Since my previous blog entry was an entirely partisan guess about how things are going to turn out…and is already approaching a potentially unwieldy one hundred comments…I invite folks who actually want to discuss this election night to do so here.
Since my previous blog entry was an entirely partisan guess about how things are going to turn out…and is already approaching a potentially unwieldy one hundred comments…I invite folks who actually want to discuss this election night to do so here.
• 
Let’s get this out of the way right now: I voted for Kerry.
Sad to see Bush win and John Kerry lose today. Kerry made a very moving, heartfelt concession speech while apparently choking back tears. I’d have to hope that George Bush learns something from the divisiveness of the voting electorate (just north of 2 percentage points isn’t what I would call a comfortable majority), but I just don’t think our President has it in him to unite the nation after the grievous mistakes committed in the wake of 9/11 when he squandered the world’s opinion of this country. I know that as of this writing, foreign leaders have offered the olive branch to Bush in hopes of mending fences, but if the past four years have taught me anything, it’s that being divisive is the President’s strong suit, and he shows no signs of stopping the trend. I was hoping for a reprieve from the mess of the past few years in the form of John Kerry, but my hopes have been dashed in favor of a bleak world view where frankly, I’d consider renouncing my U.S. citizenship and moving overseas if only I had the funds.
President Bush should not have gone as far as he did back in 2000. He should have been stopped in the primaries. (Truthfully, he should have been stopped at Andover, where his grades were so poor it was only as a legacy that he was admitted to Yale in the first place. But, I digress…) It used to be the case that more moderate Republicans were able to keep the right-wingers off the ballots. Such is not the case today. President Bush’s campaign teams have expertly exploited every weakness of their opponents in their patriarch’s rise to the top. His Fundamentalist Christian values have no place being preached forth from the pulpit of the land’s highest office. Sepration of Church and State should be obeyed but are not. If it makes me a liberal to state that I don’t believe that those in power should have the right to preach their morals to the lesser peoples, then I am a proud liberal. I don’t see why the Born Again/Fundamentalist Christian mentality must pervade the upper levels of government in Bush’s administration (Speaker of the House Denny Hastert is Born-Again, for one; and it is a well-known fact that Bush employs Christian organizations to do government business).
I also don’t see why Bush saw the need to bring partisan politics in where they, too, were not required. In the campaign, he did what no other candidate for re-election has done before, having the members of his cabinet effectively go out and campaign on his behalf. All that would have been required in their speeches at local halls would have been the closing “Vote Bush/Cheney ’04” for their speeches to feel like even more an endorsement than they already had.
What do I foresee in the next four years? More privatization, turning over to big business that which has already started, i.e. veteran care, followed by Social Security and even the postal service. I see January bringing with it the harshest cuts yet to veterans’ benefits, continuing the 10-year cycle whereby benefits will be cut by over $30 billion. I see more jobs created that earn less money (McJobs). I see science being limited as a thing feared, esp. the stem-cell research. I see Bush once again bypassing the U.N. and other countries to invade more middle-Eastern nations for nonexistent WMDs and abundant oil which disappears in weekly bursts of flame amid the fields. I see the United Nations branding the U.S. a terrorist nation and imposing further sanctions. I see more terrorist attacks, possibly nuclear, and the security of our nation naught but a dream when we realize in a moment of terrifying clarity that no other nations will offer us help because we have turned their aid away, squandered their well-wishes, and charted our own path, one that put at odds an isolationist policy with one that shows staggering arrogance that we are the only ones who can truly cure the world’s ills.
President Bush is a dualist, his ideology flowing forth from his rigid Christian Fundamentalism. Everything is black or white, good or evil. Soon enough, if you’re not a patriot, you’re a terrorist. If you’re not a Christian, you’re a pagan demon. He can’t admit he’s wrong. It’s arrogance of the highest order. Is it really such a sin to say, “maybe I made a mistake”? Evidently so. And this simple moralist attitude plays well into the south. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”? Puh-lease.
I blame the anti-intellectual bias of society for the fact Bush has won another term. Is it really a sin that John Kerry couldn’t hide his education if he tried?
I agree with the poster who said that the Republicans have crafted the illusion that the “far right” of GWB is more mainstream, so that by comparison, Kerry’s stances seem that much further left.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve seen constructive criticism on the Democratic end of the ticket; that is, constructively dámņìņg Bush’s policies and enforcing how the Democrats would approach those issues. By comparison, I’ve only seen attack after attack by the Republicans upon Kerry, and no real strict adherence to the issues. Bush wants re-elected because he’s not John Kerry (Kerry will do X, Y and Z if he’s elected…you don’t really want that, do you?). I’ve heard both candidates misrepresent the facts, but none as much as Bush (57% of the tax cuts during his reign were to the uppermost 10%…only just more than 10% of the cuts went to the middle and lower classes). Facts were severely distorted and oversimplified, especially by Bush: when Kerry said he wanted healthcare for everyone, Bush told people Kerry wanted socialized medicine. When Kerry found new information and reformed his opinions, Bush called it flipflopping. That’s some expert spin.
I’m going to mourn our country for a good while. I’ll be mourning the loss of my mother’s job when the VA hospitals close during this term. I’d like to get one of those bumper stickers: “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kerry.”
Ha.
~Gary
Neil C- “If memory serves, the divorce rate is significantly higher in Europe than in America, even among hetero couples.”
“Memory does not serve.”
They say memory’s the first thing to go… thanks for digging up the facts for everyone to see. I wish I had more time in my day to devote to this thread; when you tune out the petty bickering there’s a good bit of interesting dialogue here. I’m grateful to those working to continue that dialogue, rather than letting it revert to name-calling.
-tOjb
Luigi Novi wrote:
“Even though everyone else is saying that Ohio is too close to call, and has to be thoroughly examine?
Gee, I
Fred:
“How is a man expressing that he is scared for his family under President Bush melodramatic? I fear for the nation and the world. This is stronger than his statement and still doesn’t reach the level of “melodramatic” to me. If someone stated that they thought Bush was waiting to press the button and wipe out our enemies…. well, that might be.”
Because this sort of “the sky is falling” mentality is ridiculous. And yes, your over-the-top statement does transcend into the ‘melodramatic’ realm as well.
Karen,
I am sorry you are upset. It’s a shame a lot of people seem to be gloating or being melodramatic crybabies about all this.
I know I would be devastated right now if the outcome were reversed. When the exit polls came out in the afternoon, and it looked like Kerry was a lock, I got a serious headache, which I almost never get. By the time I was done with work at about 9PM, I was hardly able to function. Because i just felt this election was so IMPORTANT.
I won’t rehash the issues with you at this time (I just wish you hadn’t played the Guilty White Person with Umar’s comments painting Republicans as racists).
You know, watching Kerry today, I think was the first time I saw him as a real person. You could tell he was very emotional. Perhaps if he had shared a bit more of himself and let people understand both him and his positions (what were his “plans”? What were his feelings today about his Vietnam testimony? Why couldn’t he say,”I’m sorry if my testimony, though heartfelt, hurt anyone or caused anyone any pain) things would have gone differently.
I also have faith in and was inspired by Bush today. I realize you feel differently. Hopefully, your sense of dread will diminish, and maybe he will even surprise you. Nixon started affirmative action. Bush41 signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Clinton signed NAFTA and Welfare Reform.
Anyway, I do admit Kerry was classy today. So are you.
Posted by: gene hall:
“My question is this, What do we have to do to get the South to seceed from the Union again?
I mean they could become the Confederate States of Nascarland, make Bush their king, ban same-sex marriage, but legalize same-family marriage, make Toby Keith’s “Courtesy of the Red White and Blue” their National Anthem while they sit in their trailer parks spitting tobacco juice and firing their assault weapons in wildly into the air.
Okay, Now that I’ve offended someone, My point is this- We’re hearing so much about this “mandate” the Republicans received, yet Bush loses by a landslide if you take the South and the Mountain states out of the equation. Of course, we can’t really do that, It just proves that we’re so divided now that it’s hard to imagine that we’ll ever get through as one nation.”
Well, following that train wreck of logic, why doesn’t the Northeast try to suceed? If those votes are taken out of the equation, then Bush would have won by a landslide, instead of just winning both the popular and electoral vote.
Your comments about the south just helps show one of the reasons why the democrats lost. If you want to convert someone to your way of thinking, insulting them or their way of life (even if it’s a gross exageration) isn’t the best way to start.
They simply want to live their lives with the same rights, responsibilities, commitments and equalities as all other Americans.
They do. Gay Americans can marry any one I can, and have the same rights I do.
…not in the 11 states that now say that “marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.” And especially not in Ohio, where now homosexuals (and heterosexuals who choose not to marry) can’t file joint tax returns, give power of attorney to their love, take out a joint loan, or inherit their love’s estate when they die. Why? Because that would “simulate marriage”, and now Ohio’s constitution forbids giving that to unmarried couples — heterosexual OR homosexual.
If this amendment is enforced as written, thousands of heterosexual unmarried couples in Ohio will be suing for constitutionality. If it’s enfoced as intended, thousands of homosexuals in Ohio will be suing for discrimination. In either case, this amendment isn’t gonna wait long to see whether it’s struck down or not…
I find it amazing that it was the Democrats…the ones who support gay marriage…who used the gay issue for political advantage, most famously when Kerry gay-baited Mary Cheney during the third debate.
Also, one toss-up Senate seat lost by the Republicans was Pete Coors in Colorado, where the Democrats did not hesitate to run commercials of a gay festival in Canada sponsored by Coors Brewing Co.
Karen wrote:
“Air America just reported that Kerry has conceded. I hope you Bush supporters are happy. We now have a man who started an unnecessary war, is ruining our environment, wants to gut social security, and cares only for his base (the haves and have mores) Congratulations. Your blind worship has put in office the worst president we’ve ever had.”
Ah yes, the 59 million people who voted for Bush are practicing nothing but “blind worship.” I can understand your disapointment that your guy didn’t win, but please, don’t insult those who voted for Bush with your hysterical statements.
Jim in Iowa: The current evidence for gay marriage in Europe where it has now been legal for 10 years is that gay marriages are even less stable than traditional marriage.
Luigi Novi: First, homosexuals are neither more nor less sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals. Like heterosexuals, many gays and lesbians are involved in monogamous relationships, considering themselves partners and committed to each other for life. Some gays and lesbians may also choose to remain celibate, and others may have multiple partners, just as some heterosexuals do.
Second, even if this were true, what would you say about those homosexual couples whom this does not describe?
Lastly, does this evidence indicate that gay marriage has
What do I foresee in the next four years?
Another attempt at a gay marraige amendment very shortly, targeting of Rowe vs Wade, targeting of a couple more Middle Eastern countries, and whatever else Bush can screw up in between.
Okay, Now that I’ve offended someone, My point is this- We’re hearing so much about this “mandate” the Republicans received, yet Bush loses by a landslide if you take the South and the Mountain states out of the equation. Of course, we can’t really do that, It just proves that we’re so divided now that it’s hard to imagine that we’ll ever get through as one nation.
By the same token, Bush wins in a landslide if you get rid of the Northeast and West Coast.
We are no more divided today, then we have been over the last few elections. Look at the last few elections. Ignore 1980, 1992 and 1996 when there was a significant 3rd party turnout:
1976: 50%-48%
1984: 59%-41%
1988: 53%-45%
2000: 48%-48%
2004: 51%-48%
With the exception of 1984, most of these have been close – and election day was the deciding point.
If you look at the electoral maps, they look very similar. Northeast/West are blue, midwest and South are red. The states that have “turned” are a few southern states like Arkansas and Louisiana, as well as some midwestern states like Iowa and Missouri.
Luigi Novi: Who has? I don
Sorry about posting this…something’s messed up somewhere…I can’t see the posts from today until I post something myself. Please continue to talk amongst yourselves.
In the case of same-sex marriages, you will (not always, but usually) have two loving parents, who likely each have a steady source of income. I fail to see how this would worsen the trends you speak of.
It is based on a conviction that same sex marriages (particularly guy/guy relationships) will be even less stable than traditional marriages. In other words, I do believe the “gay” divorce rate will be higher than those for straight marriages. Can I prove it? No. But I believe it is true.
It is also based on the conviction that gay marriage is not the best environment in which to raise a child. I know some of you disagree. But I do believe environment influences a child’s emotional development. I am not worried that the kids will turn out gay. I am worried that they will struggle with other emotional issues. I know some of you may consider me bigoted for thinking this way. Without going into personal history, let me just say I have very first hand reasons for being convinced this is true. While my experience cannot be used to prove something to you, it cannot help but to guide me in my convictions.
I have said this repeatedly: Being married does not mean you have to have kids. But I believe having kids should mean you are married. There are exceptions, but they should be just that, exceptions.
I can only speak for myself, but I have a MORAL problem with gay marriage. I do not have a moral problem with civil unions. I think they cause other problems and difficulties and are not wise fiscal policy, but that is a civil matter.
What makes the fundamental difference between the two? For me, first and foremost, it is the issue of kids.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa said…
It is based on a conviction that same sex marriages (particularly guy/guy relationships) will be even less stable than traditional marriages. In other words, I do believe the “gay” divorce rate will be higher than those for straight marriages. Can I prove it? No. But I believe it is true.
But why do you believe it? What is it about these relationships that makes them inherently unstable (I’m most intrigued by your “guy/guy” statement)?
I realize that you can’t prove what you say, but surely you have a proposed reason for your proposed instability.
I cannot, however, tolerate raceism of any kind being LEGALIZED. And that’s what happened on the second. Across the country, homosexual people were officially denied the right to legally be seen as families.
For all of you who ask a similar question, here is my response: Homosexuals have NOT been denied anything, not according to the current definition and understanding of langauge.
Let me give an example. When we fought slavery, when we fought racial discrimination, it is true that blacks were defined as not being human. That was wrong, horribly wrong. So what did we do? Good people fought and finally established the obvious fact that black people are fully human, just as white people are. Note what happened: The core definition of being human did NOT change in any way during this debate. What changed was how we defined black people. Over time, it finally became obvious that there was no true difference.
I know some of you think this is the case with homosexuality. It is not. The question is not whether gays are human. The question is what is the function and definition of marriage? Right there, you introduce a new issue. You are discussing the function of an institution, of a government recognized “contract” if you will. As such, you enter into a totally separate realm than issues such as is a person human.
When we deal with gay “marriage,” it requires you to change the very definition of marriage. That debate is reflected on this very site. Marriage has NOT always been defined as an expression of love between two people. Go look at the politically arranged marriages, much less the commonly arranged marriages, that have occured in many cultures for many centuries. Marriage HAS always included the concept of establishing a family, of establishing a place where kids can be born and raised. This is true in every culture in which marriage exists, and marriage exists in every recorded culture we have ever found. Gay marriage, by definition, does not permit any natural way to fulfill this potential. (Let me repeat again, this does not say a married couple must have kids. It is saying that kids should be born into a family, and a marriage is the formal way of creating that stable environment in which kids can be raised.)
My point is this: denying gays the “privilege” (it is NOT a right) to be married does not deny them a human right. We deny the “privilege” of marriage to a brother and sister. Should we change this law if they really love each other? We deny this “privilege” to a father and daughter. Are we denying them a fundamental human right?
Oppposing gay marriage is not simply a rejection of a gay lifestyle. It is an affirmation in a fundamental purpose of marriage: to provide the environment in which kids can be born and raised. What is being proposed is a fundamental CHANGE in definition of marriage, not the inherent recognition of a person’s humanity. We can debate whether it is a good or bad idea to change the definition of marriage, but I reject the false notion that doing so is a denial of basic human rights to a gay individual. It is demonstrably not so.
Jim in Iowa
But why do you believe it? What is it about these relationships that makes them inherently unstable (I’m most intrigued by your “guy/guy” statement)?
I realize that you can’t prove what you say, but surely you have a proposed reason for your proposed instability.
Anecdotal (sp?) evidence does not “prove” anything scientifically, but as I said in my post, it can shape your views.
Based on a lot of interaction with male homosexuals, I have seen a consistent problem with maintaining a long term, monogamous relationship. There are, without doubt, some who do. But they are not the norm. And some in the gay community acknowledge this. They suggest it is because gays are denied marriage that this occurs.
Let me get into a lot of trouble for the next comment: I believe there is strong, scientific reasons to believe that being gay is influenced by environment and is not just a genetic necessity. Note, I am NOT saying that a gay person woke up one day and decided to be gay. What I am saying, though, is that there a gay person is not gay solely because of their genetic codes. This can be proven with on simple fact: when one identical twin is gay, the other is not necessarily gay. They are more likely than fraternal twins, but it is NOT even close to 80 or 90% of the time. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, so if being gay was solely an inevitable result of genetics, than both should be gay, or at least it should be true in the overwhelming number of cases. It just is not the case.
Therefore, if environment plays a role, then how? That moves into pschology, which is not an exact science. Let me give you my opinion. I think one reason is because of a lack in male parenting. I know some don’t like the stereotype that a gay man was raised by a weak and/or emotionally absent father. The problem is, this is often the case. The stereotype is often true. One theory is that gay men have this emotional hole, and they are trying to fill it. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it is NOT why they became gay in the first place. It would still be logical that this drive would cause them to move from partner to partner to fill this hole in their heart. (This is not an “out there” theory. This happens with some women who lacked a strong father who then end up marrying an older guy who is like her father.)
In summary, I suggest that guy / guy relationships are often more unstable because they are driven to fill an emotional void. It does not make them bad people who want to have sex with anything that moves. It makes them hungry/thirsty men who have a need and who live in a culture that tries to deny that need exists.
Why are woman / woman relationships different? I think one reason is a core gender issue: I think women tend to form deeper relationships in general. Men have a lot of “friends,” while women tend to develop 2 or 3 very deep, close friends. I also think it is because it has been documented that for at least some women, being gay IS a concious choice. They get fed up with men and so turn to another woman. Because it is a concious choice, it is easier to make a concious commitment. In other words, I believe women are driven differently than men, so they are better able to form longer relationships. (Not to say all of them are long term, and/or stable. Physical/verbal/emotional abuse between gay couples definitely exists.)
Jim in Iowa
Jim:
It’s quite easy to verify that the definition of marriage can, and in fact has changed, many times.
So I suppose the real question is who gets to decide on the “final” definition of marriage, and why?
Jim in Iowa said
I can only speak for myself, but I have a MORAL problem with gay marriage. I do not have a moral problem with civil unions. I think they cause other problems and difficulties and are not wise fiscal policy, but that is a civil matter.
What makes the fundamental difference between the two? For me, first and foremost, it is the issue of kids.
Jim, this statement makes me curious as to what you think of as a civil union. What is the difference between a civil union and marriage. The only functional difference that I am aware of is that a civil union has no religion sanctionig it. Is this the what makes them different in your eyes? If not, what does? I’d be very interested in reading the answer.
Okay, here’s the other shoe. If the only difference between marriage and civil unions is the presence or lack of a religious stamp, and you (at least as I see it) you don’t think people in a civil union shouldn’t have kids, what about heterosexual athiests?
There’s still no denying, however, the mindset of a good number of the people who voted to ban gay marriage and civil unions. Some voters at my polling place actually went so far as to say that God would punish the gays. Those people, who carried BIBLES, scared me more than the thought of a box full of grenades one pin short.
Doesn’t the Bible call homosexuality an abomination? Tough talk from a book that also states that an unfaithful woman can be stoned to death.
THIS is the word of God? In the words of InuYasha… “FEH!”
I gave up on religion years ago because of the hypocracy. Personally, I think marriage itself should be divorced from religion altogether in order for it to grow as it needs to.
But I DO thank you Jim, for providing intelligent counterpoints. It’s quite refreshing in this day and age to talk to someone from the “opposite side” with the ability to coherantly argue their opinions. Too many on both sides resort to the equivilant of name calling and shouting to make their points.
Now, if I may ask a question… Why do people fear God? Isn’t He supposed to be loving, accepting of all his children? If He’s benevolent, why fear Him? And why would anyone following a loving God turn and hate their fellow man just for something that he does behind closed doors that doesn’t affect them at all?
Jim in Iowa wrote…
I believe there is strong, scientific reasons to believe that being gay is influenced by environment and is not just a genetic necessity.
That’s fine…there are any number of environmental factors that can affect the development of a human being which are still well beyond the control of the individual.
For example, there is a well-documented genetic influence on the development of schizophrenia; however there are cases where one identical twin develops the condition and the other does not. One of the more prominent theories suggest that this could be because of environmental influences from within the womb, that affects one twin but not the other.
I appreciate you bringing psychology into this, as I recently completed a degree in it and Lord (or whoever) knows I don’t have a job where I can use it.
Your hypothesis about gay males seems fine on the surface, but if you take your statement to the next logical step, one would have to assume that most, or all, gay males should have highly similar personalities. Now this is where stereotypes of flamboyant “flamers” can cloud our vision, but I truly think that the personalities of the gay community as a whole are just as diverse as those in the “mainstream.”
I’m going to cheerfully ignore any layers of extra meaning that can be inferred from your comments regarding gay men trying to “fill” their “emotional hole.” =)
Chicago Richard M. Daley, one of the most powerful and respected Democrats in the country echoed my comments here yesterday in a Sun-Times quote today.
Who told you that Daley is one of the most powerful and respected Democrats in the country? Daley?
I hate to break it to ya, but outside of Chi-town, no one gives a rat’s butt about him.
I’m going to cheerfully ignore any layers of extra meaning that can be inferred from your comments regarding gay men trying to “fill” their “emotional hole.” =)
And we thank you for that. No “butts” about it.
Den W, wrote:
“Who told you that Daley is one of the most powerful and respected Democrats in the country? Daley? I hate to break it to ya, but outside of Chi-town, no one gives a rat’s butt about him.”
Based on your response, it’s easy to see why the Democratic Party is in trouble. Not only do Democrats lack respect their adversaries, they don’t even respect each other.
Not only do Democrats lack respect their adversaries, they don’t even respect each other.
Maybe they do and maybe they don’t.
I wouldn’t know.
I’ve always been a registered independent.
I don’t respect either party.
Blue Jackal
I think most of the bans will be challenged in court and overturned. I also think when this country calms down (it may take a number of years) we will eventually see that gay marriage is an equality issue. The most significant result of all of these ballot measures is it brought out so many voters against gay unions. This certainly worked to Bush’s advantage.
Jerome
Thank you for the kind words.
Now, for all those who take exception to my statement about blind worship. I was very upset about the election and did not choose my words as carefully as I usually try to do. I really should have said blind loyalty. I was referring to the study which showed Bush supporters in very high percentages think he agrees with them on issues that are important to them. Also, many still think there are WMD’s and Saddam was behind 9/11. This is blindness to a certain degree. I am not saying it is willful blindness, but they still don’t see the truth on those issues.
What will Bush do now that he’s going into a 2nd term? Well, in order to halve the budget in 5 years without rescinding his tax cuts for the wealthy, he’s going to have to cut sevices and social programs. I don’t think the “compassionate conservative” will lose any sleep over this.
Has anyone noticed that the number of abortions went down during the all inclusive sex education Clinton years and has risen during the abstinance only Bush years?
Has anyone noticed that the number of abortions went down during the all inclusive sex education Clinton years and has risen during the abstinance only Bush years?
This goes along with a study I’ve mentioned that risky sexual behavior and pregnancies went DOWN under more inclusive sex education (as opposed to abstinence only).
I think it goes to a credibility factor; if you tell folks EVERYTHING, they’re not going to wonder what you left out (and that doesn’t mean that you can’t say abstinence is the best way not to get pregnant or catch HIV…mainly because it is…).
“”Who told you that Daley is one of the most powerful and respected Democrats in the country? Daley? I hate to break it to ya, but outside of Chi-town, no one gives a rat’s butt about him.”
Based on your response, it’s easy to see why the Democratic Party is in trouble. Not only do Democrats lack respect their adversaries, they don’t even respect each other.
The same can be said of Republicans mein friend. A fair amount of right leaning chaps think Bush is a rube and a disgrace to the party.
“Who doesn’t love The Onion?”
Probably everyone that voted yesterday to put W back in office. God does love a winner though.
You mean like Gore? 🙂
God is also known to punish nations by giving them a leader that they deserve. Be careful when determining what God
I find it amazing that it was the Democrats…the ones who support gay marriage…who used the gay issue for political advantage, most famously when Kerry gay-baited Mary Cheney during the third debate.
You
Coors was known as an anti-gay company and hired Mary Cheney to put a good face on it.
Just let me toss this into the gay marraige ban issue.
Since this is PAD’s board, I think I can assume that most folks here know the X-men. I don’t mean today’s X-Men, but the good ole days, when they were outcasts, persecuted, hunted, feared. I guess they still are, to a certain degree (based on what I read ABOUT comics, since the only comic I have time and money for is Fallen Angel).
Anyway, most people here, I’m guessing, would call themselves, or at one point, did call themselves, a supporter or fan of the X-Men. Were pulling for them. Felt for them. Wanted them to gain acceptance and equality from the world at large. Wanted them to have an equal chance at happiness and success. Heck, just wanted them to be able to have the same things that we all have and occasionally take for granted.
But the X-Men were different. They looked different from “normal” people. Could do different things. Or did the same things differently.
For everyone who thinks that the legal benefits and rights that come with marriage, should be denied to gay couple, ask yourself this. Do you support the X-Men? Do you support the idea of equality for all PEOPLE, regardless of what they look like or what they can do? Would you want those X-Men characters to buy property and vote and move in next door to you? (assuming that you could be assured that they’d not get attacked by Magneto every other week)
Because I’ll propose that anyone who thinks that gays should be denied the same privliges and rights available under civil unions (of which marriage is one) cannot, if they hold true to their convictions, view the X-men in a positive light. Because that’s what the X-Men stand for…trying to expand the concept of what is perceived as normal by the world, in order to gain freedom and equality for all people.
I
It’s quite easy to verify that the definition of marriage can, and in fact has changed, many times.
I suggested what I think is a universal definition of marriage. Can you give me an example where my suggestion was NOT one of the major purposes of marriage?
What have been the other definitions?
So I suppose the real question is who gets to decide on the “final” definition of marriage, and why?
In America, the majority gets the final decision. In this country, currently, the overwhelming majority oppose gay marriage.
I know how some will respond. What about slavery? That is a good question. Every example I can think of (slavery, civil rights, etc.), there have been clear, outspoken people throughout history who have fought for these rights. You don’t find that type of record for gay marriage. Not a conclusive argument, but it is a valid one to consider why this is true.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, this statement makes me curious as to what you think of as a civil union. What is the difference between a civil union and marriage. The only functional difference that I am aware of is that a civil union has no religion sanctionig it. Is this the what makes them different in your eyes? If not, what does? I’d be very interested in reading the answer.
Okay, here’s the other shoe. If the only difference between marriage and civil unions is the presence or lack of a religious stamp, and you (at least as I see it) you don’t think people in a civil union shouldn’t have kids, what about heterosexual athiests?
The problem with answering your question is that civil union is undefined. Two possible differences are what you sited: the religious recognition and kids. Your example is one of the reasons I think civil unions are not a workable alternative. Marriage is not just the expression of love for each other, it invovles emotional, financial, and physical ties.
My point was simply that a civil union would not put a church in the position of having to deny two gays the supposed “right” to be married. If gay marriage were to be approved, it is inevitable that some gays would then begin attacking and suing churches who continue to refuse to recognize them. This has already happened in Canada and in countries in Europe who recognize homosexual unions. This is not a wild fear, this is the clear direction that we are heading.
Jim in Iowa
Now, if I may ask a question… Why do people fear God? Isn’t He supposed to be loving, accepting of all his children? If He’s benevolent, why fear Him? And why would anyone following a loving God turn and hate their fellow man just for something that he does behind closed doors that doesn’t affect them at all?
Depends on how you define “fear.” There is a healthy respect and awe for God. I once was shown how to use a handgun for target practice. I “feared” the gun, and rightly so. It is appropriate to fear it because of what it could do. There is a healthy respect for God because, by definition, he is bigger than us!
According to the Bible, which you reference, God does love all of his children, but that does not mean he does not discipline or punish them. Let me use another example. Assume for a moment that a police officer is fair, honest, and just (since there are some who are not). Should I fear the police officer? It depends. If I am speeding, robbing a bank, or committing murder, I should rightly fear him. A good officer will respond in a way appropriate for each offense (he will not kill me for speeding, but he might shoot to kill if I am about to take a life). God is not just benevolent. He is also just and looks out for all of his children. The punishment is not instantaneous (a topic for another time), but he does punish.
Your final question is a good one. I rebuke anyone who verbally abuses a gay person. Let me be clear: Saying homosexuality is a sin is not being verbally abusive. Saying they are scum (etc.) is. The Bible is clear that I should love both my neighbor and my enemy. I do not hate anyone, including gay people.
Why should I care about what happens behind close doors? It depends. Some do out of a false self righteousness. It makes them feel better. That is wrong. Others speak up because they truly are concerned. If I knew someone was hooked on drugs, was an alcholic, etc., behind closed doors, it is a loving act to say something (in a firm but kind way). If I believe that homosexuality (or any sexual sin including any sex with another person outside of marriage) causes both emotional and spiritual harm to someone, it is a loving thing to say something about it in a kind but firm way.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa said…
What have been the other definitions?
Polygamy.
Endogamy.
Exogamy.
Common Law Marriage.
Arranged Marriage.
All of these are variations or redefinitions of “traditional” marriage. They are also all in practice today, in one region of the world or another.
One interesting article states:
“”It is really much more complex in religious perspective than you might think,” says Tolbert, the George Atkinson Professor for Biblical Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. “What the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) suggests as a general model for marriage is polygamy. You look at someone like Solomon who had 200 wives and 600-and-some concubines. Or Abraham, who had his first child by his wife’s slave. It sounds as if it was quite normal.””
Marriage has taken many different forms over time, and I’m sure it will continue to do so in the future.
I actually do believe that this entire conversation, on one level, is moot. I think that the natural progression of society is such that same-sex marriage will be universally allowed eventually. Some of us just want it sooner than others.
Jim, until the 14th century, the only people in Europe, at least, who got married in order to procreate were the nobility. Nobody cared if a peasant was a bášŧárd – they had no property to inherit, and the whole question was about establishing legal right to property.
As for homosexual marriage, who here has heard of the Spartan Brotherhoods? The traditions of the Samurai?
And on one of your other points, yes, the abolitionist movement DID redefine what it meant to be “human”. The slavers contended that since the Africans looked so different from “us”, with those flattened noses and that kinked hair and that dark skin, they couldn’t be human, so it didn’t matter what was done to them. The abolitionists were attempting to redefine both the common and the legal definition of “person”.
BTW, blacks do still suffer discrimination. Ask my mother-in-law, who can tell tales of the home-care clients whose contracts she was only able to escape after getting someone to witness them calling her a “ņìggër bìŧçh” (and yes, this did indeed happen more than once). Ask my father-in-law, who, after retiring from the US Navy with 23 years’ experience as a counselor, was forced to take a job at the local community college as a janitor – five years ago. Ask my wife, who can still vividly recall the threats of lynchings from her childhood in Missouri.
(Incidentally, I found the comment about the X-Men interesting. Did anything ever happen with Northstar’s crush on Iceman? I ran out of spare money for comics a while back…)
In America, the majority gets the final decision.
Bûllšhìŧ.
Proof? 2000 election.
Your hypothesis about gay males seems fine on the surface, but if you take your statement to the next logical step, one would have to assume that most, or all, gay males should have highly similar personalities. Now this is where stereotypes of flamboyant “flamers” can cloud our vision, but I truly think that the personalities of the gay community as a whole are just as diverse as those in the “mainstream.”
I agree, there are differnces. But my personal experience is that there is a surprising level of similarities as well. The emotionally absent father is a good example. It is interesting how many gay men do not see thier father as such, but when you hear their childhood stories, it is true. It is definitely possible that this is a reflection of our culture as a whole, but I have not found this level of similarity in my work (which includes some counseling).
And thanks for not reading into my words a pun that I didn’t intend!
Jim in Iowa
Something I forgot to mention earlier: there’s strong evidence that modern North American society encourages emotional detachment in its males. Men are not expected to be sensitive, or really show emotion at all. If your theory is correct, I’m surprised that the homosexuality rates aren’t greater than the 1% – 10% we currently see.
All of these are variations or redefinitions of “traditional” marriage. They are also all in practice today, in one region of the world or another.
Thanks for the examples. One made me even get out my dictionary. 🙂 However, you do not cite a single example that disproves my point. It is true that “one” man and “one” woman has not always been the case in the sense that a man may have had many wives. But the marriage was STILL between the man and the woman. The difference was how many wives (or husbands) a person married. That is fundamentally different than a man marrying a man.
Jim, until the 14th century, the only people in Europe, at least, who got married in order to procreate were the nobility. Nobody cared if a peasant was a bášŧárd – they had no property to inherit, and the whole question was about establishing legal right to property.
The problem with your example is that what was called marriage is still the same concept involving a man and a woman (one from each gender) as it does today. Yes, nobody cared about the peasant. Their “marriages” may not even have been recognized (as many were not during American slavery). That does not change the fact that the act of marriage was between a man and a woman.
As for homosexual marriage, who here has heard of the Spartan Brotherhoods? The traditions of the Samurai?
There have been sexual unions in the past, but you do not find societies recognizing them as marriages as we do today. Greeks valued adult males having sex with boys, but it was basically a form of rape. It was not to form a long term, marital relationship. Homosexuality did not appear in the 20th century, but you don’t find marriage being defined as between two of the same gender to any real degree in history.
And on one of your other points, yes, the abolitionist movement DID redefine what it meant to be “human”. The slavers contended that since the Africans looked so different from “us”, with those flattened noses and that kinked hair and that dark skin, they couldn’t be human, so it didn’t matter what was done to them. The abolitionists were attempting to redefine both the common and the legal definition of “person”.
I agree, racists attempted to redefine what makes someone human. But they were doing it in reverse. They used external features to argue that at their core, Blacks were not human. They agreed on what was a human, they just disagreed whether it applied to a black person. Ablolitionists did not have to change the root definition of human, they had to show it applied to blacks.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa wrote…
However, you do not cite a single example that disproves my point.
I know. I was just tossing out those examples as proof that the definition of marriage has been fluid, not that same-sex couples have been included under marriage in the past. My only point was that the definition of marriage can, and does, change. It could also be strongly argued that the “purpose” of marriage is more closely related to the distribution of wealth than reproduction, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion and I don’t claim to be an expert on it.
Anyways, I’ve made my stance clear, and you’ve made yours. I find it refreshing that you’re able to articulate your thoughts without falling into the mindless ranting that can arise so easily from people when a matter is close to the heart. You’re clearly thinking about your position, and at the end of the day that’s all anyone can ask.
Some predictions:
1.) Draft within one year.
2.) Canadian-US border open to US live cattle importations now that Daschle is gone, so that’s a good thing.
3.) Supreme Court turns arch-conservative (no big surprise there).
4.) Bush appoints someone even more conservative than John Ashcroft as A.G. (likewise no surprise there).
5.) Iraq drags on…..and on…..and on……
6.) A small ray of hope: California voters approved state funding for stem cell research and it’s supported by Schwarzenegger, so that will lead to a state-federal confrontation.
7.) Definition of “marriage” extrenched with consitutional amendment.
8.) Democratic ticket for 2008 includes Barak Obama as either lead or vice candidate.
9.) Value of US$ continues to drop. Great for Canadians, not so great for Americans.
10.) Bush revamps Social Security, allows direct investment in the markets creating artificial value bubble which pops causing largest and most severe economic downturn in world history.
11.) Accumulated US national debt balloons even worse than it is today due to unrealistic tax cuts and the cost of Iraq among other factors, further reducing value of US dollar and resulting in rampant inflation, along with the attendant higher interest rates and other woes that it brings. Coupled with #10, this creates real problems for the world economy let alone the US economy.
12.) Within 12 months the US confronts North Korea directly.
13.) Despite the rhetoric, Republican control of all branches of the government leads to extreme reduction of civil rights and other restrictive legislation which makes the Patriot Act look mild.
I hope I’m wrong on most of these, but I have the sneaking suspicion that I’ll be proved correct.
Anyways, Bush won, and this time it was apparently fair and square, so now the question becomes one of how everyone adapts to make the best of what could be a very very “interesting” situation (Confucious’ curse: “May you live in interesting times.”)
Comments?
1.) Draft within one year.
That some of you actually believe this is beyond me. Let me make a prediction: Short of an unforseen truly world war, there will NOT be a draft in the next 4 years. Even if Bush were to ask for it, the Republicans in Congress value their seats too much to ever give it to him.
jim in iowa
Hi Jim. My last post for this night.
If you stop and think about it, it’s inevitable. The longer that Iraq drags on and pulls military personnel, coupled with the other involvements throughout the world, it’s going to have to happen just to maintain a sufficient standing force without wearing out the current personnel complement!
Look at what’s already happening with National Guard folks who signed up for x months and are being told that they’re being extended to y months and they have no say about it. Replacement personnel have to come from somewhere and I don’t think you can argue that there are enough volunteers out there to satisfy that requirement. Ergo, it’s just a matter of time, worldwide commitments (both current and unforseen), and numbers.
That’s reality.
1.) Draft within one year.
No. Won’t happen.
2.) Canadian-US border open to US live cattle importations now that Daschle is gone, so that’s a good thing.
Probably correct.
3.) Supreme Court turns arch-conservative (no big surprise there).
Depends on definition of “arch” “conservative” and (just so it doesn’t feel left out) “turns”. The democrats can still fillibuster if they want.
4.) Bush appoints someone even more conservative than John Ashcroft as A.G. (likewise no surprise there).
I expect someone a good deal less confrontational, and thus possibly a lot more effective.
5.) Iraq drags on…..and on…..and on……
I would expect so.
6.) A small ray of hope: California voters approved state funding for stem cell research and it’s supported by Schwarzenegger, so that will lead to a state-federal confrontation.
Don’t see why there would be any such problem–people don’t seem to understnd that there is NO BAN. You can set up a company today, call it DicedFetus Co and use the stem cells to do pretty much what you want. The government won’t pay for it but if stem cell proponents are correct that should be no problem–having cured so many afflictions I would expect you to be rolling in dough soon enough.
7.) Definition of “marriage” extrenched with consitutional amendment.
I would have disagreed but the results of tuesday make me thing, glumly, that you have at least a 50% chance of being correct.
8.) Democratic ticket for 2008 includes Barak Obama as either lead or vice candidate.
I hope not. Too soon. Give him time.
9.) Value of US$ continues to drop. Great for Canadians, not so great for Americans.
Maybe. Could be right.
10.) Bush revamps Social Security, allows direct investment in the markets creating artificial value bubble which pops causing largest and most severe economic downturn in world history.
Not sure about this.
11.) Accumulated US national debt balloons even worse than it is today due to unrealistic tax cuts and the cost of Iraq among other factors, further reducing value of US dollar and resulting in rampant inflation, along with the attendant higher interest rates and other woes that it brings. Coupled with #10, this creates real problems for the world economy let alone the US economy.
I’m more optimistic though you could be correct.
12.) Within 12 months the US confronts North Korea directly.
God, I hope so.
13.) Despite the rhetoric, Republican control of all branches of the government leads to extreme reduction of civil rights and other restrictive legislation which makes the Patriot Act look mild.
I highly doubt it.
I give you mad props for having the guts to actually make predictions which can be dragged out in 4 years and used to say “Neener neener neener, you were wrong!” Of course, if you are proven right then YOU get to brag. No guts no glory.
If there is a draft, and I can
Well, Jim in Iowa I think has hit the nail on the head. Marriage is one of those mixed institutions, both with legal and religious ramifications. It’s one of those things that has been around so long, everyone assumes that we’ll recognize it when we see it, yet there’s no hard and fast definition that people can point to. It’s like rain, or more to the point, snow. Snow in the lower 48 comes in maybe 2 or 3 varieties…flurries, snow, and blizzard. Head up north, and you get 200 different kinds of snow. Yet it’s all frozen ice crystals. You know it when you see it, but what you call it, someone else might have another word for it.
So, too, marraige. It’s a union between 2 people. Ok, but for love? Money? Power? Prestige? Children? All of the above? None of the above? In a legal sense, marraige is really nothing more than a contract between 2 people that comes with a bundle of shared rights, including property, health, and survivorship rights. Boiled down to it’s essentials, that is what a civil marraige is.
Religious marraige is a spiritual joining. A Christian marraige (I’m painting broadly here) is the public announcement of what God has made, two made one, for the purpose of procreation.
Marraiges of state. Mostly for the production of an heir, so that the ruling dynastic line can continue without the advent of civil war.
Arranged marraiges.
Marraige for the sake of citizenship, or to avoid deportation.
The point I’m trying to make is that if you start legislating one form of marraige, based essentially on religous teachings, you open the door to legislate other forms of marraige. If gay marraige is banned, what about marraige for those not wanting children? That is, after all, the point of Biblical marraige, so why should we allow those who don’t plan or want to be parents to get married?
And further down the road, will adultery become a criminal offense punishable by jail time?
It’s more than a discrimination issue, it’s a question of where does it stop.
And, really, you see people sin all day. Gluttony is a sin…where are you calls to ban McDonalds? Pride is a sin…where are the laws banning end-zone celebrations at football games. Avarice is a sin…where are the laws against big corporate executives taking all those tax cuts and pocketing them?
Hmmm, now that I’m on that subject, I don’t see “homosexuality” listed among the 7 “deadly” sins. You’d think that we’d be worried about controlling those sins first.