment caught by the spam-filter, and I’m not sure why… maybe the filter-bots don’t like Stanley Kubrick references.
“I hate Dr. Strangelove and 2001: A Space Odyssey and Clockwork Orange and The Shining and Full Metal Jacket…
…but I love Stanley Kubrick!”
If a Christian were to say to me, “I love you, Rob, but I hate your seven-year homosexual relationship with Juan M. and your three-year homosexual relationship with Don O.,” it as silly as saying “I love this director but I hate nearly all of his movies, including all of his greatest achievements.”
And note that I’m not even getting into whether it’s “mean-spirited” or not; I’m saying that there’s an absurd illogic to it.
So whether it offends ME personally is beside the point; the main thing is that it offends REASON when a Christian says, “I love you, but I hate the relationships that brought out the very best in you, simply because those relationships did not conform to my idealized standard.”
Teresa,
Yes, let me clarify. I should have said that it is the perception of the gay community that when it hears that phrase it will soon be followed by injustice, cruelty, and unbridled hatred.
Thank you, Debbie, for this comment. I really needed to hear this. Sometimes, not too often, thankfully, I just want to sit down and cry. Ah, but Easter’s coming … so, it’ll be OK.
Thanks again.
I’m not sure I’d go quite as far as you do, Timothy; but, I sure agree that the statement is very offensive, at least to me. I find it very disrespectful, as I stated previously.
However, I’m a big girl now; and, I’ll pull up my big girl pants, and get on with life. In so doing, I’ll try to give people the benefit of the doubt … and, do unto others, as I would have them do unto me. But, let me tell you, sometimes I’m doing that gritting my teeth.
Nobody who hasn’t experienced it will ever understand it, Teresa. I don’t know how they can. They can be caring and they can be a friend, but the are always walking a few steps behind us instead of with us.. Many of the things that bring us pain or confusion in this world are commonly shared by most people. This isn’t.
Eddy, I’m sure what you say here is right; but, to tell you the truth, I don’t understand at all that way. I take it, and this is probably only me, but as a cover for the person saying it, I reject you (me as a person), but I’ll paper it over with, “love the sinner, hate the sin”. Why isn’t it phrased, if it all, “love the person”?
I see the statement “love the sinner, hate the sin”, as a sign of disrespect. But, remember, that’s only me.
Also, I’m not sure if Christians even say anymore that divorce and remarriage is a sin. Do they in any church you attend, Eddy?
Also, so implicit in this, Eddy, isn’t it, that Christians see something really wrong about being homosexual, no matter the behavior? The ex-gay movement had to come up with more christianese speak to cover over people’s real dislike for homosexuals, in their personhood, as people, their very dignity. I’m not that self-centered to think I’m unique in thinking this.
This is the part about Christianity that bothers me so much. In the final analysis, it doesn’t matter what my behavior is. If I say I’m gay, “game, set, match” … I’m done for. I’ve been labeled, classified, set apart as the sin. I can put lipstick on the pig; but, in the end I’m still a pig (sorry for the metaphor). I can pretty it up, by using the christianese speak of saying I’m same-sex attracted, it still doesn’t matter.
So, I’ve pretty much given up thinking most Christians are going to understand this, when they think about it at all. They’ll live their lives fornicating, pornographing, aborting, adultering, spousal abusing, birth-controlling, divorcing … some of them, not so much (if at all) … but, for a good many, thinking the world’s going to hell in a hand-basket because of homosexuals.
I like this too. Trying to even explain that doesn’t seem to work sometimes.
Teresa,
The origins of the phrase go back to Augustine:
In theory this would be the way in which Christendom approaches all sin. However, as you noted, it’s usage does seem to reside solely – or nearly so – in response to gay people.
Sadly, in practice, only half of “love the sinner, hate the sin” appears to be detectable.
As Eddy noted, the behavior that was demonstrated towards gay people required an explanation. Gay people noted efforts taken in the name of Christianity to deny them certain forms of employment, quarantine them on an island, deny their ability to plead their case in court, and such descriptions as militant, perverted, evil, minions of Satan and the like and thought that they detected hate.
So it was important that Christians have a clarification that would simultaneously allow them to continue to pursue such responses while also denying the presence of any hatred directed at those who felt under attack.
So Augustine’s approach was ideal. Any hatred that gay people may have experience by being evicted, fired, deported, or subjected to dehumanizing language was “perfect hatred”. It wasn’t directed towards them as people, just towards their behavior. And once that “fault was cured” then they wouldn’t be evicted, jailed, or beaten in the street.
Of course, as “love the sinner, hate the sin” was only in practice a justification for practicing cruelty, it has now become a bit of a code word. Whenever gay people – or secular people – hear or see the phrase, we know that injustice, cruelty, and unbridled hatred are present.
Teresa–
I’m not sure but I believe the slogan ‘love the sinner, but not the sin’ was born in the early days of the ‘ex-gay movement. First, it was a message to the church that their hateful atttitudes towards gay people were off base. Second, it was a message to gay people that although we view the behavior as sin, we see more to you than that.
Why you don’t hear it in those other contexts you cited is, in my opinion, because you can say that you believe those behaviors are sin without the person assuming therefore that you hate them.
I’m sure there are more thoughts on the matter that will be forthcoming from others.
I, also read your essay, Timothy. And, although, we differ concerning same-gender behavior, I must ask those here a question that rings true for me in Timothy’s article.
Why do str8 people get a pass with “we love the sinner, but not the sin”. I’ve never, ever heard that in regard to str8 behavior. I’ve never heard str8 Christians tell people who practice artificial birth control … your sin is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance … when 20-25% of birth control pills use is abortifacient. Actually, I’ve never heard that usage for abortion. I’ve never heard “we love the sinner, but hate the sin”, for those str8 Christians who divorce and remarry. Why does this get a pass? Why don’t those who’ve divorced get told they need to live the rest of their lives chastely, and don’t think about remarrying? I’ve never heard it used for fornicators, str8’s living together … we love the sinner, but hate the sin.
I don’t think this is being over-sensitive, either. In my world, this is just a plain fact. The only place I’ve seen this statement over and over, is in regard to homosexuals.
The Christian churches have any number of ministries for divorced people, grief groups, youth groups, etc. … but, only recently, and only in some cases, are gay people acknowledged as existing in the churches … and, truth be told, behind the “love the sinner, hate the sin”, is the idea, (at least in my opinion), in most churches … please, don’t tell us who you are. Please, stay in the closet.
This Christian attitude does try one’s patience. As the old saying goes: “It’s almost enough to make a preacher cuss”.
Debbie,
I know that you were discussing homosexuality, not homosexual people, and it was our difference in views about homosexuality that I was pointing out.
I’m not sure what you mean about the burden of understanding each other, etc. But I do hope that my piece gave you a view into how gay people see evangelical efforts which “have a heart” for them.
Read your piece, Timothy. All Christians are called to have a heart for all people at all times. That’s going to play out however it plays out. All the piety either side can muster is not enough at the end of the day. We have to throw it all back on God. This burden of trying to understand each other can only be borne with Him smack in the middle of it. I want to see you in heaven one day. Then we will know everything.
Timothy, I was not saying those things about homosexual people. The self-righteous and ignorance comment was meant more for other Christians. I was making a blanket statement about all of humanity. That’s the one thing we will always in common.
If Warren sees this, could you please disregard the 8:04 pm second attempt, and approve the 7:55 pm post?
“I hate Dr. Strangelove and 2001 and Clockwork Orange and The Shining and Full Metal Jacket…
…but I love Stanley Kubrick!”
If a Christian were to say to me, “I love you, Rob, but I hate your seven-year homosexual relationship with Juan M. and your three-year homosexual relationship with Don O.,” it as silly as saying “I love this director but I hate nearly all of his movies, including all of his greatest achievements.”
And note that I’m not even getting into whether it’s “mean-spirited” or not; I’m saying that there’s an absurd illogic to it.
So whether it offends me personally is beside the point; the main thing is that it offends reason when someone says, “I love you, but I hate the relationships that brought out the very best in you, simply because those relationships did not conform to my idealized standard.”
Ack, just got a comment caught by the spam-filter, and I’m not sure why… maybe the filter-bots don’t like Stanley Kubrick references.
“I hate Dr. Strangelove and 2001: A Space Odyssey and Clockwork Orange and The Shining and Full Metal Jacket…
…but I love Stanley Kubrick!”
If a Christian were to say to me, “I love you, Rob, but I hate your seven-year homosexual relationship with Juan M. and your three-year homosexual relationship with Don O.,” it as silly as saying “I love this director but I hate nearly all of his movies, including all of his greatest achievements.”
And note that I’m not even getting into whether it’s “mean-spirited” or not; I’m saying that there’s an absurd illogic to it.
So whether it offends ME personally is beside the point; the main thing is that it offends REASON when a Christian says, “I love you, but I hate the relationships that brought out the very best in you, simply because those relationships did not conform to my idealized standard.”
Teresa,
It is tough, no question. And, as the tale about the wolves and the sheep deciding what to have for dinner reminds us, not all opinions are equally benign or effect all parties the same.
I guess that perhaps the only gracious and loving answer is “I believe…” be replaced by “I believe, for me…” and, as much as is possible, avoid the presumption that our view is universal, correct, or God’s view.
My path isn’t your path. And it need not be.
If my approach is truly loving, it doesn’t include efforts to coerce you to believe as I do or punish you if you don’t.
Timothy, thank you for taking the time to answer my question, and to also share with us part of your spiritual journey. The following statement that you made is a place I’m trying to move to:
I find this so very difficult to do; especially, when I feel threatened, or allow my feelings to be hurt. It’s not my job to convict anyone, or judge anyone; but, I often go where angels fear to tread.
The rub comes for all of us, I think, when a definite topic comes up, such as same-sex sexual behavior: how do we remain kind, gracious, civil, loving when we view the topic from a different lens? This has me stymied.
Thoughts?
Teresa,
Yes, let me clarify. I should have said that it is the perception of the gay community that when it hears that phrase it will soon be followed by injustice, cruelty, and unbridled hatred.
Thobert,
I responded to Teresa before reading your short tale of the Garden. I found in it parallels to my own perspectives on faith.
Thank you, Debbie, for this comment. I really needed to hear this. Sometimes, not too often, thankfully, I just want to sit down and cry. Ah, but Easter’s coming … so, it’ll be OK.
Thanks again.
I’m not sure I’d go quite as far as you do, Timothy; but, I sure agree that the statement is very offensive, at least to me. I find it very disrespectful, as I stated previously.
However, I’m a big girl now; and, I’ll pull up my big girl pants, and get on with life. In so doing, I’ll try to give people the benefit of the doubt … and, do unto others, as I would have them do unto me. But, let me tell you, sometimes I’m doing that gritting my teeth.
Debbie, statements like the above do show that you seek to be compassionate and loving. You want to mean well. But sadly what followed illustrates the divide between my view of the world and yours. We have entirely different underlying premises.
Your statements presents homosexuality as an affliction, a contributor to guilt, uniquely tied to weakness of the flesh, absent of hope, akin to self-righteousness and ignorance, and in need of healing balm.
I see it as an attribute, guiltless, a desire with both inappropriate and appropriate responses, already possessing of hope, akin to left-handedness, and in need of deliverance from those who seek to impose their civil, social, and religious condemnation on otherwise happy, content, free, and holy individuals.
I understand that your position is one of compassion. But it is, from my perspective, misplaced compassion.
I wrote a lengthy commentary on this a year ago that has resonated more with my readers than most anything I’ve written to date. I think that if you check it out, you’ll have a better understanding of how gay people think and why your compassion doesn’t reach them.
Conservative Christians “with a heart for the homosexual” still don’t get it
Eddy, I’m sure what you say here is right; but, to tell you the truth, I don’t understand at all that way. I take it, and this is probably only me, but as a cover for the person saying it, I reject you (me as a person), but I’ll paper it over with, “love the sinner, hate the sin”. Why isn’t it phrased, if it all, “love the person”?
I see the statement “love the sinner, hate the sin”, as a sign of disrespect. But, remember, that’s only me.
Also, I’m not sure if Christians even say anymore that divorce and remarriage is a sin. Do they in any church you attend, Eddy?
Also, so implicit in this, Eddy, isn’t it, that Christians see something really wrong about being homosexual, no matter the behavior? The ex-gay movement had to come up with more christianese speak to cover over people’s real dislike for homosexuals, in their personhood, as people, their very dignity. I’m not that self-centered to think I’m unique in thinking this.
This is the part about Christianity that bothers me so much. In the final analysis, it doesn’t matter what my behavior is. If I say I’m gay, “game, set, match” … I’m done for. I’ve been labeled, classified, set apart as the sin. I can put lipstick on the pig; but, in the end I’m still a pig (sorry for the metaphor). I can pretty it up, by using the christianese speak of saying I’m same-sex attracted, it still doesn’t matter.
So, I’ve pretty much given up thinking most Christians are going to understand this, when they think about it at all. They’ll live their lives fornicating, pornographing, aborting, adultering, spousal abusing, birth-controlling, divorcing … some of them, not so much (if at all) … but, for a good many, thinking the world’s going to hell in a hand-basket because of homosexuals.
Teresa,
The origins of the phrase go back to Augustine:
In theory this would be the way in which Christendom approaches all sin. However, as you noted, it’s usage does seem to reside solely – or nearly so – in response to gay people.
Sadly, in practice, only half of “love the sinner, hate the sin” appears to be detectable.
As Eddy noted, the behavior that was demonstrated towards gay people required an explanation. Gay people noted efforts taken in the name of Christianity to deny them certain forms of employment, quarantine them on an island, deny their ability to plead their case in court, and such descriptions as militant, perverted, evil, minions of Satan and the like and thought that they detected hate.
So it was important that Christians have a clarification that would simultaneously allow them to continue to pursue such responses while also denying the presence of any hatred directed at those who felt under attack.
So Augustine’s approach was ideal. Any hatred that gay people may have experience by being evicted, fired, deported, or subjected to dehumanizing language was “perfect hatred”. It wasn’t directed towards them as people, just towards their behavior. And once that “fault was cured” then they wouldn’t be evicted, jailed, or beaten in the street.
Of course, as “love the sinner, hate the sin” was only in practice a justification for practicing cruelty, it has now become a bit of a code word. Whenever gay people – or secular people – hear or see the phrase, we know that injustice, cruelty, and unbridled hatred are present.
Teresa, I think you answered this very well yourself:
As for what I would say in response? My response would be neither that of conservative Christianity, Catholic doctrine, or of secular gay culture. I am not seeking to convert you, convince you, or change you, but this view is mine:
I would say that all of Scripture can be seen as having purpose and value. Some is designed to direct us to a greater understanding and communion with the divine – we see this in the commandments to love and worship God. Other scripture, such a dietary law and rules about menstruation and structure of the camp, related to social continuance. Such laws are less relevant in today’s society; we have refrigerators.
But much of scripture is directed towards social interaction and personal development. And the one principle upon which all these scriptures lie is evolution towards equality, comradery , and decency. Any scriptural understanding that requires a special burden on a class of people – a segregation, a hierarchy – is an understanding that is inconsistent with what we have come to know and believe about God.
Yes, we each have our own burden. And life is not fair. But a scriptural understanding that sets arbitrary barriers in a manner that has no other purpose seems at odds with God’s methods.
I believe that much of the drive to find ‘negative consequences of homosexual behavior’ that we so frequently see in Christian literature is motivated by a desire to resolve this conflict. If objective evidence of homosexuality’s inherent harmfulness can be demonstrated, then this validates their doctrinal positions.
Because otherwise, either they have it wrong or their god is a petty dictator who doles out arbitrary commandments at whim like some despotic French king. And just as some loved the despotism of dissolute dictators, so too do some Christians love the idea of such a god.
They say, “God said…” as though this makes it a moral position, never considering whether their god is any better than the god who told Egyptian peasants to throw their children to the crocodiles. And this is not an argument without parallel; those Christian families who isolate, drive out, or fail to support their gay kids are their moral – and at times literal – equivalents. The streets of Los Angeles are filled with crocodiles and the children who have been tossed in their direction.
I hope and pray that my faith is not one that doesn’t question its own morality. I hope that given a different birthplace and time I would not be on the banks of the Nile doing what my god commanded.
For me, it comes down to this:
1. I am as I am. I have no desire to ponder whether maybe through some process I could be among those who will discover that they have realized their heterosexual potential. I’m a gay man.
2. I came to be as I am without decision. My orientation is no more self selected than my race, my height, my eye color, or my blood type. Add oddly, it is less fluid than either my racial identity or my eye color. Be it by genetics, other etiological influences, or divine intervention, I am as God created me.
3. Only an evil deity would demand that someone be other than how they created them.
In short, if my understanding of God is correct, then it doesn’t matter if I’m right about the appropriate sexual response to my innate attractions. God is a lot less interested in that than we are.
But if conservative Christianity is right about God, then he is an evil monster unworthy of my worship.
Either way, I won’t be giving praise to a being that says, “Do what I say, because I say it! Suffer because I will it.” Fear, perhaps. But not praise.
And as I know God to be good, I not only reject the interpretations that arbitrarily assign unnecessary burdens, but if find them inconceivable.
And that is my response.
Teresa–
I’m not sure but I believe the slogan ‘love the sinner, but not the sin’ was born in the early days of the ‘ex-gay movement. First, it was a message to the church that their hateful atttitudes towards gay people were off base. Second, it was a message to gay people that although we view the behavior as sin, we see more to you than that.
Why you don’t hear it in those other contexts you cited is, in my opinion, because you can say that you believe those behaviors are sin without the person assuming therefore that you hate them.
I’m sure there are more thoughts on the matter that will be forthcoming from others.
Debbie, your Comment, which includes this paragraph above, is very kind and understanding. I would like to add to your first sentence, that those of us who are homosexual don’t often wear a neon sign or Scarlet Letter outwardly; but, interiorly, as in The Scarlet Letter, we carry that brand. We live daily with the realization that to expose ourselves may carry some tough consequences; not the least of which, is rejection; which for all humans, gay or str8, is tough to bear.
I was listening yesterday to C.S. Lewis’, Mere Christianity, and I was at the point about Marriage, and Divorce. C.S. Lewis seemed to have all the answers; but, when push came to shove for him, he married a divorcee, Joy Gresham. Lewis did not even share his decision with one of his best friends, J.R.R.R. Tolikien. We never know what life has in store for us; and, how we will respond when our intellectual little lives are faced with the heart’s cry. We can talk the talk easily enough when it’s someone else’s life; but, we it becomes our own … where are we then? Can we walk the talk?
I, also read your essay, Timothy. And, although, we differ concerning same-gender behavior, I must ask those here a question that rings true for me in Timothy’s article.
Why do str8 people get a pass with “we love the sinner, but not the sin”. I’ve never, ever heard that in regard to str8 behavior. I’ve never heard str8 Christians tell people who practice artificial birth control … your sin is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance … when 20-25% of birth control pills use is abortifacient. Actually, I’ve never heard that usage for abortion. I’ve never heard “we love the sinner, but hate the sin”, for those str8 Christians who divorce and remarry. Why does this get a pass? Why don’t those who’ve divorced get told they need to live the rest of their lives chastely, and don’t think about remarrying? I’ve never heard it used for fornicators, str8’s living together … we love the sinner, but hate the sin.
I don’t think this is being over-sensitive, either. In my world, this is just a plain fact. The only place I’ve seen this statement over and over, is in regard to homosexuals.
The Christian churches have any number of ministries for divorced people, grief groups, youth groups, etc. … but, only recently, and only in some cases, are gay people acknowledged as existing in the churches … and, truth be told, behind the “love the sinner, hate the sin”, is the idea, (at least in my opinion), in most churches … please, don’t tell us who you are. Please, stay in the closet.
This Christian attitude does try one’s patience. As the old saying goes: “It’s almost enough to make a preacher cuss”.
Read your piece, Timothy. All Christians are called to have a heart for all people at all times. That’s going to play out however it plays out. All the piety either side can muster is not enough at the end of the day. We have to throw it all back on God. This burden of trying to understand each other can only be borne with Him smack in the middle of it. I want to see you in heaven one day. Then we will know everything.
Yes, Jayhuck, they do. But I don’t call faith in Jesus Christ a religion. Because I don’t know any man-made religion that can make this claim: “It’s Friday, but Sunday’s Comin’.”
Teresa,
It is tough, no question. And, as the tale about the wolves and the sheep deciding what to have for dinner reminds us, not all opinions are equally benign or effect all parties the same.
I guess that perhaps the only gracious and loving answer is “I believe…” be replaced by “I believe, for me…” and, as much as is possible, avoid the presumption that our view is universal, correct, or God’s view.
My path isn’t your path. And it need not be.
If my approach is truly loving, it doesn’t include efforts to coerce you to believe as I do or punish you if you don’t.
Debbie,
No offense intended by my next statement because I am a believer as well. I just thought it interesting to note that some people view all religions as mythology and fantasy.
Debbie, statements like the above do show that you seek to be compassionate and loving. You want to mean well. But sadly what followed illustrates the divide between my view of the world and yours. We have entirely different underlying premises.
Your statements presents homosexuality as an affliction, a contributor to guilt, uniquely tied to weakness of the flesh, absent of hope, akin to self-righteousness and ignorance, and in need of healing balm.
I see it as an attribute, guiltless, a desire with both inappropriate and appropriate responses, already possessing of hope, akin to left-handedness, and in need of deliverance from those who seek to impose their civil, social, and religious condemnation on otherwise happy, content, free, and holy individuals.
I understand that your position is one of compassion. But it is, from my perspective, misplaced compassion.
I wrote a lengthy commentary on this a year ago that has resonated more with my readers than most anything I’ve written to date. I think that if you check it out, you’ll have a better understanding of how gay people think and why your compassion doesn’t reach them.
Conservative Christians “with a heart for the homosexual” still don’t get it
Teresa, I think you answered this very well yourself:
As for what I would say in response? My response would be neither that of conservative Christianity, Catholic doctrine, or of secular gay culture. I am not seeking to convert you, convince you, or change you, but this view is mine:
I would say that all of Scripture can be seen as having purpose and value. Some is designed to direct us to a greater understanding and communion with the divine – we see this in the commandments to love and worship God. Other scripture, such a dietary law and rules about menstruation and structure of the camp, related to social continuance. Such laws are less relevant in today’s society; we have refrigerators.
But much of scripture is directed towards social interaction and personal development. And the one principle upon which all these scriptures lie is evolution towards equality, comradery , and decency. Any scriptural understanding that requires a special burden on a class of people – a segregation, a hierarchy – is an understanding that is inconsistent with what we have come to know and believe about God.
Yes, we each have our own burden. And life is not fair. But a scriptural understanding that sets arbitrary barriers in a manner that has no other purpose seems at odds with God’s methods.
I believe that much of the drive to find ‘negative consequences of homosexual behavior’ that we so frequently see in Christian literature is motivated by a desire to resolve this conflict. If objective evidence of homosexuality’s inherent harmfulness can be demonstrated, then this validates their doctrinal positions.
Because otherwise, either they have it wrong or their god is a petty dictator who doles out arbitrary commandments at whim like some despotic French king. And just as some loved the despotism of dissolute dictators, so too do some Christians love the idea of such a god.
They say, “God said…” as though this makes it a moral position, never considering whether their god is any better than the god who told Egyptian peasants to throw their children to the crocodiles. And this is not an argument without parallel; those Christian families who isolate, drive out, or fail to support their gay kids are their moral – and at times literal – equivalents. The streets of Los Angeles are filled with crocodiles and the children who have been tossed in their direction.
I hope and pray that my faith is not one that doesn’t question its own morality. I hope that given a different birthplace and time I would not be on the banks of the Nile doing what my god commanded.
For me, it comes down to this:
1. I am as I am. I have no desire to ponder whether maybe through some process I could be among those who will discover that they have realized their heterosexual potential. I’m a gay man.
2. I came to be as I am without decision. My orientation is no more self selected than my race, my height, my eye color, or my blood type. Add oddly, it is less fluid than either my racial identity or my eye color. Be it by genetics, other etiological influences, or divine intervention, I am as God created me.
3. Only an evil deity would demand that someone be other than how they created them.
In short, if my understanding of God is correct, then it doesn’t matter if I’m right about the appropriate sexual response to my innate attractions. God is a lot less interested in that than we are.
But if conservative Christianity is right about God, then he is an evil monster unworthy of my worship.
Either way, I won’t be giving praise to a being that says, “Do what I say, because I say it! Suffer because I will it.” Fear, perhaps. But not praise.
And as I know God to be good, I not only reject the interpretations that arbitrarily assign unnecessary burdens, but if find them inconceivable.
And that is my response.
Read the story, Throbert. Nice. I was drawn to mythology and fantasy as a youngster, too, and enjoyed the suspension of disbelief. But I chose to grow up and grow into my faith. I am His child.
Moving on, Eddy. We’ll drop it.
Timothy, an individual with same-sex attractions does not necessarily wear a neon sign or Scarlet Letter that condemns him everywhere he goes, but it is a sad thing to think of this person wanting the freedom to follow the kind of path his straight friends are following, without condemnation. This pain is not something we easily unravel.
I cannot find it in my heart to heap more guilt on gays than they already may feel, if they are trying to reconcile their faith with their sexual desires. Everyone has to follow their own path, and trust God to see them through. The Holy Spirit teaches and comforts us. Christ understands that all flesh is weak. I know he has great compassion for every kind of affliction or pain that exists. Since his prayer in John 17 is for all believers today, I know he is ever interceding for us, through all circumstances. So there is hope for us all.
I can’t “fix” homosexuality. I can’t eradicate self-righteousness and ignorance. I must trust God to care for and comfort those He has created. What I can do is “comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God” (2 Cor. 4). That is precisely what believers are to do for one another, and no one is to be excluded from that healing balm. Beyond that, we are to love our “enemies.” We are to treat with compassion the “strangers” in our land. We don’t have to understand them or approve of all they do to care for them.
Debbie,
No offense intended by my next statement because I am a believer as well. I just thought it interesting to note that some people view all religions as mythology and fantasy.
Thank you, Throbert, for sharing this story. And, yes, it’s very helpful to know where we’re each coming from. It’s far easier to discuss any issue, but especially a sensitive one like sexual orientation, when we understand each of our journeys a bit better.
Teresa and Debbie et al., for background on where I’m coming from theologically and philosophically, you might want to read this story — which, as I explain in the linked blog post, was not written by me, but made a profound impression on me when I read it as a teenager.
Such a profound impression that 20 years later, I found the story again in a library book and went to the trouble of transcribing it for the Web.
Timothy K.,
But, wouldn’t some Christians comeback with well there are plenty of str8 single people, who just have to sigh, and look out the window?
Amazingly, you might think, I happen to agree with your statement above … and not from a position of being a victim or self-pity … just as a statment of fact. A str8 single, can at any time decide to date, look hard, and odds are they will find someone. There are just too many people today to say that’s really not possible.
How would you, Timothy, respond to this most common reply to homosexuals?
Throbert wins for being closest to what I was trying to say. If my intended meaning didn’t come through in my restatement, I’m at a loss on how to explain further. There’s no need…there’s no point…the context is lost…and I obviously didn’t say it well and will likely not say it better on a third attempt. For now, my only point is that what Debbie got from what I was saying is FAR from what I was actually saying.
Thank you, Throbert, for sharing this story. And, yes, it’s very helpful to know where we’re each coming from. It’s far easier to discuss any issue, but especially a sensitive one like sexual orientation, when we understand each of our journeys a bit better.
Timothy K.,
But, wouldn’t some Christians comeback with well there are plenty of str8 single people, who just have to sigh, and look out the window?
Amazingly, you might think, I happen to agree with your statement above … and not from a position of being a victim or self-pity … just as a statment of fact. A str8 single, can at any time decide to date, look hard, and odds are they will find someone. There are just too many people today to say that’s really not possible.
How would you, Timothy, respond to this most common reply to homosexuals?
Debbie,
I know it isn’t wise to step in as interpreter – especially when Eddy is involved.
But what I think he is saying is (I apologize if I get it wrong):
Conservative Christians often say that they see homosexual sin and heterosexual sin as the same. Anything other than that which is ordained by God as holy is sin and it’s all the same. What that may be true by that definition, it does not apply to people the same.
(Let’s not confuse the matter with folks like me. Let’s just keep this in the confines of conservative theology.)
When it comes down to what Mr. or Miss Young Christian can or should do, the options are startlingly different.
Mr. HeteroChristian meets a lovely young lady. Courts her. Begins to double date. Holds hands. Falls in love. Kisses goodnight on her porch for half an hour. Plans a wedding. And then – glorious then – comes the wedding night. And if he screws up somewhere in between… well, at least there was the wedding which makes it all okay going forward.
Ms. HomoChristian stares out the window, politely turns down a fellow or two, and sighs.
Because while there is a path and a venue that is acceptable for the expression of sexuality for heterosexuals, none at all exists for homosexuals.
Some same-sex attracted people have found the possibility of a heterosexual marriage. But others, including some here, have not and let’s acknowledge that absent the miraculous are not much likely to.
The town whore can marry and gain virtuousness in the sight of God, the church and the community. She can delight in sex every hour on the hour provided it is with her husband. She can be a total sex fiend and provided that hubby goes along, no one at all is going to question it.
But the same-sex attracted person can never, ever, ever experience that joy. Not any time. Not any where. Not with anyone. And not under any conditions.
But that isn’t all. The Church welcomes the town whore and demonstrates that she is an evidence of God’s grace. The same-sex attracted person… well, maybe it wouldn’t be wise to let him teach the boys’ Sunday School class… temptation, you know.
The burden on same-sex attracted persons is simply not comparable to that on opposite-sex attracted persons.
And I’m not writing this to argue for a change in theology. I’m just point out that it probably wouldn’t hurt for the Church to maybe acknowledge it.
Debbie…
Some of us don’t believe that “following the Bible to the letter” is a wise way to read Scripture. And, if you think on it, you probably don’t either.
We know that some “to the letter” is better set aside in order to achieve grace and spiritual consistency (slavery, women, diet, etc.). And other “to the letter” is ambiguous and difficult to translate.
When we allow others to come to differing understanding, we allow for the moving of the Holy Spirit. But if we insist on our own understanding and consider all else to be heretical, this – our history tells us – lends itself easily to bloodshed.
Since I am about to drop off the radar for the evening, I just wanted to say to Eddy I am not trying to be an ogre. Maybe I’m being impish in that I am playing the devil’s advocate. Eddy’s normally a good communicator, so it may just be that I was not being a good listener. If we were all communicating at peak level, I don’t think we’d need 1,000-plus comments in this thread. 🙂
Teresa, if one is making the point that a particular group of Christians believes (or you think they believe) something, it does not necessarily go without saying that they are following the Bible to the letter on it.
Debbie, I don’t understand what you mean by this statement. Could you elaborate a little more on this? I’d appreciate it.
Also, there is a difference between speaking of what the Bible addresses as sin and what “conservative Christians” or any Christians believe it is.
Here’s what you originally said, Eddy:
Then you said:
When you said “only” the first time, it sounded as if you were downplaying heterosexual sexual sin. But I think you were saying you meant only those Big Three categories were considered sin in the conservative camp. You then went on to say “much is not regarded as sin.” That rates another “Huh?” So what are the others in the “much” category, pray tell?
And what did you mean by “all” homosexual behaviors? I presume you were trying to make a distinction between committed gay relationships and all else involving homosexual sex. Otherwise, how do you separate “adultery, fornication and lasciviousness” among heterosexuals from the same sins among homosexuals? Is temptation a “behavior” in this context (or as Jesus said, looking at someone with lust)?
Throbert wins for being closest to what I was trying to say. If my intended meaning didn’t come through in my restatement, I’m at a loss on how to explain further. There’s no need…there’s no point…the context is lost…and I obviously didn’t say it well and will likely not say it better on a third attempt. For now, my only point is that what Debbie got from what I was saying is FAR from what I was actually saying.
Debbie–
You did NOT read me correctly. I cited three examples of heterosexual sin that the Bible does address: adultery, fornication and lasciviousness
And, to you as well, Debbie, and your entire family, as we travel through Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and the glorious and joyous, Easter Sunday!
Teresa, I note the significance of the day we are having this discussion on: Maundy (Holy) Thursday. A blessed day to you. 🙂
Debbie said:
This is exactly right, Debbie. You didn’t miss anything.
Debbie…
Some of us don’t believe that “following the Bible to the letter” is a wise way to read Scripture. And, if you think on it, you probably don’t either.
We know that some “to the letter” is better set aside in order to achieve grace and spiritual consistency (slavery, women, diet, etc.). And other “to the letter” is ambiguous and difficult to translate.
When we allow others to come to differing understanding, we allow for the moving of the Holy Spirit. But if we insist on our own understanding and consider all else to be heretical, this – our history tells us – lends itself easily to bloodshed.
Throbert said:
I think I need to make an amends to everyone here; and, to my Catholic Faith, which I hold dear. I made light of, and by so doing became complicit with Throbert’s ridicule of the Catholic Faith and its present head.
Whatever, Throbert, you believe about Catholicism is your business; and, how you wish to present that in a public forum is again your responsibility. However, and I don’t need to tell you this as your intelligence is more than adequate to know this, others have the same right to disagree with your assessment … an assessment not given in fact, but sarcasm, ridicule, mockery, and just plain mean-spiritedness.
Whether, anyone here wants to admit it or not, Catholicism built quite a bit of what’s become known as Western Civilization. It’s philosophy of Scholasticism, and its consequent exposition of the Natural Law is still in effect. Not because it’s Catholicism’s law; but, because it’s God’s Law … sort of like, gravity … deny it if you will, but jumping from a tall building will leave proof enough of the denial.
St. Thomas Aquinas is classically held to be unequaled in his development of Augustine and Aristotle. We midgets of today, who pride ourselves on being oh, so smart, can’t begin to reason and understand much of what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church knew and understood.
Yes, the Catholic Church, in her human element, has scandal, and that will not go unpunished; but, the Catholic Church has perdured through millenia, and will continue to do so; despite attacks from within and without. She was here long before any of us were born; and, She, as well as the rest of Christianity, will be here long after we’re dead.
Do what you all will with this Comment. That is immaterial to me. I simply could not let my accession to human respect go unamended. I love Our Lord and Christianity; and, I need to stand up for that, as much, if not more, for Him and for me, as for all of you.
Also, there is a difference between speaking of what the Bible addresses as sin and what “conservative Christians” or any Christians believe it is.
Debbie, I’m glad that you explicated further your reference to “Warren’s rants”. I was a bit confused about this.
Yes, indeed. These claims, some of them outlandish, simply add more fuel for those who see conservative Christianity as ridiculous, and without philisophical/theological/cultural merit.
Teresa, I note the significance of the day we are having this discussion on: Maundy (Holy) Thursday. A blessed day to you. 🙂
By the way, lest I create any confusion or ill will with my reference to “Warren’s rants” about those loudmouth conservative Christians, let me say that I support what Warren is doing there. Someone needs to examine their claims and hold them accountable for misleading people.
I read him correctly and you did not, Throbert. He clarifies for us:
Now to the “intra-cultural” question. Teresa and I are not from different cultures, IMHO. We are both women, both Christians (she Catholic, I Protestant), both have experienced same-sex attractions, and both believe our faith proscribes acting on them. Did I miss anything? Just semantics confusion, not cross-cultural confusion.
The “stupid bigot” comment was engendered more by what Throbert said than by what you said, Eddy. There seems to be some kind of (prevailing?) sentiment here that conservative Christians are required to hate gays and check their brains at the church door, if indeed they have any at all. Warren’s recent rants against certain loudmouth conservative Christians may have helped inadvertently contribute to such a perception, or at least atmosphere.
Are we clear now?
Hee-hee-hee… no relation! I’m still searching for my significance.
Robert,
This is the best thread, evah! We get to talk about all kinds of stuff, totally unrelated to whatever the thread was about. It’s sorta like a little chat room where we test our social skills, or lack thereof.
I’m sure Warren is quite happy that the children are amusing themselves in the virtual playpen.
p.s. Robert, I’ve heard through the grapevine you have front row seats for the upcoming Pope John Paul II beatification … right next to BXVI. You will behave properly, won’t you? It’s a Natural Law thing! 🙂
…this is the thread that never ends
Yes, it goes on and on, my friends!
Some people put some posts on it, not knowing what it was,
Till Warren 86’s it, we’ll drone on just because…
Timothy Kincaid’s last post is the most touching and one of the more meaningful things I’ve read here. And I for one thank him for writing it.
>:)
Throbert –
Oh wow Robert – LOL – I was laughing so hard I had to step away from the computer for a few minutes. 🙂
Its beginning to look like Old Home Week here at the Prop 8 Thread. 1,084 comments and counting
Heh. I wanted to use the “never not sinful” construction to emphasize that for conservative Christians, the idea of having a church-sanctioned “Blessing of the Union” ceremony for homosexual couples is way beyond the realm of possibility, rather than a Biblically justifiable innovation (which is how some liberal Christian and Jewish denominations see it — as an innovation, but one that doesn’t contradict Scripture).
Where did Eddy claim that conservative Christians give a pass to hetero sexual sin??
What I understood him to say is that conservative Christians recognize “fornication, adultery, and lasciviousness” as sins in both heterosexual and homosexual contexts, but validates heterosexual married sex as non-sinful.
For conservative Christians, however, there is no “validating context” analogous to heterosexual marriage in which homosexual acts may be shared and mutually enjoyed by a couple in a non-sinful way.
Debbie–
1) I was trying to say that they regard All homosexual behavior as sin but, with heterosexuality, much is not regarded as sin. Sinful heterosexuality would be adultery, fornicaton and lasciviousness.
2) Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 20, 2011 at 7:54 pm
My turn to go ”huh?” Why is ‘within-cultural’ (‘intra’ means ‘within’) more clear or more appropriate than ‘across cultures’ when addressing the different meanings you and Teresa had for homosexual? Did something in my context suggest ‘stupid bigot’?
Michael–
Yes, EXODUS does believe that homosexual behavior is sin. Gay Christians believe that EXODUS is deceived; EXODUS believes Gay Christians are deceived. Because EXODUS believes that homosexual behavior is sin; they don’t believe it’s holy.
Throbert–
Double negatives mess with my head.
It’s not only Exodus, and it’s not only in relation to homosexuality — the whole “Natural Law” system of sexual morality as promulgated by the Catholic Church plays this ridiculous game of “I will now use my Betazoid powers of telepathy to inform you that what you think you feel is not what you actually feel.”
Of course, the Natural Law theorists don’t actually claim to have telepathy; rather, they rely on various logical fallacies…
(e.g., “masturbation is sinful because it separates the person from God, and we know that it separates the person from God because that is the nature of all sinful things “, or “heterosexuals who use birth control may be ‘making love’ to each other, but it’s not Real Love™ in the fullest and truest and really-realest-for-realz sense”)
…and hope that no one will notice how incredibly flabby their arguments are if they dress it up in Latin. But when they get to talking about sex and emotions and psychology, they end up making assertions that only a literal mind-reader is entitled to make, as when they tell homosexuals that the deep affection we sometimes feel for each other is either a self-delusion or a conscious lie.
(And I think the appropriate response is “STFU, Mr. Ratzinger — not only are you not God, but you’re not even Counselor Troi’s mom.“)
In this case, it’s intra-cultural.
I suggest that those who want to use the term “conservative Christian” in the context desired here just go on and say “stupid bigot.” It’s more honest.
That’s why Exodus uses the term “counterfeit” to describe all such gay relationships. Alan Chambers says that gay Christians are “decieved”. And another ex-gay leader (Andy Comiskey) has said that there is no such thing as “gay love” — only “immature lust and infatuation.” For Exodus, the “opposite of homosexuality is holiness” — which means that homosexuality can never be.
I was trying to determine, Eddy, whether you were being facetious or serious in stating that in conservative Christian parlance heterosexual sexual sin gets a pass while homosexual sexual sin doesn’t.
Or to put it differently, homosexual behavior is never not sinful, and can never be not sinful, while heterosexual behavior can be not sinful under certain conditions.
As I see it, the chief problem with the “homosexual acts are never not sinful” claim is that if a Christian same-sex couple says with sincerity, “Our lovemaking brings us closer together and also draws us closer to God and makes us feel Christ’s presence in our relationship,” etc., this seems to put the conservative Christian in the position of having to respond “Well, you only think that you feel closer to God and to each other, but your perception is false, and you are actually miserable and guilty and mutually exploiting each other for selfish gratification, even if you don’t realize it.”
But the conservative Christian would then be confusing himself with Lwaxana Troi from planet Betazed…
(Of course, even without having telepathy, we can observe that in some cases, an outwardly happy couple may in fact be engaged in a form of destructive mutual parasitism while trying to conceal their misery from everyone else. However, this can occur for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, and even for married couples who are nominally Christian.)
Teresa–
Agreed! And discussing what Debbie said and how you heard it and vice versa seems to be a step in moving beyond semantics. We sometimes don’t know that our words are being misinterpreted–worse we often don’t know a better way of saying it. We’re talking across cultures.
Hope I’ not being terse…must have that nap.
Debbie–
I’ll need more than ‘huh’ to answer you….
Michael,
I agree but we live in a world full of labels and boxes. If a person from my side is engaged in a conversation with a person from the other and the other person responds, they will usually convert that phrase into their accustomed label…thus causing the person from my side to both repeat the lengthy phrase and to explain why the label doesn’t capture it. Tiresome, tedious and confusing…
Doubt that you’ll all miss me but MUST HAVE NAP…slept fitfully last night. I love spring but hate high pollen counts.
Eddy,
As I mentioned to Debbie, if we can’t move beyond the semantics, if we can’t allow each person to define and identify as they choose, to tell us their story and journey and truly listen and share that journey; we have little hope for deeper conversation and communication.
I am as guilty as anyone in being, at times, incapable of letting others voice their opinion, their story, their beliefs without my internal judgment monitor kicking in; and, what’s worse, trying to hammer my beliefs onto them, slipping in my little snide remarks to add further insult to injury.
If nothing else, this blog is teaching me how to interact in a more Christian manner. I’m trying to put into practice what I’m always preaching (yikes!) … kindness.
Here is an excerpt from Fr. Frederick Faber’s wonderful treatise on Kindness:
I actually like the phrase “homosexuals who stopped engaging in homosexuality”. I know it doesn’t speak to the accompanying emotional, “identity” and spiritual changes, but it’s a start. It could help clear up some of the “semantic confusion”. I much prefer it to misleading or confusing terms like “ex”, “former” or “post” gay.
It reminds me of Joe Dallas’ explanation that “ex-gay” didn’t mean “former homosexual”, but referred, instead, to “Christians with homosexual tendencies who would rather not have thoser tendencies.” He said “ex-gay” just “rolled off the tongue a little easier.”
Huh?
Another distinction that could be made is that in a conservative Christian context ALL homosexual behavior is sinful while in heterosexuality it would only be adultery, fornication and lasciviousness.
And, at the moment, I was speaking to the problem with the LABEL from the two different contexts–how that might in part explain the semantic breakdown Debbie and Teresa were having.
One reason to reject such a distinction for homosexuality is that no one makes such a distinction for heterosexuality.
I’m not sure if anyone has ever scoffed at the phrase “heterosexual virgin” as being a contradiction in terms, but I’ll bet everyone here has heard people claim that “homosexual virgin” is some kind of ridiculous oxymoron.
If a teenage boy who’s never had sexual activity with anyone but his own hand constantly fantasizes about women and never fantasizes about men, people tend to take for granted that he’s heterosexual. But a teenage who is just as virginal, yet fantasizes only about men and never about women, is merely… confused, or something. He can’t be a homosexual, because he’s never engaged in homosexual acts.
(And this way of thinking is not because of some heteronormative conspiracy to oppress homosexuals, mind you — but simply because most people are heterosexual, and it’s natural for people to view the world through the lens of personal experience by default.)
While I understand the logic of insisting that occasional fantasies are not sufficient to draw conclusions about someone’s sexual orientation, I would say that consistent patterns of sexual fantasizing over a timespan of years are sufficient to define someone as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, even in the absence of “consummated acts” with another person.
Hey, it applies to me, too — at least, I’ve definitely got the fussy/pedantic part covered, and my coolness has often been questioned. 🙂
Teresa–
I empathize with the semantical confusion. Psychology uses the term ‘homosexual’ to include both behavior and desire; the Bible doesn’t go with a noun or a label but speaks to what you do (verb). People speak here from the language of the gay community and others speak from the mindset of the Christian community. In many circumstances, a Christian wouldn’t label you a liar if you were only tempted to lie–regardless of how ongoing and persistent those temptations were. It’s the doing that makes the label stick.
But we live in a world where psychological jargon is pervasive. An alcoholic is a person with an ongoing desire for the effects of alcohol. Consider though that we might label a person as an alcoholic but not a drunkard. Many would view ‘alcoholic’ as including even the desire to drink while reserving ‘drunkard’ for one who is still engaging in excessive drinking. No such distinction has been accepted for homosexuality. Homosexuals who stopped engaging in homosexuality often migrated to one of two label choices: ex-gay or celibate. Both terms leave a little to be desired. And semantic debate and confusion continues.
Timothy said–
I understand this. I have friends who ask me why I bother. But, unlike Timothy, I sometimes find value in words other than my own or from people other than those who are squarely ‘on my team’. (And, honestly, I don’t think Timothy really meant nothing of value…that’s just more of that abusive ‘propaganda talk’ that some of us have been trying to curtail.)
While I await your explanation, I will point out that anyone believing what you have (satirically) said there would be pretty far off the mark. You might want to read Romans 7 and 8 again to get my perspective.
Timothy, what you wrote above about the legalism trap could have served as a teaching lesson in my old group. In fact, it is an apt synopsis of Robert McGee’s book, “The Search for Significance.” You’ve heard me mention it before. I am not quite sure what point you were making about me and my beliefs with what you said. You’ll have to explain.
Exactly, Teresa. 🙂
Throbert, can I be part of the six? Please? I hate being left out. It hurts my feelings; and, I just wanna stamp my two-year-old toddler feet (which, btw, I’ve been doing all day)!! 🙂 🙂
Yes, I do use these words as interchangeable; because, most people that I would talk to, know what these terms mean in common, everyday parlance. When I’ve attempted to use the term, “same-sex attracted”, I’ve been given blank stares and questioned as to what that means.
The terms are neutral for me. They don’t have the baggage that others are attributing to them; at least, for me. Perhaps, though, Throbert’s sentence applies to me: 🙂
Debbie said:
Debbie, I think we should allow each other room to identify as we please. I have no wish to change that you prefer the word, “recovered”; nor, do I want to tell you that you shouldn’t use the term, “redeemed”.
Isn’t this the start of graciousness to one another? Each person’s spiritual journey, and relationship with Our Lord, is uniquely just that … each person’s. My own personal opinion about this, is that if we quibble about how we identify, after adequate explanation … and, we’re still at “hammer and tongs” with one another about these relatively small things, we’ll sure as heck never “bridge the gap” with anyone. It shows how far I am from my Christian identity. However, in the end, this is just my opinion.
Um… while Timothy could end this loooooong squabble at any time by simply choosing to forgive his adversaries seventy times seven times, the same goes for you, Ann, and for David B.
It takes two to tango… and sometimes it takes six — Tchpak, shest, skveesh!
P.S. Youtube link is to a clip from a Russian TV broadcast of Chicago — very well dubbed and sung by the cast of the Moscow stage version.
It’s tchpak-ingly awesome!
P.P.S. Let’s have no one stabbing each other for real, please.
Debbie–
1) I was trying to say that they regard All homosexual behavior as sin but, with heterosexuality, much is not regarded as sin. Sinful heterosexuality would be adultery, fornicaton and lasciviousness.
2) Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 20, 2011 at 7:54 pm
My turn to go ”huh?” Why is ‘within-cultural’ (‘intra’ means ‘within’) more clear or more appropriate than ‘across cultures’ when addressing the different meanings you and Teresa had for homosexual? Did something in my context suggest ‘stupid bigot’?
Michael–
Yes, EXODUS does believe that homosexual behavior is sin. Gay Christians believe that EXODUS is deceived; EXODUS believes Gay Christians are deceived. Because EXODUS believes that homosexual behavior is sin; they don’t believe it’s holy.
Throbert–
Double negatives mess with my head.
It’s not only Exodus, and it’s not only in relation to homosexuality — the whole “Natural Law” system of sexual morality as promulgated by the Catholic Church plays this ridiculous game of “I will now use my Betazoid powers of telepathy to inform you that what you think you feel is not what you actually feel.”
Of course, the Natural Law theorists don’t actually claim to have telepathy; rather, they rely on various logical fallacies…
(e.g., “masturbation is sinful because it separates the person from God, and we know that it separates the person from God because that is the nature of all sinful things “, or “heterosexuals who use birth control may be ‘making love’ to each other, but it’s not Real Love™ in the fullest and truest and really-realest-for-realz sense”)
…and hope that no one will notice how incredibly flabby their arguments are if they dress it up in Latin. But when they get to talking about sex and emotions and psychology, they end up making assertions that only a literal mind-reader is entitled to make, as when they tell homosexuals that the deep affection we sometimes feel for each other is either a self-delusion or a conscious lie.
(And I think the appropriate response is “STFU, Mr. Ratzinger — not only are you not God, but you’re not even Counselor Troi’s mom.“)
Debbie,
Yes, Teresa uses the terms interchangeably. I should have been clearer in noting that I wasn’t necessarily speaking of Teresa’s usage.
I was just trying to inform you of the usage that my community has.
Debbie,
I was once burdened by Moses’ Law of Sin and Death. I was held in bondage to legalism. Fear once had me believing that any who did not live according to a rigid code, those who didn’t fit in the box, any who dared disagree had walked away from God and were vile sinners defying His mercy.
I was so afraid of God’s Judgment that I lived a life of comparison, always looking to see where other were and where I was, always striving towards deeds-based ‘holiness’, always hoping to someday be good enough for God and always on the lookout for an opportunity to “help” others be “aware” of their sin. The world was nothing but sin and repentance and hope and failure.
And the only consolation for the cycle of effort to be good enough was the knowledge that others were worse. This vile sinners (who walked away) were the ones to focus on. They needed God’s loving hand of vengeance, his loving punishment, his loving slap down so that they would recognize that true happiness is in compliance with God’s Law. And that we all could be God’s vessel to bring about that vengeance, punishment and slap down.
But thanks to the glorious grace of God, I no longer carry that burden.
But that’s me and you are you. You need to seek the path that God has for you, even if it is not the path I’m on.
Your path may be the path of Sin and Consequence. It may be the path of Judgment and Condemnation. It may be the path of the kind of Hope that lives outside of experience. Your path is yours and I have no need to give you “pastoral counsel” or shake the dust off if you “walk away.” That’s all between you and God.
I’m just glad that I’m no longer on that path.
Timothy, Teresa also has used the word gay to refer to herself, but I don’t want to get into a semantic sparring match here. She said in a comment above, “I use the term ‘gay’ as an interchangeable with homosexual.”
The word “gay” also has connotations of being fussy, uncool, and generally tiresome to have around.
Timothy, Teresa will have to explain whether or not she misunderstood me in her reference:
.
Here is what I said that had confused her:
What is the Church for if not for ministering to those afflicted with the effects of sin? If they come to us, they must expect to hear the message that there is hope. Christ stands with his arms wide open and says, “Come, just as you are.” But that is the beginning of it, not the end. He also tells us to cast our burdens on him so that he can bear the yoke with us. Christ doesn’t leave us where he finds us, and neither does he expect us to do that with those seeking our help. If they turn and walk away from us or reject our help (or reject Christ), what can we do but let them go?
I was trying to determine, Eddy, whether you were being facetious or serious in stating that in conservative Christian parlance heterosexual sexual sin gets a pass while homosexual sexual sin doesn’t.
Or to put it differently, homosexual behavior is never not sinful, and can never be not sinful, while heterosexual behavior can be not sinful under certain conditions.
As I see it, the chief problem with the “homosexual acts are never not sinful” claim is that if a Christian same-sex couple says with sincerity, “Our lovemaking brings us closer together and also draws us closer to God and makes us feel Christ’s presence in our relationship,” etc., this seems to put the conservative Christian in the position of having to respond “Well, you only think that you feel closer to God and to each other, but your perception is false, and you are actually miserable and guilty and mutually exploiting each other for selfish gratification, even if you don’t realize it.”
But the conservative Christian would then be confusing himself with Lwaxana Troi from planet Betazed…
(Of course, even without having telepathy, we can observe that in some cases, an outwardly happy couple may in fact be engaged in a form of destructive mutual parasitism while trying to conceal their misery from everyone else. However, this can occur for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, and even for married couples who are nominally Christian.)
Debbie,
Actually… not so much anymore.
The word “homosexual” is taking on clinical usage (in the US) as simply the experience of same-sex attractions. The word “gay” has connotations of community and self-acceptance.
In the US, the only places you generally see the word “homosexual” is in scientific literature or among those who oppose civil, social, religious, or legal inclusion of homosexual individuals on the same terms as heterosexual individuals. (For example, the AFA will run AP stories in which they replace the word “gay” with “homosexual”, the most amusing of which was when they ran an article about a sports player who was renamed Tyson Homosexual.)
Teresa–
Agreed! And discussing what Debbie said and how you heard it and vice versa seems to be a step in moving beyond semantics. We sometimes don’t know that our words are being misinterpreted–worse we often don’t know a better way of saying it. We’re talking across cultures.
Hope I’ not being terse…must have that nap.
Debbie–
I’ll need more than ‘huh’ to answer you….
Michael,
I agree but we live in a world full of labels and boxes. If a person from my side is engaged in a conversation with a person from the other and the other person responds, they will usually convert that phrase into their accustomed label…thus causing the person from my side to both repeat the lengthy phrase and to explain why the label doesn’t capture it. Tiresome, tedious and confusing…
Doubt that you’ll all miss me but MUST HAVE NAP…slept fitfully last night. I love spring but hate high pollen counts.
Oh yes, I am all too human, Teresa. 🙂
Here’s the challenge for me. When you say you are a Catholic, that is much more than just a label because you may have “catholic attractions.” It means you adhere to a particular faith system. I can presume you will be living in accordance with those principles and beliefs.
When you say you are homosexual, that only means you experience same-sex attractions. It does mean for a good many others that share that label with you that they accept other facets of being homosexual and live in accordance with those things. They will believe that same-sex romantic relationships are fine, and may seek to have them, and even to marry someone of the same sex.
Are you pursuing chastity or celibacy because you believe God has called you to that, regardless of your sexual orientation of feelings? Or is it because you cannot square your faith with homosexual love?
I also don’t accept that one has to hold onto the label of alcoholic because you may have been one in the past. If you have regular cravings for alcohol, I suppose you could still call yourself an alcoholic. I prefer “recovered.” I could go around calling myself a sinner because I know I have a proclivity for sin, thought I don’t set out to sin every day. I prefer “redeemed.” Psychologically, there is a difference in the two perceptions. One says I am made whole and set free from the power of sin. The other says I am ever ready to slide back into it. If Christ’s death has any real meaning for me, I believe I must choose hope over the ever-looming specter of failure.
Eddy,
As I mentioned to Debbie, if we can’t move beyond the semantics, if we can’t allow each person to define and identify as they choose, to tell us their story and journey and truly listen and share that journey; we have little hope for deeper conversation and communication.
I am as guilty as anyone in being, at times, incapable of letting others voice their opinion, their story, their beliefs without my internal judgment monitor kicking in; and, what’s worse, trying to hammer my beliefs onto them, slipping in my little snide remarks to add further insult to injury.
If nothing else, this blog is teaching me how to interact in a more Christian manner. I’m trying to put into practice what I’m always preaching (yikes!) … kindness.
Here is an excerpt from Fr. Frederick Faber’s wonderful treatise on Kindness:
I actually like the phrase “homosexuals who stopped engaging in homosexuality”. I know it doesn’t speak to the accompanying emotional, “identity” and spiritual changes, but it’s a start. It could help clear up some of the “semantic confusion”. I much prefer it to misleading or confusing terms like “ex”, “former” or “post” gay.
It reminds me of Joe Dallas’ explanation that “ex-gay” didn’t mean “former homosexual”, but referred, instead, to “Christians with homosexual tendencies who would rather not have thoser tendencies.” He said “ex-gay” just “rolled off the tongue a little easier.”
Huh?
Another distinction that could be made is that in a conservative Christian context ALL homosexual behavior is sinful while in heterosexuality it would only be adultery, fornication and lasciviousness.
And, at the moment, I was speaking to the problem with the LABEL from the two different contexts–how that might in part explain the semantic breakdown Debbie and Teresa were having.
Ann
I don’t need to hear anything further from you, Ann.
Your mantra about untruths and mis-representations is false, contrived, and pathetic and now it’s getting stale. You delusional hope that if you keep repeating it I’ll eventually agree with you is simply not going to happen.
So save your time. Really.
One reason to reject such a distinction for homosexuality is that no one makes such a distinction for heterosexuality.
I’m not sure if anyone has ever scoffed at the phrase “heterosexual virgin” as being a contradiction in terms, but I’ll bet everyone here has heard people claim that “homosexual virgin” is some kind of ridiculous oxymoron.
If a teenage boy who’s never had sexual activity with anyone but his own hand constantly fantasizes about women and never fantasizes about men, people tend to take for granted that he’s heterosexual. But a teenage who is just as virginal, yet fantasizes only about men and never about women, is merely… confused, or something. He can’t be a homosexual, because he’s never engaged in homosexual acts.
(And this way of thinking is not because of some heteronormative conspiracy to oppress homosexuals, mind you — but simply because most people are heterosexual, and it’s natural for people to view the world through the lens of personal experience by default.)
While I understand the logic of insisting that occasional fantasies are not sufficient to draw conclusions about someone’s sexual orientation, I would say that consistent patterns of sexual fantasizing over a timespan of years are sufficient to define someone as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, even in the absence of “consummated acts” with another person.
Teresa,
I often think/wish people would start out realizing that if they are interacting with or observing another person, they we are automatically on equal terms with that individual because we are both human beings. Going from there, one can then start the distinguishing process – I am a girl and you are a girl, I like sushi and you do not (hypothetical), I love the Dodgers and Lakers and you like ballet (hypothetical), etc. Often, I think we start in the reverse – we pick out the things that are small and, through a process of elimination, eventually the other person does not meet our qualifications of being equal as a human being. If, conversly, there are enough of those things to qualify that individual to be a person equal to us as a human being, then, well, they are accepted as such. Distinguishing charactersitics that make one unique does not equate to them being unequal.
Timothy,
I’m not sure why it is important for you to believe this or what benefit you get from portraying yourself as a victim. Having said that, I will again repeat the truth for you to consider – what you perceive as verbal abuse from others directed toward you is no different from the verbal abuse and verbal bullying you have inflicted on a continuous basis to many here. It is my belief, subject to correction with more information, that David B. was referencing you and others who have displayed untruths and mis-representations here. When I have made you and others aware of these untruths and asked for retractions and/or apologies, my efforts have been met with contempt. If you think these things go un-noticed, you are wrong. Your credibility and reputation has been harmed. You ask others to do what you are unwilling to do yourself. David B. was comparing tactics and methods that could be perceived as propoganda (untruths) – as an activist, I have experienced you engaging in such. If you would have corrected what was asked of you, or stopped the verbal abuse/bullying when asked to, perhaps you would be considered a man of integrity and moral character who is more interested in preserving your credibility and reputation, rather than have your uncorrected tactics be compared to others who are unwilling to correct their’s either.
If you have perceived my words to accommodate the portraying yourself as a victim, then I understand your request. If you make a decision to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, then you might see and think and believe things differently and in a more accurate way.
If that’s what I did, Debbie, I apologize. “Leap up and strike out at people” is not at all kind, gracious, loving.
Yes, I do. However, this doesn’t take away from the fact of how others present themselves. Why is it that when I say I’m homosexual; but, attempting to live chastely … that is incorrect, for you? I’m sure you can understand that denies my experience, strength and hope. It connotes “never being worthy”. I don’t think I’m the only one to see it that way.
I will also strive hard to be measured in my comments in the future. It’s nice to know, Debbie, you’re human, too! 🙂
Debbie,
Okay, I misunderstood what you meant by: “ I am trying to understand why you would refer to people who refuse to accept help for themselves as the very people who helped you. That sounds like the blind leading the blind to me.”
I’ll not attempt to translate.
Whew, more light bulb moments.
I identify as a sinner, not as a saint or holy. I identify as an alcoholic; because, that’s what I am. I identify as Catholic; because, that’s what I am. I identify as an Italian-American; because, that’s what I am. I identify as a homosexual; because, that’s what I am. I guess I go on what I am, or have/continue to have experienced.
I thought everybody did this. Learn something new every day.
Teresa, could you have an overly sensitive chip on your shoulder? Something appears to be bothering you deeply about identifying as homosexual. You are ever ready to leap up and strike out at someone for causing you to feel inferior. You are not inferior, nor can anyone make you feel that way unless you give them permission. I certainly don’t wish to have a misunderstanding come between us. I will strive hard to remember to stay away from certain phrases in the future. I have areas of sensitivity, too, based on my past struggles.
No, Timothy. We “ex-gay” types know how to visit the sick, care for widows and orphans and do all manner of things for people in need in the name of love and or just plain neighborliness. Love for us is not tied up in witnessing the truth — with heaps of sugar-coated grace — to them. Please don’t attempt to be my personal Holy Spirit. You have, of course, done us the favor of illustrating once again what it is that galls people here about your “Gnostic insights.”
Or, to put it in context (and you know this is not what I believe, personally)
A person tempted to steal would not identity as a thief, so why should a person tempted towards same-sex sexuality identify as a homosexual?
It goes to whether you see sexuality in terms of whom you are attracted to, or if you see it in terms of whether your desires are holy.
Timothy,
Good observation.
Debbie, ah, I own this is my fault. I should have used “kindness and care”, when I spoke of “love”. I apologize for my lack of improper wording.
“Kindness and care” vs. “pastoral correction” … can be, and I use “can be” very observantly, worlds apart.
Teresa,
I think some would put it “identifying with Christ and not with sin”
(and I hope I’m not misstating it)
Um… while Timothy could end this loooooong squabble at any time by simply choosing to forgive his adversaries seventy times seven times, the same goes for you, Ann, and for David B.
It takes two to tango… and sometimes it takes six — Tchpak, shest, skveesh!
P.S. Youtube link is to a clip from a Russian TV broadcast of Chicago — very well dubbed and sung by the cast of the Moscow stage version.
It’s tchpak-ingly awesome!
P.P.S. Let’s have no one stabbing each other for real, please.
Mmmm, I never thought of it this way. However, that’s still rather problematic, isn’t it? Why do homosexuals have to identify on what is sought; and,other people don’t?
Does that implicitly mean that “if I don’t change”, I’m never good enough?
Debbie,
One more interject… I think that you are failing to see what Teresa is saying.
When she speaks of love, she uses the word the way that I use it, or that mainline Christians use it, or the way that most of secular society uses it. She means the physical manifestation of kindness and care.
“Love” means bringing soup. It means shoveling snow. It means just sitting there when someone is in pain. it’s a 1 Corinthians, Good Samaritan, kind of love.
I think that you are hearing this conversation on different terms. You are seeing love through the eyes of doctrine. So you are looking for Godly counsel against sin and pastoral guidance in rejection of unholiness.
And as the gay folk aren’t bringing Teresa godly counsel against sin, you are wondering why she’s using the word “love”.
It’s just a disconnect over language. Perhaps if instead of “love” Teresa used “kindness and care” and you used “pastoral correction”. Just an idea.
Debbie, I think I understand what you’re saying. At least, I hope so.
I think I viewed your original comment as: you’re better than me, Debbie.
You’re better than me, because you’re no longer same-sex attracted. I’m sinful and broken, because I am still same-sex attracted. Somehow, I still don’t measure up. Even if I pursue living chastely, I better not mention I’m same-sex attracted.
Please, don’t misunderstand the above paragraph. I’m sure, Debbie, this is not what you meant; but, it’s what came across to me.
Can you understand this, Debbie? I’m sure my responses have hurt you. I didn’t mean them that way, as you didn’t mean to hurt me.
How do we cross this impasse?
Debbie and Teresa,
Here is my perception, on the distant chance that it may add value:
Teresa, you are using the words “homosexual” and “identity” to reflect your experience. They reflect what you observe. You are same sex attracted, so you say “homosexual”.
Debbie, you are using the same words as ideals. You believe that identity should be based not on what is experienced but on what is sought. So you see Teresa’s identity as homosexual as denying possibility of change.
This naturally leads to confusion.
I hope that was helpful.
Eddy
I’ve explained this in detail several times. That quote was where Blakeslee demanded that gay people not compare Christians to Ssempa. The quote where he compared me to Ssempa a few days earlier was the other quote.
But why bother. It’s not like you really care. I mean, c’mon, is there ever the tiniest chance that you would approach the issue and come out with any conclusion other than that Blakeslee was justified?
What are the odds that you would say, “gee, it really is unreasonable to compare Timothy to Ssempa while simultaneously demanding that Christians not be compared to Ssempa”? Zero. That’s not going to be your response. It’s not going to be Ann’s response. It’s probably not going to be Debbie’s response (though there’s a small chance).
There’s no mystery here. There’s no question as to how you will react. It’s not like you have any interest other than slapping down the “activist”, as Ann puts it.
For heaven sake, your last posting was quoting the dictionary in some absurd attempt to parse my words and suggest that I was misusing the word propagandist because the dictionary definition doesn’t include the phrase ‘no interest in the truth’.
For what possible reason would I want to enter into some exchange of communication with you? Neither you nor I would benefit.
This has got to be the biggest waste of time in my life. David Roberts asked me recently why I bother and, you know, he’s right.
I enjoy Warren’s postings. But down in the threads, there’s nothing of value.
Yeah, there is. You may hold onto whatever label makes you comfortable. I am trying to understand why you would refer to people who refuse to accept help for themselves as the very people who helped you. That sounds like the blind leading the blind to me. But I surely am missing something here. Or are you referring to those who do not wish to find ways to ameliorate their same-sex attractions, not those who seek help but bail out on the process?I was referring to the latter.
Ann,
I get it. As an “activist”, it is acceptable that I be “set aside” for abuse. As an “activist” I am by definition a propagandist.
You need not do any more responding, Ann. You’ve said all that you need to say.
Debbie, I don’t understand this sentence? Because I’m pursuing chastity, doesn’t mean I’m no longer homosexual. Perhaps, this is a misunderstanding of the definition of words, e.g., celibacy. Celibacy is not synonymous with chastity; although, celibates are chaste. Celibates are men and women who take religious vows; that’s it’s classic definition.
Homosexuals are men and women who are attracted (emotionally and sexually) to people of the same gender. Being chaste does not alter that, does it? Am I supposed to hide this fact?
Have I misconstrued something?
In my own personal understanding of love, and loving behavior to others; there is no us vs. them, I’m in … they’re out, I’m right … they’re wrong, I’m good … they’re bad, I’m home … they’re a prodigal.
Those people in my life, Debbie, that witnessed most to me of love are the very people you would “shake the dust off and move on”. They visited me when I was sick, they comforted me when I mourned, they accepted me for a friend as I was.
In my experience, those that were the most Christian were the least loving. But, that’s simply my experience.
Please, understand, Debbie. I’m not implying that you are unloving. What I’m trying to say is that there’s a disconnect here somehow.
Debbie,
I was once burdened by Moses’ Law of Sin and Death. I was held in bondage to legalism. Fear once had me believing that any who did not live according to a rigid code, those who didn’t fit in the box, any who dared disagree had walked away from God and were vile sinners defying His mercy.
I was so afraid of God’s Judgment that I lived a life of comparison, always looking to see where other were and where I was, always striving towards deeds-based ‘holiness’, always hoping to someday be good enough for God and always on the lookout for an opportunity to “help” others be “aware” of their sin. The world was nothing but sin and repentance and hope and failure.
And the only consolation for the cycle of effort to be good enough was the knowledge that others were worse. This vile sinners (who walked away) were the ones to focus on. They needed God’s loving hand of vengeance, his loving punishment, his loving slap down so that they would recognize that true happiness is in compliance with God’s Law. And that we all could be God’s vessel to bring about that vengeance, punishment and slap down.
But thanks to the glorious grace of God, I no longer carry that burden.
But that’s me and you are you. You need to seek the path that God has for you, even if it is not the path I’m on.
Your path may be the path of Sin and Consequence. It may be the path of Judgment and Condemnation. It may be the path of the kind of Hope that lives outside of experience. Your path is yours and I have no need to give you “pastoral counsel” or shake the dust off if you “walk away.” That’s all between you and God.
I’m just glad that I’m no longer on that path.
Timothy, Teresa also has used the word gay to refer to herself, but I don’t want to get into a semantic sparring match here. She said in a comment above, “I use the term ‘gay’ as an interchangeable with homosexual.”
Timothy, Teresa will have to explain whether or not she misunderstood me in her reference:
.
Here is what I said that had confused her:
What is the Church for if not for ministering to those afflicted with the effects of sin? If they come to us, they must expect to hear the message that there is hope. Christ stands with his arms wide open and says, “Come, just as you are.” But that is the beginning of it, not the end. He also tells us to cast our burdens on him so that he can bear the yoke with us. Christ doesn’t leave us where he finds us, and neither does he expect us to do that with those seeking our help. If they turn and walk away from us or reject our help (or reject Christ), what can we do but let them go?
Who said anybody was perfect? I am but a wounded healer, merely a conduit through whom the triune God (in His perfection) can minister.
Teresa, you insist (though I don’t really know why) on calling yourself gay or homosexual, though you are pursuing celibacy. You do not accept gay as a way of living because of your faith. Correct? You are no more broken than any of us is. We all carry the same “disorder” with us: we are fallen (sinners) and in need of a redeeming savior and his daily grace.
If a person is presuming to minister to another, he/she must do it with the realization that “love covers a multitude of sins.” We have 1 Cor. 13 as our model. Hard to measure up to, but we must keeping endeavoring to do just that.
I am surprised, given our past interactions, you would continue to push this line of thought with me. Have I not made it clear where I stand by now? No one is rubbing salt in your wounds. Is no one qualified in your book to witness love and grace to another? The Church has a lot of problems, but it is the only one we have. I aim to see us do a better job of being the Bride of Christ. So do you, I believe. Please, don’t misunderstand me.
Debbie, perhaps, I’ve taken most everything you’ve said in your more recent comment the wrong way. Indeed, I’m hurt by what you’ve said; or, at least my perception of your comment. I’m sure you did not mean to come across that way; but, from my end, as a homosexual woman, not “transformed”, I took your comment as very demeaning.
I’m not someone’s project, Debbie, to fix or straighten out. And, I certainly don’t want someone telling me I’m living in sin and broken … as if they had some sort of right to pronounce on the state of my soul, or my emotional health.
I’m sorry if my response comments sound harsh. This is a perfect example of how sensitive this issue is.
Debbie,
Actually… not so much anymore.
The word “homosexual” is taking on clinical usage (in the US) as simply the experience of same-sex attractions. The word “gay” has connotations of community and self-acceptance.
In the US, the only places you generally see the word “homosexual” is in scientific literature or among those who oppose civil, social, religious, or legal inclusion of homosexual individuals on the same terms as heterosexual individuals. (For example, the AFA will run AP stories in which they replace the word “gay” with “homosexual”, the most amusing of which was when they ran an article about a sports player who was renamed Tyson Homosexual.)
Debbie, I think there’s a misunderstanding. I use the term ‘gay’ as an interchangeable with homosexual.
Are you telling me that because I’m homosexual, I’m living in sin and broken?
Who welcomes all sinners and strugglers? Are str8 people not sinners and strugglers? Who’s kind and loving enough not to leave them there?
Who are these perfect people?
Oh yes, I am all too human, Teresa. 🙂
Here’s the challenge for me. When you say you are a Catholic, that is much more than just a label because you may have “catholic attractions.” It means you adhere to a particular faith system. I can presume you will be living in accordance with those principles and beliefs.
When you say you are homosexual, that only means you experience same-sex attractions. It does mean for a good many others that share that label with you that they accept other facets of being homosexual and live in accordance with those things. They will believe that same-sex romantic relationships are fine, and may seek to have them, and even to marry someone of the same sex.
Are you pursuing chastity or celibacy because you believe God has called you to that, regardless of your sexual orientation of feelings? Or is it because you cannot square your faith with homosexual love?
I also don’t accept that one has to hold onto the label of alcoholic because you may have been one in the past. If you have regular cravings for alcohol, I suppose you could still call yourself an alcoholic. I prefer “recovered.” I could go around calling myself a sinner because I know I have a proclivity for sin, thought I don’t set out to sin every day. I prefer “redeemed.” Psychologically, there is a difference in the two perceptions. One says I am made whole and set free from the power of sin. The other says I am ever ready to slide back into it. If Christ’s death has any real meaning for me, I believe I must choose hope over the ever-looming specter of failure.
I realize there is a lot of confusion about what ministry outreach to those struggling with same-sex attractions or sexual identity confusion is and does. That’s in no small part because these ministries have been attacked at every turn by organizations like Truth Wins Out (Besen) and Ex-Gay Watch (Roberts).
I can’t assert that all such ministries are equally effective. They have had to find their way. It’s tough work. Perhaps some have viewed struggling gays as their pet projects. I’ve only had direct personal experience with one such ministry. I assure you I would have been hounded out of the place had I taken that approach. There is nothing quite as humbling as having someone get in your face with the searing question, “Do you really care?” I had to go in with attitude that I was not God’s poster girl for “transformation” or someone to be put on a pedestal in a museum. I had no choice, if I wanted to stay, but to get down in the trenches with those women. I had to toil with them, cry with them, laugh with them and fervently pray over and with them. Perhaps you could say we had a mutual project.
Why ought Christians to “accept” gays as gay? We are to love them and affirm their humanity and worth before Christ, not to affirm them in their sin and brokenness. We can’t do that for anyone. We welcome all sinners and strugglers as they are, but we are kind and loving enough not to leave them there. Still, help is a gift of grace they must accept. If they don’t, we shake the dust off and keep moving on with those who do want the help. To fail to continue praying for all those who are prodigals, however, is to abandon them. No one is beyond help or undeserving of our love.
Teresa,
I think some would put it “identifying with Christ and not with sin”
(and I hope I’m not misstating it)
Mmmm, I never thought of it this way. However, that’s still rather problematic, isn’t it? Why do homosexuals have to identify on what is sought; and,other people don’t?
Does that implicitly mean that “if I don’t change”, I’m never good enough?
Debbie,
One more interject… I think that you are failing to see what Teresa is saying.
When she speaks of love, she uses the word the way that I use it, or that mainline Christians use it, or the way that most of secular society uses it. She means the physical manifestation of kindness and care.
“Love” means bringing soup. It means shoveling snow. It means just sitting there when someone is in pain. it’s a 1 Corinthians, Good Samaritan, kind of love.
I think that you are hearing this conversation on different terms. You are seeing love through the eyes of doctrine. So you are looking for Godly counsel against sin and pastoral guidance in rejection of unholiness.
And as the gay folk aren’t bringing Teresa godly counsel against sin, you are wondering why she’s using the word “love”.
It’s just a disconnect over language. Perhaps if instead of “love” Teresa used “kindness and care” and you used “pastoral correction”. Just an idea.
Debbie, I think I understand what you’re saying. At least, I hope so.
I think I viewed your original comment as: you’re better than me, Debbie.
You’re better than me, because you’re no longer same-sex attracted. I’m sinful and broken, because I am still same-sex attracted. Somehow, I still don’t measure up. Even if I pursue living chastely, I better not mention I’m same-sex attracted.
Please, don’t misunderstand the above paragraph. I’m sure, Debbie, this is not what you meant; but, it’s what came across to me.
Can you understand this, Debbie? I’m sure my responses have hurt you. I didn’t mean them that way, as you didn’t mean to hurt me.
How do we cross this impasse?
Eddy
I’ve explained this in detail several times. That quote was where Blakeslee demanded that gay people not compare Christians to Ssempa. The quote where he compared me to Ssempa a few days earlier was the other quote.
But why bother. It’s not like you really care. I mean, c’mon, is there ever the tiniest chance that you would approach the issue and come out with any conclusion other than that Blakeslee was justified?
What are the odds that you would say, “gee, it really is unreasonable to compare Timothy to Ssempa while simultaneously demanding that Christians not be compared to Ssempa”? Zero. That’s not going to be your response. It’s not going to be Ann’s response. It’s probably not going to be Debbie’s response (though there’s a small chance).
There’s no mystery here. There’s no question as to how you will react. It’s not like you have any interest other than slapping down the “activist”, as Ann puts it.
For heaven sake, your last posting was quoting the dictionary in some absurd attempt to parse my words and suggest that I was misusing the word propagandist because the dictionary definition doesn’t include the phrase ‘no interest in the truth’.
For what possible reason would I want to enter into some exchange of communication with you? Neither you nor I would benefit.
This has got to be the biggest waste of time in my life. David Roberts asked me recently why I bother and, you know, he’s right.
I enjoy Warren’s postings. But down in the threads, there’s nothing of value.
Yeah, there is. You may hold onto whatever label makes you comfortable. I am trying to understand why you would refer to people who refuse to accept help for themselves as the very people who helped you. That sounds like the blind leading the blind to me. But I surely am missing something here. Or are you referring to those who do not wish to find ways to ameliorate their same-sex attractions, not those who seek help but bail out on the process?I was referring to the latter.
Ann,
I get it. As an “activist”, it is acceptable that I be “set aside” for abuse. As an “activist” I am by definition a propagandist.
You need not do any more responding, Ann. You’ve said all that you need to say.
Who said anybody was perfect? I am but a wounded healer, merely a conduit through whom the triune God (in His perfection) can minister.
Teresa, you insist (though I don’t really know why) on calling yourself gay or homosexual, though you are pursuing celibacy. You do not accept gay as a way of living because of your faith. Correct? You are no more broken than any of us is. We all carry the same “disorder” with us: we are fallen (sinners) and in need of a redeeming savior and his daily grace.
If a person is presuming to minister to another, he/she must do it with the realization that “love covers a multitude of sins.” We have 1 Cor. 13 as our model. Hard to measure up to, but we must keeping endeavoring to do just that.
I am surprised, given our past interactions, you would continue to push this line of thought with me. Have I not made it clear where I stand by now? No one is rubbing salt in your wounds. Is no one qualified in your book to witness love and grace to another? The Church has a lot of problems, but it is the only one we have. I aim to see us do a better job of being the Bride of Christ. So do you, I believe. Please, don’t misunderstand me.
Debbie, perhaps, I’ve taken most everything you’ve said in your more recent comment the wrong way. Indeed, I’m hurt by what you’ve said; or, at least my perception of your comment. I’m sure you did not mean to come across that way; but, from my end, as a homosexual woman, not “transformed”, I took your comment as very demeaning.
I’m not someone’s project, Debbie, to fix or straighten out. And, I certainly don’t want someone telling me I’m living in sin and broken … as if they had some sort of right to pronounce on the state of my soul, or my emotional health.
I’m sorry if my response comments sound harsh. This is a perfect example of how sensitive this issue is.
Debbie, I think there’s a misunderstanding. I use the term ‘gay’ as an interchangeable with homosexual.
Are you telling me that because I’m homosexual, I’m living in sin and broken?
Who welcomes all sinners and strugglers? Are str8 people not sinners and strugglers? Who’s kind and loving enough not to leave them there?
Who are these perfect people?
I realize there is a lot of confusion about what ministry outreach to those struggling with same-sex attractions or sexual identity confusion is and does. That’s in no small part because these ministries have been attacked at every turn by organizations like Truth Wins Out (Besen) and Ex-Gay Watch (Roberts).
I can’t assert that all such ministries are equally effective. They have had to find their way. It’s tough work. Perhaps some have viewed struggling gays as their pet projects. I’ve only had direct personal experience with one such ministry. I assure you I would have been hounded out of the place had I taken that approach. There is nothing quite as humbling as having someone get in your face with the searing question, “Do you really care?” I had to go in with attitude that I was not God’s poster girl for “transformation” or someone to be put on a pedestal in a museum. I had no choice, if I wanted to stay, but to get down in the trenches with those women. I had to toil with them, cry with them, laugh with them and fervently pray over and with them. Perhaps you could say we had a mutual project.
Why ought Christians to “accept” gays as gay? We are to love them and affirm their humanity and worth before Christ, not to affirm them in their sin and brokenness. We can’t do that for anyone. We welcome all sinners and strugglers as they are, but we are kind and loving enough not to leave them there. Still, help is a gift of grace they must accept. If they don’t, we shake the dust off and keep moving on with those who do want the help. To fail to continue praying for all those who are prodigals, however, is to abandon them. No one is beyond help or undeserving of our love.
Ann,
I think you’ve stated the heart of the matter with this sentence. It’s all about being just as worthwhile as anyone else, regardless of what we are. It’s about being treated with dignity and respect; as we should treat others. The Golden Rule, after all … to and for each one of us: no-holds barred, no excuses, no if-and-or-buts, no exceptions.
Certainly, one doesn’t have to be Christian to reach out and accept gays. That part of my comment was in response to Eddy’s talking about ex-gay, Christian ministries. Sorry for the confusion.
Teresa,
Quick note before I sign off – one does not have to be a Christian to reach out to or accept gays. It is my experience that most people do not understand what gay means or does not mean, therefore, they do not know what it is about being gay that needs to be accepted. People need to be accepted for being equal to other people. From that point, all of the other things that make us unique, can be understood, but are certainly not prerequisites for being equal or accepted. I would say that ex-gay (whatever that means) ministries would not exist except for the people who consider them invaluable, which is many.
Timothy,
I am away from home and traveling. I want to finish my responses to you, however, it is late where I am and I am noticing my exhaustion catching up with me. I only want to answer your comments with the substance they deserve and that will be done tomorrow when I am more alert. Thank you for understanding.
Timothy, my interpretation of this comparison was about tatics, not individuals. In light of some of the comments you and other advocates made, and how they were interpreted, by myself or David Blakeslee or the others who have commented about this, could make the comparison of how advocates resort to saying things that are not true in order to advance their position. I have experienced these tactics from you first hand, asked you to please stop, and was met with more.
Eddy,
I understand that there are homosexuals who don’t want to be homosexual … or, in the Christianese terminology … unwanted same-sex attraction. They have every right to pursue whatever options they deem fit for themselves. I don’t mean to imply otherwise.
However, from personal experience, many people ministering to these homosexuals, in my opinion only, have an attitude of making gays “their little project” … your term, “specializing on gays”.
My perception, also, is that many of the people doing this ministry have little training, and the oversight in some groups is abysmal. The only thing I can liken it to, is “the blind leading the blind”.
If I’m not mistaken, Eddy, you perhaps were involved in this type of ministry. I’m sorry if I offended you. Your journey is yours, and your experience belongs to you. My experience is quite contrary to yours, however.
Eddy,
We can agree to disagree on this; but, specializing on gays is in my opinion … treating gays as their little project … specializing in trying to fix them … euphemism for making them str8.
You can’t deny, Eddy, that that’s what the ex-gay ministry was all about … fixing gays … their little project … specializing on gays. If they were reaching out as Christians, why couldn’t they accept gays as gay.
Ok, my experience has been that you rarely, if ever, ask – instead you make an assumption that becomes your truth and then, if challenged, the attacks follow. I have never heard anyone accuse you of slurring. What do you mean by slurring?If you refer to a policy as anti-gay, that is very different than calling someone anti-gay. You have called me anti-gay and nothing could be further than the truth.
Timothy,
I understand your concern. If, for a minute, I thought David B. or anyone else was comparing anyone I knew directly or indirectly to these two evil people, I would call them on it. My understanding, at the time and now, is that David B. was comparing how activists of any kind use propoganda to further their cause. It has been the experience of people on this blog that untruths and/or misrepresentations of the truth have come from activists. To reference you or David Roberts, in light of recent comments from both of you, I don’t think was inaccurate. I think both you and David Roberts reference other people in your editorials, don’t you? I did not percieve that he was comparing you, as an individual, to either one of those men, rather the positions of advocacy that tend to invite and use propoganda to garner support. It is also my understanding that he explained this to you. Again, if I am incorrect, please let me know so I can re-examine my understanding on this.
Dictionary definition of Propaganda:
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
A Propagandist is one who does the spreading.
Timothy’s elaboration on Propaganda:
Note that nothing in the dictionary definition says that they only seek to deceive. Nothing says that they have ‘no interest in the truth’. David has commented on Timothy’s skills and gifts as a commenter; he has said that he has been challenged and sometimes corrected by Timothy’s comments. I submit that David was not maligning Timothy’s character, demeaning his person or discounting his views but was speaking to the one aspect of Timothy’s communications that occasionally surface here that obstruct conversation.
I receive such remonstrations from Jayhuck, from Timothy, from Ken and from David Roberts. Jayhuck suggests that I only speak from bias; Timothy’s latest comments are in his recent posts, Ken—well Ken is just Ken, and David Roberts has suggested several times while I was in a conversation that only closed minds are present. And, unlike David’s comments to Timothy, they seldom balance it with any word suggesting I have any worth at all. (Not complaining–I know full well the company I’m in.)
Teresa-
Earlier today I think you addressed the dynamic dynamic very well.
Night all. I’ve got a performance review in the morning and want to appear rested and energetic.
Timothy,
If I remember correctly, didn’t David B. set you and David Roberts and I “think” Wayne Besen apart for the way both of you have hurt (shut down or controlled conversation, etc.) people with your past comments? I am sorry that I don’t remember exactly what it was but I do remember him referencing you and David Roberts in that kind of context – am I right? I “thought” he was accurate from my personal experiences with both of you – am I wrong in my perception? Please tell me, because like you, I want to right a wrong, and, if I am incorrect in my understanding of his comment, I want to know.
Going to read more of your post now and respond in increments.
Teresa-
Actually, Teresa, the people leading these ministries don’t fit that caricature at all. MOST come from a gay background and don’t feel that distant from the gay people they are trying to reach. Rather than seeing gays ‘as their little project’, they do specialize on gays but only as a group that Christians were abysmal in reaching out to before. The notion thay they see gays as especially deviant, perverted ,disordered, or damaged isn’t what they are selling. They do believe the behavior is sinful and fallen, though, and want to extend a complete Gospel message to them as well. (By complete, since they view it as a sin, they believe the Gospel offers the grace and power not to engage in that sin.)
Timothy-
Thanks for counting my posts. Have you counted yours? Really–comments as to how often a person posts are just a tad off point. Sometimes a person feels compelled to post again because the person they are addressing misses the point, dodges the question, or posts repeatedly themself. (for example, the four posts in a row that I got from Jayhuck that Warren deleted.)
What am I missing here? You’ve thrown this one out several times as a claim that David is comparing you to Bahati and Ssempa:
As I read that, I hear: ‘To attack Christians in general as haters…to call Christians anti-gay…to compare Christians to Phelps, Bahati, Ssempa or Lively…that seems to be needless, polarizing and a hopelessly generalizing act of aggression.’ Where do you read that he compared you to them?
Ann,
We appear to be having a disconnect. I want examples of where I called names or slurred individuals, not their views. When you provide such examples, I will apologize. Fair enough?
Okay.
I’ve been away for a while and only rejoined the conversation a few weeks ago. But the last time I was here, I tried an experiment. I tried only providing dry facts absent my opinion. I thought that perhaps if I said absolutely nothing that could be controvertible, that civil conversation could be had.
It could not.
I put up with it for quite a while but it was clearly evident that some individuals could not interact with me without slurs, insinuations, and accusations. Often nasty ones.
I left again. Upon returning I found that David had continued his nastiness in my absence. I wasn’t even here. He wasn’t responding to what I had said. He was just making stuff up and saying that it was my position and then attacking me for it.
No, I’m not exaggerating. David Blakeslee was actually writing comments attacking me by name on threads I had not even read.
And you know who called him on it? No one.
Not you, not Debbie, not Eddy.
And it’s not like he denies it. He thinks that this behavior is just fine.
Do you think that addresses my valid concern, Ann? Would that be a good enough explanation for you?
And now let’s look at my specific grievance.
David Blakeslee accused me of being propagandist. He said that my use of words (including many that I have never used here) make me comparable to Bahati and Ssempa.
A propagandist is a person who seeks to deceive. He is someone who has no interest in the truth, other than to hide it, choosing instead to present a false image as though it were true.
Bahati and Ssempa engage in propaganda in the cause of evil. On this Blakeslee and I agree. They seek to do real harm to real people out of personal malevolence.
And accusing someone of propaganda is a clever ploy. It simultaneously maligns their character, demeans their person, and discounts their views. If you don’t like or are threatened by the views someone espouses, accusing them of propaganda is a very effective way of not only saying that their views are incorrect but that they are themselves unscrupulous and suspect.
I’m sure you agree, Ann, that being accused of being a malevolent liar is not something to be taken lightly.
So I took your example, Ann, and asked him to stop. I didn’t even ask for an apology at that time, just that his long pattern of abuse stop. In fact, you immediately wrote a comment noted that my request reminded you of your request to me some time back.
Unfortunately Warren closed the thread before Blakeslee responded. He has since stated here that he tried to email me, but I did not get the email.
And here’s the irony. I don’t use language to shut down communication. I use words with very specific meaning and I never try to obfuscate or deceive or make communication less clear. But Blakelee’s endeavors to have word removed actually does shut down communication.
His campaign to remove words that reflect negatively on ideas and policies that harm gay people – while never providing any alternates – only serves to disallow any questioning as to whether those views are based in principle or in prejudice. He calls this “removing rancor” but the end result is the same – shutting down communication.
However, I might have let the matter drop. But then but a few days later, Blakelee was speaking of what “the gay rights debate” could do to gain strength, namely appeal to Christian values instead of:
I could hardly believe my eyes. This is exactly what he did to me just days before, compare me to Bahati and Ssempa. I had to read it again to be sure.
But, as it turns out, when David accuses me of propaganda and compares me to Bahati and Ssempa, he does not see it as “a needless, polarizing and hopelessly generalizing blunt act of aggression.”
In his explanation above, he justifies this by painting the following picture of me:
Was it to this comment that you directed, “I think he has extended himself to offer an explanation of his comments and, to me, I think he addressed your very valid concerns.“?
Or was it his shorter version:
Or this attempt at deflection:
(For what it’s worth, while I have no “responsibility” for what Wayne writes, I have “publicly” criticized and disagreed with him on more than one occasion.)
Or was it the following insinuation:
You see, Ann, what I see is a most peculiar standard.
I see that any time I question whether a position is based in presumption, prejudice or false stereotype that I am portrayed as “slurring”. If I say that a policy that disadvantages gay people is “anti-gay” then I am accused of “calling names.”
Do you disagree that this is the case? Am I overstating this?
But when David Blakeslee accuses me of being a propagandist on the scale of Bahati, Ssempa, Fischer, and Lively – and please note that this was not an answer to my views but an unprovoked narrative directed to me as a person – there has been but one consistent reaction. You know what it has been.
So I am coming to the conclusion, Ann, that this is not a forum in which many participants are open to views that do not reflect negatively on homosexuality but rather are very encouraging of personal attacks on individuals which challenge presumptions.
I know that you are frustrated that I am unwilling to be gentle to those who make statements of positions that are harmful to my community. I know that it matters a great deal to you that the person making these statement not be made to feel that I am judging them or seeing them as harboring prejudice.
But that puts me in a difficult position.
I don’t hold malice against you or others that have views that differ from mine. I wouldn’t be here trying to persuade you of the consequences of such views if I did.
As I’ve said before, I don’t believe that those who oppose my civil equality do so out of hatred. Nor do i believe that those who oppose my full inclusion in the church are bigots. I don’t think that those who find a different scriptural understand than I do are closed-minded or spiteful or stupid.
But I can’t act as though the views, the positions, the policies are just another opinion, as inconsequential as how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
I firmly believe that good people hold bad views. I believe that bigotry can live in people who strive to be loving. I believe that prejudice lives in all of us as a product of our upbringing, our experiences, our fears, and our misunderstandings. I do not believe that people who hold view which result in the pain and death of my community always do so because they delight in such pain and death.
But I cannot pretend that it’s okay. If a position harms my people, I can’t pretend that it is benign.
My people are suffering, Ann. Some are dying. It’s too important to me.
Ann,
I think you’ve stated the heart of the matter with this sentence. It’s all about being just as worthwhile as anyone else, regardless of what we are. It’s about being treated with dignity and respect; as we should treat others. The Golden Rule, after all … to and for each one of us: no-holds barred, no excuses, no if-and-or-buts, no exceptions.
Certainly, one doesn’t have to be Christian to reach out and accept gays. That part of my comment was in response to Eddy’s talking about ex-gay, Christian ministries. Sorry for the confusion.
Timothy,
I believe you.
Teresa,
Quick note before I sign off – one does not have to be a Christian to reach out to or accept gays. It is my experience that most people do not understand what gay means or does not mean, therefore, they do not know what it is about being gay that needs to be accepted. People need to be accepted for being equal to other people. From that point, all of the other things that make us unique, can be understood, but are certainly not prerequisites for being equal or accepted. I would say that ex-gay (whatever that means) ministries would not exist except for the people who consider them invaluable, which is many.
Timothy,
I am away from home and traveling. I want to finish my responses to you, however, it is late where I am and I am noticing my exhaustion catching up with me. I only want to answer your comments with the substance they deserve and that will be done tomorrow when I am more alert. Thank you for understanding.
Timothy, my interpretation of this comparison was about tatics, not individuals. In light of some of the comments you and other advocates made, and how they were interpreted, by myself or David Blakeslee or the others who have commented about this, could make the comparison of how advocates resort to saying things that are not true in order to advance their position. I have experienced these tactics from you first hand, asked you to please stop, and was met with more.
Eddy,
I understand that there are homosexuals who don’t want to be homosexual … or, in the Christianese terminology … unwanted same-sex attraction. They have every right to pursue whatever options they deem fit for themselves. I don’t mean to imply otherwise.
However, from personal experience, many people ministering to these homosexuals, in my opinion only, have an attitude of making gays “their little project” … your term, “specializing on gays”.
My perception, also, is that many of the people doing this ministry have little training, and the oversight in some groups is abysmal. The only thing I can liken it to, is “the blind leading the blind”.
If I’m not mistaken, Eddy, you perhaps were involved in this type of ministry. I’m sorry if I offended you. Your journey is yours, and your experience belongs to you. My experience is quite contrary to yours, however.
Thanks Timothy – I believe I have pointed out, repeatedly, your propensity for leveling attacks against people, including myself. I don’t really ever remember having any dialogue with you about anything substantial, as I would like to, without your responses being laced with sarcasm, mis-representations, and attacks. If you are challenged, the attacks you level intensify. I think you think this tactic works in your favor, however, you are seen as someone who is undisciplined and immature. You lose an audience and your credibility. I, and others, have efforted to bring this to your attention, but you seem almost impervious to the negative effect it has. How many people need to tell you and how many times before you understand that your tactics do not work? What I am saying to you has nothing to do with being gay or straight or anything inbetween, rather, it has to do with character and integrity and the choices you make. Those choices have consequences. When someone has appealed to you to communicate without sarcasm, mis-representations, personal attacks, and assumptions and has told you how it injures your credibility, why would you continue to do so? Perhaps, you consider that individual unworthy of any dialogue – I just don’t know.
Timothy, you have called me anti-gay, said that I was prejudiced against gay people (the time I asked why more gay people didn’t volunteer), and have accused me many times of holding a position that is negative toward gay people which has nothing to do with the truth.
Timothy, this is weak. You cannot point out a logical conclusion if you lie about it, as was the case in your example. Again, here I asked you to stop. You chose to absolve yourself rather than take the high road and apologize for what was obviously another one of your tactics. David B. explains it well in his recent communications to you.
And this is unneccessary and calls attention to an undisciplined and immature way to respond. You might think it is absurd because of the advocacy position you hold, however, you, Timothy, also use tools of propaganda to get your way too. It just does not work when anyone does it.
Timothy, I have done this repeatedly and consistently at the time you do it. You apologized to me about a year ago saying that you assumed wrong things about me and after checking, realized your assumptions had no merit (or were untrue). Do you realize the impact that apology had for me? It meant everything.
Timothy, you are making another assumption about me – you do NOT (yes, I used caps) know whether it would mean stepping out of the comfort of the circle of those who cheer on the abuse not do you know if it might feel like betrayal. I have no hesitation calling out someone who has perpetrated an injustice or injury on another. This is how I feel – and I could be VERY (caps again) wrong, however, I do not feel as though David B. inflicted the injury you perceived him to. I think he has extended himself to offer an explanation of his comments and, to me, I think he addressed your very valid concerns. If I am incorrect or not seeing this in the right light, I really want you to tell me and I will re-examine my understanding of it.
Eddy,
We can agree to disagree on this; but, specializing on gays is in my opinion … treating gays as their little project … specializing in trying to fix them … euphemism for making them str8.
You can’t deny, Eddy, that that’s what the ex-gay ministry was all about … fixing gays … their little project … specializing on gays. If they were reaching out as Christians, why couldn’t they accept gays as gay.
Ok, my experience has been that you rarely, if ever, ask – instead you make an assumption that becomes your truth and then, if challenged, the attacks follow. I have never heard anyone accuse you of slurring. What do you mean by slurring?If you refer to a policy as anti-gay, that is very different than calling someone anti-gay. You have called me anti-gay and nothing could be further than the truth.
Ann,
I am sincere. If you see where I have attacked or slurred individuals, I really do want to make that right.
Teresa,
I think that is a sad fact of human nature. It’s very hard to see ourselves as the same as “those in need” or that our good deeds are not proof of our inherent goodness.
Eddy.
Then perhaps, just perhaps, you might want to – oh, I don’t know – limit your contribution to less than – say, maybe – a dozen or so emails?
Oh, how true, this statement is. I say this from the perspective of being Catholic, and what the Courage Group acts like. Their stated goal is “Chastity”; but, with that statement comes NARTH literature everywhere. We’re never quite good enough, no matter what we do … please, please change is always the subtle, and oftentimes not so subtle, message.
And, the people leading these ministries (not just Courage) often seem to relish having “us as their little project”. See how oh so loving we are, we’re helping these deviant, perverted, disordered, ‘damaged goods’.
I’m sure rape victims feel much like this. They’re never quite good enough anymore, no matter how hard they try.
Timothy,
I understand your concern. If, for a minute, I thought David B. or anyone else was comparing anyone I knew directly or indirectly to these two evil people, I would call them on it. My understanding, at the time and now, is that David B. was comparing how activists of any kind use propoganda to further their cause. It has been the experience of people on this blog that untruths and/or misrepresentations of the truth have come from activists. To reference you or David Roberts, in light of recent comments from both of you, I don’t think was inaccurate. I think both you and David Roberts reference other people in your editorials, don’t you? I did not percieve that he was comparing you, as an individual, to either one of those men, rather the positions of advocacy that tend to invite and use propoganda to garner support. It is also my understanding that he explained this to you. Again, if I am incorrect, please let me know so I can re-examine my understanding on this.
Teresa
Yes, you make a good point.
There are some who hold to the “you haven’t tried hard enough” line to justify what is plain ol’ nastiness. I think most ex-gay groups have moved from the “pray hard enough” blame-game and now see their role as more “help you live holiness whatever your attractions are.” (while maybe still holding to some of the “you should wear lipstick” perspective).
And there are plenty in the church who would assert that they are not opposed to homosexually attracted persons, per se. But sadly, when it comes right down to it, it doesn’t really matter if one agrees doctrinally or lives as holy a life as they could come up with, they want nothing at all to do with same-sex attracted persons.
On that point I think Exodus is right on mark. And their efforts to introduce that conversation is valuable to everyone who is outside of the macho-man-submissive-wive paradigm, no matter where we fall on the sexuality or identity scale.
And I do think that things are changing to some extent. Even the most vehement of opponent to gay rights will, at least nominally, make some “we love the strugglers” comments. And that is movement in the right direction, I suppose.
Timothy,
If I remember correctly, didn’t David B. set you and David Roberts and I “think” Wayne Besen apart for the way both of you have hurt (shut down or controlled conversation, etc.) people with your past comments? I am sorry that I don’t remember exactly what it was but I do remember him referencing you and David Roberts in that kind of context – am I right? I “thought” he was accurate from my personal experiences with both of you – am I wrong in my perception? Please tell me, because like you, I want to right a wrong, and, if I am incorrect in my understanding of his comment, I want to know.
Going to read more of your post now and respond in increments.
Let’s just say that I reliably use(d) satire and sarcasm to point out absurdities
Timothy addressed Ann on a specific matter of cheering on and of a circle of supporters for that. That’s what I spoke to and I stand by it.
Eddy,
We are well on our way to having our conversation edited by Warren, but may I say you have a way with back-handed apologies! LOL
Could this be considered somewhat like the Christian proposition of: “separating the sinner from the sin” … “we love the sinner, but not the sin”?
Is the assumption the person assuming as well as the proposition assumed?
Jayhuck–
NO. That should be evident by the sentence I wrote that began with “I accused you of judging” (translation: I judged you of judging.) I’m sorry that my words are seldom clear enough for you.
Eddy,
That’s not entirely true. There are groups of people on here who clearly tend to side with certain others a majority of the time, and who make statements to that effect. If you haven’t seen that then there is a real problem with your “ability to get at the heart of conflicts” it would seem.
Eddy,
Are you implying that you don’t judge in the same way you are accusing Timothy of judging?
Timothy,
There are not an insubstantial number of str8 people (mainly) who disagree, and oftentimes vehemently, that your above statement is false. Not so?
But, come to think of it, isn’t that what most of the ex-gay movement is all about … if you choose hard enough … manifested by enough prayer, makeup, makeover, sports for men, manning-up, etc., you’ve made the right choice?
Here’s a spanking fresh example:
No one is cheering, Timothy. And there isn’t any ‘circle’. I’ll have to recheck but only Ann and I–and Jayhuck– seem to have weighed in. (And Throbert made that drama comment…) Hardly qualifies as ‘cheering on’…we all want it to end.
Question: when David brought the link and you responded with
are you saying that you weren’t inferring that David was guilty of such contemptuous assumptions?
I, for one, took it that way since it seemed to be the tone of your entire response. If that wasn’t your intent, could you 1) explain how it wasn’t connected to/directed at the person you were responding to AND 2) consider how such statements come across if you don’t actually explain that that isn’t what you meant.
I have accused you of judging. It is that statement and others delivered in a similar style that led me to those accusations. A convincing answer to #1 from the previous paragaph might even garner an apology from me.
@All,
Perhaps, at the core of all our differences, sometimes voiced amicably, sometimes not, is the feeling that, I think, all same-sex attracted persons feel at some point in their lives, usually early on … I’m not worthy of being loved … I’m so different, I’m damned … if I tell you who I am, you’ll spurn me, hate me, tell me I am truly an awful, damned person and the sooner I’m dead the better.
Of course, all humans have feelings of not being worthy; but, I would venture to say most don’t have the deep, core, abiding aloneness, alienation, marginalized feelings, reinforced socially at every opportunity, even now, but more subtly, that most homosexuals deal with. This is not proclaiming a victim status, it’s simply pointing out a fact. A fact that, I think, most therapists will agree with. Telling us we’re playing the victim, is oftentimes a method of trying to shut down the conversation.
David Blakeslee made the following comment:
Please, correct me if I’m wrong; but, is there really any homosexual who at some point in their life hasn’t hoped/wished/prayed/begged God, or some higher power, someone, anyone to take away this orientation? Those of us who have learned to accept, even be happy, with our homosexuality; still carry deep wounds and scars; and, most of us still are wary and somewhat fearful of str8 persons … especially, those who tell us what we should feel, how we could really change if we wanted to, and what our life should be like.
As much as I don’t like the overarching analogy of homosexuality to African Americans; there certainly are social similarities that can’t be denied.
I don’t have a ‘dog in the stake’ on the David B./Timothy discussion; but, I sure value the conversation here. Sometimes, my feelings get hurt. Sometimes I’m sure, my comments may wound others (not intentionally), for which I apologize. The topics discussed on this blog are very sensitive areas for most of us. I guess being mindful of others, and their feelings and journey, is worthy of consideration when we comment in this virtual world.
Ann,
We appear to be having a disconnect. I want examples of where I called names or slurred individuals, not their views. When you provide such examples, I will apologize. Fair enough?
Okay.
I’ve been away for a while and only rejoined the conversation a few weeks ago. But the last time I was here, I tried an experiment. I tried only providing dry facts absent my opinion. I thought that perhaps if I said absolutely nothing that could be controvertible, that civil conversation could be had.
It could not.
I put up with it for quite a while but it was clearly evident that some individuals could not interact with me without slurs, insinuations, and accusations. Often nasty ones.
I left again. Upon returning I found that David had continued his nastiness in my absence. I wasn’t even here. He wasn’t responding to what I had said. He was just making stuff up and saying that it was my position and then attacking me for it.
No, I’m not exaggerating. David Blakeslee was actually writing comments attacking me by name on threads I had not even read.
And you know who called him on it? No one.
Not you, not Debbie, not Eddy.
And it’s not like he denies it. He thinks that this behavior is just fine.
Do you think that addresses my valid concern, Ann? Would that be a good enough explanation for you?
And now let’s look at my specific grievance.
David Blakeslee accused me of being propagandist. He said that my use of words (including many that I have never used here) make me comparable to Bahati and Ssempa.
A propagandist is a person who seeks to deceive. He is someone who has no interest in the truth, other than to hide it, choosing instead to present a false image as though it were true.
Bahati and Ssempa engage in propaganda in the cause of evil. On this Blakeslee and I agree. They seek to do real harm to real people out of personal malevolence.
And accusing someone of propaganda is a clever ploy. It simultaneously maligns their character, demeans their person, and discounts their views. If you don’t like or are threatened by the views someone espouses, accusing them of propaganda is a very effective way of not only saying that their views are incorrect but that they are themselves unscrupulous and suspect.
I’m sure you agree, Ann, that being accused of being a malevolent liar is not something to be taken lightly.
So I took your example, Ann, and asked him to stop. I didn’t even ask for an apology at that time, just that his long pattern of abuse stop. In fact, you immediately wrote a comment noted that my request reminded you of your request to me some time back.
Unfortunately Warren closed the thread before Blakeslee responded. He has since stated here that he tried to email me, but I did not get the email.
And here’s the irony. I don’t use language to shut down communication. I use words with very specific meaning and I never try to obfuscate or deceive or make communication less clear. But Blakelee’s endeavors to have word removed actually does shut down communication.
His campaign to remove words that reflect negatively on ideas and policies that harm gay people – while never providing any alternates – only serves to disallow any questioning as to whether those views are based in principle or in prejudice. He calls this “removing rancor” but the end result is the same – shutting down communication.
However, I might have let the matter drop. But then but a few days later, Blakelee was speaking of what “the gay rights debate” could do to gain strength, namely appeal to Christian values instead of:
I could hardly believe my eyes. This is exactly what he did to me just days before, compare me to Bahati and Ssempa. I had to read it again to be sure.
But, as it turns out, when David accuses me of propaganda and compares me to Bahati and Ssempa, he does not see it as “a needless, polarizing and hopelessly generalizing blunt act of aggression.”
In his explanation above, he justifies this by painting the following picture of me:
Was it to this comment that you directed, “I think he has extended himself to offer an explanation of his comments and, to me, I think he addressed your very valid concerns.“?
Or was it his shorter version:
Or this attempt at deflection:
(For what it’s worth, while I have no “responsibility” for what Wayne writes, I have “publicly” criticized and disagreed with him on more than one occasion.)
Or was it the following insinuation:
You see, Ann, what I see is a most peculiar standard.
I see that any time I question whether a position is based in presumption, prejudice or false stereotype that I am portrayed as “slurring”. If I say that a policy that disadvantages gay people is “anti-gay” then I am accused of “calling names.”
Do you disagree that this is the case? Am I overstating this?
But when David Blakeslee accuses me of being a propagandist on the scale of Bahati, Ssempa, Fischer, and Lively – and please note that this was not an answer to my views but an unprovoked narrative directed to me as a person – there has been but one consistent reaction. You know what it has been.
So I am coming to the conclusion, Ann, that this is not a forum in which many participants are open to views that do not reflect negatively on homosexuality but rather are very encouraging of personal attacks on individuals which challenge presumptions.
I know that you are frustrated that I am unwilling to be gentle to those who make statements of positions that are harmful to my community. I know that it matters a great deal to you that the person making these statement not be made to feel that I am judging them or seeing them as harboring prejudice.
But that puts me in a difficult position.
I don’t hold malice against you or others that have views that differ from mine. I wouldn’t be here trying to persuade you of the consequences of such views if I did.
As I’ve said before, I don’t believe that those who oppose my civil equality do so out of hatred. Nor do i believe that those who oppose my full inclusion in the church are bigots. I don’t think that those who find a different scriptural understand than I do are closed-minded or spiteful or stupid.
But I can’t act as though the views, the positions, the policies are just another opinion, as inconsequential as how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
I firmly believe that good people hold bad views. I believe that bigotry can live in people who strive to be loving. I believe that prejudice lives in all of us as a product of our upbringing, our experiences, our fears, and our misunderstandings. I do not believe that people who hold view which result in the pain and death of my community always do so because they delight in such pain and death.
But I cannot pretend that it’s okay. If a position harms my people, I can’t pretend that it is benign.
My people are suffering, Ann. Some are dying. It’s too important to me.
Ann,
I think we just had this discussion a bit ago, didn’t we? I asked you to kindly show where I had leveled slurs and attacks against people, and you chose not to. Perhaps it was for some undisclosed reasons, or perhaps it was because you realized then (but have since forgotten) that I attack ideas and presumptions and inequalities and prejudices and biases – but generally not the people who hold them.
I am quick to point out the prejudices behind positions- without calling the individual “prejudiced” (unlike how some treat me, Ann, I don’t actually “call names”) Apr 11, 2011 at 8:35 pm
I am ready to point out the nature of an argument and its logical conclusions (as I often do with you, Ann, something you call “distortions”) – without accusing the individual of holding the malice present in such conclusions.
And I reliably use satire and sarcasm to point out absurdities – without calling the individual a propagandist or accusing them of using “tools of propaganda” to get their way.
Yet, Ann, if you would care to point out slurs and attacks I have leveled against people at this blog, I will gladly and sincerely apologize. But this time I ask something of you in return.
If you cannot find such slurs and attacks, will you be the lone sole voice to reprimand David? I know it would mean stepping out of the comfort of the circle of those who cheer on the abuse, and I know if might even feel like betrayal, but are you willing to do it?
Timothy,
Would you ever consider apologizing for the slurs and attacks you have leveled at people on this blog? Perhaps apologizing for mis-representing or distorting what others have said could also be included if you want to.
Thank you.
Of course, there are times when the status quo is wrong.
Thanks Timothy – I believe I have pointed out, repeatedly, your propensity for leveling attacks against people, including myself. I don’t really ever remember having any dialogue with you about anything substantial, as I would like to, without your responses being laced with sarcasm, mis-representations, and attacks. If you are challenged, the attacks you level intensify. I think you think this tactic works in your favor, however, you are seen as someone who is undisciplined and immature. You lose an audience and your credibility. I, and others, have efforted to bring this to your attention, but you seem almost impervious to the negative effect it has. How many people need to tell you and how many times before you understand that your tactics do not work? What I am saying to you has nothing to do with being gay or straight or anything inbetween, rather, it has to do with character and integrity and the choices you make. Those choices have consequences. When someone has appealed to you to communicate without sarcasm, mis-representations, personal attacks, and assumptions and has told you how it injures your credibility, why would you continue to do so? Perhaps, you consider that individual unworthy of any dialogue – I just don’t know.
Timothy, you have called me anti-gay, said that I was prejudiced against gay people (the time I asked why more gay people didn’t volunteer), and have accused me many times of holding a position that is negative toward gay people which has nothing to do with the truth.
Timothy, this is weak. You cannot point out a logical conclusion if you lie about it, as was the case in your example. Again, here I asked you to stop. You chose to absolve yourself rather than take the high road and apologize for what was obviously another one of your tactics. David B. explains it well in his recent communications to you.
And this is unneccessary and calls attention to an undisciplined and immature way to respond. You might think it is absurd because of the advocacy position you hold, however, you, Timothy, also use tools of propaganda to get your way too. It just does not work when anyone does it.
Timothy, I have done this repeatedly and consistently at the time you do it. You apologized to me about a year ago saying that you assumed wrong things about me and after checking, realized your assumptions had no merit (or were untrue). Do you realize the impact that apology had for me? It meant everything.
Timothy, you are making another assumption about me – you do NOT (yes, I used caps) know whether it would mean stepping out of the comfort of the circle of those who cheer on the abuse not do you know if it might feel like betrayal. I have no hesitation calling out someone who has perpetrated an injustice or injury on another. This is how I feel – and I could be VERY (caps again) wrong, however, I do not feel as though David B. inflicted the injury you perceived him to. I think he has extended himself to offer an explanation of his comments and, to me, I think he addressed your very valid concerns. If I am incorrect or not seeing this in the right light, I really want you to tell me and I will re-examine my understanding of it.
Debbie,
p.s. no I don’t think you view gay folk seeking marriage as “uppity”.
I just wanted to point out that “bucking the status quo” is not a very objectionable thing when you are subjected to an unfairness.
ken,
I’m not sure 18-34 were eliminated. They may have just been too small of a sample to provide a statistically valid breakout. (which would still skew the results)
I have been mostly ignoring the polls that show that a majority of Americans support the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. At first I thought them anomalous or perhaps the result of polling bias.
But this is like the third or fourth major poll in a row.
ken
It goes like this:
The issue is not over marriage, that is but the skirmish. And the issue is not over having homosexual attractions, that is not a matter of choice or character.
The issue is over whether society aught to be governed according to the religious teaching of some (but not all) churches. In short, the issue is whether the current secular form of governance should be replaced by that favored by Huckabee, Fischer, et al.
One can be same-sex attracted and believe that religious ideals should direct society and law. So having same sex attractions says nothing about your position on the issue.
But “being gay” and especially having a partner of ten years does. It says that you are unwilling to replace the constitution with either the Declaration of Independence or the Bible. It says that you think that the First Amendment was not designed to make this a Christian Nation. It says, in the language of the American Family Association, that you have “taken sides in the culture war.”
Because in a worldview in which homosexuality must be condemned and, as is the position of the Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins, Christians have a moral obligation to support a “culture of disapproval and condemnation”, saying nothing is taking sides. A business (like Home Depot) that treats gay groups the same as other groups is taking sides. A gay person living consistent with their experienced attractions is taking sides. Considering the constitution as though it were impartial to gay people is taking sides.
Well, that is awfully uppity of them, isn’t it? The effrontery!!
Yes, indeed! That’ll show them to stay in their place.
Eddy,
We are well on our way to having our conversation edited by Warren, but may I say you have a way with back-handed apologies! LOL
Blakeslee,
I’m not much interested in your continued untruthful accusations, accompanied by bizarre, paranoid insinuations, and implied blame about totally unrelated people.
If you want to apologize for the slurs and the attacks, I’ll listen. If you pledge to stop the campaign of personal villification, I’m all ears.
Timothy
Eddy,
That’s not entirely true. There are groups of people on here who clearly tend to side with certain others a majority of the time, and who make statements to that effect. If you haven’t seen that then there is a real problem with your “ability to get at the heart of conflicts” it would seem.
Debbie,
No, I don’t think that is a valid case.
That one might be impacted by a case – as a class of people – is not cause for invalidation. Or we should call for the recusal of all of the justices that are heterosexually married, lest they seek to protect their marriage from the harm of same-sex marriage.
And we’ll leave the decision to the two heterosexual single women on the court, Kagen and Sotomayor? Would you support that? 😉
CNN has just released a poll, CNN Gay marriage poll, showing a majority (51%) of americans now support gay marriage. However, this percentage doesn’t appear to include 18-34 year-olds which would probably bump that 51 a few points higher. No indication why that age group was excluded.
It certainly fits the trend of increasing support for gay marriage over the years.
Timothy,
Would you ever consider apologizing for the slurs and attacks you have leveled at people on this blog? Perhaps apologizing for mis-representing or distorting what others have said could also be included if you want to.
Debbie,
I’m a little uncomfortable with the way this is worded. It almost sounds like you’re suggesting that if gay people hadn’t stood up for their rights, then bad things wouldn’t have happened to them. I’m willing to believe that is not what you meant.
What brought prop 8 was the fact that anti-gay forces turned their propaganda machines into high gear and went to town maligning gay folk. That this occurred because good gay people stood up to the status quo is no excuse for what happened.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 19, 2011 at 11:52 am
“There is effrontery, but unconstitutional harm is a rebuttable presumption. ”
I didn’t say “unconstitutional harm.” I said gays were harmed by laws banning marriage. What is unconstitutional is that the government has no justification in denying gays the right of marriage. And “status quo” has NEVER been a valid reason for discrimination.
“But how can anyone argue that Walker had nothing to gain from the outcome?”
what did Walker have to gain that would prevent him from being able to render an unbiased opinion?
“The law of averages says most court cases will be judged by heterosexuals. We have to accept that, bias or not.”
This matter has nothing to do with the law of averages. It has to do with you (and others) claiming Walker is biased simply because he is gay. And none of you have been able to point to anything in his rulings (either during the trial or in his declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional) that indicates any bias.
Thank you.
Of course, there are times when the status quo is wrong.
There is effrontery, but unconstitutional harm is a rebuttable presumption.
It was gays who attempted to buck the status quo. That brought Prop 8. Everyone has some kid of bias here. I didn’t hear anyone arguing that straights could not be biased. But how can anyone argue that Walker had nothing to gain from the outcome? The law of averages says most court cases will be judged by heterosexuals. We have to accept that, bias or not.
and detailing his shortcomings… I don’t think you extolled his shortcomings, for the record 😉
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 19, 2011 at 10:04 am
“But gays are forever saying traditional marriages cannot be harmed by same-sex marriage, therefore, it follows that there could be no benefit to straight couples by upholding Prop 8.”
But there is significant harm to gays who wish to marry by upholding prop 8. Which is why it should be struck down. However, my point was that for proponents of Prop. 8 to argue that only a straight person could be unbiased in his ruling, is to argue that there is no need for prop. 8 in the 1st place.
Please forgive the alliteration. I could not help myself this morning 🙂
David Blakeslee,
Instead of penning the paragraphs of prose extolling Timothy’s virtues and shortcomings, have you tried just apologizing? I you have then *I* am sorry, but it sure seems an easier thing to do.
Debbie,
p.s. no I don’t think you view gay folk seeking marriage as “uppity”.
I just wanted to point out that “bucking the status quo” is not a very objectionable thing when you are subjected to an unfairness.
ken,
I’m not sure 18-34 were eliminated. They may have just been too small of a sample to provide a statistically valid breakout. (which would still skew the results)
I have been mostly ignoring the polls that show that a majority of Americans support the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. At first I thought them anomalous or perhaps the result of polling bias.
But this is like the third or fourth major poll in a row.
ken
It goes like this:
The issue is not over marriage, that is but the skirmish. And the issue is not over having homosexual attractions, that is not a matter of choice or character.
The issue is over whether society aught to be governed according to the religious teaching of some (but not all) churches. In short, the issue is whether the current secular form of governance should be replaced by that favored by Huckabee, Fischer, et al.
One can be same-sex attracted and believe that religious ideals should direct society and law. So having same sex attractions says nothing about your position on the issue.
But “being gay” and especially having a partner of ten years does. It says that you are unwilling to replace the constitution with either the Declaration of Independence or the Bible. It says that you think that the First Amendment was not designed to make this a Christian Nation. It says, in the language of the American Family Association, that you have “taken sides in the culture war.”
Because in a worldview in which homosexuality must be condemned and, as is the position of the Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins, Christians have a moral obligation to support a “culture of disapproval and condemnation”, saying nothing is taking sides. A business (like Home Depot) that treats gay groups the same as other groups is taking sides. A gay person living consistent with their experienced attractions is taking sides. Considering the constitution as though it were impartial to gay people is taking sides.
I have been holding my tongue to allow David and Timothy to address this sticking point between them. I only wish to add that I have never seen David vilify anyone here or lash out unjustly. He has, understandably, expressed strong opinions about the issues at times. We all have. He has called out individuals on both sides of the aisle when their actions merited it. Someone has to do it.
Timothy, I also believe when you have chosen the high road, as David pointed out, it has moved the conversation forward in a meaningful way. I have appreciated that, too.
I think we all need to just take a deep breath before saying anything we may later regret. I have failed to follow my own advice on occasion, to my sorrow. Words can wound deeply. It is indeed hard to oppose an idea without appearing to be attacking the purveyor of it. But we are adults and we can discern the difference.
But gays are forever saying traditional marriages cannot be harmed by same-sex marriage, therefore, it follows that there could be no benefit to straight couples by upholding Prop 8.
I never maintained at the time of the hearing that Judge Walker’s decision should have been vacated — there were no provable grounds for it then. I did not agree with it, not believe it to be based in the Constitution.
Timothy,
You are so gifted with words: “villification…campaign…slurs.” You are a wordsmith.
Collecting them in a sentence doesn’t make them true…but they can be effective anyway, which furthers my assessment of your style. Each word is a “punch” or a “stab,” but you are punching at the air…because your words are unconnected to the facts.
You asked for an explanation, and I gave you a thoughtful one that contrasted your identity as an individual and your behavior here “from time to time” with the labels and comparisons that are cast at a group. There is a real difference.
Leadership carries with it responsibility…I hope someday you can publicly confront Wayne Besen on his demeaning and manipulative writing style…it is a repetitive attack on double minorities: those with unwanted same sex attractions. You have said that you disagree with him, but since the gay rights movement is profiting politically from his style, it may be hard for you to publicly condemn him.
You don’t like to note the many times I have heartily agreed with your more thoughtful assessments, or how I deeply believe you have moved the argument forward in this whole debate when you have shown fidelity to the facts and emphasized the need for humanity and respect.
Numerous times you have assumed what my heart and motives are…you remind me of some of the Pastors and Elders and friends I have had over the years who claimed such Moral Clairvoyance.
You come from a community and are seeking to protect a community; I think there are plenty of listening ears here. When you bring the style of verbal humiliation you are undermining a great good you are trying to accomplish.
Unless that isn’t your task…unless your task is to drive people away from this site or to humiliate them into silence. I have noticed that some people who were frequent visitors here now only come occasionally.
But I don’t know your heart.
Debbie,
I’m a little uncomfortable with the way this is worded. It almost sounds like you’re suggesting that if gay people hadn’t stood up for their rights, then bad things wouldn’t have happened to them. I’m willing to believe that is not what you meant.
What brought prop 8 was the fact that anti-gay forces turned their propaganda machines into high gear and went to town maligning gay folk. That this occurred because good gay people stood up to the status quo is no excuse for what happened.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 19, 2011 at 7:40
“But now that he has revealed his 10-year same-sex relationship, I think there is a valid case for his decision to be vacated.”
Hardly surprising, given you felt his decision should be vacated as soon as he made it. However, the fact that he has been in a 10-year relationship, is really no more significant than the fact that he is gay. If Walker and his partner wanted to marry they could have done so 2 years ago (after an 8 year relationship), and before Prop 8 was passed. The fact that he didn’t is a pretty good indicator that he isn’t interested in getting married.
On the other hand, if you wish to argue a straight person would have had no benefit from the outcome of the trial, then that pretty much says there is no argument for banning gay marriage doesn’t it?
There is effrontery, but unconstitutional harm is a rebuttable presumption.
It was gays who attempted to buck the status quo. That brought Prop 8. Everyone has some kid of bias here. I didn’t hear anyone arguing that straights could not be biased. But how can anyone argue that Walker had nothing to gain from the outcome? The law of averages says most court cases will be judged by heterosexuals. We have to accept that, bias or not.
Getting back to the point about which this dust-up between Timothy and David B. began, here and here is more relevant news about Judge Walker.
I had said I believed Walker was correct in his “slippery slope” assessment. But now that he has revealed his 10-year same-sex relationship, I think there is a valid case for his decision to be vacated. It is also troubling that he is using video clips of the Prop 8 hearing in his talks while no ruling I am aware of has unsealed the footage.
Still amazed that David’s use of the word ‘data’ warranted the judgement
“To assume that a gay judge’s orientation has any bearing on a decision is to assume that a gay person is incapable of impartiality. I consider such assumptions to be contemptuous.” AND the conversation that ensued never did talk about the content of the link.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 19, 2011 at 7:40
“But now that he has revealed his 10-year same-sex relationship, I think there is a valid case for his decision to be vacated.”
Hardly surprising, given you felt his decision should be vacated as soon as he made it. However, the fact that he has been in a 10-year relationship, is really no more significant than the fact that he is gay. If Walker and his partner wanted to marry they could have done so 2 years ago (after an 8 year relationship), and before Prop 8 was passed. The fact that he didn’t is a pretty good indicator that he isn’t interested in getting married.
On the other hand, if you wish to argue a straight person would have had no benefit from the outcome of the trial, then that pretty much says there is no argument for banning gay marriage doesn’t it?
Timothy-
The ONLY statements David just made referring to you are these:
1) You engage, at times, in the tools of propaganda.
2) “when you bring your tools here; especially your special ability to see the hearts and souls of others in a hostile manner, it is worthy of confrontation.”
You have defended your use of terms such as ‘heterosexist” and “homophobic'” which David has cited as propaganda speech when directed at bloggers here. (I’m clearly ‘on the other side’ from you in debates here but am not properly categorized by either label.)
And you HAVE ripped people apart (seen their hearts and souls and expressing what YOU see in a hostile manner), going so far as to pronounce judgement on them.
You evidently see them as ‘untruthful allegations’…very, very troubling.
David Blakeslee,
I’m not much interested in your continued untruthful accusations.
If you want to apologize for the slurs (especially the ones you find so reprehensible when by others and not against me) and the attacks, I’ll listen. If you pledge to stop the campaign of personal villification, I’m all ears.
But otherwise, I don’t really have much else that I need to hear from you.
Timothy
Thank you Timothy for this statement although I am not sure I agree with the prior paragraph. When I was single (I suppose I still am in the eyes of the legal system since neither my state nor the Federal government recognizes my relationship) I was frequently annoyed with the idea that married people should pay lower taxes. Something like this would in effect be placing a penalty on single people, and that does not seem fair. I think exceptions could of course be made if and when children enter the equation.
Debbie
Okay. We can agree that it would be better for society to encourage marriage by reducing taxes below what they would be for single people. That would be, to me, wise policy.
But being treated the same (or almost so) as single people is not penalizing married people, is it? It was categorizing this as a marriage penalty that had me disagreeing with you. Rather it is a “equal income” penalty, if anything. It simply is the case that marrying doesn’t bring down your taxes if you have the same income.
As for gay men making the same income, I don’t have the figures but I don’t see it as any kind of norm. As a quick check (and it isn’t statistically valid) I randomly selected four male couples from our database. It may just be these four, but I was surprised at how disproportionate they were (like one over 100K, the other under 20K). It isn’t unusual for one to focus on work and the other on the home. And, of course, some will have similar income.
Timothy-
The ONLY statements David just made referring to you are these:
1) You engage, at times, in the tools of propaganda.
2) “when you bring your tools here; especially your special ability to see the hearts and souls of others in a hostile manner, it is worthy of confrontation.”
You have defended your use of terms such as ‘heterosexist” and “homophobic'” which David has cited as propaganda speech when directed at bloggers here. (I’m clearly ‘on the other side’ from you in debates here but am not properly categorized by either label.)
And you HAVE ripped people apart (seen their hearts and souls and expressing what YOU see in a hostile manner), going so far as to pronounce judgement on them.
You evidently see them as ‘untruthful allegations’…very, very troubling.
David Blakeslee,
I’m not much interested in your continued untruthful accusations.
If you want to apologize for the slurs (especially the ones you find so reprehensible when by others and not against me) and the attacks, I’ll listen. If you pledge to stop the campaign of personal villification, I’m all ears.
But otherwise, I don’t really have much else that I need to hear from you.
Timothy
Thank you Timothy for this statement although I am not sure I agree with the prior paragraph. When I was single (I suppose I still am in the eyes of the legal system since neither my state nor the Federal government recognizes my relationship) I was frequently annoyed with the idea that married people should pay lower taxes. Something like this would in effect be placing a penalty on single people, and that does not seem fair. I think exceptions could of course be made if and when children enter the equation.
Timothy,
Well, I wish that had gone better.
Simply put, you are a public figure, with a public policy position who engages, at times, in the tools of propoganda.
Referring to you in your absence is not attack, it is an acknowledgment of your power and public identity…when you bring your tools here; especially your special ability to see the hearts and souls of others in a hostile manner, it is worthy of confrontation.
I do not feel the victim…you misunderstand this. You have not inflicted any wound on me.
You are a thoughtful and bright man; and very persuasive. I cannot fathom why you stoop to such tactics. I think you can win your debate without them (and I think you are).
People come to this site to learn and to hear both sides and to step away from the disgust that both sides have for each other to hear the facts on the table. They come here to find what we have in common. That is the forum that Warren has courageously provided.
Timothy,
Well, I wish that had gone better.
Simply put, you are a public figure, with a public policy position who engages, at times, in the tools of propoganda.
Referring to you in your absence is not attack, it is an acknowledgment of your power and public identity…when you bring your tools here; especially your special ability to see the hearts and souls of others in a hostile manner, it is worthy of confrontation.
I do not feel the victim…you misunderstand this. You have not inflicted any wound on me.
You are a thoughtful and bright man; and very persuasive. I cannot fathom why you stoop to such tactics. I think you can win your debate without them (and I think you are).
People come to this site to learn and to hear both sides and to step away from the disgust that both sides have for each other to hear the facts on the table. They come here to find what we have in common. That is the forum that Warren has courageously provided.
For David Blakeslee,
Since I’ve joined this forum somewhat later than most others, I’d like to ask you a question, which you need not reply to, if you so choose.
Are you a same-sex attracted man?
Eddy,
You could become rich with these kinds of wagers. In fact, one would be hard pressed to see any childishness in any of David B’s comments. Rather, he has shown incredible patience, discipline, and aplomb in his responses.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 16, 2011 at 7:42 pm
” ” A couple with disparate income will pay less than a couple with equal income.”
That’s what I said. And I disagree that most gay couples are in the disparate income situation. All couples who are earning roughly equivalent income (this would not be the case for two men, especially?) are being penalized. I’ve seen examples that place the taxation penalty higher than you say, but I am not an accountant.”
while couples with disparate incomes will pay less than couples with similar incomes, there is no penalty (i.e. couples paying more than if filing individually) until the combined income surpasses $100,000.00.
Although there may be certain corner cases where there is a significant amount of capital gains/losses that could be a marriage penalty even if the combined salary was less than $100,000.00.
For David Blakeslee,
Since I’ve joined this forum somewhat later than most others, I’d like to ask you a question, which you need not reply to, if you so choose.
Are you a same-sex attracted man?
.
LOL. This is the world of taxes. Confusion at every turn.
Eddy,
You could become rich with these kinds of wagers. In fact, one would be hard pressed to see any childishness in any of David B’s comments. Rather, he has shown incredible patience, discipline, and aplomb in his responses.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 16, 2011 at 7:42 pm
” ” A couple with disparate income will pay less than a couple with equal income.”
That’s what I said. And I disagree that most gay couples are in the disparate income situation. All couples who are earning roughly equivalent income (this would not be the case for two men, especially?) are being penalized. I’ve seen examples that place the taxation penalty higher than you say, but I am not an accountant.”
while couples with disparate incomes will pay less than couples with similar incomes, there is no penalty (i.e. couples paying more than if filing individually) until the combined income surpasses $100,000.00.
Although there may be certain corner cases where there is a significant amount of capital gains/losses that could be a marriage penalty even if the combined salary was less than $100,000.00.
.
LOL. This is the world of taxes. Confusion at every turn.
Jayhuck-
1) One blogger doesn’t just disagree with another but pronounces judgement that his heart is all darkness. Now there’s a character assassination! Worthy of checking out.
2) For the record, one other has already checked in so your insinuation that I spoke for only one blogger is already disproven.
3) I find it hilarious that you chastise anyone for actually researching an issue.
4) I find it revealing of you that you criticize what a person chooses to research.
5) I can’t recall doing ‘similar things” with David Roberts. Once again, you’ve gone to speaking in unspecifics…. Oh wait, I get it, you’re throwing out an allegation that you won’t remember any link to–and anyone who actually researched the validity of your allegation would be guilty of bias simply because they researched.
6) Childish behavior–what a hoot! Please have an unbiased outsider review the comments on this thread by the two David’s, Timothy and you and I’ll wager that David B. ranks as the least childish.
BTW: Not only did I ace group dynamics in college, I was awarded my A by mid-term. The prof, in a secular college, noted my ability to get beyond the surface emotional responses and get to the heart of the conflicts. So, yeah, when a conflict of this magnitude surfaces, its ‘my way’ to want to search it out. I simply refuse to be judged by you for doing so.
Debbie–
The post of yours I referred to was directed to Timothy and repeated some of his exact words in your rebuttal. If you were responding to Throbert’s scenarios, I’m sure I’m not the only one who was confused.
Eddy, I was addressing Throbert’s scenarios. Seems to me couples with equivalent income filing jointly (taking advantage of all the deductions they can share) ought not be made to pay higher taxes than couples with disparate income filing jointly, if there is an issue there. It doesn’t affect me personally. I’ll have to talk to some more accountants to get their take on it. I don’t think anyone has addressed how the Bush tax cuts impacted this, other than me. Those cuts went through 2010, from my understanding. So this could be an issue facing us this tax year and beyond.
Debbie-
In Timothy’s scenario, he was saying If they filed jointly, they’d pay less tax than if they filed separately. In your scenario, you’re comparing jointly against jointly while I believe Timothy’s point compares jointly against separately. I’m confused as to what point you are making.
Timothy–
I’ve been back through the context for the quotes you viewed as personal attacks on you by David. In the first one, I find the sentence you left out (with the leading … ) to be significant.
In the second quote from David, you aren’t mentioned AT ALL in David’s entire comment and your last post was approx. 17 comments back in the thread. Categorizing that comment as a personal attack is a genuine stretch.
What David seems to be getting at is best summed up in this comment that he made on this thread:
I believe he even stressed the word ‘here’. In response to that comment, you railed on him and defended your use of polarizing labels. I believe that David’s subsequent comments were an attempt to convey that polarizing labels–regardless of who uses them–are not only counter productive but that they feed hate and breed misunderstanding. You seem able to see that evil when Bahati and Ssempa employ polarizing language and tactics but defend your own polarizing speech.
The particular polarizing words that seemed to be the catalyst were ‘heterosexist’ and ‘homophobic’. Not sure but I believe David also had a comment or two with Jayhuck over such words. The difference I see is that you vigorously defended your continued use of such words and mocked David’s point of view. This seems to explain and justify further escalation.
That’s what I said. And I disagree that most gay couples are in the disparate income situation. All couples who are earning roughly equivalent income (this would not be the case for two men, especially?) are being penalized. I’ve seen examples that place the taxation penalty higher than you say, but I am not an accountant.
I don’t know, Trobert. I certainly don’t think so.
Maybe you hang out with a different crowd.
Jayhuck-
1) One blogger doesn’t just disagree with another but pronounces judgement that his heart is all darkness. Now there’s a character assassination! Worthy of checking out.
2) For the record, one other has already checked in so your insinuation that I spoke for only one blogger is already disproven.
3) I find it hilarious that you chastise anyone for actually researching an issue.
4) I find it revealing of you that you criticize what a person chooses to research.
5) I can’t recall doing ‘similar things” with David Roberts. Once again, you’ve gone to speaking in unspecifics…. Oh wait, I get it, you’re throwing out an allegation that you won’t remember any link to–and anyone who actually researched the validity of your allegation would be guilty of bias simply because they researched.
6) Childish behavior–what a hoot! Please have an unbiased outsider review the comments on this thread by the two David’s, Timothy and you and I’ll wager that David B. ranks as the least childish.
BTW: Not only did I ace group dynamics in college, I was awarded my A by mid-term. The prof, in a secular college, noted my ability to get beyond the surface emotional responses and get to the heart of the conflicts. So, yeah, when a conflict of this magnitude surfaces, its ‘my way’ to want to search it out. I simply refuse to be judged by you for doing so.
Debbie, I’m a tax accountant.
A couple with disparate income will pay less than a couple with equal income. But both will pay less than two individuals in the same circumstances.
Example One
Fred and Susan each make 50K . After personal exemptions, they each pay tax of 5,950 for a total of 11,900.
If Fred and Susan were married and filed jointly, they would pay tax of 11,894, or a few bucks less than if they were single, but no advantage or penalty.
Example Two
Ronnie makes 80K and pays 13,550. Jay makes 20K and pays 783 for a total of 14,388.
Ronnie and Jay would save big time by marrying, 2,439 less.
Most couples, gay or straight, are more like Ronnie and Jay than Fred and Susan. There are situations in which a ‘penalty’ actually can result (being single would result in fewer overall taxes) but that’s pretty rare.
Of course you can run the numbers yourself if you disagree.
How on earth did anyone ever get the idea that gay men are histrionic drama queens?
Timothy, the marriage penalty is not a fiction. It is misreported as such. As many as 42 percent of married couples filing jointly with roughly equivalent incomes pay considerably more taxes than those who file jointly with disparate incomes. In other words, a couple where one spouse makes $80,000 and the other makes only $20,000 will pay less taxes than a couple where both spouses make $50,000 if both couples file jointly. Look it up.
Eddy,
The threads are:
/2011/03/21/8854/#comments
and
/2011/03/30/bryan-fischer-doubles-down-on-christianity-as-a-state-religion/#comments
Timothy–
Your pronouncement against David is quite serious and bloggers would want to verify the full context of the comments you’ve quoted. Could you provide links or topic titles to the three quotes you’ve just supplied?
The third one simply references ‘another thread’ but I’m particularly puzzled by the first one. You provided the time and date stamp (March 25, 2011, 10:22 AM) but this thread was dormant at that time.
Thanks.
Debbie
The marriage penalty is, for the most part, a fiction. Married couples who file jointly pay less tax than if they filed separately as individuals. There were some unique instances in which this was not the case (involving very wealthy individuals or high incomes) but the cultural myth about a universal marriage penalty was just that, a myth.
Dear David,
It must indeed have been an inconvenience to write – for the third time – a justification for why it is appropriate to accuse me of being comparable to Ssempa and Bahati but not appropriate for others to make such a comparison.
I suspect that it went beyond inconvenient and approached distressing.
After all, it does appear to be a startling example of the exact opposite of the Golden Rule. I mean, how often is it that someone complains about something being done unto them in the exact same wording as they did unto others?
So while it may have been more convenient to address this seeming inconsistency privately, I am actually pleased that the email somehow wasn’t delivered and the word processor somehow crashed. It is fortuitous in that it allows for the explanation to be presented at the same venue as the behavior.
And somehow that seems only right.
To clarify, for those who may have missed it and may be wondering what this exchange is about, let me set the stage.
Amidst a discussion in which I was seeking to help clarify the meaning of a word (heterosexist) introduced by another commenter, you decided that this was a good opportunity to attack me, writing the following:
This was not a stand alone event. Rather, there has been a very long pattern in which you have engaged in a campaign of personal vilification. It had reached the stage where after being absent from the comments section here for several weeks (perhaps longer), I returned to find that you were still slurring me and attributing positions to me in comments to threads I had not even read.
So I responded:
If you addressed this issue or apologized at some point or promised to avoid personal attacks, I did not see it.
However, a few days later, you posted a comment on another thread containing the following:
As you believe it “a needless, polarizing and hopelessly generalizing blunt act of aggression” to compare Christians to Bahati and Ssempa, I inquired whether this included me. So now I am receiving your answer.
And, it seems, the answer is no.
Not only do you feel entitled to compare me to Bahati and Ssempa and feel such a comparison is apt, but your response was to double down, increasing the comparison to Fisher and Lively.
I will not address your fresh batch of accusations and slurs. I know them to be false. And they are, for this discussion, beside the point. All that matters is that you simultaneously feel the victim to mostly-imaginary slights but that you use such victim mentality to justify doing worse to others.
As evident from your response, you will not cease in your personal attacks but will only increase them. You will make baseless accusations which, ironically, describe your behavior and not my own.
This is unfortunate. I had hoped that an appeal to decency might be effective. I had, now obviously futilely, hoped that facts, logic and reason might give us some common ground. Clearly that was unduly optimistic on my part.
You, David Blakeslee, have in this latest comment exposed your heart. All I see is darkness.
Timothy Kincaid
Debbie-
In Timothy’s scenario, he was saying If they filed jointly, they’d pay less tax than if they filed separately. In your scenario, you’re comparing jointly against jointly while I believe Timothy’s point compares jointly against separately. I’m confused as to what point you are making.
Timothy–
I’ve been back through the context for the quotes you viewed as personal attacks on you by David. In the first one, I find the sentence you left out (with the leading … ) to be significant.
In the second quote from David, you aren’t mentioned AT ALL in David’s entire comment and your last post was approx. 17 comments back in the thread. Categorizing that comment as a personal attack is a genuine stretch.
What David seems to be getting at is best summed up in this comment that he made on this thread:
I believe he even stressed the word ‘here’. In response to that comment, you railed on him and defended your use of polarizing labels. I believe that David’s subsequent comments were an attempt to convey that polarizing labels–regardless of who uses them–are not only counter productive but that they feed hate and breed misunderstanding. You seem able to see that evil when Bahati and Ssempa employ polarizing language and tactics but defend your own polarizing speech.
The particular polarizing words that seemed to be the catalyst were ‘heterosexist’ and ‘homophobic’. Not sure but I believe David also had a comment or two with Jayhuck over such words. The difference I see is that you vigorously defended your continued use of such words and mocked David’s point of view. This seems to explain and justify further escalation.
Eddy,
The threads are:
/2011/03/21/8854/#comments
and
/2011/03/30/bryan-fischer-doubles-down-on-christianity-as-a-state-religion/#comments
Debbie
The marriage penalty is, for the most part, a fiction. Married couples who file jointly pay less tax than if they filed separately as individuals. There were some unique instances in which this was not the case (involving very wealthy individuals or high incomes) but the cultural myth about a universal marriage penalty was just that, a myth.
As I see it, there could be one positive benefit to come out of same-sex marriage for all married couples. This comes to mind because it’s tax time again. The marriage penalty, i.e., taxing married couples who file jointly rather than separately at a higher rate if their income is fairly equal, is a burden that the Bush administration sought to rectify. Who knows now what will become of those cuts? I can’t see Obama moving in that direction.
Seems to me that gay couples (especially men) are likely to have more equal incomes than most of their straight counterparts, unless one is choosing to stay home with children. And the gay lobby is powerful and tends to make things happen in Washington. I would think they would want to get behind eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
Just thinking out loud.
Jayhuck,
I am also thinking that recreational drugs, that have become more assessible and popular, have added to the deterioration of the home/family life. Back in the day, or even now, rolling one up did not create the kind of harm that the drugs of today do. Alcohol used to be a major problem that families didn’t knew what to do with until the formation of AA. Many men came back from world war 2 very damaged, both physically and emotionally and turned to alcohol. The same with the Viet Nam war, except drugs were added.
I think the end of innocence we had in the 50’s and early 60’s ended with the assasination of JFK and was topped off with the Tate/LaBianca murders in Los Angeles in 1969, courtesy of Charles Manson.
Very difficult, as the wealth differential, medical care and longevity issues associated with industrialization make for powerful variables that cannot be duplicated in agrarian societies.
…I think.
Best to invite a sociologist into this discussion!
My nephew, BTW, was completely invested in your hypothesis to include living in India for a few years amongst the people. He found their sense of community and connection amazing, and their vulnerability to illness and poverty terrifying.
Jayhuck,
I was using your statement above and you seemed to be asking me to defend an argument I had not made.
Toxic homes are a problem…if unrepairable, making sure one gets out is a start, making sure one does not make the same mistake again is even better.
Divorce is no cure…if the person who leaves makes the same or similar mistake again.
Divorce as a solution to a marital crisis tends to lead to divorce as a solution to a marital crisis. Statistically, if you divorce once, chances greatly increase you will divorce again and chances increase greatly that you will divorce even again.
Just data.
Teresa, I don’t read the Genesis verse as alligning God’s declarations with Pauline teaching. Unless it would point to Romans 7. I just think we are meant to view it for what it is — God judging and disciplining mankind (and Satan) after the fall. I believe it points to the never-ending war in this life over authority — God vs. mankind and man vs. woman within marriage.
David,
Sorry, missed this. That would make sense. My understanding of correlation as it applies to the fields of sociology and psychology , I’m sure, is not as good as yours. Would it be that difficult to design a study to test the correlation between industrialization and the breakdown of the family? I mean, if the correlations you are asserting exist, are they the symptoms of some larger problem? If we try and treat the symptoms and not the cause, would that not be problematic? I’m just throwing ideas out 🙂
Debbie, could you elaborate on the above. It certainly seems to corroborate the Pauline NT verses. However, many Christian ministries now accept women ministers, teaching men is part of that.
How do you reconcile these statements? How does 1/2 the world not have some voice in public forums?
That is also not what I said David! I said there is no evidence to show that stable single parent homes are worse than toxic double parent homes. You seemed intent on making the point that single parent homes were bad and double parent homes were good regardless of the environment. At the very least it appeared that was implied. You should probably re-read my posts before you go launching accusations at me.
Actually I do have a fairly decent understanding of what is meant by the term correlation. You seemed to imply causation above and all you have to show it seems is correlation. As of yet, you don’t seem to have proved causation.
That is also not what I said David! I said there is no evidence to show that stable single parent homes are worse than toxic double parent homes. You should probably re-read my posts before you go launching accusations at me.
Actually I do have a fairly decent understanding of what is meant by the term correlation. You seemed to imply causation above and all you have to show it seems is correlation. As of yet, you don’t seem to have proved causation.
I also find it interesting to go back to the Genesis 3 curse: “Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you” (Gen. 316). Is this where it all began?
Regarding “Individualism” as a right … If there is one overarching theme that Oswald Chambers continually hammered home in his messages, it was the problem of individualism, i.e., maintaining one’s right to self over against submission to Christ. It effects us all, men and women, gay or straight. Think of the war over that one word — submission — within marriages. It is frequently viewed as a mutual thing, but many Christians (including women) hold that God intended for men to be the head to whom their wives can submit when they submit themselves to God’s authority. Vertical alignment. Of course, each of us is to be submitted to God first. None of us in really in charge, though we imagine we are.
I want to bring back dial telephones and letter writing and the test pattern and the national anthem at sign-off time.
I have a rotary phone in my kitchen. It tok my 10-year-old WAY too long to figure out how to use it. Depending on your POV, it’s both a curse and a blessing. I no longer can participate in phone polls that require answers by touch-tone responses. OTOH, it makes it difficult to call the cable company or the phone company when there are problems and they insist on touch-tone responses.
I don’t write leters as much as I should, but I still send cards regularly to my grandmother.
Regarding citations for my above assertions:
See Andrew Cherlin: The Changing American Family and Public Policy
Judith Wallerstein: Second Chances
The data on domestic violence came from a text on criminology and psychology…can’t remember.
The assertion about “loveless” or, better said, unfullfilling marriages came from a presentation given by a lecturer at a National Marriage Conference (secular).
The movement you all fail to cite is “Individualism” as a right…it has been especially destructive in the hands of heterosexual males.
Jayhuck,
I din’t think you understand the use of correlations as a scientific research tool. Groups are matched for age, socioeconomic status and so forth and then compared. Since we can never control all variables, we cannot assert causes, only scientific correlations.
The Theory of Industrialization breaking down the family, is constructed on a macro level where hardly any matching of variables can be made…it is not even scientically correlative. It is a reasonable and plausible theory.
I have not asserted that “toxic homes” are better than single parent homes. If you read carefully, you will see that this is your distortion.
Timothy,
you may want to double check the “contact me” e-mail link through BTB, that is how I sent the original e-mail.
Dear Timothy,
I am writing this a third time, once due to our e-mails not connecting, just now because a crash in my word processor.
I think if you look closely you can see the difference in the two comments
The first is directed at an individual (Timothy) who has a public identity and a political advocacy position. In that regard, he is tempted by such a role to distort the position of his opponents, use polarizing language and assail the motivations and “true agenda” of his opponents. He does this not with political figures alone or public policy advocates, he does it to people commenting on this blog. Other public figures with similar needs control the debate through the use of polarizing and provocative terms to achieve the political outcome they desire. Bahati and Sempa are the two I cited, Fisher and Lively are others. If not careful, these people devolve into simple propagandists.
See Gollum, “My Precious.”
The second comment has as to do with “Christians” generally, an amorphous group we agree, who are smeared by political activists using the darkest most corrupt examples of “Christian” politics: Sempa, Bahati, and Fisher. Oh, lets not forget Fred Phelps. This is a tool of the propagandist as well and should be rightly confronted.
One is a group who have members of diverse political persuasions, the other is an individual, who has created a public identity and a clear public policy goal and engages in specific, well proven, tactics in order to accomplish that goal.
The National Anthem at sign off time FTW! No offense to our wonderful anthem, but I still get sleepy when I hear it sung 😉
Well… i would go for the National Anthem
I want to bring back dial telephones and letter writing and the test pattern and the national anthem at sign-off time. 🙂
Tim,
Yeah – I can get behind that list 🙂
Oh wow! Its always interesting to come back and see where the conversation has gone 🙂
Teresa,
I, for one, have no desire to return to a non-capital based feudal system. No thank you.
Debbie.
Well… partly. But let’s be careful not to romanticize.
These micro-communities were in many ways patriarchal fiefdoms in which property was owned by the head of the family and all the other members were subject to his whim. When the industrial revolution offered children the opportunity to escape such control, many leaped at it even if it meant a decrease in living conditions. The sense of self-determination had higher value than what the micro-community offered.
Nor should we assume that faith was integral to such structures. It certainly is in those that still exist (Amish, Fundamentalist Mormon, etc.), but the presence of faith in family-based micro-communities may have simply been a product of the age. It may have simply been concurrent (along with buggy whips and gas lamps) rather than causal.
Interesting discussion on feminism and its impact on marriage and culture.
I think we can all agree that:
* kids in the 60’s were reacting to what they grew up with. They saw the status quo as damaging and debilitating to women and it would be foolish to entirely disregard their first-hand experiences.
* as Debbie noted, all generations rebel against the last. So we can’t take the 60s generation’s rejection of the social norms of the 40s and 50s as though it were an epiphany on which to build the future.
* very few women want to return to the days when Steve Jones’ wife Sally (nee Smith) not only couldn’t go by her maiden name, Sally Smith, but literally had no identity of her own. She was referred to as “Mrs. Steve Jones”.
* neither reviling or romanticizing the days before effective birth control is of any value. This change – the ability to have the pleasure of sex without (or with reduced) risk of pregnancy – changed everything. And it’s pointless to argue whether that change is for the better or the worse. Ain’t no one going back. No one – other than Catholic Hierarchy and a small percentage of the Catholic faithful – wants to remove birth control from our culture.
* we have some serious problems. Our current system has resulted in too many family structures in which children are impoverished, women are overburdened, and men are denied quality bonding with their kids.
* the gay folk didn’t contribute much to the impoverished kids, overburdened women dynamic. That was well under way when gay folk were still criminalized in a dozen states. Nor will gay marriage much impact this – any increases or decreases to children living impoverished would be a drop in the bucket. Gay marriage is neither the cause nor the solution.
* there are no easy answers.
Debbie and Ann, right on with what you said. But, I have a bit of a different perspective for the “root” of the problem. I think it was Christianity’s capitulation on usury, which started in the latter half of the 15th Century … mid-1400’s. We have no idea today about how the only thing Our Lord was angered over has been for centuries a rotting influence on Christianity.
Once upon a time, money was considered as a medium of exchange. It was not fruitful of itself. Alas, however, as the merchant class arose; especially, in Venice and Rome, money began to be fertile in and of itself, sought after for what it could do as it multiplied for the lenders to a now mercantile class. It bought goods, and more goods, properties, power, elevated status, etc. The Catholic Church, and later, Lutheranism and Calvinism, accommodated themselves very nicely to this new economy, quite simply usury in different garments … Christianity, jesuitically, found justification for each step in this process … until today, we no longer understand Our Lord’s words: “you have made of this Temple a den of thieves”.
I’ll place here again, John Henry Cardinal Newman’s very apt words:
Theresa,
Right, and I would also like to add that one need not have been a Christian to make the choice to follow some of the extremes this movement went to. Some parts of the movement brought awareness to important issues, however, I think it lost some of that positive recognition when it went to extremes.
Well… i would go for the National Anthem
Oh, I don’t disagree with you in the least, Teresa. I do think there are a number of influences that helped push us over the edge. But we were already going over. They were just opportunists.
Yes, Ann, we lost something along the way in family closeness. Large extended families were micro-communities once upon a time. And faith was also at the center of it. The bonds were unbreakable. Industrialization was part of it, as has already been opined. Agrarian communities became fewer. And forgive me, but I think Darwinism had its role to play, as well.
Debbie,
It would be interesting to compare the amount of children in residential foster care facilities today compared to the 50’s. I know during the depression, there were many homeless families and many children were given up just due to sheer poverty. Even then, to give up a child due to poverty, caused immeasurable pain, even though it was done to protect the child or children. After that horrible time, it seemed like families would do just about anything to stay together. Often they lived very simple lives but were sustained by being a unit. If there was an issue of an unplanned child or tenuous financial hardships, other family members would step in to fill the gap. It does not seem like this too much now – too many children are living in facilities rather than with extended family members and they are all too aware that they are there because they were neglected or abused or their parents are in jail or just didn’t want them – and no other family member did either. I know first hand the negative impact that can have for the rest of one’s life. I was just wondering if there was a difference then to now with this situation. Also, other than religious charities, were there more volunteers back then than now who quietly went about visiting, mentoring or teaching these children about “outside”? I wanted to distinguish between religious charities and other volunteers because I think, sometimes, religions call for people to volunteer so it is done out of obligation, whereas, others might do it of their own volition.
I know it has been a long time since so many of our relatives passed through Ellis Island, but it seems so interesting how the family ties were so strong then. I recently visited the Tenament Museum in NYC and was amazed at how the immigrant families lived in such tight quarters. They were able to sustain their religions and cultures – still have Mezuzahs on the door post. Family meant everthing to them. Breaking apart was not a consideration as they put so much effort into staying together. No sure, however, I do think the extremes that the women’s movement went to, had something to do with it.
Anyway, sorry if this is off topic – your post got me pondering 🙂
The question Debbie still remains: why did all those Christian women take the bait, join the ranks of the “freed woman”? Betty Friedan didn’t make Christian women’s choice for them.
Each Christian woman had/has an individual choice, individual responsibility … Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinhem, Germaine Greer didn’t make anybody, do anything. That’s a cop-out for Christians.
As to a reactionary movement, that’s about over with this newest depression upon the economy … small as that movement is/was.
Scapegoating feminists, gays, Jews, Muslims (whoever the du jour group) doesn’t wash at the end of the day. Christianity has ceased to be (sometime ago) much of an influence upon society; except to scream, “those bad guys are the fault”. We need to look in a mirror; and, realize “those bad guys” are us.
Better (LOL) is Betty.
Were that many women “trapped” in “loveless” or abusive marriages in the ’50s and ’60s? Or did folks like Better Friedan (The Feminine Mystique) convince them they were entitled to more than being lackluster housewives? There have been various women’s movements in history. That pendulum has always swung to and fro. It seems to need a catalyst. Today, we see a somewhat reactionary push for moms to stay home with children. I did it. Glad I did.
Let us not forget the many good marriages we have and have had among us. I’ve been blessed to have seen many examples. Plenty of women have had no difficulty in finding fulfillment in being wives and mothers. They see it as a worthy career. Or they may sandwich child-rearing between the phases of life where they choose to work.
Many people, men and women, tend to cite the influence their mothers had on their lives. Many strong women, sadly, have had to step up to partly fill the role of a slacking husband and father. Of course, it sometimes goes the other way.
And yes, it is problematic for conservatives to chime in about the horrors of gay marriage when marriage in general has taken such a hit from within. Entitlement mentality already got to us.
Sorry – I meant toxic double- parent home environments above 🙂
Timothy and DAvid B –
This hints at some of the things I’ve been thinking about. The post 50’s ideologies that DAvid B seems to disdain did not appear out of nowhere. The concerns that women and others expressed about marriage were not generally lies. Women were enslaved by marriage to different degrees. If the family structure was perfect and happy and nothing was wrong, then you wouldn’t think you would have seen the reaction against it that you did. But that was not the case. Women were trapped in not just loveless but sometimes abusive, violent and passionless marriages without anyway of leaving them and their kids had to suffer in that kind of environment. And these children grew up to make the kinds of laws that David B does not like. Wow
David B –
All you have are correlations! The same type of correlation can be made about industrialization. You have NO data to show that” toxic” home environments are better than stable single-parent home environments.
p.s. I never did get that email. The one in which you were going to explain why gay people shouldn’t compare Christians to Ssempa and Behati but that it is entirely appropriate for you to compare me to the two men.
Cuz I’m still confused about that issue. That doesn’t yet make logical sense to me.
oh, and my email address is [email protected]
David,
Are you telling me that the words to use should go something like this:
Senator Jones from North Whoodunk ran on a pro-gay platform and opposed the bill to bar gay people from adopting. On the other hand, Senator Smith from South Whoodunk took the advocating a traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman view and supported the bill.
Hmmmm… No. I don’t think that works.
And while I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt about your intentions to find terms absent of value judgement, you failed utterly.
I don’t know a single gay person who thinks of our efforts as “broadening the definition of marriage.” The whole “definition of marriage” mantra is a talking point trotted out by anti-gay activists.
An equally appropriate statement could be
Applying civil law equally to all citizens verses restricting access to rights based on sexual orientation.
See. No implied rancor on anyone’s part.
So as I categorically reject your incredibly ridiculous notion that I term my quest for civil equality as though it’s some imposition on you, I have to consider your objections for what they are.
You seek to avoid any language that reflects negatively on anti-gay policies that people endores, heterosexist presumptions that they may espouse, and homophobic statements that they may praise.
I’ve considered your objections, attempted to accommodate you, and now have found your complaint to be unreasonable. Not just impractical, but based in the idea that very bad, very destructive, and very harmful ideas should be shielded from criticism lest the people who are espousing the very bad, very destructive, and very harmful ideas think that my criticism equates to simplistic polarizing labels to describe well intentioned people.
It doesn’t.
First, it is dishonest to equate criticism of an idea with “polarizing labels”. That’s nonsense and I’m not going to play along with it any longer.
Second, there has been of late a blurring of the difference between “I disagree” and horrible personal accusations. You have been more guilty than most. I am not receptive to you lecturing me that I should avoid “simplistic polarizing labels” while I have NEVER seen you criticize ANYONE for personal attacks on me – not my views, but me.
Finally, underlying your expectations is the presumption that I should be respectful towards views that hurt my life, are based in horrific presumptions, and if directed towards any other group you would call bigotry. I will be respectful in attempting to reach people, but I will not be respectful of the views. They are evil.
Sorry – I meant toxic double- parent home environments above 🙂
DB
What is that on? I’m trying to recall research that address that specific issue and I can’t think of any.
Again, I don’t know the studies on this…
I suspect, however, that “loveless relationships” which are not hostile or angry or vengeful or violent probably should stay together for the kids. After all, “i don’t love you but I like you” is not really that awful of a partner especially if you agree on priorities like kids, spending, respect.
But then again, I doubt that these folk divorce nearly enough to be considered a significant contributor to the ills of divorce.
There is one glaring flaw in that argument. If they did such a great job at raising their kids… then how did their kids come up with the values that you think destroyed marriage?
If we are looking for the family structure that worked best, we perhaps should not look to the one that preceded chaos, but rather to the ones whose kids did not cause chaos.
But then we’re at a place where women couldn’t even vote or, often, own property in their own name.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 13, 2011 at 8:22 pm
“No, I am saying you lack that ability, at least to perform it reliably and accurately; which makes you quite normal. I don’t use that ability except in the office when I have a lot more data and can check out my assumptions and so on. ”
And you’ve determined I lack this ability based on what exactly?
“The problem with blogging here and elsewhere is how quickly people are prone to judging the motives and attitudes of others rather than dealing with the words chosen.”
And you’ve never noticed me trying to clarify people positions or verify my assumptions about people here (similar to what you might do in your office David)?
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 13, 2011 at 6:03 pm
“No nostalgia here, just sociological trends and correlations which are disappointing for women and children.”
What trends are you referring to? do you have any pointers to data or studies about this?
Jayhuck,
The sociological data I refer to is concurrent and from those demonstrable differences it reasonable to conclude that a breakdown in values about sexuality, fidelity creates more babies out of wedlock and so forth.
Pre-70’s values about sexuality seemed to get this, in a nutshell. :). No rose colored glasses. Families today that are marriage based, non-violent, that do not place childbearing before marriage tend to be better for women and for children.
Timothy,
I think I answered your question above:
I don’t care what you do with NOM…I have not advocated for them or even tracked what they are doing. I have been concerned when you use simplistic polarizing labels to describe well intentioned people here who have no political association but are sharing beliefs and perceptions.
Ken,
No, I am saying you lack that ability, at least to perform it reliably and accurately; which makes you quite normal. I don’t use that ability except in the office when I have a lot more data and can check out my assumptions and so on. The problem with blogging here and elsewhere is how quickly people are prone to judging the motives and attitudes of others rather than dealing with the words chosen.
D Blakeslee
Well, there certainly is a world of difference in how Michelangelo and Bernini saw David.
DAvid B –
Or like trying to lay the blame for the breakdown of the family on some sort of post-50’s ideology 🙂
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 13, 2011 at 10:05 am
“Ken,
I don’t know what is being said…other than the actual words on the page. Interpreting motives or underlying messages is a very inexact science.”
Really David, you want to hide behind that. You are a psychologist and have been counseling people for how many years? You really want to say you lack the ability to discern the bias in this statement (and the similar ones you’ve read/see/heard people say about gay marriage)?
David,
Much to my frustration, we seem to be proving each other’s points.
I have been trying for, oh I don’t know – a year or so, to have you commit to some language that won’t raise your objections. I thought that this time I was as absolutely direct as I could possibly be.
You just ignored my questions. Just like I hadn’t tried. Didn’t even acknowledge that I’m trying here, David. C’mon, work with me.
I one time dated someone who had trouble picking what restaurant to go to. So I would list a few: Coyote? no. Marix? no. Palermo? no. that French place? no. ummmm Dennys? oh god no. Well where to you want to eat? name some more.
That’s kinda what I’m getting here. You keep saying “no” to any language whatsoever that you think implies some negative motivation on the part of anyone who opposes what gay folk are seeking. (I don’t see ‘anti-gay’ as inherently pejorative, especially to those who think that ‘pro-gay’ is a negative quality. But if that doesn’t fly, what can?)
As I asked earlier
What, for example, is a word you will accept in describing the Naitonal Organization for Marriage?
I used to say ‘supporters of traditional marriage’ or ‘opposes same-sex marriage’ or something like that. Then they decided to broaden their scope and are now spending money to keep gay people from being able to adopt. And they’ve taken up the ‘gays are diseased’ thing and recently photoshopped a picture of a kid in front of a gay pride flag holding up a sign that says “help”.
So they aren’t just about marriage any more. Now that are full fledged… whatever that word is.
I’m not willing to just ‘not talk about it’ so either you have to give me something to work with or I just have to dismiss your objections as being unreasonable.
What else can I do?
FWIW, it never ceases to amaze me how, when I read Oswald Chambers’ early 20th Century (Around World War I) collection of chapel talks and sermons (“My Utmost His Highest”), I find themes so common to both our ages. Human nature hasn’t changed. Romans 7 has applied through the ages since Paul write it, and before.
Blaming the breakdown in the family on industrialization is just as vague as blaming SSA on father issues.
It is reasonable, but unprovable.
Teresa,
I meant to tell you that I thought all of your questions were good! 🙂
Teresa,
Eddy,
I agree with you!
I see industrialism as the principle catalyst for the breakdown but that other factors came to the forefront. Industrialism is now something we can’t (and shouldn’t) retreat from. We weren’t looking forward to any of the negative repercussions of industrialism or industrialization because we were too busy celebrating all the cool stuff it brought us. But now that we can see some of the negatives quite clearly, can we work to rectify them?
@All,
The question still remains of individual responsibility in all this recent discussion. If a person is truly a committed Christian (redundant, actually), why isn’t the TV thrown out, why the need for an SUV (let alone one with a DVD player), why the need for a large home, a second home, cruises, casinos, blah, blah, blah. Why have we Christians allowed ourselves to be enslaved to all of this?
Where is the willingness to not divorce, fornicate, abort, commit adultery, not artificially limit the family size, not watch porn, spend inordinate amounts of time on the internet, not, not, not … and, equally asked is why we don’t spend more time helping our aged family members instead of warehousing them, sheltering our precious money instead of using it to help the poor, and on and on?
Christianity has not permeated the individual conscience to radically change our behavior, to truly transform us … not in the easy terms of I go to church each Sunday, and attend a bible class, etc. and, maybe, vote a sorta Christian way … but, really so that our world is different. Christianity has lost its spirit transforming ability … so, that we’re left arguing about same-sex marriage, and think we’re really Christian somehow. Unbelievable, really.
p.s. David B., violence pre-60’s was violent … and, closeted … very much, so.
Eddy,
Sorry for the sarcasm. It may well be a little of both. I don’t think the breakdown is good for society. But if the larger problem is in fact industrialization, how do we deal with that? That genie is already out of the bottle, so I suppose we have to try and deal with the symptoms as best we can.
Eddy,
My argument is that the real culprit is industrialization, and it is the one thing that has truly led to the breakup of the family.
Teresa,
I think in some part it is an older generation looking back with nostalgia and rose-colored glasses on previous generations. Putting those families/generations on pillars without critically analyzing them. We all do it. I’m guilty of it as well
Why the need for sarcasm? What if it’s a little of both with some other stuff thrown in for good measure? The question remains “Is the breakdown good for our society?” If not, do we simply capitulate or can we do anything to at least slow the pace of the breakdown?
Teresa,
Non-violent, means non-violent…not closeted. I am sorry for your suffering in closeted violence.
No nostalgia here, just sociological trends and correlations which are disappointing for women and children.
I do not know how to have this discussion with you to the exclusion of overtly Atheistic regimes which were incredibly brutal and colonial in nature at a time when human rights were in ascendancy and Western colonialism was in decline.
Regarding:
One could ask, “Why did barbarism overcome the Roman Empire? and was this conquering complete and final?”
I would answer, “Because expediant power is always more effective in the short run than principled power. And secularism, like barbarism, has not conquered completely or finally.”
Jayhuck,
Good set of questions you’ve posed. Could this be simply an older generation always looking fondly for the “good old days”, or another variant of, “when I was your age”. I suspect in the year 1000 A.D., the older generation was asking similar questions or making similar comparisons of how the current generation is going to the dogs.
However, the advantages prior generations had was their lack of technology to kill an entire planet; and, their attachment to tradition which included familial ties, and religion.
Agreed that the family began to fall apart before the 1940’s but I don’t see these quotes refuting the notion that they’ve fallen apart even more or that the rate of deterioriation hasn’t, in fact, increased.
For example, if this is true (the concluding remarks of the first quote):
…then it stands to reason that the availablility of movies on multiple TV’s in every home…both on demand and on tape or disc…even in the car (SUV) would weaken the family further. And with the advent of the internet, the individual can now look outside his home even more. Questions and answers that were once the domain of the family are now pursued on the net.
Or “Late Marriages” – perhaps those are the main cause of the breakup of the family as another quote above suggests. Or perhaps Late Marriages too are a result of Industrialization? Hmmm
David B –
Perhaps even more than 60’s feminists, we should be blaming industrialization for the breakdown of the family. Perhaps that is the one thing that has led to all the other ills you claim are endemic in society today. As we see uttered in the first quote, an agricultural environment formed an
Lets throw off the shackles of Industrialization and move back to an agrarian type society!
Its interesting to note this idea that families were better in previous generations was discussed even in the 1940’s:
So many scapegoats for the breakdown of the family – and we still look for them today! Seems like some things never change
David B –
That really depends on what “loveless” means does it not David? If it involves bickering and a generally toxic environment, where is your evidence to show that this is better than single parent homes? YOu can’t provide any because there is none.
And I am arguing that they did not! The environment prevented many women from being able to leave their husbands, even when abused, because they had no real skills to exits on their own outside the home.
You idealize a time and place in the past, which we are all guilty of, but we really need to look at that time through a more critical lense.
Without going back to that time that had its own victims, we can surely devise a way to make things better than either time. Can we not?
The problem here David B., is how many of those homes were non-violent. Having grown up in that period, non-violence usually only meant closeted. I come from a ‘non-violent’ home; and, I can tell you, it was devastatingly violent, and many of my peers came from that same closeted-violence.
Your nostalgic look at pre-60’s Western, Christian culture is very rose-colored, as Jayhuck has pointed out.
Hitler didn’t rise to power without Christian support; and, neither did the mid-60’s come about without Christian complicity. And, yes, 100,000,000 people died because of Christian complicity. Europe and America were mainly Christian throughout a good deal of the 20th century. Christianity doesn’t get a pass for the world’s most violent century.
Colonialism was peaking in the mid-40’s, consequent to the unrest of WWII that began to decline. The colonials were by-and-large Christian. They had simply replaced owning slaves with owning the countries and resources where those ‘once-owned’ slaves came from.
At the end of the day, David B., the moribund state of Christianity, at least 100+ years upon us, testifies that for each of us that professes to be Christian, few of us (including me) are willing to do the hard work asked of us.
The larger question is why has Christianity failed to transform us? Why has secularism won the day?
DAvid B –
Or like trying to lay the blame for the breakdown of the family on some sort of post-50’s ideology 🙂
FWIW, it never ceases to amaze me how, when I read Oswald Chambers’ early 20th Century (Around World War I) collection of chapel talks and sermons (“My Utmost His Highest”), I find themes so common to both our ages. Human nature hasn’t changed. Romans 7 has applied through the ages since Paul write it, and before.
Blaming the breakdown in the family on industrialization is just as vague as blaming SSA on father issues.
It is reasonable, but unprovable.
Jayhuck,
I am arguing that with their flaws, they provided for the next generation better, they endangered their children less and they burdened social services less.
You are also using the argument of exception (what about this situation or that situation?) to criticize what is generally good.
It appears, sadly, that loveless non-violent homes are better than single parent homes for the next generation.
It appears, that for many couples, they can enter loveless periods that last as long as 5 years, only to have deep and abiding affections return.
Teresa,
I meant to tell you that I thought all of your questions were good! 🙂
I see industrialism as the principle catalyst for the breakdown but that other factors came to the forefront. Industrialism is now something we can’t (and shouldn’t) retreat from. We weren’t looking forward to any of the negative repercussions of industrialism or industrialization because we were too busy celebrating all the cool stuff it brought us. But now that we can see some of the negatives quite clearly, can we work to rectify them?
@All,
The question still remains of individual responsibility in all this recent discussion. If a person is truly a committed Christian (redundant, actually), why isn’t the TV thrown out, why the need for an SUV (let alone one with a DVD player), why the need for a large home, a second home, cruises, casinos, blah, blah, blah. Why have we Christians allowed ourselves to be enslaved to all of this?
Where is the willingness to not divorce, fornicate, abort, commit adultery, not artificially limit the family size, not watch porn, spend inordinate amounts of time on the internet, not, not, not … and, equally asked is why we don’t spend more time helping our aged family members instead of warehousing them, sheltering our precious money instead of using it to help the poor, and on and on?
Christianity has not permeated the individual conscience to radically change our behavior, to truly transform us … not in the easy terms of I go to church each Sunday, and attend a bible class, etc. and, maybe, vote a sorta Christian way … but, really so that our world is different. Christianity has lost its spirit transforming ability … so, that we’re left arguing about same-sex marriage, and think we’re really Christian somehow. Unbelievable, really.
p.s. David B., violence pre-60’s was violent … and, closeted … very much, so.
David B –
Fact is that women have been enslaved by the institution of marriage. I’m more curious now how you propose to fix a system that was broken 50-60 years ago and is broken in different ways today. How do you protect all people involved in a marriage. What do you do when irreconcilable differences exist in a marriage, when couples either won’t go to counseling or when counseling fails? What about domestic abuse? Rape within a marriage? Do you make divorce so difficult that people cannot get out, even when the living environment is toxic for both the parents and the children? Do you think that women, men and children should be shamed by using some of the words you used above? I’m not saying that the institution of marriage cannot be improved, but you are looking through rose colored glasses if you think that marriages and families of 50-60 years ago didn’t have their own set of problems.
Why the need for sarcasm? What if it’s a little of both with some other stuff thrown in for good measure? The question remains “Is the breakdown good for our society?” If not, do we simply capitulate or can we do anything to at least slow the pace of the breakdown?
Jayhuck,
Good set of questions you’ve posed. Could this be simply an older generation always looking fondly for the “good old days”, or another variant of, “when I was your age”. I suspect in the year 1000 A.D., the older generation was asking similar questions or making similar comparisons of how the current generation is going to the dogs.
However, the advantages prior generations had was their lack of technology to kill an entire planet; and, their attachment to tradition which included familial ties, and religion.
David B –
As they should have been.
Are you saying that removing these words and attempting not to shame and guilt women and children has produced no good?
So which is better David: Forcing couples into a loveless, passionless and emotionally turbulent relationships, or giving them an out? Is it better for kids to grow up in single parent homes or homes where parents fight all the time and where the incidence for domestic abuse is greater? I mean really? Do we have ANY statistics whatsoever that show that the incidence of physical and emotional abuse is greater in homes where parents do not want to be together but cannot easily get divorced as opposed to single parent homes? I’m betting we don’t. You are comparing apples and oranges here
Agreed that the family began to fall apart before the 1940’s but I don’t see these quotes refuting the notion that they’ve fallen apart even more or that the rate of deterioriation hasn’t, in fact, increased.
For example, if this is true (the concluding remarks of the first quote):
…then it stands to reason that the availablility of movies on multiple TV’s in every home…both on demand and on tape or disc…even in the car (SUV) would weaken the family further. And with the advent of the internet, the individual can now look outside his home even more. Questions and answers that were once the domain of the family are now pursued on the net.
Or “Late Marriages” – perhaps those are the main cause of the breakup of the family as another quote above suggests. Or perhaps Late Marriages too are a result of Industrialization? Hmmm
David B –
Perhaps even more than 60’s feminists, we should be blaming industrialization for the breakdown of the family. Perhaps that is the one thing that has led to all the other ills you claim are endemic in society today. As we see uttered in the first quote, an agricultural environment formed an
Lets throw off the shackles of Industrialization and move back to an agrarian type society!
Its interesting to note this idea that families were better in previous generations was discussed even in the 1940’s:
So many scapegoats for the breakdown of the family – and we still look for them today! Seems like some things never change
David B –
That really depends on what “loveless” means does it not David? If it involves bickering and a generally toxic environment, where is your evidence to show that this is better than single parent homes? YOu can’t provide any because there is none.
And I am arguing that they did not! The environment prevented many women from being able to leave their husbands, even when abused, because they had no real skills to exits on their own outside the home.
You idealize a time and place in the past, which we are all guilty of, but we really need to look at that time through a more critical lense.
Without going back to that time that had its own victims, we can surely devise a way to make things better than either time. Can we not?
The problem here David B., is how many of those homes were non-violent. Having grown up in that period, non-violence usually only meant closeted. I come from a ‘non-violent’ home; and, I can tell you, it was devastatingly violent, and many of my peers came from that same closeted-violence.
Your nostalgic look at pre-60’s Western, Christian culture is very rose-colored, as Jayhuck has pointed out.
Hitler didn’t rise to power without Christian support; and, neither did the mid-60’s come about without Christian complicity. And, yes, 100,000,000 people died because of Christian complicity. Europe and America were mainly Christian throughout a good deal of the 20th century. Christianity doesn’t get a pass for the world’s most violent century.
Colonialism was peaking in the mid-40’s, consequent to the unrest of WWII that began to decline. The colonials were by-and-large Christian. They had simply replaced owning slaves with owning the countries and resources where those ‘once-owned’ slaves came from.
At the end of the day, David B., the moribund state of Christianity, at least 100+ years upon us, testifies that for each of us that professes to be Christian, few of us (including me) are willing to do the hard work asked of us.
The larger question is why has Christianity failed to transform us? Why has secularism won the day?
Jayhuck,
I am arguing that with their flaws, they provided for the next generation better, they endangered their children less and they burdened social services less.
You are also using the argument of exception (what about this situation or that situation?) to criticize what is generally good.
It appears, sadly, that loveless non-violent homes are better than single parent homes for the next generation.
It appears, that for many couples, they can enter loveless periods that last as long as 5 years, only to have deep and abiding affections return.
Teresa,
100 million dead may have had something to do with political systems ungrounded in the rights of the individual, rather than a rootless Christianity. See Hitler, Mao, Stalin.
Colonialism was declining in every Western country during this time…oh, except for Mother Russia and China.
Christianity is sometimes the window-dressing of the wolf. In the 20th century, the wolf no longer needed the disguise of religion, he was thoroughly convinced of his own virtue.
Christianity has enough sins to account for…lets not lay the two world wars at its feet or the purges of Stalin and his ilk.
The backdrop of all of this, was a century that went through two world wars, 100 million dead, devastating poverty, tens of millions of refugees, ascendancy of colonialism that robbed indigenous peoples of their land and wealth, the political rise of communism that enslaved millions more. The 50’s and 60’s were the last flowers of a plant with no root.
Christianity by the mid-twentieth century became window-dressing for a spiritually bankrupt peoples … the libertines had won the day; and, not without complicity of the average me and you.
David B –
Fact is that women have been enslaved by the institution of marriage. I’m more curious now how you propose to fix a system that was broken 50-60 years ago and is broken in different ways today. How do you protect all people involved in a marriage. What do you do when irreconcilable differences exist in a marriage, when couples either won’t go to counseling or when counseling fails? What about domestic abuse? Rape within a marriage? Do you make divorce so difficult that people cannot get out, even when the living environment is toxic for both the parents and the children? Do you think that women, men and children should be shamed by using some of the words you used above? I’m not saying that the institution of marriage cannot be improved, but you are looking through rose colored glasses if you think that marriages and families of 50-60 years ago didn’t have their own set of problems.
We lost this fight a long time ago two, being reviled as moralists:
We also picket strip clubs and convenience stores that sell pornography.
Losing this debate in the public arena is what we do, Ken.
add “hedonistic, heterosexual men.”
Ken,
I don’t know what is being said…other than the actual words on the page. Interpreting motives or underlying messages is a very inexact science.
Many heterosexuals believe that the human body is complementary in the two sexes. The uniting of these two different human bodies connotes something unique and meaningful. Something to be protected from exploitation by hedonistic men. Marriage makes a man legally bound to the woman he loves and the children he fathers.
David B –
As they should have been.
Are you saying that removing these words and attempting not to shame and guilt women and children has produced no good?
So which is better David: Forcing couples into a loveless, passionless and emotionally turbulent relationships, or giving them an out? Is it better for kids to grow up in single parent homes or homes where parents fight all the time and where the incidence for domestic abuse is greater? I mean really? Do we have ANY statistics whatsoever that show that the incidence of physical and emotional abuse is greater in homes where parents do not want to be together but cannot easily get divorced as opposed to single parent homes? I’m betting we don’t. You are comparing apples and oranges here
Jayhuck,
About fifty years ago a movement toward tolerance for out of wedlock births and divorce was strongly underway. This included a move toward not only tolerating sex before marriage, but encouraging it as well as cohabitation. All this was done under the rubric of freedom, throw off oppressive puritan or victorian values. Culturally shaming terms like promiscuous, fornication, bastard, illigitimate and others were removed from the social lexicon.
This was intended for good, “so people wouldn’t be trapped in marriages,” so that people could be with whom they loved, so children would not be raised in loveless homes, so that children won’t be shamed for the behavior of their parents, so that women would not be enslaved by the institution of marriage.
It has, sociologically, turned into an evil. Women in cohabiting relationships or functioning as single parents are poorer, more likely to be physically abused, children are more likely to be abused in such homes, they are less likely to graduate from high school or attend college, they are more likely to have drug and alcohol related problems and be a burden on the court system.
I believe that cultural sanctions against atypical sexual behavior cannot simply be understood as tribal or taboo; these sanctions serve to move the individual in service of the weak and vulnerable. Marriage for heterosexuals in the 1950’s and 60’s, as flawed as it was, the embodiment of 2000 years of cultural wisdom and improvement.
Not all actions which assert they are going to be an improvement, end up being such. :(.
Throbert,
From your article:
This is the argument we have been making earlier and elsewhere.
Why is there no bikini Mary by a heterosexual scultpor?
You are missing something…The male form could be revered in every detail in art because the culture did not fear it, masculinity was ascendant and nearly virtuous. Femininity, nearly always clothed or maternalized.
In his art, Michelangelo repeatedly creates the heterosexual masculine ideal welded to spiritual ideals. It is a dynamic fusion; which cannot be found in art forms with women.
Bernini’s David is my favorite. He is right sized, fierce and focused.
Throbert,
I am glad you agree that waking up with “morning wood” has very little to do with attraction. It is largely the function of a quiet mind, a warm bed and a reclining position.
If these were heterosexually attracted male friends, it would definitely be awkward.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 8:31 pm
“Christians have never held out Brittany Spears, or Dennis Rodman, other heterosexuals as their examples of why marriage needs to be “kept” from homosexuals…”
However, christians also aren’t spending MILLIONS of dollars in advertising/lobbying for laws trying to stop drunken Las Vegas weddings either.
And when the average christian (or other anti-gay marriage person) says: “2 guys marrying isn’t a real marriage. That’s not what marriage is about.”
what do you think is being said about gay (either m/m or f/f) relationships? what assumptions do you think are being made?
Teresa,
100 million dead may have had something to do with political systems ungrounded in the rights of the individual, rather than a rootless Christianity. See Hitler, Mao, Stalin.
Colonialism was declining in every Western country during this time…oh, except for Mother Russia and China.
Christianity is sometimes the window-dressing of the wolf. In the 20th century, the wolf no longer needed the disguise of religion, he was thoroughly convinced of his own virtue.
Christianity has enough sins to account for…lets not lay the two world wars at its feet or the purges of Stalin and his ilk.
We lost this fight a long time ago two, being reviled as moralists:
We also picket strip clubs and convenience stores that sell pornography.
Losing this debate in the public arena is what we do, Ken.
add “hedonistic, heterosexual men.”
Ken,
I don’t know what is being said…other than the actual words on the page. Interpreting motives or underlying messages is a very inexact science.
Many heterosexuals believe that the human body is complementary in the two sexes. The uniting of these two different human bodies connotes something unique and meaningful. Something to be protected from exploitation by hedonistic men. Marriage makes a man legally bound to the woman he loves and the children he fathers.
Jayhuck,
About fifty years ago a movement toward tolerance for out of wedlock births and divorce was strongly underway. This included a move toward not only tolerating sex before marriage, but encouraging it as well as cohabitation. All this was done under the rubric of freedom, throw off oppressive puritan or victorian values. Culturally shaming terms like promiscuous, fornication, bastard, illigitimate and others were removed from the social lexicon.
This was intended for good, “so people wouldn’t be trapped in marriages,” so that people could be with whom they loved, so children would not be raised in loveless homes, so that children won’t be shamed for the behavior of their parents, so that women would not be enslaved by the institution of marriage.
It has, sociologically, turned into an evil. Women in cohabiting relationships or functioning as single parents are poorer, more likely to be physically abused, children are more likely to be abused in such homes, they are less likely to graduate from high school or attend college, they are more likely to have drug and alcohol related problems and be a burden on the court system.
I believe that cultural sanctions against atypical sexual behavior cannot simply be understood as tribal or taboo; these sanctions serve to move the individual in service of the weak and vulnerable. Marriage for heterosexuals in the 1950’s and 60’s, as flawed as it was, the embodiment of 2000 years of cultural wisdom and improvement.
Not all actions which assert they are going to be an improvement, end up being such. :(.
Throbert,
From your article:
This is the argument we have been making earlier and elsewhere.
Why is there no bikini Mary by a heterosexual scultpor?
You are missing something…The male form could be revered in every detail in art because the culture did not fear it, masculinity was ascendant and nearly virtuous. Femininity, nearly always clothed or maternalized.
In his art, Michelangelo repeatedly creates the heterosexual masculine ideal welded to spiritual ideals. It is a dynamic fusion; which cannot be found in art forms with women.
Bernini’s David is my favorite. He is right sized, fierce and focused.
Throbert,
I am glad you agree that waking up with “morning wood” has very little to do with attraction. It is largely the function of a quiet mind, a warm bed and a reclining position.
If these were heterosexually attracted male friends, it would definitely be awkward.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 8:31 pm
“Christians have never held out Brittany Spears, or Dennis Rodman, other heterosexuals as their examples of why marriage needs to be “kept” from homosexuals…”
However, christians also aren’t spending MILLIONS of dollars in advertising/lobbying for laws trying to stop drunken Las Vegas weddings either.
And when the average christian (or other anti-gay marriage person) says: “2 guys marrying isn’t a real marriage. That’s not what marriage is about.”
what do you think is being said about gay (either m/m or f/f) relationships? what assumptions do you think are being made?
David B –
Would you mind elaborating on this? What do you mean when you talk about “quality of life for women and children”?
This is precisely why its important to make distinctions between civil and religious marriage. Allowing Christians to have their views on marriage upheld without also having them forced on others who do not agree with them is important.
This reminds me of an essay I wrote a couple years ago about Michelangelo’s incredibly pagan sculpture that is commonly known as Cristo della Minerva — or as I like to call it, “Jesus Hunky Christ!”
It’s also important to note that for centuries — and in some benighted circles, even unto this very day — masturbation by men was regarded not as a wholesome and beneficial practice that helps get rid of elderly sperm cells and “stale” prostatic fluid (with the side effect of brightening a guy’s day), but as a SIN that wasted a man’s scarce supply of semen, and possibly even led to the deaths of innocent little homunculi.
In any case, masturbation was most definitely a total misuse of a man’s genitals that inevitably turned a dude away from God (rather than making him praise God’s wonderful ingenuity for having given men a multi-function penis that doesn’t require the presence of a vagina to “activate” it) and simultaneously destroy the man’s capacity for lovemaking (rather than improving his understanding of his own body’s erogenous responsiveness and thus making him a more skillful lover).
Of course, nowadays it’s easy to laugh at the scientific ignorance and superstitious fear of an angry control-freak Hera-like “God” that lay under the traditional prohibitions on spanking the monkey. But ignorant or not, this ban on non-procreative seed-spilling was there.
How is this relevant to the question of whether the same-sex unions described by John Boswell were “homosexual” or chastely platonic?
Well, my reasoning is that “morning wood” is a universal fact of male existence; and if two medieval men had such a close friendship that they cohabitated and even had their friendship ceremoniously blessed, then sooner or later it was bound to happen that they were going to wake up with morning wood at the same time, and jacking off together would have been as natural as falling off a log, even if both of them had a preference for women…
…UNLESS, of course, it had been repeatedly beaten into their skulls over and over and over that for a man to play with his own salami was deeply offensive to God and ought to induce a feeling of shame and guilt, and that doing it in front of another man or (worse!) playing with each other’s salami only compounded the wrongness of it.
Timothy,
My friend would probably agree…especially the proper interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah…the Fundamentalist view here is a complete corruption and has led to a perversion of what homosexuality is.
I am glad you have found someone who asks spiritual questions of the past in a thought-provoking manner. His early death is a tragedy.
Regarding:
I remember as a 12 year old my father taking me to the Sistine Chapel and telling me the story that Michelangelo was a homosexual. That was 40 years ago. He marveled how difficult that would have been for him and the irony of him being the greatest Vatican artist of his day.
Timothy,
It is precisely this limitation of such terms that has kept me from using them in this debate…I have been pretty rigorous in this regard because such terms attempt to leverage the debate by implying my opponents are anti-marriage or anti-family.
In other words, you have made my point.
Please:
No…hate has always been hate for me. As my friends struggled with unwanted SSA 25 years ago I felt no disgust for them, only compassion. I grieved losing them as friends, not because I demanded holiness from them, but because they needed to be away from our Christian community. I still pray for and wonder about them and hope they are well.
I am fully capable of understanding and articulating my own motives; repetitively you seem to need to “illuminate” me as to unseen motives. In AA they call it taking someone else’s inventory.
I have repetitively told you what my motives are…I have never assumed you are “trying to destroy marriage for the rest of us,” do you really need to assess my motives other than those I have explicitly stated?
Broadening the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians verses advocating a traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman. Not a difficult set of ideas, that imply no rancor in our opponents.
ooops.. tag on partial sentence there at the end
David,
As I said, you need not agree.
And Boswell is extremely careful not to do the hard sell. He was an interesting guy, he always insisted that he was not the final word, that other research should be done, that contradicting perspectives might be supported by further review. He tended to present his stuff kinda like “here’s a possibility that based on my research seems likely.”
I think what is so compelling about him is that he introduced ideas that were REVOLUTIONARY when he wrote them. Extreme. Wild.
The very idea that the Bible may not be clear in its condemnation of homosexuality or that the Clobber Passages might be either misinterpreted or perhaps not as clear as believed was simply bizarre. And same-sex unions involving romance being officiated by the church? Preposterous! Impossible!
And all the other parties would jump in to pooh-pooh his ideas and dismiss him as a radical activist out to distort history or a self-deluded Catholic who desperately wants an “out.” And then they would go look at his research.
But his research was so thorough that even if they didn’t come to the same conclusions, they had to admit that his theories had substance. And over time, his views have provided a basis for discussion that could not have existed without them.
And some, who originally found them fanciful came to agree.
I am not at all surprised that your friend came to different conclusions. I’m not dismissing his research, he may be right.
But one thing that Boswell notes at the beginning is that it is extremely seldom that anyone other than gay people notice the existence of same-sex eroticism in history. It simply isn’t within the realm of possible for most straight folk – men especially – to see as “the most likely explanation” something that for them would not even be a possibility.
Take, for example, a simple sentence, “Joe met his coworker Sarah for dinner late that night.”
There is more than one possible was to look at this sentence. Yeah, it might be work, but Joe’s wife may want to pay attention.
Yet “Joe met his coworker Gary for dinner late that night” invariably is seen by straight guys as having only one possible explanation. No other possible scenario comes to mind.
(I remember the angry denial by Irving Stone, author of The Agony and The Ecstasy, that Michelangelo could not possibly have been homosexual. He had studied his life in detail never noticing what was obvious and evident to anyone even slightly open to the facts. This sort of thing is amusingly constant.)
find it common that gay folk pretty much
That is also possibly true. I guess some day we’ll know.
With all due respect, I really think that your perception of who is calling people names has little reflection on reality. Yeah the extremes are hurling insults at each other, but there are no credible and representative gay organizations out there who are calling Christians or conservatives “haters” that I know of. Even when the word is accurate.
I do think, David, that perhaps what you are objecting to is not really the names that you say are being assigned. I think that perhaps you object to the fact that many people – younger people especially – are viewing positions in opposition to gay equality in the same way that you or I view positions in opposition to racial equality.
It may not be that anyone is calling anyone a “hater” but rather that
Gay folk aren’t doling out the “haters” moniker so much. Could it be that you are actually upset at the shifted cultural perceptions that are now – unlike say 20 years ago – receptive to seeing such things as being hateful? Or am I incorrect?
We have had this discussion many many times. So rather than repeat my points, let me ask you:
1) Should any words exist to describe positions / views / perspectives / policies that are based in opposition to gay rights / liberties / goals? Or should we simply not have any words that allow us to acknowledge that some policies, etc., are formulated as opposition to the gay movement’s goals?
2) if so, what words (other than long run on sentences) can be used? If the media, the culture, and everyone here uses “pro-gay” to describe one side of the debate, what is the other side called?
“Pro-family” and “Pro-marriage” seem oxymoronic to describe a movement to deny a family the right to legally form a marriage. And the second one is especially confusing because I’ve heard it used to indicate support for a pro-gay marriage bill. (And besides, let’s be real. If a position, policy, group, etc. is opposed to everything that gay people want, it really isn’t pro anything as much as it is simply …. well, I need a word here.)
I am familiar with Boswell’s interpretation. A good friend of mine has studied some of the same material…and come to different conclusions.
The eroticization of our culture generally does not make these retrospective analysis very fruitful or accurate; you are correct:
It is important to note that for centuries, for many, women were treated merely sexual containers to breed children; not thought of as equals or partners or companions of any sort.
Male friendships were much more peer and companion based; a relationship of equals…a vibrant and loyal affection may have been more likely without being homosexual.
It is difficult to find that kind of warmth and regard in male friendships in the USA, as so much posturing and competition seems to be necessary in our form of masculinity. They certainly are not represented in the popular culture.
Timothy,
yeeyeeeyeeyeeeyee (queazy, ill-at-ease). This is where I see something entirely different happening.
The rancorousness of the marriage debate makes more cynics than it does converts. The myopic view of traditional values as “haters” reinforces a counter culture move toward libertine and highly individualistic choices in the name of freedom and a right to demand the tolerance of the larger culture.
It is one of the reasons why I have had concerns with terms like “anti-gay” when applied too broadly to the marriage debate.
Christians have never held out Brittany Spears, or Dennis Rodman, other heterosexuals as their examples of why marriage needs to be “kept” from homosexuals…
Christians have an elevated view of marriage that they feel has been lost in recent decades in the popular culture, this lower view of marriage has had a demonstrable correlative effect on the quality of life for women and children.
It’s also important to note that for centuries — and in some benighted circles, even unto this very day — masturbation by men was regarded not as a wholesome and beneficial practice that helps get rid of elderly sperm cells and “stale” prostatic fluid (with the side effect of brightening a guy’s day), but as a SIN that wasted a man’s scarce supply of semen, and possibly even led to the deaths of innocent little homunculi.
In any case, masturbation was most definitely a total misuse of a man’s genitals that inevitably turned a dude away from God (rather than making him praise God’s wonderful ingenuity for having given men a multi-function penis that doesn’t require the presence of a vagina to “activate” it) and simultaneously destroy the man’s capacity for lovemaking (rather than improving his understanding of his own body’s erogenous responsiveness and thus making him a more skillful lover).
Of course, nowadays it’s easy to laugh at the scientific ignorance and superstitious fear of an angry control-freak Hera-like “God” that lay under the traditional prohibitions on spanking the monkey. But ignorant or not, this ban on non-procreative seed-spilling was there.
How is this relevant to the question of whether the same-sex unions described by John Boswell were “homosexual” or chastely platonic?
Well, my reasoning is that “morning wood” is a universal fact of male existence; and if two medieval men had such a close friendship that they cohabitated and even had their friendship ceremoniously blessed, then sooner or later it was bound to happen that they were going to wake up with morning wood at the same time, and jacking off together would have been as natural as falling off a log, even if both of them had a preference for women…
…UNLESS, of course, it had been repeatedly beaten into their skulls over and over and over that for a man to play with his own salami was deeply offensive to God and ought to induce a feeling of shame and guilt, and that doing it in front of another man or (worse!) playing with each other’s salami only compounded the wrongness of it.
David B
I agree that it would be good for trends to reverse on marriage and, especially, marriage stability.
I am just speculating but I think that, oddly enough, the battle over marriage rights has been good in a way for marriage. It has gotten the country talking about what marriage means and portrayed it as something worth fighting for.
And it diffused some of the “marriage is patriarchal and sexist” message that some had been pushing.
By the way, I am rereading Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell. I had forgotten his ability to take a huge amount of very complex material and make it readable. I highly recommend this book.
As a Protestant, I don’t put much value in the Tradition of the Catholic Church – or, at least, I don’t see it as on par with Scripture. So I don’t see his discoveries as having much effect on doctrine. But nevertheless it is fascinating.
Agree or disagree with his conclusions (and while scholars may differ over interpretation, his scholarship on the matter is unquestioned), you come to discover pretty quickly that what we think of as “marriage” is very very different from what many of our ancestors thought of as marriage. We don’t have words that fit their view and they didn’t have words to fit ours.
I highly recommend the book. It is both challenging and enjoyable.
I totally agree with allowing polygamists to marry.
I’m less convinced, however, that we should begin allowing agents of the government to issue marriage licenses to polygamists — there are arguments for and against doing this.
However, if we as a society choose not to legally recognize polygamous marriages, I emphatically reject the claim that this amounts to “forcing” the majority’s religious beliefs on the polygamists. A man who wants to have multiple wives is free to civilly marry one woman while being religiously married to other women who cohabitate with him.
@All,
In spite of my personal opinions, I’ve recently read where countries (Sweden, as one) where new marriages had dropped off; the years after permitting same-sex marriage, the marriage rates increased … and, not due to same-sex coupling figures, but removing them from the stats … str8 marriages increased.
Stats were adjusted for population increase, etc. This was certainly an unexpected consequence, I’m sure, that most people never thought would happen.
Mary, is this simply an observation; or, an observation with a judgment that “the rights of women” are wrong?
Timothy,
Time will tell, I don’t know how we can get to a courtroom without all of these arguments being voiced and giving people the benefit of the doubt as we collect the data, in the context of human rights and so forth.
And:
This is my understanding as well…but I am more interested in reversing trends; which seemed to be occurring in the late 80’s and 90’s in the USA. “Leveling off” at the current point in time sets in motion an every growing burden on public institutions to do things more poorly that families used to do better.
EEK!
Civil marriage is marriage, Ken, if the State deems it so.
David B.
We agree that ‘good citizenship’ and a host of other factors – including down stream factors – are all legitimate points that the state could put forward to defend its law disallowing polygamous marriage. They are also legitimate points to oppose same-sex marriage.
My point is not that my rights trump anything the state could present. Indeed, if i were convinced that same-sex marriage would result in pending doom, I’d be opposed.
It is just that – so far – the arguments against it haven’t held up to scrutiny. Some are legitimately and honestly held, but they don’t seem to have substance. Perry was the first case in which the courts said, “bring in your evidence, bring in your witnesses, bring in your science, let’s get to the bottom of this.”
And while there are those who think that Judge Walker was biased, Having read the transcripts, I can’t see how any judge could use the evidence presented and come to any other conclusion (but, I am also biased).
All the “down stream” stuff, when presented clearly illustrated good, not harm. For example, the Prop 8 Supporters came in with a chart that showed that after civil unions were granted in scandinavia there was a downturn in marriage. The plaintiffs came in with the exact same chart… except that theirs was not limited to four carefully selected years. When you saw the bigger picture, it was obvious that marriages had been dropping for decades and that the part after civil unions was actually where the deadfall started to slow and right after was where it leveled off.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 5:37 pm
“To be clear, Jayhuck, Marinelli makes a distinction between “civil marriage” and “holy marriage.” Not sure how many Christians will be able to go there with him, but he is entitled to feel as he does. ”
I suspect a majority of christians understand the distinction between civil and religious marriage. I have yet to hear of any christians claiming atheists who civilly married aren’t really married. Are you claiming they aren’t married? And I don’t mean aren’t married in the church, I mean aren’t married under the law.
Timothy,
I understand this concern…on another thread we agreed about the emotional intelligence of biblical demands for good behavior…or something quite similar.
These have benefits for public policy, as a citizen is a good person, they are less likely to need to be more closely governed.
This has implications for sexuality, albeit very difficult to determine: especially for the heterosexual community…as children are more likely to be the consequence of heterosexual coupling…and that libertine attitudes toward uncommitted coupling do not properly see the “down stream” damage to children and to public agencies.
The rights of women has also made divorce more likely and accessible.
To be clear, Jayhuck, Marinelli makes a distinction between “civil marriage” and “holy marriage.” Not sure how many Christians will be able to go there with him, but he is entitled to feel as he does.
In thinking about David’s question, I readily concede that marriage has suffered greatly for a variety of reasons, most of them selfish ones. That failing likely does give people pause when it comes to whether or not they should oppose same-sex marriage. It is also true that public policy has adversely affected marriage. Marriage tax penalties and welfare subsidies have discouraged couples from marrying while making it easier for women to bear children out of wedlock.
From the above link:
Jayhuck,
Could you comment generally on the failure of heterosexual marriage in the last 50 years and its impact on child rearing and the implications for public policy?
Debbie,
I think you are likely right that this issue is, ultimately, already set for determination. And, yes, God will sort everything out in the end.
All –
Did you hear about Louis Marinelli’s relatively new support for marriage equality? He helped organize the NOM Support Marriage bus tour in 2010 and started the Protect Marriage site on Facebook. I appreciate his words:
Louis Marinelli supports marriage equality
Timothy, I, too, had thought that connecting might make a difference. I’m not sure it ever will here. It is depressing at times. It’s hard to really listen, isn’t it? I have heard many things that have opened my mind and my heart in these several years of conversations (or food fights). But it’s been like a roller coaster ride. Too much conviction and angst, too little courtesy. We’ve all been guilty of it. We just can’t make these issues noncontroversial. They are what they are. The closest we’ve been to making it meaningful is when we can step back and breathe and remember the two great commandments.
I am just too weary of all the debate. It accomplishes nothing. I have decided that I am going to invest my ministry efforts primarily in prayer from now on. Before anything comes out of my mouth, it needs to be going to God’s ears first. I believe in the “ministry of the interior.” That’s what we need most.
As I’ve said several times, you all are going to win gay marriage and other things. It’s only a matter of time, and not that much, I think. God will sort out everything in the long run. I trust Him.
David B –
Fair enough. Thank you!
Blakeslee,
I think that we can agree that not many people really desire to ban same-sex marriage out of fear of polygamy. I just haven’t found – or heard of – anyone who is okay with same-sex marriage but the fear of multiple-spouse marriage is so real that they are willing to sacrifice their support for same-sex marriage, just in case.
I don’t think that is your position. I doubt that your views on same-sex marriage are hinged on polygamy concerns.
And for good reason. The two are not really related to each other.
I can see how someone concerned about marriage and morality and legal structure might think that polygamy is relevant to the discussion. Both polygamy and same-sex marriage are about marriage, after all, and both are currently banned (in most states). And I can see how someone might think “I oppose both these marriage structures, so I can talk about them as though they were related.” It not right to wonder if one could lead to the other?
But I don’t think that concept applies well to other situations. One can dislike both artichokes and rum raisin ice-cream without thinking that including one on a menu will lead to the other.
And to gay people, the connection is even less obvious: “Polygamy isn’t our community’s problem. In fact, in the US the polygamists cults hate us (and here I think hate is an accurate term). Why should we be responsible for what your allies do?”
I see it as both irrelevant to the subject and – often times – just a tool used when no real argument can be found.
To me, “slippery slope; polygamy’s next” seems as bizarre as “slippery slope; arranged marriages next” or “slippery slope; mail order brides next.”
It’s a separate issue, with separate arguments. And regardless of whether gays are granted equality in marriage matters or driven back into the closet with repressive laws, polygamy will at some point make it’s case.
I don’t think that polygamy will be found to be constitutionally protected. You think it might.
But here’s the rub: If I had to choose, I would rather allow polygamist to marry than I would to force my religious beliefs on them. It the only reason for not allowing polygamist marriage is because I don’t like it, then I’d be a big hypocrite to insist that my religion gets to dictate.
David,
I do it because I believe it. I think that very little anti-gay policy, position, or viewpoint is based in real hatred. Most of it doesn’t come from a good place, but it isn’t conscious deliberate cruelty for the sake of hurting gay people. It isn’t hate.
It isn’t always easy. There is one commenter at my website that out of courtesy to me does not claim that all Christians hate all gay people. But he has a hard time letting go of that perception. When he was a teenager, it was in the name of Christ that people tied him to a chair and tortured him – not bullies, not in some ally, but the administrators at his school. Half a century later, he still has scars.
A lot of people in my community have scars. Usually not physical like his, but emotional and spiritual. They find it difficult to fathom how anyone could be so very cruel to them and not hate them. And while their tormenters were not always Christian in the go-to-church sense, almost invariably those who were doling out the pain justified it using Christianity as their excuse. To many many people in my community, “Christian” means “the people who have hurt you and want to hurt you more”.
A lot of what I do is present a more balanced view. I try to show that there is a lot a variation in the people who identify with the faith. Some see gay folk as God’s love of variety and try to fully incorporate gay folk into society, family, community, and church. Others are busy fighting a war over religious supremacy and gay lives are the battleground.
But probably the majority are folks who have been taught and believe that ‘being gay’ is a sin but yet they genuinely like the gay people they know. They aren’t either Culture Warriors or gay allies. They don’t study Scripture in context, culture and original language or really much at all. They aren’t theologians. They just are living their lives, going along with what their church believes for now, trying to be decent folk. They vote against gay equality not out of hatred, but because they are still a bit troubled by the sin thing and besides their church and their friends agree that you have to protect the family. They don’t want to harm anyone, they just… well, they aren’t ready to make such a big change, ya know. Maybe next year, and they really do like Bobby and Jim, but… well, not this vote.
It’s not hate. It really isn’t. It’s just prejudice. Not bigotry, just presumptions about how things are – presumptions that are just sitting there for a long time and are deeply ingrained.
I don’t think it’s malicious. And I really think that most who take such positions have no idea that gay folk actually are hurt. It’s just politics. It’s just activists. It’s just radicals. Their gay friends are ok with what they believe (Sarah Palin actually said this). They can agree to disagree, ya know.
San Diego’s Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders testified at the Perry trial. His testimony about his previous perceptions is perhaps the very best illustration of where I think most Christians are at. No malice, no unkindness, just prejudice. (I highly recommend reading the transcripts. Not only are the very informative, they are as fascinating as a good novel.)
Sanders had shocked San Diego when he called a press conference to veto a pro-gay-marriage resolution passed by the council… and then broke into tears and announced he’d sign it instead. It’s all worth a read but I’ll just excerpt two parts.
First, he talks about his unawareness of hurt:
And second, he talks about prejudice:
I don’t think Christians set out to hurt gay people, generally. I just think that they have no idea about what they are doing. And I really wish they would listen.
Jayhuck,
Sorry I haven’t answered this before:
No…and the same may be true of Gay marriage.
Ken,
If this is your observation and formed opinion, then just go with it.
Ann# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 2:05 pm
“You can read any of these comments and more than likely get all the answers you need or want.”
No actually I can’t. Your posts are so obfuscated it is difficult to determine what you are saying. And whenever I ask direct questions of you trying to clarify them, you either ignore them, or come up with some other excuse not to answer.
That’s a very good question, David.
I guess I keep hoping that at some point I can make a connection. It isn’t working so far, but maybe some day.
I will say that the process has been an introduction into some of the viewpoints and perspectives that, living in Los Angeles, I can sometimes forget. The presumptions that would be seen as horribly offensive here, still seem normal and accepted in other communities.
And it reminds me of how far we have to go. Just on this thread alone I’m reminded that to have gay people compare their struggle with yours is inherently offensive and that the burdens of inequality can not only be dismissed completely (poof, gone, no interest whatsoever) but are actually treated with scorn by those who see them as entitlement whining.
However, I also have hope. I do know that some of what I write does sink in. Naturally, aint nobody gunna admit it, but on some level at least it gets out there. It may not be considered (due to the source) but it is a seed that can be watered by others.
But, yeah. It gets wearying. I mostly dislike the incessant put-downs, the slurs, the meanness at times. (I laughed out loud when I was compared to Bahati and Ssempa in one thread and just a few days later gay folk were chastised for comparing Christians to Bahati and Ssempa – something I’ve not seen much of). But I know that most of it isn’t really personal, I’m just standing in as a representative.
That and the deliberate blockades to communication (you can’t use any words that describe attitudes or behavior that hurts gay people because it’s “calling names” even when you very carefully explain that a perspective or position is anti-gay, not necessarily the person). Yet even there, I think headway has been made. There is now some understanding that when our community uses a term we actually are trying to communicate an idea rather than just spew hate at Christians.
But I probably will take a break again for a while. I know its time to go when I find myself writing what I’m thinking rather than flat statements of fact without opinion. And I’ve been expressing opinion a bit lately. And try as I might, the person nastiness of some of it does get to me and I find myself responding – which is a very bad idea.
But I expect that I’ll be back. I do tend to do that.
Ken,
I cannot get past your new found accusatory and negative tone toward me. The assumptions you have made have been unneccessary and, for sure, untrue. I no longer feel safe sharing any of my thoughts with you, therefore, do not look forward to an answer to your question. I have commented on this blog from it’s inception when Dr. Throckmorton invited me to. You can read any of these comments and more than likely get all the answers you need or want.
Timothy,
I understand this concern…on another thread we agreed about the emotional intelligence of biblical demands for good behavior…or something quite similar.
These have benefits for public policy, as a citizen is a good person, they are less likely to need to be more closely governed.
This has implications for sexuality, albeit very difficult to determine: especially for the heterosexual community…as children are more likely to be the consequence of heterosexual coupling…and that libertine attitudes toward uncommitted coupling do not properly see the “down stream” damage to children and to public agencies.
The rights of women has also made divorce more likely and accessible.
Emily K# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 11:27 am
“If this were 1986, Debbie would be saying the same stuff about people, but swap “Muslim” for “Communist.” ”
Wrong year, try 1954.
Ann# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 8:50 am
“I’m not sure how to respond to your impression”
How about responding to my question instead. I’ll repeat it here:
Do you, Ann, believe gays are victims of discrimination in this country?
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 10:03 am
“Those in the gay marriage camp say that polygamy is at least a straw man…as they do the argument that broadening a definition of marriage weakens a definition. At worst they say it is mean spirited or a scare tactic…or worse.”
It is actually worse than a straw man argument. It is an attempt to link gay marriage to something (in many people’s minds) the majority disagree with even more. It is the same tactic (although a little more subtle) many conservatives used by bringing up incest, child molestation and bestiality whenever they talked about homosexuality. Gay marriage and polygamous marriage are 2 completely separate things, with separate arguments for/against them.
If you (or anyone else) wishes to challenge the government prohibition on polygamous marriage, you are free to do so, but that has NOTHING to do with gay marriage.
Jayhuck,
Could you comment generally on the failure of heterosexual marriage in the last 50 years and its impact on child rearing and the implications for public policy?
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 10:03 am
“The scientific data for a biologic deterministic reason for same sex attractions is weak, but real.”
Timothy didn’t say attractions are solely determined by biology (if he did, I would have challenged that assertion). However, we do know there are biological factors. It is not known the extent they play in determining attractions, but it is clear biological factors play a role. Which is what timothy was saying and Ann was trying to claim wasn’t conclusive.
Christian Terrorism
LOL
Yes, Jayhuck. Any person wanting to marry someone of the same sex already has the entitlement to do so if they move to that state. It’s going to be nationwide eventually anyway. That battle is already won.
I provided the information I did in response to a question from Lynn David, in case you forgot. Were I using your odd reasoning, I could claim that Warren was alienating and offending all his Christian readers with his endless rants on Bryan Fischer. As it is, the only death we face from all that is death by embarrassment that Fischer is our fellow Christian.
The death I was talking about is real.
Please, don’t let me interrupt your little tittle-tattle session. Go on.
Emily,
re: Debbie
I knew what she meant but I wanted to hear her expound upon the statement. Yeah, this idea that the freedoms are the same is technically true but the situations are not equivalent. This “freedom” provides the straight person with the opportunity to marry the person they love, but not the gay individual. I wonder, does Debbie want to see more gay men marrying lesbians for the tax benefits but leading separate romantic lives? The arguments against same-sex marriage on this thread, and in other places, often seem as if a group of people are trying to keep an exclusive club exclusive because it makes them feel better about themselves – and I wonder if that’s what some people mean when they use the broadening of the definition weakens the institution argument?
He can marry the man he is called to marry, just not in every state yet 🙂
Jayhuck, she probably means Timothy has the “freedom” to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like she does.
To put it another way, let’s say a country allows two religions: Buddhism and Islam. Debbie would have the “religious freedom” to choose either one. But not Christianity, her calling.
Just like Tim can’t legally marry the man he’s called to marry in this country – yet. Soon, he will.
Debbie,
Please tell me the reason for this rant of yours then:
And what did you mean by the following:
You know this is not completely true, right?
First, Jayhuck, I am Mrs. Thurman. Second, exactly how have I maligned all Muslims by pointing out that some of them are Sharia-adherents? You have leaped over the transom once again, slicing the air with your ad hominem sword, like MM Roberts and Kincaid. Look to your own house.
At best, ignorant, at worst, prejudicial and bigoted.
David B,
Is it not a scare tactic? Is it not mean-spirited? I have seen absolutely no sound evidence whatsoever to back up these statements, so then what does that make them?
Yep Emily – you are correct!
If this were 1986, Debbie would be saying the same stuff about people, but swap “Muslim” for “Communist.”
Debbie,
I have to agree with David, your skill at fear-mongering is mind-blowing. Millions of peaceful muslims in this country and you manage to hand-pick a few awful incidents to malign an entire group of people. You sure seem to hate it when people do that to Christians. Would you like for me to post information on anti-government Christian militias that exist in this country? You are a hypocrite Debbie. What is good for your kind is definitely not good for others. I think you might benefit from a reminder to; treat others as you would like to be treated Miss Thurman!
David,
Perhaps some in the “camp” say that broadening the definition weakens the definition is a straw man argument, but I do not. I’ve asked you the following question before and this time I would like a response. The definition of marriage has been changed and broadened over time. It is a fact that the definition of marriage, in this country, was broadened when the Supreme Court overturned the anti-miscegenation laws in this country, allowing for interracial marriage. My question, did this broadening of the definition weaken the institution?
David,
I do it because I believe it. I think that very little anti-gay policy, position, or viewpoint is based in real hatred. Most of it doesn’t come from a good place, but it isn’t conscious deliberate cruelty for the sake of hurting gay people. It isn’t hate.
It isn’t always easy. There is one commenter at my website that out of courtesy to me does not claim that all Christians hate all gay people. But he has a hard time letting go of that perception. When he was a teenager, it was in the name of Christ that people tied him to a chair and tortured him – not bullies, not in some ally, but the administrators at his school. Half a century later, he still has scars.
A lot of people in my community have scars. Usually not physical like his, but emotional and spiritual. They find it difficult to fathom how anyone could be so very cruel to them and not hate them. And while their tormenters were not always Christian in the go-to-church sense, almost invariably those who were doling out the pain justified it using Christianity as their excuse. To many many people in my community, “Christian” means “the people who have hurt you and want to hurt you more”.
A lot of what I do is present a more balanced view. I try to show that there is a lot a variation in the people who identify with the faith. Some see gay folk as God’s love of variety and try to fully incorporate gay folk into society, family, community, and church. Others are busy fighting a war over religious supremacy and gay lives are the battleground.
But probably the majority are folks who have been taught and believe that ‘being gay’ is a sin but yet they genuinely like the gay people they know. They aren’t either Culture Warriors or gay allies. They don’t study Scripture in context, culture and original language or really much at all. They aren’t theologians. They just are living their lives, going along with what their church believes for now, trying to be decent folk. They vote against gay equality not out of hatred, but because they are still a bit troubled by the sin thing and besides their church and their friends agree that you have to protect the family. They don’t want to harm anyone, they just… well, they aren’t ready to make such a big change, ya know. Maybe next year, and they really do like Bobby and Jim, but… well, not this vote.
It’s not hate. It really isn’t. It’s just prejudice. Not bigotry, just presumptions about how things are – presumptions that are just sitting there for a long time and are deeply ingrained.
I don’t think it’s malicious. And I really think that most who take such positions have no idea that gay folk actually are hurt. It’s just politics. It’s just activists. It’s just radicals. Their gay friends are ok with what they believe (Sarah Palin actually said this). They can agree to disagree, ya know.
San Diego’s Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders testified at the Perry trial. His testimony about his previous perceptions is perhaps the very best illustration of where I think most Christians are at. No malice, no unkindness, just prejudice. (I highly recommend reading the transcripts. Not only are the very informative, they are as fascinating as a good novel.)
Sanders had shocked San Diego when he called a press conference to veto a pro-gay-marriage resolution passed by the council… and then broke into tears and announced he’d sign it instead. It’s all worth a read but I’ll just excerpt two parts.
First, he talks about his unawareness of hurt:
And second, he talks about prejudice:
I don’t think Christians set out to hurt gay people, generally. I just think that they have no idea about what they are doing. And I really wish they would listen.
Ken,
If this is your observation and formed opinion, then just go with it.
Ann# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 2:05 pm
“You can read any of these comments and more than likely get all the answers you need or want.”
No actually I can’t. Your posts are so obfuscated it is difficult to determine what you are saying. And whenever I ask direct questions of you trying to clarify them, you either ignore them, or come up with some other excuse not to answer.
Timothy,
I am glad to here this is your goal…although I see the battle raging within your comments and assumptions. I wish you well; I think your goal is worthy on all sides (marriage equality, reminding readers that Christians really don’t hate them).
I disagree, and this is the nub of the issue for me. Arguments for individual rights and equality can and have been so persuasive in the courts.
Those in the gay marriage camp say that polygamy is at least a straw man…as they do the argument that broadening a definition of marriage weakens a definition. At worst they say it is mean spirited or a scare tactic…or worse.
Ken,
The scientific data for a biologic deterministic reason for same sex attractions is weak, but real. But there are biological deterministic reasons for all sorts of impulses and drives, and as a culture, we have not, until recently, sought to undermine the cultural morals which have historically guided the expression of such biological drives.
To repeat, the “excuse-making” for this lies first in the heterosexual camp.
to clarify: I am using the word “camp” not in its stereotypical gay-affiliated understanding of the term :).
Emily K# ~ Apr 12, 2011 at 11:27 am
“If this were 1986, Debbie would be saying the same stuff about people, but swap “Muslim” for “Communist.” ”
Wrong year, try 1954.
No, it is not a fact Ken so there is nothing that is quite telling, unless you want to make an incorrect assumption. This is what I actually said:
I know there have been studies that infer this, however, I do not know how substantial or credible or conslusive they are.”
I’m not sure how to respond to your impression as it is not based on a truth and is something that you have created and I cannot fix.
Debbie said:
Wow, just wow. I’ll have to save that one. The old ugly wolf is peeking through that thin sheep’s clothing again, eh? You are definitely a child of Falwell, Debbie.
And please, don’t let me stop you and your talent for fear-mongering. We wouldn’t want society to go more than a few years without a good, solid bogey-man to fear and hate, would we? Really, Debbie, how pathetic.
Christian Terrorism
LOL
Yes, Jayhuck. Any person wanting to marry someone of the same sex already has the entitlement to do so if they move to that state. It’s going to be nationwide eventually anyway. That battle is already won.
I provided the information I did in response to a question from Lynn David, in case you forgot. Were I using your odd reasoning, I could claim that Warren was alienating and offending all his Christian readers with his endless rants on Bryan Fischer. As it is, the only death we face from all that is death by embarrassment that Fischer is our fellow Christian.
The death I was talking about is real.
Please, don’t let me interrupt your little tittle-tattle session. Go on.
David Roberts’s histrionics aside, here’s a response for Lynn David. And with this, I am done with this discussion.
Lynn David, did I not refer to the Holy Land Foundation trial? Heavy sentences were handed down to the co-conspirators. As many as 300 unindicted co-conspirators — individuals and organizations — were also named.
And then there’s a little incident called 9/11. You may recall it. And another that was discussed here extensively — the Ft. Hood shootings. Other plots have been foiled.
The mosque (or whatever you want to call it) project near Ground Zero is one method of lulling Americans into complacency that turns a blind eye to anti-American rants and calls for jihad. Perhaps you have heard about the controversy surrounding the Islamic Saudi Academy, a Wahhabist madrassa in Northern Virginia. Textbooks there have taught it is permissible to kill adulterers or converts from Islam. One featured illustrations that gave instructions for where and how to cut of a person’s hands and feet. The government (taxpayers) leases the land for the school.
There also was a 2010 case in New Jersey in which a Muslim man, who had repeatedly raped and abused his wife, was tried. The lower court actually accepted the testimony of an imam over the wife’s credible testimony, that the husband’s actions were in accordance with their religion. The man had told his wife he could do anything he pleased under Islam because she belonged to him. A U.S. court bought it. That’s sharia. Fortunately, the case was overturned in appeal.
Of course, we don’t need Saudi oil, do we?
Oh dear Lord, Shariah Law hysteria has made it into the thread, the latest choice for the hip demagogue. All we need now is a senator with a secret list. You can shut this one down now Warren, all reason has left the building.
Emily,
re: Debbie
I knew what she meant but I wanted to hear her expound upon the statement. Yeah, this idea that the freedoms are the same is technically true but the situations are not equivalent. This “freedom” provides the straight person with the opportunity to marry the person they love, but not the gay individual. I wonder, does Debbie want to see more gay men marrying lesbians for the tax benefits but leading separate romantic lives? The arguments against same-sex marriage on this thread, and in other places, often seem as if a group of people are trying to keep an exclusive club exclusive because it makes them feel better about themselves – and I wonder if that’s what some people mean when they use the broadening of the definition weakens the institution argument?
He can marry the man he is called to marry, just not in every state yet 🙂
Jayhuck, she probably means Timothy has the “freedom” to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like she does.
To put it another way, let’s say a country allows two religions: Buddhism and Islam. Debbie would have the “religious freedom” to choose either one. But not Christianity, her calling.
Just like Tim can’t legally marry the man he’s called to marry in this country – yet. Soon, he will.
Debbie,
Please tell me the reason for this rant of yours then:
And what did you mean by the following:
You know this is not completely true, right?
You needn’t worry, Timothy. That’s your game, not mine.
“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:27, Ref: Lev. 19:18, Deut. 6:5).
It’s all there. If I love God with all that I am — mind, body, soul, spirit — I cannot fail to love others as He wants me to because I will understand His heart and be identified with his interests in others. If I remember that Jesus is even now interceding before the Father for me and all believers, praying along the lines of his prayer in John 17 (“that they may all be one, even as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be in Us …”), then I will not fail to see Christ’s love for me nor to treat others with true Christ-love. Christ is both truth and love, embodied in one. And so must I be.
“For whom the LORD loves, He reproves” (Prov. 3:12, Rev. 3:19). It’s an unavoidable truth. Let’s not forget to factor His love for us into the equation.
First, Jayhuck, I am Mrs. Thurman. Second, exactly how have I maligned all Muslims by pointing out that some of them are Sharia-adherents? You have leaped over the transom once again, slicing the air with your ad hominem sword, like MM Roberts and Kincaid. Look to your own house.
At best, ignorant, at worst, prejudicial and bigoted.
David B,
Is it not a scare tactic? Is it not mean-spirited? I have seen absolutely no sound evidence whatsoever to back up these statements, so then what does that make them?
Yep Emily – you are correct!
Debbie,
I have to agree with David, your skill at fear-mongering is mind-blowing. Millions of peaceful muslims in this country and you manage to hand-pick a few awful incidents to malign an entire group of people. You sure seem to hate it when people do that to Christians. Would you like for me to post information on anti-government Christian militias that exist in this country? You are a hypocrite Debbie. What is good for your kind is definitely not good for others. I think you might benefit from a reminder to; treat others as you would like to be treated Miss Thurman!
David,
Perhaps some in the “camp” say that broadening the definition weakens the definition is a straw man argument, but I do not. I’ve asked you the following question before and this time I would like a response. The definition of marriage has been changed and broadened over time. It is a fact that the definition of marriage, in this country, was broadened when the Supreme Court overturned the anti-miscegenation laws in this country, allowing for interracial marriage. My question, did this broadening of the definition weaken the institution?
Ooops…my bad! Not the parable of the talents but the parable of the workers.
Timothy–
Thanks for noticing my consistency. I find generalizations to be destructive rather than productive in meaningful conversations and find that pronouncing judgements on those we converse with to be non-productive as well.
BTW: I’m wondering if the Parable of the Talents should be retitled as the Parable of the Victims.
Timothy,
I am glad to here this is your goal…although I see the battle raging within your comments and assumptions. I wish you well; I think your goal is worthy on all sides (marriage equality, reminding readers that Christians really don’t hate them).
I disagree, and this is the nub of the issue for me. Arguments for individual rights and equality can and have been so persuasive in the courts.
Those in the gay marriage camp say that polygamy is at least a straw man…as they do the argument that broadening a definition of marriage weakens a definition. At worst they say it is mean spirited or a scare tactic…or worse.
Ken,
The scientific data for a biologic deterministic reason for same sex attractions is weak, but real. But there are biological deterministic reasons for all sorts of impulses and drives, and as a culture, we have not, until recently, sought to undermine the cultural morals which have historically guided the expression of such biological drives.
To repeat, the “excuse-making” for this lies first in the heterosexual camp.
to clarify: I am using the word “camp” not in its stereotypical gay-affiliated understanding of the term :).
Debbie said:
Wow, just wow. I’ll have to save that one. The old ugly wolf is peeking through that thin sheep’s clothing again, eh? You are definitely a child of Falwell, Debbie.
And please, don’t let me stop you and your talent for fear-mongering. We wouldn’t want society to go more than a few years without a good, solid bogey-man to fear and hate, would we? Really, Debbie, how pathetic.
David Roberts’s histrionics aside, here’s a response for Lynn David. And with this, I am done with this discussion.
Lynn David, did I not refer to the Holy Land Foundation trial? Heavy sentences were handed down to the co-conspirators. As many as 300 unindicted co-conspirators — individuals and organizations — were also named.
And then there’s a little incident called 9/11. You may recall it. And another that was discussed here extensively — the Ft. Hood shootings. Other plots have been foiled.
The mosque (or whatever you want to call it) project near Ground Zero is one method of lulling Americans into complacency that turns a blind eye to anti-American rants and calls for jihad. Perhaps you have heard about the controversy surrounding the Islamic Saudi Academy, a Wahhabist madrassa in Northern Virginia. Textbooks there have taught it is permissible to kill adulterers or converts from Islam. One featured illustrations that gave instructions for where and how to cut of a person’s hands and feet. The government (taxpayers) leases the land for the school.
There also was a 2010 case in New Jersey in which a Muslim man, who had repeatedly raped and abused his wife, was tried. The lower court actually accepted the testimony of an imam over the wife’s credible testimony, that the husband’s actions were in accordance with their religion. The man had told his wife he could do anything he pleased under Islam because she belonged to him. A U.S. court bought it. That’s sharia. Fortunately, the case was overturned in appeal.
Of course, we don’t need Saudi oil, do we?
As a gay man who grew up in the 60s, who did not even conceive of the idea of marriage for gays and lesbians until late in the Reagan administration; I sure felt as if my life had been devalued even more than for the simple fact that I was gay. The fact that two gay men or two lesbians are to be denied by society the welcoming and affirmation of their respective families and friends just because of their love for another of their same gender is a significant devaluation of their lives. Perhaps the greatest there should come to be, that their love not be acknowledged. It is a killing of the spirit, an attempt at the destruction of their emotional well-being. Just how is that ever good for a society?
Please keep your mythical and inhumane gods away from the defining points of my freedom.
Uh… well…. why, of course!
I thought I included “Cliff” when I wrote that.
Ok… but that doesn’t answer the question in the least. For one, just what did they do to promote sharia in the USA? How did they subvert American culture – was it by converting some Americans to Islam? Because then you just sound rather trite with these statements. If that is all they are doing then these documents could be analogous to soem that the Vatican have produced concerning evangelizing countries like India.
So we now have Muslims in government positions, just how does that meant that a silent jihad is going on? Or that sharia is going into effect for all Americans. Have these “infiltrators” into American government been ferreted out and charged with treason or some such crime?
Otherwise, all I am hearing from you is hyperbole.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm
“I did not say that you said those words. Of course you didn’t say those words. ”
timothy, the way you blocked the statement ( Timothy Kincaid# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm ) certainly made it look like Ann did say something she didn’t actually say.
However, Ann, that doesn’t make him a liar. Further, I too would like you to clarify your statements as well. If you had done that, this confusion of what exactly was said wouldn’t have happened.
so perhaps you can answer this question:
Do you, Ann, believe gays are victims of discrimination in this country?
Ann# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 8:34 pm
“I know there have been studies that infer this, however, I do not know how substantial or credible or conslusive they are.”
the fact that you never asked about the studies is quite telling Ann. I’m getting the impression that you don’t know because you really don’t want to know.
Timothy, you aren’t going to find a reasonable debate here, why do you keep at it so? Marriage equality is essentially a fait accompli, discuss it with people have who open minds.
Eddy,
I see that your contribution to the conversation is consistent.
Ann,
It seems to me that rather than hear what I’m saying and rather than addressing the issue as to whether same-sex couples are experiencing hardship, you are choosing to focus on “I didn’t say that” and in accusing those who do point out the hardship of just acting out of entitlement.
That does not change the facts.
Ya know, the ones that you don’t seem to have any desire addressing at this point.
I did not say that you said those words. Of course you didn’t say those words. In fact, you spent several comments trying hard NOT to say exactly what you meant.
Eddy,
As usual, you have very good words of wisdom and I will follow them. Thanks 😀
Having said that I lied, please point out where my statement was false.
Ann,
I’m not finding where I misrepresented your position.
Victims: Pakistani woman, African-Americans
those who have a sense of entitlement that has nothing to do with being a true victim: someone who wants to marry their own gender and is currently ineligible to do so
You keep expressing the same view but denying that it is “what you said.” Where, exactly, am I incorrect in assessing your position?
Because, to me, it really does appear that you see “victim” through the lens of who you sympathize with. If you agree with them in their perspective and views, they get to be a victim. If you happen to believe that they should be denied what they are requesting, then they “have a sense of entitlement” and are “pretending to be victims.”
Am I incorrect in that?
Oy. I cannot even begin to answer such a frivilous comment that has nothing to do with the truth.
Timothy,
You receive only artificial and temporary benefits from lying Timothy – I am asking you again to stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.
Ann,
Warren covers this pretty well. One good substantial, credible and conclusive study was the one on identical twins. If I recall correctly (though I can’t now find it) the scandinavian researcher corresponded with Warren and applied an estimate as to the extent that genetics alone plays in orientation (i recall it being around half) and the remainder is either pre-natal or early life not-genetic factors (which may or may not be biological).
Timothy,
Someone needs to take the shovel away from you. You are again putting words in my mouth that I never said. Please stop.
Timothy,
It strains your credibility because you said something that was untrue. You could have chosen otherwise, and didn’t. You lied and it has not gone unnoticed.
Timothy,
Your valiant attempts cannot yield you the answer you are soliciting because it is not what I said.
Here is what I said –
Yes, and my admiration and respect and support goes to those who do not seek the temporary and false benefits of portraying themselves as a victim or trying to compare themselves to others who have been true victims.
Later in the thread, I cited the example of the Pakistani woman who is in prison for perceived blasphemy. To me she is a victim and not someone who wants to marry their own gender and is currently ineligible to do so.
Ann–
Judge Kincaid has read your heart and has declared his judgement. Not everyone sees it his way (despite his generalized summary that they do). But just like Judge Judy, there’s no point in arguing. The judge’s decisions are final—well, at least in his own mind.
Ken,
I know there have been studies that infer this, however, I do not know how substantial or credible or conslusive they are.
Oh, and there is NO WAY that I live up to the “love your neighbor as yourself” commandment. I’m FAR FAR more loving to myself.
Uh… well…. why, of course!
I thought I included “Cliff” when I wrote that.
Because gay people are entitlement whiners instead of victims, and because gay people have all the rights of straight people, and because it’s tax time, I’ll share a bit of something I wrote up:
But of course that fake victim requirement is not nearly so difficult as the real victim situation of where one has to sit on a bus.
Unless, of course, we aren’t assigning “real” and “pretending” based on whether we thing the group is deserving of discrimination.
Ann,
I’ve been trying valiantly to get you to explain what you mean by why some folks – African-Americans – are real victims but gay folk are not.
You may think that is strains my credibility to point this out to you. But I think by this point it’s pretty clear to everyone that in your mind gay folks are “sense of entitlement that has nothing to do with being a true victim.”
Oh, you can say that “regardless of their orientation” or change the subject to Pakistani women, but the truth is clear. Your real reason for disparaging those fake victims is because you need to portray “the individual who feels discriminated against because they cannot currently marry someone of the same gender” as not a “true victim.”
It has nothing to do with what they are experiencing, it has to do with how you view your beliefs.
I can respect an honest assessment that might say “I oppose same-sex marriage for reason XY and Z but I do recognize that it is burdensome on gay people to be denied equality.”
You are choosing instead to diminish the inequality and act as though those who are suffering “have a sense of entitlement that has nothing to do with being a true victim.” Because if they aren’t real victims, then you don’t have to consider that as part of the equation.
I got my negatives backwards:
And loving him as yourself really does mean “the way I want to be treated now” not “the way I’d want to be treated if I were in his sinful condition and needed to be made miserable so that I would learn that sin doesn’t pay.”
I want others to treat me with true love, which means telling me the truth I need to hear, even when I don’t like it. Christ commanded that I first love God (i.e., know Him and obey all His commandments) and then that I love my neighbor as myself. That is what I seek to do. I may mess up, but opposing same-sex marriage is not one of those occasions.
No. This is just the way that some branches of Christianity get around Jesus.
“True Love” is not some special “love that looks to everyone around it like discrimination, cruelty, and animus but really is love because I say so.” And loving him as yourself really doesn’t mean “the way I want to be treated now” but instead “the way I’d want to be treated if I were in his sinful condition and needed to be made miserable so that I would learn that sin doesn’t pay.”
Jesus didn’t say “love your neighbor as yourself if you were like your neighbor.” Nor did he call us to “tell the truth they need to hear.” He never called his followers to mistreat others. There would be no need for such a commandment; self-righteousness already leads us in that direction. Jesus didn’t need to say “Take rights from the sinners. Hate their sin.” We already do that on our own.
Jesus instead gave a very difficult commandment (one which Throbert noted above was previously given by Hilel). To love God and love your neighbor. In the way he said it, it appears that Jesus believed that you love God through loving your neighbor.
Your religious tradition teaches the opposite. First you have to “obey all His commandments” and then after that we’ll get around to that neighbor thing. But loving the neighbor gets to turn into hating his sin and “telling him the truth he needs to hear” conveniently justifying doing exactly what you already want to do.
Hey, it just as if Jesus had never mentioned the Good Samaritan (and even without the truth he needed to hear) or that Corinthians 13 were snipped right out. Because justifying your desire to live in direct opposition to Jesus’ commandments has you making all sorts of logical leaps.
Debbie, you’re lying to yourself. And, of course, it’s obvious why you have to do so.
Because if you ever really stopped, if you ever said to yourself, “how do I want to be treated and am I treating gay people that way” you would not like the answer you would have to give.
And I’m sorry if you are offended. Truly. I don’t want to hurt you.
Ann# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 4:59 pm
” ” It is irrefutable that the direction of ones attractions is at least partly based in biology,”
To my knowledge, there is no substantial, credible, definitive, scientific, medical or psychological conclusion that verifies your statement. Until there is one, there will continue to be just opinions. ”
No, there have been quite a few studies showing that there are biological factors to attraction. Simply because you aren’t aware of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are “just opinions.”
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm
“I did not say that you said those words. Of course you didn’t say those words. ”
timothy, the way you blocked the statement ( Timothy Kincaid# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm ) certainly made it look like Ann did say something she didn’t actually say.
However, Ann, that doesn’t make him a liar. Further, I too would like you to clarify your statements as well. If you had done that, this confusion of what exactly was said wouldn’t have happened.
so perhaps you can answer this question:
Do you, Ann, believe gays are victims of discrimination in this country?
Ann# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 8:34 pm
“I know there have been studies that infer this, however, I do not know how substantial or credible or conslusive they are.”
the fact that you never asked about the studies is quite telling Ann. I’m getting the impression that you don’t know because you really don’t want to know.
I want a black magic marker to highlight Ken’s last comment with.
Timothy, you aren’t going to find a reasonable debate here, why do you keep at it so? Marriage equality is essentially a fait accompli, discuss it with people have who open minds.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 4:04 pm
“Again, the burden of compelling arguments of how same-sex marriage would improve society is on those pushing for it. ”
Not in the US Debbie. that isn’t how rights work. Maybe you need to spend a little less time reading the Declaration of Independence and a little more reading the Constitution.
“Do I go up to another person and say, “I am going to burn your house down. Now give me a compelling reason why I shouldn’t do it.”?”
Because arson is illegal. do you not understand why arson should be illegal debbie?
“We have people wanting “equal access” to both genders, as if the Constitution could somehow rearrange their chromosomes.”
No clue what you are talking about here.
“Never heard of transgender people?”
Yes, in fact I’ve known a few personally. I just don’t understand how that at all relates to this discussion.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 4:05 pm
” ” With regards to islamic fascism, no it can’t happen here.”
Really? Why not? Rome fell. So can the good old US of A.”
You think rome fell because of islamic fascism?
😀
Where can I get one of those extra-wide paintbrushes? You know, the ones that paint in such broad strokes?
Wow. You do find creative ways to subvert logic. Freedom is a writ-large, overarching, God-given principle that cannot be put in your little gay idea box. You have the same freedoms I have, Timothy. What you want is a special entitlement. Because you want it. And you are willing to hold your breath and turn blue until you get it.
Um, not sure about this. To my knowledge, there is no substantial, credible, definitive, scientific, medical or psychological conclusion that verifies your statement. Until there is one, there will continue to be just opinions.
As to this point, I, and most people agree. Many things that attach themselves to us, are unchosen.
Not too sure about this either – perhaps for some, but to others there are degrees and dimensions that are not all immutable
You might or might not be right about this. There are too many differing opinions from too many different people, including those who are are gay, to say with any kind of certainty what the genesis of homosexual orientation is. A less discerning mind might believe the statenment you made, however, many would not.
Timothy,
I never said this and it is not my position. You are saying something that is untrue. I really wish you could understand how this kind of tactic reflects poorly on you and your credibility. You are interjecting your hypothosis into a paragraph using some of your words and some of mine and saying that it is my position and not an uncommon one. This is not telling the truth. People notice and once again your credibility is in jeopardy. Just be cool – practice integrity, say what is true and don’t try to make something true or believable when it just isn’t.
You are the self-deceived one here, Timothy. I am not a “good person.” I am cursed with the same dual nature you have (spirit and flesh). I want others to treat me with true love, which means telling me the truth I need to hear, even when I don’t like it. Christ commanded that I first love God (i.e., know Him and obey all His commandments) and then that I love my neighbor as myself. That is what I seek to do. I may mess up, but opposing same-sex marriage is not one of those occasions.
Only if you hate the principles of freedom and equality. Freedom lovers believe that you must justify each restriction. Autocrats, theists, tyrants, and other totalitarians believe that each freedom must be justified.
This is the lie that you tell yourself in order to bolster your own need to simultaneously think of yourself as a good person and also treat others in a way that you would not want to be treated.
It is the lie that lets you tell yourself that you are a Christian while doing the opposite of what Christ commanded.
Really? Why not? Rome fell. So can the good old US of A.
Beg parden, but the burden of a compelling reason is on the tiny minority that is trying to turn the world upside down.
Again, the burden of compelling arguments of how same-sex marriage would improve society is on those pushing for it. Do I go up to another person and say, “I am going to burn your house down. Now give me a compelling reason why I shouldn’t do it.”? Even if I think I have a dang good reason, I am likely going to be hauled off to jail. Consequences.
Never heard of transgender people?
Ann# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 4:59 pm
” ” It is irrefutable that the direction of ones attractions is at least partly based in biology,”
To my knowledge, there is no substantial, credible, definitive, scientific, medical or psychological conclusion that verifies your statement. Until there is one, there will continue to be just opinions. ”
No, there have been quite a few studies showing that there are biological factors to attraction. Simply because you aren’t aware of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are “just opinions.”
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm
“Do you think what is happening in other countries cannot happen here? ”
With regards to islamic fascism, no it can’t happen here. And I suspect your fears about the US becoming an islamic nation ruled by sharia law stem from watching too much Glenn Beck and other such fear-mongers.
“And still no clear and compelling reason other than “we want it, we’re hurt” is offered for same-sex marriage. ”
You still don’t get it Debbie? There doesn’t need to be a clear OR compelling reason FOR same-sex marriage, there needs to be a clear AND compelling reason AGAINST it.
“but not for me to defend heterosexual marriage for the greater common good? Why? ”
Because you can’t give any reasonable arguments (unsubstantiated claims about the downfall of civilization aren’t reasonable) how gay marriage would in any way harm straight marriage.
“We have people wanting “equal access” to both genders, as if the Constitution could somehow rearrange their chromosomes.”
No clue what you are talking about here.
Lynn David,
Ahem… I do hope you meant Cliff Kincaid. While I certainly don’t want the establishment of Sharia law (as a legal system, not a voluntary social mediation between those who share values), I am not an anti-Muslim crusader.
I do not see a comparison between the color of skin one is born with, and ultimately discriminated against, to those who are attracted to their same gender.
True. You do not.
It is irrefutable that the direction of ones attractions is at least partly based in biology, is unchosen, is – for the overwhelming percentage of such persions – immutable, and is likely set either at birth or in the early years of life. For linguistic shorthand in this one instance, and recognizing the caveats, we could say “born with”.
It is irrefutable that gay people experience discrimination. No, it really is irrefutable. This is fact, not opinion.
So, in essence, your position is:
This is not an uncommon position.
All men are created equal, Timothy. Yes. Not all ideas or ideologies. We are endowed by our Creator (that’s Almighty God in any language) with equality in that we have the same worth, dignity and basic human rights. Gay marriage is a man-made invention or convention, not a God-created right. To be denied same-sex marriage is not to be devalued as a human being. It is recognizing that there are best ways of doing things, and that society can determine what makes it function best, what best fosters the well-being of its citizens. We will never be able to have a utopia in which someone is not offended by coveting what someone else has.
Thank you Timothy – I just wasn’t sure and stand corrected.
Timothy,
I do not see the comparison between the color of one’s skin and sexual orientation. Skin color or ethnicity is obvious and understood as a physical distinction that the person was born with. Sexual orientation is something that is not obvious and, in most cases, no known until or unless the person wants it to be known. Some individuals, regardless of their orientation or race or gender have a sense of entitlement that has nothing to do with being a true victim. A true victim, at least to me, is someone like the Pakistani woman in jail over perceived blasphemy. She is now reportedly gravely ill with, I think , chicken pox, because of her incarceration and it’s unsanitary condition. I cannot compare her with the individual who feels discriminated against because they cannot currently marry someone of the same gender. One, at least to me is a true victim and the other one is not.
I cannot speak to the examples you asked me to as I have respect for their opinions, even if I do not share them.
There are some individuals, who are gay, and portray themselves as victims. After awhile, and especially comparing them to true victims, one can see how insincere the portrayal is.
Not relevant, Timothy? You wanted to talk about victimization — and only of gays, as no one else matters to you. I said that it will be moot if/when we have Sharia here. Gays will then be in no position to lobby. In other words, we have bigger fish to fry, enemies common to us both. Do you think what is happening in other countries cannot happen here?
By laws that segregate gays for the purpose of discrimination, I presume you mean marriage laws. And still no clear and compelling reason other than “we want it, we’re hurt” is offered for same-sex marriage.
It’s OK for you to redefine marriage and build up a tiny subgroup of people who cannot establish a set of common criteria for why they are the way they are into a suspect class whose rights are being infringed upon, but not for me to defend heterosexual marriage for the greater common good? Why?
We have people wanting “equal access” to both genders, as if the Constitution could somehow rearrange their chromosomes. It can’t do that any more than it can make a meaningful, natural, profitable-for-society conjugal union out of people of the same sex.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 1:53 pm
“The US Constitution disagrees with you. It says that I have a right to equal access – yes, just as good as your right. Even if your church doesn’t like it. Even if you don’t like it.”
Unless She (or her church) can show just cause why you should be denied such equal access. However, as the Prop 8 case showed, there isn’t any valid cause in the case of gay marriage.
The Declaration has no legal authority, nor does it “inform” our laws. And the idea that it is an “articles of incorporation” is an charming fiction. Although it contains a beautiful (and ultimately world-changing) statement about a revolutionary notion (equality), it is primarily a list of grievances against King George.
Further, appealing to Nature and Nature’s God displays an ignorance about both theology and history. These (like Providence and Creator) were Deist terms designed to get around (not support) theocracy. Nature and Nature’s God were hands-off, big picture demideities. Today we might say “bestowed by the Cosmos” or a “Greater Power” or even “all that is” – all inclusive terms that do not imply any doctrine or dogma. The closest that either document comes to appealing to Christianity or its god would be the term “Supreme Judge of the world.”
You missed it? Really? It’s right on the same line as the law for straight marriage.
Of course, I’m being silly. Neither the Declaration or the Constitution mention marriage at all (despite the best efforts of some very determined people who don’t like the concepts of equality).
Both do, however, discuss ideas and principles.
For example, the Declaration says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Suppose we took that literally. Wow!! Liberty to live as you choose and pursue what makes you happy. Even if someone else doesn’t like it. Even if your happiness is that of marital bliss.
The only way to get around that, Debbie, is to decide (in Bryan Fischer fashion) that “all men” doesn’t include gay men. Or that in writing “liberty and pursuit of happiness” they really meant “liberty to the extent that the Bible allows and pursuit of such happiness as meets the approval of the Southern Baptist Convention.”
As for the Constitution, it didn’t discuss equality until 1868 with the 14th amendment. This was inspired primarily to address the rights of people who had been slaves, but – as is true of much of our defining principles – it was not written narrowly so as to apply only to one people. It was, after all, talking about ideas, not incidents.
When it comes to civil marriage rights, this one is tough to get around. We know that gay people were born here and are citizens. And that pesky term “privileges or immunities” doesn’t let us say “marriage is a privilege, not a right”. And few people of good will would claim that denying gay people the right to marry does not abridge their privileges or immunities. Further, few people of good will would argue that it does not deprive gay people of liberty or property (to the extent that gay people are taxed differently and must pay for legal services to obtain such very limited protections as can be achieved).
And, other than comics and scamps, no one suggests that a referendum that is designed for no other purpose than to exclude one demographic from a section of code does not deny them the equal protection of the laws, in the common vernacular.
Those really aren’t up for debate. And the “will of the people” is exactly what the Constitution was seeking to repress. “The people” most definitely did not think that African descendants were due to equal treatment with European descendants.
Thus, if we really and honestly do wish to abide by the Constitution, the question MUST be, was there due process and are equal protections being denied? That is, in legalspeak, are the restrictions necessary or are they animus?
That is what Perry v. Schwarzenegger sought to answer.
+1
I guess I wasn’t clear — my point was not to defend the Pill, but rather to address your claim here…
I wanted to make the point that the characteristic nun behavior of letting their wombs lie fallow for their entire lives is physically dangerous to the self insofar as it increases the breast cancer risk — making it, by your standards, “abnormal.”
And being a Catholic priest is also physically dangerous, and thus abnormal, because a lifetime of not ejaculating (NB: Catholic priests don’t masturbate, because that would be a mortal sin!) increases a man’s risk of prostate cancer.
As to whether the abnormal condition of celibacy that the Church inflicts on its religious men and women is morally dangerous — well, “dangerous” is a strong word, but there’s definitely something a bit reckless about permitting celibates to develop theories of sexual morality that everyone else has to follow. As G.B. Shaw astutely observed, “Why would anyone take the Pope’s advice on sex? Anything the Pope knows about sex, he shouldn’t.”
On this, Teresa, I somewhat agree — in fact I would say that the gay community suffers from an ongoing plague of non-judgmentalism. Gay people will tolerate every form of vice and wacky opinions among themselves, as long as you don’t have bad hair, are opposed to circumcising baby boys, and avoid voting Republican. But if you want to use dangerous drugs or have promiscuous sex or treat your rectum like the Holland Tunnel, far too many gay people will not be falling over themselves in their non-rush to not judge you, because judging is mean.
However… just so there’s no confusion, are you aware that there’s more to homosexuality than simply “messing around”? I can see why it wouldn’t be a kindness to support you if “messing around” is all you’re doing, but if you should ever find yourself in a stable, committed, mutually loving and sexually active relationship with another woman, Teresa, then OF COURSE it would be a kindness to support you!
Whoa… “at whatever end”? Do you seriously believe that oral-genital sex is ANYWHERE NEAR penile-anal sex in terms of health risks? If so, you’ve been misinformed, my dear. Not only are cunnilingus and fellatio both vastly less risky for practically all STDs compared with anal sex, but going down on a man or a woman is no riskier than penis-in-vagina intercourse for most STDs (and when it comes to HIV transmission, both cunnilingus and fellatio are, literally, about 1/10th as risky as vaginal intercourse).
And “homosex” can be even safer than that — the acts known as tribadism or scissoring (for women) and frot (for men) don’t involve any kind of penetration at all, so risks for most types of STDs are extremely low.
But while I don’t see any physical danger in “scissoring” or “frot”, they are nonetheless, homosexual acts. In the absence of physical danger, what moral danger do you see in these acts, Teresa?
Debbie
What about on the Moon. Should we discuss laws on the Moon? Well… as they – and the laws in Sharia nations – are not relevant to this discussion, let’s not let them distract us. I’m sure we are in agreement about whether Sharia law aught be given consideration in the US. But that is not germane.
Let’s stop and look at that pairing. It’s a common rhetorical step: confirm the facts of the other argument but follow it with a dismissal.
But let’s not do that. Instead, why don’t we acknowledge that regardless of what goes on in Saudi Arabia, here in the United States, in Virgina where you live, there are real living breathing gay victims who are hurt by laws which segregate them from the rest of society for different treatment.
Whether or not you agree with such laws, it is inhumane to ignore or deny that they hurt people. Whether or not a law that treats people differently is correct or right or valid or good, to ignore or deny the people that are hurt is behavior that in other contexts would be called sociopathic. And, as I know that you are not a sociopath, I know that you are able to recognize this fact.
A right that I don’t have. And this is because you say so?
The US Constitution disagrees with you. It says that I have a right to equal access – yes, just as good as your right. Even if your church doesn’t like it. Even if you don’t like it.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 4:04 pm
“Again, the burden of compelling arguments of how same-sex marriage would improve society is on those pushing for it. ”
Not in the US Debbie. that isn’t how rights work. Maybe you need to spend a little less time reading the Declaration of Independence and a little more reading the Constitution.
“Do I go up to another person and say, “I am going to burn your house down. Now give me a compelling reason why I shouldn’t do it.”?”
Because arson is illegal. do you not understand why arson should be illegal debbie?
“We have people wanting “equal access” to both genders, as if the Constitution could somehow rearrange their chromosomes.”
No clue what you are talking about here.
“Never heard of transgender people?”
Yes, in fact I’ve known a few personally. I just don’t understand how that at all relates to this discussion.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 4:05 pm
” ” With regards to islamic fascism, no it can’t happen here.”
Really? Why not? Rome fell. So can the good old US of A.”
You think rome fell because of islamic fascism?
Ann,
Okay. Well, you are making a distinction between “real victims” and those who just portray themselves as such. I’m trying to understand it.
So (and correct me if I’m wrong), African-Americans are true victims. Those gay people who portray themselves as victims are not.
Is that what you are saying?
And I am uncertain as to how you are making the distinction as to who those “some individuals who identify as gay.” As this is in the context of marriage rights, are you including in these some individuals, those gay people who compare restriction on marriage for gay people to restrictions on marriage for black people?
And are these “some individuals” limited only to those who identify as gay? Or do others who support same-sex marriage rights using the race comparison also misusing victimhood?
Specifically: Did Coretta Scott King and Mildred Loving misuse the civil rights comparison when they endorsed marriage equality? Did they incorrectly confuse real victims with those only portraying victimhood?
Specifically: When, in 2003, civil rights leader John Lewis wrote the following, was he insulting African-Americans or confusing ‘real’ and ‘portraying’ victims:
It is true that many African-Americans distinguish between civil rights for them and civil rights for gay people. However, many of the pioneers do not.
No, you are mistaken.
CNN has some good exit polling information that breaks down the vote demographically.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
Interestingly, it was a fairly close vote along most demographic lines with the expected shifts for age, education, and income. The variances were:
Gender: this is an odd one. Unlike most polling, gender wasn’t strongly determinant.
Race: whites and asians voted no and hispanics and others voted yes but all with small margins (high 40’s, low 50’s). African Americans voted yes 70-30.
Geography: the cities v. the rural and suburbs. Coastal cities near the bay area were overwhelmingly opposed. Los Angeles and neighbors were mixed (the vote difference in Los Angeles County was less than 600). Farmland and desert voted strongly yes.
Age: under 30 voted no by 61-39; over 65 was the opposite. and inbetween was about 55-45 yes.
Education and Income: the more education, the more likely to vote no. Income, once you got above 30K, followed the same trend and was probably related. However below 30K was strongly no, which probably relates to age.
Party & political ID. Liberals and Democrats were strongly no . Republicans and conservatives were strongly yes. Independents and moderates were no by about 55-45.
Married and children: Being married and having children under 18 were strong indicators. These demographics voted yes in big numbers (suggesting that Prop 8’s targeted advertising was effective).
Religion: This was a yes or no matter – sharply. Those who attend church weekly or more voted yes by more than 80%. Those who do not attend voted no by about the same. And infrequent attendees voted no by about 60-40.
Of course, these are all based on exit polling and, as such, are limited.
Sorry, that was Lynn David’s question I was referring to about Sharia (Shari’Ah). He asked about proof of infiltration.
All the proof ever needed came in the form of a large cache (two truckloads worth) of secret archived Muslim Brotherhood documents recovered from the concealed sub-basement of a Northern Virginia house in a 2004 search by law enforcement officials. The documents, dating back to 1991, listed 29 Muslim-American organizations (CAIR is now also on the list) that Sharia adherents had vowed to work through to subvert American culture. They have bragged about their successes, in fact. The Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008 (prosecuting Islamic terrorist funding in the guise of a charitable organization) highlighted these documents.
The credo of the Muslim Brotherhood is to “destroy Western civilization from within.” If they can’t wage jihad through violent means (their first preference), then they are to do it through stealth means. The MB documents recovered revealed their plans to infiltrate government, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the military, penal institutions, media think tanks, political entities and academic institutions. And they were to aggressively target non-Muslim religious communities in the name of ecumenicalism.
If you are an American taxpayer, then you are complicit in a Sharia-compliant scheme through AIG’s seemingly innocuous Muslim insurance/investment program. We funded it to the tune of more than $1 billion.
Throbert has a follow-on question:
Not so. They are still Muslims and still alive. Christians and Jews have three options: convert, be made slaves or be killed.
Totally irrelevant question, Ken. Quit beating your drum. I will address your earlier relevant question below.
Lynn David,
Ahem… I do hope you meant Cliff Kincaid. While I certainly don’t want the establishment of Sharia law (as a legal system, not a voluntary social mediation between those who share values), I am not an anti-Muslim crusader.
Throbert,
Apples and oranges, but nice try. Try sticking to statistics of str8 women, particularly married women (or sexually active women) and their cancer rates: those using the Pill and those not using the Pill. Also, look at the rates for age differentiation for onset of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke, etc. of those women on the Pill and those not using the Pill.
I need not remind you, Throbert, that because of the incidence of these myriad bad effects, the hormone level of the Pill was reduced. The “side effects” of the Pill are still all there; but, age of onset is somewhat later. The psychological side effects of the Pill are also present. All the “side effects” of the Pill are still happening, right here, right now, today.
I tend to believe individual stories, that can vary greatly, about how one views their own personal sexual identity and how they respond to that belief. The issue that seems irreconciable, at least for now, is when others do not believe them. I think this should be at least acknowledged, and hopefully considered. My first thought on why one would not believe them is because homosexuality is still somewhat of a mystery for anyone who is not homosexual. There are so many assumptions made, based on sterotypes, about what homosexuals should be, that none of them can be accurate. What seems to get lost is the individual. We still do not have any substantial scientific or psychological research that tells us anything about orientations that could be considered conclusive. There are so many questions and few answers. How can the issue of different orientations be explained so that it is more understood? How can this be done with so many nuances attached to it? Who is credible enough, unbiased enough, who hasn’t been coerced to backtrack their original statements, and who has substantial and sustaining credentials to opine with any certainty on this so that the mystery is removed and understanding takes it’s place?
I really appreciated and understood Theresa’s thoughtful and intelligent post 4/10 @3:27. It spoke tthe spirit of truth to/for me.
Throbert McGee# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 1:28 am
“But would you agree, ken, that Prop 8 in CA was vastly less anti-gay than Question 1 in Maine?”
Which was in turn less anti-gay than the virginia law that says no contracts recognizing gay relationships are to be recognized. Which is still less than laws that criminalized gay behaviour.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 11, 2011 at 6:27 am
Then cite a case were the court ruled something was a violation of the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution Debbie.
It is if a law is being violated. Not if a foundational principle speaking to nature or “Nature’s God” is being disregarded. The Constitution is often misapplied these days. And sometimes it is simply moot.
Ahem — medically speaking, what are two things that lesbians and Roman Catholic nuns tend to have in common?
(1) They’re LESS likely than “women in general” to have ever been on the Pill;
(2) They’re MORE likely than “women in general” to develop breast cancer.
That’s right — lesbians, as a group, and RC nuns, as a group, have elevated rates of breast cancer — which cannot be the fault of the Pill, since lesbians and nuns tend not to use the Pill.
But what risk factor for breast cancer do lesbians and nuns tend to have in common, statistically, that sets them apart from women in general?
Never getting pregnant, having babies and breastfeeding them.
To the extent that there’s a difference, the difference might be that Jewish women (even in the “Ultra-Orthodox” community) are relatively well educated — or at least, educated enough to know that US civil law supersedes Jewish religious law and protects their right to NOT be bound by the decisions of the religious court. But in contrast, immigrant Muslim women (read: “disobedient Muslim wives”) might be less educated about what their rights are under US civil law, making them more vulnerable to abuse by Muslim religious courts that might encourage them to sign their rights away.
And for “disobedient wives”, one might possibly substitute “homosexuals” or “apostates and other dissidents from the religious law”.
But in any case, the probable worst-case outcome of legitimizing these “Sharia courts” is NOT that non-Muslims as a whole would be subject to Sharia, but rather that certain disadvantaged Muslims would be bullied by their community into submitting to Sharia law, and prevented from seeking the protections of U.S. civil law.
P.S. I don’t mean to say that Orthodox Jewish women are never abused by husbands who claim a religious right to do so. Nor do I mean to say the plight of immigrant Muslim women is uniquely awful — I’m aware of cases among immigrant Hmong (a minority group from Vietnam) where Hmong-American women suffered needlessly because they weren’t aware of the extent to which US law protected them from abusive men. My main point is that “creeping Sharia” in the US is primarily a danger to Muslim-Americans who don’t want to be bound by Sharia.
But would you agree, ken, that Prop 8 in CA was vastly less anti-gay than Question 1 in Maine?
(In that California reverted to an “everything but the word marriage” version of domestic partnerships, while Maine reverted to a much more restricted form of domestic partnership law that provided for medical power of attorney and inheritance without a will, but not much else?)
Maybe not Rosa Parks, but there have always been light-skinned blacks who were able to “pass as white” if they chose to do so. Similarly, “passing as Gentile” was historically an option chosen by some Jews in order to avoid anti-Semitism. And the personal moral dilemma of “passing” has been a recurring theme in both African-American and Jewish literature and art: “Yes, I probably ‘pass’ successfully and it would advantage me to — but about those who can’t possibly ‘pass’? And why should I have to pass for what I’m not? What right does the majority have to demand this of me?”
Translation: If I fall to prove that homosexuality per se has destructive physical consequences, and likewise fail to prove that homosexuality per se has destructive emotional consequences, as a last resort I reserve the right to pull some destructive spiritual consequences out of my hat. And since the spiritual consequences largely pertain to the hereafter, they are — conveniently! — un-disprovable.
Stand by, movin’ goalposts comin’ through!
P.S. I was raised Catholic, too, Teresa; I know how the shell game works.
But would you agree, ken, that Prop 8 in CA was vastly less anti-gay than Question 1 in Maine?
(In that California reverted to an “everything but the word marriage” version of domestic partnerships, while Maine reverted to a much more restricted form of domestic partnership law that provided for medical power of attorney and inheritance without a will, but not much else?)
Explain this to me, please. Where has this “infiltration” occurred? And if it has occurred is it any different from Jewish peoples in New York being able to submit their civil (not criminal) matters to their own courts? Or anyone else – that is both parties to a cause – going out and hiring a prominent lawyer or retired person of letters/law to act as a judge in a civil matter?
I really want to know, because I keep hearing this same ‘rant’ from what I consider the lunatic fringe of the ultra-con right (folk named Fischer and Kincaid come to mind). So enlighten me would you.
All humanity exists in nature, even gay people, even perhaps the various gods of gay people.
…
Prove it.
Not a proof. Being black was out of the norm in mostly white America.
Only because some off-the-wall religions demanded it be so. You cannot so point to homosexuality being the proximate downfall of any society.
So you’re saying that 4% of the population that seeks to remain mostly monogamous is going to destroy the other meaning for the other 96% of the population that seeks to remain mostly monogamous? And yet all you ultra-religious folk still have your ability to condemn marriage for gays and lesbians in your own community, so what is really the problem?
As before, not shown to be anywhere near truthful or proven.
Yeah, Pope John Paul II applied such a principle in a letter about gays and lesbians and I shortly thereafter left the Roman Catholic Church. I was already on the way out (and not into any other religion) due completely to other factors not related to homosexuality, but he nailed the coffin on shut on the last threads of faith I was holding onto.
You’re speaking about ‘the natural law’ which often has little to do with the nature of the world. How can it be unnatural, it occurs in the natural world among man and other animals. Thusly, ‘abnormal’ is an attempt to create either an individual or social consequence of demeaning. Sex of any kind has physical, emotional and spiritual consequences. Your religion just has a tradition of not caring about 4% of the population and creating a moralitiy for them. The main reason throughout history that sexual relations between persons of the same gender might have the downsides you are considering is due to that social construct against gays and lesbians which has proven to have no real efficacy for society.
We’ve been euthanizing people for centuries now. Even moreso now in an age when life is ‘unnaturally’ kept going due to modern medical techniques. It is those modern medical techniques which now create the need for euthanasia. Which, in effect, I had to do when I had the doctors remove my mother from a respirator last year.
Ken,
I know, however, it is true that some, if not more than 50%, feel this way, so it does make a difference.
Neither had a disability, however, they did have racial prejudice from others as a disadvantage. I do not see a comparison between the color of skin one is born with, and ultimately discriminated against, to those who are attracted to their same gender.
Wrong that there was initially a law against interracial marriage or wrong that it was over turned?
I am not disagreeing with you – I said I am not sure if most would concur that Prop 8 is an anti-gay law or one that was needed to re-affirm established eligibility requirements for marriage.”
Prove it.
Not a proof. Being black was out of the norm in mostly white America.
Only because some off-the-wall religions demanded it be so. You cannot so point to homosexuality being the proximate downfall of any society.
So you’re saying that 4% of the population that seeks to remain mostly monogamous is going to destroy the other meaning for the other 96% of the population that seeks to remain mostly monogamous? And yet all you ultra-religious folk still have your ability to condemn marriage for gays and lesbians in your own community, so what is really the problem?
As before, not shown to be anywhere near truthful or proven.
Yeah, Pope John Paul II applied such a principle in a letter about gays and lesbians and I shortly thereafter left the Roman Catholic Church. I was already on the way out (and not into any other religion) due completely to other factors not related to homosexuality, but he nailed the coffin on shut on the last threads of faith I was holding onto.
You’re speaking about ‘the natural law’ which often has little to do with the nature of the world. How can it be unnatural, it occurs in the natural world among man and other animals. Thusly, ‘abnormal’ is an attempt to create either an individual or social consequence of demeaning. Sex of any kind has physical, emotional and spiritual consequences. Your religion just has a tradition of not caring about 4% of the population and creating a moralitiy for them. The main reason throughout history that sexual relations between persons of the same gender might have the downsides you are considering is due to that social construct against gays and lesbians which has proven to have no real efficacy for society.
We’ve been euthanizing people for centuries now. Even moreso now in an age when life is ‘unnaturally’ kept going due to modern medical techniques. It is those modern medical techniques which now create the need for euthanasia. Which, in effect, I had to do when I had the doctors remove my mother from a respirator last year.
Ken,
Au contraire to ‘modern’ notions, I happen to act (or, at least, try to) on spiritual principles; those being derived from Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Cut-to-the chase, Ken, I’m a Catholic. Now, after you’ve stopped gasping and before you start pitying me for being deceived, old-fashioned, in need of some ‘real’ counseling while ensconced in a rubber room; allow me another moment to really turn your head.
There is no such thing as “non-violent” crime or “non-violent” wrong behavior. There are spiritual principles at work in our universe, just as there are physical laws. What I do in public and in secret affects you, Ken, and vice-versa. If I sit down to watch some porn, I’ve not only injured myself but you, Ken. I don’t walk away from that experience unaffected, but wounded. And, as we are social creatures, that woundedness affects everyone.
So, when you or I demand our “civil rights” to marry someone of the same-sex, we strike a mortal blow to society. ‘Ab’normality (perverse, deviant) has no rights. (Please, understand, Ken, I’m not saying you as a person are perverse or deviant). I am speaking from a Aristotelian/Scholastic point of view. A view which happens to be little understood today.
When I speak of abnormal behavior, I’m not strictly speaking of uncommon behavior. Abnormal behavior is behavior that is physically and morally dangerous to ourselves and others. The results of that behavior don’t necessarily demonstrate immediately in society, as they often do individually. The results of the 1930 Lambeth Conference in which the Anglicans approved artificial birth control, the first major Christian denomination to do so, didn’t manifest their widening social destructive consequences until the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision: the decision that allowed abortion nationwide. However, concomitant with artificial birth control came the destructive consequences to women who used the Pill, which became available in the early ’60’s. Women died of heart attack, stroke, cancer, and were plagued with all sorts of unhealthy physical and emotional changes long before the accredited AMA and FDA said anything.
The fuller consequences of artificial birth control will not be experienced until we as a society permit euthanasia, which seems quite likely to happen in the not-too-distant future.
Your kindness to me, Ken, should not permit you to lie to me, or support me in my bad behavior. You are not being truly kind and good to me to tell me it’s OK to have an abortion, if I happen to be pregnant and in difficult circumstances. Your kindness to me should not permit you to say it’s OK for me to watch porn, even though some judicial body (SCOTUS) happens to think ‘porn’ falls under free speech, etc. Your kindness to me should not support me if I’m messing around with another woman, under the pretext of it’s OK, you’re entitled to be happy, etc. (At least, that’s how I see it).
Same-sex sexual behavior is unnatural, abnormal and has destructive physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences individually and socially. It’s not just me that thinks that, Ken. Confusing the digestive system for the reproductive system (at whatever end) is not healthy, no matter how we want to dress that up.
Have homosexuals been discriminated against, and treated poorly. Of course. No argument from me on that issue. However, so have many other persons been discriminated against, treated badly, been harmed. That is no excuse for me to expect ‘rights’ that are not mine, nor to upset the social fabric to accommodate my unhealthy interests.
At the end of the day, Ken, you and I are world’s apart in our views. I don’t see race as being nearly the same discriminatory thing you do. If I’m white, I’m white morning, noon, and night … and, nothing I can do will change that … no behavior of mine changes my skin color. Skin color is not abnormal.
If I’m homosexual, which I am, I may never have my sexual orientation change; but, I surely can change my behavior. I can surely adapt my behavior to social constructs that support healthy views; no matter, how pained, lonely and isolated I may feel at times. When I can no longer differentiate the good and from the bad, the true from the false, the beautiful from the ugly; I have no vision except my blind attempts at satisfying abnormal and unnatural impulses.
Ken, what I’ve just written is not an attempt to be demeaning, condescending, or discourteous to you. If it sounds that way, I apologize. It is simply an attempt to share the other side with you, which I’m sure you may be familiar with … or not.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 10, 2011 at 2:30 pm
”
Is there something wrong with that rationale?”
Yes, it is completely backwards. It is the Constitution that must be applied (or laws passed by Congress that are derived from it), not the Declaration of Independence.
Which is why people use the phrase: “It’s unConstitutional” rather than “It’s un-Declarable?” “unDeclarationable?” …”not Indy “?
Ann# ~ Apr 10, 2011 at 2:15 pm
“The problem is that some do not feel gays are discrimminated against as they are just as eligible for all the rights that other people have.”
Many people believed Elvis was still alive years after his death. Many people believed the US government actually blew up the World Trade Center. Just because someone believes something doesn’t make it true. Currently, in CA, they are not eligible for the right of marriage. Hopefully that will be changing as the case works it way through the appeals process.
“They do not have a disability or compelling disadvantage that would prevent them from fullfilling the eligibility requirements.”
Under your reasoning, neither did Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter.
“They become ineligible, as do others, who do not want to follow the eligibility requirements that we all have to follow. ”
Do you think the Loving decision was wrong then?
” ” Prop 8 was just the latest in a long history of anti-gay laws.”
Again, I am not sure if most would concur that Prop 8 is an anti-gay law or one that was needed to re-affirm established eligibility requirements for marriage.”
Prop 8 was specifically designed to remove the right of marriage that gays had in CA. Of course it is anti-gay. Just as the grandfather clauses in the south were specifically designed to prevent blacks from voting.
Is there something wrong with that rationale?
Ken,
Just want to clarify that my above comment relates to Prop 8 and marriage.
Ken,
The problem is that some do not feel gays are discrimminated against as they are just as eligible for all the rights that other people have. They do not have a disability or compelling disadvantage that would prevent them from fullfilling the eligibility requirements. If there was, then I don’t think anyone would take issue to modifying the requirements to accommodate the difference that cannot be altered. They become ineligible, as do others, who do not want to follow the eligibility requirements that we all have to follow. I am not saying this is right or wrong – it is just a truth, and also an inconvenient one. Therefore, one could say that gays are ineligible while another could say they are discrimminated against. I actually think Theresa articulated, with critical thought and intelligence what many think and believe, whether they say it out in the open, as she had the courage to, or just behind their own closed doors. I don’t know the answer to any of it.
Again, I am not sure if most would concur that Prop 8 is an anti-gay law or one that was needed to re-affirm established eligibility requirements for marriage.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 10, 2011 at 2:30 pm
”
Is there something wrong with that rationale?”
Yes, it is completely backwards. It is the Constitution that must be applied (or laws passed by Congress that are derived from it), not the Declaration of Independence.
Which is why people use the phrase: “It’s unConstitutional” rather than “It’s un-Declarable?” “unDeclarationable?” …”not Indy “?
Is there something wrong with that rationale?
Ken,
Just want to clarify that my above comment relates to Prop 8 and marriage.
Ken,
The problem is that some do not feel gays are discrimminated against as they are just as eligible for all the rights that other people have. They do not have a disability or compelling disadvantage that would prevent them from fullfilling the eligibility requirements. If there was, then I don’t think anyone would take issue to modifying the requirements to accommodate the difference that cannot be altered. They become ineligible, as do others, who do not want to follow the eligibility requirements that we all have to follow. I am not saying this is right or wrong – it is just a truth, and also an inconvenient one. Therefore, one could say that gays are ineligible while another could say they are discrimminated against. I actually think Theresa articulated, with critical thought and intelligence what many think and believe, whether they say it out in the open, as she had the courage to, or just behind their own closed doors. I don’t know the answer to any of it.
Again, I am not sure if most would concur that Prop 8 is an anti-gay law or one that was needed to re-affirm established eligibility requirements for marriage.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 10, 2011 at 7:38 am
“Read, Ken. I said one informs the other. I did not say any court rules from the Declaration. ”
Really then what did you mean by this:
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 4:10 pm
“I will reiterate that denying gays the right to marry each other is denying them a means of pursuing happiness, not equal protection under the law.”
seems to me you are claiming the constitution doesn’t apply but the declaration of independence does.
Read, Ken. I said one informs the other. I did not say any court rules from the Declaration. There are (gasp!) judges out there whose worldview is actually informed by the Bible. But the law of the land is the Constitution.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 10, 2011 at 7:38 am
“Read, Ken. I said one informs the other. I did not say any court rules from the Declaration. ”
Really then what did you mean by this:
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 4:10 pm
“I will reiterate that denying gays the right to marry each other is denying them a means of pursuing happiness, not equal protection under the law.”
seems to me you are claiming the constitution doesn’t apply but the declaration of independence does.
Read, Ken. I said one informs the other. I did not say any court rules from the Declaration. There are (gasp!) judges out there whose worldview is actually informed by the Bible. But the law of the land is the Constitution.
Sorry but I believe it’s a bit of a twist to parallel the definition of ‘normalcy’ with ‘normal variation‘. ‘Variation’ is just gobbledy-speak for ‘not the norm’. In short, it’s a normal abnormal.
Heck, I’m abnormal myself. The height/weight charts on the wall at my doctor’s office start at 5′ 2″ for men and I’m 5′ 1″. I could rant and rave that the chart is exclusionary and bigoted but the truth is that my height is NOT the norm. I had short parents, so my size isn’t abnormal in that sense but I can’t redefine society’s standard norm based on that.
And, seriously, the personal attacks have got to stop. We have to find a way to actually respect the people whose opinions differ from ours and either choose to converse with them or not. Earlier Jayhuck tried to chastise David for saying ‘breath’ to Timothy calling it patronizing. I do hope he’ll check in and comment on how saying “I pity you” is even more patronizing. Talk about ‘condescending’!!
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 11:58 pm
” but, an opinion based on experience, and some gray hairs”
and whenever I (or others) try to get you to explain how you are arriving at these opinions (sometime contrary to the evidence ) you don’t answer.
“allowing same-sex marriage is irrational on the face of it. It destroys whatever meaning marriage has meant in most places, most times.”
And yet several states and countries have allowed it without problems. Straight marriages haven’t fallen apart or had any problems because of it. No one in those places have suddenly lost the ability to understand what marriage is. The world hasn’t come to an end in those places. In fact, to quote Cheryl Jacques (former state rep from MA): “Since we’ve had gay marriages we’ve won 2 superbowls AND the world series” (circa 2007).
“My perception of this is that our society has gone stark raving mad to even contemplate something that 40-years ago was unthinkable. ”
40 years ago gay marriage wouldn’t have been possible. Because then, the law (mostly through court rulings) made distinctions between husband and wife. It was an unequal partnership. So you had to know who was the husband and who was the wife in order to apply laws. Today however there are no distinctions between the spouses so the gender doesn’t matter. thus gay marriage is possible. but then again 40 years ago a discussion like this among people in different parts of the world wouldn’t have been possible (or thinkable) either. the world has progressed.
“Same-sex marriage demeans the coupling of male/female for union of the spouses and procreation and education of children … the very lifeblood of a society.”
how many male/female couples have refused to marry because gays have been allowed to marry? Certainly marriage has never been required for procreation, the rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies can attest to that. Nor do I think that kids in places where same-sex marriage are becoming less educated. You keep citing the same kinds of arguments that where used in the Loving decision (“it will demean the concept of marriage”, “it will be bad for children”, “it will destroy society”)
“part of that preservation is fostering stable, committed unions of str8 marriage in whatever manner it can: tax code, housing, education, medical services, etc.”
and why can’t fostering of gay marriage also be a part of preserving society. Aren’t gays a part of society?
“To be a bit graphic here: same-sex marriage is like the coupling of an elephant with a mouse. Odd, right?”
No, same-sex marriage isn’t odd at all. It is a perfectly reasonable thing for gay couples to want.
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 10:15 pm
“ken, you just can’t let go of the racial analogy.”
Because it is appropriate.
” Rosa Parks couldn’t not be black; ”
But she could have stood in the back of the bus like she was told, and accept an unjust, discriminatory policy. Just like you want gays to do. And for a the vast majority of gays, they can’t not be gay either. Not that the ability to change a characteristic should be grounds for discrimination. Would you tell jews to stop being jewish if they don’t like they way they are treated?
“so, that discrimination has nothing to do with your being gay, and your perceived discrimination”
1st you keep making assumptions here. I have never mentioned my orientation or my race (nor do I intend to because I see it as irrelevant however, it is fine for others who wish to give personal anecdotes). 2nd, gays have (and still are) discriminated against. That isn’t a perception, but a fact. While gays weren’t required to sit in the back of the bus, there were laws specifically targeted at gays.
Prop 8 was just the latest in a long history of anti-gay laws.
“I really don’t give a “tinker’s dam” about every major mental health and medical association views”
So when you are ill you don’t see a doctor? or go to a hospital? Again, i ask, what are your qualifications for determining what is and is not “normal” from a psychological/medical perspective?
While mistakes have been made in research in the past, for the most part these organizations are comprised of experts who do know what they are talking about.
“But, I can’t think of any issue that these groups in their public endorsements have not taken a radically left position.”
and how many issues can you cite where their positions weren’t based on the available scientific evidence?
ken, please know that what I discuss here is only my opinion; but, an opinion based on experience, and some gray hairs. I understand we’re at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue.
ken, allowing same-sex marriage is irrational on the face of it. It destroys whatever meaning marriage has meant in most places, most times. (Remember, I’m given to hyperbole! :)) My perception of this is that our society has gone stark raving mad to even contemplate something that 40-years ago was unthinkable. The inmates are running the asylum; and, we’re quite content with it all. Hey, we’re on our prescribed meds, watching our 52-inch HDTV’s, playing with our iPad2, and yawning through it all.
Same-sex marriage demeans the coupling of male/female for union of the spouses and procreation and education of children … the very lifeblood of a society. Society has a vested interest to preserve itself; and, part of that preservation is fostering stable, committed unions of str8 marriage in whatever manner it can: tax code, housing, education, medical services, etc.
To be a bit graphic here: same-sex marriage is like the coupling of an elephant with a mouse. Odd, right?
Well, that’s my take on it, ken. C’est la vie.
Ken,
This is really a very condescending remark, bordering on contempt. I think Theresa is very capable and competent to understand herself and make a conscious decision about how she wants to live her life. While you might believe that homosexuality is a normal variation of sexuality, please have respect for those who have different beliefs. She does not have to come to your way of thinking or believing to be correct – in fact, no one does.
ken, you just can’t let go of the racial analogy. Rosa Parks couldn’t not be black; so, that discrimination has nothing to do with your being gay, and your perceived discrimination. You could’ve walked on that bus; and, sat wherever you wanted to, whenever you wanted to. Unless, of course, you needed to declare your homosexuality to everyone concerned. So, it would be respectful of you to, at least, acknowledge the difference. You’re not Rosa Parks, and never will be. Your journey has little in common with past racial discrimination.
I really don’t give a “tinker’s dam” about every major mental health and medical association views. These are the same folks that told us estrogen was a miracle drug to take for women, for at least 50 years … with all the evidence staring them in the face, until they could no longer hide it. The same folks who will not admit the mounting evidence that abortion is deadly for women with its increased rate of cancer. The same groups that for decades told the public all their problems were sexual in nature. The same groups that supported Kinsey, and his less-than-truthful scientific studies. The same groups that promoted lobotomy, eugenics with sterilization, etc.
The same incestuous groups perched in “schools of higher learning” that have reduced true scientific research to the highest bidder, with the biggest glow-in-the-dark ouija boards. Are there good scientists, psychologists in these groups. Of course. But, I can’t think of any issue that these groups in their public endorsements have not taken a radically left position.
How so?
Actually, Autism Spectrum has its significant share of high-functioning members of society. My own parents, in hindsight, wonder if I was on the high-functioning section of the spectrum as a child. Either way, I grew up, socialized, and by my teens was quite adjust to society (as much as a teen can be…) – and now live a normal life.
Schizophrenia and other illnesses have negative affects on human well-being. That is why they’re medicated. Medicines have been developed to fight depression, BPD, and schizophrenia, to name a few, and have been proven to be successful treatments for many of those affected.
Homosexuality is when a human is attracted to another human of the same sex. Nothing more, nothing less. The only problems that it causes in a human’s life are those caused by outside factors: shame instilled by other human beings or outside culture.
Like heterosexual humans; homosexual humans can be celibate, promiscuous, monogamous, polyamorous, responsible, and careless. No one is harmed by two adults being attracted to one another or having a relationship with each other. In fact, it may be beneficial for everyone involved, and the greater community to which they belong.
Sorry but I believe it’s a bit of a twist to parallel the definition of ‘normalcy’ with ‘normal variation‘. ‘Variation’ is just gobbledy-speak for ‘not the norm’. In short, it’s a normal abnormal.
Heck, I’m abnormal myself. The height/weight charts on the wall at my doctor’s office start at 5′ 2″ for men and I’m 5′ 1″. I could rant and rave that the chart is exclusionary and bigoted but the truth is that my height is NOT the norm. I had short parents, so my size isn’t abnormal in that sense but I can’t redefine society’s standard norm based on that.
And, seriously, the personal attacks have got to stop. We have to find a way to actually respect the people whose opinions differ from ours and either choose to converse with them or not. Earlier Jayhuck tried to chastise David for saying ‘breath’ to Timothy calling it patronizing. I do hope he’ll check in and comment on how saying “I pity you” is even more patronizing. Talk about ‘condescending’!!
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 8:38 pm
“I’m quite OK with being homosexual; however, I’m not quite OK with homosexual behavior, from me or any other gay person. ”
Hopefully, you’ll learn to be okay with both. But sadly, it clarifies a lot of your posts here.
“However, at the end of the day, why do some gay people have the temerity to upset the whole social structure to accommodate their misperceptions on ‘civil rights’.”
what “social structure” are you referring to? civil marriage? How is it being “upset”? How does allowing gays to marrying impact straight marriage Teresa?
and what is the “mis-perception” you speak of?
however, I suspect the answer to your question is: for the same reason that “uppity” rosa parks refused to stand in the back of the bus.
“I disagree with you that homosexuality is a normal variation of sexuality; just as I don’t think schizophrenia or autism is a normal variation of mental health. ”
And you base your opinion about the normalcy of homosexuality on what? Note, every major mental health and medical association views homosexuality as a normal variation of human sexuality.
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 11:58 pm
” but, an opinion based on experience, and some gray hairs”
and whenever I (or others) try to get you to explain how you are arriving at these opinions (sometime contrary to the evidence ) you don’t answer.
“allowing same-sex marriage is irrational on the face of it. It destroys whatever meaning marriage has meant in most places, most times.”
And yet several states and countries have allowed it without problems. Straight marriages haven’t fallen apart or had any problems because of it. No one in those places have suddenly lost the ability to understand what marriage is. The world hasn’t come to an end in those places. In fact, to quote Cheryl Jacques (former state rep from MA): “Since we’ve had gay marriages we’ve won 2 superbowls AND the world series” (circa 2007).
“My perception of this is that our society has gone stark raving mad to even contemplate something that 40-years ago was unthinkable. ”
40 years ago gay marriage wouldn’t have been possible. Because then, the law (mostly through court rulings) made distinctions between husband and wife. It was an unequal partnership. So you had to know who was the husband and who was the wife in order to apply laws. Today however there are no distinctions between the spouses so the gender doesn’t matter. thus gay marriage is possible. but then again 40 years ago a discussion like this among people in different parts of the world wouldn’t have been possible (or thinkable) either. the world has progressed.
“Same-sex marriage demeans the coupling of male/female for union of the spouses and procreation and education of children … the very lifeblood of a society.”
how many male/female couples have refused to marry because gays have been allowed to marry? Certainly marriage has never been required for procreation, the rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies can attest to that. Nor do I think that kids in places where same-sex marriage are becoming less educated. You keep citing the same kinds of arguments that where used in the Loving decision (“it will demean the concept of marriage”, “it will be bad for children”, “it will destroy society”)
“part of that preservation is fostering stable, committed unions of str8 marriage in whatever manner it can: tax code, housing, education, medical services, etc.”
and why can’t fostering of gay marriage also be a part of preserving society. Aren’t gays a part of society?
“To be a bit graphic here: same-sex marriage is like the coupling of an elephant with a mouse. Odd, right?”
No, same-sex marriage isn’t odd at all. It is a perfectly reasonable thing for gay couples to want.
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 10:15 pm
“ken, you just can’t let go of the racial analogy.”
Because it is appropriate.
” Rosa Parks couldn’t not be black; ”
But she could have stood in the back of the bus like she was told, and accept an unjust, discriminatory policy. Just like you want gays to do. And for a the vast majority of gays, they can’t not be gay either. Not that the ability to change a characteristic should be grounds for discrimination. Would you tell jews to stop being jewish if they don’t like they way they are treated?
“so, that discrimination has nothing to do with your being gay, and your perceived discrimination”
1st you keep making assumptions here. I have never mentioned my orientation or my race (nor do I intend to because I see it as irrelevant however, it is fine for others who wish to give personal anecdotes). 2nd, gays have (and still are) discriminated against. That isn’t a perception, but a fact. While gays weren’t required to sit in the back of the bus, there were laws specifically targeted at gays.
Prop 8 was just the latest in a long history of anti-gay laws.
“I really don’t give a “tinker’s dam” about every major mental health and medical association views”
So when you are ill you don’t see a doctor? or go to a hospital? Again, i ask, what are your qualifications for determining what is and is not “normal” from a psychological/medical perspective?
While mistakes have been made in research in the past, for the most part these organizations are comprised of experts who do know what they are talking about.
“But, I can’t think of any issue that these groups in their public endorsements have not taken a radically left position.”
and how many issues can you cite where their positions weren’t based on the available scientific evidence?
Thank you, ken, but I’m really in no need of your pity. I’m quite OK with being homosexual; however, I’m not quite OK with homosexual behavior, from me or any other gay person. And, yes, I’ve been known to whimper and moan how life’s against me, poor me, etc. I’m not immune to emotions.
However, at the end of the day, why do some gay people have the temerity to upset the whole social structure to accommodate their misperceptions on ‘civil rights’.
I disagree with you that homosexuality is a normal variation of sexuality; just as I don’t think schizophrenia or autism is a normal variation of mental health. (Although, Temple Grandin may disagree with this statement on autism).
ken, I understand your position. I don’t agree with it, at all … as you don’t agree with mine. I’m not on a mission to instruct you, change your opinion, proselytize, etc. You are entitled to your opinion, and your vote. So be it.
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 6:34 pm
I pity you Teresa that you think you are abnormal because of who you are. Hopefully, one day you will come to realize that homosexuality is a normal variation of sexuality.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm
“Bull. The Declaration is like our country’s “articles of incorporation.” The Constitution are our “by-laws.” The one informs the other.”
No, Debbie that isn’t the case, and I’m not quite sure where you get your legal/civics information from, but the supreme court does not issue rulings based on the Declaration of independence. It issues rulings based on the Constitution. the only exception is in the late 1700’s/early 1800s when it used the Declaration as the date the country was formed (mostly in matters of citizenship), and not the ratification of the constitution.
the Constitution is not the “by-laws”. It is the founding document of the US government and replaced the previous “Articles of Confederation”. I challenge you to find one case in the last 200 years (again excluding those early cases dealing with WHEN the country came into existence) where the SCOTUS used the Declaration rather than the Constitution to make it ruling.
“Where is the law for gay marriage? How does this supposed law spring from “Nature and Nature’s God”?”
Again the issue is CIVIL marriage, not religion (“god’s law”). And again, civil marriage is a RIGHT in this country and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment states that the government may not discriminate in applying laws (or limiting rights).
ken, please know that what I discuss here is only my opinion; but, an opinion based on experience, and some gray hairs. I understand we’re at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue.
ken, allowing same-sex marriage is irrational on the face of it. It destroys whatever meaning marriage has meant in most places, most times. (Remember, I’m given to hyperbole! :)) My perception of this is that our society has gone stark raving mad to even contemplate something that 40-years ago was unthinkable. The inmates are running the asylum; and, we’re quite content with it all. Hey, we’re on our prescribed meds, watching our 52-inch HDTV’s, playing with our iPad2, and yawning through it all.
Same-sex marriage demeans the coupling of male/female for union of the spouses and procreation and education of children … the very lifeblood of a society. Society has a vested interest to preserve itself; and, part of that preservation is fostering stable, committed unions of str8 marriage in whatever manner it can: tax code, housing, education, medical services, etc.
To be a bit graphic here: same-sex marriage is like the coupling of an elephant with a mouse. Odd, right?
Well, that’s my take on it, ken. C’est la vie.
@All,
Let’s cut-to-the-chase on this discussion. Trigger Warning on what follows, (which is my opinion, only; and, basically, a soliloquy):
Being black is not abnormal, racially. Being gay is abnormal as a sexual orientation. Engaging in homosexual behavior is out-of-the-norm. That’s the gist of the argument. This is my opinion only, but I don’t believe people “have a right to do wrong”. We have the ability to choose wrong, the free will to do wrong … but, nowhere is there a ‘right’ to do wrong.
A society has a duty to protect itself from behavior that threatens its integrity. Homosexual behavior threatens the integrity of a society. To further legitimate it as a ‘civil right’ (same-sex marriage, et. al.) is committing social suicide.
One’s happiness is not the barometer for behavior. Happiness is an elusive state of mind, fickle and ephemeral. Cry as much as you want that you’re being denied your ‘civil rights’ by not being able to same-sex marry, your right to happiness; but, a society has a ‘right’ to its preservation.
Need I remind most people here, that the social acceptation of homosexual behavior (let alone same-sex marriage) has always been the “canary in the mine” for a society.
Ken,
This is really a very condescending remark, bordering on contempt. I think Theresa is very capable and competent to understand herself and make a conscious decision about how she wants to live her life. While you might believe that homosexuality is a normal variation of sexuality, please have respect for those who have different beliefs. She does not have to come to your way of thinking or believing to be correct – in fact, no one does.
ken, you just can’t let go of the racial analogy. Rosa Parks couldn’t not be black; so, that discrimination has nothing to do with your being gay, and your perceived discrimination. You could’ve walked on that bus; and, sat wherever you wanted to, whenever you wanted to. Unless, of course, you needed to declare your homosexuality to everyone concerned. So, it would be respectful of you to, at least, acknowledge the difference. You’re not Rosa Parks, and never will be. Your journey has little in common with past racial discrimination.
I really don’t give a “tinker’s dam” about every major mental health and medical association views. These are the same folks that told us estrogen was a miracle drug to take for women, for at least 50 years … with all the evidence staring them in the face, until they could no longer hide it. The same folks who will not admit the mounting evidence that abortion is deadly for women with its increased rate of cancer. The same groups that for decades told the public all their problems were sexual in nature. The same groups that supported Kinsey, and his less-than-truthful scientific studies. The same groups that promoted lobotomy, eugenics with sterilization, etc.
The same incestuous groups perched in “schools of higher learning” that have reduced true scientific research to the highest bidder, with the biggest glow-in-the-dark ouija boards. Are there good scientists, psychologists in these groups. Of course. But, I can’t think of any issue that these groups in their public endorsements have not taken a radically left position.
Timothy, the ignorant hate us.
How so?
Actually, Autism Spectrum has its significant share of high-functioning members of society. My own parents, in hindsight, wonder if I was on the high-functioning section of the spectrum as a child. Either way, I grew up, socialized, and by my teens was quite adjust to society (as much as a teen can be…) – and now live a normal life.
Schizophrenia and other illnesses have negative affects on human well-being. That is why they’re medicated. Medicines have been developed to fight depression, BPD, and schizophrenia, to name a few, and have been proven to be successful treatments for many of those affected.
Homosexuality is when a human is attracted to another human of the same sex. Nothing more, nothing less. The only problems that it causes in a human’s life are those caused by outside factors: shame instilled by other human beings or outside culture.
Like heterosexual humans; homosexual humans can be celibate, promiscuous, monogamous, polyamorous, responsible, and careless. No one is harmed by two adults being attracted to one another or having a relationship with each other. In fact, it may be beneficial for everyone involved, and the greater community to which they belong.
Bull. The Declaration is like our country’s “articles of incorporation.” The Constitution are our “by-laws.” The one informs the other. Where is the law for gay marriage? How does this supposed law spring from “Nature and Nature’s God”?
I can answer this one for ya. Yes. She sure seemed to go happily off in the other direction when the media lost interest, didn’t she? Last I heard she found another honey and another kid. Lisa Miller is her daughter’s mother. She cannot steal her own child. And because the courts, which have no Article 3 standing to legislate from the bench but do it anyway, decided Jenkins was a parent when no law existed to confirm that she was, and because the courts never considered the best interests of the child, what happened happened. Her mother took matters into her own hands. And therein hangs a tale of how same-sex marriage is not a good thing.
Let’s talk about victims. Let’s talk about Christians and Jews who are infidels in the eyes of Shariah, which is now infiltrating this country to a degree the average person knows nothing of. Let’s talk about what has happened and is happening to them in other countries. There are 57 Islamic states. You and I, Timothy, have three options if we end up with an American Caliphate. No, wait. You have none. If we ever get to that point, Shariah says you will be stoned to death. I can convert, be made a slave or be killed. Of course, I would be martyred right along with you. So we really only have one choice.
Sure, there have been gay “victims.” There have been lots of other victims as well. But screaming over a “right” you don’t have that is being denied you is not victimization. Sorry.
No Timothy – not gay people, rather some individuals who identify as gay and seek the benefit of portraying themselves as victims.
Thank you Ken – I thought it was something like this. When I voted that day, I didn’t see any particular difference from prior years, nor hear anyone talking about the issue at the location I went to vote, just heard it on television in the following days. If I remember correctly, on the exit polls, religion had little to do with their decision – am I right?
Sigh….
I regularly remind my readers the Christians really don’t hate them. That people can oppose their equality without demeaning them as people.
I’m either going to have to change my tune or stop reading the comments here.
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 8:38 pm
“I’m quite OK with being homosexual; however, I’m not quite OK with homosexual behavior, from me or any other gay person. ”
Hopefully, you’ll learn to be okay with both. But sadly, it clarifies a lot of your posts here.
“However, at the end of the day, why do some gay people have the temerity to upset the whole social structure to accommodate their misperceptions on ‘civil rights’.”
what “social structure” are you referring to? civil marriage? How is it being “upset”? How does allowing gays to marrying impact straight marriage Teresa?
and what is the “mis-perception” you speak of?
however, I suspect the answer to your question is: for the same reason that “uppity” rosa parks refused to stand in the back of the bus.
“I disagree with you that homosexuality is a normal variation of sexuality; just as I don’t think schizophrenia or autism is a normal variation of mental health. ”
And you base your opinion about the normalcy of homosexuality on what? Note, every major mental health and medical association views homosexuality as a normal variation of human sexuality.
So (and please feel free to correct me) gay people have been “portraying themselves as victims” while African-Americans have been “true victims.”
Gay people have been burned at the stake, imprisoned, denied the right to family, been declared satanic, and blamed for natural disasters. Was Oscar Wilde “portraying himself as a victim” when he was sentenced to hard labor – a sentence that led to his death five years later? Was Leonard Matlovich “portraying himself as a victim” when he – a virgin, incidentally – was kicked out of the army? Or, for that matter, was Eric Alba – the first to lose his legs in Iraq? Was Janet Jenkins “portraying herself a victim” when a religious law firm enabled Lisa Miller to steal her daughter?
Was Mathew Sheppard portraying himself a victim?
Ann# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 4:53 pm
“Speaking of Proposition 8, is it true that most African Americans and Hispanicswho voted, voted for it?”
A large majority of the black vote (about 70%) voted in favor of prop 8. Not so much with the latino vote, is I recall it was only a little over 50% of the latino voters who voted in favor of prop. 8.
Which is, I believe, what Coretta Scott King quoted when endorsing marriage equality.
Yes, you are probably right.
Yes, and my admiration and respect and support goes to those who do not seek the temporary and false benefits of portraying themselves as a victim or trying to compare themselves to others who have been true victims. Speaking of Proposition 8, is it true that most African Americans and Hispanicswho voted, voted for it?
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 4:35 pm
“BWAAA-HA-HA-Ha-Ha-ha-ha-ha”
while you often have some very good points and information, this really doesn’t help the conversation/debate.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 4:10 pm
“I will reiterate that denying gays the right to marry each other is denying them a means of pursuing happiness, not equal protection under the law.”
“the pursuit of happiness” phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, not the US constitution and doesn’t have any bearing on the constitutionality of laws. the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment says that all laws must be applied fairly to every one. that is why it is relevant to the gay marriage issue.
“That’s about 4 million adults who identify as gay. Contrast that with about 13 percent of the U.S. population that is black (according to the U.S. Dept. of Justice). The civil rights comparison falls flat.”
I fail to see how the numbers are pertinent. To quote Martin Luther King Jr:
“An injustice to anyone is and injustice to everyone”
further, I suspect that as gays are given more rights, the number of people who identify as gay will increase as well.
Thank you, ken, but I’m really in no need of your pity. I’m quite OK with being homosexual; however, I’m not quite OK with homosexual behavior, from me or any other gay person. And, yes, I’ve been known to whimper and moan how life’s against me, poor me, etc. I’m not immune to emotions.
However, at the end of the day, why do some gay people have the temerity to upset the whole social structure to accommodate their misperceptions on ‘civil rights’.
I disagree with you that homosexuality is a normal variation of sexuality; just as I don’t think schizophrenia or autism is a normal variation of mental health. (Although, Temple Grandin may disagree with this statement on autism).
ken, I understand your position. I don’t agree with it, at all … as you don’t agree with mine. I’m not on a mission to instruct you, change your opinion, proselytize, etc. You are entitled to your opinion, and your vote. So be it.
Debbie,
That is an opinion.
It is also an opinion that denying Baptists the right to worship is only denying them a means of pursuing happiness, not equal protection under the law.
BWAAA-HA-HA-Ha-Ha-ha-ha-ha
Okay, so because there are only about 9,000,000 LBGT Americans (about 3.8% of the population) then obviously we don’t deserve rights. (And, P.S., gay marriage bans impact bisexual people, you know.)
So someone notify the Jews (2.2% of the population) that Debbie has voided their constitutional rights. Cuz they are just too few to matter.
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 6:34 pm
I pity you Teresa that you think you are abnormal because of who you are. Hopefully, one day you will come to realize that homosexuality is a normal variation of sexuality.
Having read the entire transcripts of the entire case and the entire decision, I find that to be unlikely. Possible, in the sense that it is also possible that the Supreme Court will rise as one and sing three choruses of Hallelujah in Walkers honor, but unlikely.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm
“Bull. The Declaration is like our country’s “articles of incorporation.” The Constitution are our “by-laws.” The one informs the other.”
No, Debbie that isn’t the case, and I’m not quite sure where you get your legal/civics information from, but the supreme court does not issue rulings based on the Declaration of independence. It issues rulings based on the Constitution. the only exception is in the late 1700’s/early 1800s when it used the Declaration as the date the country was formed (mostly in matters of citizenship), and not the ratification of the constitution.
the Constitution is not the “by-laws”. It is the founding document of the US government and replaced the previous “Articles of Confederation”. I challenge you to find one case in the last 200 years (again excluding those early cases dealing with WHEN the country came into existence) where the SCOTUS used the Declaration rather than the Constitution to make it ruling.
“Where is the law for gay marriage? How does this supposed law spring from “Nature and Nature’s God”?”
Again the issue is CIVIL marriage, not religion (“god’s law”). And again, civil marriage is a RIGHT in this country and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment states that the government may not discriminate in applying laws (or limiting rights).
Blakeslee,
You are correct that poly-marriage will be considered by the courts. And it will be up to the states to defend the prohibition.
Personally, I believe that there is adequate legal argument to keep marriage limited to two people. The issues of inheritance, divorce, and consent seek to me to preclude more than two.
But I hope that we agree that those of us who disapprove of multiple partner legal recognition do not insist that our indignation and disapproval are sufficient to veto their rights.
I don’t know why polygamy and polyamory have any bearing on this discussion since Prop. 8 was only really challenged, to my knowledge by gays. The other movements are underground.
That aside, I will reiterate that denying gays the right to marry each other is denying them a means of pursuing happiness, not equal protection under the law. But there are other people groups in this country who would seek happiness in ways that contraindicate the general welfare of its people. And this nation was established on an ideology that sees the flow of authority as being from God to the people to the government (so says our Declaration of Independence, the “why”; the Constitution provides the “how”).
And I would point out that there is new information pertinent to this thread: a study from the Williams Institute concluding 1.7 percent of the U.S. adult population identifies as gay or lesbian (1.8 percent identify as bisexual). That’s about 4 million adults who identify as gay. Contrast that with about 13 percent of the U.S. population that is black (according to the U.S. Dept. of Justice). The civil rights comparison falls flat.
ken
Yes, and Mildred Loving noted that fact when she endorsed marriage equality.
Ann
Whether one sees a lack of respect depends on how one views gay people.
Bishop Harry Jackson does, indeed, find the comparison between the quest for rights for black people and gay people to be offensive. Jackson opposes equality for gay people and, as he does not oppose equality for himself, he does not wish to be compared. It offends him.
On the other hand, Benjamin Todd Jealous, the president of the NAACP, is not offended by such comparisons. He does not consider gay people inferior or assume that any comparison with gay people is an offense.
Teresa,
That is a complaint that is common amongst those who see gay people as inferior and thus find it insulting to compare them to, well, anyone.
And, frankly, your presumption is false.
Actually, race and orientation are, in many ways, similar. There are those who quite obviously are black or gay, those who hear, “gee, I’d never guess” and those who are in between. Lena Horn was as capable of keeping her race in the closet as are most gay people.
She, of course, recognized that such an effort had horrific consequences to her psyche.
However, the two are not identical. I hear gay African-Americans explain the differences and I defer to them. They explain that discrimination is present in both cases and that it is insidious in both.
But while I do hear those who campaign against equality for gay people object to the comparison, I don’t hear gay African-Americans “offended”. And they are, after all, in the best position to know.
Gay people are perfectly capable of getting on in life, especially today, with great jobs, wonderful housing, little to no harassment.
Other, of course, than those pesky little laws that ban marriage, adoption, tax equality and the preachers on the street corner shrieking at them, and people “not condoning the sin” at them regularly, or being told “we don’t serve your kind.”
Yes indeed. Perfectly capable.
Which does, now that you mention it, remind me of another group of people who were perfectly capable in the 1950’s.
The rights of gay people are not hinged upon the African-American civil rights movement. But comparisons to the discrimination that others have experienced are both accurate and useful – especially as such discrimination against others is now considered to be an indicator of low character.
But that, Teresa, as we have previously established, is because you do think that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals. You believe that you are not entitled to the same rights as others.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 1:57 pm
“I don’t think Joseph Smiths advocacy for polygyny (thanks for the better term), was rooted in his belief that women abandoned by their husbands through divorce or death should be cared for…this argument, made with more verifiable truth could be made today and be an overall social good”
except in Joseph Smith’s time, wives were little more than property and women had very few rights. things have changed considerably since then, and I am very much opposed to setting women’s rights back over a 100 years.
Debbie,
No, Debbie.
I can understand that your opinion on the case may be that ” the always-accepted definition of marriage” was the matter under debate, but that is not what the case hinged on.
What the case hinges on is what the lawsuit addresses. In this case, the plaintiffs sued because they were denied the ability to register their marriage due to Proposition 8. They argued that this violated their constitution right to equality under the law.
The question then is not whether people voted, but whether their constitutional right was violated.
Well, certainly. Otherwise they would not have so voted.
Yes they do. And should in the future Randy Thommason file a lawsuit claiming that his constitutional right to deny marriage to gay people has been violated, then that question will be addressed.
It likely will not go far.
Because while each person has the right to vote, there is not constitutionally guaranteed right to veto the constitution.
The people of California did not have the right, for example, to vote George W. Bush a third term even if they really really wanted to. Or the right to deny property ownership to women. Or to deny tax exemption to Southern Baptists.
Even if it is the will of the people.
Because that is what a Constitution means. If every vote was determined to be the will of the people and could veto the Constitution, then it would be pointless and meaningless to even have one.
The supporters of Proposition 8 gave it their best defense. They hired the very talented and highly regarded Charles Cooper. It was not that the chose inexplicably not to defend it, but that their defense could not hold up to examination.
As I said before, there may well exist some defense of laws that treat opposite-sex couples one way and same-sex couples another that is compelling and holds up to scrutiny. I simply haven’t heard it. And neither did the court.
I think that if you read that again, you may see the inherent contradiction.
There was absolutely no question whatsoever that gay couples were not being treated equally. That isn’t up for dispute. And surely, even the most hardcore of those opposed to the rights and freedoms of gay people will agree that unequal treatment was the whole point of Proposition 8.
The question was whether it is constitutionally permissible to treat gay people differently from straight people. And that was what the case was about: whether the state had a good reason for unequal treatment.
If “their sensibilities” is the same as “Timothy’s belief that he is entitled to equality under the law and ought not be relegated to some separate lesser status”, then yes, you are correct. It was an affront.
(Remember, Debbie, I live in California. “They” is me.)
This statement assumes that rights can be doled out to gay people by straight people according to whim or desire. It presumes that gay people do not have rights granted by the Constitution.
It assumes that it is up to you or straight people or legislators or society at large to decide what rights to give to gay people. But in order for that assumption to be true, gay people would have to be excluded from the Constitution.
Now no doubt some people believe this. Heck, Fischer believes that Muslims are excluded from the Constitution. But I doubt that you are one who believes that gay people are not entitled to the same Constitutional coverage as heterosexual people.
So then – if you accept the premise that gay people are entitled to rights (not given at the largesse of heterosexuals but entitled) granted by the Constitution, then the only question is whether denying them rights can be justified by the state.
Which wins the “and everyone agrees with me” argument. But that is not a legal argument, it’s only an emotional one. And it isn’t any more effective in court than it is with Mom when we’re eight.
So you’ll have to forgive me for being silly when I reply: well if everyone else voted to jump off the bridge, would you?
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“Dear me, ken, take a deep breath and relax.”
Teresa, wake up and smell the coffee.
See I can give condescending quotes too, doesn’t really help the conversation though does it?
“” When was the last time you actually interviewed for a job Teresa?”
About six weeks ago, as a matter of fact.”
and is for a job after you graduate?
“I do not wear a “sandwich board” sign that says, ”
You never answered my question about whether you have a partner. If you do (or eventually get one), do you plan on keeping her hidden? Not referencing her at work or bring her to the office x-mas party? People identify their orientation every day in many different ways Teresa, that doesn’t mean they are wearing a sandwich board or have it tattooed on their foreheads.
“They could have easily opted to be more discreet and prudent, no? Of course, ken, you would see the choice of being discreet and prudent as somehow offensive.”
No, I see the suggestion that they SHOULD BE more “discreet and prudent” as offensive. Just as the phrase “just keep your head down and mouth shut boy” is offensive. Just as the suggestion that someone shouldn’t ask for a “prayer break” but instead ask for a “smoke break” then discreetly go off and pray. and many other cases where minorities are asked to just keep quiet and be happy with what they have rather than ask for equality.
“Society owes me nothing, but to protect me from true harm … life, limb, education, occupation, housing. In my estimation, ”
and in many places in the US you (because you are gay) don’t get the occupation/housing protections.
“When a black person interviews for a job … they’re black, up-front, blunt and candid … that’s it. When you show up, ken, unless you’ve got tattooed across your forehead, “I’m gay”, you’re just another average Joe looking for a job. You have a choice, ken, about what you disclose; to whom, when, and where. Can you see that difference? Can you, at least, acknowledge that someone else’s history is not your history?”
discrimination doesn’t just occur on a job interview Teresa. It happens when the government passes laws denying a group of people basic rights. Or that allow the police to routinely harass a minority group. Or when people accept the most outlandish stereotypes as an accurate representation. As I said before I know there are differences between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement, but they are very similar. and I’m not the only person who sees that. Coretta Scott King saw them as well and said she believed her husband also would have considered the gay rights movement as a logical extension of the civil rights movement. I’m very familiar with many forms of bigotry (based on race, religion, orientation, gender etc). And they all have the same root cause, ignorance about the “other” and the belief that the differences make the “other” inferior.
LOL. Comparing the gay struggle to blacks is OK with Ken despite the differences that Teresa elaborated because it’s analogous…but comparing the gay marriage justification to polygamy or gyny or what have you is wrong because…well because Ken thinks so.
@All,
Let’s cut-to-the-chase on this discussion. Trigger Warning on what follows, (which is my opinion, only; and, basically, a soliloquy):
Being black is not abnormal, racially. Being gay is abnormal as a sexual orientation. Engaging in homosexual behavior is out-of-the-norm. That’s the gist of the argument. This is my opinion only, but I don’t believe people “have a right to do wrong”. We have the ability to choose wrong, the free will to do wrong … but, nowhere is there a ‘right’ to do wrong.
A society has a duty to protect itself from behavior that threatens its integrity. Homosexual behavior threatens the integrity of a society. To further legitimate it as a ‘civil right’ (same-sex marriage, et. al.) is committing social suicide.
One’s happiness is not the barometer for behavior. Happiness is an elusive state of mind, fickle and ephemeral. Cry as much as you want that you’re being denied your ‘civil rights’ by not being able to same-sex marry, your right to happiness; but, a society has a ‘right’ to its preservation.
Need I remind most people here, that the social acceptation of homosexual behavior (let alone same-sex marriage) has always been the “canary in the mine” for a society.
Timothy, the ignorant hate us.
Bull. The Declaration is like our country’s “articles of incorporation.” The Constitution are our “by-laws.” The one informs the other. Where is the law for gay marriage? How does this supposed law spring from “Nature and Nature’s God”?
Ken,
I think someone soon will:
I don’t think it is a red herring for many, it is a reasonable question.
I don’t think Joseph Smiths advocacy for polygyny (thanks for the better term), was rooted in his belief that women abandoned by their husbands through divorce or death should be cared for…this argument, made with more verifiable truth could be made today and be an overall social good.
I can answer this one for ya. Yes. She sure seemed to go happily off in the other direction when the media lost interest, didn’t she? Last I heard she found another honey and another kid. Lisa Miller is her daughter’s mother. She cannot steal her own child. And because the courts, which have no Article 3 standing to legislate from the bench but do it anyway, decided Jenkins was a parent when no law existed to confirm that she was, and because the courts never considered the best interests of the child, what happened happened. Her mother took matters into her own hands. And therein hangs a tale of how same-sex marriage is not a good thing.
Let’s talk about victims. Let’s talk about Christians and Jews who are infidels in the eyes of Shariah, which is now infiltrating this country to a degree the average person knows nothing of. Let’s talk about what has happened and is happening to them in other countries. There are 57 Islamic states. You and I, Timothy, have three options if we end up with an American Caliphate. No, wait. You have none. If we ever get to that point, Shariah says you will be stoned to death. I can convert, be made a slave or be killed. Of course, I would be martyred right along with you. So we really only have one choice.
Sure, there have been gay “victims.” There have been lots of other victims as well. But screaming over a “right” you don’t have that is being denied you is not victimization. Sorry.
@Ann, thank you for the kind words.
@ken:
Dear me, ken, take a deep breath and relax.
About six weeks ago, as a matter of fact.
ken, I do not wear a “sandwich board” sign that says, “Hey, look I’m gay”. I live my life, as I suspect, most str8 people do: quietly, unobtrusively, just getting on with the daily necessities of living; and, not denying I’m gay, but not drawing attention to my sexual orientation when unnecessary. If other gay people decide to Facebook (or whatever social networking they choose), and put their life ‘out there’ for anyone to see; then they need to live with the results of that choice. They could have easily opted to be more discreet and prudent, no? Of course, ken, you would see the choice of being discreet and prudent as somehow offensive.
I’ve chosen to live my life not as a victim. Society owes me nothing, but to protect me from true harm … life, limb, education, occupation, housing. In my estimation, I owe society proper conduct that fosters and nurtures its true end. I take little offense when social constructs don’t ‘include’ me. I try (often not succeeding) to change my behavior to fit the rules, not changing the rules to fit my behavior.
ken, let’s not be obtuse about this analogy of race to sexual orientation. (And, heavens, I’m not saying that blacks, Asians, Hispanics have any right to play the victim card, either). When a black person interviews for a job … they’re black, up-front, blunt and candid … that’s it. When you show up, ken, unless you’ve got tattooed across your forehead, “I’m gay”, you’re just another average Joe looking for a job. You have a choice, ken, about what you disclose; to whom, when, and where. Can you see that difference? Can you, at least, acknowledge that someone else’s history is not your history?
What I do find difficult to accept is the indiscriminate use by some people of lumping the term “homosexual/homosexuality” with “homosexual behavior” … there is a difference.
It is data…and after a lengthy appeal may turn out to have corrupted his judgment or so enhanced it that it becomes a landmark example of how “our personal narrative” as judges can be properly tempered to create good law.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Except the marriages (in other cultures/religious history) you are referring are better termed “polygyny” (one husband, many wives). And regulate women to a subservient role in marriage. And while there are no scientific studies, there are significant legal impediments to polygamous marriage (which I’ve posted before). Now, as I have said before, if someone would present a fair, workable scheme for allowing polygamous marriage I’d be happy to consider it, but to date no one has.
this is why I consider the polygamous marriage argument to be no more than an red-herring by those opposed to gay marriage. An misguided attempt to muddy the waters hoping to hide the fact they have no constitutionally sound arguments against gay married. so they attempt to link it to something else trying to avoid any real discussion of the issues.
Thank you Ken – I thought it was something like this. When I voted that day, I didn’t see any particular difference from prior years, nor hear anyone talking about the issue at the location I went to vote, just heard it on television in the following days. If I remember correctly, on the exit polls, religion had little to do with their decision – am I right?
Sigh….
I regularly remind my readers the Christians really don’t hate them. That people can oppose their equality without demeaning them as people.
I’m either going to have to change my tune or stop reading the comments here.
So (and please feel free to correct me) gay people have been “portraying themselves as victims” while African-Americans have been “true victims.”
Gay people have been burned at the stake, imprisoned, denied the right to family, been declared satanic, and blamed for natural disasters. Was Oscar Wilde “portraying himself as a victim” when he was sentenced to hard labor – a sentence that led to his death five years later? Was Leonard Matlovich “portraying himself as a victim” when he – a virgin, incidentally – was kicked out of the army? Or, for that matter, was Eric Alba – the first to lose his legs in Iraq? Was Janet Jenkins “portraying herself a victim” when a religious law firm enabled Lisa Miller to steal her daughter?
Was Mathew Sheppard portraying himself a victim?
The gay marriage decision by Walker may be upheld and be very sound…if there are flaws in the way he admitted testimony or limited testimony…that will become more evident under review, although the fact that it is going to be reviewed by the 9th Circuit, which tends to be more libertine, suggests it will be upheld at that level of appeal.
If it is…and perhaps rightly so.
Logically, I think the next level will be exploring the ramifications of polyamory for several reasons:
1. Unlike Gay marriage, polyamory has a strong and vibrant representation currently in many cultures.
2. Unlike Gay marriage, polyamory has a strong religious history that even predates monogamous heterosexual unions, and is currently endorsed in many religious settings.
3. To my knowledge there are no scientific studies which justify refusing extending marriage rights to poly amorous partners (open to new information here).
Which is, I believe, what Coretta Scott King quoted when endorsing marriage equality.
Yes, you are probably right.
Yes, and my admiration and respect and support goes to those who do not seek the temporary and false benefits of portraying themselves as a victim or trying to compare themselves to others who have been true victims. Speaking of Proposition 8, is it true that most African Americans and Hispanicswho voted, voted for it?
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 4:35 pm
“BWAAA-HA-HA-Ha-Ha-ha-ha-ha”
while you often have some very good points and information, this really doesn’t help the conversation/debate.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 4:10 pm
“I will reiterate that denying gays the right to marry each other is denying them a means of pursuing happiness, not equal protection under the law.”
“the pursuit of happiness” phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, not the US constitution and doesn’t have any bearing on the constitutionality of laws. the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment says that all laws must be applied fairly to every one. that is why it is relevant to the gay marriage issue.
“That’s about 4 million adults who identify as gay. Contrast that with about 13 percent of the U.S. population that is black (according to the U.S. Dept. of Justice). The civil rights comparison falls flat.”
I fail to see how the numbers are pertinent. To quote Martin Luther King Jr:
“An injustice to anyone is and injustice to everyone”
further, I suspect that as gays are given more rights, the number of people who identify as gay will increase as well.
Teresa# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 11:59 am
“I find it less than respectful to African Americans to constantly refer to race as analogous to sexual orientation, as tif heir journey is equal to our journey”
Equal, no. analogous. yes. And I will continue to point out the similarities as I have been doing.
“A black man or woman can’t hide the fact of their color, can’t wake up and get on with life as different than the color they are … neither, can we white folks.”
Simply because a group can hide their differences, doesn’t make it alright to discriminate against that group. Do you think it is okay to deny rights to hispanics, jews, muslims, etc?
“Gay people are perfectly capable of getting on in life, especially today, with great jobs, wonderful housing, little to no harassment”
I dare you to claim there is “little to no harassment” of gays to the parents of matthew shepard, tyler clementi, seth walsh, or any other the other many gays who died because of this “little to no harassment” you claim exists.
“Often we gay people do very well financially, as has been noted in any number of sources. We are, for the most part, well educated.”
What sources?
“No one looks at us when applying for a job, or housing and, immediately concludes anything about us except what’s on our resume.”
really, even if that resume including being president of a gay student org in college?
what if the applicant asks if the company offers healthcare for same-sex domestic partners? Further, many companies will now do online searches of potential applicants (and perhaps see they were president of the gay student org, or have pics of their same-sex partners on their facebook page), and not just look at what is on the resume. When was the last time you actually interviewed for a job Teresa?
In many states (fortunately less and less) gays CAN still lose their jobs or housing just for being gay.
“Those of us who are gay, and not black, need to take a second look at this constant refrain of the gay and black journey as similar.”
It is similar. In fact if you compare they arguments against gay marriage with those in the Loving v. Virgina case you see the arguments are almost the same. The one notable distinction is that in the gay marriage case they argued that the LACK of procreation as a justification for denying gays the right to marry. While in the Loving case it was procreation that they argued was the problem.
“It is not self-evident to me that any of my civil rights are being violated in any way when the State denies my “right to marry”.”
It was to the plaintiffs in the prop 8 case. Just curious Teresa, do you have a partner? And if so do you share any property with her (house, condo, car etc)?
” It seems to me in this case that society is defining and protecting those institutions necessary for its health and preservation.”
And how does denying gays the right to marry protect marriage?
Debbie,
That is an opinion.
It is also an opinion that denying Baptists the right to worship is only denying them a means of pursuing happiness, not equal protection under the law.
BWAAA-HA-HA-Ha-Ha-ha-ha-ha
Okay, so because there are only about 9,000,000 LBGT Americans (about 3.8% of the population) then obviously we don’t deserve rights. (And, P.S., gay marriage bans impact bisexual people, you know.)
So someone notify the Jews (2.2% of the population) that Debbie has voided their constitutional rights. Cuz they are just too few to matter.
P.S. – Theresa,
I did not include this very important part of your comment to my response above. I cringe when I see or hear anyone make the comparison between race and sexual orientation – I guess, not for the obvious that it is not a comparison at all, rather, for the lack of respect for African Americans or others around the world.
Theresa,
I’m not sure if you take compliments well, however, the above statement/comment is just one of the reasons I find you so credible and fair and why I respect what you write. Thank for for pointing out what should be obvious to us all. Your ability to use critical thought, and articulate it, is very appreciated.
Having read the entire transcripts of the entire case and the entire decision, I find that to be unlikely. Possible, in the sense that it is also possible that the Supreme Court will rise as one and sing three choruses of Hallelujah in Walkers honor, but unlikely.
Ken–
Can you rephrase that statement so that it doesn’t appear to be contradicted by this bit of info that Debbie supplied much earlier in the thread?
Thanks.
@ken, et. al.
I find it less than respectful to African Americans to constantly refer to race as analogous to sexual orientation, as tif heir journey is equal to our journey. A black man or woman can’t hide the fact of their color, can’t wake up and get on with life as different than the color they are … neither, can we white folks.
Gay people are perfectly capable of getting on in life, especially today, with great jobs, wonderful housing, little to no harassment. Often we gay people do very well financially, as has been noted in any number of sources. We are, for the most part, well educated. No one looks at us when applying for a job, or housing and, immediately concludes anything about us except what’s on our resume. Those of us who are gay, and not black, need to take a second look at this constant refrain of the gay and black journey as similar.
Secondly, as a gay woman, (and this is just my opinion),
I agree with this quote from Debbie. It is not self-evident to me that any of my civil rights are being violated in any way when the State denies my “right to marry”. It seems to me in this case that society is defining and protecting those institutions necessary for its health and preservation.
Teresa,
That is a complaint that is common amongst those who see gay people as inferior and thus find it insulting to compare them to, well, anyone.
And, frankly, your presumption is false.
Actually, race and orientation are, in many ways, similar. There are those who quite obviously are black or gay, those who hear, “gee, I’d never guess” and those who are in between. Lena Horn was as capable of keeping her race in the closet as are most gay people.
She, of course, recognized that such an effort had horrific consequences to her psyche.
However, the two are not identical. I hear gay African-Americans explain the differences and I defer to them. They explain that discrimination is present in both cases and that it is insidious in both.
But while I do hear those who campaign against equality for gay people object to the comparison, I don’t hear gay African-Americans “offended”. And they are, after all, in the best position to know.
Gay people are perfectly capable of getting on in life, especially today, with great jobs, wonderful housing, little to no harassment.
Other, of course, than those pesky little laws that ban marriage, adoption, tax equality and the preachers on the street corner shrieking at them, and people “not condoning the sin” at them regularly, or being told “we don’t serve your kind.”
Yes indeed. Perfectly capable.
Which does, now that you mention it, remind me of another group of people who were perfectly capable in the 1950’s.
The rights of gay people are not hinged upon the African-American civil rights movement. But comparisons to the discrimination that others have experienced are both accurate and useful – especially as such discrimination against others is now considered to be an indicator of low character.
But that, Teresa, as we have previously established, is because you do think that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals. You believe that you are not entitled to the same rights as others.
Ken,
I think someone soon will:
I don’t think it is a red herring for many, it is a reasonable question.
I don’t think Joseph Smiths advocacy for polygyny (thanks for the better term), was rooted in his belief that women abandoned by their husbands through divorce or death should be cared for…this argument, made with more verifiable truth could be made today and be an overall social good.
@Ann, thank you for the kind words.
@ken:
Dear me, ken, take a deep breath and relax.
About six weeks ago, as a matter of fact.
ken, I do not wear a “sandwich board” sign that says, “Hey, look I’m gay”. I live my life, as I suspect, most str8 people do: quietly, unobtrusively, just getting on with the daily necessities of living; and, not denying I’m gay, but not drawing attention to my sexual orientation when unnecessary. If other gay people decide to Facebook (or whatever social networking they choose), and put their life ‘out there’ for anyone to see; then they need to live with the results of that choice. They could have easily opted to be more discreet and prudent, no? Of course, ken, you would see the choice of being discreet and prudent as somehow offensive.
I’ve chosen to live my life not as a victim. Society owes me nothing, but to protect me from true harm … life, limb, education, occupation, housing. In my estimation, I owe society proper conduct that fosters and nurtures its true end. I take little offense when social constructs don’t ‘include’ me. I try (often not succeeding) to change my behavior to fit the rules, not changing the rules to fit my behavior.
ken, let’s not be obtuse about this analogy of race to sexual orientation. (And, heavens, I’m not saying that blacks, Asians, Hispanics have any right to play the victim card, either). When a black person interviews for a job … they’re black, up-front, blunt and candid … that’s it. When you show up, ken, unless you’ve got tattooed across your forehead, “I’m gay”, you’re just another average Joe looking for a job. You have a choice, ken, about what you disclose; to whom, when, and where. Can you see that difference? Can you, at least, acknowledge that someone else’s history is not your history?
What I do find difficult to accept is the indiscriminate use by some people of lumping the term “homosexual/homosexuality” with “homosexual behavior” … there is a difference.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 9, 2011 at 8:57 am
“Timothy, the Prop 8 case hinged on, not a “protection” of gay people or their rights, but a protection of the always-accepted definition of marriage for the greater good. ”
You really do need to read the transcripts/opinion Debbie, at the very least, find a better source of information about the issue. The case was about how the right of marriage was taken away from gays in CA and whether it was constitutional for the people of CA to do that.
“The people who voted in the majority believed it to be in the best interests of their state to preserve the benefits of marriage as they have been traditionally.”
And at one time the majority believed blacks were inferior to whites and it was in their (the white majority) best interest to prevent black children from attending the same schools as white children. they also believed it to be in the best interests to “preserve the benefits of marriage as they have been traditionally” and not allow the races to inter-marry. However, just because someone believes something, doesn’t make it true.
“It is not self-evident that “equal protection” of gays is being violated by not allowing them to marry. ”
It is to everyone but you Debbie (and others who want to legislate their beliefs).
Timothy, the Prop 8 case hinged on, not a “protection” of gay people or their rights, but a protection of the always-accepted definition of marriage for the greater good. The people who voted in the majority believed it to be in the best interests of their state to preserve the benefits of marriage as they have been traditionally. They have constitutional rights, as well. That the defense chose inexplicably not to defend Prop 8 does not mean it was not defensible.
It is not self-evident that “equal protection” of gays is being violated by not allowing them to marry. Prop 8 was an affront to their sensibilities. Discrimination in the workplace, in housing or in any other realm than marriage is another matter. Same-sex marriage is still a rebuttable presumption. And every time the people have voted on it, they have voted in favor of traditional marriage.
My apology! My post should have read… “Thankfully the courts did just this in the case of Brown vs Topeka Board of Education . This decision effectively undid the earlier ruling of Plessy vs Ferguson
Thankfully the courts did just this in the cases; Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education
Hmmm, that’s what I get for trying to cut-and-paste vowels with macrons…
As long as we’re going back in time on this thread, I just wanted to re-quote Lynn David’s excellent post from 31 Aug 2010:
I agree with Lynn’s general point that any or all of those terms were already available to Paul instead of his neologism arsenokoitai, if exploitative pederasty or drag-queen prostitution is what he meant to condemn.
The only thing I would add, as by-the-way trivia, is that Aristophanes’ hilarious term euryprôktoi is more anatomically precise than the English translation “wide-assed” or “wide asses” — the -prokto- part refers specifically to the anus or rectum, and not to the buttocks, for which the word was pyg?. Thus, if Aristophanes had meant to say “big butts” in the Sir Mix-a-Lot sense, he would’ve more likely used a term like eurypygoi (or something like that — I’m no expert on Greek word formation). In contrast, euryprôktoi connoted something closer to that infamous “g**tse.cx” shock photo on the Innerwebs.
Anyheeew, I do take minor issue with Lynn’s conclusion:
The one problem with this theory is that here, too, in the case of the Hebrew term kadesh, there were already existing Greek terms that Paul could’ve used. In the Greek Septuagint translation of the Jewish Bible, the masculine form kadesh in Deut. 23:17 is rendered with two words: porneu?n (which in various contexts can mean “rentboy” or “john” or “pimp,” but in all cases refers to a male somehow involved with prostitution) and teliskomenos, (which means something like “acolyte” or “male consecrated to a particular cult” ).
So if Paul — as a Hellenized Jew who would’ve been familiar with the Septuagint translation — had meant to specifically condemn male temple prostitution, he could’ve used some compound of porneu?n and teliskomenos.
But, instead, he used arsenokoitai, which denotes “male in a bed with male” and thus connects very directly and literally to the language of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 — but there’s no linguistic connection to the kadesh of Deut. 23:17, nor to the angry mobs of Sodom (Gen 19) and Gibeah (Judges 19) who wanted “to know” the male guests.
So the pertinent question — to which we don’t really know the answer — is, “How did Paul interpret Lev. 18:22 and 20:13?”
Debbie
What I see here are two questions. And I’ll deal with the second one first.
Can a court overturn the vote of the people if it sees such a vote to be in violation of the US Constitution? Or, to add an emotional content, can a court overturn the will of the people?
That wasn’t really a question in Perry v. Schwarzenegger because it is not a legal question. While this does play well in rhetorical debate (and indeed was front and center in media) no one disputes the ability of the judicial system to overturn laws – even very popular laws – that violate the constitution.
So the only real question which the court addressed was
And the answer was no, it violates the equal protections and due process provisions of the US Constitution.
That truly depends on whether gay people are entitled to the same protections as other people or if the restrictions were of such significant need that it overrode the equal protections principles. I suppose that someone could have come up with an argument that was so compelling that the court would have to accept that different treatment was acceptable in these circumstances. They did not.
The fact that I’ve never hear that compelling argument doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means I’ve never heard it.
Well kinda.
It isn’t really how people “see” the Constitution as much as it is how they see gay people.
If one accepts the premises that:
1. Gay people exist, intrinsically and immutably. While some people testify to a changed orientation, for nearly all this demographic their orientation is fixed.
2. There has been a long history of discrimination against people who are gay and all laws passed that disadvantage them need to be inspected in this light.
3. A majority vote of people cannot be the sole determinant as to whether a subset is granted equality under the law.
then the question becomes whether a law is based on a legitimate purpose or on a desire to exclude an unpopular demographic. Because laws intended solely to exclude an unpopular demographic are unconstitutional, by everyone’s interpretation.
There was a preponderance of evidence that Proposition 8 was purposefully intended to exclude gay people. No one credibly denied that.
So the only question which Perry could answer was that of legitimate purpose. And whether that purpose was sufficient to justify unequal treatment.
And it was on that question that the supporters failed. Miserably.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Apr 8, 2011 at 5:01 pm
“The implied sub-question was, Or can a court trump the will of the people if it deems it has standing to do so?”
The answer to this question is yes. The courts have “trumped the will of the people” every time a law has been overturned as unconstitutional. A primary purpose of the courts is to prevent the majority from subjugating the minority.
“He interpreted the constitution one way. Lots of people see it another way. It’s as plain as that.”
Except that those people who “see it” the other way can’t seem to present a constitutionally valid reason to justify denying gays the right of marriage.
“Suppose the case had been reversed and Prop 8 had failed. Suppose, then, a suit had been brought by a plaintiff who felt his and the people’s constitutional rights had been violated and the court ruled in favor of that plaintiff. How brilliant would the judge’s opinion have seemed to you then?”
this argument doesn’t make sense. If the prop 8 vote failed rather than passed, what grounds would there be for a suit? Further, any suit would still essentially be about denying gays the right of marriage.
Blakeslee: This ads data about the decision
Blakeslee: Its just data Timothy, kind of like if a KKK member was making a decision about voting rights;
Blakeslee: Having all the data that might bear on the decision is a pretty standard way of dealing with analyzing the decision. Withholding relevant data ads unnecessary mystery.
and
Blakeslee: The assumptions are all yours
Okaaaaay
It’s true. I did not recall how many actually refused to read it. My recollection was that many had refused to read it because they disagreed with it. That annoyed me greatly. If I am mistaken, I am sorry.
I admit I did not take time to review the entire thread, as Eddy did. He is obivously more detail oriented than I am. I apologize to any person who may have actually taken the time to read the entire decision.
My bad. I should not have generalized. I am glad that many took time to read the entire decision. And that only some elected not to.
This impression doesn’t appear to be based on facts. I’ve just skimmed through this entire thread and can’t find ‘many’ who admitted they had not and would not read it and had already made up their minds that the decision was wrong.
Debbie said that she had read it. I acknowledged that I only read 40 pages…but then I didn’t say that my mind was made up or that the decision was wrong. I also can’t find where Mary said that her mind was mind up and that the decision was wrong. Others weighing in were David Blakeslee and concerned. (Did I miss anyone?)
So Michael’s generalized statement isn’t true especially when you see that the word ‘they’ that leads the second sentence refers back to the ‘many’ from sentence one. Five rarely qualifies as ‘many’; two never does.
Debbie: Would you have read the decision if the judge had agreed with you? If not, why not? Even for the sake of curiousity — just to see how the case was argued and how the judge came to his decision? I would.
It’s a fascinating civics lesson if nothing else — and has bearing on the whole issue of the will of the majority versus the Constitutional rights of the minority. Suppose the issue at at hand was a law that limited religious freedom only to Christians…
The other important question seemed to be “Should we restrict the rights of a particular group of people when there is no compelling interest for the State to do so?” I think the answer is No.
I didn’t think it was “brilliant”. I simply thought it was the right decision considering the evidence and arguments presented in court. The point is, I would have cared enough to read it either way– because the issues involved (particularly the constitutional ones) are important. Should the courts overrule a statute if it violates the Constitution? I think the answer is Yes.
I absolutely believe and wish this:
No apology necessary.
Re: Emily K,
Heterosexuals making such decisions should be assessed as well, especially if they forbid gay marriage…for bias. It is data that may have wrongly effected their decision.
Michael, not that I want to go back and beat that old dead horse, but there was one basic question being decided in the Prop 8 case, was there not? The question: Should California’s initiative to define marriage in its constitution as between one man and one woman, as approved by the voters, stand? The implied sub-question was, Or can a court trump the will of the people if it deems it has standing to do so?
Now, no matter how many “brilliant” things Judge Walker may have written in his opinion, or no matter how horribly the ADF defended Prop. 8, is there anything new that could be added to the question? Not from where I sit. He interpreted the constitution one way. Lots of people see it another way. It’s as plain as that.
Suppose the case had been reversed and Prop 8 had failed. Suppose, then, a suit had been brought by a plaintiff who felt his and the people’s constitutional rights had been violated and the court ruled in favor of that plaintiff. How brilliant would the judge’s opinion have seemed to you then?
Still with the LOL! But its’ a rather sad laugh. David reawakened this thread with a link to a seemingly unbiased article that was news connected to the Proposition 8 story. That’s all he did. “This adds data about the decision” were his only words…and the conjectures and insinuations swiftly followed.
And yes, there was new data. Even though the judge just came out, it seems this wasn’t a complete surprise to anyone involved and yet no protest was made. The link didn’t elaborate much other than to quote the judge himself…with full sentence quotes that didn’t appear to be biased sound bites.
I find the attacks and insinuations against David to be baseless. I could envision Timothy or Jayhuck sharing the very same link with the same brief lead-in that David used with not one personal attack or insinuation to follow. But with David there was a need to dissect his six lead in words and charge them with dark meaning and intent.
I don’t recall if David had, but many of the usual commenters here admitted that they had not and would not read it. They had already made up their minds that the decision was wrong.
FWIW, Judge Walker is right about the slippery slope. Who can say whether or not his sexual orientation had a bearing on the Prop. 8 case? That is between him and God. We ask judges to be as impartial as humanly possible. There are good ones and bad ones. But I would not want to be the person who began taking us down the road to litmus tests for judges other than their knowledge of the law and their willingness (as demonstrated by their history) to uphold our Constitution. Their race or ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation cannot be qualifiers. And judges who are elected can ill afford to be political activists. That is the best check the system has, in addition to the appeals process.
see, u guise?? thats why we should only EV0R have straight, white, conservative, Protestant, middle-age men determining court decisions. They’re the only ones that would not have a bias for any situation involving the downtrodden. Everybody would be too distracted by their menstrual cycles, tryin’ to do a favor for the brotha from the ‘hood, or making it easier to teach little kids about anal sex between two men.
I doubt David read any such thing 😉
David B –
Do you honestly believe this? If so, I owe you an apology 🙂
LOL!!! I had more but I’ll leave it at that.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 7, 2011 at 10:04 pm
“White, republican, legally trained…all data.”
but not all relevant.
“If it can be demonstrated that his orientation resulted in biased judgment, then it will very relevant.”
did you read his decision and/or the trial transcripts David? Did you see any evidence of such bias? Has any credible source given any evidence that his orientation biased his decision? Would you be suggesting his orientation biased his judgment if he where straight?
Timothy,
The assumptions are all yours.
Oops, you did it again.
White, republican, legally trained…all data.
If it can be demonstrated that his orientation resulted in biased judgment, then it will very relevant.
As the same could be said if he was Hispanic, democratic, legally trained and heterosexual.
Having all the data that might bear on the decision is a pretty standard way of dealing with analyzing the decision.
Withholding relevant data ads unnecessary mystery.
BTW…sad he had to be in the closet for so many years…hope he gets a lot of support now that he is out.
David Blakeslee# ~ Apr 7, 2011 at 9:04 pm
“Its just data ”
But is it relevant data? that tact that you posted this article implies that you seem to think so. Is that correct, do you think Walker’s orientation is relevant?
If so, how is it relevant?
Sure… if being gay were like being a KKK member.
Its just data Timothy, kind of like if a KKK member was making a decision about voting rights; or a fundamentalist judge was making a decision about placing the 10 commandments in a courtroom or making a decision about marriage rights.
Well, oddly enough, it doesn’t add data.
Unless, of course, we assume that it is relevant that a black judge might be assigned to a racial discrimination case or that a Christian judge might not assume recusal on a religious discrimination case.
To assume that a gay judge’s orientation has any bearing on a decision is to assume that a gay person is incapable of impartiality. I consider such assumptions to be contemptuous.
This ads data about the decision:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011/04/judge-who-struck-down-prop-8-confirms-hes-gay
LOL!!! I had more but I’ll leave it at that.
Whoops, that should be “supporters of Prop 8” not a Prop “smilely”
Just as a quick update. A 3 member panel of the 9th Circuit court heard appeals arguments for Proposition 8 yesterday (12/06/2010). You can watch the 2.5 hour hearing here:
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/12/06/HP/R/41535/Ninth+Circuit+Court+to+hear+California+Proposition+8+Case.aspx
The 1st hour was devoted to arguments about whether the defendants have standing to appeal.
the 2nd hour (starting about 1:08:31 in the video) was devoted to arguments about the case itself. Interestingly, the defendants (i.e. supporters of Prop. 8) didn’t try to argue that their trial case was unduly harmed by the “threat” of cameras (i.e. that they lost several experts because of this). Apparently, the
defendants lawyers aren’t interested in a re-trial, and seem to be sticking with the “marriage is for procreation and that is why the State discriminate against same-gender couples” argument.
I think Theresa Stewart (SF City Attorney arguing for the plaintiffs) gave a good argument (her argument starts about 02:18:15) about why the “procreation” argument for opposite gender marriage doesn’t apply. And also give a good argument how rational basis (the weakest standard enforcing rights) still isn’t met at about 02:21:10.
@ Debbie:
There it is again, “might refer”. Thanks. That is what I have been suggesting all along. “Might”. “Perhaps”, “Maybe”. That seems much more reasonable than insisting that you know without a doubt that you have it right. There might be other ways of looking at Scipture that may have validity.
This “might refer” seems to sugest that people of faith may not be “mocking God” if they question the traditional understanding of this passage. It is not Unchristian to question. Which leads me to ask: How can you be sure that the first Greek word self-evident — and without doubt — means “homosexual” when you concede that the second word (“might”, “perhaps” and “maybe”) could mean something that we’re not quite sure of?
@ Eddy:
I am suprised that you would say so. I seems like a good discussion to me. I think it’s a prety civil and intelligent exchange of ideas on the possible meaning of this passage. And maybe true Christians can give each other the grace to disagree.
Is there some new approach or perspective that you have to offer that you think we ought to be discussing? I would be very open to hearing it. It would be very interesting and perhaps very beneficial to approach the Biblical discussion in a new way. Instead of complaining that it’s “same old, same old”, can you present a fresher viewpoint or approach?
Lynn David,
I’ve also hear it to mean “foppish”, a term that generally is used for heterosexual men who are consumed with self-image, leisure, pleasure, and indolence.
This would be consistent with a certain class of Romans and may have been an indictment of the rich and powerful who may have been perceived as abusing their position and oppressing the poor.
But, again, I cannot be certain.
That is because the word does not mean effeminate (except in a reference to music). It means “soft” – in general; and more specifically it means ‘morally soft’ in the context of the Biblical use. That is a general statement concerning all persons. It is not as written in the Greek a reference to gay people, except that the prejudices of Christianity over the years have made it so. They associated ‘softness’ in a male to effeminancy. Why should the passage be directed only towards males? Cannot a woman also be morally soft?
Some here seemed to question the effeminate designation for the word. I also can see how it might refer to the receptive gay male partner. But there really is nothing new under the sun, and I have seen references to ancient transgendered types.
Ok… Warren’s website does not accept Greek letters.. thus the string of question marks.
That’s also overlaying one’s 20th/21st century thinking on that of a 1st century writer.
.
According to Perseus, ??????????? [malakosomos?] means effeminate (LSJ – Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon).
.
Here is the Perseus entry concerning malakos and morality:
…
That’s a great question and shows that Paul’s words were not self-evidently clear. “Maybe” — says Debbie. “Perhaps” says Eddy. That’s all I was really asking for — the “maybes”. The “perhaps”. The possibility that there may be other explanations. That’s “faith”. Leaving our hearts and minds open to other possibilities while holding fast to our Blessed Hope.
We all have certain beliefs. None of us should claim certainty or presume to speak for God. When some folks say that they believe the Bible is “inerrant in it’s original manuscripts” they seem to overlook that we don’t have the original manuscripts — and that they people who recorded Paul’s words, who translated them into various languages and who interpret them today are all fallible human beings. They leave themselves — and the possibility that they may have it wrong — out of the equation. I think that’s a huge mistake.
No, thank you. I’m not at all interested in arguing my case. Nor do I insist that it is a “clear” interpretation of the Bible.
That’s your MO, Debbie, not mine. I’m not the one married to certainty and insisting that I speak for God. I know that I’m human.
Having read a great deal on the subject – and observed the character of some of those who are considered to be the definitive source for non-gay-supportive interpretation (if Gagnon is a man of God, then so is Fred Phelps) – I’ve come to my conclusions. You’ve come to others.
Why, of course you do, Debbie.
As I said, you start with your conclusions and look for support. I wouldn’t expect you to do anything other than rest your case on this particular essay.
Nor would i ever expect you to even consider reading any alternate perspectives. As you have told us over and over, you already know exactly how I feel about gay marriage and homosexuality.
Mary,
I had the impression that you used a more holistic view also. You come to different conclusions than I do, but considering that there are hundreds of denominations who have different takes on various scriptures (and often disagree within each denomination) that shouldn’t surprise us.
I’ll read it at some point but based on my skimming, there is absolutely nothing there that I haven’t read before – probably in the original source. But having read a large number of books from various sources (try slogging through Boswell’s footnotes some time) I don’t find it convincing, compelling, or even persuasive.
Generally this debate comes down to Camp A finding authority in Scripture X and Camp B finding authority in Scripture Y and both arguing over the meaning of Scripture Z.
That’s probably the only thing upon which christians will agree.
Excellent essay, Mary. Thanks for posting the link. Since I presume none of us here is a theologian who can dispute the finer points of its hermeneutical foundation, I am content to rest my case upon it.
Although I have pointed to the Genesis creation passage (and Jesus’ parallel mention of it in Matthew 19) many times to affirm God’s intent for marriage — I’m sure in more than one discussion here — I did not bring it into this discussion. Jesus, of course, refers to that passage in Matthew 19, when the disciples question him about divorce, as this essay points out, too.
Perhaps you could make your scriptural case for that “extravagant welcome” here, Timothy. I’d be interested in seeing it. And while you’re at it, you might explain how that “clear” interpretation of the Bible is any less rigid than mine is.
Excellent essay, Mary. Thanks for posting the link. Since I presume none of us here is a theologian who can dispute the finer points of its hermeneutical foundation, I am content to rest my case upon it.
Although I have pointed to the Genesis creation passage (and Jesus’ parallel mention of it in Matthew 19) many times to affirm God’s intent for marriage — I’m sure in more than one discussion here — I did not bring it into this discussion. Jesus, of course, refers to that passage in Matthew 19, when the disciples question him about divorce, as this essay points out, too.
Let’s not forget that men wrote the Bible – not God! We say the Bible is the “inspired” word of God, but that word inspired means different things to different Christians and many different Christian groups understand the Bible in completely different ways.
So men wrote the Bible – (Heck, the church didn’t even put the Bible together until the 4th century) – men err – they make mistakes – it stands to reason there could be problems with the inspired Word!
Timothy,
You might read that essay in it’s entirety. I gave me new insight on the word homosexual. When you feel up to it.
Timothy,
No it doesn’t horrify me. I also try to view scritpture from a holistic point of view. Don’t know how you get the incest thing out of it but hey, that’s how you read it. As well, I try to stick with the red letters of Christ, too. But I still can’t make homosexuality work from my perspective on theology.
Thanks, Mary.
I skimmed the article but It’s pretty much the apologetics for the conservative interpretation. It’s definitely one perspective, opinion and view.
I’ve heard Genesis quoted as God’s definition of what He expects. But reading too much into that would leave one thinking that God wants us to marry our sisters. (why is it that some who insist on scriptural literalism never see where that leads?)
These essays (from all sides) seem to come from a desire to prove a point and to look for Scriptures the defend a perspective. It is interesting, but it isn’t (to me) informative. Lately I’ve come to view scripture much less from a “yeah but what does this verse say” approach and more holistically.
I guess I’ve become less of a Paulite and more of a Christian. If a verse doesn’t fit with the theme of Jesus’ message, then clearly it isn’t being understood correctly so I tend to set those aside for later contemplation.
I’m sure this horrifies some who fear questioning anything, much less the appropriateness of a scripture verse, but that’s where I am in my journey and I’m ok with it.
What I find so striking is that everyone has overlooked the genesis story of God’s intention and our creation. One may quibble over Paul’s words, or one may refer to our origins. Here’s an interesting essay on the theology of heterosexuality
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/SexualImmorality/Homosexuality/Homosexuality_PSition_Paper.pdf
Also there is mention and documentation of the word Paul uses. Worth the read.
Actually, Michael, this shows few signs of being a discussion or an exchange of ideas; it’s pretty much the ‘same old same old’.
And, unfortunately, I’m heading out in an hour for a few days out in the country with no internet access. I’m going to need to bow out now.
Well of course it does. That’s because you start with your conclusions and work backwards to find your arguments.
You announced that Paul’s words were clear. Yes, to you they are. They mean precisely what you choose to believe and no facts, thinking, logic, history, context, culture, study, wisdom or guidance from the Holy Spirit will ever convince you otherwise.
Yes, Jesus did challenge notions. As we have discussed before, Jesus made a specific reference to the sexual minorities – though with the caveat that not everyone would be able to understand or accept his teaching.
We Christians seem to want to blame God for our own misunderstanding. We say “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever” and therefore whatever Paul and Silas believed I’ll believe… except for those parts I don’t.
But we are human. We change. And when we are in the process, we sometimes get obstinate and angry and think that our changing says something about God.
This is not a new process, we’ve been there before. The “clear words of Paul” defended slavery. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that early Christians – and especially the Jewish culture – accepted slavery as a factor of life. It was not immoral. Or even kinda wrong.
The “clear words of Paul” defended misogyny. And sexism. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that early Christians – and especially the Jewish culture – accepted the idea that women are entirely subservient to men.
Racism. Genocide. These were praised in Jewish scripture – demanded by God, even.
But we have been able to change without insisting that God erred. God may be the same, but people are not. And I’m – I hope – wise enough not to insist that God be a Bronze Age war god, just because that was how he manifested Himself to Joshua.
Maybe we now live in a time in which humanity is able to finally hear God and his extravagant welcome of sexual minorities.
Why would Paul need to go to the trouble to address, with a word he specifically coined, something that would clearly be prohibited already in Scripture? Messing around with temple prostitutes of either sex or age? Fornication. Messing around with a married person, whether or not you are married? Adultery. So what else could he be referring to? Maybe malakoi was meant to cover cross-dressing or transgendered men and not just those who some might call effeminate. He was making a distinction between the usual sexual sins and something else.
Eddy’s response to Lynn David also covers the plausible whys of Paul’s use of the word arsenokoitai. Makes sense to me. The existing Greek terms would have been inadequate for him.
The Greek term, malakoi, means simiply soft when speaking of morals – morally soft. That is more a general term befitting all of humanity and not directed towards any one group. According to the Perseus directory from Tufts University the only time the word means ‘effeminate’ is in reference to music – and that is not necessarily a derogatory term.
It seems that we are finally having that discussion about the Bible that Eddy has been wanting to have for so long — and I am happy that we are. Perhaps now, we can all acknowledge that this issue isn’t self-evidently clear — and that there is room for legitimate disagreement among people of strong faith. No one of us should presume to speak inerrantly for the Almighty. We should reason together.
Precisely my point. Folks who are absolutely certain that “arsenkoitai” means “homosexual” are often just as insistent that “malakoi” means “effeminate”. Many English Bibles translate these words in precisely that manner. But perhaps that’s not what they mean. No. Those who prounounce God’s will are sure.
Some conservatives have told me that it clearly means “sissies” or “guys that act or dress like girls”. Some have just as vehemently insisted it means transexuals. There are just as certain they are right about “malakoi” as they are about “aresenokoitai”. They thump their Bible, quote chapter and verse and say I am “mocking God” if I disagree with them. They warn me of Hell if I dare to question their understanding.
But what is “effeminate”? What is the Native American Indian or Polynesian or African concept? What word do they use to render the Greek? Does it have the same meaning that the English word “effeminate” has for us? Alan Chambers told me flatly, “homosexuality is evil”. What about effeminacy? Not so evil?
I maintain that masculinity and femininity are culturally defined concepts that change over time. — not an absolute. For example, In some cultures only the men make the pottery. In other cultures, a man would be considered “effeminate” if he put his hands to clay. That’s “feminine”. In some cultures, men wear the flamboyant jewelry and make-up to be “masculine”.
Those who insist that the first Greek word is self-evidenly clear get mighty murky about the second word. I think we need to look at these passages the way we look at any passage from the Bible — in historical, cultural and linguistic context — and not insist that we have the one and only correct, beyond-all-doubt meaning.
You make no sense, Eddy. There is a singular word for those associated with homosexuality as we know today in older Greek, it is kinaidoi.
Furthermore, the word coitus in English does not derive from the Greek, koitai, which means bed. Coitus comes from the Latin, meaning coming together or a union [coition or coitio from co?re – to come together].
Last post first–
Why would it be consistent? I’m not following. Didn’t they have a word for them already?
Wouldn’t this infer either that God made gays and never chastised the Jewish culture for their ‘too far outside the culture’ attitude or that the gays of today are something new…different from the practicioners of homosexuality when the Bible was written. Didn’t Jesus challenge other notions that weren’t ‘socially acceptable’?
Well, that would be consistent… but not as valuable a weapon in today’s Culture War.
Perhaps.
Who knows? I don’t. But I think that it’s pretty evident that “Paul’s clear words” were anything but clear.
To me, that ambiguity may be inspired by God. Perhaps the Holy Spirit led Paul to use terms that may have been adequate for that time but allowed for a future understanding that was just too far outside of the Jewish culture or what would be socially acceptable.
One of the things that I marvel about in Scripture is that often the language is such that those who first heard it had one understanding. But as time, experience, and science have changed culture, the language was broad enough to allow for a new understanding.
Surely it required the inspiration of God so that Scripture was not so rigid, so inflexible, that our faith did not die out at the discovery of a globe or the industrial revolution or the identification of germs or atoms or DNA.
Lynn David–
Thank you. You illustrated my point better than I could…the Greeks had several words for different types of homosexual behavior and, by your account, did not have a unique word for a man loving a man…but shared the word aphrodisia. So, the words already in use did not speak simply and plainly to the notion that a man is not to lie with a man as with a woman and Paul needed to coin one that conveyed the essence of that wordy phrase. And, it seems that that understanding wasn’t seriously questioned for 1900 years give or take a few.
Now you’re a mind reader? I thought that was an affront to your god?
The Greeks had a name for the most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was “paiderastia” meaning “boy love.” There were terms which described the older lover, the erastes, courts a boy, the eromenos. In ancient Greece, there never was a word to describe homosexual practices in general. They were instead simply part of aphrodisia, love, which included men and women alike.
It was considered shameful when a man with a beard remained the passive partner (pathikos) and it was even worse when a man allowed himself to be penetrated by another grown-up man. The Greeks even had a pejorative expression for these people, whom were called kinaidoi. They were the targets of ridicule by the other citizens, especially comedy writers. For example, Aristophanes (c.445-c.380) shows them dressed like women, with a bra, a wig and a gown, and calls them euryprôktoi, “wide arses”.
So why shouldn’t Paul use any of those terms?
Since Paul was usually concerned with idol worship and the practices associated with that which included the long-time middle eastern practice of the kadesh – the holy ones – male and female prostitutes (as in Romans 1). It’s just as reasonable that Paul was speaking of this practice.
…
When you miss the actual reasoning behind the lesbian makeovers, it’s so easy to ridicule it. The women had issues of dissassociation with their gender that led them to reject cultural aspects of femininity and, at times, to actually cultivate a masculine look. (We can rant all we want to about how we shouldn’t be responsive to either the whims or the norms of culture but the reality is that we are immersed in it. And, if we plan to relate in and to our culture, it helps not to stick out like a sore thumb.)
Men and football had some similar motivations. However, many men did find it interesting but shunned it for ‘unhealthy reasons’…fear of failure, a sense of rejection, feelings of incompetence. I daresay that ‘men and football’ never approached the level of ‘women and makeovers’ but largely because there were other effective ways to confront those fears and feelings.
Do you have even one example of an individual who was kicked out of a church based on effeminate appearance or behavior alone?
Randy’s saying that he is ‘effeminate’ is only saying that by today’s cultural norms some of his mannerisms are deemed ‘effeminate’ and that he’s not overly concerned about it because he is able to discern between culture’s voice and God’s voice. (You could put Christ Himself in a redneck bar and a fair portion of the crowd would judge Him to be effeminate.)
What a great word. It leaves open the possibility there is always more to discover.
Actually, Michael, this shows few signs of being a discussion or an exchange of ideas; it’s pretty much the ‘same old same old’.
And, unfortunately, I’m heading out in an hour for a few days out in the country with no internet access. I’m going to need to bow out now.
Timothy–
Perhaps Paul didn’t want to get caught up in the Greek (and other) cultural distinctions (I think specifically of the man/boy love and of raping conquered enemies)…so he coined a word that left off those cultural trappings and said “Look, for a man to bed sexually with a man” is wrong…and left all the various reasons, excuses and justifications out of it.
In just the past five posts or so, I think we have proven that these passages are not as self-evidently clear as Debbie insists they are. Even the reference she used, who claims their meaning is “self-evident”, then admits they are “neologisms” that “are correctly understood in our contemporary context when they are applied.”
Context, Meaning, History. Tradition. Interpretation. Application. Personal opinion. No reader of Scripture can be free of these things. We cannot “know”, for sure, what Paul meant. All we can do is “strongly believe”. What he may have meant by “malakoi” seems to have several possible meanings, as does “aresenokoitai”. There is no monolithic unanimity of opinion among scholars or true believers in Jesus on the meaning and application of these verses in particular — or of the Bible as a whole.
Personally, I think Paul was referring to something very specific that his readers saw everyday — particular practices of his day, temple prostitution, pederasty. But that’s just my humbly offered, though educated opinion. Other well-educated and sincere Christians disagree. Faithful congregations and denominations disagree. This is nothing new.
This has always been true of the Christian Church — from the very outset, there were disagreements on the meaning and interpretation of Scripture. It had even been so since before Christ. It’s human nature. No person ought to claim perfect knowledge of it. We owe each other the Christian charity to disagree and still consider each other followers of Christ.
Exodus likes to insist that homosexuality, is, at its roots a confusion about “true masculinity” and “true femininiry”. They even used to host make-overs to teach lesbians how to apply false nails, do their make-up and tease their hair. All to make them look and feel more “feminine”. Gay men were encouraged to play footbal. They didn’t seem to stop to think how such images were deeply rooted in cultural sterotypes, not the Bible.
Recenly, Randy Thomas openly bragged about how he was not ashamed of his own “effeminacy” — and yet there are those Christians who would argue that “effeminacy” is clearly condemned by Paul and if not repented of will result in not inheriting the Kingdom of God. For some of the things Randy is now proud of, Christians in times past might have kicked him out of the church — citing solid Biblical reasons for doing so.
My point is, that these passages — and many other passages in the Bible — are not “self-evidently clear”. They require study, prayer, research and discussion, reliance on the Holy Spirit for guidance — and just a bit of Christian tolerance and patience for those believers who may see them differently. The only thing that is “self-evidently clear” is that the Bible is not — not because it is not divinely inspired — but because people are people.
The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno)
Which is why Paul used “arsenokoitaiarseno”.
Oh. Wait. He didn’t.
And yet the law does exist…and yet Christians were admonished to avoid all manner of sin…and yet Christ paid the price for our sins…for our transgressions of the law. To the woman caught in adultery He said ‘Go and sin no more’.
Eddy,
There were plenty of words in Greek which discuss same-sex behavior and same-sex love. Remember we’re talking about what the Victorians referred to as “the vice of the Greeks”.
I have no idea why Paul did not use the common current language if he wished to condemn either same-sex behavior or same-sex love, but it wasn’t due to any lack of words.
When did I ever say that? If they had a man sleeping with his mother-in-law (the chief reason Paul wrote the letter to them), I suspect they had more than an inkling that homosexuality existed. Human nature didn’t suddenly show up in Corinth. It was always there. Why the Greeks apparently had no word for it is anyone’s guess.
As for the rest of what you said? Gee, you really toddled off the reservation with that comment, Tim.
Eddy
There are, as you say, more than one possible translation. For me, I look to the totality of the gospel message to see it I get any clues.
Those who see the gospel through the lens of rules and legality will find Leviticus as a confirmation of the sinfulness of behaviors. If you think the Bible is about behavior, then you’re going to find anything in it to be about behavior.
Others see the Bible as being about justice and mercy. And anything in it will be viewed through that lens. Others who see it as a call to know God will use that lens. Those who see it as a collection of wisdom will use that lens.
And I know that we have somehow been able to apply eternal biblical truth to issues of slavery, male dominance, racial inequality, demons, and a whole host of issues which simply had no ambiguity and still survived. The faith will survive this challenge as well.
Timothy–
Debbie did not say that they had never seen or heard of it but simply that there was on word for it. So she wasn’t saying that it was an ‘unknown concept’ as you suggest but rather that it was one that there wasn’t a quick ‘buzzword’ for. And this is quite understandable. (Now I’m wondering when, how and why the words ‘heterosexual’, ‘homosexual’, ‘bisexual’ and ‘transsexual’ were coined.)
Well of course it does. That’s because you start with your conclusions and work backwards to find your arguments.
You announced that Paul’s words were clear. Yes, to you they are. They mean precisely what you choose to believe and no facts, thinking, logic, history, context, culture, study, wisdom or guidance from the Holy Spirit will ever convince you otherwise.
Yes, Jesus did challenge notions. As we have discussed before, Jesus made a specific reference to the sexual minorities – though with the caveat that not everyone would be able to understand or accept his teaching.
We Christians seem to want to blame God for our own misunderstanding. We say “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever” and therefore whatever Paul and Silas believed I’ll believe… except for those parts I don’t.
But we are human. We change. And when we are in the process, we sometimes get obstinate and angry and think that our changing says something about God.
This is not a new process, we’ve been there before. The “clear words of Paul” defended slavery. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that early Christians – and especially the Jewish culture – accepted slavery as a factor of life. It was not immoral. Or even kinda wrong.
The “clear words of Paul” defended misogyny. And sexism. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that early Christians – and especially the Jewish culture – accepted the idea that women are entirely subservient to men.
Racism. Genocide. These were praised in Jewish scripture – demanded by God, even.
But we have been able to change without insisting that God erred. God may be the same, but people are not. And I’m – I hope – wise enough not to insist that God be a Bronze Age war god, just because that was how he manifested Himself to Joshua.
Maybe we now live in a time in which humanity is able to finally hear God and his extravagant welcome of sexual minorities.
So what we have here, according to you, is Paul writing a letter to the Corinthians about something they had never heard of and knew nothing about. Greeks, of course, knew nothing at all about same-sex behavior (all of the classics notwithstanding) and the Jews couldn’t even imagine it.
Yet, so as to be very very clear, Paul made up words that no one used to discuss this unknown concept which the church at Corinth really needed to hear about. Because of its very unknown nature.
Do you know how irrational that sounds?
And then to have the arrogance to assume that while no Jews or Greeks knew what Paul was talking about, you do.
I think that I’m beginning to share Micheal’s concerns. It isn’t just that you think that the Scripture is inerrant, but rather that you think that your understanding of it is inerrant as well.
Why would Paul need to go to the trouble to address, with a word he specifically coined, something that would clearly be prohibited already in Scripture? Messing around with temple prostitutes of either sex or age? Fornication. Messing around with a married person, whether or not you are married? Adultery. So what else could he be referring to? Maybe malakoi was meant to cover cross-dressing or transgendered men and not just those who some might call effeminate. He was making a distinction between the usual sexual sins and something else.
Eddy’s response to Lynn David also covers the plausible whys of Paul’s use of the word arsenokoitai. Makes sense to me. The existing Greek terms would have been inadequate for him.
The Greek term, malakoi, means simiply soft when speaking of morals – morally soft. That is more a general term befitting all of humanity and not directed towards any one group. According to the Perseus directory from Tufts University the only time the word means ‘effeminate’ is in reference to music – and that is not necessarily a derogatory term.
There are other passages in the Old and New Testaments which, when taken together with the 1 Cor. 6:9 one, confirm what Paul meant. It’s not just this one verse, of course.
I don’t think so. Political correctness has thrown the muck in.
From the Christian Research Institute/Journal:
It seems that we are finally having that discussion about the Bible that Eddy has been wanting to have for so long — and I am happy that we are. Perhaps now, we can all acknowledge that this issue isn’t self-evidently clear — and that there is room for legitimate disagreement among people of strong faith. No one of us should presume to speak inerrantly for the Almighty. We should reason together.
Precisely my point. Folks who are absolutely certain that “arsenkoitai” means “homosexual” are often just as insistent that “malakoi” means “effeminate”. Many English Bibles translate these words in precisely that manner. But perhaps that’s not what they mean. No. Those who prounounce God’s will are sure.
Some conservatives have told me that it clearly means “sissies” or “guys that act or dress like girls”. Some have just as vehemently insisted it means transexuals. There are just as certain they are right about “malakoi” as they are about “aresenokoitai”. They thump their Bible, quote chapter and verse and say I am “mocking God” if I disagree with them. They warn me of Hell if I dare to question their understanding.
But what is “effeminate”? What is the Native American Indian or Polynesian or African concept? What word do they use to render the Greek? Does it have the same meaning that the English word “effeminate” has for us? Alan Chambers told me flatly, “homosexuality is evil”. What about effeminacy? Not so evil?
I maintain that masculinity and femininity are culturally defined concepts that change over time. — not an absolute. For example, In some cultures only the men make the pottery. In other cultures, a man would be considered “effeminate” if he put his hands to clay. That’s “feminine”. In some cultures, men wear the flamboyant jewelry and make-up to be “masculine”.
Those who insist that the first Greek word is self-evidenly clear get mighty murky about the second word. I think we need to look at these passages the way we look at any passage from the Bible — in historical, cultural and linguistic context — and not insist that we have the one and only correct, beyond-all-doubt meaning.
You make no sense, Eddy. There is a singular word for those associated with homosexuality as we know today in older Greek, it is kinaidoi.
Furthermore, the word coitus in English does not derive from the Greek, koitai, which means bed. Coitus comes from the Latin, meaning coming together or a union [coition or coitio from co?re – to come together].
“arsenokoitai”–first half means ‘man’, second half means ‘bed’–with the implication of sex. (Our word ‘coitus’ is a derivative.) So many have traditionally interpreted it as ‘man in bed with man for the purpose of sex’.
Lots of murkiness. Do we emphasize ‘man’ to the exclusion of two women? Do we dig culturally and find any clues? One popular spin is that it didn’t refer to the natural and loving homosexuality that we know today but rather to men who were naturally straight having sex with other men.
“malakos” was traditionally translated as ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’. However, much of what our culture deems to be ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’ doesn’t seem to be the root meaning of the term. Many suggest that it was purposely juxtaposed with arsenokoitai…and that it referred to those who purposely cultivated and flaunted softness and effeminacy for sexual reasons…the male prostitutes of the time.
Obviously, those understandings, while traditional are not universal. From my experience, most of those who have ‘studied’ the terms have done so from a position of bias. This goes for both sides. That is why I queried earlier if the other terms from 1 Corinthians 6, specifically ‘adulterers’ and ‘fornicators’ had been ‘studied’ to the same extent. When we jump right to the middle of the list, it suggests that, for some reason, those words are more important to us…and is a signal to be wary of potential bias impacting the study and its results.
Last post first–
Why would it be consistent? I’m not following. Didn’t they have a word for them already?
Wouldn’t this infer either that God made gays and never chastised the Jewish culture for their ‘too far outside the culture’ attitude or that the gays of today are something new…different from the practicioners of homosexuality when the Bible was written. Didn’t Jesus challenge other notions that weren’t ‘socially acceptable’?
Why was it so hard for you to see that I was never claiming to know everything in the first place. Only a fool can make such a claim. I know some things for certain. They are important things.
Thank you. I’ll take all the prayer I can get.
I honestly don’t mean to be contentious here, but since you are certain of Paul’s meaning, would you be will to state clearly what “arsenkotai” and “malakoi” mean? These two words seem to be at the root of a lot of the murkiness in my mind.
I was also curious, and ventured a guess, that perhaps phrases like “other opinion” or “other status” and “without distinction” could and should include orientation — or at least should not exclude gay people. Perhaps I should have said:
All people have these rights. ALL. I offered my opinion. That’s all. Then I looked into it some more — and realized that is was highly unlikely that the framers of the UN Declaration on Human Rights even brought up the subject in the 1940’s.
At last! Thanks. Debbie, Why was that so hard? I fully acccept that you are convinced that the Bible prohibits gay sex and gay marriage. That is your belief and you are entitled to it.
And I mean this sincerely — I appreciate your prayers for me. I pray for you and Eddie as well — as my sister and brother in Christ. I suspect that when we all get there, we will all have to admit how little we actually knew.
Michael, no blog can cover the full range of a person’s beliefs or convictions. We are talking in this thread about one thing: gay marriage. You seem to have lost sight of that. I referred to Paul’s clear statement in canonized Scripture about the sinfulness of homosexuality and spoke of why we cannot dismiss it as something he made up (as Timothy believes) or as something murky or open to interpretation, as you believe.
I have a range of opinions about a lot of things. They are not being examined in this particular discussion. Of course I don’t claim to have all knowledge. Neither did Paul. In fact, he used that phrase as hyperbole in 1 Cor. 13 to indicate that even if he could have all knowledge, if he did not have love, it was meaningless.
Love compels me to intercede before the throne of heaven for you and Timothy. It compels me to desire harmony, but also to realize that our opinions and beliefs will sometimes clash. Yes, we all are in God’s hands for judgment. No matter how many times we go ’round this mulberry bush, we’ll arrive at the same point.
Not going down that road with you, Michael. The comment that you are spring-boarding from was an expression of my discontent over the fact that the blog group as a whole seems drawn to and, at times, even manufactures contention. I used the bad word choice of ‘word-wrangling’ when I alluded to the two days of discussion you and I had.
Note that, as I was questioning the wording of the International bill, most of your comments went to the point ‘there is no difference; ‘orientation’ is a given that didn’t need to be mentioned.” Yet, you later acknowledged that they likely omitted it because there were strong differences of opinion on rights. My stated curiosity went to ‘what were THEY thinking’ and you answered with how you think it ought to be. That also has it’s value but it was missing the actual concern/curiosity that I raised. That explains why ‘it didn’t rise to the level’. We were both civil and reasonable but your earliest responses didn’t go to what I was getting at.
Everything else from my post re the addiction to contention…you read into it. I didn’t say that I never did it; I didn’t suggest that I was better or worse. The example struck me because I had come back to a thread where the conversation had quieted down and then WHAM, the same old crap that was the worst of this 600 plus comment thread suddenly resurrected. It led nowhere the first time and it is apparently leading nowhere this time. Then I went looking as to how it got resurrected…had I said something that opened that door again? I had been trying hard to avoid landmines and detours…how did we wind up back there again?
And to your second response to me, we’ll simply have to disagree. I’ve stated how it comes across to me; you have countered with your explanation. I’m not going to try to persuade you further towards how I see it and, since I’m not addressing it further, there isn’t a need for you to explain it further. We’ll file that one under ‘let’s not argue’.
I brought up the oddity that the International Bill of Human Rights did not speak specifically to orientation. Your brief comment did not satisfy my concerns/curiosity but I felt that if I did not mention that it still left me with questions….and that my point would be lost and my curiosity unsatisfied.
No, I am not. I think that is the goal, the high calling. Even Paul didn’t claim to have achieved it. He pressed on.
So do I. I strongly believe in a God who never changes. I just don’t believe that it is possible or wise or humble to claim that we have have arrived at an infallible understanding of God or Scripture. I see that as prideful and therefore, sinful. We may be mistaken in what we believe about the unchanging God and his Word.
Come on, Debbie: Haven’t you changed your mind over time as you studied and prayed and gained more knowledge of the Bible? Hasn’t your understanding matured? Or are you now done? You are sure you have it all right? Is there no possibility that you may be wrong about some things? Christianity is a walk, not just a destination.
We are all human — capable of error — sinful. Not perfect in our understanding. What we know now is not complete. That will only happen when we are glorified — when we behold God face-to-face. Then, I think you and I I will both fall to our knees and apologize for assuming that we got it all right. In the meantime, you and I are both “on the road” of sanctification. We have not yet completed our race.
No, I don’t. I fully acknowledge that they are my beliefs, my opinions — and not facts. I am sure that I may be wrong on many things — including my take on the Bible. Debbie seems completely unwilling to do the same.
Acutally, no. You are mistaken. I am not “convinced that God created me to be gay”. I believe He probably did. IThre’s a big difference. I think it is reasonable that He did. Maybe something else did. I really don’t know why I am gay. I just know that I am. How and why I am gay is something I would like to ask God when I see Him face-to-face. I have my theories, but I know that theories are possible explanations, not facts.
I don’t believe that all homosexual behaviors is sinful or “broken”. I don’t “defend it as a fact”. I am willing to state that you and Debbie may be right. It may be “sin”. I strongly believe that “sin” is a mattter of the intention of the heart and not of particular behaviors or a list on “do’s and dont’s”. But let me repeat: You and Debbie may be right. Only god knows. I do not presume to know or speak for the mind of God — I speak of my own convictions.
I don’t hear Debbie saying the same things: “This is what I believe. This is what I hold dearly to be true. I am not not infallible or complete in my knowledge of the Bible or God’s will. I do not claim to speak for God. I may be mistaken in some of my beliefs. I am open to the possibility that others may be right.”
Debbie seems incapable or unwilling to admit her humanity in this regard. I believe. She knows.
Michael, are you questioning that a Christian is to have “the mind of Christ”? Are you saying we are told to seek something we cannot have? I submit there are things we can and should be certain about.
Rigid: 1. hard, firm, inflexible, unbending, unyielding, inelastic.
2. fixed, set, firm, inflexible, unalterable, unchangeable, immutable, unvarying, invariable, hard and fast, cast-iron, ironclad.
Yes, I claim that kind of faith in a God who never changes.
I was reacting more to the implication that your conversation style is somehow elevated, mature, open-minded — without sarcasm, nitpicking, putdowns, etc — and that wrangling, talking, arguing with me (whatever word you want to use) was a waste of your time. If it is, don’t do it. Don’t persist in arguing with me and then blame me for the fact that you can’t resist the temptation. You do have choices.
You said my response “didn’t rise to the occasion”. Sorry, but I was doing the best I could to express my thoughts about the matter concisely and politely, but that wasn;t good enough for you. I thought I expressed myself quite well. I see “marriage” and “family” as “almost synonymous” and believe that the pair-bond between the couple is the basic social unit. Kids may or may not be part of it — and “family” often includes others besides the couple and/or kids.
I submit that you have many of the faults you accuse me of and that your conversation style is often contentious — as is mine. I thought our conversation about marriage, family and the UN Declaration was a good one — respectful and to the point. You keep “coming back” just as I do — and then complain that I somehow make you do it. If you don’t want to engage me, don’t. I really don’t mind.
Michael–
I also recognize that Debbie’s stance comes across a bit rigid and unyielding HOWEVER I submit that you also regard your beliefs as facts. You are convinced that God created you to be gay and resist anyone’s suggestion–whether it is stated as Biblical rigidity or far more gently–that all homosexual behavior is sin.
I’m not judging that. I’m pointing out that it IS a belief and that you do defend it as fact. Toward that end, you censure any comments that even allude to the notion that it is not God’s intent. Consider how often you’ve railed not just against the use of the word ‘sin’ but also ‘broken’.
My point here is NOT to argue if it is or isn’t sin but to demonstrate that the rigidity you see in Debbie also has a home with you. We ALL wrestle with that rigidity and it’s more than obvious on these webpages.
Partly my bad. I see from the online dictionary that ‘wrangling’ is defined as
‘to argue or dispute, esp. in a noisy or angry manner’. However, if you search ‘word wrangling’ on Wikepedia you find numerous usage examples that don’t have the suggestion of contention but opposing viewpoints haggling (?) over the finer points.
I realize that our relationship here leads you to assume the worst but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s assumption. A more appropriate response, in keeping with the agreement you asked everyone to get on board with, would have been “what do you mean by ‘wrangling’?” or “where I come from, ‘wrangling’ is noisy and angry argument; my discussion with you didn’t rise to that level and was, in fact, very civil”.
I have been thinking a lot lately about Debbie’s belief that her understanding of the Bible is completely inerrant. I baffles me, but I think I can now accept that she believes she is right so strongly — so completely — that her beliefs have become fact to her and are not open to question. I get it. She feels she is qualified to speak the mind of God.
If we dare to question her beliefs or point out inconsistencies in Scripture, she says that we are “mocking God” — not challenging her. We won’t make a crack in her thinking by suggesting that she might be wrong about some things. She has proven herself to be absolutely certain. We believe. She knows. It must be interesting to have that mindset — to leave no room for doubt. Personally, I prefer the path of “faith” over “certaintly”, as Timothy has described it above.
I thought we were having a fairly intelligent and respectful conversation about the meaning of “marriage” and “family” and a good exchange of ideas about the UN Declaration — no insults, no sarcasm, no wrangling, no personal attacks. I was actually quite pleased with the way both of us had been handling ourselves lately.
So yes, your statement about “wrangling” (which seemed to indicate that I had been unreasonable or that our our discussion had been a waste) of your time offended me. Many things about you and your viewpoints do annoy me greatly — particularly when you seem blind to your own use of sarcasm, nitpicking, contentious and put-downs.
I honestly don’t mean to be contentious here, but since you are certain of Paul’s meaning, would you be will to state clearly what “arsenkotai” and “malakoi” mean? These two words seem to be at the root of a lot of the murkiness in my mind.
Ah, Michael…
I saw something interesting that I thought might lead to some constructive conversation, then I spelled it out a little bit and guess what??? YOU were the first and only person to respond and you attempted to dismiss my query with one sentence.
Quite frankly, my observation deserved more than that, so I needed to post again to show how your answer didn’t rise to the occasion. And every time that I did, there you were. So, I have only two choices, either give up my right to be heard or argue with you.
LOL. You might notice that the comment I made here began with a comment that something you said on another thread prompted me to read the International Bill or rights. (I believe it was a comment you directed to Maazi.) Had I been looking to argue, I would have posted THERE in response to you. Instead, I hoped for an open discussion, so came to this thread where what I read also had bearing. And less than an hour after I posted, there you were.
And, oh my goodness, did I cross a line when I said I ‘word-wrangled’ with you? My point was that no one else engaged in THAT discussion but that when it came to contention they were out of the woodwork again. And yes, I said we ‘word-wrangled’–you suggest that I do just what you do? Really? Measure that ‘word-wrangled’ was the sum total of my offensiveness to you against your raging in response to it complete with personal attacks.
Michael, no blog can cover the full range of a person’s beliefs or convictions. We are talking in this thread about one thing: gay marriage. You seem to have lost sight of that. I referred to Paul’s clear statement in canonized Scripture about the sinfulness of homosexuality and spoke of why we cannot dismiss it as something he made up (as Timothy believes) or as something murky or open to interpretation, as you believe.
I have a range of opinions about a lot of things. They are not being examined in this particular discussion. Of course I don’t claim to have all knowledge. Neither did Paul. In fact, he used that phrase as hyperbole in 1 Cor. 13 to indicate that even if he could have all knowledge, if he did not have love, it was meaningless.
Love compels me to intercede before the throne of heaven for you and Timothy. It compels me to desire harmony, but also to realize that our opinions and beliefs will sometimes clash. Yes, we all are in God’s hands for judgment. No matter how many times we go ’round this mulberry bush, we’ll arrive at the same point.
This is for whomever of posterity may come behind us here and read this tiresome chain of contention:
Paul had to form a new word for homosexual behavior because there was no Greek word for such an unnatural concept in the ancient lexicon, nor was it a concept that most God-fearing Jews wanted to imagine. And claiming an apostle of Christ, chosen by him to suffer many things in taking the gospel message to the Gentiles, made something up is, indeed, a mockery of God.
One day, Timothy, you will have occasion to remember all these discussions when you come into the presence of the living Christ. I can’t say whether that will be a sad or a joyful day. I pray for you.
Not going down that road with you, Michael. The comment that you are spring-boarding from was an expression of my discontent over the fact that the blog group as a whole seems drawn to and, at times, even manufactures contention. I used the bad word choice of ‘word-wrangling’ when I alluded to the two days of discussion you and I had.
Note that, as I was questioning the wording of the International bill, most of your comments went to the point ‘there is no difference; ‘orientation’ is a given that didn’t need to be mentioned.” Yet, you later acknowledged that they likely omitted it because there were strong differences of opinion on rights. My stated curiosity went to ‘what were THEY thinking’ and you answered with how you think it ought to be. That also has it’s value but it was missing the actual concern/curiosity that I raised. That explains why ‘it didn’t rise to the level’. We were both civil and reasonable but your earliest responses didn’t go to what I was getting at.
Everything else from my post re the addiction to contention…you read into it. I didn’t say that I never did it; I didn’t suggest that I was better or worse. The example struck me because I had come back to a thread where the conversation had quieted down and then WHAM, the same old crap that was the worst of this 600 plus comment thread suddenly resurrected. It led nowhere the first time and it is apparently leading nowhere this time. Then I went looking as to how it got resurrected…had I said something that opened that door again? I had been trying hard to avoid landmines and detours…how did we wind up back there again?
And to your second response to me, we’ll simply have to disagree. I’ve stated how it comes across to me; you have countered with your explanation. I’m not going to try to persuade you further towards how I see it and, since I’m not addressing it further, there isn’t a need for you to explain it further. We’ll file that one under ‘let’s not argue’.
I brought up the oddity that the International Bill of Human Rights did not speak specifically to orientation. Your brief comment did not satisfy my concerns/curiosity but I felt that if I did not mention that it still left me with questions….and that my point would be lost and my curiosity unsatisfied.
No, I am not. I think that is the goal, the high calling. Even Paul didn’t claim to have achieved it. He pressed on.
So do I. I strongly believe in a God who never changes. I just don’t believe that it is possible or wise or humble to claim that we have have arrived at an infallible understanding of God or Scripture. I see that as prideful and therefore, sinful. We may be mistaken in what we believe about the unchanging God and his Word.
Come on, Debbie: Haven’t you changed your mind over time as you studied and prayed and gained more knowledge of the Bible? Hasn’t your understanding matured? Or are you now done? You are sure you have it all right? Is there no possibility that you may be wrong about some things? Christianity is a walk, not just a destination.
We are all human — capable of error — sinful. Not perfect in our understanding. What we know now is not complete. That will only happen when we are glorified — when we behold God face-to-face. Then, I think you and I I will both fall to our knees and apologize for assuming that we got it all right. In the meantime, you and I are both “on the road” of sanctification. We have not yet completed our race.
No, I don’t. I fully acknowledge that they are my beliefs, my opinions — and not facts. I am sure that I may be wrong on many things — including my take on the Bible. Debbie seems completely unwilling to do the same.
Acutally, no. You are mistaken. I am not “convinced that God created me to be gay”. I believe He probably did. IThre’s a big difference. I think it is reasonable that He did. Maybe something else did. I really don’t know why I am gay. I just know that I am. How and why I am gay is something I would like to ask God when I see Him face-to-face. I have my theories, but I know that theories are possible explanations, not facts.
I don’t believe that all homosexual behaviors is sinful or “broken”. I don’t “defend it as a fact”. I am willing to state that you and Debbie may be right. It may be “sin”. I strongly believe that “sin” is a mattter of the intention of the heart and not of particular behaviors or a list on “do’s and dont’s”. But let me repeat: You and Debbie may be right. Only god knows. I do not presume to know or speak for the mind of God — I speak of my own convictions.
I don’t hear Debbie saying the same things: “This is what I believe. This is what I hold dearly to be true. I am not not infallible or complete in my knowledge of the Bible or God’s will. I do not claim to speak for God. I may be mistaken in some of my beliefs. I am open to the possibility that others may be right.”
Debbie seems incapable or unwilling to admit her humanity in this regard. I believe. She knows.
Michael, are you questioning that a Christian is to have “the mind of Christ”? Are you saying we are told to seek something we cannot have? I submit there are things we can and should be certain about.
Rigid: 1. hard, firm, inflexible, unbending, unyielding, inelastic.
2. fixed, set, firm, inflexible, unalterable, unchangeable, immutable, unvarying, invariable, hard and fast, cast-iron, ironclad.
Yes, I claim that kind of faith in a God who never changes.
I was reacting more to the implication that your conversation style is somehow elevated, mature, open-minded — without sarcasm, nitpicking, putdowns, etc — and that wrangling, talking, arguing with me (whatever word you want to use) was a waste of your time. If it is, don’t do it. Don’t persist in arguing with me and then blame me for the fact that you can’t resist the temptation. You do have choices.
You said my response “didn’t rise to the occasion”. Sorry, but I was doing the best I could to express my thoughts about the matter concisely and politely, but that wasn;t good enough for you. I thought I expressed myself quite well. I see “marriage” and “family” as “almost synonymous” and believe that the pair-bond between the couple is the basic social unit. Kids may or may not be part of it — and “family” often includes others besides the couple and/or kids.
I submit that you have many of the faults you accuse me of and that your conversation style is often contentious — as is mine. I thought our conversation about marriage, family and the UN Declaration was a good one — respectful and to the point. You keep “coming back” just as I do — and then complain that I somehow make you do it. If you don’t want to engage me, don’t. I really don’t mind.
Michael–
I also recognize that Debbie’s stance comes across a bit rigid and unyielding HOWEVER I submit that you also regard your beliefs as facts. You are convinced that God created you to be gay and resist anyone’s suggestion–whether it is stated as Biblical rigidity or far more gently–that all homosexual behavior is sin.
I’m not judging that. I’m pointing out that it IS a belief and that you do defend it as fact. Toward that end, you censure any comments that even allude to the notion that it is not God’s intent. Consider how often you’ve railed not just against the use of the word ‘sin’ but also ‘broken’.
My point here is NOT to argue if it is or isn’t sin but to demonstrate that the rigidity you see in Debbie also has a home with you. We ALL wrestle with that rigidity and it’s more than obvious on these webpages.
Partly my bad. I see from the online dictionary that ‘wrangling’ is defined as
‘to argue or dispute, esp. in a noisy or angry manner’. However, if you search ‘word wrangling’ on Wikepedia you find numerous usage examples that don’t have the suggestion of contention but opposing viewpoints haggling (?) over the finer points.
I realize that our relationship here leads you to assume the worst but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s assumption. A more appropriate response, in keeping with the agreement you asked everyone to get on board with, would have been “what do you mean by ‘wrangling’?” or “where I come from, ‘wrangling’ is noisy and angry argument; my discussion with you didn’t rise to that level and was, in fact, very civil”.
I have been thinking a lot lately about Debbie’s belief that her understanding of the Bible is completely inerrant. I baffles me, but I think I can now accept that she believes she is right so strongly — so completely — that her beliefs have become fact to her and are not open to question. I get it. She feels she is qualified to speak the mind of God.
If we dare to question her beliefs or point out inconsistencies in Scripture, she says that we are “mocking God” — not challenging her. We won’t make a crack in her thinking by suggesting that she might be wrong about some things. She has proven herself to be absolutely certain. We believe. She knows. It must be interesting to have that mindset — to leave no room for doubt. Personally, I prefer the path of “faith” over “certaintly”, as Timothy has described it above.
I thought we were having a fairly intelligent and respectful conversation about the meaning of “marriage” and “family” and a good exchange of ideas about the UN Declaration — no insults, no sarcasm, no wrangling, no personal attacks. I was actually quite pleased with the way both of us had been handling ourselves lately.
So yes, your statement about “wrangling” (which seemed to indicate that I had been unreasonable or that our our discussion had been a waste) of your time offended me. Many things about you and your viewpoints do annoy me greatly — particularly when you seem blind to your own use of sarcasm, nitpicking, contentious and put-downs.
Ah, Michael…
I saw something interesting that I thought might lead to some constructive conversation, then I spelled it out a little bit and guess what??? YOU were the first and only person to respond and you attempted to dismiss my query with one sentence.
Quite frankly, my observation deserved more than that, so I needed to post again to show how your answer didn’t rise to the occasion. And every time that I did, there you were. So, I have only two choices, either give up my right to be heard or argue with you.
LOL. You might notice that the comment I made here began with a comment that something you said on another thread prompted me to read the International Bill or rights. (I believe it was a comment you directed to Maazi.) Had I been looking to argue, I would have posted THERE in response to you. Instead, I hoped for an open discussion, so came to this thread where what I read also had bearing. And less than an hour after I posted, there you were.
And, oh my goodness, did I cross a line when I said I ‘word-wrangled’ with you? My point was that no one else engaged in THAT discussion but that when it came to contention they were out of the woodwork again. And yes, I said we ‘word-wrangled’–you suggest that I do just what you do? Really? Measure that ‘word-wrangled’ was the sum total of my offensiveness to you against your raging in response to it complete with personal attacks.
@ Mary –
😉
What about all those straight parents who raised gay children?! Eeeek!
(That was sarcasm in case anyone misunderstood)
Debbie,
I second Timothy here – you are not God – you cannot know ultimate truth – remember, we only see through a glass darkly in this world. Its easy to dismiss facts as factoids if you don’t “believe” in them – a good many people do not believe in things that are indeed scientific facts – that doesn’t make them any less true however.
You can be opposite sex parents and still experience one- sided parenting, although I’m not clear how you are defining that term – and many families do not have one or the other parent – but you don’t seek to outlaw them, do you?
I can tell you that my married lesbian friends love, support and sacrifice for their kids and each other – those are qualities that should be present in parents. Having a specific gender of parent is not required to raise healthy children – and there are enough married straight couples out there that prove that point
Why don’t you do us both a big favor and do what you have repeatedly theatened you would do and have advised others to do? Don’t waste your time. Ignore me. I cannot argue with myself. It takes two to tango, Eddy.
All the things you accuse others of — contentiousness, sarcasm, ” picking up on one sentence or one word that an ‘opponent’ says to take exception to while ignoring the rest of what they said”, etc. you do with equal frequency.
You seem “addicted” to arguing with me. You just won’t admit that you are. It’s the old “speck and log” sydrome. You don’t (or won’t) see in yourself what bothers you most in me. You will deny it. But it’s true.
@ Mary –
😉
@ Mary –
😉
What about all those straight parents who raised gay children?! Eeeek!
(That was sarcasm in case anyone misunderstood)
What about all those straight parents who raised gay children?! Eeeek!
(That was sarcasm in case anyone misunderstood)
Debbie,
I second Timothy here – you are not God – you cannot know ultimate truth – remember, we only see through a glass darkly in this world. Its easy to dismiss facts as factoids if you don’t “believe” in them – a good many people do not believe in things that are indeed scientific facts – that doesn’t make them any less true however.
You can be opposite sex parents and still experience one- sided parenting, although I’m not clear how you are defining that term – and many families do not have one or the other parent – but you don’t seek to outlaw them, do you?
I can tell you that my married lesbian friends love, support and sacrifice for their kids and each other – those are qualities that should be present in parents. Having a specific gender of parent is not required to raise healthy children – and there are enough married straight couples out there that prove that point
Debbie,
I second Timothy here – you are not God – you cannot know ultimate truth – remember, we only see through a glass darkly in this world. Its easy to dismiss facts as factoids if you don’t “believe” in them – a good many people do not believe in things that are indeed scientific facts – that doesn’t make them any less true however.
You can be opposite sex parents and still experience one- sided parenting, although I’m not clear how you are defining that term – and many families do not have one or the other parent – but you don’t seek to outlaw them, do you?
I can tell you that my married lesbian friends love, support and sacrifice for their kids and each other – those are qualities that should be present in parents. Having a specific gender of parent is not required to raise healthy children – and there are enough married straight couples out there that prove that point
Holy Crap!!! This thread had gone quiet for a couple of days and I came across something that was actually connected to the topic and brought it here for discussion and all that came of it was two days of word-wrangling with Michael. And now, suddenly it’s back to kindergarden tit for tat spurred by Jayhuck revisiting out of the blue a comment that was made some 25 days ago. Approx. 500 comments have transpired since then, wow! If I didn’t know any better, I’d say this site is addicted to contention.
Shaking my head in disgust and signing off.
I can accept that Debbie is so certain that she is right that it becomes indisputable fact and that she feels comfortable telling others what the Maker of the Universe thinks.
I don’t claim such direct and irrefutable knowlegde. I just have my faith, my beliefs — and those beliefs have changed over time for me. The confidence that He loves me and that I am saved by His grace has not.
Why don’t you do us both a big favor and do what you have repeatedly theatened you would do and have advised others to do? Don’t waste your time. Ignore me. I cannot argue with myself. It takes two to tango, Eddy.
All the things you accuse others of — contentiousness, sarcasm, ” picking up on one sentence or one word that an ‘opponent’ says to take exception to while ignoring the rest of what they said”, etc. you do with equal frequency.
You seem “addicted” to arguing with me. You just won’t admit that you are. It’s the old “speck and log” sydrome. You don’t (or won’t) see in yourself what bothers you most in me. You will deny it. But it’s true.
See, Debbie, you are still confused. You are still having difficultly in recognizing that you are not God.
I wasn’t mocking God, I was mocking your woefully uninformed pronouncements.
You’re a braver soul than I am, Timothy. “God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that will he also reap.”
clarification:
And while I am certain that I could hunt up a marriage from SOMEONE in the Bible that would match Debbie’s idea of marriage, I can’t think of any at the moment.
Funny. I didn’t talk about doubt. I talked about faith.
Faith is flexible and strong. Faith allows questions to come because it knows that it can withstand challenge.
I have found in my life that those who are the least receptive to questions, those who are least willing to listen to facts, those who hold the very strongest to their certainty and who rely most on recitation of scriptures to “prove” that what they see with their own eyes is not true, are those who are really the most afraid of doubt.
They fear doubt. Desperately.
Because if there is even the slightest chink in their rigidity, if there is even the slightest consideration that any single matter of dogma might be wrong, then they are unsure and lost and scared and have nothing to hold onto. Their god is not the Creator, their god is their religion.
This is not to say that Debbie fits in this category. That’s up to her to decide.
Yes indeed. Some of us open our eyes and look to the leading of the Spirit. Others close our eyes, refuse to even read the facts, deny any evidence and live in a place of carefully constructed certainty.
So clear in Scripture. Oh so ever so very very clear clear clear in Scripture.
Right.
I wrote this some time back but I think it’s good for today’s discussion:
WHAT WE CAN LEARN ABOUT MARRIAGE FROM THE BIBLE
From Adam we learn that there is not need for a marriage.
From Seth we learn that procreation with your sisters is OK.
From Abraham we learn that a man can marry his sister – and lie about it. We also learn that if your wife is barren, she can give you her maid to impregnate.
From Lot’s daughters we learn that if you don’t have a man and you want a child, you can always just get your father drunk and have sex with him.
From Jacob we learn that a wife can be purchased by seven years of labor. We also learn that it is acceptable to deceive a groom into marrying the wrong woman and the marriage is valid. We also learn that having two sisters as wives is a blessing.
From Onan we learn that a man is obligated to impregnate his brother’s widow. We also learn that when having sex with your sister-in-law, you are not supposed to pull out before ejaculating (it’s wicked in God’s sight).
From Salmon we learn that your son born of a prostitute will bring recognition and honor to your name for millennia and your descendant will be the Messiah.
From Ruth we learn that a woman belongs to her husband’s family even after his death. We also learn that premarital seduction is honorable.
From David we learn that marriage (to one of your several wives) is for establishing connection into the royal family. We also find that if you kill a man to take his wife, she’ll provide you an heir who will be both wise and wealthy.
From Solomon we learn that a man can have as many wives as he can afford – along with twice as many concubines.
From Joseph we learn that if your fiance becomes pregnant – not by you – marry her anyway.
Paul tells us some very interesting things about marriage: It’s better never to marry (unless you can’t control your passions). And if do have a spouse and they are not a believer, then if s/he leaves you, let them go.
Even Jesus had some opinions about marriage: be sure to have enough wine at the ceremony and second marriages are adultery (even if the ex-spouse is a non-believer).
Yes, there is so much we can learn about marriage from Scripture. But one thing is clear: The idea of “one man, one woman” marriage may indeed be “traditional” but it certainly isn’t Biblical.
Of course some of those marriages had horrible consequences. But they were the norm, the heros, the biblical example. And while I am certain that I could hunt up a one-man-one-woman marriage from SOMEONE in the Bible, I can’t think of any at the moment.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha
he he chortle giggle snort guffaw gasp ho ho ho
Whew. You really made me laugh there.
Paul’s words are so “clear” that he actually didn’t use real words. Paul could have selected from the current language and used what everyone else used. But, nope. He selected words that didn’t exist anywhere else. He just made ’em up.
That’s supposed to read “It would make fools of all believers, and Christ himself.”
Michael, Paul’s words are very clear on the subject of homosexuality. It is not a partial statement that is couched in uncertainty. A soverign God would not allow errant human teaching to be canonized Scripture for 2,000 years. What a cruel joke that would be! It would makes of all believers, and Christ himself.
God’s Word is sensible to searching and clear enough in the main. Of course He does not reveal every mystery in the universe to us. If He did, we’d be God. But the greater truths are discoverable here and now. “The heavens declare His glory.” The Spirit of Truth was given to all believers.
You make a mockery of God’s truth and belie your own faith with all your talk of doubt. You want to be right with all your heart. That’s no enough. God grants us clarity and wisdom and knowledge in proportion to our obedience. Or we can stay blind for a lifetime.
I am not wrong about what marriage is meant to be. If I can’t be certain about that, when it is so clear in Scripture, I am incapable of knowing anything.
There is nothing more to add to this.
A little side musing: When Paul wrote the words “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”, do you suppose he meant “including this letter I’m writing”?
Do we suppose that Paul believed his own writing to be sacred scripture and the inspired word of God?
That’s exacltly what I’m talking about! I guess I don’t need to read, study or pray or search out God’s will for my life — or even bother exerting the effort. I could just ask you.
To Debbie (who – whether she will ever acknowledge it or not – doesn’t actually speak for God):
It’s working pretty well, thanks. God’s divine revelation continues to work in His people. More and more are looking to see how their faith speaks to the way they treat gay people and with every passing year more and more come to find that God’s radical welcome is inclusive and joyous. More and more Christians are finding that the gospel is good news indeed rather than a message of legalism, literalism, and bondage to the law and sin paradigm.
And it is a wonderful thing. As the Holy Spirit leads, certainty gives way to faith. And faith leads to charity and decency.
And while some (the Southern Baptist Convention, for example) continue to ratchet up their roarings and wailings, much of Christendom is becoming inclusive and supportive and celebrate God’s great goodness and their recovery from rigidity and hidebound narrow-mindedness.
Yes, I believe it is.
I have that same “blessed assurance” of my own relationship with God through Christ. I also have a deeply personal relationship with Him. I believe that we are both saved by grace — not by our opinions about the Bible. I have assurance of my salvation and of God’s undying love. What I don’t have is the absolute conviction that my understanding of the Bible (including Paul) is the one-and-only, infallible, absolutely correct one. Do you believe that you have some sort of special, infallible knowledge of what every passage of Scripture means? I don’t think any believer of the Bible should slaim such a thing — since Paul clearly says that we don’t have such absolute knowledge in this life. I believe only God has that.:
Paul says: “What we know now is partial, then it will be complete — when we behold him face-to-face”. When you assert that your understanding is the only possible correct and true one, you behave as though you have already reached that level of knowledge. And you have not. I don’t believe any of us has.
No. My real beef is with you, not what you believe. Not with the Bible. Not with the “early Church fathers (who, by the way, got into heated arguments about what the Bible required and what it did not, remember? Faithful followers of Jesus have always had disagreements about the meaning of Scripture and its application.
I am not trying to “strike down your beliefs”. I actually admire the strength of your convictions. I am trying to point out that they are your beliefs — not the facts. By “beef” is not with the Bible. My “real beef” is with you (Debbie) and your lack of humility that there is at least some possibility that you (Debbie) may have it wrong. Does that thought ever occur to you? If it doesn’t, that’s truly frightening.
God to Timothy: “Let me know how that is working for you.”
Michael, do you believe that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”? Those are the words of Paul to Timothy. It seems to me those with a liberal bent want to canonize every word from Christ (even when they don’t understand them), yet to exclude Paul, who was a chosen apostle of Christ. and whose ministry brought the Church to folks like you and me — Gentiles.
You get hung up on my “certainty.” Why? If I have a deeply personal relationship with Christ — and I do — why should I not have that kind of blessed assurance? It seems to me, then, your real beef is with Christ, or the early Church fathers or those who canonized Scripture. You want to strike me down for my beliefs? Why not strike down the original messenger, if you can?
You are confused about what constitutes humility. Humility is a servant of the Lord, prostrate before him as he contemplates his abject poverty and hopelessness apart from his savior. Humility is realizing that He is God and I am not. Humiity is realizing that His truth is the wellspring of life.
Not going to hold my breath…even asking a question on this website brings on the heat.
I would hope that we’d recognize when we are dismissive, when we refuse to think outside of our own box, when we refuse to allow others to think or talk other than by our own script. I would hope that we stop picking up on one sentence or one word that an ‘opponent’ says to take exception to while ignoring the rest of what they said. (The miracle: “I get what you’re saying in your first paragraph but I’m not sure if I agree with your conclusion that…”) And I would hope that we’d learn to be more open in how we question and in how we respond to being questioned.
In our current culture, “both sides” of almost any issue have the problem. Who cares about facts, when we have positions, opinions, and “enemies” to defeat?
It’s very sad. I hope some day we all outgrow it.
I agree that we both have it. I would suggest that one way to begin would be to stop saying things like “…God says”, or “…the facts are…”, or “…the Bible says” without qualification — and insert the words: “I believe that …”, or “It is my conviction that …, or “It is my understanding that …”
With this in mind, I promise I will do my best speak my own mind and admit that these are expressions of my faith, my beliefs — and not presume to know or speak with certainty about what God thinks. Can we at least agree to adopt that general approach?
Amen! Now if we’ll only grasp that both sides have the problem.
I’ve come to believe that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty.
Faith gives assurance that allows for questions. It invites input, measures the possibilities and applies truths. Faith is flexible and fluid and applicable across the unexpected.
Certainty, however, is rigid and hard. Any crack in certainty can lead to its shattering, so it must be protected from all threat. All conflicting facts must be ignored or dismissed; certainty demands it. It can never be questioned or challenged or (worst of all) allow any thought outside of that which is prescribed.
Faith can look at same-sex marriage like it does any issue. It can listen, look at the facts, challenge the presumptions, and apply eternal principles. Faith can come to conclusions that may be surprising or challenging or counter-intuitive.
Certainty, on the other hand, is threatened by facts, ideas, challenges. Certainty chooses instead to refuse to listen and simply quote texts.
My best guess is that if they had tried to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the original UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, that the whole document would have been stalled forever in debate. Just as the US Constitution might have been if folks had insisted that it abolish slavery, racial discrimination and give women the right to vote.
At least by 1948, most countries could agree that “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” My hope is that someday, words like “without distinction”, “other opinion” and “other status” will be universally understood to indicate that “all” really does mean “all.”
I agree. It would have been. Fortunately, we still can “be a fly on the wall” so to speak. The United Nations Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity was only introduced in 2008 — and the disussions are still ongoing. It will be interesting to see how that discussion goes. I suspect it will be very much like the discussion here in the US regarding same-sex couples having the right to marry.
I suspect that personal prejudice, religion and tradition will be the main opposition to human rights being applied to all people, regardless of orientation or gender identity. Those prejudices will die hard. — as they did with issues like racial equality and women’s rights. Many of those prejudices still exist, even though it’s now illegal to deny human rights because of them.
Some countries still consider private, consenting, homosexual activity between adults to be a “crime”. It would make sense that these countries would want to exclude sexual orientation under the umbrella of “everyone” being “entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind”. Perhaps it would be easier just to come of with the list of those they think should be excluded.
Okay, I’ll accept that ‘many nations believe that sexual orientation should be an exclusion for human rights’ as a valid possible answer to the riddle.
I wish I had been a ‘fly on the wall’ as they discussed this though…hearing the arguments for and against exclusion would have been interesting if not enlightening.
I really don’t know Eddy, but I suspect that “sexual orientation” was not mentioned in the document because many nations believe that sexual orientation should be an exclusion for human rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_LGBT_rights
And I’m sorry but I believe that is illogical. They said ‘all’ but still felt the need to list specifics…I’ll maintain my curiosity about why, when they listed so many other specifics, that they omitted that important one.
Oversight? purposeful omission? no unanimous consensus that ‘orientation’ should be included? no universal application? some other reason?
I will have a curiosity while you will have a conclusion. It seems best we leave it there.
In our current culture, “both sides” of almost any issue have the problem. Who cares about facts, when we have positions, opinions, and “enemies” to defeat?
It’s very sad. I hope some day we all outgrow it.
I dont’ think they need to. I think they have it covered in the preamble and first couple of ariticles. Everyone. All. Perhaps they should have started the document with an exhaustive list of all the invalid exclusions that humanity has offered for injustice throughout the ages and say, “None of these apply. When we say “all”, we really mean every human being has these rights.”
What troubles me about your line of thinking, Debbie, is not your belief in a Divine Creator or that you believe that truth has a source. I strongly believe those things, too. No, what disturbs me is your insistence that your belief — your understanding of the Bible and of God’s will is a fact — and not your own opinion.
You and I are human. We have limited knowledge and what we do have is not perfect. Not until we we see Him face-to-face. You have no more reason to assert that your beliefs are “facts” than I do. It is this “What I believe is “the truth” that is the most dangerous aspect of any sort of fundamentalism or extremism.
Why do you continually exclude yourself from the equation? Your fallibility? Your prejudices? Where is the humility? Where is the possibility that you may have some things wrong? Why not say, with a little bit of true Christian charity, “I believe”?
Wow! That’s quite a list of things not to exclude based on…and yet it still omits ‘orientation’.
I sympathize with your own feelings on the matter however I still ponder why the oversight or omission of ‘orientation’. And, I still think, that if it was an accidental oversight, they need to include it. Seems we’re having international debates re issues relating to orientation, an International Bill of Rights ought to mention that categorization if they are going to list all those others.
I think it’s a sad commentary on human nature that “invalid reasons for exclusion” should have to be mentioned at all. It should be self-evident. This document is called the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. “Without distinction of any kind” should mean exactly that. “All the rights and freedoms” should mean all and “everyone” should mean everyone.
Yes, Michael,
And, isn’t your complaint that churches and governments have tried to deny this right to marry to gays? So, if it (to specify a invalid reason for exclusion) was necessary for race, nationality and religion, why not for orientation?
I’m glad it’s telling. But what is it telling? That I hold to faith in a divine creator? Good. That I demand facts that are facts and not factoids? Good. That truth has a source? Good.
Two same-sex parents know a thing or two about living together and one-sided parenting. They do not know what it’s like to have a father or mother in the picture unless they’ve done it before.
I think it’s a sad commentary on human nature that “invalid reasons for exclusion” should have to be mentioned at all. It should be self-evident. This document is called the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. “Without distinction of any kind” should mean exactly that. “All the rights and freedoms” should mean all and “everyone” should mean everyone.
Debbie,
This is very telling of you and of others who hold so strongly to their beliefs that no amount of facts will sway them. That’s honestly downright scary.
A married lesbian couple I know, who love their two daughters, also know a thing or two about parenting and marriage.
It was necessary because, throughout human history, churches and governments have tried to deny many basic human rights (including the right to marry and form a family) because of those things.
Our own Constituition had to be amended numerous times — often after bloody struggle — to make it clear that these basic human rights were for all people, were inalienable — and really should have been self-evident in the first place.
I dunno, Why then WAS it necessary to say ‘due to race, nationality or religion’? Here’s your question back at ya: Why should the right have anything to do with race, nationality or religion?
I think that’s deliberate. Marriage is a universal human right that should not be denied on the basis of gender or orientation.
I don’t think that’s necessary. Why should the right have anything to do with sexual orientation or procreation?
I realize that I may be reading into it a bit but I submit that adding the word ‘orientation’ to the understanding might be a similar transgression. It clearly says ‘due to race, nationality or religion’ with no mention of orientation. I’ll need to see when it was drafted and if the concept of orientation existed at that time.
In any event, to my earlier musing:
I’d like to add ‘or extending the language to include orientation’.
No. I think you are really reading way too much into this. Marriage is the basic family unit, the foundation, with or without kids — marriage is the “fundamental group” and is a fundamental right. This article is not about an obligation or expectation to do anything.
It’s about the basic human right of “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, (to) marry and to found a family ” — if they so choose. It is saying that no one has the right to deny them this basic human freedom.
So, is the coupling of two people ‘the fundamental group unit of society’ or are they speaking to the expectation that the two become a family of more than two?
What a silly statement! As if homosexuality was non-existent in Africa or is something that could be “exported” from one continent to another– like oil. Homosexuality has always existed in Africa — and everywhere human beings have settled — and it will continue to exist even if you succeed in forcing it back into the closet.
Even if this means or implies children, it is says that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” It doesn’t say that they have an obligation to marry or to reproduce.
It doesn’t imply that their marriage is any less valid or any less a human right if they cannot have kids or choose to remain childless. In fact, this article asserts that men and women of full age cannot be denied the right to marrry and to form a family (with kids) if that is their choice.
There is no mention on children or reproduction in this Article. To “marry” is to “found a family” — whether that family includes biological offspring, adopted or foster children, nieces and nephews, or no children at all. Kids may enrich a marriage or family, but they do not define one. Earlier in this thread, you asked: “What is marriage?”
Not sure if I’m reading too much into it but normally two is not a group.
David,
Just make sure that your depraved 21st century Western sex is confined to the West and not extended across the Atlantic ocean to Africans who do not want it.
I think in many respects they are. “Found a family” and “reproduce” are not.
Michael just posted a comment about human rights on another thread and it prompted me to read the International Bill of Rights where this struck me in light of some of our discussions here on the Proposition 8 thread:
It almost seems like, even here, the suggestion or hope of propagation is inherent to the basic understanding of marriage. It begins by talking about the right to marry and adds ‘and to found a family’ and then it concludes that ‘the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.’ It’s almost as if they treat ‘marriage’ and ‘family’ as synonymous. It will be interesting to see if ‘marriage equality’ or ‘gay marriage’ alters the language of this Bill of Rights…if the definitions become more clear or the distinctions more recognizable.
…the one thing we’ve seen is that marriage rates did not decrease – and in some countries actually stopped or slowed their freefall …
I think that we can only guess… but that these guesses do have some bases.
It appears to me, based on what I’ve read, that part of the disdain for marriage has existed a many areas, a few of which include:
* marriage isn’t cool, it’s old-fashioned and square
* marriage is a paternalistic trap that demeans women
* marriage is bourgeois and not fair to everyone, especially gays
* marriage just isn’t worth the effort
* who cares about the kids, do what makes you happy
Personally, I think that the debate over gay marriage – and the acceptance of gay marriage – have actually helped heterosexual marriages in these particular areas.
With gay folk fighting desperately for the right to marry, it has undoubtedly increased its hipness quotient. If gay folk want it so very badly, well then it must have value, right?
And part of the debate – the part argued most vehemently in court has been the good of the kids. With both sides arguing that they are as good or better, this has, I believe, reawakened to some extent a questioning of good parenting or at least reminded parents of the value of two parents.
Also, amusingly, a great many dedicated feminists who had been suspicious of the institution have now given it a second look and, in many instances, a second chance. Among a whole demographic (more liberal Americans) marriage is no longer dismissed out of hand as paternalistic and archaic.
And finally, some who – out of solidarity with their gay friends – had refused to marry as long as it was exclusive and hostile to gays now are taking the plunge along with their gay friends in a handful of states.
Finally, I think that anti-gay-marriage folk have one tremendous flaw in their arguments: they must either be terribly cruel, or they must themselves demean marriage. (I’d love to take credit for this idea, but it’s Jonathan Rauch’s)
Gay couples need certain protections. And other than a few truly hateful people, most Christians just aren’t cruel enough to slam the hospital door or deny inheritance or fight health insurance. Christians are, on the whole, good and kind people and these just don’t feel like very good and kind positions.
Some folks suggest a secondary, separate, institution that has limited rights (and few responsibilities), sort of a “marriage lite”. But the problem is that this opens up the couple-status options. No longer is it married or single, but now there is an in-between option. And quite a few European countries have discovered that marriage lite is quite popular… with straights. They see it kinda like a trial marriage before or instead of real marriage.
But if we have just one option, one golden standard to which everyone is expected to strive, then I think this increases the image and status of that option.
Now these are my opinions and I’m not declaring that marriage equality will solve the marriage problem. But I am entirely honest when I say that it will not hurt and I very much think that it will help at least to some extent.
And if we do look at those countries that have instituted full marriage, though it is often recent and certainly not fully conclusive, the one thing we’ve seen is that marriage rates did not increase – and in some countries actually stopped or slowed their freefall – nor did divorce rates increase. This may well be to other factors, but I think it should give some ease to those who are genuinely fearful about same-sex marriages devaluing opposite sex marriage.
I’m sorry. I wasn’t quite clear what I meant.
I don’t mean to suggest that all voices agree, but rather that I hope that they would be (eventually) consistent and equitable within their own position.
In other words, I think that for a long time gays have heard a message from conservative Christianity that wasn’t relevant or applicable. It was either “ewww, icky, nasty, abomination” or “no sex ever ever ever ever no exceptions”.
But these were not what they heard being addressed towards heterosexuals. What they heard was more along the lines of: “not before marriage, not outside marriage.” This message does, I believe, result in a message of sexual responsibility which if it doesn’t entirely dictate sexual expression in most cases, does at least provide encouragement, expectation, and a push towards social stability.
Setting aside for a moment whatever one believes about sex and sin, it is my opinion that giving the same message: “not before (same-sex) marriage, not outside marriage” to gay people would also provide encouragement, expectation, and a push towards social stability.
Let’s be real. Very few heterosexual kids these days meet that goal and I doubt many gay ones will either.
But I think that providing reasonable and attainable goals can diminish promiscuity and encourage sexual responsibility, while providing no goals or goals that are unreasonable or inequitable simply result in a lack of any boundaries at all. If everything at all is evil-evil-evil, then depravity is no worse than monogamy.
Which is why I think that the gay community would greatly benefit from conservative Christian voices which are consistent and equitable in their call for a conservative Christian sexual ethic (i.e. fidelity within a Christian same-sex marriage). No it would not influence everyone, but it would push the entire community towards greater responsibility.
I agree.
Let me rephrase it then. I am looking forward to seeing what happens when legal Marriage Equality is achieved. I think the benefits to everyone will outweigh the deficits. Personally, based on my personal and professional experience, I think the best relationships — gay and straight — are ones that avoid fornication and adultery — both of which I view as violations of the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” standard. I think both things cheapen sex and love.
Personally, I think sex and relationships are both harmed by fornication and adultery and that the “married and monogamous” model is best for everyone involved — emotionally, physically and spiritually. Fewer health problems and fewer broken hearts. If I asked to advise gay or straight couples about which model seems to be most beneficial, I would. share my opinion that sex is best in a committed, consensual, monogamous, married context. In terms of looking forward, I predict that full Marriage Equality will be good for LGBT people in every regard — and better for society in general.
Michael–
I appreciate your thoughtful response as well but I think it goes more towards how ‘gay marriage’ might impact gays rather than ‘what impact would/could gay marriage have on the church’? While I recognize both as valid trains of thought, they are different trains.
Several of us who comment (or read) here are not just focussed on the homosexual issue, we have a greater concern for general issues of morality…for the marriage crisis (I suppose ‘divorce crisis’ might be an interchangeable term). For this reason, we often look at issues with an eye towards how they might help or hinder efforts to stabilize those areas. Anyway, I can already assure you that there’s a general disdain for the ‘only time will tell’ approach. Taking that approach in the past has been deemed ineffective by many. Many have moved to a ‘looking forward…considering possible implications…and addressing them with foresight rather than trying to remedy them with hindsight’ approach. I’m not suggesting that one approach supercedes the other or that one is superior…just that I feel I’m speaking on behalf of those who lean towards the latter approach.
Timothy–
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Throughout this discussion, I had these questions–not quite gelled–rolling around in my brain. Everytime someone said ‘there will be no impact’; I recoiled.
I’m wondering now if scholars have only focussed on ‘effeminate’ and ‘homosexuals’ from 1 Corinthians 6 or if they applied their scholarship to ‘fornicators’ and ‘adulterers’ as well.
I think of that in light of:
I would hope that the consistent and equitable voices don’t just present a ‘consensus by committee’ but that they consider the Bible itself as a principle voice. If studies have been done on the complete or full meanings of ‘fornicators’ and ‘adulterers’, that would be, IMHO, a significant contribution to the larger conversation.
I KNOW that I am responding largely in response to my impression that experimentation is generally disdained among straights (with even liberals suggesting that you don’t ‘use someone’ just to gain experience) while it actually seems to be encouraged among gays. (Ironically, a bit of sexism seems to factor in. A guy experimenting with a woman implies that he’s ‘using her’ and that she is a victim; a guy experimenting with another guy is viewed as a dalliance between equals…no real sense of one or the other ‘being used’ or being a victim. It’s one observation but 1) not sure that it’s accurate and 2) don’t think it explains it all.)
I agree. Very good questions!
Only time will tell. I have always understood “fornication” to mean prior to marriage and “adultery” to mean betraying the marital vow to have sex with someone else. I would tend to apply the same meaning to same-sex marriage — although I realize that others might differ on these boundaries.
Indeed! How would a straight person know? Many straights suggest that they should live together prior to marriage or experiment to find out. Some wait until marriage. Over 30 years of practice, I counseled many straight couples who found out only after being married that they were completely sexually mismatched in terms of libido, preffered sexual practices, who “initiates”, frequency, etc. Some found these differences to be irreconcilable.
Of course, the same thing could be said of straight couples. And the have had a considerable “headstart” in terms of social, poltical and religious support for their unions. I would imagine that legal marriagee would have a stabilizaing effect for many same-sex individuals.
I have counseled many couples — gay and straight — and find that they have essentially the same issues in their “marriages”: Problems with communication and conflict resolution, gender expectations, parenting, the role of inlaws, differences in religious values, sexual problems (mainly loss of desire by one or both parties),conflicts over money, division of labor, etc. I am sure that once marriage equality is the norm, that differences in same-sex and opposite sex marriages will become apparent — as will many similarities. As I said, only time will tell.
I wish I could recall where I saw it, but a year or so ago I read an article by a gay guy discussing how marriage impacted his life. He said that it surprised him in the way in which it impacted his views on monogamy.
Prior to marriage he and his guy were mostly monogamous but (if I recall correctly) occasionally one or both would have outside sex. But after making vows he and his husband found themselves newly jealous. They didn’t want anyone else touching their man and decided that marriage meant no outside play.
I don’t know if this is usual, common, or an exception, but I’m not surprised that the expectations and commitments and responsibilities of marriage change a person. We’ve seen it forever in straights, so I would not be surprised to see it in gays as well.
Eddy# ~ Aug 26, 2010 at 10:41 am
Good questions, all of them.
I understand that liberal Christian denominations try to apply the same rules, assumptions, and requirements on gay members as on straight, but they often have more lax rules in general.
As the more conservative Christian church denominations delve into this matter deeper in the future, I think they will have to address exactly the issues you bring up. And, to an extent, the discussion has already begun.
I think that the folks at gaychristian.net have been talking about sexual responsibility and what it means for quite a while now.
Personally, I think that the gay community would greatly benefit from voices which are consistent and equitable in their call for a Christian sexual ethic.
In Honor of Women’s Equality Day and the 19th amendment, here’s a little “herstory” lesson. It is my prayer and firm belief that someday, all US citizens will have equal civil rights and we will wonder how anyone could have sensibly and reasonably argued against it.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dt1cD0vVoA_U&h=e0bdd
Yeah, ain’t that a ‘kick in the head’?! And it’s absolutely amazing how much other joy is out there!
Eddy,
God is a kill joy when it comes to 21st century Western sex.
This morning some implications of same-sex marriage (marriage equality) on the church came to mind. And, who knows, perhaps it’s a good thing.
Much of the discussion has naturally focussed on ‘equal rights’ but little has been said about ‘equal responsibility’. First, if we accept the scholars reports that the term ‘eunuch’ was inclusive to the point that it included homosexuals, then we need to look again at 1 Corinthians 6:9. Naturally, it would first lead us to the words typically translated ‘effeminate’ and ‘homosexuals’ (previous translated in the KJV as ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’). This notion of ‘eunuchs’ including some who are born to be homosexuals compels us to rethink these words. But that’s a rethinking that has existed for some time. Even some 30 plus years ago, there were those who suggested that ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ applied to those born straight who turned to homosexual behavior. (Hence, perversion: they turned against their natural use.
But that’s not the point of impact on the church that occurred to me. It’s those other words: fornicators and adulterers. How will ‘marriage equality’ impact our understanding of these words? Traditionally, the generic definitions were ‘sex outside of marriage’ and ‘married person having sex with someone other than their spouse’. It would seem that we either need to move beyond these generic understandings and get to the essence of what these words mean OR begin applying them to homosexuals too. Let’s imagine that you have a straight lad and a gay lad both in the Sunday School class and you’re spending a week or two on sexual morality. Traditionally, church morality has been ‘save yourself for marriage’; even those with a more liberal view suggest ‘no sex outside of a committed relationship’. Would we now apply this moral guidance equally to both the straight and the gay? Perhaps my view has been jaded but it seems that gays are often encouraged to ‘experiment’ a bit to discover what it is they really like. While it doesn’t apply to all gays, some do have a distinct preference for certain roles and/or behaviors. (Various terms have been used: top/bottom, active/passive, giver/receiver, dominate/submissive. There are valid issues and exceptions to all of these…none properly defines or categorizes unique individuals AND there are many who simply have no preference.) Without ‘experimentation’, how would a gay person know prior to committment/marriage that they are committing to the right person. (And if neither partner experiments, what happens when they both discover that they prefer the same role and both have an aversion to the other role?) Would this consideration justify experimentation for the gay youth? If so, what implications would it have on the church’s traditional message to it’s straight youth?
Setting aside the issue of experimentation, let’s move onto adults. While I do have a number of gay friends who are in committed relationships, the majority are not. Out of this majority, there are only a few who I’d term as ‘promiscuous’ or ‘sluts’; the remainder might go for months or even years without a ‘hook up’. For the straight single Christian, even such occasional hook-ups would be considered ‘fornication’; will ‘gay marriage’ have the result of placing this same standard of sexual responsibility on the gay single Christian? If not, how will it impact the message the church gives to the straight single?
On to adultery. I can’t think of any church or denomination that condones ‘open marriage’ or ‘swinging’. I realize that there are many gay couples who do not practice ‘open marriage’ but I was surprised that a number of my gay friends had a tolerance for it. Would ‘marriage equality’ impact them towards zero tolerance or would it work the other way.
An easy and dismissive way to respond to what I’ve written is to say ‘stop preaching morality and major on the LOVE of Christ’. Easily said but the role of the church is also to instruct and to lead; the role of the pastor is to shepherd…to guide the flock along the right path, to steer them away from a wrong or dangerous path and to rescue those who have fallen or who are in peril. The discussion and teaching of ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘danger’ and ‘peril’ are responsibilities of the church.
It might take a while but, depending on which way the impact plays out, gay marriage/marriage equality could be a good thing, A basic life lesson still taught in the schools is that ‘rights come with responsibilities’.
Maazi,
This particular element of the “predominantly agnostic/atheistic Euro-American gay propagandist lobby” probably knows a bit more about christian theology than you suspect. But as for having puppet strings…. gee, we only can wish.
It is amazing how everybody has become an expert on Jesus and Christianity, even elements of the predominantly agnostic/atheistic Euro-American gay propagandist lobby are acting as if they are devout christian theologians out to show that Christ approved of sexual deviance. Even the world famous christian theologian, The Most Reverend Elton John declared that Jesus Christ was a compassionate practitioner of sexual deviance !!!
I am very happy that this gay marriage thing in the Northern Hemisphere is unfolding before our horrified African eyes because it indicates that any move to decriminalize deviant sex will not end with the gay sex practitioners discreetly going about their business in private as implied by our pro-gay puppet commentators whenever they appeal to us to eschew our deep-seated antipathy towards western-style sexual depravity. We know that the same gay forces behind the court annulment of “Proposition 8” will be pulling the puppet strings of their Kampala-based local proxies in the unlikely event of a decriminalization in order to mobilize them to go outside the privacy of their bedrooms and demand unreasonably that the Ugandan people should publicly acknowledge and dignify their abhorrent sexual behaviour by——–
[1] allowing them to dress half naked or in clownish/outlandish clothing and parade the streets of Kampala as their Euro-American puppet masters do in San Francisco or New York City or Amsterdam or London.
[2] establishing a useless, sterile, self-defeating institution called “same-sex marriage” (gosh, I always laugh whenever I write that absurd string of words )
[3] allowing them to adopt another person’s orphaned kid since their hedonistic dangerous lifestyle is compulsorily sterile and childless, unless unorthodox means are used to procure a biological child.
Eddy,
I read the online edition of the New York Times and Washington Post fairly regularly, so I am well aware of the Birthers and the “Obama-Was-Born-In-Kenya” conspiracy theory. In fact, one of the birthers—a Mr. Jerome Corsi—- went to Kenya to promote his book on the conspiracy theory, but the government down there arrested and deported him for “operating without a valid work-permit”.
To David Blakeslee: In James Madison’s “Memorial & Remonstrance”, Madison raised this question concerning the role of Church and State:
This seems to be echoed in Judge Walker’s decision that religious opinion was not a proper basis for legislation. Something else, not religion, was the basis of civil law — not the imposition of one groups “moral” views, but the guarantee of equal rights under the Constitution.
This also what I believe.
Of course, never. As Paul said, it is through the Law that I learn I am a sinner. But the Law (rules) cannot do what Christ does. It only creates awareness.
I, too, find it interesting that the first recorded Gentile convert was an Ethiopian eunuch.
Debbie,
Warren has discussed this before, but perhaps you were not part of that discussion.
The term “eunuch” is often assumed to be castrati or perhaps those whose sex organs are not properly developed. But research into the issue reveals that this term included a wider range of sexual minorities, including those who were developed sexually complete but who had no interest in the opposite sex.
Socially, these people were considered interchangeable – often freaks – much in the same way that some today have difficulty understanding that not all gay men wear dresses. Perhaps a somewhat comparable term today is what some call “queer”, a term that incorporates gay, transgender, asexual, and other non-heterosexual people.
Some scholars believe that when Jesus spoke of eunuchs it was inclusive of same-sex attracted people.
Suppose the eunuch had asked, “See, here is a church and a minister. What hinders me from being married?” I wonder if Phillip would have used The eunuch’s condition as a reason to deny the request? If they could be baptized, is there any reason to suppose that they should have been denied other sacraments of the church?
I think that’s circuitous reasoning, Michael. Clearly, intersexed people were born with that condition. It would be God’s will for their lives. The jury is still out on gays. You are just coming it from a back door. It’s the same old question: inborn or not? Jesus spoke of those who were eunuchs from birth. He did not speak of anyone being homosexual from birth.
I just wanted to know if you had an opinion on it — based on your understanding of the Bible and God’s will. I know the condition is rare, but it still raises important moral /Biblical questions — should they be allowed to marry? If gender-ambiguous people could, why not same sex couples?
The question wasn’t whether or not such a person would “seek medical treatment and try to live as normal a life as is possible.” Like you, I would assume that they most likely would — if they had the resources. But, people in other cultures might not have access to such sophisticated medical care. And perhaps not everyone would choose to undergo such treatment. Some might choose to leave their bodies as they are — and still want to get married.
I brought it up because of your unwavering insistence that the Bible clearly allowed marriage only to opposite sex partners. BUt the Bible does not seem to speak to this situation, so how does one decide what is “moral” in this case? I wondered if you had given any thought as to whether or not gender-ambiguous people (like the one in the article) should be allowed to marry.
I accept that you haven’t given it enought thought to “weigh in on the question intelligently.” Fair enough. You have answered the question. I have given this question a lot of thought over the years and concluded that civil marriage should not be limited to those of clearly opposite gender. Of course, I base this on a different understanding of the Bible and of its application to civil law than you hold.
Debbie,
If I can speak to Micheal’s issue for just a moment…. I think Michael is addressing the problems with speaking about scripture in terms of absolutes. I think much of Christ’s ministry was in tearing down absolutes (observing the Sabbath, etc.) and showing that this way of thinking harms people. Surely rules, for the sake of rules, are not God’s will for our lives.
And that is one of the problems with the way the Church addresses male/female issues. The Rules say that a man has a role and a woman has a role and they should stay in them. But if the Rules serve to harm anyone, then we need to do as Jesus did and question the Rules and their application.
And we can start by asking, “What is a man? What is a woman?”
That may sound ridiculous, but in very real terms it matters. Is a man someone with XY genetics? Is it a person with a penis? Is it someone who is masculine? Is it someone who is attracted to women?
Because each of these has exceptions, and insisting that the Man’s role must be observed (or that marriage is for a Man and a woman) requires some agreement about what comprises a Man.
I find it interesting that the very first convert to Christianity was a eunuch and not a Man – or not in the sense that most in the church would define him. In demanding that the Rules apply to civil law and are God’s unwavering will on marriage, we ignore that these marriage Rules don’t even apply to the very first convert to the faith.
I think that when we think too much that This Is What God Wants, we can miss that Jesus spoke to the exceptions and not to the Rules.
What I believe about the condition is that it is an unfortunate cross for one to have to bear. I don’t know anyone with it. It is presumed one will seek medical treatment and try to live as normal a life as is possible. I’ve not given much thought to this condition relative to marriage. I don’t even know enough about it to weigh in intelligently on that. And I still wonder why you thought it needed to be brought up in this discussion.
Maazi-
Just in case ‘birthers’ doesn’t translate cross-culturally: the ‘birthers’ are those who challenge Obama’s presidency based on the possibility that he was born on foreign soil. One particular thread (Berg v Obama) started here on this website on November 11, 2008 and has had 2, 664 comments. Everytime it appears that it has finally run its course, there will be another flurry of new posts.
Others–
Let’s not overlook that Rome had Emperors whose rule was passed on by succession and/or appointment while we have voting and elections both for our rulers and, occasionally, for issues of importance. This explains, in part, the hows and whys of expressing criticism towards our leaders and policies.
I care. I would really like to know what you believe about this and why. How does one decide?
Warren,
I agree that Jesus was speaking to the understanding of his followers, not to civil law; that would be consistent with his entire ministry. And this is even more startling when we consider that in Israel at the time of his ministry, religious law was intertwined with civil law.
Ironically, it was this very decision to speak to the heart and not to the legalism that so infuriated his opponents. Had Jesus used his influence to rail about the evils of Caesar and to call for a return to Judaic Law, his critics would have delighted in him.
Gee, Michael. In the whole gay marriage scheme of things, who cares who marries whom?
Obviously. Can you answer the question? Should gender-ambigous folks or transsexuals be allowed to marry?
I base my position on Scripture first, and on sociology, second.
Timothy made a good point about Jesus addressing those who could not marry, or at least not be able to sexually perform in a marriage. I fail to see what bearing your intersex fixation has on the gay marriage debate.
Maazi – We have a long way to go to reach the record (the birthers have us beat there).
Timothy – I think this passage is a core passage on the topic. As you know, I have written on it and think Jesus is referring to sexual minorities. I do not believe here that He teaches anything about civil law, rather only how marriage should be regarded by His followers.
I am not “pretending” anything — and I object to you saying that I am. You sure don’t like it one bit when I assume to know your motives. I would appreciate it if you would stop assuming to know mine.
Assume what you will, but I am sincerely asking how folks who believe that the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is only “male and female” would deal with these situations. Does it prohibit marriage for these folks?
I am not trying to “bash” Debbie’s position. I disagree with her, but I accept that she believes the Bible prohibits gay sex. That’s certainly her right. I am asking what we are to do when the Bible is silent on an issue — or unclear. She bases her objection to same-sex marriage squarely on the Bible.
Does the Bible address this? How are we to decide on the “morality” of something when the Bible is not clear on an issue? Should gender-ambigous folks or transsexuals be allowed to marry? If she chooses not to respond, that is her business.
The leaders of Melodyland never asked us our opinion on these matters and we never offered it. They rarely asked our opionion on anything. I think the whole “gay/ex-gay” issue made them very uncomfortable. They basically ignored us, but would publicly brag that they had a “ministry” that “delievered” gays. I would not have known what advice to give anyway. I know this: we had several “post-op” women in the church. Melodyland’s position seemed to be that if the person has gone through sex-change before accepting Christ, that they were now fully female in the eyes of the Church — literally “a new creature” — accepted by Jesus as a woman, with all the rights of other Christian women — including the right to marry.
If they had accepted Jesus prior to seeking sex change, Melodyland discouraged it. How they came up with this, I have no idea. It seemed to me that they were making it up as they went along. I do not know if all of the leaders fof Melodyland felt this way. I imagine some did not. All I know, is that as long as the transsexual looked and acted convincingly female and had gone through reaasignment prior to conversion, they considered it part of “her past” and did not object.
Speaking of the biblical perspective on intersexed or transgendered, scripture may not be quite as silent as we assume. Matthew 19:
What I find striking is that when his disciples complained about a no-divorce clause being so severe, Jesus didn’t talk about whether or not it is better to marry. Instead he began talking about those who were sexual minorities, excluded, outsiders to the whole marriage paradigm.
I’m sure others will find different meaning in this passage of scripture (and, indeed, I’ve heard it used to deny any measure of civil rights to gay couples) but it seems to me that Jesus was saying that his contemporaries were putting a LOT of emphasis on the RULES of marriage, but not considering the pain, exclusion, or separation of those who don’t fit those rules so well or those who the rules hurt.
The “no divorce” clause seems to be to be a matter of protection of women in a society in which a divorced woman was without resources or rights. But Jesus didn’t stop at defending women.
It’s interesting.
Ah, you’re particularly interested in Debbie’s reply. Now why would that be? You pretend to a sincere curiosity but then you want to hear from Debbie, who you and Ken have consistently been dismissing. Gotta wonder if you’re looking to ‘further your understanding’ or if you’ve pulled a straw man out of the closet in the hopes that you can further bash her viewpoints (and, by extension, other conservatives).
Another curiosity is that YOU were at least loosely connected to Melodyland. As one of the leaders of EXIT, you were likely in a better position to seek out and understand Melodyland’s thought processes with regard to the post-operative transsexuals. Did they give it much thought? prayer? Did they seek advice from you or others from EXIT or other ministries? If so, what advice was given? Were they unanimous in their decision? Did they give their blessing to the marriages automatically based on the reassigned gender or did they counsel or evaluate the individuals? In this circumstance, your actual experience might outweigh any hypotheticals that others might offer.
Of course you do! As I have said time and time again, ad nauseum, you have every right to express yourself here in any manner you please— just as I do. I have never implied otherwise. It’s Dr. Throckmorton’s blog, not mine. And if Dr. Throckmorton wants to start a discussion on the Bible and homosexuality, I would be happy to participate. I am not stopping him.
I still think my question about whether those with gender ambiguity should be allowed to marry has merit. If you don’t have an answer or don’t want to reply, fine. I wasn’t really asking you. I wondered how others might think –particularly Debbie. I stand by my question. If no one cares to address it, that is perfectly OK too. I’ll live.
And David, I also stand my my belief that the State should not be teaching “morality”. The state should be about protecting the rights of its citizens. The fact that the state has the power to “moralize” doesn’t mean it should. I believe in a clear separation of Church and State. One exception: I think the state should teach that it is “immoral” to deny other citizens equal protection under law.
Cannot even begin to count the number of posters, school “rules”, community actions that are endorsed on public school grounds. One school district even has a pledge said every morning on how to be a helpful citizen – that is in addition to the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
Michael,
I choked when I read this. Our public schools teach all sorts of values which are an extension of State values.
It seems the task of the State to create a set of values which are not religiously bound to teach our children, the next generation, in schools.
Traditionalists have been fighting for 60 years to curb this power, especially in the area of Sex Education.
Moral behavior is always taught by the state through Civil Law and through Criminal Law. Most laws are written in response to oversights in morality that allow the Exploiters of the world openings to do their mischief.
Please consider removing this cliche from your arguments, as it cannot fit the facts or the immense power of the State and Federal government to moralize and educate.
More powerful perhaps than the Catholic Church ever was.
To David Blakeslee: In James Madison’s “Memorial & Remonstrance”, Madison raised this question concerning the role of Church and State:
This seems to be echoed in Judge Walker’s decision that religious opinion was not a proper basis for legislation. Something else, not religion, was the basis of civil law — not the imposition of one groups “moral” views, but the guarantee of equal rights under the Constitution.
Just as I have the right to caution others not to also. I don’t see this rabbit trail advancing an understanding of the kingdom of God or the Bible…the love of Christ being seen in some stunning revelation…the Proposition 8 situation being impacted in the least. I don’t even envision your burning curiosity being satisfied because even if a satisfying answer is produced, there would only be horror stores of those who don’t/didn’t see it that way.
It strikes me as ironic that this site has never (wisely, I might add) even discussed at length the Bible view on whether or not homosexual behavior is sin and yet you’re raring to discuss the Biblical take on the transgendered and post-op transsexuals. And, since you’ve dismissed Biblical morality as having any proper bearing of the law, I’m still at a loss as to how this discussion would be tangent to the Proposition 8 determination. Ah, but that’s just me. If others feel it’s worth jumping into, then so be it.
And you have every right not to participate.
Sorry, Michael, but I was chastised by our blog-meister on this very thread for a detour that had a connection to comments (a recurring theme has been criticism for not reading the entire determination yet engaging in the conversation…so I brought up an example where you all did the same thing.)
By making this observation about this new detour that you have introduced, I was offering both a word of caution and restraint to those who are biblically-minded and also explaining why I won’t be participating in the detour.
Just as I have the right to caution others not to also. I don’t see this rabbit trail advancing an understanding of the kingdom of God or the Bible…the love of Christ being seen in some stunning revelation…the Proposition 8 situation being impacted in the least. I don’t even envision your burning curiosity being satisfied because even if a satisfying answer is produced, there would only be horror stores of those who don’t/didn’t see it that way.
It strikes me as ironic that this site has never (wisely, I might add) even discussed at length the Bible view on whether or not homosexual behavior is sin and yet you’re raring to discuss the Biblical take on the transgendered and post-op transsexuals. And, since you’ve dismissed Biblical morality as having any proper bearing of the law, I’m still at a loss as to how this discussion would be tangent to the Proposition 8 determination. Ah, but that’s just me. If others feel it’s worth jumping into, then so be it.
I think it’s on topic since this discussion has included much discussion on how “marriage” ought to be defined. I was curious to hear how those in favor of Prop 8’s definition of marriage as a strictly male/female contract would deal with such a case. If you think it’s off topic, there is no need for you to respond to it.
Michael,
What makes sense is between the individual and God. Most of everything else is no one else’s call.
I believe that the discussion of ‘responding Biblically to the intersexed and to post-op transsexuals’ is WAY OFF TOPIC in “Proposition 8 Overturned”.
We have enough conflict and confusion over matters where the Bible appears to speak clearly…that never lead to resolve but rather to a stream of tit for tat responses. Purposely introducing areas where the Bible is even less clear in a conversation that is already marked with anti-Christian/anti-religious/anti-Bible hostility strikes me as a tad absurd.
Michael Bussee# ~ Aug 24, 2010 at 8:32 pm
ditto.
Mary, that’s what I would like to know. Some people seem to think that the Bible is perfectly clear that “marriage” should be “one man/one woman”. What does the Bible say in cases where gender is ambigous for some reason? How do they deal with this?
When I was with Melodyland, the church had little problem with transgendered (male to female) folks who had underson sex-change surgery prior to becoming a Christian. They were accepted as fully female and were accepted as women within the church — including marriage to males. Does this make any sense Biblically?
Only to the extent that it has to do with protecting basic rights — like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Teaching other “moral” values is the role of the family and the church — not the state.
And I get tired of people posing theological arguments as a form of nit picking and undermining, when they have no interest in exploring the issues they raise by quoting various scriptures.
Morality is an issue in civil law. Civil law in general is often an expression of various moral understandings first written down in religious documents.
The fact that gays and lesbians are fighting for their right to marry has some of its roots in Moral Law (equality…see the New Testament-niether Jew nor Greek, but all one in Christ).
So this argument is necessarily religious, civil, moral and secular.
Michael,
There is sooo much ambiguity about what defines a gender biologically. And intersexed individuals occur more often than previously thought. I wonder, how exactly does the ultra conservative deal with this? Personally, I think God has it all in his hands. But it does bring up many issues to be answered by legalistic people.
What does the Bible say about cases like this? Should a person with “XY” chromosomes be allowed to marry another person with “XY” chromosomes? Does she have to have all the female parts? How much is “enough”? How would the Bible deal with persons who had both sexual organs or who were genetically or physically ambigous in terms of their gender?
I’m a Woman with Male Chromosomes — Katie Baratz thought she was a typical teenage girl — until her parents let her in on the shocking truth that changed her life forever.
http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/articles/woman-with-male-chromosomes
As a christ follower, I agree with that statment. It takes time, study, and practice to be authentic. I’m still working on it. And it irks me to see that there is a pick and choose sort of style to interpreting the bible and people just don’t like to admit it.
Mary, that’s what I would like to know. Some people seem to think that the Bible is perfectly clear that “marriage” should be “one man/one woman”. What does the Bible say in cases where gender is ambigous for some reason? How do they deal with this?
When I was with Melodyland, the church had little problem with transgendered (male to female) folks who had underson sex-change surgery prior to becoming a Christian. They were accepted as fully female and were accepted as women within the church — including marriage to males. Does this make any sense Biblically?
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 24, 2010 at 1:18 pm
“Argue theologically with us, but then state clearly, our faith is of no interest to you.”
Except I wasn’t arguing theology (or even religion). You edited the part where I said the debate was about CIVIL law, not religious law.
My reference to 1 Timothy 2 11-12 was to point out to Debbie that there were biblical passages that have been used to justify misogyny after she implied there weren’t any. And to point out what I see as hypocrisy in many christians (only adhere to the parts of the bible that are inconvenient for YOU but not for ME).
Finally, it was not I who brought religion into this debate. and for the most part I will avoid it. But frankly, I get a little tired of christians who keep telling me (and others) that I should obey their particular interpretation, of their particular version of their bible.
This is fun:
In the end, I think that is what it comes down to. Argue theologically with us, but then state clearly, our faith is of no interest to you. Then tell us we don’t know how to practice the faith you have no interest in.
Michael Bussee# ~ Aug 23, 2010 at 11:32 pm
“I am wondering if this bill might calm some fears?”
Unlikely. I suspect that the people who started these rumors are already aware that clergy can’t be required to solemnize civil marriages. However, that doesn’t stop them from spreading these rumors. It has also be brought up many times already that clergy can’t be forced to solemnize marriages against their beliefs.
Well, the bickering doesn’t seem strange to me at all after all I lived in America for quite a while. My opinion is that as far as your Culture Wars are concerned, the sharp disagreements are anything but amicable. The opposing sides of the Culture Wars are always hostile and almost intolerant of each other’s viewpoint. Name-calling is very common, especially from the pro-gay side who get overly emotional and start throwing around cheap insults. Anyway, in many African societies—but by no means all of them—-consensus is valued more. Disagreements may be there, but in order to forge a consensus compromises are usually made by the opposing sides. The American way is to wage zero-sum adversarial battles to the death using whatever state-sanctioned means available (e.g. pro-gays use the court system and anti-gays use popular referendum to duel on the issue of “same-sex marriage”).
Actually, it’s not “tearing us apart.” Our diversity is our greatest strength. Americans have always been a contentious bunch. We rather prefer it that way. We actually write the freedom to be different into our laws.
And, we disagree on almost everything — different political viewpoints, different relgions. Different lifestyles. Individuality and freedom are highly prized here. It must seem strange to you, but it’s an integral part of our history and culture.
Some religious folks have claimed that Judge Walker’s ruling would force ministers to marry same-sex couples. Not so. Even under existing law, ministers may solemnize a civil marriage, but they are not required to do so.
Walker’s ruling changes nothing in that regard and does not limit religious freedom in any way. This new bill should help make it clear that — even if same-sex marriage is upheld by the courts — ministers would not be forced to officiate if they had religious objections.
I am wondering if this bill might calm some fears?
Bill Seeks to Further Define Separation of Church & State for California Marriages
http://laist.com/2010/01/27/bill_seeks_to_define_separation_of.php
Warren,
504 comments on your brief blog article? Wow—that’s got to be some record !! I hope you are proud. Anyway, this bickering happening over here about the merits or demerits of the joke called “same-sex marriage” is just a microcosm of the larger culture wars tearing The United States of America apart. Thank God, I am African. Thank God, we still have our solidarity-based communal society largely intact.
You can have any last words, Ken. I’m done with this circus. I ought to have called Walker an intellectual elitist and not a snob. My apologies to the man. He did snub a large group of people, nonetheless.
I will make sure that I am perfectly clear in any future references to the AAP report that lesbians parent differently in lesbian partnerships than they do in straight ones.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 23, 2010 at 1:10 pm
“Personal attacks? ”
You said this about Walker:
“yet another intellectual snob’s irrational rationale ”
Calling Walker an “intellectual snob” is a personal attack Debbie.
“Is that what disagreeing with someone is to you, Ken? Is there any rational basis for disagreeing in your book?”
Sure there is. Being informed about what you are discussing, citing verifiable sources, showing you actually understand the issues rather than speaking from personal prejudices.
“Please note that I, too, have cited studies here, for all the good it does.”
Yes, and in at least one case you mis-represented what the study said. You claimed the AAP tech report studied lesbian couples with children who had “divorced.” When in fact the report was referring to lesbians who had been married to men THEN divorced them. Attempting to claim the report showed lesbian couples were not as good as straight couples, when the report showed just the opposite.
“But I am hopelessly prejudiced while you could never be?”
Hopelessly? I don’t know, but your judgements are clearly colored by your prejudices. You have already written Walker off as an “intellectual snob” because he didn’t rule how you wanted, so you never bothered to read his decision. Instead, allowing your personal prejudices to fill in the blanks for you.
Everyone has prejudices (including me, couldn’t survive without them), the difference is whether we allow to those prejudices to mis-lead us, or try to keep an open mind about issues.
“And God is to be left entirely out of it. ”
Yes, because this is a debate about CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage. Further, I have no interest in your god, nor do I believe you speak for him.
Warren,
504 comments on your brief blog article? Wow—that’s got to be some record !! I hope you are proud. Anyway, this bickering happening over here about the merits or demerits of the joke called “same-sex marriage” is just a microcosm of the larger culture wars tearing The United States of America apart. Thank God, I am African. Thank God, we still have our solidarity-based communal society largely intact.
Michael, I’ve seen enough of his so-called facts regurgitated here and elsewhere to know. Since I cannot agree with the basis of his decision, I cannot agree with the decision, can I? Illogical.
I thought you said you had no intention of reading his decision. How would you know?
Personal attacks? Is that what disagreeing with someone is to you, Ken? Is there any rational basis for disagreeing in your book? Please note that I, too, have cited studies here, for all the good it does. But I am hopelessly prejudiced while you could never be? We both have our filters and biases. Your sources are credible but mine aren’t. And God is to be left entirely out of it. Laughable. Same old merry-go-round getting nowhere, which is the general theme of most discussions here.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 23, 2010 at 8:12 am
“I am still waiting for a compelling reason to become intimately acquainted with yet another intellectual snob’s irrational rationale for redefining marriage.”
Is that what you think “critical thinking” is Debbie? Making personal attacks on someone who disagrees with you?
Walker supported his reasoning by citing legal precedents and facts presented at trial. All you (and others who have disagreed with his ruling) have done is claim “he’s wrong.” You have supported your claim with personal attacks on Walker and claims of “I know the research.” However, what you have cited so far, shows you have allowed your own prejudices mis-interpret what you have read. No one who has claimed Walker is wrong, has backed up those claims with any credible sources. None of Walker’s detractors have actually referenced his ruling and given any kind of reasoned argument (backed up by proper examples/citations) as to what was wrong with it. Instead, they make insinuations of bias and personal attacks.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 23, 2010 at 1:10 pm
“Personal attacks? ”
You said this about Walker:
“yet another intellectual snob’s irrational rationale ”
Calling Walker an “intellectual snob” is a personal attack Debbie.
“Is that what disagreeing with someone is to you, Ken? Is there any rational basis for disagreeing in your book?”
Sure there is. Being informed about what you are discussing, citing verifiable sources, showing you actually understand the issues rather than speaking from personal prejudices.
“Please note that I, too, have cited studies here, for all the good it does.”
Yes, and in at least one case you mis-represented what the study said. You claimed the AAP tech report studied lesbian couples with children who had “divorced.” When in fact the report was referring to lesbians who had been married to men THEN divorced them. Attempting to claim the report showed lesbian couples were not as good as straight couples, when the report showed just the opposite.
“But I am hopelessly prejudiced while you could never be?”
Hopelessly? I don’t know, but your judgements are clearly colored by your prejudices. You have already written Walker off as an “intellectual snob” because he didn’t rule how you wanted, so you never bothered to read his decision. Instead, allowing your personal prejudices to fill in the blanks for you.
Everyone has prejudices (including me, couldn’t survive without them), the difference is whether we allow to those prejudices to mis-lead us, or try to keep an open mind about issues.
“And God is to be left entirely out of it. ”
Yes, because this is a debate about CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage. Further, I have no interest in your god, nor do I believe you speak for him.
Michael, I’ve seen enough of his so-called facts regurgitated here and elsewhere to know. Since I cannot agree with the basis of his decision, I cannot agree with the decision, can I? Illogical.
Personal attacks? Is that what disagreeing with someone is to you, Ken? Is there any rational basis for disagreeing in your book? Please note that I, too, have cited studies here, for all the good it does. But I am hopelessly prejudiced while you could never be? We both have our filters and biases. Your sources are credible but mine aren’t. And God is to be left entirely out of it. Laughable. Same old merry-go-round getting nowhere, which is the general theme of most discussions here.
This is not a church.
Ken, I have read reams of research — the thing you value so highly — about marriage and homosexuality. And I have been married for 29 years. I know all the elitist party lines. Nothing new under the sun. I am still waiting for a compelling reason to become intimately acquainted with yet another intellectual snob’s irrational rationale for redefining marriage.
Some of us recognize a Source greater than judges and “peers.” As C.S. Lewis said, “[God] is the source from which all your reasoning power comes. You could not be right and he wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source.”
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 23, 2010 at 8:12 am
“I am still waiting for a compelling reason to become intimately acquainted with yet another intellectual snob’s irrational rationale for redefining marriage.”
Is that what you think “critical thinking” is Debbie? Making personal attacks on someone who disagrees with you?
Walker supported his reasoning by citing legal precedents and facts presented at trial. All you (and others who have disagreed with his ruling) have done is claim “he’s wrong.” You have supported your claim with personal attacks on Walker and claims of “I know the research.” However, what you have cited so far, shows you have allowed your own prejudices mis-interpret what you have read. No one who has claimed Walker is wrong, has backed up those claims with any credible sources. None of Walker’s detractors have actually referenced his ruling and given any kind of reasoned argument (backed up by proper examples/citations) as to what was wrong with it. Instead, they make insinuations of bias and personal attacks.
This is not a church.
Ken, I have read reams of research — the thing you value so highly — about marriage and homosexuality. And I have been married for 29 years. I know all the elitist party lines. Nothing new under the sun. I am still waiting for a compelling reason to become intimately acquainted with yet another intellectual snob’s irrational rationale for redefining marriage.
Some of us recognize a Source greater than judges and “peers.” As C.S. Lewis said, “[God] is the source from which all your reasoning power comes. You could not be right and he wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source.”
That’s exactly the way I feel passages those that supposedly condemn all homosexual behavior.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 22, 2010 at 8:50 am
“That Walker was relying on established “facts” is debatable. ”
Walker was relying on the facts established at trial. If you had bothered to read the transcripts or even his ruling you’d know that. But you haven’t.
“Ken, I actually can think for myself. Critical thinking is the best part of education. ”
And you think critical thinking is making comments and claims about something you admit YOU HAVEN’T EVEN READ? Nor is it allowing your own personal prejudices to mis-represent research.
I’m not attempting to tell people what to think. I’m attempting to have a reasoned debate on the issues (a debate where statements can be backed up by valid sources – preferably peer-reviewed research).
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 22, 2010 at 8:47 am
“Such passages have been put forth to justify mistreatment of women, but the Bible must be read in historical context as well as in application to the present.”
If you knew of the passages, then why did you say:
“I never have found any scriptural basis for making women subservient or being racist. Have you?”
“Paul made it clear that he believed only men were qualified to give spiritual instruction to men. I happen to agree with that, still today.”
And yet you frequently post here (instructing men) about what your god wants/intended. Why aren’t you silent, as Paul said you should be?
Suprised, but pleased that you would.
I don’t see it as particularly “religious”, but think I understand where you are coming from, and can respect that feeling.
It would be interesting to check the whole list of rights and benefits currently afforded to straight couples to review which ones you might want to reserve for opposite-sex couples. I am pretty familiar with the rights, benefits and responsibilites of married couples and I can’t think of any that I would not extend to same-sex couples. But it’s an interesting point.
Again, I understand the fear, but I do not share the feeling. I strongly support the free exercise of religion, including the right to say the something is “sin”.
I don’t think public schools ought to be involved in “advocacy” of any particular moral/religious view. I am very conservative in that regard. That’s the job of families and churches, not the public school system.
That’s exactly the way I feel passages those that supposedly condemn all homosexual behavior.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 22, 2010 at 8:50 am
“That Walker was relying on established “facts” is debatable. ”
Walker was relying on the facts established at trial. If you had bothered to read the transcripts or even his ruling you’d know that. But you haven’t.
“Ken, I actually can think for myself. Critical thinking is the best part of education. ”
And you think critical thinking is making comments and claims about something you admit YOU HAVEN’T EVEN READ? Nor is it allowing your own personal prejudices to mis-represent research.
I’m not attempting to tell people what to think. I’m attempting to have a reasoned debate on the issues (a debate where statements can be backed up by valid sources – preferably peer-reviewed research).
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 22, 2010 at 8:47 am
“Such passages have been put forth to justify mistreatment of women, but the Bible must be read in historical context as well as in application to the present.”
If you knew of the passages, then why did you say:
“I never have found any scriptural basis for making women subservient or being racist. Have you?”
“Paul made it clear that he believed only men were qualified to give spiritual instruction to men. I happen to agree with that, still today.”
And yet you frequently post here (instructing men) about what your god wants/intended. Why aren’t you silent, as Paul said you should be?
Yes…without hesitation.
Yes.
1) I resist changing ‘marriage’ in any manner that isn’t purposely aimed at fixing it. In that sense, I guess I’m conservative without the need for the ‘religious’ adjective…just conservative…cautious about big changes when we haven’t fully studied the impact or possible impact.
2) I’m not a legal scholar, by any means. I am not fully aware of all the rights, benefits and protections afforded to marriage. I believe that MOST ought to extend to gay couples too but I am cautious about the possibility that there may be some that I don’t feel are ‘for the best’.
3) I am against the philosophy, “we are just like you with the exception of who we are partnered with.” By calling a gay union ‘Marriage’, we will blur the distinctions even further. (Note that some even now say that to call homosexual behavior sin is ‘hate speech’. I fear that political correctness would demand that we only highlight the areas where they are the same and force silence on the areas where they differ.) In short, I fear that it will advance the cause of advocacy in the schools and further restrain the conservative voice.
—–
I would not support these recent efforts of the WFA who claim ‘ they have been harmed because their tax revenues are being used to fund the registry’. I find most appeals to taxation as laughable. At the present time, I feel it’s safe to say that the majority of gays are childless. Why isn’t the WFA demanding that the gays deserve a lifetime of refunds on the school taxes they’ve paid? (As a childless single man, it sometimes irks me that I’m paying taxes to equip schools with computer labs so that some young thing can beat me out for a job prospect.) When we make churches, schools, and non-profit organizations exempt from certain taxes, is it always fair to those who don’t partake of the benefits of their services?
Gay Rights Foes Argue Wisconsin’s Partnership Law Like Marriage
http://ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=6252&MediaType=1&Category=26
Eddy,. thank you for clarifying your position.
Would you support including those rights and entitlements under Civil Unions? Save the legal designation of “marriage” for opposite-sex couples? I am not sure I understand why having two separate but equal legal categories makes sense. It would seem simpler to call them the same thing.
I strongly agree with this. When my partner Taylor was dying, hospital staff tried to prevent me from visiting because only “family” was permitted. I had documents that gave me power of attorney for health care and legal decisions, but they were refusing to honor these. I had to threaten legal action against the hospital to be able to be at his bedside when he died.
Yes…without hesitation.
Yes.
1) I resist changing ‘marriage’ in any manner that isn’t purposely aimed at fixing it. In that sense, I guess I’m conservative without the need for the ‘religious’ adjective…just conservative…cautious about big changes when we haven’t fully studied the impact or possible impact.
2) I’m not a legal scholar, by any means. I am not fully aware of all the rights, benefits and protections afforded to marriage. I believe that MOST ought to extend to gay couples too but I am cautious about the possibility that there may be some that I don’t feel are ‘for the best’.
3) I am against the philosophy, “we are just like you with the exception of who we are partnered with.” By calling a gay union ‘Marriage’, we will blur the distinctions even further. (Note that some even now say that to call homosexual behavior sin is ‘hate speech’. I fear that political correctness would demand that we only highlight the areas where they are the same and force silence on the areas where they differ.) In short, I fear that it will advance the cause of advocacy in the schools and further restrain the conservative voice.
—–
I would not support these recent efforts of the WFA who claim ‘ they have been harmed because their tax revenues are being used to fund the registry’. I find most appeals to taxation as laughable. At the present time, I feel it’s safe to say that the majority of gays are childless. Why isn’t the WFA demanding that the gays deserve a lifetime of refunds on the school taxes they’ve paid? (As a childless single man, it sometimes irks me that I’m paying taxes to equip schools with computer labs so that some young thing can beat me out for a job prospect.) When we make churches, schools, and non-profit organizations exempt from certain taxes, is it always fair to those who don’t partake of the benefits of their services?
Gay Rights Foes Argue Wisconsin’s Partnership Law Like Marriage
http://ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=6252&MediaType=1&Category=26
Eddy,. thank you for clarifying your position.
Would you support including those rights and entitlements under Civil Unions? Save the legal designation of “marriage” for opposite-sex couples? I am not sure I understand why having two separate but equal legal categories makes sense. It would seem simpler to call them the same thing.
I strongly agree with this. When my partner Taylor was dying, hospital staff tried to prevent me from visiting because only “family” was permitted. I had documents that gave me power of attorney for health care and legal decisions, but they were refusing to honor these. I had to threaten legal action against the hospital to be able to be at his bedside when he died.
That Walker was relying on established “facts” is debatable. And, believe it or not, Ken, I actually can think for myself. Critical thinking is the best part of education. Sadly, it is going by the wayside as “social justice” takes its place. Want to see young folks being told what to think? Visit a college classroom on a liberal liberal arts campus.
Such passages have been put forth to justify mistreatment of women, but the Bible must be read in historical context as well as in application to the present. Paul made it clear that he believed only men were qualified to give spiritual instruction to men. I happen to agree with that, still today.
Women had significant roles in helping to grow the Church, even in the early days. The NT book of Acts makes it clear that women had a respected place in missions work. I do believe submission has been largely misunderstood. Today, woman have much more freedom, but they also are, sadly, in a kind of bondage due to the extremes of feminism. And it has left men in a state of confusion about what manhood is. Stanley Crouch has a very good recent commentary about sexual freedom that is not, by the way.
Personally, I am not in favor of removing the male/female requirement for marriage.
I feel that the institution of marriage has been in serious jeopardy for decades and it has been very difficult to have any positive impact. I feel a major change such as no longer requiring it to be opposite gender will only impede those efforts.
At the same time, I am deeply disturbed by self-righteous people who feel they deserve all the rights and entitlements that go with marriage but deny those rights and entitlements to others. Like you, I know gay couples whose love and committment to one another surpasses that of many heterosexuals. I wish that marriage wasn’t the vehicle for the fair meting out of rights and entitlements.
This has me caught somewhere in the middle. I would not speak out against gay marriage; neither would I speak out in favor of it. I also wouldn’t vote. Instead, I would try to convey the concerns that I have…for both sides.
I am deeply concerned about the bashing of conservatives. While some of it is deserved, there is MUCH that is simply part of a strategy of polarization. I pledge to expose it and challenge it whenever it raises its head. I am also deeply concerned about the tendency of some to see America as a “Christian nation”. We ARE NOT and we weren’t intended to be! We are made up of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, etc. This land is their land too. And nowhere were Christians ever handed a trump hand.
At the same time, though, I reject the notion that Christians are to stay away from politics. We are not Egypt or Rome of the Bible times…we don’t have Emperors and Pharoahs. We have elected officials. Each individual (adult) Christian possesses the right to be involved in the political processes. And a Christian can and should decide (and/or argue) from their point of view. The fact that that view is Biblically-based doesn’t trump in American politics; however, the view can’t be dismissed just because it’s Biblically-based either.
If we haven’t made adultery or fornication illegal, then we shouldn’t be singling out consenting homosexuals either. (Personally, I believe that, for the most part, fornication and consensual homosexual activity differ from adultery in that they don’t have ‘victims’. I view adultery (and ‘cheating’) as particularly despicable and wish they were illegal. (I tossed in ‘cheating’ because adultery seems to apply only to marriage.)
Important afterthought: This should fit somewhere in what I’ve written but I haven’t the energy to go back and work it in seamlessly. One of the most horrific travesties of the self-righteous is when they deny ‘end of life’ rights to a gay partner. (Sorry, there’s probably a better term for it.) Married or not, if two people had a life together, that MUST be respected. To deny hospital visitation to a gay partner is one of the most despicable acts I can imagine. Forbidding a life-partner from attending a funeral is right up there too. Depriving the partner of reasonable inheritance rights is there too. If the only way to stop that bullshit is to allow for gay marriage, I detest those practices so much that it could move me out of my middle position.
Even though it may not be useful to continue to the conversation, I will probably continue to post my throughts and some links to articles about this because it is an issue that really interests me.
Please do not take this as a request or demand for you to respond to my posts if you would rather not do so. You have every right not to engage in the discussion. Perhaps someone else might want to.
And, as I said, my request for your personal opinions on the two questions I posed are not a demand that you do so. Just asking — if your would care to state your own opinion on them. If not, fine.
The reason I am asking is that I think I sometimes assume that I know what your opionions are without asking you. That is unfair. Again, you are under no obligation to answer.
Yes, I suppose we are. What we do here wil have no impact on what the courts eventually decide. I am still curious, though, as to your personal opionion on the matter. Have you stated it? Are you in favor of removing the male/female requirement for civil marriage? If not, why not?
And if I may, I don’t know if I ever asked you personal opinion about whether or not you believe that consenting homosexual behavior between consenting adults in private should be legal. Of course, you are under no obligation to state your personal views on these questions. I am just curious.
Yes, Michael, all that’s true. Previously there weren’t many requirements for marriage other than you both be of age, you both consent, and you are one male and one female. It has been noted that homosexuals want that last portion modified.
It appears that the modification will happen but that there will still be no pre-screening for drugs, alcohol, prior criminal history, good citizenship, or anything beyond being of age and able to give free consent.
Aren’t we kind of in the place where any usefulness has gone out of this conversation and where the conversation itself, even if it miraculously turned productive, would have zero impact on what actually happens in California?
If I am not mistaken, even convicted sex offenders can get legally married in California. Just no same-sex couples — even if they are law-abiding, tax-paying, church-going, hard-working, God-loving people. In contrast, almost any opposite sex couple can.
It seems to me that many folks who think same-sex marriage should be illegal because of Biblical prohibitions against gay sex should also be opposed to other types of sinners marrying. But they’re not. Their standards for who should be able to marry seem very low.
Proponents of Prop 8 seem really to be concererned primarily about the genders of the couple — not their religious beliefs, their character, their morality, their fertility, their ability to be good parents, etc. As long as they’re opposite sex, are able to give consent and can pay the fee, they don’t object.
Not in California.
http://www.divorcesupport.com/divorce/California-Grounds-for-Divorce-438.html
1) Adultery though is grounds for the dissolution of a marriage.
2) There is some debate about who ‘the effeminate’ are but it’s likely that they wouldn’t be pursuing an opposite sex marriage.
3) Up until gay marriage is allowed in California, from this list adultery is the only behavior that excludes homosexuals as possible participants.
4) And, it’s not strictly true that homosexuals can’t get married in California…only that they can’t marry each other.
Many folks oppose marriage equality on Biblical grounds — and turn to passages like 1 Corninthians 6:9-10 to support their position.
Immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy people, alcoholics, slanderers, swindlers, the effeminate and homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, — but of this group, only homosexuals can’t get married in California.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm
“I never have found any scriptural basis for making women subservient ”
I’m guessing that is because you really didn’t want to:
1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NIV)
I’m sure you are going to rationalize away why these passages don’t apply to you, but I don’t really care. I posted these passages to show you how others have used the christian bible as a reason to keep women subservient.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 21, 2010 at 7:02 am
“”Your saying it doesn’t make it so.”
The same applies to Judge Walker. And you.”
Judge Walker supported his comments with facts from the trial and previous court rulings. Your comments appear to be supported by nothing other than your own prejudices (although, i suspect you are getting some of your information from places like AFA or Focus on the Family).
The same applies to Judge Walker. And you.
Timothy,
Umm… I’ll take the cookie. Thank you.
blewis# ~ Aug 20, 2010 at 12:53 am
“Don’t insult me. You want me to scream, “Damn right, I support fair treatment for only me, myself, and I. Screw everyone else”?”
No, I want you to see how you are using the same arguments that have been used to support discrimination in the past.
“Women and their supporters used the amendment process to get the vote.”
but not to get equality in marriage. Nor have many minorities used the amendment process to obtain many of the rights they have now.
“Like any other man or woman over 18, you may marry one person of the other gender. It’s your choice to do so or not to.”
but gays ARE NOT allowed to marry the person they are attracted to and wish to form a committed long-term relationship with. Again a similar argument to the one you just gave was attempted in the Loving v. Virginia case. It didn’t work either.
Mary,
Today the California legislature changed what the state recognizes. No longer will it recognize “marriage”, but henceforth will recognize “civil marriage.”
You get a gold star today. And a smiley face. And maybe even a cookie.
Debbie,
Your saying it doesn’t make it so.
Oh, I suppose their sense of entitlement was impacted. Or perhaps they will feel some emotion after having been told that they can’t exert their will on others. Or maybe even they will feel sad that their whims are not being upheld by the courts.
But no, their lives are not impacted.
Absolutely none of which has anything to do with marriage law.
I know that you HATE the idea that schools don’t reinforce anti-gay stereotypes. But sorry, here in California they don’t. And marriage law is not what caused the change.
Well, no I don’t. But I can guess.
I’m supposing that you are imagining that some county clerk will be forced to treat gay people the same as his other customers. Is that it?
He won’t be able to take his government paycheck and still discriminate against some taxpayers. Oh, boo hoo.
As for anyone else, discrimination against gay folk is already illegal and has nothing to do with marriage law.
blewis
Although we hear that a lot, it actually isn’t true.
If a gay man marries a woman there is an automatic presumption of invalidity:
If there is inheritance, her family can sue in court and the presumption is that he defrauded her
The Catholic Church considers it grounds for annulment
Legal protections (such as the right not to testify) are challengable by prosecutors
INS would throw him in jail for immigration fraud
The IRS could charge tax fraud
and your Aunt Mabel would never consider it to be a “real marriage”.
In 45 states, there is absolutely no one whom a gay person can marry on the same legal and social grounds as a straight person.’
But even were that true, it is a very foolish argument. This is akin to the idea that it would be constitutional to make everyone attend Mass because it treats everyone the same whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Jews or Muslims.
As supreme court Justice Ginsburg noted, “A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews”.
blewis,
Really?
Okay. If your point is that different things should be treated differently, then how about this: let gay people marry and let straight couples have civil unions.
Just an apologist, Michael. I never have found any scriptural basis for making women subservient or being racist. Have you? If there is no assurance (Hebrews 11:1), then this is all a meaningless game.
Oh, believe me, I do.
I thought we already got the “render to Caesar … and render to God” stuff covered in this discussion. We have to recognize same-sex marriages under civil law. We do not have to recognize them as covenant marriages. God still gets the last word.
I just want to know …. Is everyone finished degrading or dismissing everyone else’s beleif system?
End of conversation.
You see, under civil law, “marriage” is not a “sacred covenant before God”.
(Emphasis mine.)
I never said that morality evolved from a vacuum, Debbie. Good and evil, right and wrong, although universally recognized concepts, are a mystery. The belief in a Creator, however reasonable it may be, does not solve the mystery.
Firstly, as Ayer pointed out, there is no necessary logical connection between having any degree of power, including the power to create the universe, and being morally good.
Secondly, unless we accept, as Dodgson put it, that “Right and Wrong rest on eternal and self-existent principles, and not on the arbitrary will of any being whatever” and that “God wills a thing because it is right and not that a thing is right because God wills it”, right and wrong simply cease to have any meaning beyond what the Creator happens to want and doesn’t happen to want, and there is no reason why we should trouble our heads over them – except perhaps that we’re afraid of him and think that he’ll get stroppy with us if we don’t do what he wants.
If we really want to protect the “sanctity of marriage” as a “sacred covenenant before God”, how about we toughen up the regulations on who can get married and who can officiate?
The current qualitifications for marriage in California? An opposite sex coiuple who can fill out and pay for a marriage license. That’s about it. The current qualifications for who can solemnize this “holy” arrangement? Almost anyone it turns out, even the Cookie Monster.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/marriage-anyone-it-took-me-5-minutes-to-become-a-minister/
Keep in mind, Debbie, that includes you, too. Like many religious folks in the past who righteously supported racial and gender discrimination on “moral” and “Biblical” grounds, you speak with a tone of absolute certainty.
But, being “mere mortal”, they were wrong — and you may be as well. You remind me very much of Sister Aloysius Beauvier in the film “Doubt”. Have you seen it?
Mere mortals moralizing, William. Morality no more evolved from a vacuum than mankind from some primordial slime. There is an active Creator who was behind it all. It takes far more faith to believe otherwise than to just give up and accept that.
I am sure that the late Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (alias Lewis Carroll) was right in adopting the axiom that “that the ideas of Right and Wrong rest on eternal and self-existent principles, and not on the arbitrary will of any being whatever.”
Once we start saying that right and wrong depend on God’s ipse dixit, we find ourselves in a never-ending circular argument:
“Why should we pay any attention to what God says?”
“Because what God wants is right and what he doesn’t want is wrong.”
“How do we know that what he wants is right and what he doesn’t want is wrong?
“Because God says so.”
“Why should we pay any attention to what God says?”
“Because he wants us to.”
“Why should we pay any attention to what he wants us to do?”
And so it goes on.
Bertrand Russell expressed it well when he wrote:
“Theologians have always taught that God’s decrees are good, and that this is not a mere tautology: it follows that goodness is logically independent of God’s decrees.”
And again:
“If the only basis of morality is God’s decrees, it follows that they might as well have been the opposite of what they are; no reason except caprice could have prevented the omission of all the ‘nots’ from the Decalogue.”
Or as another Oxford philosopher, A.J. Ayer, put it:
“The point is that moral standards can never be justified merely by an appeal to authority, whether the authority is taken to be human or divine. There has to be the additional premiss that the person whose dictates we are to follow is good, or that what he commands is right, and this cannot be the mere tautology that he is what he is, or that he commands what he commands.”
People knew about right and wrong, even if they disagreed about exactly what was right and what was wrong, before a single word of the Bible was written.
They learn it from people who learn it from people, ad infinitem? Right. How did the first person learn it?
All three areas are impacted. Let me dispense with the rhetorical. The will of the voters was usurped by one judge. That’s an impact, a serious one. Public education, already largely influenced by pro-gay propaganda (like SB 777 in California), will only now be more so. More students will be attuned to “social justice” while growing more illiterate and history-deprived by the day. And those who would consciously object to recognizing same-sex marriage on moral grounds will, nevertheless, be forced to support it and will be sued if they refuse to be accommodating. You knew perfectly well what I meant by this.
Philosopher: To Defeat Gay ‘Marriage’ Conservatives Must Defend Traditional Sexual Morals in General
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081914.html
Full Interview
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081913.html
Timothy–
Yes, it appears that we kinda agree on the premises underlying the point I was trying to get across. I don’t take that as cause for celebration since I didn’t thing I was saying anything either questionable or controversial in those premises. The fact that you now agree (with some possible slight reservation) only demonstrates to me how impossible actual communication is here. In short, it took an hour or more of writing on my part to get you to agree (with some possible slight reservation) to something that I see as an observable reality. The thought of trying to move beyond the premise to the actual substance of what I was trying to say looms as an exhausting and likely impossible task. Not to worry! To you, my ‘substance’ is a ‘talking point’; to me, it’s a ‘concern’. I need to accept that unfortunate difference and pursue this concern with others who share the concern rather than here.
“So do you support the past unequal treatment of women under the law?”
Don’t insult me. You want me to scream, “Damn right, I support fair treatment for only me, myself, and I. Screw everyone else”?
Women and their supporters used the amendment process to get the vote.
You are not, if you are gay, being treating unequally. Like any other man or woman over 18, you may marry one person of the other gender. It’s your choice to do so or not to. Surely you know that tens of thousands, perhaps millions of American couples do not get hitched because they are romantically in love with one another. That happens for some, but not many. In some cases, one partner is “in love” while the other isn’t. Marriage is chosen for many reasons; to create children (the biological imperative of mate selection, the process of selecting a mate who is fit and can produce fit offspring is at work here); to rear the nuclear family to maturation in order the formation of an extended family; to ensure financial security through a division of labor, etc.
Many who do not find what they wish in a mate or who do not find the reasons for marriage to be compelling, do not marry. It is their choice. You have the same choice. Their choice, your choice, no discrimination.
Because, behind all the arguments over marriage, it all comes down to one thing. Those who oppose marriage equality do so because they oppose equality.
I truly do not mean to be in the least argumentative, but no, I strongly believe you are mistaken.
Thinking and caring people can oppose or favor many things in life and “opposing equality” is rarely the reason for their positions.
Men and women, cats and dogs, plants and animals, young people and older people, Californians and Texans, (you get the idea) are different. To know they are different, to say they are different, and yes, even to treat them differently at times is often the wise thing to do.
Communication breaks down, unfortunately, when we speak of differences, especially when people with stance #1 pronounce they know the motives of people with stance #2 or stance #3 or #4, and especially when the only motives they can conceive of are evil or unfair or selfish or otherwise negative.
The word “equality” is often tossed around as if it were a salad ingredient. I stand on my earlier point–different does not mean “not equal’; in the same vein, “same” doesn’t mean “equal” or ensure equality.
blewis# ~ Aug 19, 2010 at 1:37 pm
” They see an obvious biological difference and they understand the millenia of social difference based on that biology, and no, I won’t go into all the biological, anthropological, societal, cultural, etc. reasons as to why that is. It’s fruitless to do so since the differences are obvious to all, even to those who would deny them.”
So do you support the past unequal treatment of women under the law? Should women be re-regulated to 2nd class status under the law? Your comments above apply just as well to the differences between men and women as they do to the differences between opposite and same sex couples. Using your reasoning women should never have been given equal status in marriage.
The flaw in your reasoning is that although there are differences (whether between men and women or straights and gays) those differences are not significant enough to justify the discriminatory policies you support. Further, you are ignoring the similarities between straights and gays.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 19, 2010 at 11:36 am
” And if it does, where does the redefining stop?”
At the point which the state can show how it has a rational reason for denying the changes.
Michael did a fine job answering your comments about what the founding fathers thought about marriage (and other rights) so I won’t repeat that here.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 19, 2010 at 7:15 am
“ow do people otherwise instinctively understand right from wrong? If morality cometh not from God and the biblical revelation of Him, then where does it come from? A vacuum? A man?”
People do not “instinctively” understand right from wrong. People LEARN it as children (and not all of them do). From their parents, relatives, teachers, and society in general.
Eddy,
I think I misunderstood your point:
Yes I agree
Yes I agree
At times, for some folk, if they don’t think at all about it. Sure.
So I guess we end on a note of kinda sorta agreement.
Honest to God, I feel like I’m in the twilight zone or something. Did you get that I wasn’t saying that marriage is ‘mommy, daddy and the kids’? Did you get that I said that’s the way A LOT of people see it. BECAUSE it’s not something they give much thought to. You say ‘marriage’, they hear ‘family’. They think ‘family’; they think mommy, daddy and the kids.
BUT THAT’S ENTIRELY BESIDE THE FRIGGIN POINT! The point was that marriage is a word and a concept that conjures up different images for different people. So I used the extremes of the spectrum. And I also pointed out that the ‘with kids’ image isn’t unique to religious folks. I didn’t say it was right but I did suggest that it was popular. IN FACT, I sided with the judges definition but thought it could benefit by the addition of one word.
Please! You win! I give up! My point is without value or place in this conversation! I’m letting it go. I said ‘never mind’ only toTimothy because I thought you had taken leave of the conversation. Anyway, I’m letting it go. Please do the same.
Just a thought. If the founders of this country were basing the constitution on the bible, they could have voted to make the bible the constitution. That didn’t happen. Instead they argued over the rights of men and how they would be represented (to later include freed slaves and women.) I do wish that the so called christians would realize this nuance of our constitution. Whether or not a person agrees with the usefulness of homosexuality or heterosexuality, is not the question. The debate is whether or not people are free to choose whom they will marry , build their assets and invest their future.
Under current Calirfornia law, to be “married” a couple does not have to want kids, plan to have kids or be able to have kids. They can hate kids. They don’t have to know a thing about parenting. They don’t have to show that they the skills to be good parents.
They don’t have to have any particular belief in God. They don’t have to go to church. They don’t have to believe the Bible. They don’t have to agree to any particular moral standards. They don’t have to think of their relationship as “sacred” or as a spiriutal “covenant”.
They don’t have to be employed or able to work. They don’t have to know about budgeting. They are not required to live together. They don’t have to be monogamous. They don’t have to have sexual interest in each other. They don’t have to have sex at all. They don’t have to be of the same sexual orientation.
They don’t have to be psychologically or emotionally compatible. They don’t have to have communication or conflict resolution skills. They don’t have to treat each other with respect or kindness. They don’t have to have similar hobbies or interests. They don’t have to love each other. They don’t even have to like each other.
All they have to be is one man and one woman and able to give consent to be legally marrried. And pay for a marriage license. On the other hand, a same-sex couple can have all of the things I mentioned above, but not the legal and financial benefits of marriage. How is that anything but unjust?
My dad died suddenly of leukemia at age 55. My Mom was terribly shocked and deeply depressed. She missed the comfort, the structure, the companionship and commitment she found in marriage. She wanted to marry again. Kids were out of the question. She had had a complete hysterectomy years before. She wanted to be married with all that had meant to her.
Other people may think of marriage only or mainly in terms of “mom, dad and the kids” — but that would be very simplistic and would overlook the deeper feelings, the deeper needs and the deeper meanings of “marriage”. “Domestic Partnership” would not do for her. My Mom wanted her family, her church and her culture to see her as a “married” woman — having made a spiritual and legal commitment to live with someone and love someone until death — a person she truly loved body, soul and spirit.
That’s what I want too. I have no proof, but I believe that’s what I believe most people want. Kids are primary for some. But certainly not for all — and if we limit the right to marry to those who desire to have kids and can have kids, what about the rest of the world that just want to live in a “married” state with all that they means for them, emotionally, romantically and legally? Someone to enjoy life with? Someone to grow old with? Someone to hold you as you die?
Marrige, for me and for many, is about sharing life together in a legal, romantic, emotional, psychological and spiritutal union. It becomes an indentity, if you will. Two become one. You and I become “we”. That’s what “marriage” means to me. Why should that legal right be based on gender or sexual orientation? Why shoudl same-sex couples have to pay the same taxes for something less than marriage?
Mom/dad and kids is a wonderful ideal — and may be the best setting for child-rearing, but marriage should not be — and is not — the exclusive right of the reproductive couples. There is simply no compelling reason for the state to deny any couple that right on the basis of gender or orientation.
Okay
Timothy–
Never mind.
Sometimes you just gotta say ‘it’s not worth the bother’. I’d only clarify my point one more time to have you dissect it needlessly as you did with the ‘No…not really….etc.’.
Well… not really.
I don’t think any of us have a one-size-fits-all idea of marriage. If we think “what is a marriage”, we may get Disney princess ideas, but when we reverse the question and say “is that a marriage” we don’t really use that criteria.
If a 45 year old man loses his wife to a car accident, we kinda expect that he’ll remarry after a grieving period. We sort of expect it. But we don’t generally assume that it will be for the purpose of having kids.
And we’ve all run into the couple who say that they don’t intend on having kids and inside our head we think, “yeah, that’s a good idea.” But we still think of them as married.
And one of the questions you hear A LOT now of young couples is, “do you plan on having kids right away or waiting?”
In fact, come to think of it, we really don’t think of marriage at all in terms of parenting. Yeah, that’s a part of the way we think about many marriages, but it isn’t automatic.
I can’t figure out what you mean here. Who is wanting the pie? Why shouldn’t they have a piece? Is this the brother thing you were talking about earlier?
And I maintain that IS a concern. Please understand that I’m not even against this judges determination! But I do see this as a fairly big deal and it is my nature to look to the future. I firmly believe that ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’…and, if this determination carries any weight outside of California or outside of district 9, it would be a good thing to ‘iron out the kinks’.
And, no, the kinks I’m referring to are not related to abuse of the system by homosexuals. As the joke line goes “It’s not all about you.” I simply believe 1) that most people haven’t given it a second thought and believe ‘marriage, you know, marriage, everybody knows what marriage is’…but a fair number (and not just religious) have an image of ‘mommy, daddy and the kids’ while the spectrum runs to the other side as in the judges definition where kids aren’t mentioned at all. But we let the word just roll by assuming we’re all talking about the same thing. 2) that some people, when they are shaken from the notion of ‘mommy, daddy and the kids’ are going to say…’hey, how come I can’t have a piece of that pie too?’ 3) that, even if number two is a remote possibility, the time to stitch up the loophole is now.
No, I don’t believe it really is a concern. I’ve yet to encounter a person who thinks that their marriage is in anyway redefined. They are not genuinely concerned about how heterosexual marriages will change, because they know that they won’t.
It isn’t the definition of marriage that concerns them, it’s the qualification for marriage. They know that it will continue to be the same, but that now restrictions are lifted against people that they don’t want to allow in.
It’s a bit like those who worried that if they let black people in their country club then it would materially change the meaning and purpose of the club. But that really only made sense if the meaning and purpose was to exclude black people.
And once the rules changed they found that nothing had changed. The purpose and meaning (definition) of their club was just what it always was. And they realized that this was not really what they had been concerned about all along… they just needed an excuse that sounded like it was based on the club rather than the people they were keeping out.
blewis
Actually, you’re close. But you have the parties backwards.
It isn’t that we want the state to say that we are “the same”; rather we just want the state to stop saying that we are inferior.
Because, behind all the arguments over marriage, it all comes down to one thing. Those who oppose marriage equality do so because they oppose equality.
They believe that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality and that opposite sex couples are inherently superior to same-sex couples and they want the government to reinforce their bias.
It isn’t that same-sex couples are insisting that the government say that they are the same. It’s that those who oppose same-sex couples are insisting that the government say that they are inferior.
As you illustrate:
Eddy,
In Hawaii you can.
There they have something called Reciprocal Beneficiaries which allow a few limited benefits to adults living together regardless of relationship. It doesn’t include taxes but some insurance I think.
They created it to avoid giving gay relationships any recognition. The point was to say “your relationship is of no more importance that roommates” – and, yes, it was intended to be offensive. But it exists.
And some brothers do sign up, I believe.
And as I said earlier, if it said ‘romantic feelings’ rather than just ‘feelings’, I’d consider it a reasonably complete definition as well. And, it would cover those implausible but possible exceptions I presented that you chose to mock simply because you perceive me to be ‘the other side’.
During the testimony, the judge asked the Proponents whether it would be constitutional to restrict marriage only to those couples who can or intend to beget children. They said that it would be inconvenient to do so and that it would be an intrusion on the privacy of that couple.
Let me repeat that. It would be intrusive to base marriage on what the Proponents said marriage should be based on. So instead of inquire of heterosexuals whether they are barren or intend to have children, the solution is to restrict gay people altogether.
That is either the least logical explanation I’ve ever heard, or the most arrogant and elitist.
No, it’s a major concern.
And I’ve got no patience left for your arrogance.
Yeah, that sounds about right. I’m not overly concerned about whether there is only one penis or two.
No, that’s a major talking point.
No, Debbie, no impact on “those who voted for it”.
Their life doesn’t change one iota… other than the extent to which they can coerce the life of others – which is a “right” they never really had.
And no impact on public education. None. Zero.
No one is forcing anyone into a same-sex marriage so this doesn’t even make sense.
Yes. And that was precisely the logic of Judge Walker.
Well, it often is the same thing.
For example, when an activist judge sees the language of the US Constitution to include the rights of “any person” and that judge decides to exclude some people from the definition of “any person” because of his own religious convictions or the religious convictions of others, then he is engaging in both theocracy and judicial activism.
I think that the only time that God, Himself, weighed in on civil governmental structure, he preferred judges, but he anointed a king anyway.
Sigh. I know. I mentioned him in relation to birth control. He refused to impregnate Tamar and disobeyed God.
I’ll speak for myself as I don’t know who “you all” are. Is “yesterday’s news” a reference to history, perchance? If it is, I’ll refer to an earlier comment of mine in this thread wherein I quoted from C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters” on The Historical View and how it is used to lull the ignorant into hell. Otherwise, you may want to tell us what you mean by the phrase.
We all have the same impatience toward misinformation. And these matters have a vital bearing on us all.
I think it best if I let it rest — for now. This will be decided by the courts, not by continuing to haggle about it here. I don’t think it will be soon, but I do believe that someday, a generation or so from now, we will look back on this issue and wonder what all the fuss was about. That change in attitude seems to be happening even now — and more quickly that we thought it would.
Marriage will be legal for same-sex and opposite sex couples. There won’t be any huge demand to marry siblings, multiple spouses or farm animals. Pair-bonding will still be the primary pattern for marriage. People will still fall in love with consenting adult partners and will want to solemnize their love spiritually and legally. Straight marriage will still be the norm and kids will continue to be born and raised by loving parents.
Rights will be equal and Christianity will still be legal. Society will not crumble. Some will continue to preach that homosexuality is evil and some will continue to believe its a normal and non-pathological human variation. The world will not come to an end once marriage equality is achieved. Straight people will still be straight. Gay people will still be gay. Life will go on. Marriage will go on. Kids will be OK. We will just look back and wonder why equal rights wasn’t a “given”.
If you’re going to repeatedly bring up the Bible you really must try to understand it. The sin of Onan is not masturbation. It is his deception when, instead of impregnating his dead brother’s wife so that she might give birth to a boy who could then inherit his brother’s estate, he pulled his penis out of her vagina enough to make his semen spill onto her leg instead of doing his brotherly duty. And by the way, I very much doubt anyone would argue for that kind of marriage or that kind of family today.
But this is futile. You all have your minds made up and seem content to rehearse yesterday’s news as if it has some bearing on today’s. The only thing I would ask is that you to try to remember that these matters have a vital bearing on the lives of many of your compatriots. Don’t’ be surprised if we seem inpatient when the same misinformation gets repeated over and over and over.
One more thing to consider: God didn’t take too kindly to birth control. Remember Onan? It seems fruitful multiplication is a foregone conclusion for marriage.
OK, bring it, Eddy. LOL.
It doesn’t. Of course gay couples who are raising childen love, provide for and nurture them, and, in many cases, do a better job than straight couples. I still believe there is a best standard for parenting, and it’s a mom and a dad.
If those leading the gay marriage charge really were just interested in the “advantages” bestowed by the states upon those who are deemed legally married, then they’d advocate solely for those rights, all of which they already have in the state of California under the legal state of civil unions.
If they wanted the sometimes ironically termed marriage tax advantage extended to them by the federal government, they’d do the same.
Walker himself revealed what they really want–a conferring upon them of society’s conclusion that marriage between a man and woman is the same as that between that a man and another man or as that between a woman and another woman. Walker, and those who advocate as he does, are obfuscating —or maybe I am wrong here–maybe it’s not obfuscation as much as it is an inability to understand, a bias which blinds–by conflating the words “same” and “equal.” Their strategy is to argue that allowing civil unions but not marriage equates to the “separate but equal” policies of the pre-civil rights era, an argument which does over like a lead balloon with blacks and other racial minorities.
Most Americans do not wish to argue a “separate but equal” treatment for gays. What they do understand is that a union between those of the same gender is not the same as that between that of those of differing genders. They see an obvious biological difference and they understand the millenia of social difference based on that biology, and no, I won’t go into all the biological, anthropological, societal, cultural, etc. reasons as to why that is. It’s fruitless to do so since the differences are obvious to all, even to those who would deny them.
Different doesn’t mean unequal. Makes people wonder about motive.
Debbie–
The begetting of children and properly raising them, while a worthy goal and a traditional byproduct of marriage, is NOT the essence of marriage. We do not restrict those who do not have the capacity or the desire to beget or to adopt children; we do not restrict a couple who are past their child-bearing and child-rearing years from marriage.
(Yikes, this might be a first. I’m a thorn in everybody’s side!)
Michael-
This brings us back to ‘family ties’. From this ruling, why couldn’t I seek the legal sanctions of marriage with any consensual adult…just for the tax breaks and the insurance benefits? There are married people who don’t even share the same residence most of the time.
The judge made his determination based on precedence. His ruling, if it stands, then becomes a matter of precedence for future cases. If the legal definition of ‘what is marriage’ is less than precise, a loophole exists that family members could exploit (i.e. me and my brother looking for tax breaks and other bennies) or two single close friends (of same or opposite gender) looking for the same breaks. We don’t have ‘term limits’…the words ’til death do us part’ and ‘forsaking all others’ have become meaningless. So, people could easily exploit this loophole. You share an apartment or house with a person for a year or two and marry them. Then pursue a ‘no contest’ divorce when you’re ready to move on. Admittedly these are worst case scenarios but I’ve lived long enough to see man at his worst. (I saw Tiny Tim marry Miss Vicky on The Tonight Show, after all.)
Anyway, I’m still not sure what marriage is–not legal marriage anyway. (OMG! Another brother exemplifies the difference between church marriage and state marriage. This brother (much to our shame) hooked up with his high-school sweetheart again WHILE he was engaged to his first wife. It took the first wife (and us) two years to discover that he had a relationship going ‘on the side’. The first wife got the marriage ‘annulled’ by the Catholic Church and secured ‘divorce’ through the state. Since he had defrauded his first wife from the beginning, the church regarded the marriage (despite the fact that it yielded two children) as invalid and non-existent due to the fraud. The state granted a divorce for the same reasons.)
Stellar idea. Don’t deny us our rights. Instead, Focus on the Family. Start with straight people within your own churches.
This assumes that gay couples and their children are not families, or do not really care about the “nurturance of children”, or that we make inferior parents.
Marriage Equality is in no way “anti-family”. We want our families and our kids to have the same legal rights, behefits and protections as other married couples.
We are pro-marriage and pro-family. I wish opponents of marriage equality would stop lying and stop trying to scare people into believing that we’re not.
We concede, Michael, that husbands and wives may marry, not knowing if they will be able to bear children. We do not work backward, however, and deny that marriage is first and foremost about family — the nurturance of children.
Stephen, what else do children grow up to do? Run entire countries, from top to bottom. Strong marriages that produce disciplined, educated and morally astute adults are state-sanctioned and accorded certain benefits because they are in the best interests of the state and its future maintenance.
Or, better, work within the church and community organizations to strengthen education, support and resources provided for married couples and families. I do think we should make it harder for couples to marry. Comprehensive premarital counseling ought to be a prerequisite. Welfare needs to overhauled and no-fault divorce out to be done away with.
It isn’t. That is one person’s – yours – view of what marriage means in the USA circa 2010. Historically, marriage has been about property and inheritance. Children add to the husband’s store and guarantee his old age. It used to be that the father of the bride brought his virgin daughter (white dress, veil) to deliver her hand into her new master’s hand, ie her husband’s. She had no legal standing apart from his and neither did her children; they were all his property. Marriage has traditionally been a way to pass on property to one’s children; usually the oldest son and hence in England the law of primogeniture. Marriage cannot be defined once and for all because it is a cultural construct and must change to accommodate the culture of the day. This vaunted ‘Biblical marriage’ doesn’t exist. Adam and Eve were never married, they merely had children together who all seemed to marry each other. The Old Testament model is polygamy. In the New Testament – and since we are supposed to be Christians that should be our authority – Jesus told his his hearers to leave their mothers and fathers, their husbands and wives, their children, and to give away all their possessions if they would follow him.
As to the constitution: it doesn’t specifically allow a lot of things; universal suffrage, the right not to be enslaved, etc. Like marriage, the constitution is constantly evolving. Our current court recently ruled in favor of the institutionalized bribery of congress on a scale never before seen. A ruling which would no doubt have astounded Benjamin Franklin. Let them also rule to give my marriage, entered into legally in Canada though not recognized by my own government in despite of the taxes I pay and the jobs created by my and my husband’s work, civil standing. Let our ideas evolve.
The difficulty is that old ways of thinking are comfortable and seem ‘right’. So much so that we can no longer see them for what they are. Like dried flowers they remind us of what was once living but which is now lifeless, desiccated and inert.
I agree. And I also think many of them would have strongly objected to seeing equal rights under that constituion being extended to include women and racial minorities. They didn’t know what a wonderful document they had created — one that would eventually guarantee equal rights for all.
If “marriages are marriages, regardless of whether or not they produced children, then why should only opposite-sex couples have the right to legally marry?
Judge Walker agrees with you.
Then we should toughen up laws on who can reproduce. Make having babies out of wedlock illegal. Require that non-married couples use contraception under state supervision. Pass some laws on which straight couples can procreate based on things like age, maturity, economic status and psychological well-being. Make divorce tougher..
Ah, Michael, that presumes that the Constitution contains the right for others to redefine marriage. And if it does, where does the redefining stop? Roe v. Wade said it contained a right to privacy. That is widely disputed, however. Imagine what that presumed right to privacy could lead to in further rulings down the road. No, same-sex marriage is a sea change our founders could not have foreseen or had the stomach for, I think.
He didn’t rule that marriage “should also include gays”. He ruled that a California law that limited marriage to opposite sex couples violated US law. He ruled that you couldn’t exclude people on the basis of religious beliefs, personal prejudice, gender or orientation.
And he couldn’t have ruled that “marriage is simply not the state’s business” because that was not the issue before him. The issue was the constiutionallity of Prop 8. Regarding Mary’s suggestion, If voters want to change the designation to “Civil unions for all with equal rights” — striking the word “marriage” from the books — I suppose they could do that. But why? That would be a heck of a lot more complicated and expensive than striking down one unconstitutional amendment.
I assumed we all were astute enough to understand that marriages were marriages, regardless of whether or not they produced children. This is a point we ought to be able to dispense with. That said, it also ought to be commonsense knowledge that marriage is an institution, a primary purpose of which is to beget children in the best of all possible environments. Children ought not to be brought forth outside of marriage, but childless marriages are marriages, nonetheless.
The state cannot deny that right unless it has some compelling reason to do so. In the case of your siblings or marriages between blood relatives, different cultures define this differently.
I think it best if I let it rest — for now. This will be decided by the courts, not by continuing to haggle about it here. I don’t think it will be soon, but I do believe that someday, a generation or so from now, we will look back on this issue and wonder what all the fuss was about. That change in attitude seems to be happening even now — and more quickly that we thought it would.
Marriage will be legal for same-sex and opposite sex couples. There won’t be any huge demand to marry siblings, multiple spouses or farm animals. Pair-bonding will still be the primary pattern for marriage. People will still fall in love with consenting adult partners and will want to solemnize their love spiritually and legally. Straight marriage will still be the norm and kids will continue to be born and raised by loving parents.
Rights will be equal and Christianity will still be legal. Society will not crumble. Some will continue to preach that homosexuality is evil and some will continue to believe its a normal and non-pathological human variation. The world will not come to an end once marriage equality is achieved. Straight people will still be straight. Gay people will still be gay. Life will go on. Marriage will go on. Kids will be OK. We will just look back and wonder why equal rights wasn’t a “given”.
If this is true, then instead of finding that marriage should also include gays, the judge should have found that marriage is simply not the state’s business. Rather than include a new group in the existing definition, he should have taken a step towards eliminating state-sanctioned marriage for everyone.
LOL. I think Mary suggested this days ago! By eliminating state-sanctioned marriage, everyone would be on the same footing trying to secure rights and benefits based on their partnering.
Legally, a “couple” is two adults who have the desire and capacity to consent to the contract of marriage.
Michael–
This strikes me as very rational and rounded except ‘how do we define ‘couple’?’
I have lots of brothers…no, really I do. My one brother and I are a couple of single guys who have chosen to live with each other (although certainly not sharing the same bed!), who have chosen to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on our feelings about one another (we’re family…that’s a strong feeling) and we’re economically partnered in keeping up with the house and it’s ongoing expenses. Oh and we have a nephew who is unable to work who lives here essentially rent free…feels dependent to me. Why wouldn’t that be a marriage…why shouldn’t we be entitled to pursue those same economic rights and benefits that are the essence of ‘marriage equality’?
I’m wondering if the word ‘feelings’ from ‘form a household based on our feelings’ should be further modified with the word ‘romantic’? I’m ruling out the word ‘sexual’ as a modifier because there are also marriages where circumstances don’t allow for the sexual. (Off the top of my head: certain types of paralysis or an aged couple who no longer have sex.)
Kids are not necessary for marriage. Procreation is not. And being of the same gender is not. Legally, marriage is a contract with certain rights and responsibilities. Beyond that, what it is emotionally and spiritually is between each couple and God — it’s their’s to define and is not the business of the state.
Yes, although I do not always live by it, that’s the law written in my heart. Laws like “stone your kids if they disobey” or “kill women who are found not to be virigins on their wedding night” are not. Those laws violate the “love your neighbor as yourself” clause.
I agree with the defintion in the ruling. I don’t think the “essence” of marriage is defined by gender, sexual orienation or someone’s opinion on Biblical law. It’s a legal contract. Beyond that, it is what each couple makes it.
People have a right to vote, but they cannot “vote away” your rights. If a majority of people in California opposed Christianity, they could not enact a lproposition to make it illegal. That would be a violation of the US constituion. People do not have the “right” to vote away the rights of others.
In terms of public education, this ruling does not require that public school teachers tell children that homosexuality is OK with God or that “gay is good” — as the proponents of Prop 8 tried to scare parents into believing. It doesn’t require that they teach anything about morality or the Bible. If a child asked if same-sex marriage was legal, the teacher would state the facts: “Yes, people of the same sex can marry in some states and countries, but not in others.”
As to taking away some right to “conscientious objection”, what the heck are you talking about? This rulling did not remove anyone’s right to live or in accordance with their conscience. People who morally object to same-sex marriage would be breaking no law if they expressed their opionions about it or chose not to marry a same-sex partner. This ruling does not remove any rights. It removes Prop 8.
Michael,
I am asking ‘what is marriage?’ When it all boils down, what is marriage. It’s not a test where the answers are graded. It’s a question as a basis for discussion.
Debbie,
I appreciate the viewpoints you shared, however, we’ve had no disputes over marriages where the couple has either chosen to remain childless or where biologically they couldn’t reproduce. Are you suggesting that where there is no family, there is no marriage? Or perhaps that the married couple IS a family? If the latter is the case, what would rule out a gay couple?
My one brother and his wife have been married for over 25 years but have no children. On the other hand, gay couples have acquired families. What makes my brother’s marriage a true marriage and invalidates the gay one?
Not trying to be testy…trying to get at the essence of ‘what is a marriage’.
If you’re going to repeatedly bring up the Bible you really must try to understand it. The sin of Onan is not masturbation. It is his deception when, instead of impregnating his dead brother’s wife so that she might give birth to a boy who could then inherit his brother’s estate, he pulled his penis out of her vagina enough to make his semen spill onto her leg instead of doing his brotherly duty. And by the way, I very much doubt anyone would argue for that kind of marriage or that kind of family today.
But this is futile. You all have your minds made up and seem content to rehearse yesterday’s news as if it has some bearing on today’s. The only thing I would ask is that you to try to remember that these matters have a vital bearing on the lives of many of your compatriots. Don’t’ be surprised if we seem inpatient when the same misinformation gets repeated over and over and over.
Michael, God’s law is taken to mean all of what it is revealed to be throughout the Bible, summed up in “Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind and strength” and “your neighbor as yourself.”
Old Testament or New?
From Judge Walker’s Findings of Fact in this case:
Based on the evidence presented at trial, he ruled that Prop 8, which amended the California Constitution to limit the right of marriage to male/female couples, violated the US Constitution.
Are you asking for the legal definition in California before Prop 8? I am sure a review of California Marriage Laws prior to Prop 8 would provide that answer.
Prop 8 added a new provision to the California Constitution, to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California:
One more thing to consider: God didn’t take too kindly to birth control. Remember Onan? It seems fruitful multiplication is a foregone conclusion for marriage.
It doesn’t. Of course gay couples who are raising childen love, provide for and nurture them, and, in many cases, do a better job than straight couples. I still believe there is a best standard for parenting, and it’s a mom and a dad.
Debbie–
The begetting of children and properly raising them, while a worthy goal and a traditional byproduct of marriage, is NOT the essence of marriage. We do not restrict those who do not have the capacity or the desire to beget or to adopt children; we do not restrict a couple who are past their child-bearing and child-rearing years from marriage.
(Yikes, this might be a first. I’m a thorn in everybody’s side!)
Michael-
This brings us back to ‘family ties’. From this ruling, why couldn’t I seek the legal sanctions of marriage with any consensual adult…just for the tax breaks and the insurance benefits? There are married people who don’t even share the same residence most of the time.
The judge made his determination based on precedence. His ruling, if it stands, then becomes a matter of precedence for future cases. If the legal definition of ‘what is marriage’ is less than precise, a loophole exists that family members could exploit (i.e. me and my brother looking for tax breaks and other bennies) or two single close friends (of same or opposite gender) looking for the same breaks. We don’t have ‘term limits’…the words ’til death do us part’ and ‘forsaking all others’ have become meaningless. So, people could easily exploit this loophole. You share an apartment or house with a person for a year or two and marry them. Then pursue a ‘no contest’ divorce when you’re ready to move on. Admittedly these are worst case scenarios but I’ve lived long enough to see man at his worst. (I saw Tiny Tim marry Miss Vicky on The Tonight Show, after all.)
Anyway, I’m still not sure what marriage is–not legal marriage anyway. (OMG! Another brother exemplifies the difference between church marriage and state marriage. This brother (much to our shame) hooked up with his high-school sweetheart again WHILE he was engaged to his first wife. It took the first wife (and us) two years to discover that he had a relationship going ‘on the side’. The first wife got the marriage ‘annulled’ by the Catholic Church and secured ‘divorce’ through the state. Since he had defrauded his first wife from the beginning, the church regarded the marriage (despite the fact that it yielded two children) as invalid and non-existent due to the fraud. The state granted a divorce for the same reasons.)
Eddy, the building-block view of marriage, I think, is that it forms a family, a micro-society, out of which all of society is built. Families model cohesiveness and produce future productive members of society — children who are raised within a safe, structured environment that imbues them with moral values and prepares them to function in a world that requires them to relate to both sexes and respect authority.
How’s that for a start?
Stellar idea. Don’t deny us our rights. Instead, Focus on the Family. Start with straight people within your own churches.
This assumes that gay couples and their children are not families, or do not really care about the “nurturance of children”, or that we make inferior parents.
Marriage Equality is in no way “anti-family”. We want our families and our kids to have the same legal rights, behefits and protections as other married couples.
We are pro-marriage and pro-family. I wish opponents of marriage equality would stop lying and stop trying to scare people into believing that we’re not.
Yes, I do mean that a major concern is that the definition is being changed. Please note that I made no suggestion whatever as to whether that was a valid concern. And I realize that the definition has gone through many changes over the years, that’s why I am asking “What is marriage? What is it’s essence?”
It wasn’t intended to be a tough question or a trick question. LOL. We’ve been talking about ‘marriage equality’ and ‘gay marriage’…isn’t it fair to have a consensus on what ‘marriage’ is? (That’s rhetorical, by the way. It IS fair AND logical to have a consensus. Now, I’m simply puzzling over how we’ve been discussing/arguing this topic for so long without a working definition.)
And, if not a consensus, at least a discussion so that we can identify those aspects of our differing definitions that may be significant?
We concede, Michael, that husbands and wives may marry, not knowing if they will be able to bear children. We do not work backward, however, and deny that marriage is first and foremost about family — the nurturance of children.
I agree. And I also think many of them would have strongly objected to seeing equal rights under that constituion being extended to include women and racial minorities. They didn’t know what a wonderful document they had created — one that would eventually guarantee equal rights for all.
If “marriages are marriages, regardless of whether or not they produced children, then why should only opposite-sex couples have the right to legally marry?
Ah, Michael, that presumes that the Constitution contains the right for others to redefine marriage. And if it does, where does the redefining stop? Roe v. Wade said it contained a right to privacy. That is widely disputed, however. Imagine what that presumed right to privacy could lead to in further rulings down the road. No, same-sex marriage is a sea change our founders could not have foreseen or had the stomach for, I think.
The state cannot deny that right unless it has some compelling reason to do so. In the case of your siblings or marriages between blood relatives, different cultures define this differently.
Really? They’ve just succeeded, so far, in changing a state’s constitutional amendment. No impact on those who voted for it, as was their right? No impact on public education? No conscientious objection allowed?
Legally, a “couple” is two adults who have the desire and capacity to consent to the contract of marriage.
Not religious (man-made) texts, Ken. God’s law, written on hearts. How do people otherwise instinctively understand right from wrong? If morality cometh not from God and the biblical revelation of Him, then where does it come from? A vacuum? A man?
Michael–
This strikes me as very rational and rounded except ‘how do we define ‘couple’?’
I have lots of brothers…no, really I do. My one brother and I are a couple of single guys who have chosen to live with each other (although certainly not sharing the same bed!), who have chosen to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on our feelings about one another (we’re family…that’s a strong feeling) and we’re economically partnered in keeping up with the house and it’s ongoing expenses. Oh and we have a nephew who is unable to work who lives here essentially rent free…feels dependent to me. Why wouldn’t that be a marriage…why shouldn’t we be entitled to pursue those same economic rights and benefits that are the essence of ‘marriage equality’?
I’m wondering if the word ‘feelings’ from ‘form a household based on our feelings’ should be further modified with the word ‘romantic’? I’m ruling out the word ‘sexual’ as a modifier because there are also marriages where circumstances don’t allow for the sexual. (Off the top of my head: certain types of paralysis or an aged couple who no longer have sex.)
Kids are not necessary for marriage. Procreation is not. And being of the same gender is not. Legally, marriage is a contract with certain rights and responsibilities. Beyond that, what it is emotionally and spiritually is between each couple and God — it’s their’s to define and is not the business of the state.
I presume you can provide an example of a “theocratic” law, Timothy? Prohibition, maybe?
There is also a thing called the Constitution (the real one), which prohibits such goings-on as theocracy. Judicial activism, i.e., finding nonexistent rationale for certain politically correct stances in the Constitution, is a greater threat than theocracy in this country.
It’s God, Himself, who’s the threat to oligarchy, isn’t it?
Michael, God’s law is taken to mean all of what it is revealed to be throughout the Bible, summed up in “Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind and strength” and “your neighbor as yourself.”
Eddy, the building-block view of marriage, I think, is that it forms a family, a micro-society, out of which all of society is built. Families model cohesiveness and produce future productive members of society — children who are raised within a safe, structured environment that imbues them with moral values and prepares them to function in a world that requires them to relate to both sexes and respect authority.
How’s that for a start?
Yes, I do mean that a major concern is that the definition is being changed. Please note that I made no suggestion whatever as to whether that was a valid concern. And I realize that the definition has gone through many changes over the years, that’s why I am asking “What is marriage? What is it’s essence?”
It wasn’t intended to be a tough question or a trick question. LOL. We’ve been talking about ‘marriage equality’ and ‘gay marriage’…isn’t it fair to have a consensus on what ‘marriage’ is? (That’s rhetorical, by the way. It IS fair AND logical to have a consensus. Now, I’m simply puzzling over how we’ve been discussing/arguing this topic for so long without a working definition.)
And, if not a consensus, at least a discussion so that we can identify those aspects of our differing definitions that may be significant?
Really? They’ve just succeeded, so far, in changing a state’s constitutional amendment. No impact on those who voted for it, as was their right? No impact on public education? No conscientious objection allowed?
Not religious (man-made) texts, Ken. God’s law, written on hearts. How do people otherwise instinctively understand right from wrong? If morality cometh not from God and the biblical revelation of Him, then where does it come from? A vacuum? A man?
I presume you can provide an example of a “theocratic” law, Timothy? Prohibition, maybe?
There is also a thing called the Constitution (the real one), which prohibits such goings-on as theocracy. Judicial activism, i.e., finding nonexistent rationale for certain politically correct stances in the Constitution, is a greater threat than theocracy in this country.
It’s God, Himself, who’s the threat to oligarchy, isn’t it?
You mean a major concern of marriage equality opponents is that the definition of marriage is being changed – the problem I have with this argument, from what little I know of its history, is that the “institution” has changed a great deal through the years. What was the definition is a question that will depend a great deal on what time and place we are talking about. If we are talking about the present day, the legal definition still varies depending on the state you’re in, doesn’t it?
That’s a start. What is the legal definition of marriage?
It occurred to me that we are arguing gay marriage…we are arguing marriage equality. How insane that we’re having all these side arguments when we don’t have a consensus on what marriage is.
A major concern is that this decision is changing the definition of marriage. If so, what WAS the definition and what IS it being changed to?
Well, it’s not a simple question, but it is certainly is a short one. 🙂
The answer would be very complex — depending upon such things as history, time, culture, social norms, tradition, patterns of kinship, inheritance, concepts of gender, psychology, drives, sexuality, spirituality, power, religion, division of labor, child-rearing, romantic ideals, law…
It’s like asking, “What is love?” In my many years of doing marriage and family therapy, I would always ask couples — gay and straight — what these words meant to them. Apart from the basic legal definition of marriage, the answer was as varied as the people involved.
I just composed a very lengthy comment but sent it to myself instead.
Just want to go with a simple question for discussion instead: “What is marriage?”
You mean a major concern of marriage equality opponents is that the definition of marriage is being changed – the problem I have with this argument, from what little I know of its history, is that the “institution” has changed a great deal through the years. What was the definition is a question that will depend a great deal on what time and place we are talking about. If we are talking about the present day, the legal definition still varies depending on the state you’re in, doesn’t it?
Correction: in a previous post I said “law based on the 9th amendment” that should be “law based on the 9th Commandment”
A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION…”
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 18, 2010 at 5:35 pm
“Will it be illegal to deny a gay couple a marriage license?”
Assuming the ruling is upheld, then yes it will be.
“To refuse to photograph their wedding or print their invitations?”
This is already against civil law (i.e. you can’t be charged criminally, but you can be sued), just as it would be to refuse someone service based on their race or religion.
“To deny on moral ground the use of a church facility for their wedding or reception?”
Depends on the nature of the facility. If an actual church or church property that is not put up for public use/rent, then yes, the church could deny usage. However, if the property was rented out for non-church functions then no they could not.
It’s not a generalization. It’s completely relevant to the discussion and completely on topic. Proponents of Prop 8 say I want special rights, or superior rights, or new rights. That’s “total BS”.
I’m not being “simplistic”. I am not naive. And I resent the implication that I am some sort of “teenage girl” with some romantic fantasy about marriage. I know that marriage is anything but “simple”.
I just want to get married — with all the rights, benefits and responsibilties that legal marriage involves. No special rights. No new rights. Just equal rights. Just marriage. Legal marriage. I want my constituational rights. Nothing more. Nothing less. I do not seek to impose my religious views on anyone.
I believe what I believe strongly, but I don’t seek to impose them on you. I have no desire to take away or limit your rights to believe otherwise or to live your life accordingly.
No. I look to the courts to guarantee equal rights under law. I object to conservatives who think the law should force me to settle for less than that.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 18, 2010 at 5:23 pm
“”But when it comes to civil law I object to those who try to force everyone to do what their religious leaders tell them is the divine will of God.
How do they do that, Timothy? Can’t anybody answer my simple question?”
they force others to adhere to their religious beliefs by passing laws based on them. For example, anti-sodomy laws aimed at gays or denying gays the right to marry.
“So laws against murder (6th Commandment), theft (8th Commandment) and perjury (9th Commandment) should all be taken off the books? Morality is all based in the Bible, Michael.”
No it isn’t. And many people understand why murder and theft should illegal without having to resort to any religious texts. Further, a law based on the 9th amendment would encompass far more than perjury.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Aug 18, 2010 at 1:59 pm
“Not automatically. The ruling only found that Proposition 8 was based in animus and that no rational basis was presented.”
The ruling also determined that strict scrutiny applies. Which means in any other challenges in the 9th district the state will have to satisfy the strict scrutiny requirement. This requirement considerably raises the bar on defending any other cases.
That’s a start. What is the legal definition of marriage?
It occurred to me that we are arguing gay marriage…we are arguing marriage equality. How insane that we’re having all these side arguments when we don’t have a consensus on what marriage is.
A major concern is that this decision is changing the definition of marriage. If so, what WAS the definition and what IS it being changed to?
Well, it’s not a simple question, but it is certainly is a short one. 🙂
The answer would be very complex — depending upon such things as history, time, culture, social norms, tradition, patterns of kinship, inheritance, concepts of gender, psychology, drives, sexuality, spirituality, power, religion, division of labor, child-rearing, romantic ideals, law…
It’s like asking, “What is love?” In my many years of doing marriage and family therapy, I would always ask couples — gay and straight — what these words meant to them. Apart from the basic legal definition of marriage, the answer was as varied as the people involved.
Eddy
No. There is not a comparison.
Whether or not Michael (or I or anyone) seeks to convince you of his views, he is not seeking to impact your life at all through the legal system.
We are not seeking that the courts “justify your beliefs”. That is a common claim by anti-gay activists, but it simply isn’t true.
We seek, rather, legal equality through the courts. Social equality can only come through persuasion. So it would be foolish and futile to seek “justification of beliefs” – especially those about God – through the courts.
But I truly cannot say the same for the opposite side.
In their latest filing this week, Chuck Cooper (lead attorney for the Proposition 8 Proponents) argued that religious belief is a proper reason for denying rights to gay people and that moral disapproval was justification for unequal treatment.
I’m really not making that up or exaggerating.
They are seeking that the courts “justify their beliefs”. Because, unlike our side, they truly want to impact the lives of people who disagree with them.
I don’t mind that anyone try to convince me of their moral code. I’ve sat through a lot of sermons in my time and some I’ve enjoyed immensely. And some have even persuaded me to be a better person.
But when it goes from persuasion to law is where i really see the difference.
Pro-marriage folk only are trying to change their own lives and don’t want to change the way that the law impacts anyone else. Anti-marriage folk aren’t trying to change the way the law impact them, they only are trying to impact the lives of gay people.
And that’s wrong.
Timothy–
Perhaps then dogmatic, imperious or dictatorial would be a better word choice than theocratic.
Can we stop using generalizations when it suits us or the zing we’d like to add to our retort?
I just want to get married.
That statement is total BS when taken in context with the dozens of previous statements that indicated that you want the rights and benefits.
(I am not disparaging those rights and benefits. I’m disparaging the simplistic “I just want to get married” statement. Teenage girls say that and mean it in all of its simplicity. “Marriage equality” means more than that.)
This one isn’t a generalization:
But you do! You push your view so strongly because it is your religious conviction that God made you gay and that those who believe it is sin are misguided. You look to the courts to further justify your beliefs. “One more step forward for our side; another blow to the conservatives.”
And, in that, I’m not disparaging your right to push your view; I’m disparaging the blindness that sees (and judges) ‘the other side’ pushing their view while failing to see that. when it comes to pushy and self-righteous, you merit some very high marks yourself.
I sense that the fat lady is getting ready to sing; I just hope she doesn’t trip over all the pots and kettles.
Eddy,
It doesn’t really fit the dictionary definition. But lately I’ve noticed that some atheists don’t simply “not believe in any gods” but have become quite evangelical about it. It isn’t enough that they don’t believe, they have to preach to everyone around them.
And it isn’t acceptable that anyone else believe. Any disrespect to others is held as being perfectly acceptable because it is “what they believe”. It is the sort of behavior that one usually only experiences from the most obnoxious of religious adherents (however you might define that).
They are devout. They are fundamentalist. And they are engaging in religious war.
Since they behave like a religion, I tend to think of them as one.
I just composed a very lengthy comment but sent it to myself instead.
Just want to go with a simple question for discussion instead: “What is marriage?”
Timothy summed it up well:
And that’s how the Judge ruled:
I don’t want any special privelege. I do not want to deprive others of their rights. I do not seek to impose my religious views on anyone. I just want to get married.
Atheists as theocrats. Doesn’t seem to work with my dictionary.
“a person who rules, governs as a representative of god or a deity, or is a member of the ruling group in a theocracy, as a divine king or a high priest.”
BTW…
in the class of “theocrats” I don’t mean only Christians. I also include Sharia Law, ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Israel, and atheists around the globe who also seek to force others to live according to their rules about religion (i.e. don’t practice it).
LOL. Well I guess that sums it all up then.
A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION…”
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 18, 2010 at 5:35 pm
“Will it be illegal to deny a gay couple a marriage license?”
Assuming the ruling is upheld, then yes it will be.
“To refuse to photograph their wedding or print their invitations?”
This is already against civil law (i.e. you can’t be charged criminally, but you can be sued), just as it would be to refuse someone service based on their race or religion.
“To deny on moral ground the use of a church facility for their wedding or reception?”
Depends on the nature of the facility. If an actual church or church property that is not put up for public use/rent, then yes, the church could deny usage. However, if the property was rented out for non-church functions then no they could not.
It’s not a generalization. It’s completely relevant to the discussion and completely on topic. Proponents of Prop 8 say I want special rights, or superior rights, or new rights. That’s “total BS”.
I’m not being “simplistic”. I am not naive. And I resent the implication that I am some sort of “teenage girl” with some romantic fantasy about marriage. I know that marriage is anything but “simple”.
I just want to get married — with all the rights, benefits and responsibilties that legal marriage involves. No special rights. No new rights. Just equal rights. Just marriage. Legal marriage. I want my constituational rights. Nothing more. Nothing less. I do not seek to impose my religious views on anyone.
I believe what I believe strongly, but I don’t seek to impose them on you. I have no desire to take away or limit your rights to believe otherwise or to live your life accordingly.
No. I look to the courts to guarantee equal rights under law. I object to conservatives who think the law should force me to settle for less than that.
Eddy,
Nope. Not 52%
Actually, only a small percentage of Californians are theocratic. But they can be very effective at lying to the rest and playing up to fears, animus, or tradition in order to get their way.
It doesn’t work real well with things that impact everyone… just minorities.
In the sense that case law establishes legal precedent, sure.
Gay couples will have the same access to marriage licenses as other couples.
It is currently illegal in California to deny services to persons based on sexual orientation, whether it be marriage invitations or civil unions invitations. So nothing has changed at all in that matter.
Any church can deny on moral grounds the use of their church facility for any reason. Nothing has changed at all in that matter.
No. Or not any more so than mixed-race marriage is the law of the land. Or that mixed-religion marriage is the law of the land. Or that Hindu marriage is the law of the land. Or that Elvis impersonator marriage is the law of the land.
No new law exists. Rather, illegal and unconstitutional restrictions of one minority from access to the law that all others share have been lifted.
Everybody knows that California is 52% theocratic.
Well, while murder is a “moral” issue, it is more of a “rights” issue. People have a right to life and that right is violated by murder. It is the violation of this right that is punished.
Incidentally, it is also violated by involuntary manslaughter. And endangerment. Which is why one may not be morally guilty in an manslaughter case, one is still legally guilty and subjected to punishment.
So too does one have a right to property, which is violated by theft. And we don’t turn to the Bible to see what the punishment for theft is; we look to civil law.
And perjury is perhaps the best example of why your argument fails completely. Lying is no more immoral in court than it is in daily life. But daily lying is legal while perjury is not.
Why? Well because perjury makes it more difficult to conduct trials of law and therefore has a non-moral consequence.
Sure, Debbie.
We people all live in a country.
And that country has laws.
And when people break those laws, policemen come and take them to jail.
Some people in this country think that their church tells them the right way to live.
And some of them live the way their church tells them and try to advise others to live the same way.
But not everyone agrees with that church and some people don’t listen and obey.
So there are some people who think that convincing others is not enough, that if those people won’t voluntarily live according to their church’s rules then they will make laws telling everyone to live by the church’s rules. We call them theocrats.
And sometimes they are successful in getting those laws passed.
This usually happens when the laws only effect a minority of people. Because then the theocrats can convince everyone else that the minority are bad people and don’t deserve to live their life how they want.
That doesn’t work real well with rules that effect everyone – voters tend to pay closer attention to the rules that effect them.
And when theocrats are able to pass laws, then they are able to force the minority to do what they want.
It’s the Law, they say. If you don’t obey the Law, we’ll call the policemen.
And then the policemen can come and put the minority people in jail.
And that is really really sad for the minority.
And for people who believe in liberty and freedom.
But not sad for the theocrats.
Simple enough answer?
The Mass Bay Colony tried basing their legal code on the Bible. It didn’t work then and doesn’t work now.
And how far are you willing to go to have the State enforce “Biblical morality”? Old Testament? Which laws? Which punishments? Who would decide? Would we still kill those who refused to honor God? How about disobedient children? Brides who were found not to be virgins? How, exacly, do you suggest that the State enforce Biblical morality?
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 18, 2010 at 5:23 pm
“”But when it comes to civil law I object to those who try to force everyone to do what their religious leaders tell them is the divine will of God.
How do they do that, Timothy? Can’t anybody answer my simple question?”
they force others to adhere to their religious beliefs by passing laws based on them. For example, anti-sodomy laws aimed at gays or denying gays the right to marry.
“So laws against murder (6th Commandment), theft (8th Commandment) and perjury (9th Commandment) should all be taken off the books? Morality is all based in the Bible, Michael.”
No it isn’t. And many people understand why murder and theft should illegal without having to resort to any religious texts. Further, a law based on the 9th amendment would encompass far more than perjury.
Debbie:
If you bothered to take the time to actually read the ruling, instead of stubbornly clinging to your fears, prejudices and preconceptions, you might find some of the answers to those questions yourself. It’s not the “law of the land” yet. Even if it is upheld, it would be the law only for Califonia. What would happen in other states? That has yet to be seen.
Yes, it would be illegal to deny a marriage license to same sex couples in California. That was the question being tried in the first place. The Plaintiffs wanted a marriage license. No, a church or minister would not be compelled to officiate or make their church available for such purposes. No church or minister is required by law to do that now — even for straight couples.
Regarding your questions on whether or not private businesses — like printers, caterers, photographers, etc — could refuse to serve a same-sex couple, there is nothing in this ruling that would say that they must — only that the state of California would not be able to deny the right to marry.
He has established new legal precedent, at least in California. Will it be illegal to deny a gay couple a marriage license? To refuse to photograph their wedding or print their invitations? To deny on moral ground the use of a church facility for their wedding or reception? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then same-sex marriage is the law of the land there.
You could take away the Bible completely and still arrive at the conclusion that all human beings have certain rights and that no person should be treated unjustly before the law. Many cultures have.
No, it’s not. Cultures that don’t believe in your Bible still affirm basic human and civil rights. Rights are not bestowed by the Bible. They are bestowed by the Creator, even upon those who doi not honor HIm as Creator — we hold these truths to be self-evident.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Aug 18, 2010 at 1:59 pm
“Not automatically. The ruling only found that Proposition 8 was based in animus and that no rational basis was presented.”
The ruling also determined that strict scrutiny applies. Which means in any other challenges in the 9th district the state will have to satisfy the strict scrutiny requirement. This requirement considerably raises the bar on defending any other cases.
Some may be quick to say, “Well, the founding fathers did not intend that marriage should be available to same-sex couples! That’s a new idea!” True enough. But they also didn’t intend that women or racial minorities ahould have equal rights, either. Some of our forebearers seemed to think the “Judge of all mankind” only wanted “equality” for white, Christian males
But the wonderful document they created — and which was later amended and clarified through our legal and judicial process — made equal civil rights available to all those groups. Many were outraged! Some devoutly religious folks argued that the idea of equal rights for women and minorities was “contrary to the laws of God and the design of the Creator!”.
They were over-ruled. And rightly so. How is this any different? Why should equal rights be denied on the basis of gender and sexual orientation? What compelling reason does the State have to enforce Debbie’s ideas about “Biblical morality” — or any groups religious or personal disapproval of homosexuality? Can you show how extending equal civil rights to gays and lesbians hurts your rights in any way?
How do they do that, Timothy? Can’t anybody answer my simple question?
So laws against murder (6th Commandment), theft (8th Commandment) and perjury (9th Commandment) should all be taken off the books? Morality is all based in the Bible, Michael.
Judge Walker did not “make a new law”. He ruled that existing rights cannot be denied because of religious prejudices — to do so violates the US Constitution. The Proponents failed to show why the State should deny equal rights on the basis of gender or orientation..
In terms of “force” — the way it is now, I am forced to pay equal taxes –but have fewer benefits. I am forced to pay more for less. You, on the other hand, still have the same rights as before — and more benefits under law — just you had before this ruling. Is that fair?
No law should bne based on “Biblical morality”. That’s not the purpose of the law. Promoting “Biblical morality” is the job of the Chruch, not the State. Civil law should be based on protecting equal civil rights.
Those are not “my rules”, Debbie. Like it or not, those are the rules set out by the Founders of our nation.
Judge Walker had not made any new laws from the bench.
The fundamental right to marriage was determined in Loving v. Virginia.
The unconstitutionality of passing an amendment designed to disadvantage a class of people was found in Romer v. Evans.
The inability of the government to apply discriminatory law based in moral disapproval wad determined in Lawrence v. Texas.
Walker simply applied the law to the current situation and found that the state cannot deny a class of people of their fundamental right to marry the person of their choosing based on moral disapproval of that class of people.
Debbie,
But when it comes to civil law I object to those who try to force everyone to do what their religious leaders tell them is the divine will of God. That road leads to horror on a Biblical scale.
Michael, Timothy implied that civil law is an instrument of force. Just trying to get someone to clarify what laws, in your view, are based in biblical morality and which aren’t. And how is this new law Judge Walker has made from the bench not forcing anyone to do anything, while “those other laws” do? We’ll play by your rules.
Maybe we should just take rights away one by one until all sinners repent. Let him (or her) without sin, deny the first right.
And don’t give me the “Oh, well, those are the consequences of disobeying the Judge of all mankind” excuse.
Do you think it’s right for the State to deny me equal rights and enforce your understanding of the Bible — when it doesn’t limit your rights in anyway?
No, Debbie. He’s not forcing you to do anything. His decision doesn’t reduce or limit your Civil rights in any way.. You have the exactly same rights and priveleges as before.
You are still free to believe as you wish and to marry the man of your dreams — with all the financial and legal benefits you had before. On the other hand, as it stands now, I am forced to pay more for fewer rights.
Do you? Is that what Judge Walker is using it to do?
Timothy–
Perhaps then dogmatic, imperious or dictatorial would be a better word choice than theocratic.
Can we stop using generalizations when it suits us or the zing we’d like to add to our retort?
I just want to get married.
That statement is total BS when taken in context with the dozens of previous statements that indicated that you want the rights and benefits.
(I am not disparaging those rights and benefits. I’m disparaging the simplistic “I just want to get married” statement. Teenage girls say that and mean it in all of its simplicity. “Marriage equality” means more than that.)
This one isn’t a generalization:
But you do! You push your view so strongly because it is your religious conviction that God made you gay and that those who believe it is sin are misguided. You look to the courts to further justify your beliefs. “One more step forward for our side; another blow to the conservatives.”
And, in that, I’m not disparaging your right to push your view; I’m disparaging the blindness that sees (and judges) ‘the other side’ pushing their view while failing to see that. when it comes to pushy and self-righteous, you merit some very high marks yourself.
I sense that the fat lady is getting ready to sing; I just hope she doesn’t trip over all the pots and kettles.
Debbie,
Do you see civil law as something other than force?
Eddy,
It doesn’t really fit the dictionary definition. But lately I’ve noticed that some atheists don’t simply “not believe in any gods” but have become quite evangelical about it. It isn’t enough that they don’t believe, they have to preach to everyone around them.
And it isn’t acceptable that anyone else believe. Any disrespect to others is held as being perfectly acceptable because it is “what they believe”. It is the sort of behavior that one usually only experiences from the most obnoxious of religious adherents (however you might define that).
They are devout. They are fundamentalist. And they are engaging in religious war.
Since they behave like a religion, I tend to think of them as one.
And I have found that your insisting on repeating this bunk is tiresome. Why are you hung up on Christians “forcing people” to do whatever it is you think they are being forced to do? Jesus was/is a gentleman. He merely says “Come to me.” Who is forcing whom to do what?
I can accept that some people are opposed to same-sex marriage on moral grounds. Fine. Live according to your faith. Don’t marry someone of the same sex. But how about those who don’t hold the same beliefs?
How far would folks like to go with this “sinners should not have equal civil rights” argument? Should equality under law be the special privelege of the “holy”? And who would decide who is and who isn’t?
It’s not even “God said”. It’s “Debbie says God said.” She continually leaves herself out of the equation — as though her understanding of Scripture is completely free of any possibility of error due to her own feelings, beliefs, experiences or prejudices.
I really wish she — and folks of similar mindset — would say, “We believe” instead of presuming to speak for and know the mind of the “Judge of all mankind” –suggesting that their understanding ought ot be legally binding on the rest of us.
Timothy summed it up well:
And that’s how the Judge ruled:
I don’t want any special privelege. I do not want to deprive others of their rights. I do not seek to impose my religious views on anyone. I just want to get married.
Michael… be nice.
More credbible source — the text of the decision.
Timothy, if we keep this up, folks here won’t have to bother reading the actual decision. Give us a few weeks and we will have posted most of it — as a sort of comunity service. Until then, they will have to rely what other people say about the decision — and on their own prejudgements of this issue.
Debbie,
You may notice that few here are interested in taking up your “yeah but God said” argument. After at least 6,000 years of bloodshed based on what various camps were completely convinced that God said, most of us want a break.
We’ve found that going down the road of “force everyone to do what my religious leaders tell me is the divine will of God” tends to lead to horror on a Biblical scale.
BTW…
in the class of “theocrats” I don’t mean only Christians. I also include Sharia Law, ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Israel, and atheists around the globe who also seek to force others to live according to their rules about religion (i.e. don’t practice it).
Eddy,
Perhaps it isn’t the best policy to rely on the Washington Examiner for accuracy (I chuckled when I saw who David was referencing to as “an editorial commenting on bias”. What, WND didn’t have an opinion?)
A more credible source would have provided context and explained that by “harm”, the judge means legal harm, i.e. an inability to achieve legal equal standing.
The total finding, including the evidence can be found in the ruling:
I only included the first four points on which Walker based his finding, but he lists 18 items of testimony. It’s worth noting that the first two are from the Prop 8 side’s witnesses.
LOL. Well I guess that sums it all up then.
I think you’re mistaken. I have my grandmother’s Bible open before me. It says so quite clearly at the places I gave. Quite clearly. The two creations are defined by the language. And also by the different order of things created, most particularly man and the animals. To claim that the first creation foreshadows the second instead of contradicting it is to distort the meaning.
Eddy,
Nope. Not 52%
Actually, only a small percentage of Californians are theocratic. But they can be very effective at lying to the rest and playing up to fears, animus, or tradition in order to get their way.
It doesn’t work real well with things that impact everyone… just minorities.
Everybody knows that California is 52% theocratic.
Well, while murder is a “moral” issue, it is more of a “rights” issue. People have a right to life and that right is violated by murder. It is the violation of this right that is punished.
Incidentally, it is also violated by involuntary manslaughter. And endangerment. Which is why one may not be morally guilty in an manslaughter case, one is still legally guilty and subjected to punishment.
So too does one have a right to property, which is violated by theft. And we don’t turn to the Bible to see what the punishment for theft is; we look to civil law.
And perjury is perhaps the best example of why your argument fails completely. Lying is no more immoral in court than it is in daily life. But daily lying is legal while perjury is not.
Why? Well because perjury makes it more difficult to conduct trials of law and therefore has a non-moral consequence.
Sure, Debbie.
We people all live in a country.
And that country has laws.
And when people break those laws, policemen come and take them to jail.
Some people in this country think that their church tells them the right way to live.
And some of them live the way their church tells them and try to advise others to live the same way.
But not everyone agrees with that church and some people don’t listen and obey.
So there are some people who think that convincing others is not enough, that if those people won’t voluntarily live according to their church’s rules then they will make laws telling everyone to live by the church’s rules. We call them theocrats.
And sometimes they are successful in getting those laws passed.
This usually happens when the laws only effect a minority of people. Because then the theocrats can convince everyone else that the minority are bad people and don’t deserve to live their life how they want.
That doesn’t work real well with rules that effect everyone – voters tend to pay closer attention to the rules that effect them.
And when theocrats are able to pass laws, then they are able to force the minority to do what they want.
It’s the Law, they say. If you don’t obey the Law, we’ll call the policemen.
And then the policemen can come and put the minority people in jail.
And that is really really sad for the minority.
And for people who believe in liberty and freedom.
But not sad for the theocrats.
Simple enough answer?
The Mass Bay Colony tried basing their legal code on the Bible. It didn’t work then and doesn’t work now.
ken
Not automatically. The ruling only found that Proposition 8 was based in animus and that no rational basis was presented.
This does not presume that an amendment in, say, Oregon was based in animus. But it certainly does give precedent.
And how far are you willing to go to have the State enforce “Biblical morality”? Old Testament? Which laws? Which punishments? Who would decide? Would we still kill those who refused to honor God? How about disobedient children? Brides who were found not to be virgins? How, exacly, do you suggest that the State enforce Biblical morality?
Debbie:
If you bothered to take the time to actually read the ruling, instead of stubbornly clinging to your fears, prejudices and preconceptions, you might find some of the answers to those questions yourself. It’s not the “law of the land” yet. Even if it is upheld, it would be the law only for Califonia. What would happen in other states? That has yet to be seen.
Yes, it would be illegal to deny a marriage license to same sex couples in California. That was the question being tried in the first place. The Plaintiffs wanted a marriage license. No, a church or minister would not be compelled to officiate or make their church available for such purposes. No church or minister is required by law to do that now — even for straight couples.
Regarding your questions on whether or not private businesses — like printers, caterers, photographers, etc — could refuse to serve a same-sex couple, there is nothing in this ruling that would say that they must — only that the state of California would not be able to deny the right to marry.
Throughout our history, all sorts of devoutly religious folks have used their understanding of their sacred texts as a justification for unequal treatment under civil law, claiming personal and infallible knowledge of what the “judge of all mankind says”.
They have done it with women, jews, Catholics, blacks, gays — the list goes on and on. That’s why our system was set up the way it was — and I think it was genius. It prevents the religious views of one group from being forced upon the rest. Would you really want to live under any other system?
He has established new legal precedent, at least in California. Will it be illegal to deny a gay couple a marriage license? To refuse to photograph their wedding or print their invitations? To deny on moral ground the use of a church facility for their wedding or reception? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then same-sex marriage is the law of the land there.
You could take away the Bible completely and still arrive at the conclusion that all human beings have certain rights and that no person should be treated unjustly before the law. Many cultures have.
No, it’s not. Cultures that don’t believe in your Bible still affirm basic human and civil rights. Rights are not bestowed by the Bible. They are bestowed by the Creator, even upon those who doi not honor HIm as Creator — we hold these truths to be self-evident.
Yes, Debbie, but as you say, “That’s the way it works.” People’s religious beliefs about what the Judge of all mankind says cannot form the basis for legislation. Similarly, even if, for example, the judge himself/herself is a convinced Spiritualist, alleged testimony from the Other Side cannot form any part of the basis for legislation.
Nowhere in Genesis 1 does it say God made them at the same time, just that He made man, male and female. An overview, of sorts. Genesis 2 gives more detail, the creation of animals notwithstanding. Genesis 3 gives the curse, under which we still live.
Some may be quick to say, “Well, the founding fathers did not intend that marriage should be available to same-sex couples! That’s a new idea!” True enough. But they also didn’t intend that women or racial minorities ahould have equal rights, either. Some of our forebearers seemed to think the “Judge of all mankind” only wanted “equality” for white, Christian males
But the wonderful document they created — and which was later amended and clarified through our legal and judicial process — made equal civil rights available to all those groups. Many were outraged! Some devoutly religious folks argued that the idea of equal rights for women and minorities was “contrary to the laws of God and the design of the Creator!”.
They were over-ruled. And rightly so. How is this any different? Why should equal rights be denied on the basis of gender and sexual orientation? What compelling reason does the State have to enforce Debbie’s ideas about “Biblical morality” — or any groups religious or personal disapproval of homosexuality? Can you show how extending equal civil rights to gays and lesbians hurts your rights in any way?
How do they do that, Timothy? Can’t anybody answer my simple question?
So laws against murder (6th Commandment), theft (8th Commandment) and perjury (9th Commandment) should all be taken off the books? Morality is all based in the Bible, Michael.
Paraphrasing an argument against equal rights under the law:
Doesn’t this sound a lot like those who Oppose Marriage equality? Actually it’s a BIblical argument from 1884 against equal rights for women, based on what the Rev. Prof. H. M. Goodwin, believed the “judge of all mankind says”.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bible-researcher.com%2Fwomen%2Fsuffrage.html&h=7812c
Judge Walker had not made any new laws from the bench.
The fundamental right to marriage was determined in Loving v. Virginia.
The unconstitutionality of passing an amendment designed to disadvantage a class of people was found in Romer v. Evans.
The inability of the government to apply discriminatory law based in moral disapproval wad determined in Lawrence v. Texas.
Walker simply applied the law to the current situation and found that the state cannot deny a class of people of their fundamental right to marry the person of their choosing based on moral disapproval of that class of people.
According to the first creation story, Gen 1:26, God makes Adam and Eve at the same time (after the creation of the animals) and tells them to be fruitful and multiply. It is in Gen 2:7 that God creates Adam first and Eve second. In this second version the animals are created after Adam but before Eve. These two accounts have become conflated but are clearly not the same.
Debbie,
But when it comes to civil law I object to those who try to force everyone to do what their religious leaders tell them is the divine will of God. That road leads to horror on a Biblical scale.
Michael, Timothy implied that civil law is an instrument of force. Just trying to get someone to clarify what laws, in your view, are based in biblical morality and which aren’t. And how is this new law Judge Walker has made from the bench not forcing anyone to do anything, while “those other laws” do? We’ll play by your rules.
Prop 8, Judge Walker and the Biblical View of Marriage Equality — by Rita Nakashima Brock, Ph. D.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-nakashima-brock-ph-d/judge-walker-and-the-bibl_b_682595.html
Actually, Adam and Eve sinned together. He was with her and said nothing to prevent her from eating the forbidden fruit. You might even say he sinned first in his passivity and disobedience of God to protect her.
If anything, the Bible could be taken to affirm women as special creatures (the weaker sex), but worthy of protection from men and love from their husbands. Man was created first, and Paul wrote of God intending man to, therefore, be head of the family, but not to lord it over woman, who is to respect her husband.
Alas, this is just a pointless digression these days. More people want to hear what a mortal judge says than what the Judge of all mankind says.
And don’t give me the “Oh, well, those are the consequences of disobeying the Judge of all mankind” excuse.
Do you think it’s right for the State to deny me equal rights and enforce your understanding of the Bible — when it doesn’t limit your rights in anyway?
“On Prop 8, it’s the evidence, stupid” — By Lisa Bloom, Special to CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/17/bloom.prop.8/index.html?hpt=C2
No, Debbie. He’s not forcing you to do anything. His decision doesn’t reduce or limit your Civil rights in any way.. You have the exactly same rights and priveleges as before.
You are still free to believe as you wish and to marry the man of your dreams — with all the financial and legal benefits you had before. On the other hand, as it stands now, I am forced to pay more for fewer rights.
Unfortunately, using religious beliefs as a justification for inequality under the law has been a pattern in our society.
I just re-read the 80 findings of fact to see if I could help you out here. If I am not mistaken, the Judge did find that “religous beliefs that gays and lesbians are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harms gays and lesbians”. However, from my reading of the decision, he does not give it “uniiversal application” — as though the belief alone does the harm. He is talking about its implications for this specific case.
He cites a number of examples, from the evidence presented in court, that such beliefs have indeed harmed gays and lesbians to the extent that these beliefs have been used as justification for the mistreatment of gays and lesbians in our society and as an excuse for unequal treatment of gays and lesbians under the law.
That’s the context. He concludes that
Do you? Is that what Judge Walker is using it to do?
Michael–
I was commenting on the link that David provided and presented an exact quote from the link. The author did not cite exactly where from the determination it came. I was hoping that since you’ve read the entire determination several times including highlighting and footnoting, you’d either recognize the quote or identify it as made up or a misquote.
Debbie,
Do you see civil law as something other than force?
And I have found that your insisting on repeating this bunk is tiresome. Why are you hung up on Christians “forcing people” to do whatever it is you think they are being forced to do? Jesus was/is a gentleman. He merely says “Come to me.” Who is forcing whom to do what?
In opposing equal rights for women, many used the Bible as justification for unqual treatment. Women were inferior because woman as made out of man, she sinned first, etc.
Today, Wednesday, marks the 90th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women in the United States the right to vote.
I can accept that some people are opposed to same-sex marriage on moral grounds. Fine. Live according to your faith. Don’t marry someone of the same sex. But how about those who don’t hold the same beliefs?
How far would folks like to go with this “sinners should not have equal civil rights” argument? Should equality under law be the special privelege of the “holy”? And who would decide who is and who isn’t?
My apologies. That should have read: “I would agree that the belief alone would do no harm.”
Have your read the entire ruling to check this out? Which of the “findings of fact” is the quote referencing? If the judge made such a finding of fact, what evidence was presented to support such a finding in this particular case? I would agree that the belief alone would do know harm.
I think It would depend on how that belief is used as a rational for unequal treatment of gays ind lesbians under the law. Historically, relious beliefs have been used as justification for unequal rights and for unjust treatment of different religious groups, for women and racial minorities.
It’s not even “God said”. It’s “Debbie says God said.” She continually leaves herself out of the equation — as though her understanding of Scripture is completely free of any possibility of error due to her own feelings, beliefs, experiences or prejudices.
I really wish she — and folks of similar mindset — would say, “We believe” instead of presuming to speak for and know the mind of the “Judge of all mankind” –suggesting that their understanding ought ot be legally binding on the rest of us.
Michael… be nice.
More credbible source — the text of the decision.
Timothy, if we keep this up, folks here won’t have to bother reading the actual decision. Give us a few weeks and we will have posted most of it — as a sort of comunity service. Until then, they will have to rely what other people say about the decision — and on their own prejudgements of this issue.
Debbie,
You may notice that few here are interested in taking up your “yeah but God said” argument. After at least 6,000 years of bloodshed based on what various camps were completely convinced that God said, most of us want a break.
We’ve found that going down the road of “force everyone to do what my religious leaders tell me is the divine will of God” tends to lead to horror on a Biblical scale.
Eddy,
Perhaps it isn’t the best policy to rely on the Washington Examiner for accuracy (I chuckled when I saw who David was referencing to as “an editorial commenting on bias”. What, WND didn’t have an opinion?)
A more credible source would have provided context and explained that by “harm”, the judge means legal harm, i.e. an inability to achieve legal equal standing.
The total finding, including the evidence can be found in the ruling:
I only included the first four points on which Walker based his finding, but he lists 18 items of testimony. It’s worth noting that the first two are from the Prop 8 side’s witnesses.
This quote stood out to me from the link that David posted:
First, I’m disturbed by the ‘finding of fact’ that my beliefs harm another. Is this a given? Does it have universal application? Does my belief that gambling is wrong–even sinful–harm gamblers? Does my belief that ‘sex outside of marriage’ is sinful AND inferior harm the perpetrators?
Much comment has been given to the far-reaching effects of this determination…how it will impact rights, benefits and quality of life in general. Will this ‘finding of fact’, if unchallenged, also have impact?
I think you’re mistaken. I have my grandmother’s Bible open before me. It says so quite clearly at the places I gave. Quite clearly. The two creations are defined by the language. And also by the different order of things created, most particularly man and the animals. To claim that the first creation foreshadows the second instead of contradicting it is to distort the meaning.
I’m not sure why Mr. Blakeslee should be linking to such a clearly incompetent opinion on judge Walker’s findings. One example among many: there is no 7 million ‘majority’, it is a matter of some 600,000. Can we please retire this deceptive figure?
Throughout our history, all sorts of devoutly religious folks have used their understanding of their sacred texts as a justification for unequal treatment under civil law, claiming personal and infallible knowledge of what the “judge of all mankind says”.
They have done it with women, jews, Catholics, blacks, gays — the list goes on and on. That’s why our system was set up the way it was — and I think it was genius. It prevents the religious views of one group from being forced upon the rest. Would you really want to live under any other system?
Nowhere in Genesis 1 does it say God made them at the same time, just that He made man, male and female. An overview, of sorts. Genesis 2 gives more detail, the creation of animals notwithstanding. Genesis 3 gives the curse, under which we still live.
).
One presumed outcome would be that 31 other state marriage constitutional amendments would remain intact, rendering California’s bellwether status impotent.
An editorial commenting on Bias by Walker in some of his “findings of fact.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/California_s-bumbler-in-a-black-robe-512779-100929474.html
Prop 8, Judge Walker and the Biblical View of Marriage Equality — by Rita Nakashima Brock, Ph. D.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-nakashima-brock-ph-d/judge-walker-and-the-bibl_b_682595.html
Actually, Adam and Eve sinned together. He was with her and said nothing to prevent her from eating the forbidden fruit. You might even say he sinned first in his passivity and disobedience of God to protect her.
If anything, the Bible could be taken to affirm women as special creatures (the weaker sex), but worthy of protection from men and love from their husbands. Man was created first, and Paul wrote of God intending man to, therefore, be head of the family, but not to lord it over woman, who is to respect her husband.
Alas, this is just a pointless digression these days. More people want to hear what a mortal judge says than what the Judge of all mankind says.
“On Prop 8, it’s the evidence, stupid” — By Lisa Bloom, Special to CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/17/bloom.prop.8/index.html?hpt=C2
Unfortunately, using religious beliefs as a justification for inequality under the law has been a pattern in our society.
I just re-read the 80 findings of fact to see if I could help you out here. If I am not mistaken, the Judge did find that “religous beliefs that gays and lesbians are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harms gays and lesbians”. However, from my reading of the decision, he does not give it “uniiversal application” — as though the belief alone does the harm. He is talking about its implications for this specific case.
He cites a number of examples, from the evidence presented in court, that such beliefs have indeed harmed gays and lesbians to the extent that these beliefs have been used as justification for the mistreatment of gays and lesbians in our society and as an excuse for unequal treatment of gays and lesbians under the law.
That’s the context. He concludes that
Michael–
I was commenting on the link that David provided and presented an exact quote from the link. The author did not cite exactly where from the determination it came. I was hoping that since you’ve read the entire determination several times including highlighting and footnoting, you’d either recognize the quote or identify it as made up or a misquote.
In opposing equal rights for women, many used the Bible as justification for unqual treatment. Women were inferior because woman as made out of man, she sinned first, etc.
Today, Wednesday, marks the 90th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women in the United States the right to vote.
My apologies. That should have read: “I would agree that the belief alone would do no harm.”
Have your read the entire ruling to check this out? Which of the “findings of fact” is the quote referencing? If the judge made such a finding of fact, what evidence was presented to support such a finding in this particular case? I would agree that the belief alone would do know harm.
I think It would depend on how that belief is used as a rational for unequal treatment of gays ind lesbians under the law. Historically, relious beliefs have been used as justification for unequal rights and for unjust treatment of different religious groups, for women and racial minorities.
This quote stood out to me from the link that David posted:
First, I’m disturbed by the ‘finding of fact’ that my beliefs harm another. Is this a given? Does it have universal application? Does my belief that gambling is wrong–even sinful–harm gamblers? Does my belief that ‘sex outside of marriage’ is sinful AND inferior harm the perpetrators?
Much comment has been given to the far-reaching effects of this determination…how it will impact rights, benefits and quality of life in general. Will this ‘finding of fact’, if unchallenged, also have impact?
I’m not sure why Mr. Blakeslee should be linking to such a clearly incompetent opinion on judge Walker’s findings. One example among many: there is no 7 million ‘majority’, it is a matter of some 600,000. Can we please retire this deceptive figure?
).
One presumed outcome would be that 31 other state marriage constitutional amendments would remain intact, rendering California’s bellwether status impotent.
An editorial commenting on Bias by Walker in some of his “findings of fact.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/California_s-bumbler-in-a-black-robe-512779-100929474.html
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Aug 17, 2010 at 5:05 pm
“And the Ninth is demanding that they prove their standing in their September 17 filing.
If they don’t have standing, then this ruling will apply only to California and Proposition 8 and not have precedent outside the Ninth Circuit.”
There is a possibility I hadn’t thought of. The higher courts could choose to avoid this case by ruling they don’t have standing to appeal. However, Walker’s ruling could easily be applied to the other states in the district, so for those opposed to gay marriage, this ruling would be more than just writing off CA but all of the 9th district (of which I believe all the other states in the 9th have passed some anti-gay-marriage law).
It will be interesting to see what happens if the appeal is dropped (either by the defense or court ruling).
Thanks, Timothy. That makes sense.
It appears to me that the Ninth Circuit and the SCOTUS are likely to find that the Intervenor-Defendants simply don’t have standing to appeal. The defendants are the Governor and Attorney General and both have declared that they do not intend to appeal the decision.
Based on case law, it seems that the court is usually dubious of the claims of proposition preparers. And the Ninth is demanding that they prove their standing in their September 17 filing.
If they don’t have standing, then this ruling will apply only to California and Proposition 8 and not have precedent outside the Ninth Circuit.
Timothy, I just read your article about “tea leaves” over at BTB. Would you be willing to commenit here? You seem to be sussgesting that the Judges strongly doubt the Proponents of Prop 8 have standing to appeal. Am I understanding this correctly?
I wonder whether declaring what God’s opinion is on a civil issue can best be seen as taking God’s name (authority) in vain?
Or to paraphrase Judge Walker:
OK. I got it. I am not asking you to change your convictions about what you think God wants. You seem to be absolutely sure of His intent on this issue.
Personally, I find that a bit over-confident, but that’s fine. We all have the right to our opinions and freedom of conscience.
Marriage Equality will not rob you of that right — or any of your rights — including the right to believe that I am wrong.
In the USA, religion or beliefs about the Bible are not the foundation of our mutual civil rights. The Constitution is — it affirms certain inalienable rights — and that’s the way I hope it remains.
This diverse culture may have whatever civil rights it can demand and obtain. That’s the way it works. But you and I both know that no man can out-fashion God. He still reigns, whether or not anyone chooses to recognize it.
So your argument is mainly Biblical? In a culture with tremendous spiritual and cultural diversity, is that a proper basis for civil law? Are you saying that people who don’t “observe that order ” (the way you believe that order is and ought to be) should not have equal civil rights? Why not?
Timothy, I just read your article about “tea leaves” over at BTB. Would you be willing to commenit here? You seem to be sussgesting that the Judges strongly doubt the Proponents of Prop 8 have standing to appeal. Am I understanding this correctly?
Yes, Michael, in terms of how God loves us, we are equal. He also loves us enough to give us boundaries and best ways of doing things. And He allows us the freedom to reject those things, but He does not remove the consequences. The long-term consequences of same-sex marriage have yet to be seen.
Really, this is the crux of the equality debate. Ultimately, it goes back to the very first act of rebellion. All things are not equal. There is an order that we ought to observe.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 17, 2010 at 8:03 am
“When someone can answer the question, “How is a man equal to a woman and vice versa (how are the two interchangeable)?” … then you will have redefined rational.”
In marriage men and women are equal under the law. Differences in how the spouses where treated (based on the sex of the spouse) have been eliminated.
I suspect I’m taller than Michael and probably have a greater reach than he does. So should laws be written to favor me rather than him because I have a longer reach than he does?
Everyone (regardless of their sex) has different attributes and abilities. However, that doesn’t automatically mean that laws should be written to favor some people over others. Such laws must have a rational reason for favoring some people over others. Ex. since the country benefits from greater levels of education, laws giving tax benefits to those achieving a higher level of education would be rational. However, giving tax benefits to people who have longer arms is not. Just as denying the benefits of marriage to gays was shown not to be rational in the Prop. 8 trial.
Debbie: Would you favor domestic partnerships or Civil Unions having all the rights of Marriage? If not, which rights would you exclude and why?
Debbie: I do not want to get into a debate over Scripture. I am not “proof-texting. You asked how a man be equal to a woman? In terms of how God loves us, we are equal. That’s all I was trying to say by citing the Scripture — yes, I meant Gal. 3: 28.
You are certain that I would not accept as rational or reasonable your answers to the questions I raised above. Try me. Give me your strongest argument against same-sex marriage.
Apart from your Biblical stance against gay marriage, what compelling civil reason can you present that I should not have the rights I mentioned above?
Why should heterosexual couples have superior rights and benefits?
This diverse culture may have whatever civil rights it can demand and obtain. That’s the way it works. But you and I both know that no man can out-fashion God. He still reigns, whether or not anyone chooses to recognize it.
He meant Galations 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” A very poor attempt at proof-texting to make a point. Paul is speaking of the inheritance of God’s chosen people, through the covenant with Abraham — that the covenant came even before the Law.
Not sure how this verse can be interpreted to address gender equality…
How is a man equal to a woman?
Galatians 3:8
It wouldn’t matter, Michael, because you wouldn’t accept it as a rational reason. Reason does not rule here. America is buying the whole “marriage equality” argument, so you ought to be happy. Or maybe you and many others will learn one day that having is not the same as wanting.
When someone can answer the question, “How is a man equal to a woman and vice versa (how are the two interchangeable)?” … then you will have redefined rational.
Yes, Michael, in terms of how God loves us, we are equal. He also loves us enough to give us boundaries and best ways of doing things. And He allows us the freedom to reject those things, but He does not remove the consequences. The long-term consequences of same-sex marriage have yet to be seen.
Really, this is the crux of the equality debate. Ultimately, it goes back to the very first act of rebellion. All things are not equal. There is an order that we ought to observe.
Debbie: Would you favor domestic partnerships or Civil Unions having all the rights of Marriage? If not, which rights would you exclude and why?
How is a man equal to a woman?
Galatians 3:8
It wouldn’t matter, Michael, because you wouldn’t accept it as a rational reason. Reason does not rule here. America is buying the whole “marriage equality” argument, so you ought to be happy. Or maybe you and many others will learn one day that having is not the same as wanting.
When someone can answer the question, “How is a man equal to a woman and vice versa (how are the two interchangeable)?” … then you will have redefined rational.
I guess not.
Michael–
Who are you talking to? Is there someone in this conversation suggesting such things? Is there anyone remaining in this conversation who is arguing against gay marriage?
Why should I have to pay more for health insurance because my partner’s benefit package only honors straight couples? Why should I have to spend more money on attorneys and legal papers to insure rights of inheritance and the power to make medical decisions in the event that I am incapacitated? Why should I have to spend more on wills and powers of attorney?
Why should Social Security and Life Insurance benefits not be the same? Why should I not be able to refinance my home as a couple — using his credit history and my equity? Why should we pay more in taxes to subsidize other peoples’ kids?
In short, why should we not have exactly the same rights as any other couple? Can you give me a Biblical — or secular — reason why we should pay more in taxes for fewer rights? Give me one rational, compelling reason why the state should deny us equal rights under the law. Just one.
OK — run this by me again. Why should I have to pay equal taxes for unequal rights? Why should I have to subsidiza the “rights” of Christian fundamentalists?
I guess not.
Michael–
Who are you talking to? Is there someone in this conversation suggesting such things? Is there anyone remaining in this conversation who is arguing against gay marriage?
Why should I have to pay more for health insurance because my partner’s benefit package only honors straight couples? Why should I have to spend more money on attorneys and legal papers to insure rights of inheritance and the power to make medical decisions in the event that I am incapacitated? Why should I have to spend more on wills and powers of attorney?
Why should Social Security and Life Insurance benefits not be the same? Why should I not be able to refinance my home as a couple — using his credit history and my equity? Why should we pay more in taxes to subsidize other peoples’ kids?
In short, why should we not have exactly the same rights as any other couple? Can you give me a Biblical — or secular — reason why we should pay more in taxes for fewer rights? Give me one rational, compelling reason why the state should deny us equal rights under the law. Just one.
Court halts Calif gay marriages pending appeal
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38730337/ns/us_news-life
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 16, 2010
Same-Sex Marriages Blocked During Appeal
Federal Appeals Court Rules Calif. County Clerks Cannot Issue Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples from Lower Court Ruling
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/16/politics/main6778728.shtml?tag=breakingnews
I have never thought that the appeal to what “marriage has always been” is very convincing. I don’t know many women who would want to go to “what marriage has always been” more than 150 years ago. Go back further and it gets downright wacky.
I know that no one wants Biblical marriage. All that stuff about impregnating your sister-in-law and having to marry the guy who rapes you may have been great for that culture but I’m awfully glad we’ve decided to let those traditions melt away.
Prop 8 judge to religious believers: It’s not about you<
The writer presents several quotes from the ruling:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/08/prop-8-proposition-8-gay-marriage-judge-walker-/1?loc=interstitialskip
OK — run this by me again. Why should I have to pay equal taxes for unequal rights? Why should I have to subsidiza the “rights” of Christian fundamentalists?
Even if most cultures have defined “marriage” heterosexually, not every culture and time has done so. Regardless, as the Judge has ruled in this case, tradition alone “cannot form a rational basis for law.” — “the state must have an interest apart from the tradition itself.”
The judge found that how marriage has been tradtionally defined by religious groups or cultures over the centuries is not a compelling reason for the state to deny equal rights.
Did anyone notice that word ‘virtually’? The truth is that opponents to the decision cannot say ‘has been defined as an opposite-sex union by every society throughout history’. The word ‘virtually’ is a red flag…there either ARE or HAVE BEEN exceptions. The use of the word ‘virtually’ also means that the opponents know this.
Eddy,
“Marriage equality” is not a very new term. It has been the term of choice for the gay community for quite some time. But it is not exactly used in the same way as “same-sex marriage”
Technically, states do not enact gay marriage; In Massachusetts law there is nothing called “gay marriage”. Rather, the laws have been changed to eliminate restrictions on same-sex couples, giving them equal access. So when discussing laws, the term best suited is “marriage equality”, implying equal access.
When discussing an individual marriage, however, you’d still say “same-sex marriage” (which is more accurate than “gay marriage”).
So you would say, “State X’s legislature passed the marriage equality bill on Tuesday and same-sex marriages will be legal next week. Gay couples are already making appointments,”
Prop. 8 Supporters Fight to Block Marriages
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/16/Prop_8_Supporters_Fight_to_Block_Marriages/
Since they have changed their thinking, they call it “Marriage Equality” too, since they feel it is more accurate. They don’t think there should be any legal difference depending on gender or orientation.
My friends also do not believe that Biblical definitions and Civil definitions should be the same. They see one as a religious issue and the other as a civil rights issue. They are pretty fierce about separation of church and state.
Timothy: I suspect many people (some gay some straight) do feel this way. My gay friends didn’t feel that opposite-sex marriage was inferior, per se. They treasure the relationship they have. They just thought the Biblical defintion was “one man/one woman” — but they also firmly believe that all couples should have equal rights.
They couldn’t see “what all the fuss was about labels” since they believed that “marriage” and “civil unions” were equal in terms of rights and responsiibilites. Once they looked at the facts, they changed their minds. They label doesn’t matter to them very much. Equality under the law does.
Actually, Wiki didn’t do a bad job:
Michael,
1) I appreciate your follow up report re your friends. One suggestion though. “Marriage Equality” is the brand spanking new term. Your friends actually never said (note the past tense) they were against “marriage equality”; they said they were against “gay marriage”. Now that they understand that the issue IS equality, they favor both ‘marriage equality’ and ‘gay marriage’.
2) My friend opposes ‘gay marriage’ for other reasons. He holds a certain contempt for straights and straight systems and believes that gays are meant to be a unique expression of humanity. Therefore, he objects to their efforts to try to emulate straights. He doesn’t see much worth emulating…views it as a compromise…and sees it as a rejection of the ‘free spirit’ that he sees as a basic component of the gay life. He understands and supports the desire for equal rights and benefits but thinks that marriage isn’t the best way to acquire those rights and benefits.
Michael,
I’ve seen those transitions a lot over the past decade.
When Vermont got civil unions, plenty of gay folk thought “oh, well that second tier status is good enough for us.” But in recent years many gay people are starting to ask themselves, “Hey, wait a minute. Why should I accept anything less than anyone else.”
Eddy
Sure. These people – be they gay or otherwise – believe that opposite-sex marriage is superior to same-sex marriage.
Court halts Calif gay marriages pending appeal
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38730337/ns/us_news-life
BTW — I recenlty spoke with my firends — the committed gay couple — who opposed Marriage Equality in favor of “Civil Unions”. They thought it was just a difference in “words”. They were not aware that these two things did not provide equal rights. They looked at the facts. Now, they favor Marriage Equality.
Timothy — And that’s what the Judge concluded, based on the evidence presented in the trial:
He also found that the Plaintifs were not seeking a new right or a new definition of marriage:
Wow, Timothy. Michael admits to having gay friends who oppose gay marriage. I have one gay friend that I know of who also rejects the notion.
So, can you tell me where they fit in your box?
Just so we’re clear. People other than the plaintiffs in this case have objections/concerns re gay marriage…and some of those concerns don’t properly fit the box ‘Marriage Equality’. Although ‘marriage equality’ will likely be the new politically correct term, some will still have issues with ‘gay marriage’ that don’t center on the issue of ‘equality’; Although the two terms have more in common than not, they are not exact synonyms.
And, my suggestion that we need to establish a new and true definition of marriage quickly still stands. “Gay marriage” relied on the long standing definition of marriage and modified it with the word ‘gay’. “Marriage equality” presumes the new definition of marriage (‘committed partners’ rather than ‘man and wife’ or ‘husband and wife’ that are contained in most of the current definitions) and needs to find the proper words (in case ‘committed partners’ doesn’t fill the bill) and define them if need be.
Michael,
Actually there is only one argument presented to keep same-sex couples from marrying. It is expressed in different ways, but it is only one argument:
Relationships between opposite-sex couples are superior to those between same-sex couples.
Sometimes it is expressed in religious or moral terms, sometimes there is an appeal to The Children, sometimes they go with the “gays are icky, diseased, immoral, inferior, etc.” line, sometimes there’s an appeal to tradition, but it all comes back to the superiority and inferiority argument.
Ultimately, that is an argument that is, at its heart, the opposite of what our Constitution stands for.
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 16, 2010
Same-Sex Marriages Blocked During Appeal
Federal Appeals Court Rules Calif. County Clerks Cannot Issue Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples from Lower Court Ruling
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/16/politics/main6778728.shtml?tag=breakingnews
Media decides Prop. 8 judge is gay
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=109181
Prop. 8 gets brief reprieve
(Emphasis mine.)
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3&id=109179
Same rights regardless of gender or sexual orienation = Marriage equality.
Have the spin-masters now decided to call it ‘Marriage Equality’ rather than ‘Gay Marriage’? And is that their way of discounting the opinions of those who are against ‘gay marriage’ for other reasons? (I think primarily of those people we know who are gay and oppose gay marriage…they don’t seem to fit into that tidy box.)
Prop 8 judge to religious believers: It’s not about you<
The writer presents several quotes from the ruling:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/08/prop-8-proposition-8-gay-marriage-judge-walker-/1?loc=interstitialskip
The arguments against Marriage Equality have remained essentially the same from the beginning — moral/religious objections, tradition, procreation, parenting, instability of gay unions, etc.
Examples abound and are easy to find for anyone who is willing to make the effort. All these issues were raised during the trial but the Proponents could not provide soild evidence of expert testimony to back them up.
Emphasis mine.
My friends also do not believe that Biblical definitions and Civil definitions should be the same. They see one as a religious issue and the other as a civil rights issue. They are pretty fierce about separation of church and state.
Eddy
Sure. These people – be they gay or otherwise – believe that opposite-sex marriage is superior to same-sex marriage.
BTW — I recenlty spoke with my firends — the committed gay couple — who opposed Marriage Equality in favor of “Civil Unions”. They thought it was just a difference in “words”. They were not aware that these two things did not provide equal rights. They looked at the facts. Now, they favor Marriage Equality.
Wow, Timothy. Michael admits to having gay friends who oppose gay marriage. I have one gay friend that I know of who also rejects the notion.
So, can you tell me where they fit in your box?
Just so we’re clear. People other than the plaintiffs in this case have objections/concerns re gay marriage…and some of those concerns don’t properly fit the box ‘Marriage Equality’. Although ‘marriage equality’ will likely be the new politically correct term, some will still have issues with ‘gay marriage’ that don’t center on the issue of ‘equality’; Although the two terms have more in common than not, they are not exact synonyms.
And, my suggestion that we need to establish a new and true definition of marriage quickly still stands. “Gay marriage” relied on the long standing definition of marriage and modified it with the word ‘gay’. “Marriage equality” presumes the new definition of marriage (‘committed partners’ rather than ‘man and wife’ or ‘husband and wife’ that are contained in most of the current definitions) and needs to find the proper words (in case ‘committed partners’ doesn’t fill the bill) and define them if need be.
Michael,
Actually there is only one argument presented to keep same-sex couples from marrying. It is expressed in different ways, but it is only one argument:
Relationships between opposite-sex couples are superior to those between same-sex couples.
Sometimes it is expressed in religious or moral terms, sometimes there is an appeal to The Children, sometimes they go with the “gays are icky, diseased, immoral, inferior, etc.” line, sometimes there’s an appeal to tradition, but it all comes back to the superiority and inferiority argument.
Ultimately, that is an argument that is, at its heart, the opposite of what our Constitution stands for.
Will The Right Sacrifice California to Save Marriage Amendments Elsewhere?
From an audio clip of David Barton talking with Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders of the American Family Associationdiscussing the Prop 8 ruling:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/will-right-sacrifice-california-save-marriage-amendments-elsewhere
Media decides Prop. 8 judge is gay
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=109181
Prop. 8 gets brief reprieve
(Emphasis mine.)
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3&id=109179
Same rights regardless of gender or sexual orienation = Marriage equality.
I have trouble with the assertion that they ‘keep coming back’. Are you suggesting that since the determination opponents ‘keep coming back’ to these three notions; if so, can you provide a few examples. “Keep” suggests continual and “coming” suggests present tense.
Opponents of Mariiage Equality seem to keep coming back to three basic arguments:
(1) Marriage is a sacred convenant with God.
(2) Marriage is primarliy intended for procreation.
(3) Divorce is more likely for gays.
Following this line of reasoning — should civil marriage be a privelege reserved for religious folks who are most likely to reproduce and least likely to divorce? Which group would this be? “Civil Unions” with fewer benefits for the rest?
Opponents of Mariiage Equality seem to keep coming back to three basic arguments:
(1) Marriage is a sacred convenant with God.
(2) Marriage is primarliy intended for procreation.
(3) Divorce is more likely for gays.
Following this line of reasoning — should civil marriage be a privelege reserved for religious folks who are most likely to reproduce and least likely to divorce? Which group would this be? “Civil Unions” with fewer benefits for the rest?
Proposition 8 appeal may not reach Supreme Court — By Maura Dolan and Lee Romney
http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/08/15/news/national/free/id_409609.txt
Same-sex marriage is about equality, not religion — O.C. Allen
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/15/Allen.same.sex.marriage.pulpit/
Excerpt from “Olson / Boies respond to appeal for stay”
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/
Challenging Judge Walker — Critics of the decision overturning California’s anti-gay marriage law are suggesting the judge is homosexual.:
An excerpt:
http://www.theroot.com/views/challenging-judge-walker?page=0,1
I’ve been searching online dictionaries and encyclopedias to see which have politically correct definitions (and explanations) of marriage. It would seem that the wording “man and wife” would now be obsolete with “husband and wife” following shortly thereafter. Much could be resolved simply by replacing with the word ‘spouse’ but I’m certain there will still be a few linquistic hurdles to face.
Correction — the above is an “excerpt”, not “except”. 🙂
Judge Walker: I Doubt Prop 8 Ruling Can Be Appealed
An except:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/judge-walker-i-doubt-prop_n_681224.html
Thanks, Michael, it does. I see now that the ‘rational basis’ in quotes came up again near the end of the article with some difference in wording.
Two excerpts from the Huffington Post article posted above:
The article concludes with this excerpt:
The entire article is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/why-gay-opponents-hated-a_b_679887.html
Hope this clears up any confusion that my earlier attempt at “cut and paste” may have created.
Someone CAN be against gay marriage without being ‘hostile to gay rights’. It’s never good to generalize the motives of a large group of individuals.
Thanks, Michael, it does. I see now that the ‘rational basis’ in quotes came up again near the end of the article with some difference in wording.
Also, from the same post you cited Michael:
Which is also why Bradley attacks Walker rather than demonstrate any actual flaws in his legal reasoning.
Michael–
I strongly urge you to use the cut and paste method when providing quotes and to only use the quote marks or feature when you are actually quoting. This not only promotes accuracy but makes you more aware when you delete a sentence or two or when you rephrase or summarize a portion of the words. (Deletions can be addressed with the …; rephrasings or summarizations need to go OUTSIDE the quotes.) (I don’t think these are ‘Eddy rules’; I believe they are standard rules of written communication. Someone please correct me if it turns out these aren’t rules anymore.)
In this instance, I’m still looking for the first two sentences of your quote in the text of the article. I find the words ‘rational basis’ in quotes in the article but that sentence does not conclude that the claim ‘cannot be demonstrated’ but rather that it was a ‘disastrous legal strategy’.
I do not believe you had any wrong intent.The rephrasing wasn’t major. However, it does alter the conclusion from ‘disastrous legal strategy’ to ‘cannot be demonstrated’ and further omits that the conclusion re the ‘rational basis’ was Bradley’s not Black’s.
Someone CAN be against gay marriage without being ‘hostile to gay rights’. It’s never good to generalize the motives of a large group of individuals.
Also, from the same post you cited Michael:
Which is also why Bradley attacks Walker rather than demonstrate any actual flaws in his legal reasoning.
Why Gay Opponents Hated and Feared the Proposition 8 Trial
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/why-gay-opponents-hated-a_b_679887.html
Let’s just say ‘the folks at GLSEN’…I still haven’t forgotten or forgiven Fistgate.
Prop 8 stay ends next week, setting stage for California gay marriage[
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0812/Prop-8-stay-ends-next-week-setting-stage-for-California-gay-marriage
“Equality is the soul of liberty; there is, in fact, no liberty without it.” -Frances Wright” — From California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s Facebook status today, on the lifting of the stay on the Prop 8 decision.
LIFTED.
Goodie. Then again we are in agreement.
Churches can go with what they think is a sacred covenant with God at its center and the State can go with equality. My church does, yours doesn’t and all is good.
This PSA was brought to you by the good folks at GLSEN. Just saying’. 🙂
Warning: This vid is NOT on the topic at all but I think it’s one that people here can ALL share an appreciation for. Here’s hoping it has some real impact!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS0GVOQPs0
Wanda Sykes commenting on ‘That’s so gay’…
Maybe CNN is right. The storm is getting worser and worser! Stop it storm!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCLClFEtO0E
CNN Poll is First To Show Majority Support for Gay Marriage
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/cnn-poll-is-first-to-show-majority.html
RE: Glenn Beck – I have only watched him a couple of times and both times he could not put two sentences together without heaving in exasperation and starting a new thought which at the end produced a non-sequitur of epic proportions.
Having said that, he quoted a non-Christian who made a lot of sense (Thomas Jefferson) and therein lies his benefit to this debate. Beck is correct I believe in that the nation is being sold to foreign interests to maintain an artificially affluent life. The debt problem which Beck harps on is a serious threat, right up there with the threat of Islamic totalitarians. Sally Kern was wrong, gays don’t rank in that league.
LOL. I try very very hard NOT to have Glenn Beck influence my thinking to any great degree.
Why doesn’t Glenn Beck cover gay marriage? Because he doesn’t believe it’s a threat to the nation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/glenn-beck-gay-marriage-n_n_679691.html
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 12, 2010 at 6:36 am
“I am well aware that some of you believe with all your hearts that genuine love and a desire for lifelong commitment ought to be enough to secure the right to marry whomever you please. But it’s not. Marriage has a higher purpose. Some of you feel righteously indignant over this because it appears to be a slight. It’s not fair. Maybe not, but God never promised us His will would appear fair to us in the short term.”
Unfortunately Debbie, you are talking about the WRONG type of marriage. This debate isn’t about religious marriage it is about CIVIL marriage. And you (nor anyone else) are not allowed to enforce YOUR particular interpretation of YOUR particular version of YOUR particular religious text on anyone else.
Now I do agree with your statement that “love and a desire for lifelong commitment …” are not enough to be allowed to marry. The state can (and does) put certain restrictions on who can marry (ex. minimum age limits, consent etc). However, the state must have a compelling state interest in imposing those restrictions. And simply because people don’t like gays isn’t a compelling interest.
Maybe CNN is right. The storm is getting worser and worser! Stop it storm!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCLClFEtO0E
Before I take my leave from this discussion, I think it’s important to share a few final thoughts with all those I’ve engaged with here. This is a divisive topic, and always will be. And while I have been debating ideas, I am keenly aware that behind those opposing ideas are real flesh and blood people.
We all live and breathe under the same heaven, and one Savior died for us all to satisfy the wrath of a holy God. A lot of people find that thought disturbing, but not me. Christ loves the whole world. He suffered unimaginably for it. Yet, he cannot allow some things in God’s holy economy. Marriage is not something to be toyed with at man’s whims. It is the very metaphor for Christ’s relationship with the Church, his Bride.
I am well aware that some of you believe with all your hearts that genuine love and a desire for lifelong commitment ought to be enough to secure the right to marry whomever you please. But it’s not. Marriage has a higher purpose. Some of you feel righteously indignant over this because it appears to be a slight. It’s not fair. Maybe not, but God never promised us His will would appear fair to us in the short term.
I’ve had opportunities to see God at work in individual lives, especially over the past few years. It’s a humbling thing. I’ve listened to women pour their hearts out over how much they hurt because they are struggling to reconcile their feelings for other women with their desire to know God and be in His will. I wanted to somehow take their pain away, and yet I know it to be an essential part of life. As I offered them compassion, I also knew I had to offer them truth. I had to get myself out of the way and let God be God. I would never want to stand before Him one day and have to answer for why I interfered with His purpose in another’s life because it pained me to see that person suffer.
Why would God allow this passion in some and not provide an outlet for it? I don’t know. Perhaps He offers a glorious outlet that most of us simply don’t seek or see. Perhaps gays are chosen for something sublime and don’t realize it. I also believe God never wastes a wound. A very dear friend and mentor, who went home to be with the Lord last week, taught me that. God is too kind to allow suffering without a purpose and too holy to allow truth to be obfuscated by pleasure or short-sightedness without consequences. Often sorrow is the very door through which we come to know God. It is also the greatest foothold for Satan, the Father of Lies. I also believe he has perverted our passions and helped to whip up the fury that has erupted over this debate.
It has probably been apparent that my recent rereading of The Screwtape Letters greatly impacted me and refocused me on what is truly important. I hat tip Warren for reminding me to revisit that book. I highly recommend it.
The greatest thing I can offer anyone is intercessory prayer. I pray that the Spirit of Truth will enlighten us all and imbue us with compassion for one another. I will continue to stand for truth because I know its power in every life. It is the highest form of love.
I guess we’ll have to let Michael explain then.
Debbie–
Perhaps there’s a link I’ve yet to read but I can’t find the support for this statement from Michael to you
:
I couldn’t locate a statement where Alan commented on the time, money or energy invested in the Prop 8 fight or comments about the wisdom. (It isn’t in the link that follows the statement or in the Christianity Today link.) There is a suggestion that Exodus committed resources to the fight and I can’t find a reference to that either. (However, there Michael does indicate that it’s an assumption of his.) And, while Alan does cite that Christians ought to be focussed on showing the love of God, I can’t find where he makes a comparative statement that supports ‘more focussed’. I’m not sure if Michael was providing his interpretation of what Alan’s words said to him or if there are more statements out there.
And it’s not just the courts. It’s millions of Americans who think so too — gay, straight, Christian and non-Christian who support marriage equality instead of rule by Christian Conservatives.
Even Alan Chambers thinks that Christians (I assume he is including Exodus) did not spend their time, money and energy wisely by fighting so hard against equal rights for gays — and should have been more focussed on showing the true love of God instead. What a concept!
http://blog.exodusinternational.org/2010/08/10/cnn-belief-blog-interviews-alan-chambers-about-prop-8-and-gay-rights/
But even if Marriage Equality is overturned, Alan says most gay people don’t really care about discrimination laws equal rights or gay marriage anyway. He doesn’t say how he came to this conclusion. He just makes the claim — with no real evidence to back it up — much like the Proponents of Prop 8 did when they failed to make their case.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmvN06V_U0S8&h=f46ae
How anyone would identify the former I cannot imagine. Not all legal marriage contracts, as you say, are covenants in a holy matrimonial sense. We have perverted many of God’s purposes. The courts will continue to sanction whatever they will.
BTW — I have no desire to outlaw what people choose to believe about the Bible or God’s will. That would be unconsititutional.
So should all marriages that are not a Bible-based, holy covenants under God’s authority be illegal — or just the same sex ones?
I am not suggesting anything, Michael. I am stating very clearly outright, with the truth of Scripture as my authority, that God intended marriage to be a holy covenant between a man and woman, under His authority. Anything less than that is … less. Holy is what God says it is. You will never be able to change that.
Dave, if you checked out the link, you should have noted those statistics were referring to registered domestic partnerships during that period. Actually, I believe gay marriage in Sweden did not come until April 2009. They used the term “divorce.” No other word for it, I suppose. If you are displeased with those figures, you could take it up with the gay site that posted them.
By the way, why would anyone not be posting something that supports their position, moral or otherwise??? What’s wrong with that? Nothing else would make sense. Warren did ask for research to back up claims, did he not? But it’s all relative, isn’t it?
Debbie–
Perhaps there’s a link I’ve yet to read but I can’t find the support for this statement from Michael to you
:
I couldn’t locate a statement where Alan commented on the time, money or energy invested in the Prop 8 fight or comments about the wisdom. (It isn’t in the link that follows the statement or in the Christianity Today link.) There is a suggestion that Exodus committed resources to the fight and I can’t find a reference to that either. (However, there Michael does indicate that it’s an assumption of his.) And, while Alan does cite that Christians ought to be focussed on showing the love of God, I can’t find where he makes a comparative statement that supports ‘more focussed’. I’m not sure if Michael was providing his interpretation of what Alan’s words said to him or if there are more statements out there.
It’s not the religious affiliation, the genitalia or or the gender roles that makes marriage “holy”. It’s the love, bonding and commitment of the spouses. I think we all I know of straight marriages that are in no way holy or have God at the Center — even some so-called “Christian” marriages.
I am curious. Would proponents of Prop 8 believe that mariiage should be illegal for a person who is hermaphroditic or for a person who had gone through sex-change surgery? Should conjoined twins be barred from marriage? What about people with XXY syndrome? Should spouses have to take a DNA test to be certain that they are XX and XY only?
I agree completely. I think that’s the point of this ruling. Same-sex marriages are marriages and deserve equal rights and protections under law.
To some people these are “less” marriages. Obviously the rights of marriage pass to the participants but at least in my eyes, I can’t make an Elvis wedding or a modern Wiccan wedding any more meaningful than just a contract agreed to by the state. Whereas a a wedding in a traditional Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other recognized indigenious tradition seems more meaningful and respected. Don’t know why this is so.
However, if two people tell me they are married to eachother, then I accept it as meaningful to them. But it is not always meaningful to me. And why should it be? I’m not the one in the marriage.
Whose God at the center? Yours? Are you suggesting that only Conservative Christian marriages are legitimate in the eyes of God? What about atheists who marry? Or Wiccans? Or any number of possible religious or non-religious approaches to marriage.?
How about marriages performed in front of a Judge with no mention of God and no intention of making “a sacred covenant with God at its center? Or Las Vegas marriages where Elvis officiates? Are these any less “marriages”?
Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
by Jeff Goode
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Farchielevine.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F11%2Ftraditional-marriage-perverts-tradition.html&h=f46aeBecause
How anyone would identify the former I cannot imagine. Not all legal marriage contracts, as you say, are covenants in a holy matrimonial sense. We have perverted many of God’s purposes. The courts will continue to sanction whatever they will.
BTW — I have no desire to outlaw what people choose to believe about the Bible or God’s will. That would be unconsititutional.
So should all marriages that are not a Bible-based, holy covenants under God’s authority be illegal — or just the same sex ones?
I am not suggesting anything, Michael. I am stating very clearly outright, with the truth of Scripture as my authority, that God intended marriage to be a holy covenant between a man and woman, under His authority. Anything less than that is … less. Holy is what God says it is. You will never be able to change that.
Dave, if you checked out the link, you should have noted those statistics were referring to registered domestic partnerships during that period. Actually, I believe gay marriage in Sweden did not come until April 2009. They used the term “divorce.” No other word for it, I suppose. If you are displeased with those figures, you could take it up with the gay site that posted them.
By the way, why would anyone not be posting something that supports their position, moral or otherwise??? What’s wrong with that? Nothing else would make sense. Warren did ask for research to back up claims, did he not? But it’s all relative, isn’t it?
Well Debbie .. same sex marriage in Sweden was only legally approved with rights in 2007 .. the study you are quoting is from between 1995 – 2002. So I am not sure how they were defining the couples as married since it was not allowed for back then. Since same sex marriage rights only happened in 2007 it is reasonable to assume that some of the low statistics were due to the lack of support from the govt (and perhaps the community).
Your posting this here highlights much of the problem I have with Christianity and politics. They (you) find the lowest statistics and post it not because its accurate but because it supports your moral position. So much for truth. If you do not believe that same sex marriage is God’s will then say so…. but please leave the phoney statistics behind .. they are not helping your argument.
It’s not the religious affiliation, the genitalia or or the gender roles that makes marriage “holy”. It’s the love, bonding and commitment of the spouses. I think we all I know of straight marriages that are in no way holy or have God at the Center — even some so-called “Christian” marriages.
I am curious. Would proponents of Prop 8 believe that mariiage should be illegal for a person who is hermaphroditic or for a person who had gone through sex-change surgery? Should conjoined twins be barred from marriage? What about people with XXY syndrome? Should spouses have to take a DNA test to be certain that they are XX and XY only?
This quote, referencing statistics from Sweden, appears on a gay website, loveandpride.com: “Gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce within eight years and lesbian couples 167 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.”
Note it’s from a gay source.
I agree completely. I think that’s the point of this ruling. Same-sex marriages are marriages and deserve equal rights and protections under law.
To some people these are “less” marriages. Obviously the rights of marriage pass to the participants but at least in my eyes, I can’t make an Elvis wedding or a modern Wiccan wedding any more meaningful than just a contract agreed to by the state. Whereas a a wedding in a traditional Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other recognized indigenious tradition seems more meaningful and respected. Don’t know why this is so.
However, if two people tell me they are married to eachother, then I accept it as meaningful to them. But it is not always meaningful to me. And why should it be? I’m not the one in the marriage.
Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
by Jeff Goode
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Farchielevine.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F11%2Ftraditional-marriage-perverts-tradition.html&h=f46aeBecause
Once this works its way through the entire system (SCOTUS), whatever it is, it is. That’s life. Since marriage is a sacred covenant with God at its center, it won’t really matter what the state says.
Well Debbie .. same sex marriage in Sweden was only legally approved with rights in 2007 .. the study you are quoting is from between 1995 – 2002. So I am not sure how they were defining the couples as married since it was not allowed for back then. Since same sex marriage rights only happened in 2007 it is reasonable to assume that some of the low statistics were due to the lack of support from the govt (and perhaps the community).
Your posting this here highlights much of the problem I have with Christianity and politics. They (you) find the lowest statistics and post it not because its accurate but because it supports your moral position. So much for truth. If you do not believe that same sex marriage is God’s will then say so…. but please leave the phoney statistics behind .. they are not helping your argument.
Once this works its way through the entire system (SCOTUS), whatever it is, it is. That’s life. Since marriage is a sacred covenant with God at its center, it won’t really matter what the state says.
Where kids are concerned, I think long term stability in a peaceful unabusive home environment is the issue, more than whether there is one parent or two, or whether the kids have role models from each sex rather than from only sex. In my heart I still believe (and probably always will) that straight marriage which is healthy and non abusive and doesn’t end in divorce is better for the kids. I know that “better” causes an offense to many who don’t like their relationships being viewed as “second best”. If the courts determine that gay marriage is legal, then so be it, as long as the separation of church and state remains and the churches have their religious liberty. Then if the churches want to say the two are different (make a discrimination betwee gay marriage and straight marriage) may they have the freedom to do so forever, and then the state would be out of the business of discrimination. Yes I am a conservative but I also believe in treating people with dignity and respect, especially to those with whom one strongly disagrees. And it an odd way it makes sense to me that the state should not be encouraging indignity and disrespect.
Why GOP reaction is muted as judge affirms gay marriage rights
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csmonitor.com%2FUSA%2FPolitics%2F2010%2F0807%2FWhy-GOP-reaction-is-muted-as-judge-affirms-gay-marriage-rights%3Fsms_ss%3Dfacebook&h=f46ae
For the times they are a changin’. 🙂
Where kids are concerned, I think long term stability in a peaceful unabusive home environment is the issue, more than whether there is one parent or two, or whether the kids have role models from each sex rather than from only sex. In my heart I still believe (and probably always will) that straight marriage which is healthy and non abusive and doesn’t end in divorce is better for the kids. I know that “better” causes an offense to many who don’t like their relationships being viewed as “second best”. If the courts determine that gay marriage is legal, then so be it, as long as the separation of church and state remains and the churches have their religious liberty. Then if the churches want to say the two are different (make a discrimination betwee gay marriage and straight marriage) may they have the freedom to do so forever, and then the state would be out of the business of discrimination. Yes I am a conservative but I also believe in treating people with dignity and respect, especially to those with whom one strongly disagrees. And it an odd way it makes sense to me that the state should not be encouraging indignity and disrespect.
Goodie. We agree.
So since we’ve set theocracy aside then we can measure the decision on its merits: A court of law with expert testimony and judicial determination of how that testimony should be applied to existing law determined that the state had no rational basis (much less pass strict scrutiny) for denying marriage licenses to a class of people.
And I think they should stay in the business — and open the shop to gays. 🙂
Michael,
Can’t a grandfather clause work? And if people are so inclined – then go to a church and be married.
MY POINT BEING FOLKS –
That the government should get out of the marriage business.
I seriously doubt that, but there is no need to trouble yourself.
No. I actually have a very good memory. Robbi Kenney once said my recall was like an “iron trap”.
Heavens no. I would be relieved.
It is so honored. Nothing is stopping you. As I have pointed out many times before, I have no deire power to control who comments here. You could have left long ago. Be my guest.
Mary, although I would be fine with calling all of these unions “marriage” or “civil unions” as long as they are truly equal in the eyes of the law, I think it’s going to be easier to get straights to share the title and benefits of “marriage” than it would be to get them to let go of the word “marriage” and accept that now they are only “civil unions”.
The word is very powerful. It means something to individuals and families. Folks who love each other want to say, “We’re getting married” or “We’ve been married 15 years” — not “We are Unioned Civilly” or “our Civil Union is 15 years old today”. It just sounds weird.
Besides, many heterosexual couples would feel demoted and discriminated against if only the church called them “married”. Many don’t go to church or do not have a particular faith. They want “marriage” not “civil unions” . The word is important in the meaning and social legitimacy that it conveys to both gays and straights.
Besides which, it would cost bundles of money to re-write every law and regulation that now governs “marriage” to go back and change every reference to “civil union”. I am with Judge Walker or this.
Oh, Timothy. You are so, so short-sighted. Your laser only wants to point in one direction. I can admit no such thing. This is an inside thing, for each individual. It’s just recognizing that He’s God and we are not. One day (not in this life), “Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of the Father.” In this life, we “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” No theocracy.
I cited the extravagant price yesterday…Warren did too…at the same time that he admonished us to abandon the Roots detour. You even thanked him for the redirection. Given that AND the fact that I said I wanted to take my leave of this conversation, I have serious concerns about you. Do you forget these things so quickly? Are you reluctant to see me leave the conversation? is it some twisted need for the last word? A feeble stab at one last parting shot? Whatever…it makes no sense. That detour ended yesterday when Warren spoke to it. Please honor that and my desire to leave this conversation.
Aug 10, 4:39 PM EDT — All Mexican states must recognize gay marriages
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_MEXICO_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=CTDAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Geez Ken, I’m on your side. Just looking for a level playing field. I get the idea of the semantics. I’m just not as impressed with the need.
Debbie, got it.
Your own perspective, not facts about the case. That’s kinda what the Proponents did — and why they lost. The Judge wanted facts.
Gee, Debbie, how could I think that your argument is based in theology rather than law, principle, the constitution, or what is empirically determinable? Well, perhaps it was this:
or this
(which is a absolutely unhidden blatant endorsement of theocracy)
or this
And so on and so on…
Which is just another round-about way of saying that individuals should impose their religious views on others by force of law whenever they have the opportunity to do so, irregardless of fact. It all sounds very Seven Mountains to me.
Admit it, Debbie, you think that this country’s laws should be in submission to God’s laws (as you believe them to be).
OK — you got me Eddy. I am trying to shame you (and others) into reading it. Didn’t work, did it? I should know better.
He is, predictably, working with the only tools he has.
There was a third part you left out, Michael. That’s where I fit in.
That is not at all what that means, Timothy. Where do get that idea? You are referring to a system where people are forced to submit to some person as a moral authority or agent. I am only speaking of individuals privately submitting to God (realizing He is the source of all that is good and owner of all they are stewards of), which I presume will then be worked out in their public lives.
Goodie. We agree.
So since we’ve set theocracy aside then we can measure the decision on its merits: A court of law with expert testimony and judicial determination of how that testimony should be applied to existing law determined that the state had no rational basis (much less pass strict scrutiny) for denying marriage licenses to a class of people.
David,
I don’t know. I’ve heard from some who claim to have experienced change in orientation. But I’ve also heard from some who once made that claim, only to retract it. And I’ve heard from Jones and Yarhouse that the “change in orientation” is more related to a redefinition of terms which don’t hold up to inspection.
For me, that is still an open question.
If it does occur it is EXTREMELY rare. So rare that those former ex-gays I know say that they’ve never ever during their years in ex-gay ministries came across anyone who did experience a real change in orientation.
BUT… it may exist rarely.
I’m inclined to think this is correct.
I’m with you there.
But you lose me completely when you go off talking about behavior and that because decreasing heterosexual promiscuity is behavior related therefore we should define orientation as behavior.
Sorry, that ship has sailed and I’m not going to swim back and play the what if game.
While that is a statement without any observable merit and thus dismissible out of hand, it is true that maturity in some may change presumptions about heterosexual superiority.
David B.
I would agree. But we should not assume that we know what they are or automatically dismiss decisions that we don’t live with presumptions about the motives or character of judges. In this instance, other than those who are anti-gay activists and only just now hearing about him, Judge Walker is considered by left and by right to be careful, thorough, and fair.
There’s a heck of a lot of flurry on this thread but a genuine shortage of actual communication. Rather than respond and elicit yet another shame-based line from you, I think I’ll step away from this conversation altogether.
Sure, no shame meted out there.
Or there.
Or there.
Debbie,
Thank you for clarifying that your sole argument is an appeal to theocracy (submission to “moral authority”). While, as a Christian who knows history, that idea is abhorrent to me, I appreciate that you finally were willing to take the argument to the place where we all knew it was based.
And I think they should stay in the business — and open the shop to gays. 🙂
Michael,
Can’t a grandfather clause work? And if people are so inclined – then go to a church and be married.
MY POINT BEING FOLKS –
That the government should get out of the marriage business.
Yes, Eddy — but not “kind of like”. As you pointed out, it is indeed a summary — for folks who may not want to actually read the whole thing. Consider it Cliff Notes. 🙂
I am certain that if I had started offering opinions on Alan Chambers’ latest book or on something more important like the Uganda Anti-homosexuality Bill — while making it very plain that I had not read these sources and had no intention of doing so — that I would have caught holy hell from some of the more frequent commenters on this blog.
That’s not a rule, just Warren’s suggestion. Not asking anyone to wallow in shame and I cannot make rules that they must read it. That’s up to them. As far as I know, there is no provision in the Constitution that outlaws voluntary ignorance.
Tow articles on the ABA Supports Ending All “Legal Barriers” to Marriage Equality
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/10/American_Bar_Association_Backs_Marriage_Equality“
Here’s the text of the resolution. No one says you have to read it.
http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08/aba-supports-ending-all-legal.html
Hmmm. Kind of like the summary of the determination.
Michael has earned 4 gold stars today and some of us haven’t even earned one. You know who you are. The shame has been meted out. Please wallow in it.
I seriously doubt that, but there is no need to trouble yourself.
No. I actually have a very good memory. Robbi Kenney once said my recall was like an “iron trap”.
Heavens no. I would be relieved.
It is so honored. Nothing is stopping you. As I have pointed out many times before, I have no deire power to control who comments here. You could have left long ago. Be my guest.
Mary, although I would be fine with calling all of these unions “marriage” or “civil unions” as long as they are truly equal in the eyes of the law, I think it’s going to be easier to get straights to share the title and benefits of “marriage” than it would be to get them to let go of the word “marriage” and accept that now they are only “civil unions”.
The word is very powerful. It means something to individuals and families. Folks who love each other want to say, “We’re getting married” or “We’ve been married 15 years” — not “We are Unioned Civilly” or “our Civil Union is 15 years old today”. It just sounds weird.
Besides, many heterosexual couples would feel demoted and discriminated against if only the church called them “married”. Many don’t go to church or do not have a particular faith. They want “marriage” not “civil unions” . The word is important in the meaning and social legitimacy that it conveys to both gays and straights.
Besides which, it would cost bundles of money to re-write every law and regulation that now governs “marriage” to go back and change every reference to “civil union”. I am with Judge Walker or this.
Oh, Timothy. You are so, so short-sighted. Your laser only wants to point in one direction. I can admit no such thing. This is an inside thing, for each individual. It’s just recognizing that He’s God and we are not. One day (not in this life), “Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of the Father.” In this life, we “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” No theocracy.
Tell you what — I will not state any opinions about the trial transcript until I have read it. Instead, I will limit my opinions about the decision to the text and analysis of the decision itself — which I have read 4 times now. Here are the findings of fact from the decision: .
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn’t require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy “are well-documented in human history.”
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents’ “assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
10. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union.”
11. “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.”
12. “Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.”
13. “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/prop-8-overturned-the-facts-not-the-law-matter/60957/
Gee — if I keep this up, you guys won’t have to read it. We will have quoted nearly all of it for you, sparing you the time and energy.
Gee, Debbie, how could I think that your argument is based in theology rather than law, principle, the constitution, or what is empirically determinable? Well, perhaps it was this:
or this
(which is a absolutely unhidden blatant endorsement of theocracy)
or this
And so on and so on…
Which is just another round-about way of saying that individuals should impose their religious views on others by force of law whenever they have the opportunity to do so, irregardless of fact. It all sounds very Seven Mountains to me.
Admit it, Debbie, you think that this country’s laws should be in submission to God’s laws (as you believe them to be).
Ken, the reason that statement is entitled “Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents” is this up-front acknowledgment: “Most individuals who have a lesbian and/or gay parent were conceived in the context of a heterosexual relationship.” Remember, it was written in 2002. It also, however, says this:
The statement still talks a good deal about gay parenting, in general. I submit that the data would be even more damaging for sperm-bank babies. As it is, they are comparing gay families formed out of a previous divorce with straight stepfamilies formed similarly. The statement maintained at the time these constituted most gay parenting arrangements.
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 10, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“I am all for reading such documents…but I am more impressed by bright scholarly folks in the profession who can comment with authority that Judge Walker manifested repeated skepticism toward the law and nearly naive endorsement of every argument brought against the law.”
“Bright, scholarly” folks would have read the transcripts and motions, before commenting on the accuracy/bias of the opinion. A scholarly critic would have supported his opinions with actual references to other court opinions to show how Walker’s was biased; to show how Walker’s comments were not in keeping with legal opinion. Not simply played to the prejudices of his audience.
You do not have to be a legal expert to know that the defense was terrible in this case. All you have to do is read the court transcripts.
David you’ve made claims before about “critical analysis” of Walker, but you have yet to cite any.
Michael, did you happen to notice how Ken’s reference included page numbers greater than the number of pages in the determination? Perhaps our new standard ought to be that you need to read the entire trial transcript (including the page upon page of “Good Morning, your Honor”). Ken was referencing the trial transcript of day 1 of the proceedings rather than the determination.
213 pages just for day 1. Ready, Set, Go!!!
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 10, 2010 at 10:00 am
” What you are referencing doesn’t include gay parents who have children through artifical insemination or surrogacy, or through adoption. It is only referring to children who have gone through a parents divorce.
No, it’s not, Ken. It’s talking about children raised in gay-parented (like stepparented) families.”
The section you referenced was only comparing children of divorced parents (of whom some where lesbian and some where straight). It was NOT comparing children of divorced parents to ALL children of lesbians (i.e. including those who conceived through artificial insemination or who adopted). Your claim that children parented by lesbians have the same outcomes as children who’s parents have been divorced is NOT supported by that tech report.
Ken, I know that your intentions are good, but it doesn’t look very likely that folks some folks here will take the time or effort to actually read and review the case. They have made up their minds. Don’t confuse them with the facts.
You couild not be more wrong about this! The findings of fact in the case proved that they cannot marry the person they love or enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual couples do. That’s a violation of the Constitution. We want the same rights, not new or different ones. And it looks like, in spite or your religious prejudice, we may finally get them.
Mary# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 7:07 pm
“So make civil unions possible for all. I really don’t see the big deal. Understandably, gays feel discredited when their marriage is not recognized. I stand by my proposal. The government should get out of the marriage business and leave that to churches. Civil unions should be recognized. All are the same.”
If churches are so upset about having to share the word marriage with gays, then let the churches change what they call them. They can be “religious unions.” And if you want more on why the word is so significant I would suggest you read some of the plaintiffs own testimony from the trial. You can get it here:
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/hearing-transcripts/perry-trial-day-1-transcript/
From Katami: from the middle of p. 88 (line 15) to top of p. 90. Then again from p. 115, line 23.
From Perry: pp. 142-147 (description of her marriage to her partner compare this to Katami’s comments on page 115 line 23.)
Stier: p: 172.
Although would encourage you to read ALL of the testimony of Zarrilo, Katami, Perry and Stier.
And if you want a better understanding of how marriage is not just a religious institution, then the testimony of Nancy Cott (plaintiffs expert on the history and significance of marriage).
Alan Chambers once said that he objected to marriage equality for gays because if that option had been available to him he “certainly would have chosen it.” Really? I wonder if had a “special someone” in mind?
He seemed to be saying that people like him should not have equal rights because that would make it less likely that he – and others like him – would come to Christ. Legal inequity to promote Christian evangelism? He also lamented the end of Sodomy Laws for a similar reason, suggesting that laws should enforce religious beliefs:
Now, conceding that Exodus’ attempts to mold public policy were probably not the best use of its time, money and energy and admitting that marriage equality is probably inevitable, he seems to be whistling a different tune. Now Exodus officially denounces criminalization of consensual gay sex. Now, he thinks that society is bending in the direction of “accepting the humanity of gay and lesbian people” and that we are “entering a time when we are more compassionate and loving toward people who deserve our compassion”. Quite a turnabout! I agree with him that that is the primary mission of the Church – not trying to legislate its interpretation of the Bible – but really living it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlBIR7MHtaY
They are not, but I am going to stop arguing this with you, Michael. Gays have equal treatment (the ability to choose a spouse the same as straight folks do) under the law. They want unequal treatment.
Maybe I am missing the point. Is idolotry illegal in the US? Should it be? How about adultery? Sex before marriage? Shacking up? Having kids out of wedlock? Swinging? I am against those things or “moral” grounds, but I would not deny marriage equality to those who do them. Would you?
It is one thing for the church to take the moral stand that all sex outside of hetereosexual marriage is sin. It is quite another to use those beliefs to deny equality under the law. I think the church needs to focus on teaching by example. Using one group’s beliefs to deny equal rights to others is not a good example.
Dave# said:
For what it’s worth, I think Anne Rice feels much the same way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0GU1YdxFr4
How about idolatry? It comes in a variety of forms, and you have pointed out some of the other egregious ones.The Church also has its high places and idols.
Shifting gears, thanks, David, for this. It’s been brought up here before. Apparently needs to be repeated:
“Maturity in some may change sexual orientation”. I agree it may for some people and to some extent. Just not enough to justify denying equal protection to the those who can’t, won’t or don’t.
Timothy Kincaid,
Studies on Change are like studies on Harm…very few and poorly constructed.
I think we agree Change occurs (in actual orientation), right?
I think we agree it is rare, right?
I think we agree that it is more common in women than in men, right?
I don’t think we have figured out what the mechanism of that change is:
a. Misidentification in the first place.
b. Spontaneous remission of SSA
c. Religious motivations
d. Treatment interventions
e. Coercive social pressure
f. Experience
Nicholosi is unable to prove his arguments in part because his theory is flawed in its grandiosity and its unwillingness to explain “the exceptions to the deterministic model.”
In addition, the notion of change, if it refers to change only in attractions, is quite restrictive. Expecially as this strict definition is unequally applied the the psychological sciences:
a. Change, generally is measure in a reduction of behavior
b. Change, generally is measure in increase of a desired behavior
It is this odd, perfectionistic definition which psychology and advocacy groups bring to bear on this topic, which they would never apply so strictly topics like “improving marriage; anger management; task avoidance; relapse prevention; depression, anxiety.”
Heterosexual men with multiple sexual partners that they find egocentric and pleasant may seek treatment even though this is not a mental illness; it is likely they will consider change a reduction in undesired behavior and an increase in desired behavior.
The goal of increasing the desired behavior may be greatly facilitated decreasing the promiscuous attractions…but it is not necessary for a satisfied client.
Psychology bases the foundation of its credibility on this kind of change in every area it seeks to touch: from education, to business, to terrorist interrogation to social science to individual and family therapy.
Only in the research on SSA are we asked of psychology to change “all of the target feelings” as the measure of success.
I believe this bias is present in this statement:
Maturity in some may change sexual orientation.
Eddy said…
I think we might somewhat agree here but just to go a bit further ..
It is not inconsistent at all for God to bring judgment this way if the church is not listening .. especially if you consider how God dealt with Israel at times when they refused to hear. Also like Israel .. the faithful had to suffer with the unfaithful -sad but true.
Frankly I do not see anywhere in scripture where the church is to battle against gay rights … you could build a better case (not that I would agree with it) that the church should battle against all other forms of religion except Christianity in this country (also consistent with Israel of the Old testament). But we are not doing that either.
In short .. it is very difficult to develop any sort of political strategy based on scripture. I do not see a call to change governments in scripture but I do see a call to spread the good news about Christ … this includes sharing the good news by mouth … helping those in need .. weeping with those who weep .. rejoicing with those who rejoice … clothing the naked … helping the sick … giving a drink to someone who is thirsty …feeding the hungry … visiting a person in prison. These are all very clear instructions without any subjectivity. In contrast to this, our anti-gay stance (which at times is quite hateful by any standard) has very little justification in scripture and would seem to be the very opposite of what Christ commands .. rather then help people we alienate them. I simply cannot see God being very happy about all of this in light of Jesus’ instructions..
The people who are elected or appointed to do so, regardless of beliefs. I am STILL going to pray for more of them to submit to godly authority.
I am all for reading such documents…but I am more impressed by bright scholarly folks in the profession who can comment with authority that Judge Walker manifested repeated skepticism toward the law and nearly naive endorsement of every argument brought against the law.
Apparently, it is typical for judges to find flaws, weaknesses and strengths in both sides of the argument and then come to a conclusion based upon the facts.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/05/gerard-bradley-proposition-ruling-marriage-sex-california-judge-bias/
Timothy Kincaid,
Thanks for your thoughtful response… especially on Walker’s background. We will probably hear later, perhaps in a book or at his eulogy what some of his motivations are and were.
I argue that it is very fair to ask the question of motives of anyone who may have a vested interest as a judge in the outcome. This issue of questioning motives precedes gay or straight identification, and it is tiresome to hear implications that it is something worse a common, reasonable question (and conclusion).
This is especially true when cases are aimed by plaintiffs at certain courts with certain judges.
And it is further worthy of examination when the judge who decides the case appears to have written it in a manner to specifically pursuade the style and attitudes of a “swing” supreme court justice.
CNN Belief Blog Interviews Alan Chambers About Prop 8 and Gay Rights
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.exodusinternational.org%2F2010%2F08%2F10%2Fcnn-belief-blog-interviews-alan-chambers-about-prop-8-and-gay-rights%2F&h=ddbb3
My question was, who is going to enforce it? Whose beliefs?
You did not hear what I said, Michael. Listen. We are mere people. God is God. This decision is an affront to Him, not to me. I don’t want, nor do we need “religious rule.” I want moral rule, and there is only one source of morality.
Hmmm. Kind of like the summary of the determination.
Michael has earned 4 gold stars today and some of us haven’t even earned one. You know who you are. The shame has been meted out. Please wallow in it.
Problems is, Debbie, that not all people accept the Bible as the literal word of God or they may follow some other religious tradition — or none at all. Under our system, one religious group does not have the right to impose it’s views of the Bible on the rest of society simply because they believe it to be true. Rights — not beliefs — are primary.
We are not a “Christian” nation. We are not an oligarchy. We are not a theocracy. That’s not the way it works here. We have laws — and courts to determine whether those laws are being applied equally. It’s not just “majority rule” — otherwise, racial segregation would still be legal.
This decision does not remove any existing rights or limit the freesom of Christians in any way. You can still believe and live as you please. Being “informed” by the Bible is one thing. Making it civil law is another. Even “Bible-believing Christians” argue about what still applies and what does not.
It seems to me that the framers of our consitutional form of government did not want the sort of “rule by the religious” that many people had suffered under in Europe. That’s why we have three co-equal branches of government — instead of a ruling committee of Biblical scholars.
Michael, I would hope and pray for men and women as leaders who would be informed by its life-giving truth. There is no higher moral authority, so why would we not all want this kind of justice?
Debbie: Would you make all of your understanding of the Bible into civil law?
Dave, the studies on lesbian or gay parenting are scant in comparison to those on parenting, in general. The latter has been observed for many centuries. Other studies are borrowing from the gold standard.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
“Where is this “so much research” and why should we care? ”
Just take a look at the references to the tech report you cited. It has several articles about lesbian parenting.
Also:
“Children with lesbian parents: A community study.” Golombok, Susan, Perry, Beth et. al, Developmental Psychology, Vol 39(1), Jan, 2003. pp. 20-33
(and again the references to this paper will point you to more studies of lesbian parenting).
*I* care about the research because it can help parents do better at raising their children. You only seem to care if you can use it to justify your own personal biases and push your own political views.
Dave–
I always question when a religious person claims to have heard the voice of God; I concede that it’s very possible but also that it’s prone to a high degree of subjectivity. By extension, viewing the harassment that my friend (and the woman from the link and others like them) as God’s judgement would presume that 1) God is ticked at His church 2) rather than speak to them, He judges them by influencing others to harass them. 3) the harassment that God influences is without consideration for the individual. (I can assure you that my friend, who I’ve known for over 30 years, has never been motivated by anything other than compassion for the homosexual individual. Politically, my friend has spoken against laws that would restrict the rights of gay people. My friend disassociated with Exodus when Exodus began to get involved in politics.)
So, yeah, I could consider that the harassment my friend endured was God’s judgement but, subjectively, I could reason that my friend was judged because they didn’t choose to engage in the battle against gay rights. Subjectivity has it’s place but it is, at the bottom line, subjective and needs to be viewed as such.
Like my friend, I share your concerns about hypocrisy and judgement inside the church. I spoke against that hypocrisy both privately and publicly. The most prominent and outspoken challenger of ‘the conservative Christians’ attended an evangelistic meeting that featured me as the speaker. After the meeting, a number of people waited to have a word with me. This man waited nearly a half hour to speak with me; I could see him there in the queue that had formed and wondered what kind of criticism he was waiting to share. Instead, he told me that I was ‘the most moving speaker {he’d} ever heard’ and that he appreciated how I ‘really put it to’ those Christians.
There are other forums, usually more private than this one, where I continue to challenge hypocrisy within the church and within the ex-gay movement. There are numerous issues on both sides of this very polarized debate that need to be considered and, at times, confronted.
I don’t want to be chastised for yet another ‘detour’ so I hope we can consider that there is validity both in what you’ve said and in what I’ve said. There is no need to fight it through until there’s a declared winner. We’ve spoken our points of view clearly; some who are reading will ‘take sides’ with you or with me. Others will glean the wheat and discard the chaff without regard to ‘sides’.
Isn’t it interesting how “progressives” are doing that very thing, but in reverse? They are doing all in their power to tear down the Christian ethic.
Michael, did you happen to notice how Ken’s reference included page numbers greater than the number of pages in the determination? Perhaps our new standard ought to be that you need to read the entire trial transcript (including the page upon page of “Good Morning, your Honor”). Ken was referencing the trial transcript of day 1 of the proceedings rather than the determination.
213 pages just for day 1. Ready, Set, Go!!!
The topic here is this one thing, Dave. We could broaden it to discuss all sorts of parallel things. I don’t like that the courts gave us abortion on demand and no-fault divorce any more than you do. Man is inherently wicked. Can you change that?
“Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth” (Psalm 2:10) – God
“He has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were humble (Luke 1:52) – Jesus
Here are a few more:
He said to the judges, “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD who is with you when you render judgment (2 Chronicles 19:6).
He makes counselors walk barefoot And makes fools of judges (Job 12:17).
He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless (Isaiah 40:23).
So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? (1 Corinthians 6:4).
“By me kings reign, And rulers decree justice (Proverbs 8:15).
‘THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST’ (Acts 4:26).
We do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away (1 Corinthians 2:6).
The wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8).
It occured to Alan Chambers of Exodus, who said this to Christianity today:
I agree with him, even though I find it more than a little bit ironic that he would say so — considering how much money, time and energy Exodus has spent doing that very thing.It also occurred to several of the other Christian leaders quoted in the Christianity Today article, for example: Scot McKnight, professor in religious studies at North Park University:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/42.11.0.html
No, it’s not, Ken. It’s talking about children raised in gay-parented (like stepparented) families.
Unfortunately for your side, that’s not the way the Founding Fathers set up our system of government.
They are not, but I am going to stop arguing this with you, Michael. Gays have equal treatment (the ability to choose a spouse the same as straight folks do) under the law. They want unequal treatment.
Frankly Debbie .. I think your concern for a child’s welfare is a big joke … and a red herring. If Christians (and yes there are other Christians here besides yourself) realy ‘cared’ about children’s welfare like they ‘care’ about the homosexuality issue .. they would be working to make divorce illegal and remarriage illegal as well since neither honors God … But of course we’ll never do that despite all the evidence to the contrary concerning the harm that comes to children from divorce and the social struggles of the blended family which some of your research seems to confirm.
Whether you accept either a 2% or 10 % figure for how many people are gay .. that still leaves you with a 90 to 98% heterosexual population…. a heterosexual population where the divorce rate of churched and unchurched people is the same. Perhaps this is yet another area where the sovereignty of God got missed.
If you are going to talk the sovereignty of God and His rule in our lives perhaps you should broaden the field to include everything .. not just this one thing. I am weary of hearing divorce ridden churches complain about the alleged harm that can come to children raised by same sex couples when they can’t even take care of their own. This .. to me .. is the height of hypocrisy from people that should know better.
The reallity is that we live in a country where personal freedom and liberty is paramount regardless of your religous or political persuasion. Thus all sorts of religions exist and are practiced here including witchcraft and devil worship. (I have a nephew who worships the devil so I mean no insult here). I wonder .. from a Christian point of view .. what harm would come to the children of these types of families… and if harm would come then why do we do nothing about it.
I am rambling a bit with this last paragraph but I am simply pointing out that there are many things in our country (and even in our churches) that we are doing nothing about. So it seems a bit hypocritical, self righteous, and .. yes.. perhaps even bigoted when we make this issue the center of all our ills and worthy of a fight that has cost millions upon millions of dollars.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 10, 2010 at 8:27 am
“That is why I said children in gay families “fare no worse” than those in other stepfamilies and why the report is not really complimentary of gay parenting.”
What you are referencing doesn’t include gay parents who have children through artifical insemination or surrogacy, or through adoption. It is only referring to children who have gone through a parents divorce. And it is complementary of gay parents because it says in that situation gay parents do JUST AS WELL in dealing with it as straight parents do. Your personal biases are preventing you from recognizing this fact.
“Something you won’t finding this technical statement is this: It is common knowledge that lesbians tend to have trouble suppressing their hatred for men.”
And I doubt you will find it in ANY research. Because again, this statement is your personal bias, not actual research.
“There is absolutely no way a child will not be adversely impacted by living in an environment where these feelings will spill over.”
And yet again, the research into lesbian parents doesn’t support this claim.
It seems to me that you have a strong dislike for lesbians Debbie, and that your personal biases are significantly impacting your ability to honestly evaluate evidence regarding them.
A Screwtape refresher, FWIW;
Where is this “so much research” and why should we care?
Warren, “research” will not stop the back and forth. It will merely punctuate it. Mostly a lot of confirmation bias and hot air. We could play that game all day. There is one thing that trumps research: the sovereignty of God. I and a host of others know Him by faith and by the biblical record. Remember Screwtape and the significance of the Historical View?
Here, ladies and gentlemen of 2050, we see clearly stated the unreasoning animus of the bigot circa 2010. With nothing but ignorance and ill-will to support her we can clearly see in this particular example how she confuses her own opinion for some kind of universal law. Should further examples be needed we have this:
Though it may be painful now to read such nonsense it’s important for us to remember what this particular kind of bigotry looked like. No, it’s not pretty. And no, it makes no sense. But it was widespread at the time and gave those who lived within it a sense of entitlement. Though it may be difficult, the better course for us today is to pity them even if we now can’t begin to understand their obsessions.
On research: Folks this will be back and forth, unless people offer some research which supports their views.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 10, 2010 at 7:52 am
“And are we excluding from a child’s well being, Ken, the essential need to bond with the same-sex parent and have the unique influences of the opposite-sex parent to round out his or her emotional and social development?”
Who says it is essential (besides you)? Can you cite me any research supporting that claim? If it is essential as you keep claiming why is there so much research showing that children with single gender parents are just as well off as with opposite gender parents?
“Maturity in some may change sexual orientation”. I agree it may for some people and to some extent. Just not enough to justify denying equal protection to the those who can’t, won’t or don’t.
OK, I’ve checked. The only thing that is not really clear in the AAP Technical Report is how the reference to divorced lesbian mothers was intended, since they seem to be saying, on the one hand, there is enough evidence to study and, on the other, there isn’t. But that is not the main point anyway.
To requote from the report and to add some:
I ought to have pointed out earlier that a 1993 article in Psychology Today entitled “Shuttle Diplomacy” said, “Stepfamilies are such a minefield of divided loyalties, emotional traps, and management conflicts that they are the most fragile form of family in America.” That is why I said children in gay families “fare no worse” than those in other stepfamilies and why the report is not really complimentary of gay parenting.
The report also said, “Some among the vast variety of family forms, histories, and relationships may prove more conducive to healthy psychosexual and emotional development than others.” Gee, ya think?
Something you won’t finding this technical statement is this: It is common knowledge that lesbians tend to have trouble suppressing their hatred for men. There is absolutely no way a child will not be adversely impacted by living in an environment where these feelings will spill over. I remember well how my mom’s negative feelings toward my dad affected me growing up. Still, I could separate him (as a “bad person”) from among other men, for the most part. To believe all men are inherently bad is another matter.
Of course, lesbians who want to conceive children still need some hapless man’s sperm. They can’t deny men that creative role, much as they’d like to poof all men away. God help the boy who is raised in a home with two feminist lesbians.
Eddy said…
I think we might somewhat agree here but just to go a bit further ..
It is not inconsistent at all for God to bring judgment this way if the church is not listening .. especially if you consider how God dealt with Israel at times when they refused to hear. Also like Israel .. the faithful had to suffer with the unfaithful -sad but true.
Frankly I do not see anywhere in scripture where the church is to battle against gay rights … you could build a better case (not that I would agree with it) that the church should battle against all other forms of religion except Christianity in this country (also consistent with Israel of the Old testament). But we are not doing that either.
In short .. it is very difficult to develop any sort of political strategy based on scripture. I do not see a call to change governments in scripture but I do see a call to spread the good news about Christ … this includes sharing the good news by mouth … helping those in need .. weeping with those who weep .. rejoicing with those who rejoice … clothing the naked … helping the sick … giving a drink to someone who is thirsty …feeding the hungry … visiting a person in prison. These are all very clear instructions without any subjectivity. In contrast to this, our anti-gay stance (which at times is quite hateful by any standard) has very little justification in scripture and would seem to be the very opposite of what Christ commands .. rather then help people we alienate them. I simply cannot see God being very happy about all of this in light of Jesus’ instructions..
Timothy Kincaid,
Thanks for your thoughtful response… especially on Walker’s background. We will probably hear later, perhaps in a book or at his eulogy what some of his motivations are and were.
I argue that it is very fair to ask the question of motives of anyone who may have a vested interest as a judge in the outcome. This issue of questioning motives precedes gay or straight identification, and it is tiresome to hear implications that it is something worse a common, reasonable question (and conclusion).
This is especially true when cases are aimed by plaintiffs at certain courts with certain judges.
And it is further worthy of examination when the judge who decides the case appears to have written it in a manner to specifically pursuade the style and attitudes of a “swing” supreme court justice.
My question was, who is going to enforce it? Whose beliefs?
You did not hear what I said, Michael. Listen. We are mere people. God is God. This decision is an affront to Him, not to me. I don’t want, nor do we need “religious rule.” I want moral rule, and there is only one source of morality.
And are we excluding from a child’s well being, Ken, the essential need to bond with the same-sex parent and have the unique influences of the opposite-sex parent to round out his or her emotional and social development? How do we get to do that? Who decides, I repeat, which of those influences is not necessary? We sure have a lot of child development experts running around these days. A child’s welfare is a heavy price to pay for a social engineering experiment.
I am going to take a few minutes to check my comments and the studie I cited. I may have accidentally juxtaposed two studies. If I did, I will set the record straight.
Problems is, Debbie, that not all people accept the Bible as the literal word of God or they may follow some other religious tradition — or none at all. Under our system, one religious group does not have the right to impose it’s views of the Bible on the rest of society simply because they believe it to be true. Rights — not beliefs — are primary.
We are not a “Christian” nation. We are not an oligarchy. We are not a theocracy. That’s not the way it works here. We have laws — and courts to determine whether those laws are being applied equally. It’s not just “majority rule” — otherwise, racial segregation would still be legal.
This decision does not remove any existing rights or limit the freesom of Christians in any way. You can still believe and live as you please. Being “informed” by the Bible is one thing. Making it civil law is another. Even “Bible-believing Christians” argue about what still applies and what does not.
It seems to me that the framers of our consitutional form of government did not want the sort of “rule by the religious” that many people had suffered under in Europe. That’s why we have three co-equal branches of government — instead of a ruling committee of Biblical scholars.
That’s a glib statement for someone who knows better, Timothy. Par for the course.
Bois is equally glib. But his premise that the inability to empirically measure change automatically leads to the conclusion that there is no real and lasting change is bunk. It’s made up. Can he produce a study (or a credible witness) that proves conclusively that homosexuality is inborn and immutable? We have hypotheses without conclusions. We have “It feels like I was born with it.” “i know I can’t be any other way.” Since when does this stand up in court?
Gays are not denied this fundamental right. They want to marry each other. And we are buying into the presumption that we are depriving them of something they are entitled to. No one is preventing them from loving or shacking up with the object of their affection. They want it called marriage and they want the benefits, even though to codify their unions and equate them to man-woman marriage is antithetical to common sense and the common good. It looks good now. Wait a few generations.
Like I said, by all means, give the people their rope.
Michael, I would hope and pray for men and women as leaders who would be informed by its life-giving truth. There is no higher moral authority, so why would we not all want this kind of justice?
Debbie: Would you make all of your understanding of the Bible into civil law?
Eddie said..
Your welcome Eddie … And I suppose your one friend’s experience in one situation justifies the endless misrepresentation of cases world-wide and the lies and slander and vilification aginst gay people everywhere.
DId it ever occur to you or (assuming you are not part of this) to anyone in the church that if they had not made gay and lesbian people their ultimate political spiritual enemy to be defeated at all cost then people (like your friend) might not experience situations like this where their views are disrespected and viciously opposed???
IMHO we are getting exactly what we deserve. The most basic principle we have from Jesus is to love your neighbor as yourself .. to treat others as you want to be treated .. something we fail miserably at in this area. I wonder if it will ever occur to the church that the oppression (real or imagined) that it is allegedly experiencing might actually be God’s judgement for not following this principle of Christ. I wonder if anyone ever thought of the possibility that defending the concept of refusing to hire people because they are gay and refusing to allow them to marry may ultimately backfire … And that such a concept actually paves the way for someone to refuse to hire them because they are a Christian.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
“Where is this “so much research” and why should we care? ”
Just take a look at the references to the tech report you cited. It has several articles about lesbian parenting.
Also:
“Children with lesbian parents: A community study.” Golombok, Susan, Perry, Beth et. al, Developmental Psychology, Vol 39(1), Jan, 2003. pp. 20-33
(and again the references to this paper will point you to more studies of lesbian parenting).
*I* care about the research because it can help parents do better at raising their children. You only seem to care if you can use it to justify your own personal biases and push your own political views.
Dave–
I always question when a religious person claims to have heard the voice of God; I concede that it’s very possible but also that it’s prone to a high degree of subjectivity. By extension, viewing the harassment that my friend (and the woman from the link and others like them) as God’s judgement would presume that 1) God is ticked at His church 2) rather than speak to them, He judges them by influencing others to harass them. 3) the harassment that God influences is without consideration for the individual. (I can assure you that my friend, who I’ve known for over 30 years, has never been motivated by anything other than compassion for the homosexual individual. Politically, my friend has spoken against laws that would restrict the rights of gay people. My friend disassociated with Exodus when Exodus began to get involved in politics.)
So, yeah, I could consider that the harassment my friend endured was God’s judgement but, subjectively, I could reason that my friend was judged because they didn’t choose to engage in the battle against gay rights. Subjectivity has it’s place but it is, at the bottom line, subjective and needs to be viewed as such.
Like my friend, I share your concerns about hypocrisy and judgement inside the church. I spoke against that hypocrisy both privately and publicly. The most prominent and outspoken challenger of ‘the conservative Christians’ attended an evangelistic meeting that featured me as the speaker. After the meeting, a number of people waited to have a word with me. This man waited nearly a half hour to speak with me; I could see him there in the queue that had formed and wondered what kind of criticism he was waiting to share. Instead, he told me that I was ‘the most moving speaker {he’d} ever heard’ and that he appreciated how I ‘really put it to’ those Christians.
There are other forums, usually more private than this one, where I continue to challenge hypocrisy within the church and within the ex-gay movement. There are numerous issues on both sides of this very polarized debate that need to be considered and, at times, confronted.
I don’t want to be chastised for yet another ‘detour’ so I hope we can consider that there is validity both in what you’ve said and in what I’ve said. There is no need to fight it through until there’s a declared winner. We’ve spoken our points of view clearly; some who are reading will ‘take sides’ with you or with me. Others will glean the wheat and discard the chaff without regard to ‘sides’.
“Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth” (Psalm 2:10) – God
“He has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were humble (Luke 1:52) – Jesus
Here are a few more:
He said to the judges, “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD who is with you when you render judgment (2 Chronicles 19:6).
He makes counselors walk barefoot And makes fools of judges (Job 12:17).
He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless (Isaiah 40:23).
So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? (1 Corinthians 6:4).
“By me kings reign, And rulers decree justice (Proverbs 8:15).
‘THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST’ (Acts 4:26).
We do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away (1 Corinthians 2:6).
The wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8).
Where is this “so much research” and why should we care?
Warren, “research” will not stop the back and forth. It will merely punctuate it. Mostly a lot of confirmation bias and hot air. We could play that game all day. There is one thing that trumps research: the sovereignty of God. I and a host of others know Him by faith and by the biblical record. Remember Screwtape and the significance of the Historical View?
On research: Folks this will be back and forth, unless people offer some research which supports their views.
OK, I’ve checked. The only thing that is not really clear in the AAP Technical Report is how the reference to divorced lesbian mothers was intended, since they seem to be saying, on the one hand, there is enough evidence to study and, on the other, there isn’t. But that is not the main point anyway.
To requote from the report and to add some:
I ought to have pointed out earlier that a 1993 article in Psychology Today entitled “Shuttle Diplomacy” said, “Stepfamilies are such a minefield of divided loyalties, emotional traps, and management conflicts that they are the most fragile form of family in America.” That is why I said children in gay families “fare no worse” than those in other stepfamilies and why the report is not really complimentary of gay parenting.
The report also said, “Some among the vast variety of family forms, histories, and relationships may prove more conducive to healthy psychosexual and emotional development than others.” Gee, ya think?
Something you won’t finding this technical statement is this: It is common knowledge that lesbians tend to have trouble suppressing their hatred for men. There is absolutely no way a child will not be adversely impacted by living in an environment where these feelings will spill over. I remember well how my mom’s negative feelings toward my dad affected me growing up. Still, I could separate him (as a “bad person”) from among other men, for the most part. To believe all men are inherently bad is another matter.
Of course, lesbians who want to conceive children still need some hapless man’s sperm. They can’t deny men that creative role, much as they’d like to poof all men away. God help the boy who is raised in a home with two feminist lesbians.
That’s a glib statement for someone who knows better, Timothy. Par for the course.
Bois is equally glib. But his premise that the inability to empirically measure change automatically leads to the conclusion that there is no real and lasting change is bunk. It’s made up. Can he produce a study (or a credible witness) that proves conclusively that homosexuality is inborn and immutable? We have hypotheses without conclusions. We have “It feels like I was born with it.” “i know I can’t be any other way.” Since when does this stand up in court?
Gays are not denied this fundamental right. They want to marry each other. And we are buying into the presumption that we are depriving them of something they are entitled to. No one is preventing them from loving or shacking up with the object of their affection. They want it called marriage and they want the benefits, even though to codify their unions and equate them to man-woman marriage is antithetical to common sense and the common good. It looks good now. Wait a few generations.
Like I said, by all means, give the people their rope.
Whether or not one chooses to read the actual decision before offering opionions about it, here’s one conservative who has read it, and thinks the Judge got it right.
My Fellow Conservatives, Think Carefully About Your Opposition to Gay Marriage By Margaret Hoover, Published August 10, 2010, FoxNews.com:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fopinion%2F2010%2F08%2F09%2Fmargaret-hoover-prop-gay-rights-marriage-conservatives-civil-rights%2F&h=ddbb3
Warren, thanks for the re-direction. Also, this makes complete sense to me and I will try to abide by it:
So make civil unions possible for all. I really don’t see the big deal. Understandably, gays feel discredited when their marriage is not recognized. I stand by my proposal. The government should get out of the marriage business and leave that to churches. Civil unions should be recognized. All are the same.
This thread is not about the Roots booklet. Stick to the thread, please. There is not a comparison in any event. That booklet is out of print and only available for a price. Judge Walker’s decision is available free and is relevant to the thread.
If you want a fuller response to reparative drive theory from my point of view, go here.
To me, it makes sense that if you are going to opine on the opinion from Walker, that you should read it. If you are going to opine on the legalities of gay marriage and where the issue goes from here legally, you should read the opinion. If you are going to opine on gay marriage from some other point of view, then one may certainly do that from your own perspective.
It gets confusing when people comment on various aspects of the law, when they have not read the law or the opinion which is based on Walker’s understanding of the law.
The real issue legally in my view is the 14th Amendment and whether or not the state has a compelling interest to restrict state privileging of marriage to straight couples.
Some folks are suggesting the the Judge can’t rule impartially because he’s gay. I guess we would have to use this same logic and argue that closeted “same-sex-attracted” legislators shouldn’t vote on gay issues.
ken,
I’ll go back to what David Boies said about the difference between claims on TV or the internet and actual real science:
You mean this one? If so, you are right. I am on a very limtied income and never got around to reading it. Amazon.com has got to be kidding if they think I would pay this much for a used book by a relatively unknown author.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=ed%20hurst%20axe
I think I found it cheaper here:
http://www.keysministry.com/EBREAD.HTM
That’s more like it. I can afford $3.50. I promise I will read it and post a full review. The Prop 8 decision, by contrast is free and is available here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 4:32 pm
“The crux of it is the phrase “fare just as well.” Why not say, “fare just as poorly”? This is hot air.”
Not the point I’m making. Your statements implied that the Tech report you cited implied the following:
A child raised by a lesbian couple (ANY LESBIAN COUPLE) would be just as bad off (or well off) as a child who’s parents have divorced. The tech report DOES NOT say that at all. However, I’m beginning to suspect that what you are actually doing is taking pieces from different research papers and inappropriately using them to form a conclusion not supported by the research.
“The essential thing missing from gay parenting is obviously the opposite sex. Which sex is the more dispensable one in your opinion, Ken? Male or female?”
Neither (or either). All of the research I’ve read indicates that the gender of the parents raising a child is irrelevent (with regards to the well being of the child), whether it be one of each, 2 males or 2 females. And as I stated before, even if the research where to show that one of these combinations to have less desirable outcomes for children than the others (ex. research as shown with single parents), that doesn’t mean the we (or the government) should tell those people they can’t be parents, but that we should try to help them to be better parents.
If you re-read my earlier comment, I did not suggest that you passed judgements about the booklet; I did suggest though that you were one of several who made disparaging comments about ‘roots theory’, taking a sound bite or two from Nicolosi. At the time, and now, I suggest that it sounds like Nicolosi had read my booklet and, in part, based some of his theories on it. I then cited that you admitted to not having read it and expressed that you were going to rectify that immediately…even suggesting that you’d look for it on Amazon. (I have seen it there but extremely overpriced! We used to sell them for $3 each; last time I checked Amazon was asking for around $30!) You ask for the full name of the author but I believe that would hinder rather than help the search. LOL. Did you miss where I said it was a book I wrote? Perhaps that would be a real strong clue as to the author’s name. And, in my ministry days, I never used my full name. I went with ‘Ed’. I just searched using my name and ‘roots’ and a number of viable links popped up.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fprop8trialtracker.com%2F2010%2F08%2F09%2Fprop8-stay-and-standing%2F&h=ddbb3
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 3:02 pm
“You see, that’s the problem. “Marriage equality” is a non sequitur. There are no marriages equal to (in the eyes of the state — which accords them benefits because they benefit society, as David pointed out — or the eyes of social observers or the Church) those comprised of one man and one woman.”
Incorrect. In MA, CT, VT, IA, and NH opposite sex marriage have the same legal recognition as same-sex marriages.
“What is the hard evidence that either gay or traditional marriages are superior to polygamous ones?”
This is a misunderstanding of Walker’s decision. He didn’t simply rule that because the defense couldn’t show that opposite-sex marriages were superior to same-sex marriages that the CA Amendment should be overturned. He ruled that the defense could show no reason why the state should treat them differently.
However, polygamous marriages would not work in our legal system and that is why they should not be allowed. Now for the record if someone could design a fair, workable system for polygamous marriages I’d give it serious consideration. I don’t think it is possible.
Here’s Debbie’s link: http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/14/5/251.abstract
The study Debbie cited concluded that “The limited data available indicate that gay and lesbian couples may be less stable than married heterosexual couples”
It also showed that:
Unlike some, I do my homework.
Well said, Warren. The Judge in this case agreed.
On the mutability issue, a read of the Iowa decision would be instructive for those who care to review it.
Essentially the court says there that changing orientation need not be an all or nothing issue. In other words, if one person does it, that does not mean all people can easily do it if at all. Immutability in the legal sense does not require a strict test. The court there ruled that the state cannot compel people to change in order to avoid a discriminatory application of rights.
I can tell you as a veteran of those matters that the biggest reason social conservatives have been interested in ex-gays has been due to what seemed like a counter argument to gays who said orientation was immutable. As it has become clear that orientation change is infrequent and complicated, the courts, as in Iowa, has said the state runs afoul of the 14th Amendment to try to require change in a basic attribute in order to avoid unequal treatment.
Mary,
Some countries (France, for example) only have civil marriage for heterosexuals. The church offers a separate rite that holds religious, but no legal, importance and is not a necessity to be considered “married.”
Here, some say that marriage is religious and only religion should decide who gets to be married. But ironically, gay people can get religiously married in all 50 states. The United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalists, the Metropolitan Christian Church, Reform Judaism, some Quakers, and a lot of independent churches offer same-sex marriage.
It is only that in 45 states, the State refuses to recognize these religious marriages as having any validity.
Michael,
To be truthful, no one really has a problem with knowing what homosexuality is. It’s all just word play to avoid admitting what everyone already knows.
Marriage as it is in our government, comes with financial benefits. If christians are upset about the word then just use the word union. Let marriage be handled in the church. That levels the playing feild for everyone.
Timothy — as the Judge pointed out in his decision, even the proponents of Prop 8 seemed to have NO trouble defining what they meant by homosexuality.
Ken: A commenter on another blog (who goes by a ‘handle” only (no first and last name) posted the claim that Walker had not allowed witnesses to testify. The commenter admitted they had not read the decision.
If they had, I doubt they would have made such an outlandish statement. The commenter also claimed that Walker “manipulated the case” but could not say how.
Debbie: It’s 136 pages — and you might be able to answer the question yourself if you would take the time to actually read it. BTW: I never made judgements about the “Roots” booklet or presumed to know what was in it. Can Eddy kindly supply the full name of the author and a link as to where I might obtain it?
Eddy,
Yes, that was WAY off topic.
But, interestingly, the judge did inspect the evidence about whether there is consensus as to what determines an orientation. He found:
This was, of course, based on testimony by expert witnesses. They didn’t discuss non-sexual event quashing.
If one person can do it, then the supposition is false, isn’t it?
No. Not that one person can do it, but rather that “an individual may” do it. The burden in law is not met by a “one person” test.
The one person test only works in political rallies and on TV. In court, the course of direction has to be open to all people who so choose, and we have clearly demonstrated that virtually no people who so choose may change their orientation.
In his 138 pages, Judge Walker made 55 pages of Findings of Fact. Walker was looking for facts, not what you call “God’s truth.” He looked for evidence, not just Bible passages.
Although I’m sure you would prefer that our judicial system be based on theocratic dictates (like Iran’s), I am very glad that it is not. I don’t want judges reading religious texts of any denomination to decide what is factual.
You see, Debbie, I believe in objective truth.
LOL. Debbie, I’d let that hand slap for not reading the entire determination roll off. A while back several people were disparaging the theory of ‘roots’ to homosexuality. Like a fool, I presumed that they’d actually read and understood the concept they were bashing. Instead they had a sound bite or two from Nicolosi and no sense of the original theory. (I believe it was Michael who actually admitted that he hadn’t read my booklet from 1980 and then promised to acquire and read a copy. It’s actually around 100 pages less than this judges determination.) My bad for not attempting to publicly shame all those who comment on the roots theory without reading the original.
Ooops! Beware the deflection. Last time I brought this up, I was chastised for claiming that I developed the roots theory. I DID NOT develop the theory but I was primarily responsible for applying it to homosexuality.
LOL. Is this way off topic. I don’t think so. As yet, there is no consensus as to what determines an orientation and few studies re the non-sexual triggers for sexuality. (An increased sexual desire related to a bad day at the office–or it’s opposite: Coming home to a person you normally desire sexually and the non-sexual events of the day have quashed your desire.) If we don’t even fully understand the components of sexuality, how can we speak with any sense of absoluteness to mutability or immutability?
If one person can do it, then the supposition is false, isn’t it? I did it. Of course, “religious mediation” presumes someone is mediating. Is the someone God? Perhaps you’d like to get his sworn testimony.
Yes, quite clear. Truth and logic? Is that what Judge Walker provided in his 132 pages of opinion? I repeat, he does not inform my decisions. I wonder how much of God’s truth (the biblical record) he has read. Walker is but a fading whisper in the halls of time.
This is, incidentally, an astonishingly direct response. Most people at least pretend that facts, truth and logic play a part in their thinking but it’s refreshing to hear the honest truth that none of that matters in the slightest to you.
Your turn.
No Debbie,
It isn’t he said she said. Let’s be honest and look at these two statements.
Actually, Debbie, Jones and Yarhouse provided evidence that an individual may not change his sexual orientation through religious mediation. In fact, a lot of individuals may not… all of them in the study, to be exact.
Michael Bussee# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“Here are some of the things I have been hearing here (and elsewhere) from people upset about the decision:
.
(2) He prohibited qualified witnesses from testifying.”
Who is claiming Walker prohibited a qualified witness from testyfing? And who was the witness?
I know he allowed one unqualifed expert to testify (over the Plaintiffs objection).
That’s Blankenhorn.
I would put a not after may. So what? He says, she says ad infinitem. Where does the circle begin and end?
The crux of it is the phrase “fare just as well.” Why not say, “fare just as poorly”? This is hot air.
Oh, no you don’t pull that cheap shot! Millennia of history and social observations have set the bar where it is, to say nothing of God. Not I. Those doing the engineering are the ones who mess with the norm.
The essential thing missing from gay parenting is obviously the opposite sex. Which sex is the more dispensable one in your opinion, Ken? Male or female? Which do we lop off, gonads or ovaries? While role does not matter?
I could use the same rationale to justify things that would curl your toes.
Eddy# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 12:58 pm
“Has there been an attempt to get the feds to step up re Social Security etc for civil unions? This is a somewhat major concern and, for that alone, I’d recognize the merits of pursuing marriage over civil unions.”
There are a host of other rights/priviledges granted at the federal level for marriage (including allowing a non-citizen spouse to remain in the country). However, currently, even allowing gay marriage at the state level doesn’t entitle gay couples to those benefits because of DOMA. Which I believe is currently being challenged.
And there was an attempt by Congress to allow same-sex partners to stay in the US (same as spouses are) under immigration law, however, I don’t think it ever came up for a vote. But attempting to grant all the rights, priviledges and responsibilites of marriage on a case by case basis for gay couples would be extremely difficult.
Debbie,
Maybe we should take a step back and each of us, in one sentence, lay out the legal argument about our claim relating to change in orientation. What would we argue in court?
I would say:
What would you say?
Mary# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 1:33 pm
“Why doesn’t our government get out of the marriage business (granting special financial incentives to marry) , make a civil unions legal for hetero and homo couplings and then let the church (whatever church you go to) marry or bless your union.”
Because despite popular misconceptions, marriage doesn’t belong solely to the purview of religion. Marriage has been a CIVIL institution throughout history (and since long before christainity ever existed).
Deprive them of the right to vote? Who is doing this? I want names.
Why? What if we make your side the negative? You make one claim, we make another. Who gets to make the distinction? And, absence of proof is not proof of absence, as the adage goes. The side in the Prop. 8 case that brought the suit ought to have had the burden of proof on it.
Debbie,
When it comes to the evidence, I think David Boies, co-council on this case, said it best:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fprop8trialtracker.com%2F2010%2F08%2F09%2Fprop8-stay-and-standing%2F&h=ddbb3
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 9:37 am
“the statement I cited that concluded lesbian-parented children fared as well as children of divorced parents was not complimentary of lesbian parenting.”
The statement you cited did NOT say that children in lesbian-parented relationships fare the same as children of divorced parents! What it says is children whose biological parents have divorced fare just as well REGARDLESS of whether the biological mother was straight or a lesbian. This is the 1st sentence in the section you got your quote from (“Children’s Emotional and Social Development p. 342):
You are mis-interpreting this research to say something that it does not say.
“I say how can these children be so stable when something essential to their development is always going to be missing? ”
And what is this “essential” element? All of the research I read on gay parenting says children growing up with gay parents ARE just as stable (perhaps even more stable) than those growing up with straight parents.
“Family engineering is a social experiment as harmful as eugenics, in my opinion.”
Then why do you seem to be supporting it? Your arguments about how children shouldn’t be raised in gay households sounds like YOU are the one trying to determine which are the “acceptable” form of parents. Further, I think you are mis-using this research. Research into parenting outcomes (regardless of whether it studies gay parents, straight parents, single parents, inter-racial, inter-religious etc) shouldn’t be used to say “Ah! these classes of parents are bad parents, we shouldn’t let them be parents.” as you seem to be trying to do. Rather it should be used to say, “hmmm.. these classes of parents seem to be having trouble raising their children, How can we help them to be better parents?”
Debbie,
You are making a fallacy in logic. One cannot “prove” a negative.
In other words, the burden is not for on the side of proving that orientation can never ever in any possible imaginable circumstances be altered, but rather on the side of those who claim that it can.
I need not prove that you have not changed your orientation, I need simply to demonstrate that there is no known method by which one may do so if they were so inclined. And, I’m sure you will agree, there is none.
Yes, God can do as he wishes. He could choose to turn a gay person straight; he could also choose to turn them into an ostrich. But He certainly hasn’t given us any indication that He has a desire to do either of these.
And appealing to miracles and divine intervention is SURELY not the standard that we want our legal system to apply.
Incidentally, the innateness of sexual orientation is actually not what this case rested upon – though it did address the issue. This case rested on law.
No, I am not mistaken. Homosexuality has never been proven to be immutable. Was the other side able to provide conclusive evidence that homosexuality is not immutable? Neither side could do it because it is unprovable, either way. Are we going to remove “in God We Trust” from our money because we cannot prove He exists?
The innateness of sexual orientation (or not) is not what this case should have rested upon. That the defense took that bait is sad. How would you go about proving either hypothesis, Timothy? Can you prove that I, who once had significant same-sex attractions, and now have none, am lying? Can I prove I am not? No and no.
What is the point of belaboring the change thing? Are there “no effective methods” of transformation? Is there no God? Did Jesus heal or not? Is that history or fiction? Now, let’s set about “proving” it all.
Debbie,
Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young were both experts for the defense until they decided not to testify. However, the plaintiffs did enter their depositions as testimony and Judge Walker did address them within his ruling:
The judge did not think that hoping for rare spontaneous change is a standard of immutability that could be legally applied. Do you disagree with any of the following words:
David Blakeslee,
Your position seems to be that gay judges are incapable of impartiality due to pressures put on them by the gay community. This fails on three accounts:
1. Judge Walker is not, contrary to what you and other anti-gay advocates have been claiming, “openly gay”. The Chronicle did not call him “openly gay” and in fact mentioned that he is not public with his sexuality, whatever it may be.
Therefore your assertion that his “primary support system is likely in the gay community [and he] is under extraordinary pressure on a very personal level to make a decision that community will support” is based on false information.
His primary support system is likely not in the gay community.
2. Gay people – including Judge Walker – are more that just a walking stereotype. Each individual has other facets which contribute to their thinking.
For example, Judge Walker is a Republican and has for decades been part of the Republican community. It would be bizarre to insist that the gay community (of which he may or may not be a part) would subject him to “extraordinary pressure” but that the Republican community would exert none at all.
And I think we can agree that the Republican community is not likely to have exerted pro-gay-marriage pressure.
3. Judge Walker has already demonstrated an ability to make decisions that are not popular within the gay community. He was instrumental in blocking the Gay Olympics from using the name “Olympics”.
I happen to think he was right in doing so – the name belongs to the Olympic Committee and if they want to be bigoted in their decisions as to who can use the term, well I think they should have the right to do so.
But this was not a popular position. In fact, when Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Walker to the bench, Nancy Pelosi led the fight that blocked his appointment because he was believed to be anti-gay. It wasn’t until under George Bush (Sr) that Walker was confirmed.
Timothy,
You are a scholar, are you not? Sexual Orientation does change, spontaneously at times! More often in woman, than in men. And it is rare.
Courts and judges using science to establish facts is worthy and largely good.
It can be corrupted by advocacy groups or manipulative attorneys and ignorant agenda driven judges…or later science can make prior rulings obsolete.
The biological origins of homosexual attraction are weak, the assertions about such biological origins have been exaggerated, and that it differs for the two genders.
I suspect that if I had been making judgements about the Ugandan Bill while admitting that I had not actually reading it — and had intention of doing so — that some of you would have objected.
ken,
The Supreme Court has already addressed the “I’m skurrrred of Teh Gehs. They may say mean things to me” argument.
In Doe V. Reed, the SCOTUS said 8-1 that those who sign petitions are not protected from having their identity disclosed. They said that while some instances may exist in which there is a real threat, it needs to be proven and supported, not just baseless fear mongering.
Justice Scalia was downright mocking:
I doubt that the court is going to be sympathetic of “Oh but my peers with snub me.”
Polygomous relationships have a better footing in tradition, Judaism and Islam; and evolutionary social science…they also exist currently in Africa (as a good friend of mine pointed out) so that gay marriage can not lead to endorsing polygamy.
I believe currently there are no studies examining such relationships for their benefit to children.
However, I predict the following: studies comparing serial monogamy (a kind of polygamy) with single parenting. No difference. Those in the social sciences who view traditional religion as oppressive, with then go about getting self-report evaluations from being in poly amorous relationships and its effect on children.
We are returning to some Greek and Roman ideas; ones that worked best for a ruling class.
Michael,
To be truthful, no one really has a problem with knowing what homosexuality is. It’s all just word play to avoid admitting what everyone already knows.
Race is immutable. Homosexuality has never been proven so.
Actually, you are mistaken. Judge Walker specifically requested that the defense answer the question as to whether orientation is immutable. They were unable to present any evidence that orientation is NOT immutable.
And, as anyone who follows the only available information on change therapy would have to agree, there are no effective methods currently available that are known to be able to alter sexual orientation.
So the judge was forced to conclude that:
Here are some of the things I have been hearing here (and elsewhere) from people upset about the decision:
(1) The judge is gay.
(2) He prohibited qualified witnesses from testifying.
(3) He manipulated the case.
(4) He discriminated against Christians.
I suspect many of the folks who have made such comments have also refused to read it. It’s an important part of US legal history, an important part of civil rights history — and it raises some every important Constituional questions — questions that I believe are worth reading the decision in order to have intelligent conversation about it.
People are certainly entitled to make any judgements or accusations they choose, to read it or not read it, etc. I have now read it four times — along with many articles, both pro and con, analyzing the ruling.
It would be nice to be able to discuss the case with someone else who has made the effort. But you guys will do, I guess.
I believe the “1100 rights and protections” are inaccurate descriptions, as it also leads to exclusions and responsibilities…
So this means there is a down side of being married in the public law eye as well, and that makes up the entire 1100.
Regarding sounding like Judge Walker: actually, Walker and I sound like M. Gallagher of NOMA.
:).
You see, that’s the problem. “Marriage equality” is a non sequitur. There are no marriages equal to (in the eyes of the state — which accords them benefits because they benefit society, as David pointed out — or the eyes of social observers or the Church) those comprised of one man and one woman.
Others have observed that the pro-gay rationale Judge Walker used might just as well be used to legalize polygamy. What is the hard evidence that either gay or traditional marriages are superior to polygamous ones?
David, you sound like Judge Walker. He said that the evidence presented in court backed this up — that the government and society actually benefit by affirming marriage equality — for all of the reasons you listed.
I know I am breaking my own rule about not responding to people who have decided not to educate themselves about the ruling by refusing to actually read it, but I have broken my own rules before, so here goes:
That’s the same question the judge asked, only in reverse. What compelling reasons do we have, backed up by actual evidence, to believe that straights can do marriage better? Or parent better? What compelling secular interest does the state have to deny marriage equality? There wasn’t any — at least not presented in court.
Civil Unions and Marriage: What’s the Difference?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html
Gavin Newsom? Anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom
@ Mary,
Because the government benefits from people coupling in longterm relationships: they live longer, use less medical resources, are less likely to have drug and alcohol problems and are more likely to raise their children with less government assistance….
Many government benefits are meant to reflect the lower costs (for the government) associated with long term relationships.
We can post date all our marriage licenses to read “civil unions”—I think your solution is the most respectful of all involved…but I don’t think it would change anything.
Why doesn’t our government get out of the marriage business (granting special financial incentives to marry) , make a civil unions legal for hetero and homo couplings and then let the church (whatever church you go to) marry or bless your union.
There is not enough data to make such a determination. The study I cited above showed that married gays and lesbians (especially lesbians) in Norway and Sweden outpaced heterosexual married couples in divorces. Those countries have had gay marriage longer than we have. It’s about all we have statistically for now.
Perhaps more compelling evidence would come from the children of gay unions, but, again, it will take time for the maladaptive effects to become evident or attention-getting. What compelling reasons do we have to believe gays can do marriage better than the rest of us? And if divorce is harmful enough for the average kid, how much more so might it be for the child raised in a gay home? Are they not already subjected to harassment from their peers for having two moms or two dads? Is the sandbox not rough enough already for kids?
In the end, the people will get what they want — enough rope to hang themselves with.
Thanks Warren. Has there been an attempt to get the feds to step up re Social Security etc for civil unions? This is a somewhat major concern and, for that alone, I’d recognize the merits of pursuing marriage over civil unions.
———————
Thanks, Dave. That thoroughly justifies the 2 months of anguish and several confrontive meetings my friend went through to defend their right to be assessed on merit and practice alone.
The Engardio quote is six comments above yours. Michael Bussee posted it.
Eddie said..
Didn’t see Engardio’s comments .. perhaps I missed them in my fast scrolling… at any rate .. I did look at the link you provided .. I also went to the ADF site to see what they were doing about it directly and read down through some of their suit. According to the news article on ADF they have had cases like this before and been quite successful at them .. so I am guessing this will have the same outcome.
Quite bluntly .. I am tired of all the phobic statements coming out of Christian resources. Time and time again I have investigated these claims and found that either we won the case (but kepty whining about it anyway) or that the issue was no where near what the spin doctors had spun it out to be. I guess we’ll have to wait and see on this one. If its anything like the other successes .. ADF will succeed and then Christian resources will whine and complain about what *might* have happened.
There are no federal benefits with civil unions at the state level. Social security, etc…
I haven’t read the entire determination so I can’t engage Michael on this…can anyone else cite the specifics of the ‘inferior benefits’ of ‘civil unions’? Are there some inferior benefits that are universal throughout the U.S.? Are there some that some states have addressed and others have overlooked? Are there states that offer equal benefits to both those who are married and those who are coupled in a civil union?
Debbie,
Maybe we should take a step back and each of us, in one sentence, lay out the legal argument about our claim relating to change in orientation. What would we argue in court?
I would say:
What would you say?
Mary# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 1:33 pm
“Why doesn’t our government get out of the marriage business (granting special financial incentives to marry) , make a civil unions legal for hetero and homo couplings and then let the church (whatever church you go to) marry or bless your union.”
Because despite popular misconceptions, marriage doesn’t belong solely to the purview of religion. Marriage has been a CIVIL institution throughout history (and since long before christainity ever existed).
Perhaps the right to marry ought to be granted on the basis of which groups tend to have the lowest divorce rates.
We might want to take into account such things as divorce rate by state of residence, faith, racial or enthnic identification, previous marriages, number of children, income, occupation, age groups, etc.
Look at the actual statistical evidence. Grant “marriage” to those most likely to succeed and “civil unions” with inferior benefits to the rest. That way, fewer kids would be traumatized by divorce.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 9, 2010 at 9:37 am
“the statement I cited that concluded lesbian-parented children fared as well as children of divorced parents was not complimentary of lesbian parenting.”
The statement you cited did NOT say that children in lesbian-parented relationships fare the same as children of divorced parents! What it says is children whose biological parents have divorced fare just as well REGARDLESS of whether the biological mother was straight or a lesbian. This is the 1st sentence in the section you got your quote from (“Children’s Emotional and Social Development p. 342):
You are mis-interpreting this research to say something that it does not say.
“I say how can these children be so stable when something essential to their development is always going to be missing? ”
And what is this “essential” element? All of the research I read on gay parenting says children growing up with gay parents ARE just as stable (perhaps even more stable) than those growing up with straight parents.
“Family engineering is a social experiment as harmful as eugenics, in my opinion.”
Then why do you seem to be supporting it? Your arguments about how children shouldn’t be raised in gay households sounds like YOU are the one trying to determine which are the “acceptable” form of parents. Further, I think you are mis-using this research. Research into parenting outcomes (regardless of whether it studies gay parents, straight parents, single parents, inter-racial, inter-religious etc) shouldn’t be used to say “Ah! these classes of parents are bad parents, we shouldn’t let them be parents.” as you seem to be trying to do. Rather it should be used to say, “hmmm.. these classes of parents seem to be having trouble raising their children, How can we help them to be better parents?”
Polygomous relationships have a better footing in tradition, Judaism and Islam; and evolutionary social science…they also exist currently in Africa (as a good friend of mine pointed out) so that gay marriage can not lead to endorsing polygamy.
I believe currently there are no studies examining such relationships for their benefit to children.
However, I predict the following: studies comparing serial monogamy (a kind of polygamy) with single parenting. No difference. Those in the social sciences who view traditional religion as oppressive, with then go about getting self-report evaluations from being in poly amorous relationships and its effect on children.
We are returning to some Greek and Roman ideas; ones that worked best for a ruling class.
I believe the “1100 rights and protections” are inaccurate descriptions, as it also leads to exclusions and responsibilities…
So this means there is a down side of being married in the public law eye as well, and that makes up the entire 1100.
Regarding sounding like Judge Walker: actually, Walker and I sound like M. Gallagher of NOMA.
:).
Ken, the statement I cited that concluded lesbian-parented children fared as well as children of divorced parents was not complimentary of lesbian parenting.
This 2005 study points to the higher divorce rates among lesbians in Norway and Sweden:
It must be pointed out that gay marriage has been around for a relatively short time, not long enough for any comprehensive studies. Why should it matter to you or anyone else what I believe about the effects of marriage on gay or lesbian parents? I am not a social scientist. If you want my commonsense opinion, then, no, I can’t see marriage as contributing to gay couples’ stability, parenting or no parenting, in the long run. Look at how unstable it has become for straight couples.
By the way, what the limited studies have shown is that some weigh financial stability and education (gays have an edge there) over mother-father role modeling in declaring that gay-parented families are superior or equal to mom-dad-parented ones. I say how can these children be so stable when something essential to their development is always going to be missing? It may not be easily observed or measured, but it’s there. And in adulthood, it will make its presence known. Family engineering is a social experiment as harmful as eugenics, in my opinion.
Perhaps the right to marry ought to be granted on the basis of which groups tend to have the lowest divorce rates.
We might want to take into account such things as divorce rate by state of residence, faith, racial or enthnic identification, previous marriages, number of children, income, occupation, age groups, etc.
Look at the actual statistical evidence. Grant “marriage” to those most likely to succeed and “civil unions” with inferior benefits to the rest. That way, fewer kids would be traumatized by divorce.
For all it’s fine-sounding eloquence, Engardio’s quote doesn’t seem to address the ‘thought police’ scenarios from the link I provided or from my friend’s situation.
In their various court battles, Jehovah’s Witnesses have done much, perhaps ironically as in this case, to extend civil liberties to all Americans:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fforum%2F2010-08-06-engardio05_ST_N.htm&h=56c7d
For all it’s fine-sounding eloquence, Engardio’s quote doesn’t seem to address the ‘thought police’ scenarios from the link I provided or from my friend’s situation.
LOL.Ken is correct; my post certainly was about more than ‘free speech’; It’s about ‘freedom of belief’!!!!
I also have a friend who had been involved with Exodus (the ex-gay affiliation) years ago. My friend has been pursuing a degree in counseling complete with supervised internship. My friend had clients who were gay and even one or two who were transsexual. There were no complaints from the clients or the supervisor about anything that transpired in those counseling sessions.
Towards the end of the internship, my friend felt it necessary to reveal to associates the past involvement with Exodus. The associates totally flipped out! There were threats to not graduate my friend…demands that my friend publicly renounce the past involvement….demands to make an official ‘statement of position’. When you consider that, prior to my friends revelation, there were no complaints of imposing morality, being religious, presenting a bias…what, then, was the basis for the threats and demands?
(Sorry for that awkward wording. After a bit of wrangling, my friend and my friend’s associates were able to come to terms…with the proviso that the past involvement is not spoken of in any public forum for fear that it would reflect negatively on the program my friend schooled under. For that reason, I was purposely unspecific as to gender and other details that might lead to my friend’s identity.)
It wasn’t the line by line, read every page of a decision kind of logic. It was ‘the APA has determined’ as a justification. This will happen with this recent determination, as well. “The courts have determined” thus and such…”your beliefs are not in line with that therefore we deem you unfit”. And, the further justification is often, ‘your beliefs cannot help but become a bias in your practical application’.
Actually, with the student from the link I posted, with my friend, AND with the judge in this determination…we do need to be especially watchful for possible bias BUT in none of these instances should we presume that the individual is powerless to keep their ‘bias’ in check. That’s when we turn into ‘thought police’.
In saying this, I am not refuting this current determination, nor am I suggesting that the judge was impacted by bias. Instead, I am suggesting that the end result of determinations (not the page by page, line by line readings) do have implications that extend to other areas. Some of us feel that, in a free speech forum such as this one, it is acceptable to consider those possible implications.
I am a big free speech advocate. however, if you are referring to the link Eddy posted, that is about more than simply free speech. But that is a different topic. if Warren wishes to create another thread for that, I’ll discuss it there.
On topic, the State of CA has filed to have the stay of Walker’s decision lifted and allow gays to start marrying again in CA. Since there are already gays who where legally married in CA, anyone arguing to keep the stay will be hard pressed to argue that significant harm would come from lifting the stay.
In fact the only argument against I can think of would be that if the stay is lifted, many couples may rush into marriage before they are ready out of fear the decision will get over-turned. Therefore, these rushed marriages could end badly and later burden the state (with divorce proceeding, domestic disputes etc). This argument would be one for the state to make, which it obviously isn’t going to make. For the proponents to make this argument, they would have to say these rushed marriages would be harmful to the couples involved. However, since the proponents of prop 8 have NEVER concerned themselves with welfare of gay couples such an argument would ring hollow.
Just one final comment. I am not the radical right wing that you wish to paint me as. This is a simple tactic that has been used far too often to try to close down discussion. It has worked. I had stopped responding on this blog for some time and I now realize I have made a major mistake in responding here again. What I have read in the accusations against me have only confirmed the lack of openness that is allowed around this issue.
By the way, I have read much of the document and I do understand how this judgement came to be. If the America people can accept this as a fair and unbiased judgement against Prop 8 then I do agree with them. If your court system now begins to erode away at the rights of Christians, Mormons, or any other group that sees it as wrong to redefine what marriage is, then I have concerns.
Ken,
We will see where this goes from here. I hope you are as supportive of the constitutional rights of all people and to their right to free speech, without judgement.
concerned# ~ Aug 6, 2010 at 6:01 pm
“I am not interested in reading this. It is just another example of the legalism that is rampant in your country.”
and how could you possibly know that if you haven’t read the decision?
Seems to me you are doing exactly what you and others are accusing Walker of doing, judging based on your own personal biases rather than a rational review of the facts.
concerned# ~ Aug 7, 2010 at 1:38 am
“You are wrong on all accounts and your accusations only confirm for me how incapable you have become in looking at this issue in a balanced way.”
Again, this statements seems to be you accusing others of doing what you are guilty of doing.
Certainly, Michael appears to be letting his emotions get the better of him, but it is difficult when your opponents keep making outlandish accusations then respond to request for evidence with more outlandish accusations or just refuse to answer.
Michael said on Aug. 5 at 5 PM:
It seemed like a clear and straightforward statement at the time but there are obviously caveats since 1) Michael still seems to be demanding that people read the entire statement before they comment (See his challenge to David Blakeslee re comments made by David that weren’t directed to Michael) and 2) Michael still seems very willing to engage in argument with those who haven’t read it (as ev idenced in the exchange with ‘concerned’). This leaves me puzzled over the actual meaning of the statement from him that I quoted…which of the words did I misinterpret?
LOL.Ken is correct; my post certainly was about more than ‘free speech’; It’s about ‘freedom of belief’!!!!
I also have a friend who had been involved with Exodus (the ex-gay affiliation) years ago. My friend has been pursuing a degree in counseling complete with supervised internship. My friend had clients who were gay and even one or two who were transsexual. There were no complaints from the clients or the supervisor about anything that transpired in those counseling sessions.
Towards the end of the internship, my friend felt it necessary to reveal to associates the past involvement with Exodus. The associates totally flipped out! There were threats to not graduate my friend…demands that my friend publicly renounce the past involvement….demands to make an official ‘statement of position’. When you consider that, prior to my friends revelation, there were no complaints of imposing morality, being religious, presenting a bias…what, then, was the basis for the threats and demands?
(Sorry for that awkward wording. After a bit of wrangling, my friend and my friend’s associates were able to come to terms…with the proviso that the past involvement is not spoken of in any public forum for fear that it would reflect negatively on the program my friend schooled under. For that reason, I was purposely unspecific as to gender and other details that might lead to my friend’s identity.)
It wasn’t the line by line, read every page of a decision kind of logic. It was ‘the APA has determined’ as a justification. This will happen with this recent determination, as well. “The courts have determined” thus and such…”your beliefs are not in line with that therefore we deem you unfit”. And, the further justification is often, ‘your beliefs cannot help but become a bias in your practical application’.
Actually, with the student from the link I posted, with my friend, AND with the judge in this determination…we do need to be especially watchful for possible bias BUT in none of these instances should we presume that the individual is powerless to keep their ‘bias’ in check. That’s when we turn into ‘thought police’.
In saying this, I am not refuting this current determination, nor am I suggesting that the judge was impacted by bias. Instead, I am suggesting that the end result of determinations (not the page by page, line by line readings) do have implications that extend to other areas. Some of us feel that, in a free speech forum such as this one, it is acceptable to consider those possible implications.
I am a big free speech advocate. however, if you are referring to the link Eddy posted, that is about more than simply free speech. But that is a different topic. if Warren wishes to create another thread for that, I’ll discuss it there.
On topic, the State of CA has filed to have the stay of Walker’s decision lifted and allow gays to start marrying again in CA. Since there are already gays who where legally married in CA, anyone arguing to keep the stay will be hard pressed to argue that significant harm would come from lifting the stay.
In fact the only argument against I can think of would be that if the stay is lifted, many couples may rush into marriage before they are ready out of fear the decision will get over-turned. Therefore, these rushed marriages could end badly and later burden the state (with divorce proceeding, domestic disputes etc). This argument would be one for the state to make, which it obviously isn’t going to make. For the proponents to make this argument, they would have to say these rushed marriages would be harmful to the couples involved. However, since the proponents of prop 8 have NEVER concerned themselves with welfare of gay couples such an argument would ring hollow.
Just one final comment. I am not the radical right wing that you wish to paint me as. This is a simple tactic that has been used far too often to try to close down discussion. It has worked. I had stopped responding on this blog for some time and I now realize I have made a major mistake in responding here again. What I have read in the accusations against me have only confirmed the lack of openness that is allowed around this issue.
By the way, I have read much of the document and I do understand how this judgement came to be. If the America people can accept this as a fair and unbiased judgement against Prop 8 then I do agree with them. If your court system now begins to erode away at the rights of Christians, Mormons, or any other group that sees it as wrong to redefine what marriage is, then I have concerns.
Ken,
We will see where this goes from here. I hope you are as supportive of the constitutional rights of all people and to their right to free speech, without judgement.
concerned# ~ Aug 6, 2010 at 6:01 pm
“I am not interested in reading this. It is just another example of the legalism that is rampant in your country.”
and how could you possibly know that if you haven’t read the decision?
Seems to me you are doing exactly what you and others are accusing Walker of doing, judging based on your own personal biases rather than a rational review of the facts.
concerned# ~ Aug 7, 2010 at 1:38 am
“You are wrong on all accounts and your accusations only confirm for me how incapable you have become in looking at this issue in a balanced way.”
Again, this statements seems to be you accusing others of doing what you are guilty of doing.
Certainly, Michael appears to be letting his emotions get the better of him, but it is difficult when your opponents keep making outlandish accusations then respond to request for evidence with more outlandish accusations or just refuse to answer.
Michael said on Aug. 5 at 5 PM:
It seemed like a clear and straightforward statement at the time but there are obviously caveats since 1) Michael still seems to be demanding that people read the entire statement before they comment (See his challenge to David Blakeslee re comments made by David that weren’t directed to Michael) and 2) Michael still seems very willing to engage in argument with those who haven’t read it (as ev idenced in the exchange with ‘concerned’). This leaves me puzzled over the actual meaning of the statement from him that I quoted…which of the words did I misinterpret?
Do you mind telling me how this decision is “unfair to Christians” or discriminates against you in any way?
You can still believe what you want to believe, interpret the Bible any way you see fit and marry the person of your choice. This only means that I can, too.
The issue was decided fairly, according to the laws of this country, in open court. Your side had every opportunity to present a strong case — and failed miserably.
You haven’t “looked into the telescope very deeply”. You refuse to even read the decision. That’s not looking. That’s refusing to see.
Michael,
You are wrong on all accounts and your accusations only confirm for me how incapable you have become in looking at this issue in a balanced way. That is fine, but if you are going to accuse me of the things you have then all I can say, is right back at you. Time to pull your own head out for the perverbial sand of political correctness. I have looked very deeply into that telescope and I see discrimination and unfairness towards Christians and towards those who do not follow the bible according to the American Psychological Association. It is still discrimination.
The “means I am praising”? You mean, the court system of the USA? That’s how constitutional disputes are settled in this country — the way our Founding Fathers set it up. Three branches of government.
You don’t like that? Fine. Do you have some other “means” in mind? Maybe let churches decide? Like it or not, the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority. It just doesn’t work that way.
It’s obvious that you have made up your mind and don’t want to be bothered by the facts of this case. You refuse to even read the decision. You remind me of people who refused to look through telescopes because they were convinced the Sun revolved around the Earth. Ostrich, meet sand. I am out of here.
Do you mind telling me how this decision is “unfair to Christians” or discriminates against you in any way?
You can still believe what you want to believe, interpret the Bible any way you see fit and marry the person of your choice. This only means that I can, too.
The issue was decided fairly, according to the laws of this country, in open court. Your side had every opportunity to present a strong case — and failed miserably.
You haven’t “looked into the telescope very deeply”. You refuse to even read the decision. That’s not looking. That’s refusing to see.
Do you mind telling me how this decision is “unfair to Christians” or discriminates against you in any way?
You can still believe what you want to believe, interpret the Bible any way you see fit and marry the person of your choice. This only means that I can, too.
The issue was decided fairly, according to the laws of this country, in open court. Your side had every opportunity to present a strong case — and failed miserably.
You haven’t “looked into the telescope very deeply”. You refuse to even read the decision. That’s not looking. That’s refusing to see.
Michael,
To be honest., I hope you are right about what you are saying about things not changing as a result of this judgement. However, I fail to see how the tone in your last comment or for that matter the tone you have so often used towards me helps develop a free and open dialogue. I am not as ill informed as you want to believe and your sarcastic responses to my comment have only pushed me further in the opposite direction. I do believe that there is a balanced and fair way to deal with these issues, but it will never come about through the means that you are praising in this judgement.
No Michael,
No fire and brimstone, that is your exaggeration on what I have said and is once again an attempt to use sarcasm to shut up anyone who sees things differently than you. I am only to familiar with is time of imbalance in a decision that. Don’t accuse me of not understanding because I have not read this. I have lived the descrimination that has come about from this kind of judicial political correctness and it is very harmful without the fire and brimestone, which by the way I have never believedin. The harm comes slowly and gradually, but it is there, first goes the freedom of expression within our academic institutions, then we see the descrimination shown in Eddy’s post. You don’t have to look far to see the examples, you just have to remove the plank in your eyes that are blocking you from seeing what is happening.
Michael,
You are wrong on all accounts and your accusations only confirm for me how incapable you have become in looking at this issue in a balanced way. That is fine, but if you are going to accuse me of the things you have then all I can say, is right back at you. Time to pull your own head out for the perverbial sand of political correctness. I have looked very deeply into that telescope and I see discrimination and unfairness towards Christians and towards those who do not follow the bible according to the American Psychological Association. It is still discrimination.
Michael,
You are wrong on all accounts and your accusations only confirm for me how incapable you have become in looking at this issue in a balanced way. That is fine, but if you are going to accuse me of the things you have then all I can say, is right back at you. Time to pull your own head out for the perverbial sand of political correctness. I have looked very deeply into that telescope and I see discrimination and unfairness towards Christians and towards those who do not follow the bible according to the American Psychological Association. It is still discrimination.
The “means I am praising”? You mean, the court system of the USA? That’s how constitutional disputes are settled in this country — the way our Founding Fathers set it up. Three branches of government.
You don’t like that? Fine. Do you have some other “means” in mind? Maybe let churches decide? Like it or not, the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority. It just doesn’t work that way.
It’s obvious that you have made up your mind and don’t want to be bothered by the facts of this case. You refuse to even read the decision. You remind me of people who refused to look through telescopes because they were convinced the Sun revolved around the Earth. Ostrich, meet sand. I am out of here.
The “means I am praising”? You mean, the court system of the USA? That’s how constitutional disputes are settled in this country — the way our Founding Fathers set it up. Three branches of government.
You don’t like that? Fine. Do you have some other “means” in mind? Maybe let churches decide? Like it or not, the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority. It just doesn’t work that way.
It’s obvious that you have made up your mind and don’t want to be bothered by the facts of this case. You refuse to even read the decision. You remind me of people who refused to look through telescopes because they were convinced the Sun revolved around the Earth. Ostrich, meet sand. I am out of here.
Michael,
To be honest., I hope you are right about what you are saying about things not changing as a result of this judgement. However, I fail to see how the tone in your last comment or for that matter the tone you have so often used towards me helps develop a free and open dialogue. I am not as ill informed as you want to believe and your sarcastic responses to my comment have only pushed me further in the opposite direction. I do believe that there is a balanced and fair way to deal with these issues, but it will never come about through the means that you are praising in this judgement.
Michael,
To be honest., I hope you are right about what you are saying about things not changing as a result of this judgement. However, I fail to see how the tone in your last comment or for that matter the tone you have so often used towards me helps develop a free and open dialogue. I am not as ill informed as you want to believe and your sarcastic responses to my comment have only pushed me further in the opposite direction. I do believe that there is a balanced and fair way to deal with these issues, but it will never come about through the means that you are praising in this judgement.
Not sure why this wasn’t also a topic here on the blog but I feel it’s timely given the statements that seem to indicate that the rights of conservatives are not being threatened in any way:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Feblast.aacc.net%2Fcounsel_alert_lawsuit.htm&h=41d36
Share and Enjoy!
Why am I not in the least bit surprised? I submit that it is exactly that sort of attitude which caused the Proponents of Prop 8 to lose. They didn’t need to supply any actual evidence that the State had some compelling reason to deny marriage equality.
Why should they? Their minds were already made up. The just assumed that the government would back up their religious prejudice and enforce it by law. They mis-judged.
But, assuming this decision stands, very little will change. Fire and brimstone will not rain down from Heaven. We will not be visited by plagues. Those who choose not to marry the same sex, or want to remain celibate, or choose to call themselves “ex”, “former” or “post-gay” with still be free to do so.
They will still be able to marry – or not marry – the partner of their choice. They will still be able to worship and believe as they see fit – and to teach their children those values.
Straight marriage will continue to be the norm that most people practice and believe in. They won’t abandon their marriages for gay ones. Gays won’t put any padlocks on their churches. They will still be able to enjoy their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Gays did not prevail. The Constitution did. And I believe the Supreme Court will see it the same way.
More on the Judge:
http://www.aolnews.com/article/prop-8-judge-vaughn-walkers-personal-life-debated-after-ruling/19583587?icid=main|netscape|dl1|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Farticle%2Fprop-8-judge-vaughn-walkers-personal-life-debated-after-ruling%2F19583587
Michael,
I am not interested in reading this. It is just another example of the legalism that is rampant in your country. You have what you wanted and I can leave it at that. There is so much more to this whole issue than the right of same-sex couples to marry whoever they want to marry, but that is not for me to determine. Now you have it and so many are extremely happy for you, for now, as am I. The tide has turned in your favor I understand your need to rejoice. For the sake of many I hope it does not turn back, but that is only possible if this judgement has been based on what it true and not on what has been coerced or rejected. I am going back into my position of surrender and balance, where I suspect many who struggle with unwanted SSA had stayed throughout this entire process.
“Let Gods will prevail”
I keep hearing this over and over and over again. “Gays want to silence us. Gays suppress real scientific evidence. They force us to hide in the shadows. We have the evidence but we are just too spooked to present it.”
Do you have any idea how weak this makes you sound? How uncommitted to what you say you believe? How on Earth do you ever hope to win the “culture war”, protect kids and the family — and overcome the dreaded “gay agenda” — if you keep cowering in the shadows?
You will continue to lose if you keep that up. Gays have something to teach you. How to speak up. How to be proud of what and who you are. How to stand in the face of oppression and bullying and say “No!” — “We will not give in to intimidation. We will not be frightened into silence.”
We won’t let a majority take away our rights or our pride. Are you going to let a vocal minortity take away yours? We are willing to put our jobs, our reputations, our actual first and last names — even sometimes our personal safety — to speak out about what we believe. Why won’t you?
No I don’t. Please explain. What exactly are you saying, Concened? My point is that on one hand proponents of Prop 8 say that gays present a horrible threat to kids and the family but they are too lily-livered to stand up and speak out.
Grow a pair for heaven’s sake! Stand by your convictions. Step up and speak out. If you have evidence, share it. Why are you guys so frightened of gay people?
Afraid we might want to redecorate your house or something? Fear is a lousy way to live. It’s time to come out of your closets. Being proud of yourself and your beliefs is liberating. We can give you some tips on how it’s done.
BTW — have any of you besides Ken gotten around to actually READING the decision yet? I suspect that most of the folks here that insinuate that the Judge was biased are so biased themselves that they don’t dare actually read his decision.
Sorry, wrong link. Here’s the correct one.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/343140/august-05-2010/how-to-ruin-same-sex-marriages?xrs=share_fb
The Judge was biased. He even SIGNED gay.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=166704399994
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 6, 2010 at 4:14 pm
“Generally, I think when judges have an overwhelming vested interest in the outcome of a case, critical analysis of those motivations is completely warranted before, during and after the trial.”
What “critical analysis”? I’ve seen no such analysis. All I’ve seen are insinuations that because Walker is gay he is incapable of rendering an impartial judgement.
I doubt very much the people making these insinuations have done any analysis beyond “He didn’t rule the way I wanted, he was biased.” I doubt any of them attended the trial or have read the court transcripts (I have btw I followed the case with the live blogging and read the transcripts that were later posted).
And when you see how poorly the defense was presented, it would have suggested bias if Walker (or any judge) DIDN’T rule for the plaintiffs.
I heard on Oregon Public Broadcasting today the the case was decided in such a way as to “convince a fifth member of the court, probably Justice Kennedy, to decide it in the affirmative.”
The Justice involved in this case is “aiming” his report.
@ Ken,
Your analogies are unfair, but I understand your point.
Generally, I think when judges have an overwhelming vested interest in the outcome of a case, critical analysis of those motivations is completely warranted before, during and after the trial.
If a fundamentalist Federal Judge had overseen the case, the same criticism would be warranted.
Seeking equal treatment has to invite equal criticism…although the refuge of Dave Roberts and others is to imply that such criticism is “unpretty” rather than address the criticism as common in all judicial cases…
“What is the judge’s personal interest in the case?”
Just a side note? As an ex gay (FLOABW) I don’t discuss my experiences with many people for fear of retalition either through job discrimination, social discrimination etc…. Many people will never know my story because the opposition is so loud (not always correct) but so loud that it isn’t worth the personal insults nor the energy it takes to rebut, refute, counter all the misinformation that gets said os “speculated”.
concerned# ~ Aug 6, 2010 at 2:46 pm
“The fact that some did not speak out against this bias judgement is nothing new. ”
How have you determined that the judgement was biased?
Michael,
To clarify, by scared off I don’t simply mean they were scared of physical threats. (although, the defense certainly implied that).They may have simply not wanted videos of their testimony being put in the public domain. Given how easy it would be for those who didn’t like what they said to edit those videos to distort them on Youtube, it’s not unreasonable to not want the testimony video taped. Keep in mind, even the US Supreme Court doesn’t allow its hearings to be broadcast.
And again although the video may have been PART of the reason, the defense certainly could not appeal on the grounds of “Our experts were eviserated during the depositions and didn’t want to look like fools on the stand.” And again the defense already won an appeal to bar the broadcast of the trial. So they know they will have appeals judges favorable to their arguments on that matter.
“Also, if is true (as the proponents claimed in court) that the witnesses feared for their personal safety, why didn’t they produce any evidence of such threats to their witnesses? Threatening letter, emails, etc.? Isn’t harassing or threatening witnesses illegal? If they can prove that this was the case, wouldn’t that be grounds enough for a “do-over”?”
The defense wouldn’t need personal threats against their witnesses. The backlash against the Mormon Church’s support of Prop 8, would be more than enough to justify that the witnesses felt threatened (again not necessarily physical threats)
And keep in mind Michael the legal process is seldom about the facts or the truth, it is about who makes the most compelling argument.
Rather than get worked up over whether there will be a retrial, I suggest you hope that the Circuit Court lifts the stay during the appeals process.
Why am I not in the least bit surprised? I submit that it is exactly that sort of attitude which caused the Proponents of Prop 8 to lose. They didn’t need to supply any actual evidence that the State had some compelling reason to deny marriage equality.
Why should they? Their minds were already made up. The just assumed that the government would back up their religious prejudice and enforce it by law. They mis-judged.
But, assuming this decision stands, very little will change. Fire and brimstone will not rain down from Heaven. We will not be visited by plagues. Those who choose not to marry the same sex, or want to remain celibate, or choose to call themselves “ex”, “former” or “post-gay” with still be free to do so.
They will still be able to marry – or not marry – the partner of their choice. They will still be able to worship and believe as they see fit – and to teach their children those values.
Straight marriage will continue to be the norm that most people practice and believe in. They won’t abandon their marriages for gay ones. Gays won’t put any padlocks on their churches. They will still be able to enjoy their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Gays did not prevail. The Constitution did. And I believe the Supreme Court will see it the same way.
More on the Judge:
http://www.aolnews.com/article/prop-8-judge-vaughn-walkers-personal-life-debated-after-ruling/19583587?icid=main|netscape|dl1|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Farticle%2Fprop-8-judge-vaughn-walkers-personal-life-debated-after-ruling%2F19583587
Michael,
The fact that some did not speak out against this bias judgement is nothing new. The same tactic was used in Canada to get the same laws passed. Don’t pretend to be nieve, you know exactly what was going on here. Your “lame excuse” is the biggest coverup yet. Watch where this goes from here. We have been through it already, it is a set up.
Michael,
I am not interested in reading this. It is just another example of the legalism that is rampant in your country. You have what you wanted and I can leave it at that. There is so much more to this whole issue than the right of same-sex couples to marry whoever they want to marry, but that is not for me to determine. Now you have it and so many are extremely happy for you, for now, as am I. The tide has turned in your favor I understand your need to rejoice. For the sake of many I hope it does not turn back, but that is only possible if this judgement has been based on what it true and not on what has been coerced or rejected. I am going back into my position of surrender and balance, where I suspect many who struggle with unwanted SSA had stayed throughout this entire process.
“Let Gods will prevail”
I keep hearing this over and over and over again. “Gays want to silence us. Gays suppress real scientific evidence. They force us to hide in the shadows. We have the evidence but we are just too spooked to present it.”
Do you have any idea how weak this makes you sound? How uncommitted to what you say you believe? How on Earth do you ever hope to win the “culture war”, protect kids and the family — and overcome the dreaded “gay agenda” — if you keep cowering in the shadows?
You will continue to lose if you keep that up. Gays have something to teach you. How to speak up. How to be proud of what and who you are. How to stand in the face of oppression and bullying and say “No!” — “We will not give in to intimidation. We will not be frightened into silence.”
We won’t let a majority take away our rights or our pride. Are you going to let a vocal minortity take away yours? We are willing to put our jobs, our reputations, our actual first and last names — even sometimes our personal safety — to speak out about what we believe. Why won’t you?
The experts were “scared off”? Ken, if this is so, it doesn’t say much for how deeply these expert witnesses really care about the “welfare of children” or the terrible threat that marriage equality poses to the family, to the nation and to society! Where is the strength of their conviction? If they want to be “moral” they cannot also be cowards.
Also, if is true (as the proponents claimed in court) that the witnesses feared for their personal safety, why didn’t they produce any evidence of such threats to their witnesses? Threatening letter, emails, etc.? Isn’t harassing or threatening witnesses illegal? If they can prove that this was the case, wouldn’t that be grounds enough for a “do-over”?
I have heard this lame excuse more times than I can count — Scientific evidence that gays can change their sexual orientation is suppressed by the powerful gay lobby. “Tens of thousands of people who have successfully become heterosexual are frightened to come forward. Experts won’t testify in court due to concerns for their safety. I don’t buy it. Don’t these folks have a backbone? Are they all wimps?
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 6, 2010 at 4:14 pm
“Generally, I think when judges have an overwhelming vested interest in the outcome of a case, critical analysis of those motivations is completely warranted before, during and after the trial.”
What “critical analysis”? I’ve seen no such analysis. All I’ve seen are insinuations that because Walker is gay he is incapable of rendering an impartial judgement.
I doubt very much the people making these insinuations have done any analysis beyond “He didn’t rule the way I wanted, he was biased.” I doubt any of them attended the trial or have read the court transcripts (I have btw I followed the case with the live blogging and read the transcripts that were later posted).
And when you see how poorly the defense was presented, it would have suggested bias if Walker (or any judge) DIDN’T rule for the plaintiffs.
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 6, 2010 at 4:14 pm
“Generally, I think when judges have an overwhelming vested interest in the outcome of a case, critical analysis of those motivations is completely warranted before, during and after the trial.”
What “critical analysis”? I’ve seen no such analysis. All I’ve seen are insinuations that because Walker is gay he is incapable of rendering an impartial judgement.
I doubt very much the people making these insinuations have done any analysis beyond “He didn’t rule the way I wanted, he was biased.” I doubt any of them attended the trial or have read the court transcripts (I have btw I followed the case with the live blogging and read the transcripts that were later posted).
And when you see how poorly the defense was presented, it would have suggested bias if Walker (or any judge) DIDN’T rule for the plaintiffs.
I heard on Oregon Public Broadcasting today the the case was decided in such a way as to “convince a fifth member of the court, probably Justice Kennedy, to decide it in the affirmative.”
The Justice involved in this case is “aiming” his report.
@ Ken,
Your analogies are unfair, but I understand your point.
Generally, I think when judges have an overwhelming vested interest in the outcome of a case, critical analysis of those motivations is completely warranted before, during and after the trial.
If a fundamentalist Federal Judge had overseen the case, the same criticism would be warranted.
Seeking equal treatment has to invite equal criticism…although the refuge of Dave Roberts and others is to imply that such criticism is “unpretty” rather than address the criticism as common in all judicial cases…
“What is the judge’s personal interest in the case?”
@ Ken,
Your analogies are unfair, but I understand your point.
Generally, I think when judges have an overwhelming vested interest in the outcome of a case, critical analysis of those motivations is completely warranted before, during and after the trial.
If a fundamentalist Federal Judge had overseen the case, the same criticism would be warranted.
Seeking equal treatment has to invite equal criticism…although the refuge of Dave Roberts and others is to imply that such criticism is “unpretty” rather than address the criticism as common in all judicial cases…
“What is the judge’s personal interest in the case?”
Michael,
To clarify, by scared off I don’t simply mean they were scared of physical threats. (although, the defense certainly implied that).They may have simply not wanted videos of their testimony being put in the public domain. Given how easy it would be for those who didn’t like what they said to edit those videos to distort them on Youtube, it’s not unreasonable to not want the testimony video taped. Keep in mind, even the US Supreme Court doesn’t allow its hearings to be broadcast.
And again although the video may have been PART of the reason, the defense certainly could not appeal on the grounds of “Our experts were eviserated during the depositions and didn’t want to look like fools on the stand.” And again the defense already won an appeal to bar the broadcast of the trial. So they know they will have appeals judges favorable to their arguments on that matter.
“Also, if is true (as the proponents claimed in court) that the witnesses feared for their personal safety, why didn’t they produce any evidence of such threats to their witnesses? Threatening letter, emails, etc.? Isn’t harassing or threatening witnesses illegal? If they can prove that this was the case, wouldn’t that be grounds enough for a “do-over”?”
The defense wouldn’t need personal threats against their witnesses. The backlash against the Mormon Church’s support of Prop 8, would be more than enough to justify that the witnesses felt threatened (again not necessarily physical threats)
And keep in mind Michael the legal process is seldom about the facts or the truth, it is about who makes the most compelling argument.
Rather than get worked up over whether there will be a retrial, I suggest you hope that the Circuit Court lifts the stay during the appeals process.
Michael,
To clarify, by scared off I don’t simply mean they were scared of physical threats. (although, the defense certainly implied that).They may have simply not wanted videos of their testimony being put in the public domain. Given how easy it would be for those who didn’t like what they said to edit those videos to distort them on Youtube, it’s not unreasonable to not want the testimony video taped. Keep in mind, even the US Supreme Court doesn’t allow its hearings to be broadcast.
And again although the video may have been PART of the reason, the defense certainly could not appeal on the grounds of “Our experts were eviserated during the depositions and didn’t want to look like fools on the stand.” And again the defense already won an appeal to bar the broadcast of the trial. So they know they will have appeals judges favorable to their arguments on that matter.
“Also, if is true (as the proponents claimed in court) that the witnesses feared for their personal safety, why didn’t they produce any evidence of such threats to their witnesses? Threatening letter, emails, etc.? Isn’t harassing or threatening witnesses illegal? If they can prove that this was the case, wouldn’t that be grounds enough for a “do-over”?”
The defense wouldn’t need personal threats against their witnesses. The backlash against the Mormon Church’s support of Prop 8, would be more than enough to justify that the witnesses felt threatened (again not necessarily physical threats)
And keep in mind Michael the legal process is seldom about the facts or the truth, it is about who makes the most compelling argument.
Rather than get worked up over whether there will be a retrial, I suggest you hope that the Circuit Court lifts the stay during the appeals process.
Michael,
The fact that some did not speak out against this bias judgement is nothing new. The same tactic was used in Canada to get the same laws passed. Don’t pretend to be nieve, you know exactly what was going on here. Your “lame excuse” is the biggest coverup yet. Watch where this goes from here. We have been through it already, it is a set up.
Michael,
The fact that some did not speak out against this bias judgement is nothing new. The same tactic was used in Canada to get the same laws passed. Don’t pretend to be nieve, you know exactly what was going on here. Your “lame excuse” is the biggest coverup yet. Watch where this goes from here. We have been through it already, it is a set up.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 6, 2010 at 6:38 am
“Lesbians who “marry” or otherwise partner up have a notorious high separation or divorce rate, and they are more likely to have one partner artificially inseminated so they can pose as parents of their own children.”
Again, what is your source for your claim of a “notorious high separation or divorce rate”? And specifically, is this source saying lesbian couples WITH CHILDREN have a higher separation rate than straight couples WITH CHILDREN?
“None of it is healthy family, in my opinion and in the opinions of many social scientists.”
And all of the social scientists/psychologists that have actually STUDIED gay families (and published including the one you cited), have found the children raised in those households are just as well adjusted (sometimes even better off) than children raised by straight couples. if you know of a study that doesn’t, feel free to post the citation. And many also agree that the children in gay households would be even better off if their parents could marry.
Which leads me back to my question that you still haven’t answered. Do you believe if lesbian couples were married would they have been more or less likely to break up?
Yes, I did read the statement.
Ken, many gay families are a mix of previously married men and women who divorce and find a gay partner/spouse, bringing the kids along for the ride. Lesbians who “marry” or otherwise partner up have a notorious high separation or divorce rate, and they are more likely to have one partner artificially inseminated so they can pose as parents of their own children. None of it is healthy family, in my opinion and in the opinions of many social scientists.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 6, 2010 at 6:38 am
“Lesbians who “marry” or otherwise partner up have a notorious high separation or divorce rate, and they are more likely to have one partner artificially inseminated so they can pose as parents of their own children.”
Again, what is your source for your claim of a “notorious high separation or divorce rate”? And specifically, is this source saying lesbian couples WITH CHILDREN have a higher separation rate than straight couples WITH CHILDREN?
“None of it is healthy family, in my opinion and in the opinions of many social scientists.”
And all of the social scientists/psychologists that have actually STUDIED gay families (and published including the one you cited), have found the children raised in those households are just as well adjusted (sometimes even better off) than children raised by straight couples. if you know of a study that doesn’t, feel free to post the citation. And many also agree that the children in gay households would be even better off if their parents could marry.
Which leads me back to my question that you still haven’t answered. Do you believe if lesbian couples were married would they have been more or less likely to break up?
btw, Michael I forgot to mention. If you are using the Firefox browser you can type:
+
to increase the font size. (where is the control key).
Michael asked:
“what basis would they have for a “do-over”? ”
Walker originally ruled that the trial would be televised, this decision was later over-turned, however it was still video recorded. the defense can argue that this ruling scared off their experts and hampered their defense (anyone who reads the trial transcripts can see how poor the defense was). However, this situation doesn’t prove the plaintiffs were wrong, so it would be ground for over-turning the decision, but would be grounds to have a new trial. And I don’t think the SCOTUS is in any rush to take on this case, so any excuse to delay would be welcome.
An interesting situation would be if the Circuit court lifts the stay on the ruling (i.e. allows CA to start licensing gay marriages again), while the appeals go through the courts.
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 5, 2010 at 4:46 pm
” I’m curious about the phrase: “divorced lesbian mothers” In 2002, gays weren’t allowed to marry so how could they be divorced?
Vermont starting allowing gay civil unions in 2000. We definitely had “divorcing” (what else to call it?) gay couples from those early unions.”
Have you actually read this technical report?
Here is a link to it:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/109/2/341pdf
(note if this link doesn’t work go to http://www.aap.org and search on:
Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption 2002)
The divorced lesbians they are talking about are lesbians who married MEN, had kids then later divorced.
“Before that, they just shacked up and broke up. Same effect on the kids, no?”
Do you believe if they were married would they have been more or less likely to break up? (btw, what is your source for the claim that “separating is a high likelihood for lesbian couples”? And do you mean they have a higher breakup rate than straight couples?
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm
“A gay man whose primary support system is likely in the gay community is under extraordinary pressure on a very personal level to make a decision that community will support. How much more marginalized and reviled would he have been if he had chosen to uphold the law?”
Do you have any evidence of bias in Walker’s decision? Can you point to any part of the trial or his decision where he failed to up hold the law? Do you have any indication of bias on Walker’s part?
Do you believe a Catholic judge would be incapable of rendering an impartial decision in an abortion rights case?
Do you believe a black judge would be incapable of being impartial in a trial of a white man accused of a racial beating of a black man?
David — have you read the enire decision or are choosing to be ingorant, too — and just post someone else’s opinion about it? The proponents’ witness didn’t seem to offer anything by way of substantial evidence. It just wasn’t there.
The quote is from the article you cited. I have “slogged through it” two times now and am starting again. The Judge searched for evidence — for testimony from expert witnesses. Where was it? Where were they? Too chicken to testify according to the Proponents’ lawyers.
They simply failed to prove their case. They lost fair and square. They are going to have to do a much better job if they expect a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court. The majority cannot votes away the rights of a minority unless there is some compelling secular reason to do so. Proponents would love to use the US governement to enforce their fears, religious beliefs and moral moral upon others. It won’t work.
Let’s not forget that all of this has its roots in Gavin Newsome’s idea of love and marriage.
btw, Michael I forgot to mention. If you are using the Firefox browser you can type:
+
to increase the font size. (where is the control key).
Michael asked:
“what basis would they have for a “do-over”? ”
Walker originally ruled that the trial would be televised, this decision was later over-turned, however it was still video recorded. the defense can argue that this ruling scared off their experts and hampered their defense (anyone who reads the trial transcripts can see how poor the defense was). However, this situation doesn’t prove the plaintiffs were wrong, so it would be ground for over-turning the decision, but would be grounds to have a new trial. And I don’t think the SCOTUS is in any rush to take on this case, so any excuse to delay would be welcome.
An interesting situation would be if the Circuit court lifts the stay on the ruling (i.e. allows CA to start licensing gay marriages again), while the appeals go through the courts.
Bias in critical analysis of the case by Walker…without alleging it’s origins: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/05/gerard-bradley-proposition-ruling-marriage-sex-california-judge-bias/
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 5, 2010 at 4:46 pm
” I’m curious about the phrase: “divorced lesbian mothers” In 2002, gays weren’t allowed to marry so how could they be divorced?
Vermont starting allowing gay civil unions in 2000. We definitely had “divorcing” (what else to call it?) gay couples from those early unions.”
Have you actually read this technical report?
Here is a link to it:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/109/2/341pdf
(note if this link doesn’t work go to http://www.aap.org and search on:
Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption 2002)
The divorced lesbians they are talking about are lesbians who married MEN, had kids then later divorced.
“Before that, they just shacked up and broke up. Same effect on the kids, no?”
Do you believe if they were married would they have been more or less likely to break up? (btw, what is your source for the claim that “separating is a high likelihood for lesbian couples”? And do you mean they have a higher breakup rate than straight couples?
I already knew that. She’s a great lady even though she and I seem to have very different taste in friends. 🙂
Really, don’t start trying to catch up with the typos since they are ‘adundant’. 🙂
Seriously, I KNOW that you know how to spell and am aware of your eye problems, I brought up the typo that I did because that one had several possibilities.
(My inside source on the grandchildren is the grandmother. She has kept in contact with me periodically over the years and now, we’re connected through the magic of Facebook.)
Eddy, I trust that folks will continue to let me know when my typos do cause confusion. It really is quite a challenge. Sometimes, I just have to push “Submit Comment” and hope for the best. 🙂
Ken: Glad to see someone took the time to read it. I am curious — what basis would they have for a “do-over”? If they can do it over, perhaps next time they could find some real evidence and expert witnesses to support their contention that the state has a compelling need to deny marriage equality.
This wasn’t necessary:
The one typo that I brought to the forefront actually made another word…and there were two other possible words that could have been intended. I really don’t think we’d have the same problem with ‘effor’.
Oops. Left the “d” off Grandchildren. Bad vision bites.
Eddy — Thanks for the good wishes on the good news about my Granchildren. You must have some inside sources. 🙂
Interesting that Proponents of this measure are terrified for the welfare and safety of children, yet don’t have the guts to defend those children and that position in court.
The experts with the “adundant evidence” that marriage equality is a grave threat to children, marriage and society need to cultivate some courage. Maybe the Wizard has some in his bag.
Michael–
Thanks for the clarification(s). I’ve had two separate links to the document but they both act up on my computer. (Although one was from here and one was from a facebook friend, I think they are the same link.) I’ve gone through screen freezes where the page won’t advance, then it will suddenly advance way ahead (Probably responding to the fact that I had hit the arrow key a hundred times whle it was frozen), the screen going to a white out effect, a toolbar popping up arbitrarily…and, frankly, I’ve got other concerns on my plate right now that don’t allow me the luxury of fighting through all that.
BTW: Congrats on the kiddos coming home.
I finally finished the whole ruling. A few notes on things that may be missed in this ruling.
1st. Walker has ruled (without explicitly saying it) that sexual orientation is a suspect class:
(p. 122):
Whether GLB folks are a suspect class has been something the Supreme Court as never ruled (and I believe has specifically avoided ruling on). If the SC continues to avoid making that ruling then this classification will have a significant impact on any other gay rights cases that come up.
However, since his ruling isn’t based on strict scrutiny (he has ruled the defense hasn’t even met the lessor requirement of rational basis), the defense may not try to appeal this classification. And even if they do, higher courts may chose to not address it, since the decision would stand even if he didn’t make this ruling.
Walker was clever in his ruling as well. He points out that strict scrutiny applies (and not just because he ruled gays are a suspect class, but also because it involves a fundamental right), but then he rules that they didn’t even meet the lower requirement of a rational basis. So to appeal, the defense can’t just argue they met the rational basis test.
It will be interesting to see what tack the defense tries on appeal. I still think their best attempt would be to argue for a re-trial (do-over).
Has anyone read the entire decision? Anyone? Bueller?
(BTW: Just noticed I left the “t” off of “effort” in my earlier post to Eddy. I apologize for my typos and for any confusion this might have caused to the reader.)
I don’t know if Maazi has read the decision. He seems very well educated and informed, so I hope that he will. In any event, I think he made an excellent point.
Eddy -Cool! I am glad that you will make an effor to know what you are talking about. I accept that you do not intend to read the entire decision –even though is’s only 138 pages, not 158. As I said, I do not make the rules as to who can comment here — Warren does that.
I never said that those who choose to remain ignorant of what the decision actually says have no right to comment — only that I will not argue with them about it. I am making the “rule” for myself, not for them. I will keep my eyes open for someone who says they have read it. We have an understanding.
Vermont starting allowing gay civil unions in 2000. We definitely had “divorcing” (what else to call it?) gay couples from those early unions. Before that, they just shacked up and broke up. Same effect on the kids, no?
We are talking about the vicissitudes and vulnerabilities of mortal men, regardless of the sexual orientation.
It is the same criticism that would be made of anyone who had a primal vested interest in the outcome.
David Roberts:
Pretty is not a value of mine in this debate.
Understanding the power of biases and the tyranny of individualism is a concern of mine.
A gay man whose primary support system is likely in the gay community is under extraordinary pressure on a very personal level to make a decision that community will support. How much more marginalized and reviled would he have been if he had chosen to uphold the law?
It would have been a terrifying choice that required immeasurable courage.
Way too much to ask.
Please keep your thoughts on beauty to yourself and discuss the facts.
David
This will count as my first attempt to wade into a blog thread that is not directed at the Ugandan people. Before some of you start questioning my locus standi to intervene, let me start by stating that I have actually lived and worked in the United States ( to be specific, The Big Apple) and therefore I am quite conversant with your Culture Wars.
I will start by saying that from the comments made on this thread, I can see that while you all are opposed to our stance on gayism (or “LGBT rights” as you guys prefer to call it), you guys are squabbling amongst yourselves over whether proposition 8 ought to be struck down. I feel that there is an element of hypocrisy in legalizing gay sex while denying its practitioners the right to formally consummate the aforementioned legalized sexual behaviour in a way that gay sex lobbyists deem fair. In that weird sense, the federal judge in California was right to rule against proposition 8. You are either against gay sex and gay marriage together or you are in favour of both. There is no need to pretend that there is room for nuance. The republican party-appointed federal judge would have found it difficult to rule otherwise without deploying moral arguments which the Constitution of the United States does not recognize, cherish or value . Of course, if he was using the Nigerian, Ghanaian or Ugandan constitution, which protects culture and traditions, he would have reached a different conclusion. The judge would have also reached a different conclusion if he were to be guided by the African Charter on Human Rights, which states clearly that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of colour, race, gender, ethnicity, social origin, etc, but also makes the following clarification—
Note to Debbie .. in mentioning the Loving vs Virginia I was simply showing that the Supreme Court can overrule a state if what the state puts out violates U.S. Constitutional principles.
Also .. I would urge you to read decisions such as this one. Otherwise you are left to other people’s conclusions and interpretations. I can’t tell you how long I did that … until … one day .. I decided to read things for myself … boy was I surprised. .. Surprised at how much event the people I agreed with at the time were spinning a tale. Ever since then I always try to read the entire documentation. Just some thoughts …
Blessings to you .. Dave
Ken–
That’s an excellent ‘catch’…Yeah, how could they be considered divorced if they were never allowed to marry in the first place?
Debbie Thurman# ~ Aug 5, 2010 at 12:30 pm
“The American Academy of Pediatricians in a 2002 “Technical Report” concluded that children “of divorced lesbian mothers [separating is a high likelihood for lesbian couples] grow up in ways very similar to children of divorced heterosexual mothers.” ”
I’m curious about the phrase: “divorced lesbian mothers” In 2002, gays weren’t allowed to marry so how could they be divorced? Was this study conducted on data from another country? Or do they simply mean separating (rather than divorcing). Are couples who are married more or less likely to separate than couples who are just co-habitating (or in a domestic partnership)?
Also, the other experts you cited, Nathanson and Young were on the defendants (proponents) witness list. However, they withdrew (like many of the experts). The defense claimed it was due to the threat of the trial being broadcast. Personally, I suspect it was because many of their experts realized after the depositions that the Plaintiffs were going to do a very good job of discreting them on the stand.
Michael–
Cool! If I make further comments, I will do my best to know what I’m talking about even if haven’t read the entire determination. But, since I don’t intend to do that, I will happily accept that reading the entire 158 pages is not a requirement for posting on this thread AND even more happily accept that YOU won’t be responding to my comments but will instead limit yourself to those who have read the determination in its entirety.
Michael, the way to know the Constitution is to read it. I have no desire or need (or ability) to get inside the head of a judge. I know marriage and parenting from the inside out and I can read history. And the Bible.
Here’s what old Screwtape says about us humans:
I’m with him. Add to that list judicial fiat.
Or to put it another way, it’s like trying to discuss “Grapes of Wrath” with someone who has only read the Cliff Notes — or who “already knows how they feel” about the Depression, so why should they bother with Steinbeck?
Carry on. I will try to find someone who has actually read the book.
I am not laying down any “rules”. That’s Warren’s job. It’s his blog. Debbie is free to comment or not comment — and to be as uninformed as she chooses. I am saying that I choose not to argue with her about it since she refuses to educated herself on the decision.
Yes, I am calling on everyone to read it — you, Dave, Ken — everyone. I think they could learn a lot about the process. I strongly urge them to do so, but I have no power to “mandate” that they read it. I can’t punish them or send them to the principles office. If they choose to remain ignorant of it, that’s their choice.
They have the right not to read it. If they have made up there minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts of the case, that’s their business. However, I will, from this point on, only respond to people who have read the entire decision and can give page and line reference — as you suggested that I should.
Bias in critical analysis of the case by Walker…without alleging it’s origins: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/05/gerard-bradley-proposition-ruling-marriage-sex-california-judge-bias/
Michael–
You are free, of course, to not dialogue with those who have not read all the pages of the determination. I believe though that you overstep your role as a participant when you attempt to lay down rules for commenting. I agree with you that a person ought not to pass judgement on this determination without reading it but that does not preclude other areas of comment: considering what implications this determination might have on a national scale…evaluating the supremes rights over the local mandate…credible evidence that should have been presented but wasn’t.
As for me, I have commented on the parts that I have read…what the ‘witnesses’ presented and I skimmed to the conclusions based on what the ‘witnesses’ presented.
I believe, though, that a person could start with page 54 and, from there, depending on what particular point they were speaking to, should only be mandated to read those particular findings and the conclusion based on them.
If you plan to persist with your hardline approach that a person must read the entire document, I feel you must challenge EVERYONE who comments. You are requesting accountability from Debbie and I but haven’t requested it of Dave or Ken.
Oh gee, Debbie, I don’t know. Maybe to have a better idea of what you are talking about? Maybe to be a better student of this topic on which you claim to have abundand evidence? To be a better informed citizen? To gain a better understanding of the Constitution and the Courts?
As I said, no use arguing with the uninformed. It only makes your “side” of this argument look more ignorant of the facts than it already does. It reminds me of folks who refused to look into the heavens because they believed for sure that the world was flat.
I’ll talk to Eddy, assuming he gets around to reading the whole thing. Maybe that’s why Proponents lost. They didn’t do their homework. Why should they? They already know what they believe. For that, the Judge gave them a big fat “F” — and they deserved it.
I got the same feeling and I suspect that your opinion will be reinforced when you finish reading the whole thing.
It seeemed to me, from the “tone” of the Judge’s decision, that Vaughn Walker was clearly irritated by the very poor case presented by the Proponents.
Debbie says she has “abundant evidence” that the state has some compelling reason to deny marriage equality. Maybe she should call them and pass it on for the upcoming appeals and probable Supreme Court case.
Why ask me? I am not a lawyer. Ask them.
By the way, I don’t intend to read the decision. Why should I? I already know exactly how I feel about gay marriage. All I need to know is the ruling, not the reams of words that back it up. They won’t convince me. It’s only a temporary thing until the Supreme Court rules on it anyway.
Ken — I reviewed the decision and you are correct. The proponents did not call Tam. Blankenhorn was about the best they could do and the judge called his testimony “inadmissable *opinion* testimony that should be given essentiall no weight.” Do the proponents expect the Supreme Court will accept such nonsense?
Michael–
I’m not sure but I don’t think Debbie is debating the outcome of this decision. I think I caught at least a hint that the proponents did not present their case well at all. Her comments seem directed more towards national implications and to the future challenges.
The portions of the determination that I read DID make them seem unprepared in some areas and as ‘religious wingnuts’ in others.
Debbie–
I don’t mean to be speaking for you. If I got you wrong in my first paragraph, feel free to disclaim my comments.
Look, I am sure that both Debbie and Eddy have better eyesight than I do. Eddy admits he hasn’t read the whole decision and Debbie refuses to say whether she has or not. No use arguing with the uninformed.
Let me know when you have finished it and then we’ll talk — citing page and line numbers. As it is, I have to get my face about three inches from the text, wear thick glasses and close my left eye to make it out — and I am now completing my second reading — highlighting and underlining as I go.
Debbie, it is no use pointing out evidence to me. I was not the Judge who heard the case. If you have as much supporing evidence as you claim to have, why not contact the attorneys for the Proponents of Prop 8 and volunteer your time and knowledge of the “abundant evidence”? It sure sounds like they could use it.
Michael Bussee# ~ Aug 5, 2010 at 11:59 am
(re: testimony of Dr. Tam)
“NARTH? The Internet? In effect, the Judge was saying: “Come on, guys! Giimme a break. That’s the best you can come up with?”
To be clear, Tam was not called as an expert witness. He was called because he was involved in the “Yes On 8” campaign. Further, he was not called by the defense (they actually tried to get him excluded from testifying), but actually called by the Plaintiffs.
Yes, I sometimes make typos. Thanks for catching them. As I have explained I have very poort eyesight and rely mainly on touch. The page number was page 8 — lines 1 through 6 if I am seeing the numbers clearly. It shoudl have read “private MORAL or religious beliefs”.
Debbie — my point is, if there really IS an “abundance of evidence” and good expert witnesses to support Prop 8, why wasn’t it presented in court? Where did the attorneys think they were going? To a garden party?
The judge was clearly frustrated with the Proponents for presenting such a weak case. They elected not to call a majority of their designated witnesses. Blankenhorn was about all they could come up with.
Eddy, I trust that folks will continue to let me know when my typos do cause confusion. It really is quite a challenge. Sometimes, I just have to push “Submit Comment” and hope for the best. 🙂
Ken: Glad to see someone took the time to read it. I am curious — what basis would they have for a “do-over”? If they can do it over, perhaps next time they could find some real evidence and expert witnesses to support their contention that the state has a compelling need to deny marriage equality.
Michael said that Debbie said:
Actually, it appears that Dave said that.
And since the determination is well over 100 pages long, may I suggest that quotes from it reference the page. I prefer the copy and paste method myself since it helps to avoid accidental typos (of which there have been a few). Sometimes though, it’s difficult to determine what the actual wording was as in this example that I’ve copied and pasted from above:
The word ‘more’ looks wrong to me in that context. I’m guessing it was supposed to be ‘mores’ or ‘moral’. Not a big deal but a page reference would have been a great service.
We are talking about the vicissitudes and vulnerabilities of mortal men, regardless of the sexual orientation.
It is the same criticism that would be made of anyone who had a primal vested interest in the outcome.
One of the more outspoken gay critics of gay marriage has been Paul Nathanson, a professor of religious studies at McGill University in Toronto. He accuses fellow homosexuals who advocate gay marriage of being selfish and short-sighted and of not examining all the evidence. In “Marriage à la Mode: Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage,” a paper first presented at Emory University in Atlanta in 2003, Nathanson and co-author Katherine Young stated:
The American Academy of Pediatricians in a 2002 “Technical Report” concluded that children “of divorced lesbian mothers [separating is a high likelihood for lesbian couples] grow up in ways very similar to children of divorced heterosexual mothers.” The AAP’s report was meant to cast same-sex parenting in at least a normative light, and gay marriage advocates use it to back their stance. However, the report, by implication, has just the opposite effect. One of the better-known long-term studies begun in the 1970s to assess the impact of divorce on children was conducted by Dr. Judith Wallerstein and a team of researchers at the University of California at Berkley. The study specifically concluded:
As early as 2001, pro-gay sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz concluded that children raised in lesbian-parented homes are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves, that daughters of lesbians are “more sexually adventurous and less chaste,” and that lesbian couples are more likely to break up than heterosexuals (Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2:159-183, 2001).
Further, same-sex marriage destroys the significance of gender. In other words, it dehumanizes both men and women by suggesting that masculinity and femininity are meaningless.
Finally, ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence says:
Debbie said:
Yes, Debbie, there are. They can and should to it when states pass laws that violate equal protection and due process — ike when racial segregation, bans on inter-racial marriage and sodomy laws were struck down, for example. Here’s how Judge Vaughn explains it:
That’s why we have three branches of government. Courts are there to insure that the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority, no matter how strongly they may disapprove of that minority on religious or moral grounds.
This will count as my first attempt to wade into a blog thread that is not directed at the Ugandan people. Before some of you start questioning my locus standi to intervene, let me start by stating that I have actually lived and worked in the United States ( to be specific, The Big Apple) and therefore I am quite conversant with your Culture Wars.
I will start by saying that from the comments made on this thread, I can see that while you all are opposed to our stance on gayism (or “LGBT rights” as you guys prefer to call it), you guys are squabbling amongst yourselves over whether proposition 8 ought to be struck down. I feel that there is an element of hypocrisy in legalizing gay sex while denying its practitioners the right to formally consummate the aforementioned legalized sexual behaviour in a way that gay sex lobbyists deem fair. In that weird sense, the federal judge in California was right to rule against proposition 8. You are either against gay sex and gay marriage together or you are in favour of both. There is no need to pretend that there is room for nuance. The republican party-appointed federal judge would have found it difficult to rule otherwise without deploying moral arguments which the Constitution of the United States does not recognize, cherish or value . Of course, if he was using the Nigerian, Ghanaian or Ugandan constitution, which protects culture and traditions, he would have reached a different conclusion. The judge would have also reached a different conclusion if he were to be guided by the African Charter on Human Rights, which states clearly that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of colour, race, gender, ethnicity, social origin, etc, but also makes the following clarification—
NARTH? The Internet? In effect, the Judge was saying: “Come on, guys! Giimme a break. That’s the best you can come up with?” No wonder they lost. Where’s the abundant, credible evidence? I know, the powerful gay lobby prevented it from being heard, right?
Debbie: Have you read the decision or not?
You claim their is “abundant evidence” of such a compelling secular purpose. Where is it? More importantly, why wasn’t it presented in court? Proponents of Prop 8 spent tons of money trying to scare the public into believing that marriage equality posed some huge threat to heterosexual marriage, childen and society.
The Judge saw through that. Proponents of Prop 8 couldn’t come up with one credible witness or any reasonable evidence to prove that it does pose such a danger. Face it. They didn’t have the experts or the evidence — because if they had, they surely would have presented it. They lost — fair and square.
Two points on Loving v. Virginia: One, the court was ruling on a section of Virginia code and not on a constitutional amendment. Second, miscegenation laws cannot provide a basis for gay marriage. Marriage was still between a man and a woman in Loving v. Virginia. Race is immutable. Homosexuality has never been proven so.
New York Times Editorial: “Marriage Is a Constitutional Right” Published: August 4, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu1.html?_r=1&hp
In that spirit, I will do my best to refrain from labeling proponents of Prop 8 as “conservatives” — and simply call them “proponents”.
Here’s a clip of the two attorneys who won the Prop 8 case. They think it will be “very difficult to overturn on appeal.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkdDNHTYvGE&feature=player_embedded
I did not mean to imply that all proponents of Prop 8 were domininionists. But this decision surely must disappoint those who are and those who would like to see the State mandate their religious values.
I am aware that the Propoents come from vaired backgrounds. Heck, I am friends with a committed gay couple who oppose gay marriage because they believe “marriage” means male/female. They support civil unions instead.
That said, I join you in your “sincere hope that they respect the rights of churches who do object and do not move in the direction of compelling them to perform such unions.” I do not think marriage equality ought to impinge on religious freedom. I favor solid separation of church and state.
Debbie — if you have accesss to all that “abundant evidence” and know of any real experts who might be able to present it convincingly” in court, you might want to considering passing on the information to the attorneys who are appealing the decision. Looks like they could really use your help. They failed miserably to present any of it this time around.
Note to all commenters — seriously consider reaing the entire decision before you offer uninformed opionions. Presenting personal opinions based on your own moral values or prejudices is what caused the Proponents to lose in court..
I think you better check you history Debbie .. In 1967 the Supreme Court did overrule a state’s restriction on marriage in Loving v. Virginia .. They said that:
So there are times when the Supreme court can override the will of the state.
Really? Then why didn’t they present it in court? That’s essentially what the Proponents claimed but failed to provide any evidence to back it up. Have you read the entire decision? If you had, you would see that It did fail for “good reason”.
The Proponents of Prop 8 could not presenet — a single credible, expert witness to support their claims that marriage equality would harm kids, the family or society. They couldn’t find ONE. Here’s what the Judge had to say about Blankhorn — the only “expert” they could dig up:?
The other witness said he got his information about gays being “12 times more likely to molest kids” off the Internet. You say there is “abundant evidence”? I ask again, have you read the entire ruling? If there really is “abundant evidence”, why didn’t the Proponents present it in court?
I have not read the entire 138 page decision…I read approx. 40 pages before I went into skim mode. However, I don’t plan to ‘pass judgement’ on the decision.
I was personally a bit embarrassed by the weak presentation of those opposing gay marriage.
Beyond that, though, I’ve noted that some comments have already moved beyond simply commenting on the decision. For the record, we need to recognize that all opponents to gay marriage do not fit neatly into the boxes ‘religious conservatives’ or ‘Dominionists’. Not all are religious; not all are conservatives; not all are Dominionists.
Beyond that, I have some appreciation for the reality that there is–and ought to be–some distinct separation of church and state. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” If religion and government were a perfect blend, that statement would never have been made. While the court has said that they see no credible grounds for objecting to gay marriage, it is my sincere hope that they respect the rights of churches who do object and do not move in the direction of compelling them to perform such unions.
I got the same feeling and I suspect that your opinion will be reinforced when you finish reading the whole thing.
It seeemed to me, from the “tone” of the Judge’s decision, that Vaughn Walker was clearly irritated by the very poor case presented by the Proponents.
Debbie says she has “abundant evidence” that the state has some compelling reason to deny marriage equality. Maybe she should call them and pass it on for the upcoming appeals and probable Supreme Court case.
Why ask me? I am not a lawyer. Ask them.
By the way, I don’t intend to read the decision. Why should I? I already know exactly how I feel about gay marriage. All I need to know is the ruling, not the reams of words that back it up. They won’t convince me. It’s only a temporary thing until the Supreme Court rules on it anyway.
Ken — I reviewed the decision and you are correct. The proponents did not call Tam. Blankenhorn was about the best they could do and the judge called his testimony “inadmissable *opinion* testimony that should be given essentiall no weight.” Do the proponents expect the Supreme Court will accept such nonsense?
Michael–
I’m not sure but I don’t think Debbie is debating the outcome of this decision. I think I caught at least a hint that the proponents did not present their case well at all. Her comments seem directed more towards national implications and to the future challenges.
The portions of the determination that I read DID make them seem unprepared in some areas and as ‘religious wingnuts’ in others.
Debbie–
I don’t mean to be speaking for you. If I got you wrong in my first paragraph, feel free to disclaim my comments.
Look, I am sure that both Debbie and Eddy have better eyesight than I do. Eddy admits he hasn’t read the whole decision and Debbie refuses to say whether she has or not. No use arguing with the uninformed.
Let me know when you have finished it and then we’ll talk — citing page and line numbers. As it is, I have to get my face about three inches from the text, wear thick glasses and close my left eye to make it out — and I am now completing my second reading — highlighting and underlining as I go.
Debbie, it is no use pointing out evidence to me. I was not the Judge who heard the case. If you have as much supporing evidence as you claim to have, why not contact the attorneys for the Proponents of Prop 8 and volunteer your time and knowledge of the “abundant evidence”? It sure sounds like they could use it.
If moral values was all the defense offered, it failed for good reason. Not because moral values ought not be considered, but because in today’s political climate (and this ruling is politics as usual) one has to go farther than that. There is abundant evidence that argues traditional marriage and child rearing are better for society, much of it presented by gays themselves, who can see the greater good.
But, apparently, you can rule away a state’s 10th Amendment rights.
Michael Bussee# ~ Aug 5, 2010 at 11:59 am
(re: testimony of Dr. Tam)
“NARTH? The Internet? In effect, the Judge was saying: “Come on, guys! Giimme a break. That’s the best you can come up with?”
To be clear, Tam was not called as an expert witness. He was called because he was involved in the “Yes On 8” campaign. Further, he was not called by the defense (they actually tried to get him excluded from testifying), but actually called by the Plaintiffs.
Yes, I sometimes make typos. Thanks for catching them. As I have explained I have very poort eyesight and rely mainly on touch. The page number was page 8 — lines 1 through 6 if I am seeing the numbers clearly. It shoudl have read “private MORAL or religious beliefs”.
Debbie — my point is, if there really IS an “abundance of evidence” and good expert witnesses to support Prop 8, why wasn’t it presented in court? Where did the attorneys think they were going? To a garden party?
The judge was clearly frustrated with the Proponents for presenting such a weak case. They elected not to call a majority of their designated witnesses. Blankenhorn was about all they could come up with.
The proponents’ witnesses shared personal opinions (of the NARTH variety) that were strongly contradicted by the overwhelming evidence presented in court. You cannot vote away someone else’s 14th amendment rights.
The fears, speculations, opinions, prejudices and religious values of the proponents of Prop 8 were not sufficient reason to do so. The majority cannot take away the rights of a minority unless there is some compelling rationale for the State to do so. The proponents failed to show that rationale. They only showed their prejudice.
Michael said that Debbie said:
Actually, it appears that Dave said that.
And since the determination is well over 100 pages long, may I suggest that quotes from it reference the page. I prefer the copy and paste method myself since it helps to avoid accidental typos (of which there have been a few). Sometimes though, it’s difficult to determine what the actual wording was as in this example that I’ve copied and pasted from above:
The word ‘more’ looks wrong to me in that context. I’m guessing it was supposed to be ‘mores’ or ‘moral’. Not a big deal but a page reference would have been a great service.
I would hope that all commenters here would take the time to educate themselves and read the entire 138 page decision before passing judgement on it. I have.
One of the more outspoken gay critics of gay marriage has been Paul Nathanson, a professor of religious studies at McGill University in Toronto. He accuses fellow homosexuals who advocate gay marriage of being selfish and short-sighted and of not examining all the evidence. In “Marriage à la Mode: Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage,” a paper first presented at Emory University in Atlanta in 2003, Nathanson and co-author Katherine Young stated:
The American Academy of Pediatricians in a 2002 “Technical Report” concluded that children “of divorced lesbian mothers [separating is a high likelihood for lesbian couples] grow up in ways very similar to children of divorced heterosexual mothers.” The AAP’s report was meant to cast same-sex parenting in at least a normative light, and gay marriage advocates use it to back their stance. However, the report, by implication, has just the opposite effect. One of the better-known long-term studies begun in the 1970s to assess the impact of divorce on children was conducted by Dr. Judith Wallerstein and a team of researchers at the University of California at Berkley. The study specifically concluded:
As early as 2001, pro-gay sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz concluded that children raised in lesbian-parented homes are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves, that daughters of lesbians are “more sexually adventurous and less chaste,” and that lesbian couples are more likely to break up than heterosexuals (Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2:159-183, 2001).
Further, same-sex marriage destroys the significance of gender. In other words, it dehumanizes both men and women by suggesting that masculinity and femininity are meaningless.
Finally, ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence says:
NARTH? The Internet? In effect, the Judge was saying: “Come on, guys! Giimme a break. That’s the best you can come up with?” No wonder they lost. Where’s the abundant, credible evidence? I know, the powerful gay lobby prevented it from being heard, right?
This is from the blog Caffeinated Thoughts:
I am particularly interested in how this will play out for Kagan. Won’t it be ironic if she is seated on the high court when this appeal reaches it?
Two points on Loving v. Virginia: One, the court was ruling on a section of Virginia code and not on a constitutional amendment. Second, miscegenation laws cannot provide a basis for gay marriage. Marriage was still between a man and a woman in Loving v. Virginia. Race is immutable. Homosexuality has never been proven so.
New York Times Editorial: “Marriage Is a Constitutional Right” Published: August 4, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu1.html?_r=1&hp
I did not mean to imply that all proponents of Prop 8 were domininionists. But this decision surely must disappoint those who are and those who would like to see the State mandate their religious values.
I am aware that the Propoents come from vaired backgrounds. Heck, I am friends with a committed gay couple who oppose gay marriage because they believe “marriage” means male/female. They support civil unions instead.
That said, I join you in your “sincere hope that they respect the rights of churches who do object and do not move in the direction of compelling them to perform such unions.” I do not think marriage equality ought to impinge on religious freedom. I favor solid separation of church and state.
I think you better check you history Debbie .. In 1967 the Supreme Court did overrule a state’s restriction on marriage in Loving v. Virginia .. They said that:
So there are times when the Supreme court can override the will of the state.
Really? Then why didn’t they present it in court? That’s essentially what the Proponents claimed but failed to provide any evidence to back it up. Have you read the entire decision? If you had, you would see that It did fail for “good reason”.
The Proponents of Prop 8 could not presenet — a single credible, expert witness to support their claims that marriage equality would harm kids, the family or society. They couldn’t find ONE. Here’s what the Judge had to say about Blankhorn — the only “expert” they could dig up:?
The other witness said he got his information about gays being “12 times more likely to molest kids” off the Internet. You say there is “abundant evidence”? I ask again, have you read the entire ruling? If there really is “abundant evidence”, why didn’t the Proponents present it in court?
I have not read the entire 138 page decision…I read approx. 40 pages before I went into skim mode. However, I don’t plan to ‘pass judgement’ on the decision.
I was personally a bit embarrassed by the weak presentation of those opposing gay marriage.
Beyond that, though, I’ve noted that some comments have already moved beyond simply commenting on the decision. For the record, we need to recognize that all opponents to gay marriage do not fit neatly into the boxes ‘religious conservatives’ or ‘Dominionists’. Not all are religious; not all are conservatives; not all are Dominionists.
Beyond that, I have some appreciation for the reality that there is–and ought to be–some distinct separation of church and state. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” If religion and government were a perfect blend, that statement would never have been made. While the court has said that they see no credible grounds for objecting to gay marriage, it is my sincere hope that they respect the rights of churches who do object and do not move in the direction of compelling them to perform such unions.
As Rachel Maddow pointed out, there were 80 findings of FACT in favor of overturning Prop 8, and none in favor of keeping the prohibition.
Once you know who was overseeing the case, you can gain real respect for Judge Walker’s absolute fairness in considering the evidence in reaching his meticulous and exact 138-page decision. He was scrupulous to the utmost degree precisely because of “who was overseeing the case” – himself, a gay man who had to work three times as hard as a straight one would have done in order to justify the same conclusions.
Decisions like this are going to make things a lot tougher for religious conservatives. They’re going to have to try to convince people to be “moral” voluntarily — by using persuasion, showing love and setting a good example.
Another blow to Dominionists.
The judge seems to have ruled that fear and prejudice were not grounds to deny equal protection under the law. Good for him.
That comment is very telling about you David, and it’s not pretty.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15677141?nclick_check=1
An odd decision…forgone, once you knew who was overseeing the case.
Having followed the trial as it happened (and read a lot of the transcripts), I can’t see how Judge Walker could rule in favor of the defense. I predict what will happen is the defense will appeal claiming that the “threat” of televised proceedings scared off their experts and hurt the defense. And at either the Circuit Court or Supreme Court level they will agree and send it back down for a re-trial.
I understand that she’s getting ready. She’s polished up the horns on the sides of her hat.