Gay activists are furiously denouncing the Rick Warren inaugural invitation as an imprimatur for intolerance. At the same time, many in their ranks are trying to destroy the livelihoods not just of indviduals who donated piddling sums to California’s Prop. 8 campaign but of their co-workers as well. This is not necessarily a winning PR strategy.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
Agree on the first, but not necessarily on the second.
Singling Warren out is unfair. Warren is no more or less anti-gay than any Christian leader who takes halfway seriously the Biblical prohibition on homosexuality.
But singling out people who work to advance a specific cause is something else. Boycotts sometimes do work to effect political change — if they are followed up with engagement and dialogue. It remains to be seen if the boycotts will be effective enough to pressure the subjects to pay attention and open enough minds to change some.
It’s amazing how many prima facie secularists (read: the militant gay-rights movement) are all for representative government, elections, and allowing the will of the people to become the land of the law…until they lose.
Once they lose, they go to the courts, and use every bullying tactic they can think of to get their way. Gay activists need to man up and deal with the fact that they lost on Prop 8. They need to deal with the fact that people aren’t buying what they’re selling. (So far).
Till then, they only seem more are more militant and leftist, moderates will resist them more and more, and they will end up even further from realizing their goals
@Transplanted Lawyer
People who advocated boycotting Gays would be accused of ‘hate’-something-or-other. If boycotting is “fair” isn’t it fair for all? Also isn’t the right to not change one’s mind and to affirmatively close one’s mind a fundamental pillar of freedom?
Ed Campion, boycotting is fair for everyone. People who wanted to encourage unions to thrive boycotted non-union shops. People who wanted to promote racial equality boycotted whites-only businesses — and boycotts of South African businesses eventually put enough pressure on that country to make it change its policies. I’m not saying that the tactics are (always) effective but I am saying that it’s one way to make your voice heard.
And I also agree with you that an individual has the right to be mentally inflexible — and I’ll do you one better and say that sometimes, being on the receiving end of criticism can harden one’s mind rather than make it more open to alternative points of view. That is the danger that same-sex marriage advocates are taking by using these strategies.
But at the same time, let’s say you were a Republican, and a local restaurant charged Democrats $10.00 for a steak dinner and Republicans $20.00 for the same dinner. Wouldn’t you want to take your business elsewhere? Wouldn’t you make a point of taking your business elsewhere? I say, it would be entirely reasonable for you to do so.
@Transplanted Lawyer:
I think Warren is fair game, in my opinion. He could have chosen to be silent on an issue of secular (i.e., non-religious) concern. He chose to but his big fat face in it, so he deserves what he gets.
—–
@A-Bax:
I would take issue with your statement, only because he seems to assume that simply because something is adopted in a democratic fashion, that it is just. That simply isn’t so. The fact that democratic means often promotes liberty, and does so in a greater frequency than other forms of government does not guarantee liberty. In those cases, I think the involvement of the courts is necessary. Equal protection is as important and fundamental right as free speech or right to conscience.
Too funky — wouldn’t happen.
How ’bout a counter hypothetical. The student newspaper at Liberal University is asked to run an advert for a Pro-Palestinian group asking for students to boycott local mom-and-pop businesses whose owners have donated to AIPAC. The businesses are listed.
Agreed that it’s not a winning PR strategy, but not everyone ought to be held to the standards of PR effectiveness.
Look at this point gays are right to wonder why they shouldn’t just have equal rights, now. Imagine what you would say as a minority who had to put up with being a second-class citizen for absolutely no good reason. Just because the “feelings” of the majority aren’t there yet. Too many people think you and your kind are icky, and you’re supposed to sit back and take it.
You’d say (verbatim): “fuck that”. And if the leader of the local community theater, whose success if dependent upon actors of your minority group, gave money to a campaign that aimed to specifically keep you “in your place”, then you’d be mad too, and you’d be entirely justified in boycotting his theater.
These are just basic questions of morality and justice, people should be forgiven for reacting as they do, and frankly the reactions are exceedingly mild. Get over it majority.
@ Grant Canyon:
I hear what you’re saying, and in a broad sense, I agree. 51% of the people can’t vote to strip the other 49% of their possessions/rights and so on. We have the Bill of Rights to guard against the tyranny of the majority, etc. It is certainly possible for some Proposition to be voted in, and that Proposition to be (truly) unconstitutional. So, in cases like that, the courts are a legitimate remedy.
In the last few decades though, it seems like the Left has attempted to invoke the “unconstitutional-card” so often as to water down its weight and seriousness. It’s gotten to the point that the Left can be counted on to call “unconstitutional” anything that is inconsistent with their political agenda, and it often seems as if they try to win through the courts what they have failed to will through the ballot boxes (e.g., GoreAl in 00, let’s say.)
Does the issue of Prop 8 raise constitutional issues? Not from where I’m sitting, but I suppose reasonable people can disagree. Where one draws the line in these battles is, of course, the whole game, and I suppose that there are those who truly believe some deep form of discrimination is being legitimized (though I personally disagree). So, for them, going nuclear (i.e., trying to invoke the courts) is legitimate.
I’m guessing though, that if Prop 8 failed, and a religious group tried to take the game into overtime by calling on the courts, gay-rights groups would scream bloody murder. We’d have Sullivan solemnly intoning about Federalism, and the need for the will of the people to be respected. (And he’d be right about that.) Had Prop 8 failed, gay-rights activists would’ve won the day fair & square, and those who opposed them would have to just deal with it.
What really bothers me more than anything else is the seeming bad-faith of it all…..the knee-jerk reaction of gay-rights groups to immediately play the “unconstitutional-card” and appeal to the courts. It’s straight out of the Lefty playbook and it’s off-putting to many moderates, I would think.
It’s gotten to the point that no matter what the refs call on the field (i.e., what the voters decide), Lefties throw the red flag and ask for a replay (i.e., judicial review) in the hopes that the outcome will favor them. Challenging something as “unconstitutional” should be relatively rare, and only done in cases where the issues at stake are fairly obvious and clear cut. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case.
Best,
@A-Bax
What part of “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” don’t you understand?
And what is this whining about the left pursuing its agenda through the courts as well as through legislative and other means? Why the fuck shouldn’t they? That’s what the right does, that’s what everybody does — you use whatever means are available and stand a chance of working. Welcome to politics.
Pardon my age, and it is not my parlor; but there are ladies present and I find the vitriol and profanity discordant with the level of intelligent discourse normally encountered here. This is not a juvenile Lefty blog. ◄Dave►
To the degree that my current views and moral preferences can be described as “secular-right” they would have to include this following, seemingly primitive statement:
There’s no such thing as being “intolerant” to gays because there’s no such thing as “gays”.
There, I said it.
If in fact there were some large class of people (some ten percent of the population we’re told) who were truly born with no romantic or sexual interest in members of the opposite sex (regardless of their external environment) as well as with a strong romantic and sexual interest in people of their own gender (again, regardless of any or all environmental factors – iow, they’d “be gay” in Saudi Arabia or in San Francisco) then I would concur that there is a large class of humanity whom we could call “gay” and who are simply the mirror image of so-to-speak heterosexual people and who should be entitled to all of the same civil rights (as regards marriage and anything else) as the “heteronormative” majority.
But the existence of such a class of people has not been scientifically proven WHATSOEVER, despite valiant efforts by thousands of leftists everywhere.
(I should parenthetically note here that I’m not interested in, or discussing, the issue of homosexual sex. I have no problem with it whatsoever and I think that if anyone has a hankering for it, he should try it. My discussion here is NOT whether it’s possible for a human male to get a boner when he’s in some way involved with another human male but whether there is indeed a large class of people who are born AS homosexuals, entirely regardless of where or how they are raised and with what belief system regarding homosexuality. The fact that many men (and let’s stick to one gender here so as not to obfuscate the issue) have, under certain circumstances, a sexual interest in other men is not a matter of contention, nor is it whether many men, under certain circumstances, have no sexual or romantic interest in women. What’s at issue, AGAIN, is whether the common view regarding a large class of “calvinistic” gays, exist. To the best of my knowledge, the available science would have Occam declare that they do not. And, as such, are not a class of people entitled to certain “human rights” (such as to alter the traditional definition of marriage) but are simply men who choose a particular sort of lifestyle and who should have to fight for their community’s preferences in democratic manners rather than behind the aegis of some high moral, uh, rectitude.)
mnuez
Dave, though I’m not one of the individuals above who utilized any four letter words I take great offense at your attempt to stifle people’s words. Stifling words is just one small step ahead of stifling thoughts. The very concept of “taboo words” is meant to get people to surrender to authority by being afraid to say what they mean to say. You may think that you’re taking some sort of moral high ground with your “ladies present” quaintness that has you play the part of the grown-up who’s keeping the enfant terribles in line but in fact you’re taking the moral low ground by creating a moral code based on no rational sense whatsoever. You have no right to call for timidity and I believe that you should apologize to the bloggers whom you belittled by climbing onto your own imaginary high horse.
@◄Dave►
You have to be fucking kidding me.
If the proprietors of this parlor wish to establish speech codes, I’ll respect them, since I have no wish to be an asshole. However, they seem to be willing to employ the full vocabulary of English on their other venues (ie, here and here). I presume everyone here is an adult and has heard language before. This is how people talk. If this blog is going to be limited to the tone of a tea party for church ladies, it’s going to end up being even more boring than it already is.
Also: profanity, sure, but vitriol? Huh?
And for some reason I have to point out that the dean of the use of fuck in modern literature, David Mamet, happens to be a conservative. His political writings are shit, but the man is skilled with the use of the f-bomb, and I respect that.
@mnuez
Excuse me, but isn’t your expression of protest and dismay at my words precisely the same thing I did? You are somehow justified in expressing your “great offense,” but I am not permitted a mild one?
Isn’t your choice of language in the characterization of my supposed motives for expressing my discomfort, an attempt to be even more “belittling” than I was? I make no apologies for my mother’s valuable lessons in how to be a gentleman; they have served me well for over sixty years, and I shall not abandon them now.
That said, I acknowledged that this is not my parlor, and I have no intention of trying to police its decorum. That is the moderator’s call; but they have the right to know that there is at least one gentleman in the room, who is discomforted by gratuitous vulgarity in public among mixed company. ◄Dave►
Mnuez –
You raise an interesting point regarding the idea of being born gay. However, as a gay man who has lived/studied this area for all of my life, it’s my obligation to point out that while science has yet to put their finger on a ‘gay gene’ it also has never found a straight gene. As far as scientists know there is man and woman. That’s it.
It’s always been assumed that men were genetically drawn to women and vice versa, but scientifically there is no genetic proof that is the case. While brain scans and dopamine levels can show some signs of a sexuality (heightened hormones when around a member of the opposite sex, etc) there still is no chemical DNA/RNA, etc, test that shows whether one is gay or straight.
Because sexuality is so connected to many parts of our internal and external being (yes, I do believe that external forces may play a small – and I emphasize small – part in gay/straight/etc sexuality) it’s likely that we’ll never know 100% what determines sexuality.
Finally, just to get your thoughts, say my being gay is just a lifestyle choice. How is this any different than a religious choice? Why should religion be a protected class (and protected institution) while being gay should not? Just a thought.
Best,
Shawn
Shawn, I’m more interested in discussing your second point than your first. To get to the very bottom of what you would probably refer to as the “heteronormative assumption” we would have to discuss a few dozen other base topics first. At this point therefore I’ll suffice with the common sense (cop out) that FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WE’RE TALKING ABOUT REPRODUCTION HERE, THE VERY BASIS OF ALL LIFE ON EARTH! The heteronormative assumption is a pretty good assumption.
As for your second point, I’d be lying if I said that my overwhelming interest in this thing was anything other than my visceral hatred for mass delusions. I can’t stand the fact that one who follows the obvious common sense AS WELL AS the best available scientific evidence is regarded as a troglodyte by the tut-tutting “beautiful people”. I hate the fact that people who believe that gayness is not inherent are mocked with impunity from every venue. Granted, these people deserve to be mocked for the brainless manner in which they go about making their case (what with quoting the bible and something their semi-literate Appalachian uncle supposedly read in town at the grocers one day) – but their general sense of the thing is right, and I hate the mass delusion that it is not.
So that’s my confession. That my major issue with the gay lobby is the fact that they imply (whether they straight out say it or not) that their gayness is akin to African-American’s blackness rather than that their gayness is akin to say Scientology/Environmentalism (by which I mean to say, an identity born of choice and/or environmental factors and/or natural inclinations that end up being manifest in environment X as “being gay”).
Everything beyond that is of secondary interest to me.
Where however do my preferences fall on that issue? At present the enemy of my enemy is my friend which is why I side with the Christians, but at a more mature stage of the game I would like to see an honest and open debate on the subject emerge between honest advocates of the interests of people who self identify as homosexual and honest advocates of people who would like homosexuality to continue to be something looked upon as abnormal. After all, it would be hard to argue that heterosexuality is rather inherent to the human (/primate/entire animal kingdom/etc) condition, with homosexuality being AT BEST a harmless diversion and I can think of many reasons for why there would be an inherent disgust in many people for the very concept of male homosexuality. It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint and can be found in most cultures all over the world and throughout history (occasional diversions by small segments of various populaces notwithstanding – and note as well that in most cases, history’s examples of homosexual sex were carried out by people who would not regard themselves as “gay”, they generally engaged in heterosexual acts as well, note my earlier comment on the subject).
So that’s my rough draft response to your query. The truth of course is that what’s proscribed, allowed or encouraged by our society (or most any other organic one) is generally not based on any clear unifying principles but rather on a hodgepodge of common law and custom, so whether, after long discussion, we might concur that people who consider themselves homosexuals are best compared to people who consider themselves Christian Scientists, it would hardly matter as the feelings of the people and the vicissitudes of the day end up determining what’s proscribes, allowed or encouraged more than does pure logic.
Selah.
mnuez
The Greensboro, NC, Woolworth’s refused to serve blacks at its lunch counter. The Montgomery, AL, bus system refused to seat blacks in the front of its buses. The El Coyote restaurant in Hollywood is a gay hang-out and employs many gays, according to the Wall Street Journal. It has never discriminated against anyone. The daughter of the owner, who manages the restaurant, donated $100 to the Prop. 8 campaign. The noisy boycott of El Coyote has resulted in a 30% drop in revenues. Gay activists have refused to lift their ban unless the manager donates $100 to repeal Prop. 8 or quits. The premise and goal of this and other Prop. 8 boycotts strike me as quite a leap from traditional civil rights boycotts and approach an effort to control private thought and belief through group punishment.
Mtraven writes:
“What part of ‘no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws’ don’t you understand?”
I don’t think you understand how 14th amendment works against the same-sex by judicial fiat. Why do you think there is great reluctance to challenge in the federal court the Prop 8 amendment?
The 14th amendment provides for equal protection under the law. This requires at a minimum evidence of a person or a group being denied a right that the rest of us enjoy. Exactly what right is a homosexual denied that others enjoy? The right to marry a person of the same sex? No one has ever had that right. Meanwhile, no homosexual is denied the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex everyone else enjoys.
There is simply no constitutional basis for the argument that a person who doesn’t like an existing right which no one is preventing him from exercising (i.e., marriage to the opposite sex)constitutes illegal discrimination, let alone the mandating of a new right fashioned to his liking (i.e., same-sex marriage). That’s the hard fact of the matter for same-sex marriage supporters. No one is discriminating against homosexuals regarding marriage. They want a NEW right. A right NO ONE has.
So if same-sex marriage supporters were to try to remove the Prop 8 amendment in the federal courts, the 14th amendment is the death knell for their cause (assuming of course that judges stick to interpreting the law and not making it). If not a death knell, at least it puts same-sex marriage supporters back to doing the hard work of winning a majority of voters to their cause — the work of generation.
@mtraven:
Do threesomes and moresomes have a “right” to polygamous marriages? How about non-sexual marriages (i.e. between, say, an aunt and a niece to as to extend health-care benefits, etc.) Are these not whole classes of people left “unprotected”, in your view?
(You will find it very difficult to justify same-sax marriage yet deny polygamous marriage, I imagine. And, if you are “for” polygamous marriage based on the same kind of reasoning that led you to accept same-sex marriage, well, then you’ve kind of made my point for me.)
Also, that you are so incredulous that someone would take issue with the blatant politicization of the courts shows just how far things have gone, and how rotten they’ve become. The Judiciary is not a “backup” Legislature, though the Left has been using it that way for a while now. The fact that you see no problem with this speaks volumes.
Best.
@Heather Mac Donald
Heather, I understand your point, but I have difficulty being sympathetic to the manager here. She knew (or should have known) 1) who and what her clientele were, 2) that she was making a donation that would become public knowledge, and 3) how her clientele would react to her donation. She chose to take that risk. Her clients have the right to grant or withhold their business for any reason that they see fit, which is their right because it’s their money.
Ed, using your hypo about the student newspaper running an ad calling for a boycott, that sort of thing happens with some regularity and little effectiveness — precisely because it engenders counter-activity; in your case, local Jewish groups will go out of their way to patronize the businesses. But with respect to both the pro-Palestinian student groups and the pro-Israeli community groups, both are exercising their rights to express themselves.
@mnuez
The causes of homosexuality are not clear, but it is very clear that most male homosexuals feel that they are born that way. I don’t have any particular reason to doubt them. Not sure why you are getting yourself so worked up about the issue. The evolutionary argument against a biological cause of homosexuality is strong but Gregory Cochran has some interesting and controversial theories about that; my take on those are here. It doesn’t make that much difference to me; even if homosexuality is a choice rather than a condition, the effect on the legal arguments for gay marriage are secondary.
What great reluctance? It’s being talked about, and if there is any reluctance it is because the current court is dominated by right-wing hacks.
Of course the interpretation of the 14th amendment in this matter is just that — an interpretation. It doesn’t say what equal protection means in each case. That’s why we have high courts, and that is also why the decisions of such courts are political matters and subject to political influence. It’s always been that way, contrary to what someone else was saying. Do you think the Dred Scott decision wasn’t political? or Marbury v. Madison?
But forget all that legal stuff, and the even more trivial arguing about whether a particular boycott is going too far. I’m curious — what is the official Secular Right position on this? You seem very eager to have the government involved in people’s private lives, to the point where they are enforcing the sexual nature of marriage (I guess with telescreens installed in the bedroom). You aren’t libertarian, and your objections aren’t religious by definition, so the only basis for your objection seems to be the straight conservative one — we shouldn’t extend marriage rights to homosexuals because we currently do not. Nothing should ever change. There is some validity to this position, I suppose, but it’s an excruciatingly dull one, and ignores the fact that the rest of the world changes all the time so it is not realistic to expect the political and legal systems to remain static.
Mtraven:
I’m curious — what is the official Secular Right position on this? You seem very eager to have the government involved in people’s private lives, to the point where they are enforcing the sexual nature of marriage (I guess with telescreens installed in the bedroom).
After you have completed your psychoanalysis, get back to me when you want to address the substance of what I actually wrote about.
that particular remark was in response to a-pax, who has something against “Non-sexual marriages”. he didnt say how many times would be required, but I presume there would have to be an enforcement mechanism.
Not presuming and “enforcement mechanism” for the sexual or non-sexual nature of the marriage relationship, simply presuming that relatives would not be having sex with one another. (BTW, why not allow blood relatives to marry one another, for the health-care benefits they would confer? But this is a side issue that I don’t want to become too distracted on…so, moving on).
I don’t know what the official “Secular Right” position on gay marriage is, I can only say what my position is. However, my position is not the issue here. Rather, the issue is the constitutionality of allowing voters to say yea or nay on Prop 8. I don’t remember militant gay-rights activists protesting the constitutionality of Prop 8 before it was voted on, only when it passed.
So, what I’m saying is it sounds like sour grapes to me. Militant gay-rights activists would’ve regarded the failure of Prop 8 as the “will of the people” being ratified, and demanding respect for that spoken-will, I guarantee you. Yet, when things don’t go their way, they go crying to the teachers…
Finally, I still await you position on polygamous marriage. Should polygamous couples be allowed to get married? If not, why not? If not, how is denying them the right to a marriage-arrangement of their choice not a violation of the 14th amendment?
Best,
@A-Bax
Well, I’m not responsible for your defective memory. To remedy your problem, I suggest you use that wonderful cognitive prosthetic Google. It took me 5 seconds to come up with this from that radical group, the League of Women Voters of California:
This is the second stupidest argument made against gay marriage (the stupidest being that it “undermines traditional marriage”). It is perfectly coherent to interpret the equal protection clause as protecting couples, regardless of gender, but not applying to sets of greater cardinality. Which is what the courts will eventually do.
Speaking of coherence, I’m still waiting to hear a coherent secular right argument against gay marriage. I understand the liberal/libertarian arguments in favor, and I understand the religious/traditionalist arguments against it, although I don’t agree with the foundational premises of the latter. But the secular right seems like this weird chimera of enlightenment and counter-enlightenment values, which makes very little sense to me.
I suspect it doesn’t make sense to you and the other posters here either, or you’d be concentrating on the actual issues rather than quibbling over side-orders and trivia like some boycott being nastier than it should be, or the constitutional issues not being raised at exactly the right time you think they should be, or complaining that I use bad language. This is what people do when they don’t have a leg to stand on.
@Heather Mac Donald
Heather,
This is marriage we are talking about, and to be quite frank, the gloves are off. It is our right and we are going to fight for it. As for the manager of El Coyote, she is working to deprive us of our rights and we are depriving her of our patronage – to which she has no right. I frankly don’t have any sympathy.
So you assert. There’s no reason to think that the changing of marriage to include homosexual couples won’t be used as precedent to include polyamorous groups. This is indeed a slippery slope that the secular right can be justifiably worried about.
I don’t want engage you in your own angry tone, so I’ll refrain from the kind of base pettiness that’s been on display from you here.
From the (very quick) look at your blog, you seem pretty Lefty, so I’ll take the anger and haughtiness as par for the course.
Good day to you sir, and I look forward to skipping ahead when I see your handle. 🙂
It shouldn’t have been on the ballot, yet one might argue that any perqs for married Americans (str8 or not) should be verboten, except those agreed to via contract. The sort of moralistic paranoia characteristic of “A-Bax” has as little to do with secularism as a Rick Warren sermon does, however.
@A-Bax: It won’t happen because there is no significant political will to legalize polygamy. If there was, then yes, maybe it would be used as a precedent. That’s how things work.
My confidence that the courts will eventually rule in favor of gay marriage is based in part on the history of miscegenation laws and the efforts to overturn them which culminated in Loving v. Virginia, which you can read about here. The exact same arguments were used in favor of those laws, but they were repealed and the world didn’t end.
I’m sorry you folks are all so sensitive. If you think the stuff I’ve posted here is vitriolic and angry, you really don’t get around much. I notice your delicate nature has conveniently excused you from answering my query. That’s too bad, since I thought it got to the heart of the matter. Anybody else want to take a crack at it?
I’ve tried, but it would appear that you willfully refuse to give a few moments pause to consider what the view that I’ve expressed not only here but on your own blog and in other forums that you were involved with.
I could try again and again to explain the thing in various permutations, restating the underpinnings for opposing gay marriage from a secular standpoint in new and innovative ways, but I can hardly see the point in doing so. The fact that all of the data would appear to indicate that exclusive homosexuality is a psychological abnormality that runs counter to humans’ inherent nature and that by coddling this abnormality and considering it normal we ensure that more and more soft minds will fall victim to believing this about their own natures (and thus live in a manner that is likely less psychologically fulfilling for themselves, less conducive to the continued propagation of their genes and viscerally annoying to the masses of humanity who have not eradicated the inborn disgust with which most virile males regard male homosexual sex) is something that you obviously regard as insane and which you likely believe speaks more to my own psychology than to any others. This, therefore, will hopefully be the last time that I attempt to restate to you a case that you’re obviously never going to reconsider with sufficient open-mindedness to allow for a conversion of your view.
You know that I love you mtray, and furthermore that I regard you as more intellectually flexible than the vast masses of humanity, but still, there’s a point beyond which it’s ridiculous to restate and reformulate an argument that won’t ever be given a truly fair hearing.
Transplanted Lawyer wrote:
Heather, I understand your point, but I have difficulty being sympathetic to the manager here.
You don’t have to be sympathetic to the manager. Why don’t you try looking to her fellow co-workers, who have effing control over any of this? What if some floor manager where I work donates to some cause that causes yet another hissy fit from your quarters? This thuggish hissy fit reaction makes me want to write out a check to the Mormons.
mark wrote:
This is marriage we are talking about…
Yes, that’s right. And some people are taking the issue serious. They have trouble instituting an innovation no one even seriously considered until a couple of decades ago. The fact is, in California homosexuals had every tangible benefit available to them that heterosexuals did under the civil union provision. The question here is whether we are going to say that homosexual “marriage” is as good as marriage. Considering that almost no one “chooses” to be homosexual or wants to have homosexual kids, the answer is pretty much no. A legal fiction won’t really change that, so you’ll still be just as pissy after you get your “marriage” rights as you are now. Except then the divorce lawyers will be really raking the bucks.
“Yes, that’s right. And some people are taking the issue serious. They have trouble instituting an innovation no one even seriously considered until a couple of decades ago.”
The fact that the innovation has only been recently proposed doesn’t say anything one way or the other as to whether its institution would would be good, bad, or neutral.
“You don’t have to be sympathetic to the manager. Why don’t you try looking to her fellow co-workers, who have effing control over any of this?”
The worst that could happen to the co-workers (and the manager) is that they will have to switch jobs. It’s inconvenient, yes. It’s unfair, yes. But it’s also something that happens all the time in a capitalist system. I’m going to lose any sleep over it.
“The question here is whether we are going to say that homosexual “marriage” is as good as marriage. Considering that almost no one “chooses” to be homosexual or wants to have homosexual kids, the answer is pretty much no.”
Now, how does that follow? I didn’t choose to be gay. I wouldn’t want my children to be gay, for a lot of the same reasons why most straight people wouldn’t want their children to be gay. But how does it follow from this that the love I may feel for a man is somehow less than the love I would potentially feel for a woman, were I straight?
The fact that the innovation has only been recently proposed doesn’t say anything one way or the other as to whether its institution would would be good, bad, or neutral.
Logically, that’s true. The problem is that we still have no real idea of what the unintended consequences of this innovation are. THAT alone argues for caution and prudence. THAT is the conservative position, and in fact, California was pursuing a moderate path by offering civil unions (which Warren favors, apparently, though not clearly). But the California court decided democracy was just too damned inconvenient and impose their own will. Fortunately, in this case the voters had another say.
But it’s also something that happens all the time in a capitalist system.
The capitalist system? Please. When a restaurant with lousy food and service goes under, that’s the free market at work. When thugs target a place because of an employee, that’s criminal extortion. You can dress it up however you want, and you’ll probably get away with it, too, but that doesn’t change your status as a thug.
I’m going to lose any sleep over it.
Sayeth the thug.
Now, how does that follow? I didn’t choose to be gay. I wouldn’t want my children to be gay, for a lot of the same reasons why most straight people wouldn’t want their children to be gay.
IOW, homosexuality is not the best option for a human being. Any kind of “equality” granted under that premise is at best a dispensation alleviating a less than optimal situation. It is not the same, and thus not equal. Q.E.D.
The quality of your love is irrelevant.
Let’s push on down this road, though. Let’s say you and your “husband” want to adopt. Under the “marriage” equality option, you get put at the same status as a heterosexual couple, even thought they can offer a child both a mother and father, where you only have two “fathers”. Right there you have a tangible inequality, because (assuming both pairs are otherwise equal in all respects), the child will never have a mother.
Whether homosexuals were ‘born that way’, or became inclined to erotically favor the same gender through later experiences of some sort, is quite irrelevant.
Even the fact that sexuality is so extraordinarily hard to alter that it is essentially impossible for us to change is irrelevant. (There are a few situations that might be able to induce people to adopt certain fetishes, but it’s highly probabilistic and hard to control.)
Conservative jawing aside, marriage in our society has nothing to do with children, no more than it establishes an unbreakable legal bond between people. Marriage is a contractual relationship concerning the merging of households, and one that is relatively easy to dissolve at that. Limiting these contracts to specific gender combinations, non-family members, and no more than two people is arbitrary and pointless.
@mnuez
Sorry you feel I’m not listening…your argument seems to boil down to saying that society should not recognize homosexuality because it’s unnatural, harmful, and disturbs other people. The unnatural part is dealt with by the reference to the history of miscegnation law that I posted — interracial marriage used to be illegal on the grounds it was “unnatural”; we got over it and our president-elect is the product of such a coupling. The “disturbs other people” may be true, but here in the US we have a tradition of individual freedom, diversity, and tolerance that says, tough luck (granted, we also have a tradition of puritanism and state-enforced norms of conduct, as in Prohibition, witchhunts both historical and modern, etc). The harmful doesn’t make much sense, since homosexuality will go on regardless of whether homosexual marriages are legal, and having gays engagge in stable, pair-bonded marriages seems a lot less harmful than the alternatives (also more boring: gays would probably fulfill their crucial cultural roles better if they were forced underground, but they seem unwilling to settle for that).
@Polichinello
“The fact is, in California homosexuals had every tangible benefit available to them that heterosexuals did under the civil union provision.”
No, they didn’t. The California Supreme Court (the body empowered to make that determination) determined that the civil union provision did not contain the same benefits as marriage and that it was, thus, a violation of the constitutional right to equal protection.
—–
“But the California court decided democracy was just too damned inconvenient and impose their own will.”
Yes, because the Court is required to uphold the law, not democracy. And a democratically-approved “law” which violates that constitution is, legally speaking, no law at all.
—–
“Fortunately, in this case the voters had another say.”
And, of course, the Courts will have a further say to determine whether this process was legal. Indeed, the Court has the power to determine that, in light of Prop 8 and its previous ruling, there can be no valid marriages in California, heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise. Which would be a sweet outcome for the Mormons, people like Warren, etc.
—–
“..but that doesn’t change your status as a thug.”
Kind of ironic, isn’t it, that someone who apparently favors putting another’s basic human rights up for a vote has no problem labeling another a thug.
How then, do you make sense of primitive societies (which is most of how humans have lived, throughout most of history) in which there are no real “contracts” to speak of? Where marriage had less to do with romantic inclinations and more to do with stipulating parentage?
To see marriage as having nothing to do with children and as just a contract conferring enumerated material rights and benefits is to be blind to most of human history and a good deal of human nature.
It doesn’t require supernatural commitments to see this.
Best,
First I’d like to say I’m fascinated by this site and the thoughtful level of discourse. A rare find in the wild world of internet comments.
Second, an argument can be made that on our greatly overpopulated planet, homosexuality and gay marriage should be encouraged. There is no need to encourage more people to breed – in fact, draconian incentives limiting population growth are already in place in overpopulated parts of the world (see China’s one-child policy) and likely will become more common in the coming years. Since homosexuality is by its nature a natural population growth inhibitor, government and society should rationally encourage its practice. If homosexuality became all the rage and populations threatened to shrink to levels unsustainable as a species, we could rethink. While that scenario seems unlikely, the opposite is probable.
Of course such a rational, radical proposal will gain little traction, even on a site as thoughtful as this. But something to ponder, nonetheless.
@Polichinello
If there is evidence that children raised in same-sex parent households are worse off, all other factors controlled for, relative to children raised in opposite-sex parent households, then opposite-sex couples should be given precedence over same-sex couples when it comes to adoption. This preference can be given even if gay marriage is made legal. Trust me, I work in adoption and I know what the laws say… nowhere is there a “right” to adopt. Adoption is about the kids’ well-being, not the parents’ desire to have a kid. Preference is assigned to one married couple over another all the time, for all sorts of characteristics, regardless of the fact that the couples themselves are bound by the same legal union.
Ugh. Clearly I can’t incorporate the quote function in my reply. Let me try this again:
Polichinello:
When a restaurant with lousy food and service goes under, that’s the free market at work. When thugs target a place because of an employee, that’s criminal extortion. You can dress it up however you want, and you’ll probably get away with it, too, but that doesn’t change your status as a thug.
What I meant is that there is no such thing as absolute job security in a capitalist system. As for me being a thug, I would not personally participate in the boycott of a restaurant because one person in the restaurant — even the manager — made a donation to a cause I opposed. Please retract your allegation!
homosexuality is not the best option for a human being. Any kind of “equality” granted under that premise is at best a dispensation alleviating a less than optimal situation. It is not the same, and thus not equal. Q.E.D.
Albinism is not the best option for a human being. Near-sightedness is not the best option for a human being. Being 5 foot 4 and a man is not the best option for a human being. So what? Just because someone is not ideal (who is?) doesn’t mean you seize on something that makes them less than ideal and use it to justify continuning to treat them differently under the law. If you truly see homosexuality as an unfortunate handicap, as a lot of straight people probably do, what does it hurt you to make marriage “handicap-accessible?”
Let’s push on down this road, though. Let’s say you and your “husband” want to adopt. Under the “marriage” equality option, you get put at the same status as a heterosexual couple, even thought they can offer a child both a mother and father, where you only have two “fathers”. Right there you have a tangible inequality, because (assuming both pairs are otherwise equal in all respects), the child will never have a mother.
If there is evidence that children raised in same-sex parent households are worse off, all other factors controlled for, relative to children raised in opposite-sex parent households, then opposite-sex couples should be given precedence over same-sex couples when it comes to adoption. This preference can be given even if gay marriage is made legal. Trust me, I work in adoption and I know what the laws say… nowhere is there a “right” to adopt. Adoption is about the kids’ well-being, not the parents’ desire to have a kid. Preference is assigned to one married couple over another all the time, for all sorts of characteristics, regardless of the fact that the couples themselves are bound by the same legal union.
If there is evidence that children raised in same-sex parent households are worse off, all other factors controlled for, relative to children raised in opposite-sex parent households, then opposite-sex couples should be given precedence over same-sex couples when it comes to adoption.
How kind of you. So what do we do with the guinea pigs if things don’t work out? Euthanize them?
The straight up fact is that you have a situation where a child will be deprived of something other children wouldn’t. You can’t wave that away with the usual battery of studies, many of which later turn out to be frauds.
Please retract your allegation!
To the extent that you wouldn’t actually participate, I retract it. That you said you don’t lose any sleep over the issue, I don’t.
So what?
I’m not being asked to pretend albinism or any other disorder is perfectly good, and to make sudden social changes on that basis.
If you truly see homosexuality as an unfortunate handicap, as a lot of straight people probably do, what does it hurt you to make marriage “handicap-accessible?”
That’s what civil unions are about. But we can’t really favor those nowadays as the your side acts in utter bad faith and uses it as a bridge to impose “gay marriage” through the courts.
Kind of ironic, isn’t it, that someone who apparently favors putting another’s basic human rights up for a vote has no problem labeling another a thug.
Until extremely recently, no one ever thought of “gay marriage” as a “human right.” That’s a new imposition on the language invented by people looking for a societal sanction for their deviancy. And when you threaten businesses and employees based on some co-workers completely legal behavior, you are a thug. Period. Paragraph. End of Story.
And since you want to get whiny about “voting” for rights, the fact is it was up for a vote in the Supreme Court. There, the vote was between seven people. You just happen to like that majority better than the one that showed up in November.
How kind of you. So what do we do with the guinea pigs if things don’t work out? Euthanize them?
This is a bit much, don’t you think?
The straight up fact is that you have a situation where a child will be deprived of something other children wouldn’t. You can’t wave that away with the usual battery of studies, many of which later turn out to be frauds.
All other things being equal, it’s better for a kid to have a mom and a dad than to not. But it’s surely better for a kid to have two moms than no one at all. Last year alone, over 15,000 children simply “aged out” of foster care. This means they turned 18, were told “you’re an adult now, go get a job,” and that was that. Kids who age out of the system have pretty crappy outcomes. And there is no research suggesting that children raised by gay couples have outcomes remotely like those of kids “raised” by the state.
Would you really deny a kid a chance at a family because that family is imperfect? Do you really think it’s better for kids to be raised in institutions than by same sex parents?
That’s what civil unions are about. But we can’t really favor those nowadays as the your side acts in utter bad faith and uses it as a bridge to impose “gay marriage” through the courts.
So you’re in favor of civil unions?
@Polichinello:
“Until extremely recently, no one ever thought of ‘gay marriage’ as a ‘human right.'”
So? Took a long time for people to recognize that black folks had all the rights of white people. Further, the question was “equal protection,” which has a long and very distinguished history in the law.
“That’s a new imposition on the language invented by people looking for a societal sanction for their deviancy.”
And the opposition to it, in light of the clear violation of personal autonomy and individual liberty, is nothing but a barely-disguised search for some kind of excuse, no matter how dubious or obviously ad-hoc, to cover grotesque bigotry.
“And when you threaten businesses and employees based on some co-workers completely legal behavior, you are a thug. Period. Paragraph. End of Story.”
Who’s threatening? Customers are saying that they will take their business elsewhere so long as the business owner continues to hire a disreputable person or unless the owner shows his support for his customers by donating to a cause they believe it. That is all perfectly fine and legal.
Do you think that any particular business has a right to its client base? Are customers required to frequent establishments which are managed by people who actively work against them? That business owner has no right to stay in business. He has no right to have people come to his establishment. He has to earn it, every day. And if he hires (or continues to hire) someone which he knows or should know is actively working against his customers, then he can favor his customers or not. That’s his choice and he has to live the consequences of his choice. That’s the beauty of the free market.
One would hope that if this was a largely Jewish clientele and the manager was a supporter of the neo-Nazis or if it was a largely African-American clientele and the manager was a supporter of the Klan, that you wouldn’t call those people “thugs.” But I’m sure you have some dubious and obviously ad-hoc cover to explain away those comparisons.
“And since you want to get whiny about ‘voting’ for rights,”
Who could have guessed that standing up for someone’s rights — trying to protect liberty from the rabble of the ignorant crowd — would be called “whining” in the 21st Century…
“…the fact is it was up for a vote in the Supreme Court. There, the vote was between seven people. You just happen to like that majority better than the one that showed up in November.”
Wow. That shallow argument is all you can muster? I’ll just point out the most obvious of all the reasons why this argument is asinine: when appellate judges and justices “vote,” they are reaching a reasoned judgment concerning a question of law and what the law requires, not giving voice to their personal policy preferences or atavistic bigotries.
So you’re in favor of civil unions?
If it was taken in good faith, as a dispensation for a special circumstance; that is, homosexuality? Yes.
All other things being equal, it’s better for a kid to have a mom and a dad than to not.
That’s all I said. I grant that in less than perfect conditions, adoption by a gay couple would be preferable to the alternatives. The problem is, if you say gays can marry, by law you can’t treat the two situations differently.
…when appellate judges and justices “vote,” they are reaching a reasoned judgment concerning a question of law and what the law requires, not giving voice to their personal policy preferences or atavistic bigotries.
LOL!
Wow, Diet Coke on the keyboard. Thanks for that, still. It’s always good to end the day on a bit of high comedy.
@Polichinello
“Wow, Diet Coke on the keyboard. Thanks for that, still. It’s always good to end the day on a bit of high comedy.”
Don’t tell me you actually believe that “activist judges” bullshit that shallow thinkers like Anne Coulter and Mark Levin push, do you?!?!? Wow, there ARE suckers born every day. I’ll bet you’ve never even read a single judicial opinion all the way through, but feel you know everything there is to know about that nasty-old “judicial activism” just because someone told you what to think. LOL… Typical.