After some thought, I’ve decided the Fonz is the ideal presidential Candidate for 2008. Since the country has effectively Jumped the Shark with the election just past, there’s no one more appropriate.
I’ve even got the slogan: “Putting the ‘Aaaaay!’ in Aaaaay-merica.”
PAD
• 
“I am arguing that marriage came into existence for a greater purpose than just making a commitment to each other out of love. It came into existence for the purpose of having children and providing them a place to grow and be nurtured in love. Bearing children has been a fundamental part of marriage in virtually every society. Marrying for love has not.”
And thus do you, once and for all, blow your own argument to hëll and gone. Instead you have just proven the point of every advocate for gay marriage.
Marriage does indeed have its roots in creating a binding and protective situation in which children can be produced to propogate the species.
But over the years, it has also been for the purpose of a man possessing a woman in the same way that he possesses a cow or chickens. Or men have been able to marry multiple wives. It has been a means of creating unions between powerful families. It has been done as a convenience, loveless, while husband and wife share their beds with various paramours to the full knowledge and acceptance of the other. And in some societies, when the husband dies, the wife is expected to throw herself on the funeral pyre. Or it is expected that if the husband dies, the husband’s oldest surviving brother must marry the wife.
Do any of those describe the state of marriage in America today?
No. Because whatever the original intent was, it is a constantly changing and evolving institution. And any rational person would have to concede that having it a mutual union based purely on love is a vast improvement over a man acquiring a wife solely because he needs someone to help plow the field, pump out some offspring, and live her life as a second class citizen with no rights.
So to say now that it must cease to evolve, that–as Picard would say–the line must be drawn here, here and no further, defies recognizing the simple truth that marriage has changed, is changing, and will continue to change. And just as there were husbands raging over the notion of their wives becoming equal citizens because they were just women and not smart enough to vote, and just as there were KKK members howling over blacks marrying whites because it was going to poison the gene pool of America, there will be bigots who will spew reasons for why gays shouldn’t be able to marry, and the reasons will be just as valid and invalid as their spiritual precursors, whether they admit it or no.
And once again, unless you’re ready to argue that post-menopausal women shouldn’t be allowed to marry or men who had vasectomies shouldn’t be allowed to marry, your comment about “greater purpose” has no underpinning. Either people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn’t.
PAD
Discrimination isn’t discrimination when it’s based on reasonable health concerns, if nothing else.
Um, actually it is. But then, I’m unusual in that I consider discrimination and its cousin prejudice to be both good things and frankly necessary for cognitive function and human survival. You’re basically making a distinction between good discrimination and bad discrimination, but it’s still discrimination.
Yeah, I’m serious. Did a paper for a graduate course in human cognitive development (over history, rather than individual development from birth) on this a while back. You have to have discrimination and prejudice since you both can’t and don’t have time to work out everything from first principles. Our ancestors were very prejudiced against large predators; if they weren’t, they’d get eaten. And you discriminate between and among things constantly.
The catch is that it’s very easy to misuse prejudice and discrimination. The most obvious way is by choosing wrong, inappropriate, and irrevelant criteria to base your prejudice and discrimination on. The next major way is not distinguishing between “All A are B” valid criteria and “Many/Most A are B, for valid criteria C, but this particular A is not B, since C is not intrinsic to being A”. Next major way is not to realize or account for changes in individuals or the criteria.
Oh, and Jim…one other question:
I seem to recall that it should be theoretically possible to take a woman’s egg and combine it with another woman’s egg in some manner to produce a child. Naturally said offspring could only be female because there’s no Y chromosone involved. But still…
If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?
PAD
No, actually, I don’t think I’ll put that aside. That actually underscores my point: That people have not been able to pull their heads out of their…bibles…and comprehend the simple reality that being gay is not sinful behavior, and also not a choice (whereas deciding to commit incest pretty much is a choice.)
PAD,
If I do pull my head out of my … Bible … then yes, I can see your point. Sinful behavior, almost by definition in this context, is a religious belief. So if the Bible is wrong/invalid/irrelevant, then gay ACTIONS are not sinful.
But a gay lifestyle has been rejected by a very large number of religions and philosophies (including communism, which was aethistic). For whatever reason you want to give, there is an almost instinctive rejection of homosexuality throughout history. If nothing else, if you don’t want to bring religion into it, perhaps it is an evolutionary bias to keep us from going extinct.
You did not address my point. This country is NOT a Christian country. It is perhaps more pluralistic than at any other time in its history. Yet over 70% of those polled reject gay marriage. Why?
Let me also say I do not equate gay “desires” with gay “actions.” I have counseled people who have sexual attraction to kids. Just because you feel an attraction or desire does not, by definition, make it right.
“Being” gay in orientation is not a sin. Acting out in gay behavior IS a choice. I believe that choice is sinful and that it is emotionally, physically, and spiritually damaging to the individual who engages in such actions. You do not agree. That is fine. It does not change the fact that any sexual act a person chooses to engage in is by definition a choice. The question is not whether it is a choice, the question is whether or not such actions are right.
Why is this such an obvious big deal to me? Because I do share a fear you have. I don’t see the religious right leading us down a path like the Nazi’s did to Germany. I see the potential for the liberal left to do so. How? On things like this very issue. The first step is an insistence that we make gay marriage legal. The next step is to then tell those, like myself, that to even suggest that a gay lifestyle is sinful is hate speech and wrong. I am not talking about standing in the streets shouting cruel things at gays. I am talking about my right to say that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God, and harmful to the person who engages in such activities.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, and the discouraging thereof, has no basis other than bigotry, mostly steeped in the teachings of a book that also teaches that it’s acceptable to put a misbehaving child to death.
I answered the first part above. Let me reference the second. Yes, the Bible does teach under some circumstances it was permissible to execute a disobedient child. However, there is a greater context in which that law must be understood. You do NOT find this law being practiced in the Bible. It is not because it was understood to show the severity of the crime. Other than for what we consider “first degree murder,” you don’t find the executions based on the mosaic code for most of the things in the list, which also includes homosexuality. Both Jewish and Christian traditions suggest that a “ransom” (or “fine) was allowed as a way to pay for the crime.
Jewish law, as you well know, is quite complex. It contains a mixture of civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. We don’t have the equivalent today. Some people then suggest the OT Law is irrelevant. I would suggest that instead, you must use the context. Let me give you an example.
PAD, you have a daughter. Imagine that at age 5 you gave her these 3 rules:
1.) Go to be at 7 PM.
2.) Don’t play in the street.
3.) Don’t touch the hot burner on the stove.
As she gets older, you would let her to go bed at a later time, and eventually would not tell her when to go to bed.
In the second, as she got older, the rule would depend on where you live. If you live on a busy New York Avenue, it might never be appropriate to play on the street. If you live in a quiet suburb, it may be fine to play on the street as long as she watches for cars.
Whatever age she is, it is always wrong (harmful) to touch a burner with her bare hands.
The Bible is not a book you blindly read. You read it with common sense as you would any other writing. Some laws (such as not eating pork) are not followed by Christians today, but are by practicing Jews. Others (such as killing man woman and child in the city of Jericho) were a specific judgment on a specific people at a specific time and was never meant to be used as an example for warfare today. Some (I would suggest homosexual actions and any sex with another person outside of marriage) are by their very nature, harmful to ourselves according to the very one who created us.
Jim in Iowa
“Discrimination isn’t discrimination when it’s based on reasonable health concerns, if nothing else.”
“Um, actually it is. But then, I’m unusual in that I consider discrimination and its cousin prejudice to be both good things and frankly necessary for cognitive function and human survival. You’re basically making a distinction between good discrimination and bad discrimination, but it’s still discrimination.”
Cut me a break, Tom. You know perfectly well that I was centering on the following definition:
“: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment “
I wasn’t trying to incorporate all the various definitions of “discrimination” in one comment. I mean, you might as well say claim I was saying that there’s no such thing as an art fancier having discriminating tastes, or when I’m talking about bias, you ask what race relations has to do with a line diagonal to the grain of a fabric.
Although might I point out that your supposed exception pretty much goes with my original comment. I talked about discrimination not existing when there are genuine health concerns, and you counter with ancestors discriminating against larger animals that could kill them. Dude, if getting eaten by a sabretooth isn’t a health concern, I don’t know what is.
PAD
So Jim, you pick and choose which of G-d’s laws to follow? That’s very progressive of you. I’m glad though that you let yourself eat bacon, but follow the ones that lead you to hate another.
You know, Jesus was real big on the hate thing, I hear.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, and the discouraging thereof, has no basis other than bigotry, mostly steeped in the teachings of a book that also teaches that it’s acceptable to put a misbehaving child to death.
The relationship between a gay couple and a heterosexual are different, plain and simple. No matter how hard the majority of Gay couples try they are not going to produce a child, the majority heterosexual couples can. This is were the government has an interest in supporting this union (more customers). I’m all for Gay couples having commitments and all the leagal rights needed for health and finacial support, but not the same as a heterosexual couple that can produce a child. Anyone who can not see these relationships as being different is willfully blind.
If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?
Short answer, no. It required scientific intervention. I am arguing for “traditional” marriage. Such an option was not even possible before. More importantly, I am arguing that having a parent from each gender is better than having two parents of the same gender. (Not to be funny about it, but why is diversity in this situation not to be preferred? If everyone has a masculine and femine side, is it not at least ideal for a child to grow up with a close and clear model of each?)
If two women choose to do so at their own expense, I would not stop them. But I would not change the definition of marriage to accomodate them.
Let me make a side comment. I do not hate gays. If such a couple lived next door to me, I would probably bring over some baby clothes for them and babysit for them if needed. I worked for 4 years in the Oak Lawn area of Dallas, which has a high population of homosexuals, and none of them would ever say I was mean or hateful to them. On the contrary, we got along fine. But I believe changing the definition of marriage will lead to consequences just as no fault divorce has done. Since it does not yet exist here, I cannot prove it. But I think the evidence points that way.
Furthermore, I believe for personal and theological reasons that a gay lifestyle is not the best choice. I know of people who have left the gay lifestyle and who are very happily married. Does that mean all must do so? Of course not. But it is wrong to say that for at least some people, change is possible. It is not a false hope.
Jim in Iowa
So Jim, you pick and choose which of G-d’s laws to follow? That’s very progressive of you. I’m glad though that you let yourself eat bacon, but follow the ones that lead you to hate another.
Of course I pick and choose. Everyone does, even with laws here in America. That is called using your head. If a truck is coming up on my tail on the freeway at 80 miles per hour and I can’t change lanes, you better believe I will speed up rather than be rear ended.
I don’t recall ever saying that I hated anyone. Is it hateful to tell someone who is having an affair that he is destroying his marriage? Is it hateful to tell someone who is hooked on crack that she is killing herself? Unless you say it is hate to warn someone that what they are doing is harmful, I am not hating anyone.
Jim in Iowa
If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?
Nope, unless the government is offering it to every Lesbian couple gratis. Man and woman who flip burgers can have child (no aid needed, well maybe a back seat and some Barry White) therefore Gov’t wants to support this, woman and woman who flip burgers can’t (even with Barry and back seat). These relationships are different.
But it is wrong to say that for at least some people, change is possible.
Let me restate this the way I meant it:
Change IS possible, at least for some people, and it is wrong to deny them the opportunity to try to change if they so choose. It is not a false hope. A significant number of people have actually done so.
Jim in Iowa
Everyone’s prejudiced about something. Most have some bigotry in them.
I personaly have developed a nasty prejudiced against foreigners who work in this country, yet don’t speak the language well and then call me up for tech support and want me to help them. Now granted that’s a pretty specific bigotry, but there it is.
But you know what? I recognize that it’s there, and furthermore, like any right thinking person, I’m ashamed of myself for it.
Now for you holy rollers out there…where is your shame?
Oh I get it now! It’s out of love! You’re trying to HELP gay people! How white of you.
And how is Mary Cheney being gay hurting her? I’m serious, now. I incredibly want to understand your viewpoint. Reading and studying the bible hasn’t done it, but explain it to me.
“you better believe I will speed up rather than be rear ended.”
I think that’s been clearly established.
“If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?”
“Short answer, no. It required scientific intervention. I am arguing for “traditional” marriage.”
Ah, okay.
John? John Ordover, you out there?
If he is, I’d like you to meet John Ordover. He and his wife required several years and tons of medical assistance before they were able to have a child. But according to you, since scientific intervention was required, you’re not in favor of their marriage. For that matter, if the doctor had finally said, “Sorry, kids, it’s just not happening; you’ll never have children,” then they should be divorced.
“But a gay lifestyle has been rejected by a very large number of religions and philosophies (including communism, which was aethistic). For whatever reason you want to give, there is an almost instinctive rejection of homosexuality throughout history. If nothing else, if you don’t want to bring religion into it, perhaps it is an evolutionary bias to keep us from going extinct.”
Well, hëll, Jim, y’know what? The Jewish lifestyle has been rejected by a large number of religions and philosophies, so let’s kill all the Jews while we’re at it.
“You did not address my point. This country is NOT a Christian country. It is perhaps more pluralistic than at any other time in its history. Yet over 70% of those polled reject gay marriage. Why?”
Because they’re idiots, Jim. Because people are idiots, and just because there’s 70% of them, that doesn’t make them more right than the 30% who aren’t idiots. A lot more than 70% thought the sun went around the earth, and religious types banned them or killed them, but y’know what? They were right and the majority was wrong.
“Why is this such an obvious big deal to me? Because I do share a fear you have. I don’t see the religious right leading us down a path like the Nazi’s did to Germany. I see the potential for the liberal left to do so. How?”
Beats me, considering the conservatives are the ones with all the guns.
“I am talking about my right to say that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God, and harmful to the person who engages in such activities.”
Say it all you want.
The bottom line (your rather inane comparison to child raising aside) is that no one is asking that gay marriage be made legal. It’s being asked that it not be made ILLEGAL. As it stands now, the vast majority of states and the US government do NOT have laws forbidding it. And what they’re doing now is trying to change that.
There is one reason and one reason only to make something illegal: Someone’s going to be hurt by it.
No one is being hurt by gay marriage. No one.
PAD
Eric!: Well, gays can marry anyone I can marry and I can’t marry anyone they can’t.
Luigi Novi: Where do you get this repetitive gibberish from? Gays cannot marry those they fall in love with, period. A gay woman can marry anyone you can marry? How so? Assuming from your name that you
Peter said “No one is being hurt by gay marriage. No one.“
This is where you are wrong. The Democratic party was harmed by this. For an example, see this years election results.
Novafan
Bill Mulligan wrote:
> 4 years from now there will be new
> elections. None of the people on this board
> will have been rounded up and placed in
> camps for their beliefs
>
> Despiet [sic] claims of oppression it will still
> be easy to produce films, comics, books etc
> that protray the government in a negative
> way (to say the least). It won’t be nazi
> germany or anything like it
You don’t know that. As PAD has already mentioned, Nazi Germany didn’t look like Nazi Germany until it was too late. And Hitler didn’t seize power, he was appointed Chancellor by a properly elected President.
> (I can’t promise that they won’t be in jail for
> other offenses. Some of y’all have potential
> for all kinds of stuff.)
How lovely. When you can’t argue fairly, libel those who disagree with you.
Barrett Esposito said: Instead, he found tax breaks for rich white guys.
This is one of those arguments that I just don’t understand. Taxes were lowered for everyone that PAYS taxes, those that don’t pay taxes (lowest income levels) don’t have anything to lower. The richest in the country pay the most, so the lowering of tax rates shows up for them the most. It’s just math. I’m sure that the IRS would be happy to take any extra money that you have that you believe should be payed in taxes. Personally I don’t make enough to be in that category.
It is not “just math.” Income tax is a progressive tax. If you would like to debate the fundamentals of cutting everyone’s tax rate by the same amount in a progressive tax system, I would be happy to go on at excessive length about why tax breaks for the 2% of this country that controls 40% of its wealth (not to mention insane tax breaks for corporations) are not sensible fiscal policy. Additionally, for the government to lower anyone’s taxes at a time when it is running up unprecedented deficits is bad form, to say the very least. Lastly, the idea that cutting the tax on dividends makes sense (the argument most often cited is that as of 1998, 70% of all taxpayers who received dividends were making $55K or less, but you will notice that doesn’t break things out by HOW MUCH they received in dividends) because that money gets plowed back into the economy is stupid. Anyone who gets significant dividend income is not living paycheck to paycheck, so the idea that those people will get their checks and say, “Oh boy, I can get me that new VCR now!” is ludicrous. That is the simplified (but not OVERsimplified) version of it.
Bearing children has been a fundamental part of marriage in virtually every society.
Yet, who the hëll needs to be married to have kids in the first place?
People all over the world are, as Bill Maher put it so wonderfully, “spawning” with or without marriage.
No matter how you want to say it, your argument is flawed.
Luigi Novi: And anyone who doesn
Aw, let’s talk about Fonzie s’more.
Budget is broken? Hit it with your fist just right.
Diplomatic disagreements? Set the Ambassador up on a date with Laverne.
Terrorism? “Sit on it!”
David,
Obviously I don’t “Know” any of this. I have no gift for prophesy. Neither do any of the people who are insisting that all kinds of bad things will happen during the next 4 years. I suppose I could post a message to each and every one of them saying “You can’t know that.” but it would look pretty silly.
You neglected to reprint the part about revisting all this in 4 years and seeing who’s right, thus indicating that I certainly am not “sure” about it. But whatever.
ME- “I can’t promise that they won’t be in jail for there offenses. Some of y’all have potential
for all kinds of stuff.”
See, that’s what we call a joke.
YOU- “How lovely. When you can’t argue fairly, libel those who disagree with you.”
See, that’s what we call clueless.
Among other obvious points, please point out where I was talking about only those who disagree with me. I could have been talking about Jerome’s habit of throwing anthrax spores in the face of orphans (see, that’s also a joke. Jerome doesn’t actually do that. As far as I know)
PAD says– “you don’t get it….My grandfather saw the rising tide of hatred. Of discrimination. Of religious fanaticism. All this when he was in Berlin, and when he packed up my father and grandmother and got the hëll out, all the neighbors told him he was nuts. That things would become better. That he was overreacting.”
I DO get it. I just disagree that the same thing is happening here. Isn’t it possible for someone to actually “get” what’s happening and just not come to the same conclusions you do or do you really believe that the truth is so obvious that any rational thinking person MUST come to believe as you do? (which is a mindset that is all too common these days).
Nekouken-
“Bush’s campaign drew all of its strength from fear. Fear of terrorism (which, thanks to his ineptitude, is now only threatening our military in a hostile country and is unlikely to happen stateside in any significant measure again for some time)”
Um…many would consider that a major positive achievement. The military can shoot back and do so quite well. Not so true for civilians. (I have to say, you are more optimistic about the unlikelihood of another steside attack than I am).
“Not all Liberals beleive the same thing as well. You can’t group peoples beleifs that way. Well maybe you can with conservatives, i don’t really see how its possible but you all seem to do it anyway.”
Yeah, because ALL conservatives are pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-drug reform guys like me. Yep. We walk in lockstep.
“But here is the sort of ultra-conservative hate propaganda that we fear. And when you’re presented with stuff like this, it can be difficult not to paint you all with the same brush.”
Sure it is. To not do so would be as foolish as someone going to a far left nutjob website and chooseing to deliberately tar ALL liberals with the same brush, or allowing a bad experience with a member of a race or creed to be the reason to become a bigot. You can certainly do that but you can’t pretend it makes the bigotry any more platable.
“Personally, I think Christianity is a sign of brain damage…”
Wow, talk about junk science.
“Conservatives: What steps do you think Bush should do unify this country? What olive branch should he extend? “
Judging from this site, there would be little point in trying…I’d hope that he might try to modify his anti-gay marraige views by also linking it to some kind of official recognition of civil ceremonies. This would please neither side but would be at least a step un the right direction.
I would hope that he would be as generous to liberals as many of the liberals here would be to conservatives, were they in the same position. Except for the parts about rounding us all up and burying our bodies in the forest (Note to David: Again, a joke).
Craig said “If Bush wants to unite this country, he’ll step down and let somebody WORTHY of the job in.“
Like Kerry was worthy of the job. Give me a break. The only consistent position he ever had was on voting against the ban on Partial birth abortions six times. And he betrayed all Veterans by his lies he told to Congress. Yeah, like he was worthy to be Commander in Chief. Sheesh!!!
Like Kerry was worthy of the job.
I never said he was, but very simply put: Bush is as pathetic a candidate as Gore. Probably more so.
It’s entirely disgusting that this is the best that we can do. Yet, conservatives are proud of themselves over this.
Sorry Craig, I assumed you meant Kerry should have won instead of Bush.
Nekouken: Personally, I think Christianity is a sign of brain damage…
Luigi Novi: As opposed to all the other religions, which are somehow different?
Eric: Bearing children is a superficial difference? That’s your response?! Knowing that difference isn’t superficial makes one a bigot?
Luigi Novi: Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with children. Gays want to get married because they
It’s all a matter of public record. Do you want me to post the entire spiel he gave Congress? Which part of it wasn’t lies?
“Peter said “No one is being hurt by gay marriage. No one.”
This is where you are wrong. The Democratic party was harmed by this. For an example, see this years election results.”
Okay, that’s a fair point. If there’s one thing the Democrats didn’t foresee, it was that conservatives would spend the last couple months of the election shoving gay marriage which, let’s face it, should be a complete non-issue when it comes to the presidency, to the front and center. Democrats were just blindsided which, in retrospect, I guess should have been predictable.
After all, in the first months of the Clinton administration, the GOP shoved gays in the military straight into the limelight where it hadn’t been before, instantly putting Clinton on the defensive and causing him no end of headaches and wasting of political capital. It is really remarkably hypocritical that the GOP starts shrieking when Kerry mentions (in a positive manner, mind you) Cheney’s daughter, when they have not hesitated to throw the hand grenade of (gasp!) equal rights for gays into the fray at key moments in history. It’s pretty repulsive when you think about it: This malicious, manipulative, cynical using of ten percent of the American population as boogey man and scare tactic, all in order to gain political points and offices.
Oh…and for those of you who don’t understand the concern liberals have and keep saying that we’ll survive another four years of Bush easily…
Tell that to the eleven hundred young men and women who haven’t survived the last year of Bush.
PAD
“It is really remarkably hypocritical that the GOP starts shrieking when Kerry mentions (in a positive manner, mind you) Cheney’s daughter, when they have not hesitated to throw the hand grenade of (gasp!) equal rights for gays into the fray at key moments in history.”
What kills me is that right around Halloween, Lynne Cheney paraded one of her granddaughters on stage dressed as the Grim Reaper and called her, “John Kerry’s health plan.” Yet just a few weeks before Mrs. Cheney was telling the world how she was disgusted with Jon Kerry for involving her family and mentioning that her daughter was a lesbian, as if it’s something to be ahsamed of.
Jeez…talk about a hypocrite.
JAB
If he is, I’d like you to meet John Ordover. He and his wife required several years and tons of medical assistance before they were able to have a child. But according to you, since scientific intervention was required, you’re not in favor of their marriage. For that matter, if the doctor had finally said, “Sorry, kids, it’s just not happening; you’ll never have children,” then they should be divorced.
Sorry, but you just changed the parameters of your own example. Nice bait and switch, but it doesn’t work. I have been quite clear that having kids is not a requirement for marriage. But to raise kids, I do want a father and a mother as the parents.
The bottom line (your rather inane comparison to child raising aside) is that no one is asking that gay marriage be made legal. It’s being asked that it not be made ILLEGAL. As it stands now, the vast majority of states and the US government do NOT have laws forbidding it. And what they’re doing now is trying to change that.
If what you suggest is true, then why have federal courts struck down the marriages in San Francisco? It is NOT currently a legal option. Up until the last few years (50?), this wasn’t even a serious suggestion. There may not be a law making it a illegal, but the law as written implicitly assumed it would be a man and a woman.
You ARE asking for a change in the understanding of marriage for 2,000 years. Whether it was one man who had 100 wives, or one woman who had 100 husbands, the core marriage has always been between a man and a woman. You can argue that we are more enlightened now and should change the definition to also include between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but the definition (legal or otherwise) is clearly being redefined.
Jim in Iowa
“Sorry, but you just changed the parameters of your own example. Nice bait and switch, but it doesn’t work. I have been quite clear that having kids is not a requirement for marriage. But to raise kids, I do want a father and a mother as the parents.”
Nope, I’ve been consistent. You’re the one who’s trying to do a fast tap dance around your own untenable arguments. You say that marriage is designed mainly for procreation. I ask whether two women procreating with one another should then be entitled to marriage, and you say no, ONLY because it requires scientific help. Therefore, by your own logic, a couple requiring scientific help to have a child should not be allowed to marry. But you say no, that’s not the case, even though you offer not one shred of reasoning to explain why it should be different.
See, this is the problem when you have a position based not on logic, but on bias and prejudice. It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
“The bottom line (your rather inane comparison to child raising aside) is that no one is asking that gay marriage be made legal. It’s being asked that it not be made ILLEGAL. As it stands now, the vast majority of states and the US government do NOT have laws forbidding it. And what they’re doing now is trying to change that.”
“If what you suggest is true, then why have federal courts struck down the marriages in San Francisco?”
Political pressure. Idiots making a fuss. Violation of state rights. Take your pick.
“It is NOT currently a legal option. Up until the last few years (50?), this wasn’t even a serious suggestion. There may not be a law making it a illegal, but the law as written implicitly assumed it would be a man and a woman.”
Ohhh, it was “implicity assumed!” Ah, of course. And all legalities naturally must toe the line of implicit assumption. “There may not be a law making it illegal, but…” You don’t get to have a “but” in there. When it comes to rights in this country (at least, once upon a time) the desire is to provide as much freedom as possible. Not look for reasons to curtail them. And certainly not look for reasons based in intolerance and religious dogma rather than anything remotely resembling a threat to the commonweal.
“You ARE asking for a change in the understanding of marriage for 2,000 years. Whether it was one man who had 100 wives, or one woman who had 100 husbands, the core marriage has always been between a man and a woman. You can argue that we are more enlightened now and should change the definition to also include between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but the definition (legal or otherwise) is clearly being redefined.”
So there’s Jim of the not-yet-existent state of Iowa, in the Continental Congress in 1776. And what’s being discussed is the notion of breaking away from England to form a country.
Monstrous, quoth Jim. Unthinkable! A vile notion! Why? Because no colony has broken away from its parent country in the history of the world. He is shocked–shocked!–that these so-called liberals could even entertain the notion of completely redefining the relationship between colony and mother country. What a terrible idea! Why it’s as unthinkable as…as freeing slaves! Or suggesting that bleeding someone in order to free evil humours from their bodies is improper medicine! Because as we all know, when something is traditionally done one way, that is the ONLY way. We must remain in eternal lockstep, never think beyond that which we know, never shake up the status quo, never change, never grow, and by all means, never forget to thump that bible in righteous indignation when all else fails.
I would never argue that WE are more enlightened now, Jim. You know why?
Pronoun trouble. The whole WE thing. I would argue that SOME of US are more enlightened. And then…there’s the others…
PAD
Novafan: It’s all a matter of public record. Do you want me to post the entire spiel he gave Congress? Which part of it wasn’t lies?
Luigi Novi: I am unaware of any lies on his part before Congress, and would find it odd that none of this was brought out in the campaign by Bush or Cheney. But if you can list some of them succinctly, please do so.
Jim in Iowa: Sorry, but you just changed the parameters of your own example. Nice bait and switch, but it doesn’t work. I have been quite clear that having kids is not a requirement for marriage.
Luigi Novi: It seems that you
Jim in Iowa: Let’s also say that someone who speeds is the same as someone who drives drunk and kills someone.
Luigi Novi: Here, you
“If they are such idiots, surely you can find a way to convince them.”
Wow. I mean…wow. I mean, you’ve said some ridiculous things until now, but that is just the most…
Jim, it is BECAUSE people are idiots that they CAN’T be convinced.
The thing that really fractures me about all this? On the one hand conservatives bash gays, claiming that homosexuality is a choice, even though it’s not. But when gays DO want to make a choice about something, conservatives want to take that choice out of their hands.
The whole thing is just so…so choice.
Lewis Black summed it up beautifully: In America, all people everywhere can fulfill their greatest dreams…unless people in the Midwest find those dreams icky.
You’re bigoted against gays, Jim. Deal with it, don’t deal with it, admit it, don’t admit it. It’s up to you. Because you get to have a choice. Good thing you’re not gay: You’d find your choices in life far more limited.
PAD
Jim, it is BECAUSE people are idiots that they CAN’T be convinced.
People are idiots because they can’t be convinced, or because they don’t agree with you? I am not trying to be harsh about you, but I have a hard time agreeing that 70% of the population are idiots.
I don’t think you are an idiot. I think you are wrong. I think, from a theological/spiritual standpoint, you are deceived. But that is very different from being an idiot.
Which leads to the question: WHY do so many people think gay marriage is a bad thing? It is not enough to just say they are idiots. Even idiots have a reason for thinking something. I have said multiple times that there are actually very few things this “controversial” that 70% of the country agrees upon. Furthermore, the vast majority of people throughout history are “idiots” by your definition. Sure, you can use examples like “people used to think the world was flat,” but there was still a reason why they believed so, and for most examples you can give, why we no longer believe it is true.
Why do 70% of Americans think gay marriage is wrong?
The thing that really fractures me about all this? On the one hand conservatives bash gays, claiming that homosexuality is a choice, even though it’s not. But when gays DO want to make a choice about something, conservatives want to take that choice out of their hands.
First, I know some conservatives say it is a choice, but on the other thread, I stated my belief. I think it is not genetically determined, that there are enviromental and nurture factors that play a role, but for probably 95% of the gay population, they do not just wake up one day and decide to be gay. So I agree that it is not a concious choice (which is all the evidence can actually say right now).
Your point, however, does not follow. Conservatives do not say homosexuality is wrong because gay people are immoral and do not marry (or live in long term relationships). They say it is a wrong action in the first place. Making the choice to be married does not change the fact that a man is having sex with a man, or a woman with a woman. They are two very different issues.
If someone steals, but decides to pay taxes on it, does that make it right? I am not using the analogy to prove gay actions are wrong, but to illustrate the consistency of the conservative Christian view. A wrong action in the first place is what is the problem. Getting married does not fix the problem.
You’re bigoted against gays, Jim. Deal with it, don’t deal with it, admit it, don’t admit it. It’s up to you. Because you get to have a choice. Good thing you’re not gay: You’d find your choices in life far more limited.
How do you know I am not “gay”? What if I do have a gay orientation but have chosen another path and am now happily married to a wonderful woman? I find my choices quite satisfactory and am very much enjoying my life.
Jim in Iowa
PAD. I thought I caught a little negative energy from you on folks with Midwest values. Please, I’m from Iowa, and there are a whole lot of people here that don’t think like Jim (meaning, there are those that on the far, far right).
The funny thing is, I used to think like Jim a little bit. That, in nature, only males and females together can reproduce (expect earthworms and those dinosaurs in Jurassic Park). So, why should gays be allowed to be parents? I suppose there was also a small fear that gays with children would program their children with the spooky “gay agenda” and end the world for hetrosexuals. (Just imagine being a hetrosexual in a homosexual world. “What’s the matter with you? Why can’t you like boys like everybody else!!!” “I don’t know dad, I’m just attracted to girls. I try to like boys, but it just doesn’t feel right.”)
Luckily, I got older and wiser and I ran into a whole lot of hetrosexuals who were terrible parents. Why not give a few homosexuals a shot? They certainly couldn’t do any worse job than parents who beat or rape or abuse their children in any way. And there are plenty of children out there that would take any kind of parent they could get, gay or straight.
Anyway, PAD, one thing I thought was interesting on the days leading up to the election, the RNC had some great ads running in Iowa, which was a swiiiiiiing state (the votes are STILL out). I can’t remember them word for word, but they basically said: “You can’t trust Kerry. He’s a flip-flopper. He’s weak and American isn’t safe with him at the helm.” I was flabbergasted they would run anything like this.
But, let’s face it, I was an educated voter and I still couldn’t come up with a lot of reasons to vote for Kerry besides, “he’s not Bush.” That was enough for a lot of people, but ultimately was the reason why he didn’t win. He had to sell himself and never did.
Sigh.
‘Fraid this is arguing by anecdote and appeal to authority, but I’m pretty sure I recall reading research results that showed that the percentage of people favoring gay marriage/civil unions increased a very large amount if those people actually knew and regularly interacted with someone who was gay.
I have done so, but you have rejected it. Gay marriage will cause harm to children because it WILL cause the decay of the family just as no fault divorce has done.
Actually studies have shown just the opposite. Children raised by a gay couple show the same tendencies toward homosexuality, crime, or a happy healthy life, as the traditionally defined heterosexual couple. I read of the studies recently, but have forgotten where at the moment. I will do a little research and let you know where to find them.
Gay actions hurt a person physically (at least in the case of men) because the male body was not designed for gáÿ šëx (this is well documented). You may say it is their choice, but the consequences are real. I also would argue that there is emotional damage, but that gets into a host of psychological issues.
People like to go mountain climbing and sky diving, too. These actions often hurt people physically, but I don’t see anyone trying to stop people from doing them. And I believe most of the psychological damage would be in trying to live a lie, if you are homosexual, or from how you are treated by people who think you are living in sin.
Here’s an interesting article about a Boston archbishop who is supporting gay couples FOR the children. From Catholic News:
http://www.cathnews.com/news/310/141.php
And I found a summary of the studies about the affects of a gay couple on children here (see section B):
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
No different from other children, except for the prejudice directed their way.
“‘Fraid this is arguing by anecdote and appeal to authority, but I’m pretty sure I recall reading research results that showed that the percentage of people favoring gay marriage/civil unions increased a very large amount if those people actually knew and regularly interacted with someone who was gay.’
Which is probably how this whole thing will eventually end. As more and more people interact with gays and come to sympathize and empathize with thier struggles I think that you will see opposition begin to fade. Hopefully the media will focus on better spokeman than they have thus far–Ellen Degenerous will do a lot more good than Rosie O’Donnell.
Of course, having gay-friendly folks on the sidelines screaming “You’re all stupid bigots!” will probably set back the cause a bit but what can you do? The urge to feel superior is greater than the desire to get things accomplished, at least for some.
Luigi Novi: Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with children. Gays want to get married because they
Eric! BZZZZTTTTTTTTT!!!!
Wrong answer!
It’s not the government’s job to promote couples that MIGHT produce children. Besides, what about all the children that grow up to be criminals, how much money does the government spend on them, between police forces, prosecutors and prisons!
The government has; and I’ll put this in terms simple enough for people like you and Iowa Jim can understand; NO FÙÇKÍNG BUSINESS telling anyone “You can’t get married becuase you can’t/might not produce children!” It’s not the government’s job or their RIGHT. Pursuit of happiness, in’s in the Declaration, and gays aren’t hurting anyone. Excpet maybe those catholic priests of your who love to fûçk little boys….
Sorry Craig, I assumed you meant Kerry should have won instead of Bush.
Kerry should have won. He’s not a great candidate by any means, but he’s better than Bush.
Please, I’m from Iowa, and there are a whole lot of people here that don’t think like Jim
I grew up in Iowa and Illinois and, from experience, I can say there are just as many people in Iowa that think like Jim too.
Maybe it was because I lived too close to Missouri; I dunno. But I saw plenty of ring-wing philosophies and all that fun stuff.
Bill Milligan wrote:
> David,
>
> Obviously I don’t “Know” any of this. I have
> no gift for prophesy. Neither do any of the
> people who are insisting that all kinds of
> bad things will happen during the next 4
> years. I suppose I could post a message to
> each and every one of them saying “You
> can’t know that.” but it would look pretty silly.
[ shrugs ] If you think I singled you out, it wasn’t deliberate. I don’t read all of the comments directed to what Mr. David writes, and it happened that yours caught my eye and moved me to comment in turn.
> You neglected to reprint the part about
> revisting all this in 4 years and seeing who’s
> right, thus indicating that I certainly am not
> “sure” about it. But whatever.
In context it appeared to be a reinforcement of the certainty of your main point rather than a statement of uncertainty. If I misinterpreted, my bad.
>>> I can’t promise that they won’t be in jail for
>>> there offenses. Some of y’all have
>>> potential for all kinds of stuff.
> See, that’s what we call a joke.
>> How lovely. When you can’t argue fairly,
>> libel those who disagree with you.”
> See, that’s what we call clueless.
No, that what we call tone not coming through in print.
Libelling one’s opponent unfortunately is such a common tactic in these sorts of discussions that I’ve grown quite tired of it. If I mistook a joke (or “joke”) for this common tactic, again, my bad.
> PAD says — “…you don’t get it….. My
> grandfather saw the rising tide of hatred. Of
> discrimination. Of religious fanaticism. All
> this when he was in Berlin, and when he
> packed up my father and grandmother and
> got the hëll out, all the neighbors told him he
> was nuts. That things would become better.
> That he was overreacting.”
And then he wrote:
>>>> And all the neighbors died.
> I DO get it. I just disagree that the same
> thing is happening here. Isn’t it possible for
> someone to actually “get” what’s happening
> and just not come to the same conclusions
> you do…
Yes.
> …or do you really believe that the truth is so
> obvious that any rational thinking person
> MUST come to believe as you do?
No.
“After all, in the first months of the Clinton administration, the GOP shoved gays in the military straight into the limelight where it hadn’t been before, instantly putting Clinton on the defensive and causing him no end of headaches and wasting of political capital. It is really remarkably hypocritical that the GOP starts shrieking when Kerry mentions (in a positive manner, mind you) Cheney’s daughter, when they have not hesitated to throw the hand grenade of (gasp!) equal rights for gays into the fray at key moments in history. It’s pretty repulsive when you think about it: This malicious, manipulative, cynical using of ten percent of the American population as boogey man and scare tactic, all in order to gain political points and offices.”
“PAD, give me a break! Clinton is the one who instituted the don’t ask, don’t tell policy. Officials in 3 states tried to enact gay marriages in the last year. The conservatives did NOT bring up a non issue.”
Bûllšhìŧ.
It’s a favorite ongoing conservative tactic, and if you don’t think the flood of anti-gay marriage initiatives was a carefully orchestrated maneuver on the part of the GOP to put that front-and-center in the 2004 campaign, then you are, quite simply, wrong.
After all, your dismissal of my comment about the GOP and Clinton proves your wrongheadedness. Clinton instituted “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” but it was a far cry from what he wanted to do, and he was forced into it by the GOP instead of simply lifting the ban on gays in the military (this would be the same military that predicted the end of discipline years ago when the ban was lifted on blacks). Let’s check out Clinton’s autobiography, shall we, in which he writes:
“The Joint Chief’s early request for a meeting created a problem. I was more than willing to hear them out, but I didn’t want the issue to get any more publicity than it already was receiving, not because I was trying to hide my position, but because I didn’t want the public to think I was paying more attention to it than to the economy. That’s exactly what the congressional Republicans wanted the American people to think. Senator Dole was already talking about passing a resolution removing my authority to lift the ban; he clearly wnated this to be the defining issue of my first weeks in office.”
And after he finally settled on the compromise position of the utterly unworkable “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” he goes on to write:
“In the short run, I got the worst of both worlds–I lost the fight, and the gay community was highly critical of me for the compromise, simply refusing to acknowledge the consequences of having so little support in Congress, and giving me little credit for lifting another ban on gays, the ban against serving in critical national security positions, or for the substantial number of gays and lesbians who were working throughout the administration. By contrast, Senator Dole won big. By raising the issue early, and repeatedly, he guaranteed it so much publicity that it appeared I was working on little else, which caused a lot of Americans who had elected me to fix the economy to wonder what on earth I was doing and whether they’d made a mistake.”
Gee, I wonder whose recollection I should trust. Some guy named Jim in Iowa, whose arguments make no sense and are laced in bias? Or the guy who was there? Tough call.
Jim, the GOP played Americans like a two dollar banjo. They plaed on fear. That’s what they do. They played on fear of terrorists. They played on fear of gays, which is a flat out, in your face insult to one out of ten people in this country. This wasn’t an election. It was an eighteen month episode of “Fear Factor.”
PAD
Jim in Iowa: Um, Luigi, did you not discern that my comments were sarcastic and not meant with any seriousness?
Luigi Novi: No. Sorry about that.
Jim in Iowa: I did look it up. I did not say it has never occured, but that it was very rare.
Luigi Novi: You did not say that. Stop backpedaling.
Jim in Iowa: Your examples only prove my point. And some of your examples are by no means accepted by all historians.
Luigi Novi: You said that there has been an almost instinctive rejection of gay unions and gay marriages throughout history. This is untrue, and I provided evidence for it.
Jim in Iowa: There are gay writers who also have an agenda (as the one site I found yesterday that suggested Abraham Lincoln was gay).
Luigi Novi: I
“PAD. I thought I caught a little negative energy from you on folks with Midwest values. Please, I’m from Iowa, and there are a whole lot of people here that don’t think like Jim (meaning, there are those that on the far, far right).”
Well, I was just quoting Lewis Black, and the joke is based on the solid red of that area and the overwhelming support for banning gay marriage. But don’t worry, I know plenty of people in the midwest who are…how best to put it…not áššhølëš. As I said earlier, religion and faith can also bring out the best in people. Sadly, the GOP aggressively makes it a point to appeal to the worst.
“But, let’s face it, I was an educated voter and I still couldn’t come up with a lot of reasons to vote for Kerry besides, “he’s not Bush.” That was enough for a lot of people, but ultimately was the reason why he didn’t win. He had to sell himself and never did.”
He needed to do two things. First, he needed to hit hard on the notion that we should never have invaded Iraq. The moment he said that, if he knew then what he knew now, he still would have voted the same way, I knew he was sunk. I mean, I knew what he MEANT. He meant that he still would have supported the notion of not curtailing the authority of a sitting President in terms of dealing with the global community. But that was far too nuanced a position for Hank Hill or whomever to wrap themselves around. Instead, on the surface, it meant he took the exact same position as Bush and felt the war wasn’t a mistake, and since the majority of Americans don’t look below the surface, that made him indistinguishable from Bush. And if it’s the Bush they know versus the Bush they don’t, they’ll stick with the former.
His second mistake was failing, in the debates, to hit home the fact that Bush spent nine months ignoring the call to create a Department of Homeland Security until it was too late, and then flip-flopped and created it after 3000 people already died. And now eleven hundred more have died in an initiative to find WMDs that weren’t there. And that Bush, who stated in 2000 that we shouldn’t be nation bulding, has sent eleven hundred young Americans to their deaths in yet another flipflip. You know how Boston Red Sox fans seized the “Who’s your daddy?” chant and turned it into their own rallying cry? That’s what Kerry should have done. “How many more people must die from the President’s flipflops” is what he should have said, and “How many more people must die?” should have been the clarion call of the last six months of his campaign. A mantra of “I never should have supported Bush, and you shouldn’t either” and “How many more people must die?” might well have managed to trump the gay marriage non-issue.
But he didn’t.
The way he presented himself during the debates–his steadfastness, his presence, his consistency–as opposed to Bush’s smirking, grimacing, painful performance and his subsequent horrifically transparent endeavors to rebuild himself, left no doubt who was more presidential. But because he didn’t go all the way in presenting himself as the anti-Bush, it wasn’t enough to stir the support he needed.
PAD
The government has; and I’ll put this in terms simple enough for people like you and Iowa Jim can understand; NO FÙÇKÍNG BUSINESS telling anyone “You can’t get married becuase you can’t/might not produce children!” It’s not the government’s job or their RIGHT. Pursuit of happiness, in’s in the Declaration, and gays aren’t hurting anyone.
Wow, talking about going out of your way to miss a point. So the Gov’t gives breaks to married couples to make them happy?? C’mon, the Gov’t makes an investment via breaks to married couples for the possibility to produce more taxpayers down the road. Gay couples can have commitment celebrations, and all the power of attorney etc. to mirror a heterosexual couple, just don’t expect the breaks that are offered for the couple that can produce children naturally. As far as the criminal argument, some investments payoff, some don’t, but the overwhelming majority DO. A Gay couple can’t, physically, not possible naturally. You have to see that difference in the realtionship which is were the gov’t interest differs in how it treats that relationship. You do know there is a difference in a man and woman physically, right?
Eric!:
>Wow, talking about going out of your way to miss a point. So the Gov’t gives breaks to married couples to make them happy?? C’mon, the Gov’t makes an investment via breaks to married couples for the possibility to produce more taxpayers down the road. Gay couples can have commitment celebrations, and all the power of attorney etc. to mirror a heterosexual couple, just don’t expect the breaks that are offered for the couple that can produce children naturally. As far as the criminal argument, some investments payoff, some don’t, but the overwhelming majority DO. A Gay couple can’t, physically, not possible naturally. You have to see that difference in the realtionship which is were the gov’t interest differs in how it treats that relationship. You do know there is a difference in a man and woman physically, right?
You do know that the fact that many gay couples utilize a surrogate and artificial insemination to produce offspring renders your argument moot, right?