Let’s Call It ‘Untraditional Marriage’
by Tim Slagle
Sean Penn scolded opponents of something he called “Gay Marriage.” Apparently, he thinks gay marriage was made illegal in California. Certainly Sean, a lifelong resident of Hollywood, should recognize that gay marriage is perfectly legal and has roots all the way back to Cole Porter and Rock Hudson, both of whom are gay men who married (and wasn’t Penn married to Madonna?).
What’s not legal is same-sex marriage.
Currently, we recognize the ability for states to define the restrictions on people applying for marriage licenses. Right now in America the standard state requirements for marriage are almost universally the following:
- Two
- Unmarried
- Unrelated
- Consenting
- Adult
- Humans
- Of Different genders
Please note that five of the seven requirements have not always been mandatory. At certain points in history the top five (maybe six) traditional marriage requirements were not in place. (I’m having a hard time verifying number six– my Google just won’t go there without leaving a history trail I don’t want on my permanent record.) I also suggest that very few proponents of same-sex marriage would allow the other six requirements to be waived as nonchalantly as number seven.
Also note that love is not among the requirements. The idea pitched around lately is that the State has no right to keep people who love each other apart. Well, yes they do. Cousin lovers have been denied the right to marry almost everywhere outside of royalty and separatist religious sects. And as many married couples (and divorced people paying alimony) will attest, the State also has the power to keep two people together long after the love has evaporated.
I think we may need a different term. “Same-Sex Marriage” does not roll smoothly off the tongue. I propose we call it something more in line with reality. Perhaps an “Untraditional Marriage,” something I don’t have a problem with. If a State agrees that the traditional restrictions placed on marriages do not fit into modern society (as it did in the past when it banned polygamy and incest), I believe it is within the Constitutional power of the State to change those restrictions. But that’s the big beef I have with proponents of Untraditional Marriage. In every state where it was put on to the ballot, it was soundly defeated. It was only legalized by judges willing to subvert election results.
The side of the aisle whose very name claims to cherish democracy turns against it in droves when the “will of the people” is directed against them.
Maybe that’s why Sean likes Hugo and Fidel so much: they’re all staunch proponents of Untraditional Democracy.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
125 Comments
"The side of the aisle whose very name claims to cherish democracy turns against it in droves when the “will of the people” is directed against them.
Maybe that’s why Sean likes Hugo and Fidel so much: they’re all staunch proponents of Untraditional Democracy."
Truer words were never spoken!!
Why not just call it what it is in California — domestic partnership? Domestic partners in California have all the rights and responsibilities of married folk under California law.
Sean Penn very well could be an ultra-conservative plant… the lefties I know pretty much cringe every time he speaks. Of course, they're just liberals, not wingnuts… Like Moe said to Curly once- 'Every time you think you weaken the nation'- could apply to the hapless Mr Penn (or Robbins, or Sheen, or Fonda…) Hugo and Raul
know what to do with their gays, and it ain't marriage… not to mention Aqua Velva Job there in Iran. Go be gay there, and see what transpires…
How will this work in Santa Fe ? Eventually, the dhimmis will be trying to push the walls down on these couples, as prescribed by their new master's religious law. Those adobe walls are hard to move !
Do domestic partnerships get nailed by the marriage penalty on the 1040 form? Don't see any box to check.
Because, Valerie, then the left wouldn't be able to brand anyone who believes homosexuality as less than normal and good and wonderfully fulfilling as hateful bigots akin to racists. I've only said this one zillion times, they don't care a fig about marriage. It is all about them forcing all Americans to recognize the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, and specifically it's conduct. Period.
Well said, Tim! And the last two paragraphs are sheer brilliance!
Marriage is a spiritual union instituted by God himself and so it has been since the beginning. The legality of marriages is limited to the states recognition, not sanctification, of them. In other words, the government does not "create" marriages. God does. The state only determines which marriages it will recognize. The gay community is in fact trying to "redefine" societies definition of marriage but what they fail to realize is that man did not create the institution of marriage and so it is not man's place to redefine it. The matter is simply not up for debate. If you don't like it then take it up with God and leave the rest of us out of it.
Though not a proponent of either by any means, I've always thought there was a better argument for sanctioning intermarriage of relatives (if they agree to be sterilized and adopt) or polygamy (as long as all parties agree and there is sufficient income to support that choice). You'd have at least one parent of each gender, and it is all about the children, isn't it? I never see the Hollywood set promoting these lifestyles as worthy of inclusion in their redefining marriage efforts.
Tim is 100-percent correct on his perspective. It is CRUCIAL that we get the rhetoric correct. Millions of young people are being told every day that "Conservatives violate civil rights," and this issue makes that statement highly credibile to them. This is true only if we permit the left to frame this issue. WE must frame the issue.
Right now, in the USA, in all 50 states, homosexual men and women have THE EXACT SAME civil rights as everyone else. The law DOES NOT discriminate against gays. Want proof? Look at the application for a marriage certificate. Is there a space for "sexual orientation?" That's because the law DOES NOT CARE about anyone's sexual orientation – and that's the way it should be.
A gay man can marry a woman. This is the exact same rule that applies to me, a straight male. I can marry a woman. I cannot marry another man – REGARDLESS of the fact that I am straight.
"Let’s Call It ‘Untraditional Marriage".
Let's not. In fact, let's not associate the idea of marriage in anyway with same-sex couplings at all.
Proponents of "gay marriage" always say they want the "same rights" as "straight" married couples. By "rights" they usually mean things regarding marriage laws, taxes and rules concerning insurance and work. Men and women married long before government set up any of these. These so called rights (read benefits) didn't just magically appear out of nowhere. They didn't exist before men and women worked hard for, lobbied, cajoled, persuaded, politicians to pass laws, deductions, etc. all in the public eye. Men and women ran for office themselves, underwent public scrutiny and convinced enough people to vote for them and their ideas regarding marriage in a democratic fashion.
We didn't have a judge just hand these things to us.
If it becomes legalized, call it Civil Union if you must call it something. Let them start at square one with nothing, like heterosexual couples had to. Let them debate in the public arena of ideas for every tax deduction, paid leave rule, work law , whatever else they want. Let them convince a majority of Americans their ideas are worthy of their vote. If there are 10,000 laws, rules, etc, regarding marriage on the books that they want equal recognition for, let them have 10, 000 battles for every equivalent.
Don't merely say it's "marriage" and then hand homosexuals a automatic free pass to everything married couples have fought hard for and earned.
I think you forgot one:
8. Of the same race.
I know, that one was taken off the list a while back. Not all that far back in some states, of course. But even the foot draggers finally got around to it. Right now, #7 has been taken off the list in Massachussetts, and who knows if that'll spread.
But I know straight people who were married to gay men or women, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Did Rock Hudson's wife deserve to have a husband who couldn't love her the way a husband should?
cont'd
cont'd
The truth is, real conservatives don't want the government defining our relationships in any way. That's no different than the kind of intrusion that allows homeschooling bans and the forced indoctrination of public schooling. Government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Vaughn is right: marriage is a religious status, and it isn't for the government to determine who is and who isn't married. Still, I see the point of those people who say that so long as the government is intruding in this way, there's no reason it should discriminate. Maybe the push for same-sex marriage can have the benefit of getting government out of the equation altogether. Let churches and synagogues decide who they say is married, and let the government treat everyone as an individual, regardless of their religious status.
Spot on… I'm sure you are going to get the mean e-mails I have been receiving… it can be difficult when one tries to respond to an emotional issue with logic; you end up hacking off the emotional one…
Use the accurate, scientific, apolitical, "Homosexual Marrige." In fact, it would be best to use the accurate, scientific, apolitical "Homosexual" in place of "Gay" or Lesbian" also. Stop letting the lib/progs control the debate with their control of the words used.
Here is the deal if you appeal to the emotionality of an issue you lose the arguement. Appeals to pity are fallacious and can be torn apart by a dispassionate opponent. The only time it seems to work is if the emotional appealer to pity can drum up other emotional and therefore irrational supporters. Aristotle would tear these people apart because they argue badly.
"The side of the aisle whose very name claims to cherish democracy turns against it in droves when the “will of the people” is directed against them."
Great post, well reasoned and argued…. so it's going to miss the mark with the dems. I particularly appreciate the above paragraph, so true, so true and not just about this issue. We have an impossibly divided nation here and it doesn't bode well for our future as we try to manage the financial crisis that we are all at such odds with each other on social standards. Good luck to us.
I don't know a thing about Rock Hudson's wife; maybe she was perfectly happy with the relationship. They made a Hollywood movie suggestion it was that way with Cole Porter and his wife.
Then there's Bill and Hilary. Every woman is not looking for the same thing in marriage…
I don't know a thing about Rock Hudson's wife; maybe she was perfectly happy with the relationship. They made a Hollywood movie suggesting it was that way with Cole Porter and his wife.
Then there's Bill and Hilary. Every woman is not looking for the same thing in marriage…
What "real conservatives" don't want is the JUDICIARY defining our relationships in any way, especially in the face of legislation which was supported by the democratic majority in a statewide referendum.
As to Tim's #6 above; I've heard that once you've had alpaca, you'll never go back to wool.
Who are we to judge anyone else?
That's how rumors get started. "Hey, was Sean's zipper open when he went in to see Chavez, seemed to be when he came back out?"
Because this isn't really about legal rights. You can get legal rights without calling it marriage. The aim is social acceptability.
I voted no on 8. I have many gay friends and I felt that a yes on the measure would have been a betrayal of our friendship.
That being said, I'm not disappointed that the measure passed because I know my state has laws that cover all the bases for my gay married friends.
If you're looking for a new term, I suggest "Homogamy". Can't remember where I first heard that…
Sean Penn should have aimed his Oscar night comments not at the people of California but, rather, squarely at Barack Obama, who, through vomitously verbose lawyerly hemming, hawing, shucking and jiving, has stated publicly he opposes same-sex marriage. Barack gladly accepted David Geffen's millions with his left hand while slapping him across the face with his right.
Bigotry has rarely been overcome by democracy and, in fact, it is the one area where the founding fathers and those that came after, like Lincoln, spoke of the need for courage to speak up against irrational fears that target minorities. Homophobia is wrong. Those who use the Bible to justify it, ignore homosexual relationships in the Bible and are quite selective in which Biblical admonitions they support — rarely, for example, advocating the killing of adulterors or selling of daughters. More to the point though, our Constitution guarantees a separation of church and state. I believe that any church should, on the basis of belief, have the right to refuse marriage to gays, BUT states have no right to deprive any group of citizens equal rights under the laws based on religious beliefs. That is exactly what a separation of church and state means. I would go further and deprive all churches that advocate violation of this fundamental tenet by politicizing disagreement with church dogma, as having violated the requirements for tax exemption. Let the fundamentalists and Mormons pay taxes if they want to be advocating political positions.
"I would go further"
See, that's the trouble with liberals. They're always happy to "go further" — in their big, stompy jackboots, on someone else's face. Nice.
If it meant that it would protect my definition of marriage I'm fine with that. Similarly, I'm fine with allowing homosexuals the legal privileges that the state bestows to couples married before God (or married in the eyes of their religion), however, the state is not what makes it a marriage and should properly remove the word marriage from those laws.
However, gays need to realize what several have already said; you may get the legal recognition of the state, but it will not buy you social acceptance for your lifestyle. A man and a woman committed together create and raise children, and this is the natural order of things in societies since humanity began. Male and female create offpspring and that's the order of things in the animal kingdom in the higher orders of species as well.
How, then, does SSM corrupt, inhibit, or otherwise affect traditional marriage? It's not as if fewer traditional marriages will result. I loathe Sea Penn and consider myself a conservative. I have yet to be convinced by opponents of SSM how traditional marriage is in an way threatened.
So, I am just wondering, quietly – Do you think your friends vote so as not to betray your beliefs?
Ahh…now, if we're reducing this to a theological argument, then can't we agree that religious law is subordinate to civil law? If not, what's to keep the residents of Dearborn, MI from introducing Sharia into the municipal charters?
Actually, yes.
They're pro-Israel conservatives. Shocker, huh?
I was waiting for that question, BTW.
That's exactly the way gays felt after the invasion of Mormons advocating their religious positions in a state election — like the stompy, jackboots had arrived on someone else's face. Tax benefits to religious organizations should not be extended if they are not going to abide by the rules and stay out of state political affairs. Or, maybe Liz advocates a state religion — hers, no doubt!
They have all the rights, not all the responsibilities.
I don't see what the big deal is. I'm the same sex I've been since birth, and I've been married for years.
(OK, OK, I stole that from one of George Carlin's books…)
Well, you'd then open the door to adults marrying minors, arranged marriages, etc… a whole new (old) can of worms.
Isn't it also interesting too how most instances of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom arise out of a need to establish and maintain dominance in the hierarchy?
And I'll believe your comments on the raising of children when we see a wide body of established scholarly studies on the subject. It's always possible the well-adjusted individuals can be brought up in most familiy configurations; however, last I checked the body of actual evidence on the effectiveness of a homosexual couple in raising children and the long-term health and well-being of those children was very slim.
And in the animal kingdom, Vince, homosexual behavior is not considered "normal". Anomalies abound in nature. For the record, people related by blood who decide to a couple can also raise straight, non-relative-marrying, law abiding, society respectful children as well. A silly silly argument Vince.
For the record, I do not give a rip about who marries whom or what. I do not think religious people should be forced to marry anyone they do not want to. I only object to tired, specious arguments. Marry a dolphin if that floats your boat, but stop playing the hate, anger and denial of basic human rights card. It does not play well to the sane.
The Constitution does not prohibit the individual states from having state religions. It only prohibits the federal government from establishing one. At the time of ratification, several states in fact did have state religions.
Of course, if you want to prohibit religious organizations from being active in state politics, you are coming very close to disenfrachising a large majority of voters. After all, a member of a church could be said to be acting on behalf of that religious organization when they vote. So you favor disenfranchisement? That's good to know.
The arguments you are making about the Bible demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the book. You're taking things out of context and misinterpretting much of what you've "read."
Also, your argument is a tautology, "homophobia (to use your load word) is wrong because its homophobic." That's not an argument. And adding an anti-religious screed does not add to your argument, it just reduces your credibility.
Yes, because when you break her argument down, she's saying that her version of morality is more correct than their version and she should be allowed to impose her version on them.
"…states have no right to deprive any group of citizens equal rights under the laws based on religious beliefs."
What would you do with the pro-polygamy Mormon groups then? What other banned religious beliefs can be re-instituted?Just pointing out the broad reach of your statement.
Actually, that's not really correct. The Bill of Rights limitations, like the prohibition on state religion, are imposed upon the states as well.
Where she's wrong is that the First Amendment guarantee the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion. In other words, it only prohibits state action, not the actions of individuals or their ability to be involved with the state — as many on the left would claim.
In fact, if you want to think about how silly their argument is, consider that freedom of the press is established by the same Amendment — ask yourself, should the press be forbidden from engaging in politics? Or freedom of association? Guess we should ban political parties…
Do you believe that an individual has the right to vote according to their religious beliefs?
If yes, then you should have no problem here. Mormons voted according to their beliefs. Others voted according to theirs whether for or against Prop 8 and same-sex marriage. Churches cannot vote. Religions do not vote. Individuals do.
As to your claim that there are homosexual relationships in the Bible – Hogwash (thanks, Grandpa).
As to selective admonitions, your selections are from the Old Testament, from the Law. This was given to the Israelites and any who chose to live among them, resident aliens. It does not apply to Christians as we are under Grace not Law. If you want to bring in some of the commandments and admonitions from Jesus and the New Testament writers then try love God, love your neighbor, help the poor, minister to the sick and those in prison, avoid gluttony, getting drunk and sexual immorality.
It's simple- you degrade the institution by offering it to promiscuous males. Make it mean very little, and the state becomes the purveyors of youth, a Marxist dream… you need to take a big picture look at the past and future of the institution. Civil unions are the right, and moral answer…
Rock Hudson's 'marriage' was a sham, or 'beard' as called in Hollyweird… according to the facts that we know, it was arranged by his manager to dispell rumors of his gayness…
The word Marriage means something to most people and for 40 years has meant something to me! I have no real problem with 'civil unions' between same sex people having ALL the same rights as a Married couple has, but that is not good enough, they want the word Marriage- why, to what end? I can only think to make their lifesyle seem more normal.
And you're not a class A idiot, you're just "untradtionally intelligent."
Gay marriage, Same sex marriage is a oxymoron like a cruel kindness or a warlike peace.What part of the phrase "THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE" is not understood. Be happy with domestic partnership the majority of the country supports it, quit while your behind . I've been married for years it's not all that believe me and I LOVE MY WIFE!. Don't listen to the likes of that Useful Idiot Penn. Wise -Up.
Ya know, the Mormons may have bankrolled the initiative , but a large portion of California's Mexican and African-American community voted for it.
This has been stated here many times, but I thought you may need a little help here.
I'm still waiting for the march on the First AME in South Central.
"Untraditonal Democracy"
Tim, this made me laugh out loud. Great piece!
Testing. Please ignore.
Michael, IntenseDebate
Sorry, aharris. The actual wording of the Constitution is: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Note that the limitation is on "Congress" alone, not the states. But as you say, the important thing is that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion period.!
Why doesn't the mainstream media point out that Sean Penn just told everyone in the world that, like most Americans, Barack Obama should be ashamed because he doesn't believe in same sex marriage?
There are homosexual relationships in the bible. It's just that a few verses after they're introduced, God got His Smite on.
I've actually used that line on my sister. She's 29 with a JD and can't get a job…
Not correct. The Bill of Rights has been applied to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process clause.
Your second point is right though.
There is a suggestion in these comments that opposing tax breaks for religious organizations who break the law by advocating for a particular candidate or against a proposition (like Prop
is opposition to free speech. It is not. Religious organizations are given tax breaks on their income (tithing) so long as they observe the laws. If they break the law, which they are welcome to do, they lose their tax exempt status. In the case of Prop 8, gay marriage was used as a fundraising issue by Mormons and Christian conservatives. Chruch members and call centers were then financed with these funds to advocate religious doctorine. The Supreme Court has upheld the tax code as lawful and not a limitation of free speech. And, of course there are gay relationships in the Bible and, of course, all sorts of things are proscribed in the Bible that even the most religious among us ignore — like selling your daughter and killing adulterors. As for the opposition of Blacks and Hispanics, the pro-Prop 8 groups failed to work with folks in those communities, assuming support that didn't exist. Luckily, most bigotry has a trajectory that means less and less support the more folks know…
"God got His Smite on" — LOL!!
What a weird reply!
This is pretty much my argument. It isn't heard enough. Marriage isn't about 'recognition of love' or even about sexual attraction. So "gay marriage" already exists. Think through the history of the world– what sane society anywhere has ever had people who defined themselves primarily by their particular sexual proclivities?
The invasion of Mormons? Like, CA taxpaying citizens who voted based on their beliefs? That's an invasion? Please, your dramatizing it to create victims…
Actually the 501c3 clause only applies to promotion of a political candidate or the influence of legislation during it's creation. In other words, no lobbying and no John Kerry's speaking from church pulpits during Sunday morning services during the campaign (sorry, couldn't resist).
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0...
There is the explanation at irs.gov
"Also note that love is not among the requirements."
This is what it comes down to every time. You see, when Liberals get to frame the debate certain assumptions are made and then when one argues against that framework, one automatically loses points by assuming the framework. In other words, we validate the argument. The argument against "same sex marriage" or "untraditional marriage" (which I agree is a better term) is a very complex one, it is very difficult for a conservative to be able to explain the argument to a Liberal, who has the benefit of narrowing down the argument to a very simple appeal to emotions. To a Liberal it is simply: Gays should be able to marry who they love, they have a RIGHT. it is discriminatory.' You nailed this from the beginning when you mentioned LOVE. Love is NOT the reason that the State provides benefits to marriage. The ultimate reason is that marriage is the best institution to provide for children and create the foundations of a stable and productive citizenry. Men and women together produce children, men and women married together, provide the best case scenario for producing stable citizens from these children. Government is in the business of supporting the institutions which provide for the best case scenario for its citizens. In all of these, love is not a factor. But Love is the thing which is romanticized about marriage, and love is the way that gay marriage is sold. I am not confident that as long as the left can continue to define the SSM argument on the grounds of love that the population will be able to understand and accept the more sophisticated argument of the conservative for much longer. I believe that most who are against SSM only understand the argument more on instinct than they do the framework and details of the entire argument. The left wins arguments by simplifying them, attaching an emotional component to them, and then making this simplified appeal to emotion SEEM logical. They create a false paradigm that is supposed to represent the "conservative" argument and then fight that. IE Conservatives are homophobic, and intolerant. ANd then many conservatives make the mistake of fighting that argument based on their paradigm. This is why their ultimate control of the outlets for information are so important to them. Once they control them, the majority will only hear their version of the debate.
I just read an LA Times Op Ed from March 08. This is all abour the word marriage not about the rights or lack thereof. This statement was in the editorial. "The best response came from the lawyer for the city of San Francisco, which briefly granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. "Words matter," Deputy City Atty. Therese Stewart said. "Names matter."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-marriag...
I knew there is a reason why I cancelled the Times.
Not all of it.
You win for a Three Stooges reference and for not bothering to get the Iranian Nut Job's name right. And you are, of course, correct.
I went through trying to get one of our (un)friendly neighborhood trolls to understand this concept in a another thread. When you break down to a sheer emotional level you stop thinking, which is what they've done. And how did you get to make such a long post? I get stuck with half that and have to make multiple posts.
There are a few reasons why. One, is the whole analogy of if you put a frog in boiling water it will jump out, put if you put a frog in normal temperature water and then slowly heat it to a boil it will stay in the water and cook. We start with allowing same sex marriage, and the next thing we'll hear is from NAMBLA how they deserve the right to celebrate their love with marriage as well, and than from those who love animals, so on and so on.
That leads into the fact that if you continue to change the definition of something then it loses all meaning. Consider divorce. Divorce was originally intended to be the solution to spousal unfaithfulness. Matthew 5:31-32 " "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Once it became legal in the US people have continued to push back the boundaries of what is acceptable for it, until divorce is a rampant problem, and people no longer worry before they get married if its the right person, because if its not then they can just divorce later.
I am not "reducing" the argument to a theological discussion. God's laws are not subject or "subordinate" to the will of man or the laws of men regardless of their respective religion or philosophies. Men and women have been "marrying" long before "government" ever existed. Governments have only ever chosen to recognize marriages primarily for reasons of taxation as men, for the greater part of known history, have always been the providers.
God created the institution of marriage so there would be order. One man, one woman, for life. No adultery, no illegitimate children, no homosexuality, no sexually transmitted diseases, no abortions, no incest and so on. It's for these reasons that God made it so. He made these laws for our own good, not for his own pleasure or peace of mind. Those who are his obey HIS laws above all others and those who are not can revel in their fleshy lusts in willful defiance until the judgment.
Ultimately the governments of the world can chose to recognize marriages as whatever they wish but as long as we in the U.S. live in a democracy and as long as society is given the chance to determine which unions the government recognizes as marriages you will find that the majority of people will vote against the governments recognition of "same sex marriages" for a long time to come.
In retrospect the "gay community" brought this upon themselves by constantly trying to force societies hand. If that weren't bad enough they choose to flaunt the very same lifestyle that caused them to be rejected to begin with. Their campaigns have not been to earn public approval but to force government approval and concessions. The gay community have shown utter disregard, even contempt, for the will of the people and the social standards they To say the least, they have not earned many supporters by doing to.
As long as the gay community chooses to reject accepted social edicts it's unrealistic to expect that society wont reciprocate. Show us some respect and consideration and we are likely to respond favorably but continue to insist society embrace your lifestyle and you will continue to meet with fierce resistance. It's that simple.
Bravo! I've seen this topic and these 'legality' arguments a zillion times but no one wants to call it what it is. Rather than celebrate their uniqueness, non-heterosexuals crave acceptance as heterosexuals. How sad their sense of worth is tied to another's opinion/acceptance of them.
For the purpose of this conversation, all of it that matters.
Ah, but you see here is where you are wrong! I am a former salesperson, and any good salesperson can tell you that buyers buy for emotional reasons which they then justify logically! President Obama is proof positive of this. Conservatives have a hard time understanding the emotional element that most people operate on. We have trained ourselves to use logic and reasoning as our guides. All of our stances on issues are mostly determined by logic. Thus, we just don't see how it is that so many people don't understand things the way that we do, and this has hurt us. the power of our arguments are not enough, we need to also sell our ideas with passion. This is also why I believe that it IS important to start seeing ourselves as Rebels, and the counterculture, and instead of quietly speaking our views on forums such as this, we need to instigate and provoke and proclaim and sermonize. I speak in a clear voice in the locker room in my gym and some fellow conservatives look shiftily around and lower their voice, they act as though we are criminals. This needs to stop! We need to wear the shirts, display the bumperstickers, hold our heads high. Then and only then will we begin the counterculture movement to take back our country.
Here are some links to what Aharris was referring to. I haven't looked through the sites or their sources in depth, its just a cursory Google of the issue.
http://www.realwomenca.com/archives/newsletter/20...
I wish this sight had a works sited section so I could review the studies they cite.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Ameri...
This site does cite numerous sources, so you can review the individual studies.
http://magicstatistics.com/2007/02/08/scientific-...
This site has a lengthy quotation from a Dr that testified on the issue, and said Dr refers to studies that have been done. footnotes were omitted, more's the pity.
http://www.focusonthefamily.ca/tfn/family/article...
Focus on the Family does it right, the have mutliple well cited references plus the refrence list at the end.
Like I said, this was just a quick googling of the topic. The studies are out there, I lack the time to dig into the meat of the studies (that will happen on the weekends when i'm not working)
People say I'm horrible because I want to marry a rich woman. I've had women call me sexist. I laugh and say "So what is it when a woman marries a man for his money?"
Wow, you have good friends there, I'm impressed at that honor you show each other.
Like those new comercials that say something like: "When you say gay, do you know what you're saying? STOP IT!" Yes, I'm using the term of something that I consider sinful as an insult to something I don't like. Its the exact same thing as all of the BDS sufferers calling Bush a Nazi, they're using something considered bad to insult someone they don't like.
oh… my… I almost choked on a cheezit because I started laughing.
I Agree Andrew, I would like Carol to tell me which relationships she is referring to. Because I'm pretty sure the biggest example of homosexuality in the Bible is Sodom (and Gamorah) and that ended with Fire, Brimstone, and two cities being wiped off the face of the Earth. The OT Books of the Law are clear that its a sin. Jesus Defines marriage as between a man and a woman. And the rest of the NT also makes it clear that its a sin.
But maybe she was reading a different Bible.
That is brilliant. I'm going to have to work that into a conversation at some point.
So then can we take funding away from liberal groups that try sway elelctions? how about the NO on 8 crowd, they're trying to force their humanist religion on us, so they shouldn't get any tax breaks. And the NEA, they're a pro-humanist organization, so they shouldn't get any federal aid either right? Or are you advocating a humanist state religion?
See, i can make statements that attack other groups and make ad hominem attacks, its easy!
So Carol, you have no problem with denying large swaths of citizens the right to free speech then.
You know that is a bit of mystery to me too. I never get more than eight or nine lines before I have to cut it, but then I see people page whole pages (usually trolls).
By the way, you make good points and you argue well. You smoked that troll (I know the one you're talking about).
On what basis do you say that? If you're going to argue that it's wrong to consider homosexuality to be immoral, then how do you turn around and say that incest or polygamy is immoral? How are you drawing that line other than personal preference?
I personally vote against my friend's interests because I suffer from Liberal-Voter Syndrome.
I agree. I think many people take things from the Bible without any attempt at understanding the context (or frankly even reading the rest).
By the way, I have to admit when I read "OT" in your post, I thought, what does overtime have to do with this?
It's not really fair to blame the 14th Amendment for something that is the Supreme Court's fault. It's technically correct to say that the Bill of Rights is a restraint on the federal government and not the states. But the Supreme Court has demonstrated how dangerous it is to allow a small group of people in flowing robes declare themselves to be the only ones gifted enough to interpret ancient scrolls and declare what the higher law is.
I made no equation between bestiality and homosexuality. The equation was yours alone.
Ref religion – do you think it is faulty thinking that religious groups might very well say, lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to marry those whom the state has granted legal protections (to marry) to? I read an article on the NPR site a while back wherein the author described how a gay couple, under a granted marriage provision would be able to challenge the religious organizations’ rights NOT to marry under equal protection laws. That gay rights will trump religious rights. No doubt religious (and non religious) folks are trying to prevent gay marriage, but they are also trying to protect their own liberty. I was recognizing that in my post. As far as the animal kingdom, I think if you have it some thought you would agree. Is a flower that normally has 20 petals, but has 21 any less beautiful? No. But is it normal? No. Does that make it more palatable? It would not be my choice argument, but since logical deduction and reason elude you…
BTW – If you are unsure of the facts, rely on yourself to look them up. I know. A lot to process in one post.
Did Rock Hudson's wife deserve to have a husband who couldn't love her the way a husband should?"
With all due respect: Boo frigging Hoo. The whole marriage was a studio set-up job and she knew what she was getting into. And how bad could it be? A rich, handsome movie star who never demanded (or even wanted) sex, the envy of all of her friends (even the ones who 'knew'), and somebody who actually liked to shop for expensive shoes and accessories with her, and pick up the tab? Oh the humanity! It must have awful.
Point of order:
His name is Imawannajihad. (c) Aesop 2008
Accept no substitutes.
I suggest you look at the research from places where it's legal, and then get back to us.
You're also ducking the point that opponents of SSM outvoted the idea every time it's been horked up.
"Personally knowing" gay parents is known in the statistical trade as "anecdotal evidence".
The legal-historical term for that is "hearsay", and is accorded a value slightly less than that of wooden nickels.
This isn't a theological argument, Vaughn's confusion and theocratic nonsense notwithstanding.
The state can choose to recognize whatever definition it wishes, whether in utter conformance or utter neglect of any or every religious dogma.
In *this* country, that choice is decided on by THE PEOPLE, which still keeps sending every attempt to alter the traditional defintion back to whatever pit it crawled out of. Why they choose to do that is their business. What matters is the fact of that choice, and the manner in which it is binding on the entire society.
Calling people "zealots", "bigots", "haters", "neanderthals", and worse by those purportedly trying to effect a change of such opinions is likely to make the notion a permanent non-starter.
Carol Mu: "Bigotry has rarely been overcome by democracy"
Apparently neither Amendments 13-15 (inclusive) of the U.S. Constitution, nor that epoch known as the Civil Rights Movement are any part of the history with which you are conversant.
Carol Mu: "Those who use the Bible to justify it, ignore homosexual relationships in the Bible"
I see. You find other relationships mentioned outside of those in Sodom and Gomorrah, do you?
Chapter and verse, if you have anything.
Carol Mu: "and are quite selective in which Biblical admonitions they support — rarely, for example, advocating the killing of adulterors or selling of daughters."
They ignore those because we don't live in a theocracy, specifically not the one in which such laws were promulgated, i.e. Israel ca. 2000 B.C.
And because the people your castigating know that "Text without a context is a pretext", a principle of basic biblical interpretation of which you appear to blissfully ignorant.
Carol Mu: "More to the point though, our Constitution guarantees a separation of church and state."
Really?!? Kindly cite the article and section where that guarantee appears.
Or feel free to amend that ridiculously misinformed assertion.
Carol Mu: "I would go further and deprive all churches that advocate violation of this fundamental tenet by politicizing disagreement with church dogma, as having violated the requirements for tax exemption."
Perhaps you could refresh your memory by reading the First Amendment, and see if you can tell the class which fundamental principle of American civil rights you'd be willing to violate in pursuit of your political whims.
Carol Mu: "Let the fundamentalists and Mormons pay taxes if they want to be advocating political positions."
That's only fair if you're also going to force states to pay tithes to religions if they're going to be advocating *religious* positions, isn't it?
Carol Mu: "There is a suggestion in these comments that opposing tax breaks for religious organizations who break the law by advocating for a particular candidate or against a proposition (like Prop
is opposition to free speech."
The prohibition is on endorsing specific *candidates*, not against having an opinion on an ISSUE.
Apparently you've skipped a lot of civics classes.
Carol Mu: "In the case of Prop 8, gay marriage was used as a fundraising issue by Mormons and Christian conservatives. Chruch members and call centers were then financed with these funds to advocate religious doctorine."
Uh, NO. Funds were raised to oppose a proposition, which money was used to hire workers to help DEFEAT THAT PROPOSITION. That's legal. In fact, it's called "getting involved."
Carol Mu: "The Supreme Court has upheld the tax code as lawful and not a limitation of free speech."
The Supreme Court has done a lot of silly things, but that isn't one of them.
"The Power to tax is the power to destroy" was the ruling in McCullogh v. Maryland 17 U.S. 327 (1819) by Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall, 4th CJ of the Supreme Court for some 34 years. The principle has been upheld again and again. Again, something your education seems to have bypassed.
Carol Mu: "And, of course there are gay relationships in the Bible"
Please, name any two. Of course, you cannot.
Carol Mu: "As for the opposition of Blacks and Hispanics, the pro-Prop 8 groups failed to work with folks in those communities, assuming support that didn't exist."
Prop 8 WON. The "pro-Prop 8 groups worked with the black and hispanic communities intensely, building support that cut across race, class, education, and any number of political disparities. You've managed to get the reality completely bassackwards.
Carol Mu: "Luckily, most bigotry has a trajectory that means less and less support the more folks know… "
Well, your statements are living proof that your anti-religious bigotry gets more and more support the less folks know.
Seriously know, go and do some homework, and stop parroting whatever's on "Facebook" or the "I'm An Idiot Knownothing" blog, or wherever.
The opposition to Prop 8 thought that everyone loved same-sex marriage, and they would defeat it handily.
They spent their time reading their own press releases, but the actual voters had the final say, and Prop 8 passed, handily, and the issue is now permanently beyond the reach of 4 unelected black-robed lunatards forever.
So if you and your minions expect to *persuade* anyone to come to different idea, you might start off by not slinging words like "hate" and "bigot" around like cream pies at a Three Stoogesfest. Just a suggestion.
I don't believe I have ever heard a comparison quite like that one. LOL, seriously.
Ditto, but I am also still hung up on that alpaca analogy from above. Planning on stealing this from Nathan. Be warned.
As is your "knowledge" of gay parents.
Unless yur the child raised of such a union (highly dubious) you have no more "knowledge" of even that couple than you have of any of the straight couples you haven't observed firsthand either.
And by being willing to generalize on the basis of one or even a few meager examples, you're guilty of stereotyping all gays.
For all we (or you) know, you've only met the best of the bunch, and the rest could be horrible monsters. Or vice versa.
Certainly, you're free to choose itrrational, blinkered, prejudicial ignorance over in-depth knowledge via accepted means of data collection and analysis by trained socilogical and anthropological professionals, just as the rational world is free to label that preference as foolish.
Thank you! I believe God gave us the powers of logic and reason for, well, a reason. I try to do my best, but I always wonder if its good, I'm glad to hear that I'm doing well
And yeah, the strange rules on post length are maddening.
hahahha, also funny and clever.
-Carol Mu says: "all sorts of things are proscribed in the Bible that even the most religious among us ignore — like selling your daughter and killing adulterors"
I don't think you quite understand the significance of Jesus. Old testament law covered very part of a person's life, and explained how they were to conduct themselves, how they were to make sacrifices for sins, etc. Jesus fulfilled the law, and established the new testament law-by grace. Instead of the rule book of the OT, it meant the holy spirit directing from within. That's why Christians do not follow the old testament law, they follow Jesus, and what he established. When we fail, we do not need to make a sacrifice of a lamb or goat, like the OT, because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God. Also, any gay relationships in the bible are quickly followed by fire and brimstone, God never condoned them in the old or new testament.
Well, yes. In Greek society, Gay men would never have considered actually marrying their lovers. It would have been thought virtuous. Marriage is about virtue. Not sex.
Well, yes. In Greek society, Gay men would never have considered actually marrying their lovers. It would have been thought unvirtuous. Marriage is about virtue. Not sex.
You gave as good as you got, but point taken. But the point stands about understanding something someone sez. If you are unsure, at least look up counterpoints. My point was that some things are self evident. I am not saying homosexuality is wrong. I think that is where you got your fur up. I wonder how you feel about civil unions. I think they are a good idea (for everyone – gay or straight). They allow everyone to have equal rights and protection under the law, but do not tread on the rights of religious folks. Of course you will eventually have those arguing that you have to make room for folks who want to have a civil union with their dogs (or apes like the woman in CA) or sisters and brothers… you know, the full rainbow of nutter ideas. Who is to say what is acceptable?
I am a Libertarian. If I had my way the government would be completely out of the people's biz. But it looks like we are moving away from that.
I'm not ducking. I accept and acknowledge that the measure has been electorally opposed. I'm simply trying to understand the rationale for opposing it.
These people want to get married. Wouldn't that hamper their promiscuity? Heterosexuals are promiscuous, too. Wouldn't preventing them from marrying both encourage promiscuity and degrade marriage by preventing two free, human souls from undertaking such a covenant?
And you have this idea stuck in your head that all gay people lead this licentious existence that resembles a porn film. It's no more true of gays than it is of straights. It suggests to me that the charge of "promiscuity" is a canard designed to speciously malign a reality you're having trouble accepting.
How does the state become the purveyors of youth? That's absurd. A Marxist dream? You manifest historical ignorance. Homosexuals have been persecuted by Marxists more so than in free countries. And the past is fraught with redefinitions of marriage. Polygamy, incest, child marriage. Marriage was once a means by which property transactions took place.
Your argument boils down to nothing more than semantics. It comes across as laundered bigotry.
How's it any different than offering marriage to promiscuous straights.
Logic, conservative = you're doing it wrong.
Yeah, because children can consent to marriage and sex, face it you at same-sex marriage because you hate gay people. Your argument is as tired as that Bronze age piece of fiction you quoted.
Get a room you too, and practice those self-congratulatory handjobs better.
I "at same-sex marriage"? I assume mean I "hate same-sex marriage because you hate gay people." You'd be wrong. As a christian I hate sin, not sinners, because We are all sinners. As for the Bible being fiction, I ask you to produce evidence to prove that. I would also say to you, to clean log from your own eye before you remove the mote from mine. Your short post has more hatred in it for christianity then all of my posts due for homosexuals. You see, I don't hate homosexuals, I just believe that they are living a sinful lifestyle. This makes them no different from anyone else. We are all sinners in need of God's Grace.
Is there something you find offensive with me being given a compliment and me trying to express my gratitude? Get thee back to the funny pages!
I was worried it would be taken for "operating Thetan" from scientology. overtime isn't nearly as bad.
When I cite the Bible online I normally use http://www.biblegateway.com, it alows you to review the context of the verse, making it easier to avoid misinterpreting it.
You "straight" "people" are like spoiled children who won't share their toys even though they're getting drool and boogers all over them.
Ms Carol Mu has yet to reply to any of us that have asked for examples of homosexual relationships in the Bible outside Sodom and Gemorah. So far, no response. Maybe its because there aren't any. Or she's trying to drudge up the tired old story that various straight men in the Bible were gay and then take scriptures out of context to prove it. Either way, it amounts to the fact that Bible doesn't condone homosexuality.
No, we share our toys, we just refuse to let you but a Barbie dress on G I Joe or marry him to Ken.
No, we share our toys, we just refuse to let you put a Barbie dress on G I Joe or marry him to Ken.
See, what you did there is something called a "Logical Fallacy" A fallacy is is when some statement in an argument goes against the basic rules of logic. What you said there with "How convenient that you're straight. It must feel natural for you to want to settle down with a woman if you haven't already."
you've commited a couple of different fallacies.
#1 Appeal to authority/association fallacy: You're argument is basicly "You're not gay so you can't understand" Underthat logic no one can criticize anything they don't already know or aren't already a part of. Its foolish and illogical.
#2 Ad hominem attack: You're not refuting his statement, you're just infering that he's a bigot by saying he feels that because he's straight.
Tim Slagle is so, so gay.
Also, I just noticeed something else, It should be "Get a room you two" not "Get a room you too" Two=2, too=also. Sorry I had go all "Grammar police" on you.
And I just relized I had used bad grammar… I fail.
Then take the child aspect out of it. Apply the logic of the state court cases that have imposed same-sex marriage to situations involving adult siblings, an adult parent and an adult child, or polygamous relationship involving adults. The reason of all those cases would require that two biological brothers who present themselves at the courthouse be given a marriage license. If you decide that the traditional definition of marriage is now longer valid because gender is somehow an artificial divide, then why set the bar at such similar constructs like siblingry and number of people in the relationship.
You must be logged in to post a comment.