It’s not like racism
CommentsIn discussing my opposition to same-sex marriage in the comments section of a previous post, GDM participant Mark Barton wrote,
We get it that it’s your sincere religious belief, and we’re sorry, but we don’t think that excuses it any more than it would excuse racism, and we don’t accept your apology. In 2009, we expect you to have had a “can that be right?” moment, and if you haven’t, or if you haven’t come to the answer “no”, then it’s personal.
Frankly, I’m sick of having my principled opposition to redefining marriage (based on both religious and secular principles) compared to racism. Anyone who does so must either be woefully uneducated about the history of prejudice and discrimination in this country, or deeply deluded as to the relative lack of pain, which is really little more than discomfort, faced by same-sex couples in America.
It’s probably both. I remember debating at ExGayWatch with several LGBT people over the notion of whether gays in America were being “treated” like Jews in fascist Europe. That ludicrous and offensive proposition was actually defended by several gay people, who seemed to hang their politics on the hook of believing they are far, far more persecuted than they are.
I don’t want to condescend to recount for the readers of this blog the horrors of racism in the last century in the United States, much less the century before that. By contrast, having to call one’s relationship a “domestic partnership” or “mutual beneficiary” instead of a marriage, even with most or all the rights is pathetically petty.
Yes, I know, in some cases screw-ups at hospitals have created tragedies for couples without a formal partnership. And there are sad situations regarding custody and inheritance, too. But it’s not like racism. Not at all. And it can be fixed without meddling with the central family institution in our society.
So stop suggesting my beliefs are akin to racism. To do so insults to very real history of persecution against African-Americans in this country and is incredibly presumptuous and arrogant. And moreso, it insults me. It suggests that I hold views akin to those I despise, and it’s way out of line. One could even say it’s personal.
DB: “Frankly, I’m sick of having my principled opposition to redefining marriage (based on both religious and secular principles) compared to racism. Anyone who does so must either be woefully uneducated about the history of prejudice and discrimination in this country, or deeply deluded as to the relative lack of pain, which is really little more than discomfort, faced by same-sex couples in America.”
Note that nobody’s making a comparison between your views on same-sex marriage to the entire history of manifestations of racism. We’re comparing your homophobia to a relatively milquetoast, “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?” flavour of racism, and your views on same-sex marriage to a relatively piddling manifestation of racism, like, why, support for anti-miscegenation laws. I’m completely uninterested in getting into a pissing contest with African-American over who suffered worse. I’m sure they did, although not by such an overwhelming margin as all that - gays do have the advantage of being able to make themselves invisible to their persecutors to some extent but Matthew Shepard type incidents were and are not uncommon. It’s just irrelevant because the point of the analogy is not that gays suffered as badly as African Americans, but that gays suffered because of animus as irrational as that against African Americans. Of course I get it that _you_ think that your views are highly principled and not at all irrational, I just don’t accept it.
Chattel slavery and hundred of year’s political and social apartheid being compared to mild social approbation.
It is more along the lines of other sexual misconduct like adultery, sadomasochism, fornication, or polygamy and bigamy.
However: this overwrought comparison actually helps those who don’t like the march of gay “rights”. Many gay activists are so ardent in this comparison that it displays the lack of reason and therefore ability to compromise to the nation at large.
Fitz: “Chattel slavery and hundred of year’s political and social apartheid being compared to mild social approbation.”
Like I was saying to David, if you _are_ going to compare degrees of suffering, you need to compare like with like. Gay people don’t have it all that bad in many places in the US today, but it was _much_ worse in the past - in the 1960s, gay sex was illegal in all states. And in any case, the comparison is not the degree of suffering, the comparison is the irrationality of those inflicting it.
David, please send me 100 copies of your book, whenever you get around to writing it, along with a bill for the total + express shipping. You have my email.
There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.
The racist filter pressed into marriage law was a feature of white supremacy, not of marriage. The core of marriage remained the same despite the unjust imposition of identity politics of the racist kind.
Like SSM argumentation, the racist filter selectively segregates the sexes under the auspices of marriage. It affronts, and deeply undermines, the contingency for responsible procreation.
That it was unjust to push racist identity politics into marriage was noted by the unanimous Loving court opinon; it would be unjust to push gay identity politics into deforming the laws governing marriage.
The SSMers are like the racists of the anti-miscegenation period in that they would use marriage for nonmarriage purposes. The core of marriage is sex-integraton and contingency for responsible procreation. The core of SSM arugmentation is gayness. Neither racism nor gayness is a feature of the conjugal relationship type. Laws that insert such features in marriage law would be a flaw of giving identity politics supremacy over marriage itself.
I don’t believe that someone’s opposition to same-sex marriage makes them like racists. I think it depends on how that person individually feels about gay men and lesbians.
For instance, a person’s sexual prejudice would be “like” racism if they believed that heterosexuals are inherently superior to gay men and lesbians. Or, a person’s hatred of gay men and lesbians would be like the way a racist person hates people of color. In these ways, being prejudiced against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is similar to, but not the same as, being prejudiced against people on the basis of their race.
But it would be a major oversimplification to argue that everyone who opposes marriage equality is like a racist.
Yet, while it can be argued that calling one’s relationship a civil union rather than a marriage is a “petty” grievance in the grand scheme of things, gay men and lesbians do have a very real history of persecution and victimization in this nation that is worse than what you suggest in your post. Mark has mentioned ongoing hate crimes against gay people. To add to that, during the Cold War, our government engaged in state-sanctioned persecution of gay men and lesbians (and those suspected or accused of being as much) in which gays were fired from their jobs. Similar to how some people view gays today, they were thought of as enemies of America with dangerous capacities to destroy an entire nation. Before the 1970s gay people could be, and were, thrown in jail for being caught at gay bars. It wasn’t until 2003 that sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. Then, of course, there is the more personal rejection and violence from our families of origin that many gay men and lesbians endure.
I know you’ve been talking only about US history, but I also think it’s worth mentioning here that in less enlightened corners of the world gays are victims of state-sanctioned violence and capital punishment.
I don’t think any act of physical or spiritual violence is petty. No matter the form, violence should not be minimized or dismissed as Not As Bad As What Others Have Experienced. To do so is not only un-compassionate, but it is dangerous. Even the smallest acts of violence are capable of perpetuating a dangerous cycle. And, it’s a cycle that we should all strive to end.
CO: “There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.”
Of course, except for all the individuals who aren’t: those with anomalous chromosomes and/or anomalous genitals or and/or reversed gender identity and/or reversed sexual attraction. I’ve asked you this before and you’ve always changed the subject so I ask again: where do _we_ fit in? Is it that you actually want to shoehorn same-sex attracted people into opposite-sex relationships and are embarrassed to say so explicitly, or is it that you’d rather we’d just slink off and die and not clutter up your oh-so-neat picture?
The nature of humankind is two-armed, even if there are people lacking an arm or two.
People who experience same-sex attraction are human beings, obviously, and members of the human race.
They are not a subspecies, clearly. Sex integration is significant to all of society, including those who are disinclined, for one reason or another, to enter a union of husband and wife.
People who self-identify as gay, based on identity politics, are also our family, our friends, our colleagues, our neighbors, and the strangers who populate our lives and form the both-sexed community of this generous and noble society.
The contingency for responsible procreation is significant to them, as it is to the rest of society, because each of us is born equal, of a man and a woman. Most, by far, of GLBT people were raised in families with both moms and dads. The marital presumption of paternity would have been as significant to them AND their married moms and dads as it would have been to the non-GLBT population raising non-GLBT people.
On the whole, marriage benefits society — including GLBT people — and so society benefits the social institution.
No one is inelgible to marry based solely on gayness or same-sex sexual attraction. No socio-political identity is set as a criteria for prohibition nor for entery into the social institution that unites the sexes and provides for responsible procreation.
On the other hand, the choice to form a nonmarital relationship is a liberty exercised. It is not a right denied. This is so, regardless of sexual orientation and regardless of identity politics.
If you are focussed on homosexuality or identity politics, then, you are not focussed on marriage, its core meaning, nor the nature of humankind, of human generativity, and of human community.
This is a coherent view of the social institution of marriage. It is not anti-gay. It is not anti-this or that sexual orientation. It is not anti-man. It is not anti-woman. It is not anti-child. It is not bigoted. It is none of the things that SSMers have complained it to be.
It is inclusive of both sexes and of both-sexed and same-sexed attracted people. Whether or not it is wise or reasonable for an individual to enter a conjugal relationships is really not for me to dictate. And I do not. However, I do insist that if you have some big grand reason to justify the gutting of the core meaning of marriage, and the promotion of homosexuality, then, please provide it pronto.
If you can’t, then, your own oh-so-neat-picture of those who disagree with you is hanging in a frame that is very poorly constructed.
Mark: We’re comparing your homophobia to a relatively milquetoast, “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?” flavour of racism, and your views on same-sex marriage to a relatively piddling manifestation of racism, like, why, support for anti-miscegenation laws…..you need to compare like with like.
But that’s just the point: in making the comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, you are NOT comparing like with like.
There is a qualitative difference between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage; a qualitative difference which does not exist between interracial and same-race heterosexual marriage.
What makes an “interracial” marriage? Marriage between Europeans and East Asians? Between black Africans and Arabs? Between Europeans and Arabs? Between Arabs and Somalis? Between Bantus and Somalis? Between Europeans and Turks? Between Germans and Greeks? Between French and Swedes? Between English and Irish?
Anyway, as you can see, whatever the difference between “interracial” marriage and same-”race” marriage, it is anything but qualitative. It is at most merely quantitative. (Qualitative=different in kind. Quantitative=different in degree).
The comparison with anti-miscegenation laws WOULD be apt, for instance if, even though marriage between blacks and whites were now legal, marriage between blacks and say, aboriginal Australians were still illegal. Or if, hypothetically, interracial couples also could only perform a type of sexual contact which never led to reproduction.
You may argue that the difference, qualitative or not, does not make that much difference, if you wish. Or that not all now married partake in the qualitative difference, or that the difference is irrelevant because it’s “just not fair”, or any of the other arguments you or others have made.
But you cannot logically make the argument that in comparing interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (or the prohibitions of aither) you are comparing “like with like” because the difference between the two is clearly and demonstratively qualitative. The interracial marriage analogy is simply logically flawed.
Mark: …or is it that you’d rather we’d just slink off and die and not clutter up your oh-so-neat picture?
So, now not being able to get married equals being told to “slink off and die”.
Again, who now is not comparing “like with like”?
Fannie, thank you for the reasoned tone in your post. And just to be clear, I do not believe that any form of violence is petty. Physical violence in particular. As for “spiritual violence”, I don’t dismiss the concept at all, but I think that it can too easily be overdefined….even to the point where the overdefinition can create more of the very thing which it is supposed to oppose. But I agree that gays have suffered from both, regardless of degree. The question we disagree over is what to do about it.
Orientation is no more relevant to Marriage than race is. Sex has everything to do with it.
Chairm. . .” I do insist that if you have some big grand reason to justify the gutting of the core meaning of marriage, and the promotion of homosexuality, then, please provide it pronto.”
I do not believe that folk seeking SSM are not attempting to gut the core meaning of marriage. Rather these are folk who honor the institution are are seeking the same 1000 plus benefits that are granted OS Folk. If SSM proponents were isolated in heavily dominated areas such as San Francisco, LA, New York, etc. but SSM is coming about across the nation of the US. and then consider the changes world wide: The Netherlands in 2001 was the first country to legalize same-sex marriages, with the first marriages performed in the Amsterdam city hall on April 1, 2001. Since then, same-sex marriages have been recognised legally by Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Nepal (2008), and Norway (2009).
I am sorry but with your twisted views you continue to promote the illusion that intolerant homogeniety would make this a better society.
Humankind and the human community is a complex composition. And with that complexity, folk have and will make the necessary changes and advances to promote freedom and equality for all. Even our current President has posted support for the LGBT community at http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/.
FRAME THAT!
CO: “[lots of stuff]”
OK, I get where you’re coming from, except for one rather big thing. You seem to have no problem with same-sex attracted people going off in a corner and having same-sex relationships if you don’t have to acknowledge them. But in that case, what on earth is marriage accomplishing with respect to uniting the sexes? After all, once you put all the gay people off in a corner, you’re left with a lot of straight people, and they’re going to be forming opposite-sex pairs no matter what you do - wild elephants couldn’t stop them. Once you take out the homophobia, marriage is no longer, at all, about creating opposite-sex couples, it’s about keeping opposite-sex couples together after they’ve procreated, and preventing them from coming together in the first place if they’re not prepared to stay together afterwards. But same-sex couples don’t procreate, so neither of these objectives are interfered with if you let them in. So what’s your problem?
RK: “But that’s just the point: in making the comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, you are NOT comparing like with like.”
I’m not sure what your point is. You seem to be saying that because race is not particularly well-defined (which is quite true) that somehow it’s different from sex. But sex is also not particularly well defined - there are all sorts of intermediate states that get shoehorned legally and socially into the two categories of male and female. And in fact that’s close to the whole point - gay guys are anatomically male, but, at least with respect to sexual attraction, psychologically female. For the purposes of marriage, given that the stereotypical case will continue to be opposite-sex, are there any good reasons for insisting on making the correspondence with the stereotype according to anatomy rather than psychology? I’m not seeing it.
Interracial couples perform the type of sex which can lead to conception; same-sex couples cannot. Qualitative difference. It negates the race/sex comparison. It puts in a totally extra factor which is not there in the interracial marriage debate. And the argument that gay guys are “psychologically female” because they are attracted to other guys sounds like a stereotype you’d more expect from heterosexuals.
rusty: “I am sorry but with your twisted views you continue to promote the illusion that intolerant homogeniety would make this a better society.”
Tolerance aside, same-sex couples are the very definition of homogenity. Embrace diversity friend — include BOTH sexes in every marriage.
“Humankind and the human community is a complex composition.”
Not so much. Every one of us — without exception — is the result of the union of exactly one man and one woman. It’s really just that simple. All this talk about “orientation” is as irrelevant to marriage as the old talk about “race” was. Neither has anything to do with marriage or “humanity”.
Speaking of “intolerant homogeniety”, what are we to make of the man who claims it’s impossible for him to love a woman — because she’s a woman — and therefore he must be allowed to marry another man.
Sounds like intolerant homogeniety to me.
Since neither Rusty and Mark are willing to define a core meaning for marriage, I think it is safe to say that they don’t believe there is one, and that there doesn’t have to be one.
Rusty, Mark, can we agree that that is your position and proceed to debate that point?
RK: “Interracial couples perform the type of sex which can lead to conception; same-sex couples cannot. Qualitative difference.”
So? Same-race couples can perform the type of sex which can lead to pure-race children; interracial couples cannot. (I’d finish by echoing “Qualitative difference.” for effect except I can’t bring myself to because it’s a non sequitur - I think you want to say “Big/important/relevant difference”.) Of course, _I_ don’t think that the ability to produce pure-race children is important/relevant but racists do, and I think that that’s very similar to you thinking that being able to perform the type of sex which can lead to conception is important. I think both are equally irrational, and that’s what the comparison is intended to dramatize.
The core meaning for marriage: well not sure at what timepoint you would like me to work with. . .but comments from ILOVECAPITOLISM at gaypatriot put forth this:
- Marriage has 2 components. One is a right, the other is a privilege.
- The commitment part is the right of the 2 people making it. It resides in their freedom of action; in fact, they could even keep it private and it would be real (if they keep it real). In other words, it’s their right.
- The license from the State, on the other hand, is a privilege not a right. It creates a new legal entity, called “the marriage of John and Sally”, with its own recognized legal interests and *it puts obligations on third parties to support it*, in some respects. Such a thing can never be a right.
- A State license for anything - be it driving, hunting, professional practice or marriage - is always a privilege, not a right. Nobody is entitled to a State license for anything - until and unless the People *democratically legislate* said entitlement.
- Privileges and rights are different, because a right is something that you possess morally, even if the State oppresses you or refuses to recognize it - while a privilege is something you do NOT possess morally, until and unless the State recognizes it.
- We had something called the American Revolution to establish (among other points) that privileges must always be voted on by the People or their representatives, in some form.
- Since a State marriage license is a privilege not a right, it… literally… *is not* a right, and is something that can morally be voted on, or denied by vote.
- The State hands out marriage licenses in order to benefit society.
- Marriage does have other benefits to society than procreation alone. Society benefits when people settle down and pair off and become each other’s first help, whether or not they ever have kids. If that were not so, then States would deny marriage licenses to infertile couples.
- Thus, denying marriage to gays is stupid public policy.
- But that’s all it is: stupid public policy. . . .
For you all stuck on this track that marriage is for procreation, please tell me why is it that folk who marry but are unable or consciously choosing not to produce offspring are able to get marriage privileges (including the 1000 plus benefits) and SS folk are not.
Fertility status is not a standard listed on any marriage documents that I know of. . .
Folk entering a second marriage in their golden years are not required to provide any promise of ‘procreation’. Infertile folk are not denied a marriage license.
–Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.–wikipedia
SS folk seeking marriage are looking for the same social status and benefits that OS folk receive. Some SS folk will adopt children or raise foster children, raise children from previous relationships, use surrogates and IVF, or will not have any children.
Ciao
For you all stuck on this track that marriage is for procreation, please tell me why is it that folk who marry but are unable or consciously choosing not to produce offspring are able to get marriage privileges (including the 1000 plus benefits) and SS folk are not.
Simple. Equality. Marriage is about family, and family is certainly about procreation. But you’re not required to procreate to make a family — anyone can do it.
Fertility status is not a standard listed on any marriage documents that I know of. .
Neither is sexual orientation. But two men can’t “make a family”, regardless of their orientations.
Responsible procreation. Not procreation minus the responsible part. The contingency for. Not compulsory procreation.
The core meaning you offed, Rusty, does not distinguish marriage from nonmarriage. You would eliminate the special status that is based on the core meaning: sex integration *combined* with contingency for responsible procreation. This is a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution) and not a bunch of bits and pieces lacking coherency.
Mark said: “You seem to have no problem with same-sex attracted people going off in a corner and having same-sex relationships if you don’t have to acknowledge them.”
False. Protection equality, Mark, applies to the very wide range of nonmarital arrangements — of which the same-sex kind is but a subset. And of that subset, the gaycentric kind - or the sexualized kind — is yet another subset.
You emphasize protections, as has Rusty, as reward, it would seem, for same-sex sexual behavior. But you don’t make it mandatory or compulsory for SSM. You thus do not distinguish the relationship type you have in mind from the rest of the nonmarital arrangements.
The coherent view of the social instituiton recognizes the nonmarital category and has limits or boundaries around the core meaning of marriage.
The relationship type you have in mind is not in a corner but in the midst of all those other nonmarital arrangements. Protection equality applies to that category.
But it seems you demand something more — without giving a solid good reason.
* * *
The “1000 rights” is a mythical thing that is based on some doing a word count in statutes. But if it is all about the bennies, then, you are not really focussed on marriage itself.
Provisoin for designated beneficiaries suffices for your list, Rusty, and just because it is not all that marriage entails is not good enough reason to object.
You need to identify the core meaning — the essentials — of the tuype of relationship FIRST, before listing the things you want attached to it. Distinguish that relaitonship type from the rest.
I doubt you can do it without resort to identity politics. That’s the analogue with the Loving case — you are asserting what was rejected by the unanimous court opinion that ruled against racist identity politics.
Marriage is pluralistic. It is inclusive of both sexes. It is not defined by sexual orientation nor by identity politics of the gaycentric kind or any kind.
Mark:So? Same-race couples can perform the type of sex which can lead to pure-race children; interracial couples cannot
What? There’s a DIFFERENCE between the type of sex which can lead to “pure-race” children and that which can produce interracial children? Please explain that difference to me, Mark.
Rusty:please tell me why is it that folk who marry but are unable or consciously choosing not to produce offspring are able to get marriage privileges (including the 1000 plus benefits) and SS folk are not.
Infertility may not be permanent, and people who choose not to produce offspring can always change their minds. How is the state to know? Hence, rather than force every couple to produce offspring, marriage has been built, across time and cultures, around the conjugal act which produces offspring. This leaves a little wiggle room, yes….some cases which can’t produce offspring period….the elderly and the permanently infertile, and the state does not even force a couple to have sex, though the fact that it sometimes may be grounds for annullment when they have not demonstrates that the act is regarded as a central core feature. But to extend it much beyond this core would send the message through the culture that it is not related to procreation at all, only physical pleasure, and perhaps not even that.
How much would you want to send the message through the culture that marriage is not related to a sexual relationship (of any kind) at all. Would you want it to be so extended (say, by extending it en masse to siblings or best friends who make it clear that their relationship is not sexual?) And if you don’t want this, are you therefore going to ask that the government force all married couples to have sex? This is your reasoning.
Thus, denying marriage to gays is stupid public policy.
- But that’s all it is: stupid public policy. . . .
Please note what this common line is really saying: “Throughout human history, mankind and all of its leaders have just plain been stupid. We don’t know why they’ve been stupid, they just have. But, for whatever reason, we’re enlightened now, and we’re smarter than all before us, and smarter than all the years of human experience, even though we have only the tiniest trickle of years of experience.”
Marty: But two men can’t “make a family” HMMM and why not?
Chairm: The “1000 rights” is a mythical thing Oh Really. . .Do Tell
And thanks RK for responding
but with “How much would you want to send the message through the culture that marriage is not related to a sexual relationship (of any kind) at all. ”
History of Marriage: Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn’t and don’t have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn’t marry because they were in love but for economic liasons. http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
Have a great weekend all. Sees YA around
Ciao
Not an answer to the question, Rusty.
Rusty, you made the original assertion. Cite your source. I’ve dealth with the assertion many times in discussions and usually the source contradicts it anyway. If yours does not, then, we can discuss it with greater economy and focus. Thanks.
Also, Rutsy, can you please connect your original assertion to the topic of the original blogpost? Thanks.
RK has referred to qualitative and the quantitative difference. This applies to fertility, as well. I’ll comment under David’s new blogpost on that subject.
Marty: But two men can’t “make a family” HMMM and why not?
Because every single one of us, without exception, is the product of the union of exactly one man and one woman, regardless of either’s “orientation”. You can continue to ignore this obvious fact, and pretend it pales in comparison to your “sexual attraction”, and further drive yourself into the fringe corner of “gays who are out to destroy the family”.
Mark wrote: “We’re comparing your homophobia to a relatively milquetoast, ‘Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?’ flavour of racism, and your views on same-sex marriage to a relatively piddling manifestation of racism, like, why, support for anti-miscegenation laws.”
I wish that were true. But the rhetoric from your side is much more heated, much less milqutoast, than you describe. The whole No on 8 campaign was predicated on how marriage is the new civil rights movement, and how Prop. 8 was discriminatory. Now maybe you meant that in a very mild way, but a reasonable observer would think Prop. 8 was being compared to discrimination against African-Americans, both moderate and extreme manifestations.
DB: “I wish that were true. But the rhetoric from your side is much more heated, much less milqutoast, than you describe.”
I have apparently been unclear. When I said “your” I meant you, David Benkof. Your homophobia is relatively milquetoast compared to lots of what’s out there.
DB: “The whole No on 8 campaign was predicated on how marriage is the new civil rights movement, and how Prop. 8 was discriminatory.”
New? Hardly. Here’s some actual text from the most recent Courage Campaign email in my back email that made any direct criticism of the Yes On 8 forces:
‘Incest. Pedophilia. Polygamy. [//] When Pastor Rick Warren was asked to clarify this statement — if he actually equates same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy — his answer was direct and unequivocal: “Oh, I do.” [//] That didn’t stop President-elect Barack Obama from choosing Pastor Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration — an appalling mistake that will forever tarnish our country’s celebration of Obama’s historic ascendance to the White House. [//] While President-elect Obama has chosen to ignore the troubling beliefs of the man who will spiritually usher in his presidency, Californians can not ignore Rick Warren and his Saddleback Church followers, based in Orange County. [//] We can not ignore Rick Warren’s fervent support for Proposition 8 or his mobilization of thousands of evangelical Christians to enshrine discrimination into our state constitution. [//] Harvey Milk did not ignore John Briggs in 1978, when Briggs sought to pass Proposition 6 — the infamous “Briggs Initiative” that attempted to ban gay and lesbian teachers, and anyone who supported them, from our California’s public schools. Milk challenged Briggs to debates across the state. [//] And we’re not going to ignore Rick Warren.’
It very clearly depicts gay marriage as one battle in a broader struggle going back decades.
DB: “Now maybe you meant that in a very mild way, but a reasonable observer would think Prop. 8 was being compared to discrimination against African-Americans, both moderate and extreme manifestations.”
No, I think a reasonable observer would conclude that the parallel to opposition to same-sex marriage being invoked was the blindingly obvious one: support for anti-miscegenation laws.
No, Mark. You just confirmed David’s point. That you don’t even realize it is truly sad.
RK: “You just confirmed David’s point.”
Which point? He’s made several. His primary point, that he’s sick up with having his opposition compared to racism, I don’t even disagree with. I just don’t care - I think he deserves it. And if it turns out that I’ve been too charitable and his homophobia is more on a par with Rick Warren’s, then I’m happy to upgrade him to a better class of villainhood.
…
1 - Monogamy … every civilized society or ” high ” civilization is based on this so called ” strict ” moral code ( usually criticized by hedonists ) and sadly it’s not fairly supported in the homosexual community
2 - ” Mixture ” of gender roles to the point of confusion or extinction … anarchy or nihilism … that nothing will matter anymore … as long as it’s ” love ” everything will be alright
Read the story of this Swedish woman http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2007/04/feminine-rebellions-viking-princess.html
3 - Are men and women ( whether you are religious like me or atheist or agnostic or you believe in this or that or whatever ) not complementary designed ? The Bible says ” one flesh “… obviously if it needs more clarification ( and sorry if this hurts anybody but I just want to describe it even more ) one flesh meaning in mind , soul and body … mind and soul in the male and female charateristics such as male being the provider and female being the nurturer and in body since two vaginas do not complete one another nor do they have any other moral proper use and the anus is literally where crap comes out ( study the human body and you’ll get the picture even clearer … clearly not designed for sexual intercourse )
4 - Alienation of the sexes … yes … alienation of the sexes … this ” experiment ” will only divide men from women and women from men ( many people usually don’t think of this ) … this may seem weird but one man and one woman is good and not only that but ” diverse ” in itself … union … two men or two women is ” gender apartheid ” ( if it’s not too rough )
5 - Read this article http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/04/dutch-gays-turn-to-right.html and then the comments ( take a good look at ” Zenster ” )
6 - How Judaism/Christianity changed the world http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html
7 - On how this will affect the children ( and how divorce , step families , single families and many other broken families are doing … the family institution is already scrambling … why make it worse ? ) and please note that I don’t agree with the ” reasons ” ( roots ) for homosexuality in this study ( only the evaluation concerning adoption by other couples whom are not the ” nuclear ” family per say ) since it’s fairly weak for me and I guess I have another view of things on that matter
Here’s the study http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/childrenastrophies.pdf
Frankly, I’m sick of having my principled opposition to redefining marriage (based on both religious and secular principles) compared to racism.
Quite right. It’s lazy and pathetic.