Do Us All a Service and Shut the Hell Up
by KTKDecember 19th, 2006
Mitt Romney:
I don’t think there’s any conflict between feeling that all people deserve respect and tolerance and that discrimination is wrong and a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Kathryn Jean Lopez of The Corner:
Romney would do us all a service if he could get us to a point where a statement like that . . . does not make news because it is a given. To take us to a place where those who support protecting traditional marriage are not easily and routinely dismissed in polite society as homophobic would be a great milestone for civil society.
I dunno. I don’t really think there is a place where being a homophobe doesn’t make you homophobic. Instead, maybe Mitt Romney can take us to a place where he doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals. Maybe he could send Kathryn Jean Lopez a postcard from that place.
It would do us all a service.
Categories: Church & State, Culture, General, Legal Issues, News & Current Events, Politics, Privacy, Religion |
Homosexual acts should be condemned in a decent society. Discriminating against those who commit such vile acts is a good thing. This particular abomination should hold no special rights. We need more politicians and others with influence to stand up against this evil.
Believing two statements that directly contradict each other?
Isn’t that a symptom of mental illness?
To be fair, though, that’s not what Kathryn is pining for — she wants to see a world in which homophobes are “not easily and routinely dismissed in polite society” for being homophobes.
Polite society just isn’t as anti-gay as it used to be, and that makes her sad.
I don’t see your point. I think Mitt Romney has it right on. You can be respectful to all without compromising the institution of marriage.
Romney’s statement makes a confusing headline but when the issue is thoroughly investigated, he’s right on. I understand that homosexual individuals would like to express their love for their partner emotionally and legally and I favor some legal union status but we shouldn’t compromise the institution of marriage to acheive that. People keep calling this issue discrimination but it’s about a cultural definition. People have only been including homosexual relationships as a part of marriage for about the last 8 years.
Which people? Google “Boston marriage” for an eye-opener.
*Don asbestos.* So, Fred…
Thanks for admitting that banning homosexual marriage is descrimination against homosexuals, though you do immediately gainsay this admission with the claim that not banning it would be giving “special rights”.
What makes homosexuality — heck, let’s make this easy — what makes homosexual acts “evil”? What harm do they do, and to whom? Moreover, what compelling interest does American society have in considering them bad? Do you have any basis for this rather odd (sadly, not uncommon, but nonetheless odd) opinion that some personal preferences about sex should have greater legal priveleges than others?
When you call them an “abomination”, do you mean that in the sense of the mistranslation in the King James Bible, that Jews should avoid them the same way that they are to avoid pork? What about us goy, can we ignore this silly rule? Perhaps instead you mean “abomination” in the original Latin sense of something that portends the anger of the gods? What about us rational people, can we ignore the threats of violent, capricious fairy tales? Perhaps you really do mean it in the modern sense of a rather strong synonym for “ickiness”. What about us free people, can we tell you and your desire to legislate taste to fuck off?
“banning homosexual marriage is descrimination against homosexuals,”
“Discrimination” is not a bad word. We discriminate all the time in the choices we make.
If you don’t know what “abomination” means then perhaps you should ask for a dictionary this Christmas.
My stand against homosexual acts is a discrimination against sin. I make no apologies for standing up for what is right. Your last sentence, with its childish four letter word, shows that it is you who wants to legislate taste. The present laws forbid same sex marriage, but you want to legislate your beliefs on everyone else.
Fred wrote: “My stand against homosexual acts is a discrimination against sin.”
I’m not sure that this is relevent, as sin is a religious conceit. Homosexuality is not illegal in most states. Marriage is first and foremost a secular, civil contract.
” as sin is a religious conceit”
No, secularists are the ones full of conceit. That was one of your stranger statements. What do you mean by “religious conceit”?
As to usage, a dictionary isn’t going to help me understand what you mean by a word. I was hoping it was one of the three options I gave, rather than something else wholly unrelated to the real meaning of the word.
Sin is a religious conceit (n., sense 1, or possibly 4) in that it’s meaningless without religion. Arguably, Janusz should have said that it was a spiritualist conceit, but that doesn’t mitigate the point that it pertains not at all to civil society. At least, not in a country that recognizes freedom of the individual conscience.
Perhaps you were lax in your word choice, but “descrimination against” something is always a Bad Thing. “Descrimination between” things is fine. I defy you to tell me how disallowing legal benefits to a group of the basis of their tastes is anything other than bigotted.
And finally, people use obscene words for strength of expression. A lot of us really care whether there are laws penalizing private choices. And it is your obvious biggotry that brought obscenity into this discussion, not my one little word.
Discrimination against something is not always a bad thing. Who made you the judge of word meanings? When one chooses not to murder someone, that is a good thing. When someone chooses not to steal from someone, that is a good thing. When someone chooses not to accept the perversion of homosexual acts, that is a good thing.
“people use obscene words for strength of expression”
The use of obscene words is an attempt by a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
Fred, you’ve still not made any claims about what makes homosexual acts bad. Calling me feeble-minded is cute and all, but it’s not vary articulate.
Fred wrote: “What do you mean by “religious conceit”?
I think it is pretty self-explanatory. Sin is a religious term or idea. As such, it really doesn’t apply, as a justification, to a secular, civil contract such as marriage.
Fred wrote: “If you don’t know what “abomination” means then perhaps you should ask for a dictionary this Christmas.”
If you don’t know what “conceit” means, perhaps you should ask for a dictionary this Christmas.
Is right and wrong a religious concept and therefore invalid?
Which institution of marriage is that? The one with 50% divorce rates, where the divorce rate in the only state McGovern carried is the lowest in the nation?
Marriage and civil unions are one and the same (even the NJ Supreme Court has figured this out), so get over it already.
Right and wrong is not an exclusively religious concept. I believe our secular laws take knowing right from wrong into account when assigning culpability in some legal cases. Nor have I ever said that religious concepts were invalid, only that it is inappropriate to use them to justify secular contracts.
Fred wrote:
“If you really believe in freedom and democracy, Fred, then you should support equal rights for all.”
I know these things go in circles. All of these points have been made before. There are no rights that I have that a homosexual doesn’t have.
“Right and wrong is not an exclusively religious concept.”
Very interesting. So you do believe that some things are right and some things are wrong. What you believe is right and what I believe is wrong. Very judgmental of you. Secular good. Religious bad.
Fred wrote: “What you believe is right and what I believe is wrong. Very judgmental of you. Secular good. Religious bad.”
Where have I said this? In fact, no where have I said in the above post, or at any other time that religion is bad. It certainly doesn’t follow from the sentence you’ve quoted, conveniently leaving out the part where I said “Nor have I ever said that religious concepts were invalid…”
My neighbor has a lovely garden, and she has planted squash and beans together so they can share the same pole to prevent rot by lying on the ground. She is an outstanding citizen, has never had so much as a parking ticket. She is an elder at the local Presbyterian church. She has a neighbor who believes, as is his right, that the Bible is the literal Word of God, and has taken offense at her garden because Leviticus clearly states that “thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed”. He vehemently feels this is a sinful way to plant, again as is his right, and has Biblical justification to back him up. Does he have the right to force her to pull up her garden. Secular law sees no wrong-doing here. Are we to accept he has the right to impose his beliefs on her because he can show a religious and Biblical justification for it?
Just to clarify:
The Dan commenting on this post is not the same Dan who posted elsewhere on this forum. thanks.
Fred wrote:
No, it’s actually reciprocity: you’re expected to be fair to others and in return have every right to expect fairness from others.
If you decide to marry or, if already married remarry your female spouse, I’m sure you can do so in Texas or Utah. To the best of my knowledge, gays and lesbians seeking to exercise that right in either state will be shown the door faster than you can say getouddahere.
Oh, did I refer to marriage as a right? Let me be clear, because I can see big chance for confusion here. It’s a civil right for citizens of legal age or who have parental permission. Churches have a right to refuse a rite of holy matrimony to any persons, for any reason.
Sorry, other Dan. I posted the first three ‘Dan’ comments here, and not the fourth, and no others anywhere on this site. I’ll remember to distinguish henceforce.
“It’s a civil right for citizens of legal age or who have parental permission”
Who says?
Fred, the Constitution says. It’s just taking some people a little time to get it.
Where does it say in the Constitution that it is a civil right for homosexuals to marry? Sometimes it takes people a long time to get something that doesn’t exist.
Right next to the clause that states that “sin” is an appropriate reason to enact laws against people you don’t agree with.
Jnutz, most laws are enacted to state societies’ opposition to what some people agree with.
If you can find any evidence, not your opinion, that the founding fathers agreed that same sex “marriage” was to be protected under the Constitution, I will never post in here again and you and your liberal friends can get on with your incestuous relationship.
Actually Fred, the founding fathers didn’t address same sex marriage, either pro or con. In fact, they didn’t address marriage at all, and therefore it is left up to the states.
Marriage is a secular, civil contract that is recognized, and regulated, by the states. It is the states, and the courts, that determine age of consent, whether restrictions against plural marriage, or anti-miscegenation laws are valid. As such, we’ve seen our concept of marriage, and family, evolve. And, as marriage is a civil contract, solely religious concepts, such as “sin”, are not pertainent to the discussion.
“In fact, they didn’t address marriage at all,”
I know. I’m not the one who brought up the Constitution. Address your comments to S.W. Anderson.
Dan M.
No biggie. Have a happy holidays
who the hell does this “fred” think he is. when you refer to homosexual acts as “vile” and “perverse,” do you understand those that commit them? no, i did not think so. your only thinking of your traditional, idiotic views that the only thing that is right is marriage between a man and a women. the world is changing, and that means its views on homosexuality are as well. also this fred, whined about the use of obscene words. well grow up, you called them “childish,” yet your the one whining about the use of simple words. do me a favor and shut the hell up. maybe you should grow before you look at others, complaining about them. and do not dare say that gays are not “descriminated” against because of the marriage laws, and that we have every right that you do. because i am experiencing this “perverse” life and it is not morally right when i am “hated” just because of the fact that i do not see the same thing as you when i look at a women. and we both know that you have “perverse” thoughts of women when you look at them, it is just that i have thoughts of other people than you, and because of this simple difference, you descriminate against my way of life. i was born this way, and yes i would have perferred to be a heterosexual, but that did not happen and i have to live with who i am. i just wish that others would learn to live with that as well.