It is amusing that some people fulminate about so-called activist judges, and yet when judges in California legalize gay marriage by a strict reading of the Constitution, conservatives rush to get a referendum on the ballot for November that would restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
Food for thought: a mere forty one years ago, the marriage of Senator Obama’s parents would not have been recognized in sixteen states, because there were strict laws against a mixed race marriage…until some gosh-darned activist judges ruled that law unconstitutional.
When are those who are busy minding other peoples’ business going to tumble to the fact that any two people who wish to marry are the same race–the human race–whether they have different skin or like gender? There cannot be different grades of equality. Marriage, which once was something strictly arranged by parents, typically for financial gain, is in a constantly state of change and gay marriage is simply the next logical step in its evolution…presuming that critics of gay marriage believe in evolution.
PAD
• 
This is a start… now if only we can eliminate the 2 person limit. A 3 or 4 person marriage should be just as valid, and acceptable, assuming noone was placed in the relationship under duress or in an abusive position.
I also agree with eliminating “Marriage” from government vocaulary. The government should only be in the business of recognizing civil unions. Let marriage remain a religious institution (of whatever creed, or belief).
No, it’s not the same argument, because the principle of allowing marriage to the gender of one’s preference is not interchangeable with the principle of handicapping the formation of an identity independent from the persons or people who at one point were trusted to be all things to you as a newborn.
Consent to incest is consent to remove the healthy barriers to access to someone you at one point didn’t have the option to say no to, for at least one of the partners. Unlike incest, gay marriage is no more predatory than straight marriage.
Hmm, gay couples who have been together for 10, 20, 30 years are going to ruin marriage? What about those brief nuptials that Hollywood folks are always in the tabloids for? That does not hurt the sanctity of marriage, to have a half-dozen marriages before one hits 40?
“Conservatives will wave the banner of, “Oh my God, this could lead to siblings marrying!” ”
Bill Maher had the best answer to this by pointing out that when we gave the right to vote to women and later on passed civil rights laws for black folks and other minorities it didn’t lead to hamsters getting the right to vote or equal rights for your goldfish. Sometimes the slippery slope really isn’t all that slippery.
This is a start… now if only we can eliminate the 2 person limit. A 3 or 4 person marriage should be just as valid, and acceptable, assuming noone was placed in the relationship under duress or in an abusive position.
Why is 3 or 4 valid but, presumably, not 5 or 12?
Why is 3 or 4 valid but, presumably, not 5 or 12?
Good point. But really, there is no reason to limit the numbers, except based on some arbitrary moral or religious grounds.
The government should only be in the business of recognizing civil unions. Let marriage remain a religious institution (of whatever creed, or belief).
As somebody who has no use for religious institution, why should I be the one to stop calling my marriage a marriage in favor of another term?
It frustrates me just as much that so many do not want to allow gays to marry as those who talk as if the concept of marriage wouldn’t exist without religion. Which isn’t the case at all.
State government refers to it as marriage, and that’s the only legal definition that matters. So let the religious groups call it something else.
If gay marriage will break up my marriage then I’m all for it!
Kidding, honey…
What you want a racist, bigoted, idiot who hasn’t read more than 100 words in the bible he’s thumping, as proof that he is right, to make sense? The party of Lincoln is dead, it has been taken over by bible thumping racists who fear anything that is an original thought or brings about change. If they had their way, Obama’s parents still wouldn’t be able to marry. Just today, Rush was showing his KKK roots in a rant about the poor flood victims of NOLA vs this week Iowans, today.
These people hate everyone and everything that does not look like them or agree with them. Yes we have come a long way, the majority of us at least, but these people would still be living in caves if someone else hadn’t figured out how to pile two sticks together and make a shelter.
John McCain is a bible-thumping racist? Okay, thanks for calling.
For the record, there’s only one member of Congress who was actually a member of the KKK. (And even held a dragon-high-poobah-whatever post in charge of recruiting new members.) Anyone care to guess?
As for “activist judges”–people are right when they say that the term is confused/misused. It means a judge who invents rulings based on his own personal view of what the law should be, rather than what the law actually is. Judges who aren’t activist simply interpret the law, even if they disagree with it or with the result.
Here, the court was simply interpreting the California constitution–and people are correct in that it was a pretty straightforward reading of its equal protection section.
“I hope George Takei and Brad are willing to be a public face for this–yeah, it stinks that they can’t just be a private couple like everyone else but I think it would really make it harder for people to vote for an amendment against them. Who can hate George Takei?”
In all honesty: I was kind of against gay marriage (not gays being allowed to be together, but “marriage”) until i heard George and Brad were going to get married. Once I heard that announced, I said “Oh whatever…I dont care. If George wants to get married, thats great!”
I’m not gay, but I’ve grown to love that man so much from hearing him on Howard Stern I can deny him nothing! 😀
Yeah, even Artie has come around. While not everyone is lucky enough to get to know george Takei, it’s illustrative of why, eventually, this will all blow over. Most people will, at some point, become friendly with some gay people and find it hard to wish them anything less than the best.
I’m gay myself, so I probably shouldn’t cast stones, but I’m very suspicious of polygamy. Not really on “moral” grounds (I can’t morally object to any consensual activity), but practical ones.
First, most examples of it come from countries that are very male-dominated and oppressive to women. Polygamy is linked to images of the male as the king and center of such marriages, surrounded by women that are “less” than he is.
As unplesant as that may be, this sort of polygamy maybe is the more functional one.
Polygamy in Western society, composed of free-thinking, equal partners would simply not be stable. While I gay marriage is vindicated by the commonality of stable, well-adjusted gay couples, the few thresomes I’ve seen or read about were totally messy.
Humans beings are just too possessive, competitive, and jealous. The more people you get into the relationship, the worse it gets. Also, people need their privacy. Sharing your soul and life with one partner, great. Can you really share it with two or three other people without losing yourself?
I just don’t think polygamy is practical in societies where male and female are equal.
>John McCain is a bible-thumping racist? Okay, thanks for calling.
No he just actively seeks and takes endorsements from deranged bible thumping pastors. He also attends and takes money from fund raisers put on by men who say women who are being raped should just sit back and enjoy it. And for a man who touts his family values and moral standards, running around on and dumping your first wife because an accident stripped her of her beauty… He’s a pig.
You are judged by those you run with, he’s chosen to embrace the bible thumping racists, misogynist pigs and be a man of highly questionable moral behavior.
>For the record, there’s only one member of Congress who was actually a member of the KKK.
Did I say someone in congress? No I said Rush Lumbaugh. Quit putting words in my mouth.
“Knowing that the previous referendum had passed, but was now considered unconstitutional, and knowing that an amendment – with the same wording as the previous law – was being put on the ballot, a stay would have made the most sense to determine the final disposition of the issue.”
No. Ignoring the current law and depriving people of civil rights because someday the law might be changed — that would’ve made them activist judges. This isn’t a case like a decision by a lower-level court, where there could still be a question of existing law for the superior court. The law as is, and as is to be enforced, is that gays have the right to marry. Allowing them to marry will not prevent the new law from taking hold if passed. And as for complicating the lives of those who get married now, it can be reasonably assumed that the vast majority of same-sex couples marrying these days know that the proposition vote is coming, and are marrying now despite that knowledge. They have the option of waiting until after the vote to get married, but are choosing not to wait. As such, it’s hard to show that there is substantial damage that needs to be avoided through such a stay.
Polygamy in Western society, composed of free-thinking, equal partners would simply not be stable. While I gay marriage is vindicated by the commonality of stable, well-adjusted gay couples, the few thresomes I’ve seen or read about were totally messy.
Humans beings are just too possessive, competitive, and jealous. The more people you get into the relationship, the worse it gets. Also, people need their privacy. Sharing your soul and life with one partner, great. Can you really share it with two or three other people without losing yourself?
It’s working out well so far, after four years (two straight men, one woman). The only other such relationship I know personally (three women, one man), I didn’t ask how long it’s been going on, but I do know that two wives invited the third one in. Seems pretty stable, from what I can see.
I’m not pushing for us to be able to legally solemnize our entire relationship – yet – but one hopes that one day the only thing that will count is whether all involved parties are legally able to sign a contract.
Brian: “He also attends and takes money from fund raisers put on by men who say women who are being raped should just sit back and enjoy it. ”
No, that is not true. McCain did not attend that fund raiser, he cancled it. The money had been raised by the offensive man (man, singular, not men) you are refering to, but the man did not donate it, so McCain took no money from him. The money that McCain took came from people who made their donations through that offensive man, but those people did nothing wrong themselves.
McCain did not attend that fund raiser, he cancled it.
Well, that’s just a lie; he postponed it. His campaign has said as much. They also claimed they didn’t know about Clayton Williams’ remarks before arranging the fundraiser. When contacted, the campaign questioned why the story was newsworthy (WaPo.) So his campaign is being run by people who can’t figure out how to use Google… but his administration is going to solve all our problems? Sure hope those two groups don’t overlap… but what are the odds?
Either way, neither Clayton Williams nor Rush Limbaugh have “taken over” the Republican Party. At best, you can argue that the neocons have taken over the party, but those folks are almost purely ideological and aren’t “Bible-thumpers” at all.
Besides, as I mentioned before, the Defense of Marriage Act was supported by a whole array of Democrats, who themselves weren’t “Bible-thumpers” either–just political cowards for not standing up against something that they knew was wrong.
It’s interesting that the very first comment on the talk-back involved evolution. A relatively new approach to sociological function takes place, and though the majority of a society may not be direct participants in it, society as a whole could be seen as investigating all different angles of it.
Some people possess the ability to celebrate what potential benefits and joys that can come from gay marriage and the pain it can alleviate in otherwise solitary and unrecognized (legally) relationships.
Others have faith in what’s been accepted as normal and aren’t eager to mess with the multiple benefits (and legal power) of traditional marriage. On some level they may believe that there are more reasons (divine or otherwise) that it has been in place than the obvious and easily debate-able ones.
On one side you can see the benefits, on the other – the potential losses. If you’re an uncertain person on a particular issue, you can simply look towards society’s varied reactions to better articulate your own hopes and fears about it.
Maybe we share a collective mind and humanity in general is just ‘thinking it over’ right now.
By the by (responding to some of the above talk back) – incestuous relationships have been mainstream in the past (at least in certain royal circles looking to maintain ‘purity’) and YES, the reason they were discontinued involved (at least partially) the release of recessive genetic traits in offspring that caused significant physical and mental disorders. Basic genetic dating tip: mate far from your current gene pool. Avoids the recessive gene expression problem. To say nothing of the ‘Cletus the slack-jawed yokel’ jokes. I bet they get old fast.
Just taking a swing from the other side of the fence, since everyone here is basically saying the same thing (with perpetual validity, by the way), and anything I could say on the subject has already been said. Just call this a Position Paper.
Fair warning: we’ll be discussing God here: arguments of whether God exists, whether any of the Scriptures are inspired, etc., are all valid points of discussion. The current discussion isn’t meant to presume that these things are true — just that many people believe that they’re true, and with as many good reasons as others think that they’re not.
I think it’s important for gay-rights rulings, not necessarily to make the government an active proponent, but to remove the governmental interference in these areas. It’s also important to recognize that, as much as we tend to anthropomorphize the government, it’s an institution incapable of an actual agenda. It’s simply people who like to use their power to adjust the world closer to their own viewpoints, which has both positive and negative connotations.
That being said, there are a few people out there who aren’t actively indignant or afraid of gay marriage — these ain’t the crackpots — but who still cannot reconcile it with their religious beliefs — because they see their religion, not as yet another social institution, but as a desire to fulfill, what they perceive, as their obligations to their Creator.
There are many people here who would argue otherwise, that religion is also just a man-made institution, and that’s a completely defensible argument (but not conclusive — I’m still waiting for an authoritative opinion on that one).
(It’s also contradictory to see many people actively involved in their respective religions who hold this belief, as it seems a binary question: Is there a God who provided a trustworthy, inspired Bible/Torah/Qur’an for our instruction, or not? It’s not something that can be modified by degree; if you personally don’t see it as entirely inspired and divine, if it’s entirely subjective, can you even meaningfully call it “worship” or a “religion”? But I digress…)
So, whether or not you personally agree with it, or validate it, it is inarguable what pretty much all the Scriptures (Hebrew, Greek, Muslim) say on the subject, and more than once — God created Marriage, and doesn’t approve of the practice of Homosexuality (not much subtext provided on why, which would be helpful, but ultimately irrelevant).
It doesn’t mean that gays aren’t good people. It doesn’t mean that they can’t have good relationships. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be good parents. It just means that, per the Books, God isn’t giving the practice the thumbs-up, and many people feel obliged to endorse that, feeling God has his reasons, even without any individual rancor of their own. (Those with that rancor just need to mellow out.)
Frankly, there are only three groups I find personally offensive in this situation. The first is people in government who use their power as a justification to promote their anti-gay agenda. Whether valid or not, the government is meant to champion the rights of its entire people to live their lives without the obstruction of tyranny.
The second group is any religious leader who uses these rulings as a platform for pro-gay activism. A religious leader is supposed to be an Ambassador for God; if he doesn’t agree with the Scriptures, that’s 100% his right — he just doesn’t get to use his position as God’s spokesman to say why God is wrong (or, as mentioned above, why he doesn’t believe in all the things he’s been teaching). You don’t believe it, you’re in the wrong job.
The third group is those who would use these rulings as a way to enforce church-mandated marriages. As discussed, many people earnestly believe that it’s more important to follow God than to fall in step with a social agenda, and they won’t compromise that. If we’re supposed to allow people to live their lives, then again, that mandate has to be given to everyone, gays and the people who disagree with them. (SOUTH PARK did a Big Gay Al/Boy Scouts story on just this point). Gays should rightly expect their unions to be recognized by our civil institutions. They have no business expecting them to be recognized by the religious ones.
It’s pretty much inarguable that the religious right has no business mandating the lifestyles of other people. It’s just as inarguable, but less in vogue, to acknowledge that the left has the same obligations. Whether or not either side’s viewpoints are correct is a subject that we can, and should, continually discuss. Public debate is a great thing.
But if we are starting that discussion now, let me throw an opening shot across the bow — we see a lot of the “angry God” syndrome in the Hebrew Scriptures (although “Revelations” ain’t that cheery a book, either), and we use our liberalism as a counterpoint to talk about how advanced a society we are. But considering the problems facing our society (caused by both the left and the right), should we be taking it as axiomatic that our society is actually better than it was thirty years ago (much less three thousand)?
Peter I think that was the most eloquent, informed and reasoned argument for gay marriage that I have ever read. With your permission I will liberally quote it at every available opportunity.
Rick – “Mind your own business.”
Does this include the case of some dirty old man wanting to marry an underage girl? See, that’s the problem with opening doors, however justified it may be. It then gives others an excuse to try to kick it open even wider. And if you say [rightly] “yes, we should do something in such cases” then you have an exception to PAD’s comment of citizens are citizens … etc. And once one exception is made, it becomes easier to justify another. Weak argument? Sure. But I’ve all-too-often seen people take things to as ridiculous an extreme as they can get away with (note some ludicrous litigations) and figure one really needs to think things through VERY carefully before going down certain paths. Legal precedents are very powerful things. Especially when used for social engineering purposes.
As for the case of incest, how about allowing it, but only if one side or the other (or both) undergo some form of sterilization? This would do away with the valid medical objections. Do I think it’s a good idea? Not really. But I can see why some might. Should we allow it, then?
I notice a LOT of the silly “Well if you allow gay marriage, waht about polygamy, incest, old men/young women?” garbage and I respond by turning your own argument aroung on you:
Well, many terrorists are religious, so we need to ban religions because it can lead to dangerous things.
Actually, if you want to check out some Biblical arguments in FAVOR of gay marriage, check out wouldjesusdiscriminate.com.
Starwolf,
You’ll note I used the phrase “or any other ludicrous objection” when addressing those marriages these busybodies oppose, and telling them to mind their own business about gay marriage, inter-racial marriage, etc.
There is nothing ludicrous about objecting to a marriage between an adult and a child. That’s not the same thing as two adults of the same sex or different races or different religions or whatever other categories have kept them apart at one time or other in history. And no rational person would actually conclude that objecting to a union between adult and child would result in an exception to PAD’s comments.
You acknowledge that your example is a weak argument, so maybe you’re playing devil’s advocate, and don’t really believe that crap, but just because some idiot might bring up such scenarios doesn’t mean we should use them as a rationale for not allowing gay marriage (or any marriage between adults). And like PAD said about siblings wanting to marry, it’s unlikely that there would be hue and cry to allow allow an adult to marry someone under age.
The argument is asinine.
Rick
A hundred years ago, the same could have been said on interracial or homosexual marriage. What’s asinine today, could be commonplace tomorrow.
“Ed,
That’s crap. Gays marrying in CA will do nothing to my marriage in MO to which I will be celebrating year 10 with my wife in less then 2 weeks. This kind of talk is crap and if you replace gay with interracial then you’d be talking the same crap they did 45 years ago .. “but what about the children” doesn’t cut it. The child of a black man and a white woman is close to being President, so what would those who spoke against interracial marriage say today??”
Blacks are allowed to marry whites now, OMG!!
I just gotta stop trying to be sarcastic.
Does this include the case of some dirty old man wanting to marry an underage girl? See, that’s the problem with opening doors, however justified it may be. It then gives others an excuse to try to kick it open even wider. And if you say [rightly] “yes, we should do something in such cases” then you have an exception to PAD’s comment of citizens are citizens
No, you don’t.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t advocate throwing laws out the window. It simply guarantees equal protection under the existing ones.
First and foremost, a marriage is a contract between adults. Typically, contracts cannot be entered into by anyone under the age of eighteen, at least not without parental consent. And in those instances, really, the contract is being made with the parent on the minor’s behalf.
So to assert that gay marriage somehow opens the floodgates to old men marrying underage girls (or boys for that matter) displays a fundamental ignorance of contract law. That’s a whole ‘nother issue: Whether the age of consent should be lowered. I don’t support that idea, nor do I see anyone advocating it. It’s certainly irrelevant to the question at hand.
PAD
To be able to publicly declare your love and commitment for another person, in front of family, friends, God and yes, even the state you live in, was such a wonderful moment in my life.
My late wife Lynda and I would have celebrated our 10th wedding anniversary in April. The fact that 2 people aren’t allowed to share that same moment because of a state law just makes me sad.
with both of us being physically disabled, I did wonder what it would have been like if Minnesota, or any other state, had a law stating 2 people in wheelchairs could not marry. It wouldn’t have changed our feelings or commitment to each other, but to be able declare our love in front of everyone that mattered in our lives made it special.
Okay, I’ve said my 2 cents worth. I do want finish by saying that Minnesota is actually the best state to live if you are physically disabled. It leads the nation in social programs, education, transportation, and I think in employment.
Thanks.
In the US, government executives swear to uphold the constitution.
…the two are not mutually exclusive.
So it’s an identity issue. That sounds plausible, and honoring Christian pretense is no crazier than honoring Middle-Eastern identity by abstaining from arbitrarily invading their socially-oppressive oil-rich territories.
Gay marriage extends the constitutional privileges or marriage with an equal, constitutionally-valid application. But no church is being coerced into performing gay marriages. The protest against gay marriage on religious principle seems to qualify as sniveling.
…privileges of marriage…
“A religious leader is supposed to be an Ambassador for God; if he doesn’t agree with the Scriptures, that’s 100% his right — he just doesn’t get to use his position as God’s spokesman to say why God is wrong (or, as mentioned above, why he doesn’t believe in all the things he’s been teaching). You don’t believe it, you’re in the wrong job.”
That is presuming that a literal, non-interpretive reading of scripture of a religion dictate the religion – which is certainly one way to approach religion, but not the only legitimate way. If you believe the scriptures, the Jews predate the Old Testament (obviously, as it tells the story of the Jews). Similarity, Christianity predates the writing of the New Testament (obviously, as the writings are attributed to folks who were followers of Jesus.)
A religion is defined by the beliefs of its members; it is defined by its scripture only to the extent that the members’ belief embrace the scripture.
James Blight –
You are correct in saying that no one (left or right, religious or secular) has the right to mandate other people’s lifestyles.
But in my experience, the social conservatives and the leftist humanist liberals can’t really be compared in their methods and goals.
Usually, social liberals fight for expansions to freedom in regarding to lifestyles. We want the right to marry our partners (no matter if they’re the same gender), we want the right to change sex, or the right to have as many sexual partners as we like. But we NEVER campaign for such things to be mandatory and interfering with conservatives’ lifestyles. If my conservative neighbour wants a heterosexual, monogamous, sex-after-marriage-only life for himself, more power to him!
Compare that to the religious conservatives agenda. They fight for restrictions, not expansions. They want EVERYONE to live like they do. In my ideal world, not everyone would be gay. But in their ideal world, everyone would be straight.
In this cultural “war”, our side just wants to be left alone.
Jonathan – I stand corrected.
“While I gay marriage is vindicated by the commonality of stable, well-adjusted gay couples, the few thresomes I’ve seen or read about were totally messy.”
Wow… I’ve seen that same argument used against gay marriages..
Kinda makes you think, huh?
Does this include the case of some dirty old man wanting to marry an underage girl?
No — legally the underage girl cannot give consent. Nor does it include someone wanting to marry a sheep, for the same reason.
Now, you make it a 62-year-old and a 19-year-old, yes. I personally think very few relationships of that nature would work, but that’s their mistake to make.
(Full disclosure: my dad was going out with an 18-year-old when he was in his mid-40s, and is currently dating someone who’s 40 when he’s in his mid-60s. The former pairing never seemed right to me, and this one seems like it might be working … but in either case I don’t think the law has any reason to step in.)
TWL
Jerry – I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, and when Jonathan said he was in a multi-partner relationship that actually worked (and knew of one other that also worked), I said I stood corrected.
John McCain seems to me like a moderate in social issues. But as any other politician, he’ll never refuse the support of a group that is influential and powerful.
But he seems as uneasy with the Religious Right as the Religious Right is uneasy with him. Very different from George W. Bush, that seemed to be utterly at home in such company.
All we seem to be achieving here is to once again show that this is one of those topics on which it’s almost (note cop-out terminology) impossible to have a rational discussion and arrive at any kind of concensus.
More or less any expression of opinion, however moderate, seems to immediately draw sniper fire from the extreme elements of the opposition view.
By stating the bleeding obvious, I now await bullets from both sides…
Cheers.
The reason people bring up bëšŧìálìŧÿ and incest in discussions about homosexuality is because the majority of people find these practices disgusting and disturbed on a gut level, the way many viewed homosexuality until recently.
However, the very narrow liberal principal governing sexual interaction — consent and adulthood — has nothing to do with how one feels about a sexual practice esthetically, or religiously. It is based on the basic humanistic idea that if there is no coercion that each adult person should decide for himself what they find appealing, and that rules exist mostly to protect people, not decide for them. Bëšŧìálìŧÿ and child pornography are not rejected because they are disgusting to someone’s eyes but because of the issue of consent. Polygamy is likewise tolerated if it involves consenting adults, even if one may object to the patriarchal basis of many polygamous relationships of feminist ground. It is rejected if there is fraud (a person who has two families unknown to each other).
It is true that there is one loophole in the consent/adult rule that forces us to tolerate incest if they are consenting adults — although in most cases there is a good reason to assume that incest does involve some form of coercion. But this one loophole does not justify rejecting the rule.
It also seems that the obsession with rejecting homosexuality has more to do with some gut attitude than religion. Other religious violations don’t seem to draw that much attention.
——————
“Usually, social liberals fight for expansions to freedom in regarding to lifestyles. We want the right to marry our partners (no matter if they’re the same gender), we want the right to change sex, or the right to have as many sexual partners as we like. But we NEVER campaign for such things to be mandatory and interfering with conservatives’ lifestyles. If my conservative neighbour wants a heterosexual, monogamous, sex-after-marriage-only life for himself, more power to him!”
Opponents of homosexuality perceive the legitimization of homosexuality as an attack against their belief system (that rejects homosexuality). They are aware that societies and religious institutions change. If something that has been rejected by society like homosexuality becomes accepted than it means the society, and its attitudes about religion will change as well.
They also believe that homosexuality is a social phenomena, a fashion, that can become more common the more accepted it is — like rock music or hip hop or low cut pants.
It is also true that there is a strain in the left that goes beyond a live and let live kind of attitude and seeks to better society by changing its norms.
————————
Islam, Christianity and Judaism all reject homosexuality in their orthodox forms. This puts an extreme burden on homosexuals who are religious, but is irrelevant in societies that separate church and state or at least recognize pluralism.
It is also true that religions change over time and adapt. Some members more reluctantly than others. Fundamentalism reacts against such changes.
—————————-
“Peter, do you see this issue as just a personal preference that can change depending on what the popular view is or who is in charge? or do you believe that society has a moral obligation to accept homosexual marriage? The difference being in choice 1 society can change its standards at any time and no one society is any better or worse than any other, in which case a society that rejects gay marriage is neither better or worse than one that does not, they are just different. Whereas in choice 2 there is a moral code outside of society that one would use to measure the “rightness” or “wrongness” of a society, in which case some societies would be more “right” or “wrong” than others,in which a society that accepts gay marriage is more “right” than one that does not. What do you think, societal preference or obligation?”
The dichotomy is false. The moral code that compels people to tolerate homosexuality regardless of how they feel about it is not external. It is not external to your society because it is derived from long standing traditions of privacy and autonomy in western society. And it is not external to humanity as a whole because it is justified on humanistic grounds.
——————–
This thread bothers me, as it presupposes that any person who’s opinion differs from the majority of posters in this thread doesn’t have a “valid” opinion.
I’ve never has a problem with a man and a woman from different races getting together (after all, they are a man and a woman and we are all humans) – nor do I have a problem with people of the same sex living together – it’s their choice. However, I do have a problem with the media and celebrities whose work I’ve enjoyed shoving their lifestyles in my face. I keep my personal life to myself and would appreciate the same from them. My marriage wasn’t on TV for the world to see nor did everyone see me kissing my wife.
While I agree poeple should be allowed to live their lives in whatever manner makes them happy, I see no reason to be exposed to their choices.
Peter said it best when he wrote: “If yes, do you have a sibling of the opposite gender, and if so, should you then be allowed to marry him/her?” I’d have to think that any question which will likely be answered by, “Ewwww!” isn’t anything to worry about.”
Seeing a same-sex couple kissing makes me go “Ewwww”. I’m uncomfotable with it and would prefer not to have it shoved in my face whenever I turn on the news.
On another note, Peter I don’t understand your insistance that everything you feel is the absolutely only possible option for everyone in any given discussion. In the last two threads, you have been very closed minded in your responses. I have been a fan of your work for over 20 years and I have never seen you at this level of rigidity with your statements. I’m no longer enjoying your posts and my enjoyment of your other writing is becoming tainted as well. Please don’t take this as a personal attack, because it is not intended as such. It’s only that when I’m unconfortable with a creator, I become uncomfortable with their work. Therefore, I doubt I will be able to purchase Fallen Angel and your other works any longer.
This will likely be my only post, as it’s been my observation that people aren’t allowed thier own opinions here without facing personal attacts.
This issue has been bothering me since yesterday and I had to get it off of my chest.
I wish you all well.
Dave
Tim, the situation with your father and the 18-year-old probably never seemed right because the 18-year-old, while an adult, was just starting out as an adult. The 40-year-old, while at roughly the same age gap to your father, is well into adulthood, and therefore on the same “level” as him.
There’s still the same age difference between, say a 38-year-old and an 18-year-old as there is between a 58-year-old and a 38-year-old, but the gap is considerably smaller in the latter case, given that (hopefully) both partners in the latter example are mature adults.
Of course age doesn’t always equal maturity. It may well be that the 18-year-old showed more maturity back then than the 40-year-old does now, but by virtue of the 40-year-old having more life experience, that pairing with a man some 20 years older seems more likely to work.
Rick
David, if you are going to let your discomfort with the differing opinions of creators you like interfere with your enjoyment of their works, you’d be better off not going on their blogs. What are the odds of finding someone who matches you issue for issue?
One might even speculate that having a venue like this makes it less likely that a creator will feel obligated to put their politics in their stories (which I think tends to hurt the story or at least date it terribly).
Anyway, with all due respect, I wish folks would quit telling PAD to zip it or risk losing customers. It’s blackmail. It isn’t likely at all to change his opinion (more likely harden it, I’d think) and if anything it would just encourage him to ditch the site, which would certainly be a loss to us all. So…please knock it off.
“While I agree poeple should be allowed to live their lives in whatever manner makes them happy, I see no reason to be exposed to their choices.”
David, many times when I take the subway or the bus in my country, I see young (straight) couples making out, kissing with a lot of heavy petting. I feel uncomfortable with this public display of affection by strangers standing so close to me.
But so what?
Forbidding public displays of affection just because something has a ewwwww factor for me strikes me as unreasonably selfish.
“Opponents of homosexuality perceive the legitimization of homosexuality as an attack against their belief system (that rejects homosexuality). They are aware that societies and religious institutions change. If something that has been rejected by society like homosexuality becomes accepted than it means the society, and its attitudes about religion will change as well.”
Micha, this is what I was talking about.
I just want to live my life. These people want to rule the world. Saying “Your actions are an attack on my belief system” is another way of saying “The world and all aspects of it should comform to my set of beliefs”.
And isn’t that something Doctor Doom or Darkseid would say?
Dave is uncomfortable with things. That’s fine for him.
If he expects the rest of society to constantly work in ways that are uncomfortable to them so that he is not discomforted, however (and that’s an if, although I have trouble understanding his reason for posting if that’s not the case), then he is being both unreasonable and is apt to be disappointed.
The news neither can nor should avoid all things that make folks uncomfortable. If Dave has problems dealing with such discomfort, then he may wish to avoid watching the news. And if he sees no reason to be exposed to the choices that others make, then he will have to go live a hermit’s life. Being in society is a matter of being exposed to the choices of others.
Well, I wasn’t going to say anything else, but (as I predicted) this forum doesn’t allow dissenting opinions, so I guess I need to clarify my opinions.
Bill, I’ve frequented this blog for years. I’ve always enjoyed Peter’s intelligent debates on the given issues. As stated in my post, it’s only recently that I’ve found his (and many of the poster’s) rigidity and lack of an open mind to be bothersome to the point where I had to say something.
I’m not trying to blackmail Peter in any way. I’m simply sharing my feelings. I truly doubt I have any kind of power to affect any of his decisions – his stories, opinions, or the use of his website. I thank you for bestowing this power upon me, but truthfully, such power neither exists, nor is it yours to bestow. Also, my single purchase will not affect his sales. When I leave, someone else will take my place. The work (or word of mouth) will draw them to it.
Bill, your attitude of “knock it off” is just the type of one-sided atmosphere I spoke of as existing in this forum. You are a classic example of “My opinion is better than yours.” Peter may not agree with my opinion, but I believe he would not try to keep me from having such an opinion.
Rene, public displays of affection don’t really bother me in any of their forms (kissing, breast-feeding, whatever). I can always look the other way. I’m not so uptight as to be unrealistic. However, broadcasting (flaunting) uncomfortable displays on the Internet, televison, and the front page of newspapers to the point where there is nothing else to look at and still get the day’s news is both inconsiderate and insensitive.
I appreciate both of you sharing your opinions with me, but please don’t try to deny me the right to my opinion. I believe I’ve made my points (in both of my posts) clearly, intelligently, and politely. So, in the words of Bill, “knock it off.”
All we seem to be achieving here is to once again show that this is one of those topics on which it’s almost (note cop-out terminology) impossible to have a rational discussion and arrive at any kind of concensus.
I don’t know that I agree with that. I think for the most part the discussion on this thread–considering the potential volatility of the topic–has been uniformly civil on all sides.
This thread bothers me, as it presupposes that any person who’s opinion differs from the majority of posters in this thread doesn’t have a “valid” opinion.
Where does it presuppose that? Although there is much discussion about validity of the marriages themselves, I see no one stating that someone else’s opinion is not valid.
I’ve never has a problem with a man and a woman from different races getting together (after all, they are a man and a woman and we are all humans) – nor do I have a problem with people of the same sex living together – it’s their choice. However, I do have a problem with the media and celebrities whose work I’ve enjoyed shoving their lifestyles in my face. I keep my personal life to myself and would appreciate the same from them. My marriage wasn’t on TV for the world to see nor did everyone see me kissing my wife.
So you’re saying that you have trouble with, say, media coverage of a heterosexual wedding as well? That any open display of affection or celebration of love is bothersome to you? If that’s the case, then to this observer you have issues stretching far beyond those of gay marriage.
For that matter, do you think that gays are thrilled to have this as a cause celebre? I would venture to say that they would far prefer it if gays marrying was NOT news. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it? That it shouldn’t be a big deal.
While I agree poeple should be allowed to live their lives in whatever manner makes them happy, I see no reason to be exposed to their choices.
The reason is: That’s the price you pay for living in a free society.
On another note, Peter I don’t understand your insistance that everything you feel is the absolutely only possible option for everyone in any given discussion.
And yet another declaration that ignores one simple, indisputable fact: If I truly felt that way, then I wouldn’t provide a forum for open discussion. I don’t have to, you know. Comments are permitted because I allow them to be posted. I “insist” on nothing.
In the last two threads, you have been very closed minded in your responses. I have been a fan of your work for over 20 years and I have never seen you at this level of rigidity with your statements.
So you’re saying that the longer I live, the more resolved I become in my opinions about some matters. Isn’t that pretty much normal? When you’re exposed to issues and discussions of those issues for a lengthy enough period of time, shouldn’t have a century of life be a sufficient period to come to some conclusions?
You’re not the only person to accuse me of this, and I find it bewildering. On the one hand “flip-flopping” appears to be about the most lethal criticism one can level at a politician, but on the other hand, if one shows consistency of opinion, then one is displaying an inappropriate “level of rigidity?”
I’m no longer enjoying your posts and my enjoyment of your other writing is becoming tainted as well. Please don’t take this as a personal attack, because it is not intended as such. It’s only that when I’m unconfortable with a creator, I become uncomfortable with their work.
I’m not taking it as a personal attack. I’m taking it for what it is: the oldest and most recurring threat I see on this board. Either I should shut the hëll up or, even better, embrace the opinions of those in opposition to me, or else risk financial “punishment” in the form of losing a reader. At least you’re not threatening to organize a boycott, although I’ve seen that enough times as well.
You have problems with watching same sex people kiss. You have a problem with people who disagree with you. And you think I’m the one whose behavior is questionable?
Therefore, I doubt I will be able to purchase Fallen Angel and your other works any longer.
Yup. SOP for the intolerant. Interestingly they always bring up “Fallen Angel,” perhaps because they know that’s the book that’s (a) the closest to my heart and (b) the lowest selling. The intent is to try and hurt me personally because they find my opinions unacceptable.
This will likely be my only post, as it’s been my observation that people aren’t allowed thier own opinions here without facing personal attacts.
And the martyr card is played. You tell me I’m overly rigid, you announce you’re going to stop reading all my books, and NOW you’re concerned about it getting personal? So not only should gays not have equal rights to get married, and I shouldn’t have the equal right to have an opinion that is as thoroughly formed and immutable as yours, but now others should not have the right to take personal shots that you have already exercised. Got it.
PAD
Well, I wasn’t going to say anything else, but (as I predicted) this forum doesn’t allow dissenting opinions, so I guess I need to clarify my opinions.
Actually, I’d far prefer you clarify your statement that this forum “doesn’t allow for dissenting opinions.” This forum allows what I deem it appropriate to allow. The buck stops here. Since this forum is replete with people who disagree with me, and I allow them to post for the most part unmolested, your claim is demonstrably false.
Bill, I’ve frequented this blog for years. I’ve always enjoyed Peter’s intelligent debates on the given issues. As stated in my post, it’s only recently that I’ve found his (and many of the poster’s) rigidity and lack of an open mind to be bothersome to the point where I had to say something.
What “lack of an open mind?” You have presented your opinions as immutable–flat declarations of what you will and will not tolerate in societal behavior with no room for changing your tune–and the responses you’ve received have been along the lines of Nat’s “This is how he feels and that’s fine for him.” Yet you claim others are intolerant?
I’m not trying to blackmail Peter in any way.
Well, that’s good, because it didn’t work.
I’m simply sharing my feelings.
As is everyone else here. Yet you feel that you are being treated unfairly when in fact no one else is doing anything differently than you. Go figure.
Bill, your attitude of “knock it off” is just the type of one-sided atmosphere I spoke of as existing in this forum. You are a classic example of “My opinion is better than yours.” Peter may not agree with my opinion, but I believe he would not try to keep me from having such an opinion.
Yet that is exactly what you have accused me of in saying “this forum” does not tolerate opposing opinions. If you now wish to retract that statement, then feel free to do so. But then you’re admitting that you’re attempting to financially strike back at the guy who is actually being tolerant of opposing opinions. So who’s being intolerant here?
Rene, public displays of affection don’t really bother me in any of their forms (kissing, breast-feeding, whatever). I can always look the other way. I’m not so uptight as to be unrealistic. However, broadcasting (flaunting) uncomfortable displays on the Internet, televison, and the front page of newspapers to the point where there is nothing else to look at and still get the day’s news is both inconsiderate and insensitive.
Now you’re just being ridiculous. “Nothing else to look at?” Really? Nothing else? I have a subscription to Time Magazine. This week’s title story is about childhood obesity. Hold on, let me check “The Week.” Hmmm. Nothing there about gays or gay marriage. Wait, let me throw on C-SPAN. Jump to CNN. MSNBC. Headline News. Nope. No one’s talking about it. Let me jump over to Google news. Bush is advocating offshore drilling, the Mississippi is overflowing, and Tiger Woods is out for the season. How gay is that?
Honestly? I think you’re kidding yourself. I think you’re both uptight and unrealistic.
I appreciate both of you sharing your opinions with me, but please don’t try to deny me the right to my opinion. I believe I’ve made my points (in both of my posts) clearly, intelligently, and politely. So, in the words of Bill, “knock it off.”
No one. Is denying you. Your right. To an opinion. They’re saying they disagree with you. Apparently you equate the two, and that is just bizarre.
You’ve made your points, but they’re points that don’t make a lot of consistent sense since it appears that you are displaying all the negative attributes you’re so quick to ascribe to others.
PAD