It’s Starting to Look a Lot Like Equality
Posted by
KTK
(. . . in two states, at least).
Massachusetts is now in the process of repealing the racist and obsolete law that Mitt Romney invoked to continue to limit marriage rights for gays after the state legislature removed the overt bar to marriage in the law. Until now, gay couples - but not heterosexuals - could not get married in Massachusetts unless they were official residents of the state, as the result of an old Jim Crow law specifying that couples from out of state could not get married “if their marriage would be illegal in their home state” - a reference to anti-miscegenation laws in southern states. The Supreme Court has long since invalidated legal prohibitions on inter-racial marriage, and the law has never been invoked since then, but was never officially appealed repealed. When gays won the right to marriage equality, the existing anti-equality law was triggered again, so now the law only applies to gays. Romney and his right-wing supporters, happy for any form of discrimination they can still call their own, used it to prevent marriages for gay couples from other states. Now that MA has a decent governor again, they’re working to correct certain oversights.
Interestingly, the article implies (though perhaps not intentionally) that the legislature only acted after marriage equality was recognized in California without a discriminatory clause, and New York state announced it would recognize out of state marriages (ironically, without actually providing equality for in-state ones). That creates a huge pressure for New York couples to seek marriages in California or Canada, to claim equality back in New York. With full marriage equality available in Massachusetts, NY couples can get it done there much more easily than in California, representing a potential revenue stream of more than $100 million over just a few years’ time. Was MA really acting to end discrimination, or just jumping on a lucrative westward-bound bandwagon? Hard to say, but it underscores the dangers of leaving your liberties in other people’s hands.
Either way, great news, again, from Massachusetts. Step by step, state by state, one of the ugliest forms of open discrimination still remaining in this country fades into the growing trash heap of conservative history. Every day, hundreds of new legal gay couples are created, and thousands of people see their stupid fears and fantasies exploded by the simple, mundane reality of equality in their states, cities, and neighborhoods. By the time the planned hate amendment referendum comes up in California this winter, there will be tens of thousands of gay couples married and living in equality in that state - and California is not going to vote to forcibly divorce them all simply out of spite. The other states will follow suit, as their own citizens marry and demand recognition of their rights. With two states now actively offering to all citizens a form of legal equality that they can take back to their homes, there will be a flood of legally married gay couples across the country not merely challenging the legal discrimination they face, but forcing their neighbors to admit that it’s their own friends and family members they are hurting for no reason.
It’s over. The haters have lost, faster even than I imagined. The bigots are now doing nothing more than fighting a rear-guard action to see how long they can continue destroying at least some lives, somewhere. They’ll succeed in that - they’re good at it. Jim Crow taught them how to evade and undermine legal equality with a fierce and savage cunning, and they haven’t forgotten. If we don’t get a decent Supreme Court, it could be that the last state to hold out for discrimination could go for decades before giving up. But that’s all just trapped-animal raving. As far as the nation’s choice between equality and bigotry is concerned, and notwithstanding some early and painful victories by well-organized bigots, it’s over.
Well, damn, I may have to discuss a trip to Mass. with my girlfriend. (At least that this way, we can have a Boston Marriage.)
Then again, I would really like to see NY be responsible and recognize all weddings in its own state.
Comment 7/17/2008
I find it interesting that what defines a bigot in once instance is allowable in another.
It seems it is all a matter of what society deems acceptable at the time. People KTK is labelling as bigots now would never have been labelled as such even 25 years ago. In fact people with KTK’s attitude would have been ridiculed and mocked. So society has changed and moved.
If you look at the phrasing KTK is using, he has decided what is appropriate regarding gay marriage and anyone outside of his perspective is viewed with derision and mocking. Seems very similar to what has happened in the past with so many things.
I guess what I am saying is that in reality, bigotry simply just moves from one target to another. It never really disappears. It is just a matter of what type of bigotry is deemed acceptable by society at the time.
Comment 7/17/2008
I guess what I am saying is that in reality, bigotry simply just moves from one target to another. It never really disappears. It is just a matter of what type of bigotry is deemed acceptable by society at the time.
Unfortunately, I think that’s true to a certain extent. Additionally, that’s why I don’t make claims to be completely free of any kind of bias – it’s either naïve or arrogant to make that statement.
I do think it is important to remember that generally regarding those who explicitly and adamantly try to protect institutionalized bigotry of gay couples as shitbags isn’t the same as campaigning for institutionalized discrimination, and systematic marginalization of individuals based solely upon membership to a certain group.
Comment 7/17/2008
I would really like to see NY be responsible and recognize all weddings in its own state
We’ll get there. (Big Catholic lobby - but times are changing.)
People KTK is labelling as bigots now would never have been labelled as such even 25 years ago. In fact people with KTK’s attitude would have been ridiculed and mocked. . . . I guess what I am saying is that in reality, bigotry simply just moves from one target to another.
Well, no.
For one thing, 25 years ago was 15 years after the Stonewall riot that kicked off the modern gay-rights movement, more than 30 years after the founding of the first open gay-rights organization in the country, more than 1600 years after gay marriage was made illegal for the first time in the Roman Empire (by Christians, naturally), more than 2500 years after institutionalized male love affairs were common in Greece . . . . Gay marriage in the US would have been an unlikely political issue at that time, but it would hardly have been unusual historically, and gay rights in general was well-entrenched as a political movement in the US.
As for bigotry, I refer to homophobes as bigots because they’re bigots. They have an irrational animus toward a specific group of people unjustified by anything other than personal ideology or mindset - that’s what bigotry is. I’ll stop calling them that when they stop behaving that way.
I also think bigotry is a bad thing, but that has nothing to do with whether homophobia is bigotry. It simply is - it represents the kind of feelings that are properly so classified, and not in a subtle way. It’s true that the general social acceptance of that form of bigotry has both risen and fallen over time, largely in direct keeping with the social influence of Christianity, but that also has nothing to do with the fact that it’s bigotry at bottom. As to “what is appropriate” regarding gay marriage, I think it’s appropriate not to be a bigot with regard to that issue. That hardly seems like a radical position to take, though I’m well aware there are many people who still can’t meet that standard.
Consider this: I also said that the same law that has been used to prevent marriage by non-MA-resident gays is “racist”, because it was originally designed to prevent marriages by inter-racial couples. You didn’t object to that; I presume you agree that it is, or was, racist. But the law used today against gays is exactly the same law, and being invoked in exactly the same way. How is that not an act of bigotry? The law was designed for bigotry - it has no other purpose; it serves no useful function other than to cater to the prejudices of people who want to ban marriages by couples they don’t like. The racial application of that law was invalidated by a Supreme Court ruling - was that an act of bigotry against racists who were infuriated they couldn’t meddle with inter-racial marriage any longer? Or, perhaps, is banning bigotry just the right thing to do? Is this law’s homophobic application somehow reasonable while its racial application was obviously bigoted? Or, perhaps, does the eager grasping of a faded remnant of Jim Crow by the likewise-fading homophobic rearguard tells us something about what kind of people they are, and what lies at the heart of their fears and animosities?
Finally, I’m puzzled as to what you mean in saying “bigotry . . . moves from one target to another.” I guess that’s true - different groups have it worse at different times - but I don’t think that was what you were saying. If you mean that the focus of bigotry moves back and forth between different sides of the same issue, that’s rarely the case, and certainly not in these circumstances. The fact that anti-gay prejudice is receding doesn’t mean that bigotry is “moving to another target”; hopefully it means that bigotry is going away. At any rate, there’s no other “target” in this issue.
I presume, though you don’t make it clear, that this is just more disingenuous Christian victimization cant. But the fact that somebody is now allowed to do something that you resent is not some sort of attack on you. The law doesn’t even affect non-gays! It’s far less intrusive than laws prohibiting discrimination in retail businesses, or the invalidation of racial covenants on home deeds; the law allowing gay marriage doesn’t require any action, or impose any restriction, of any kind on anyone opposed to it. It merely determines that they can’t make their bigotry the standard for other people’s rights. If you imagine that is some sort of mirror-image reflection of the bigotry of the original ban, you’re simply wrong; gay marriage rights are not bigotry, and not harming anybody, which makes them different in every important way from a ban on gay marriage rights. And it has nothing to do with “what type of bigotry is deemed acceptable by society”: the fact that people no longer share your bigotry is not a form of discrimination.
Comment 7/17/2008
KTK - What I was indicating is that bigotry simply moves from one target to the next. At this time, anyone who is not in favour of gay marriage is being stereotyped by people like yourself as being homophobic or hateful, etc. The fact is there are many people who have no fear of gays or hatred towards gays but simply disagree with the idea of gay marriage. I know it is much more complex than that but that is all I have time for right now.
So really, your lumping together of all people who are not visibly and actively in favor of gay marriage is indeed a form of bigotry. But at this time it is a readily and happily accepted form of bigotry so apparently that makes it okay????
Comment 7/17/2008
The fact is there are many people who have no fear of gays or hatred towards gays but simply disagree with the idea of gay marriage.
“The fact is there are many people who have no fear of blacks or hatred towards blacks but simply disagree with the idea of black/white marriage.”
There’s a word for that, you know.
Comment 7/17/2008
The fact is there are many people who have no fear of gays or hatred towards gays but simply disagree with the idea of gay marriage
And some people would have complained that their support of slavery was rooted in economics, what’s your point? There’s really nothing to disagree with when it comes to gay marriage any more than there is to disagree with between the marriage of heterosexual couples of different races, that’s KTK’s point. Opposition to gay marriage is, by definition, bigotry because there is no non-mean-spirited, practical reason to oppose it (unless you work for a life insurance company or something).
Anyway, I thought you meant that in some circles it goes largely unchecked if you treat all urban black males as monoliths, in other circles the same pass is given the way Republican Senators are treated. In that respect, I think there’s something to the point. KTK’s really good at explaining all that stuff away, and I could do that too, and I actually do, when I feel it’s warranted. But, at some level, I’ve just chosen to defend the empirical basis for my biases instead of pretending they don’t exist.
Comment 7/17/2008
“At this time, anyone who is not in favour of gay marriage is being stereotyped by people like yourself as being homophobic or hateful, etc. The fact is there are many people who have no fear of gays or hatred towards gays but simply disagree with the idea of gay marriage.”
I hope not. I mean, if you are going to restrict the rights of other people, I would at least hope the rationale behind your action is based on some sort of conviction. If not, why do it, sport? It can’t be religion, because we all agree that we don’t want the religious beliefs of some to be codified and applied to all.
Comment 7/17/2008
“The fact is there are many people who have no fear of blacks or hatred towards blacks but simply disagree with the idea of black/white marriage.”
The fact that you continue to bring up anti-black issues without acknowledging that there are likely just as many blacks that disagree with black/white marriages as there are white people reflects a bigoted attitude on your part. Or is it okay for blacks to not like interracial marriages because they’ve been oppressed for many years?
Bigotry is bigotry. Plain and simple. Things that have been spoken in blanket terms about Christians and Republicans on this site have been either glossed over or roundly accepted as okay when if they had been spoken about other groups the author would have been ripped apart.
Personally, I believe the state should get out of sanctioning religious marriages. I think there should be a civil union contracts issued by the state and the word marriage should stay within religious circles (regardless of the religion). That is my perspective. That would be treating everyone equally and give everyone equal rights under the law.
Comment 7/17/2008
they’re free to disagree with it on precisely whatever grounds they please, but why should their disagreement be codified into law?
i was going to ask what such a disagreement might conceivably be based on if it isn’t based on homophobia, hatred, or bigotry, but i realized that that would be superfluous. those three possible causes are clearly not good reason to ban homosexual marriage either, after all. the key point is why anybody’s dislike of a concept (same-sex marriage) should be made the law of the land; riddle me that, please.
Comment 7/17/2008
oh, and one more thing:
it is. the state only sanctions civil marriages. for simple convenience, however, it empowers clergy members of a great number of religions to perform such, and allows them to do it as part of (or immediately after, or otherwise in connection with) whatever religious ceremony they please to also officiate. but the religious ceremony is not sanctioned by the state, just the civil marriage paperwork duly completed and submitted to the state by the preacher (or whatever the title may be).
now, maybe this is a mistake; perhaps the state should strip marriage-making powers from anybody not a state employee and force marrying couples to go through city hall (or whatever) in addition to whatever religious ceremony they wish to have. it’d be an additional cost, effort, and annoyance that lots of people would resent, but whatever. would that, in your opinion, resolve the issue?
Comment 7/17/2008
perhaps the state should strip marriage-making powers from anybody not a state employee and force marrying couples to go through city hall (or whatever) in addition to whatever religious ceremony they wish to have. it’d be an additional cost, effort, and annoyance that lots of people would resent
It’d be exactly the procedure followed in many European nations, including Italy. Note, too, that it’s the religious ceremony that is the “additional” cost and effort - it adds nothing to your marital status, it’s just something you choose to do because you feel like it. You can hardly complain about having to pay for something you only did because you chose to.
But all of that is off-point. The issue here was, however people go about getting married, are gays allowed to do so as well as hets? Big U clearly started out defending the negative position, and now is suggesting he only meant that “the word marriage” should be applied to religious ceremonies. That seems nonsensical to me (now religions get to tell us what words we can use?), but it also evades the question. There are religious groups that will perform marriages for gay couples: the important question is not whether other religious people get to go around sniffily declaring that those aren’t “marriages”, but whether they must be recognized under the law equally with marriages for mixed couples.
No one cares whether religious bigots hold their breaths until they turn blue because the people they don’t like are using the word “marriage”. They care about whether everyone has the same rights to marriage or not. And that question can only be resolved in one way.
Comment 7/17/2008
Ted > In your point in #8, it is somewhat confusing. You say a person can not disagree because “we all agree that we don’t want the religious beliefs of some to be codified and applied to all”.
Now this is where my frustration begins. I disagree with gay marriage based on religious grounds. However, I accept that within our pluralistic society, gay marriages are now sanctioned. That is the law or becoming the law in several places so I will respect the law. But that is clearly not enough for several people. I have to agree that it is a good thing and reject my religious beliefs or I will be labeled as homophobic or hateful. And yet I am told by the same people that I am allowed to have my religious freedom.
To me religious freedom would mean that I would not be forced to say something that goes counter to the Bible is a good thing. To be forced to denounce my religious beliefs or face being called names and ridiculed is definitely not a sign of tolerance or equality.
I know several people who dislike certain laws but follow them because they are law-abiding citizens. This is called maturity and is an indication of intelligent thought and acceptance.
Comment 7/17/2008
KTK, your hatred of Christians is becoming very clear.
Comment 7/17/2008
“They care about whether everyone has the same rights to marriage or not. And that question can only be resolved in one way.”
Care to clarify? In Canada, any couple together for more than two years is considered identical to married couples in every aspect. So what need could there be for use of the word marriage to be expanded to apply to more than just that between other than to force a change in how society views the relationship?
Comment 7/17/2008
Big U:
… there are likely just as many blacks that disagree with black/white marriages as there are white people …
Even if true, how is this relevant? To my knowledge, nobody here said that white people had a monopoly on bigotry. There are plenty of black bigots out there, I’m sure. Their bigotry is wrong, too.
I’ll try to put KTK’s point in bringing up the racism aspect more succinctly, however: Just because the bigotry of the past used to have wide acceptance (and in some cases, little opposition) doesn’t mean that it wasn’t bigotry. Of course it was!
And in any case, you’re the moral absolutist Christian of the group. It was either wrong then and wrong now and will always be wrong, or it was never wrong and never will be wrong. It doesn’t matter how well-received it was; moral truth is not a popularity contest. So I find your “moving target” argument a bit puzzling coming from you.
Bigotry is bigotry. Plain and simple. Things that have been spoken in blanket terms about Christians and Republicans on this site have been either glossed over or roundly accepted as okay when if they had been spoken about other groups the author would have been ripped apart.
For the most part, apples and oranges. Christianity and Republicanism (your two examples) are groups is which membership is (at least in principle) voluntary. In that respect, it’s not even close to the same thing as skin color, or sexual orientation. On religion you might have a better case.
Criticizing someone because of who they are (inherently) is absolutely bigotry. Criticizing them for what they do, and what they advocate for? I fail to see how that’s off limits, or even close to bigotry.
Do we sometimes paint with too broad a brush when describing, say, “Christians” as a group? Almost certainly. But it’s different in kind than the type of bigotry we’re discussing here.
Comment 7/17/2008
Big U, my comment might have been a bit off-topic. I have not been following this thread that closely, and based on the statement of yours I was responding to, I thought the topic was the actual legalization of gay marriage. If you are just talking about not liking it (as opposed to trying to prevent it), heck, feel free to be a hater, that’s certainly your right. (And we all know you will only be hating the sin, not the sinner.)
Comment 7/17/2008
online dictionary definition:
big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Tgirsch -
1. my point was that KTK was taking exception with whites who opposed interracial marriage…no one else. He could easily have criticized all opponents of interracial marriage but he specifically chose to criticize white people. As you said, it is all wrong, but that is not what KTK said or even inferred.
2. sexual orientation is not something a person is born with as color of their skin is. At least to this point there is no clear evidence as such. Much speculation but no evidence. So comparing who someone chooses to sleep with to someone’s skin color is not proper.
3. Read my words carefully. I never said the bigotry was right. What I was saying is to use societal values to determine what is and is not bigotry is a dangerous slope.
Comment 7/17/2008
“feel free to be a hater, that’s certainly your right”
hehehe. That’s kinda funny. So I am opposed to something and that makes me a hater? That would make everyone who opposes anything a hater. Kind of sad how “equal” now means “same” to so many people.
Comment 7/17/2008
Nah, I was using the word as the kids do. Just means to disapprove or dislike.
Comment 7/17/2008
really?
when and why did you choose your sexual orientation, then?
for some reason, i can’t seem to remember how i came by mine. i’m heterosexual, which is kindof boring, but also safe. if sexuality is chosen, why would anybody choose to be homosexual, given the intense ostracism of such people? what would be the advantages or appeal of such a choice?
or perhaps it isn’t a choice. perhaps it’s imparted on one through upbringing, at too early an age for the child to be able to influence the matter. at which point the question becomes, how is that any different from an innate sexuality as far as ethics are concerned?
Comment 7/17/2008
Big U:
sexual orientation is not something a person is born with as color of their skin is
Really? Did you one day make a conscious decision to be straight, or did it just sort of come naturally to you?
As to the definition of bigot you found, that’s not the one I get:
Frankly, I think the definition of bigotry you cited is far too broad — it makes anyone who’s even strongly opinionated a bigot. But for more on why looking up definitions in the dictionary is a bad idea for such semantic disputes, see here.
Comment 7/17/2008
tgirsch > you find me scientific evidence of a genetic reason for sexual orientation and I will agree that it is a born trait. Until that time, it is a faith of certain people to believe that. And from what I have read on these boards, belief in something that has not been scientifically proven is faith.
And as far as my definition being too broad, this definition is very close to most I found: “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” And several of the comments that are made on these boards fall into that category when it comes to religion…especially Christianity.
Comment 7/18/2008
KTK, your hatred of Christians is becoming very clear.
I’ve said nothing about Christians as such. Everything I’ve said that touches on them explicitly references bigotry the form of behavior and attitudes toward others. That is always validly open to criticism. I criticized people who hold such attitudes toward gays, but I did not criticize anyone for being Christian, or say that Christianity entails bigotry. It is only Christian bigots who claim that they are bigoted because they are Christian. I never understand why they’re willing to make that claim about themselves, rather than just stop being bigots, but it’s not my fault.
KTK was taking exception with whites who opposed interracial marriage…no one else
I never once mentioned whites as the source of anti-miscegenation laws. I said the laws were racist - I said nothing at all about who passed them or who supported them. You are completely making this up.
In addition, while there has been some controversy in the black community about “marrying out” (as in the Jewish community, and many other ethnic communities), it wasn’t blacks who made it a crime to do so, or lynched people for doing it. That was entirely down to whites. And black opposition to mixed marriages (as with Jewish opposition, and similarly in many ethnic communities) did not stem from irrational animus toward other groups - that also was white schtick. Many minority groups resent anything that makes it harder to preserve group identity, such as reducing the pool of available partners within the community by marrying out. That’s a far cry from holding that one group (still less the minority group itself!) is “tainted” or inferior.
Claiming some kind of symmetry between oppressors and the oppressed because they both want to avoid the other - with no reference to history, context, or the underlying attitudes and beliefs that motivate such desires - is simply insane. So is claiming that the oppressor is a victim because they can’t get everything 100% their way. So is claiming that the oppressed actually support oppression. Such pretense is an unmistakable identifying mark of those who want to deny the existence of oppression in the first place. That, too, would be insane if it were to be taken seriously. I usually assume there’s a self-interested motive for that desire.
Read my words carefully. . . .
(We’ll pass on the irony of this.)
. . . I never said the bigotry was right. What I was saying is to use societal values to determine what is and is not bigotry is a dangerous slope.
More to the point, it’s simply false. “Bigotry” is not defined by societal values - it’s a factual description of a particular attitude toward or treatment of particular groups, motivated by hostility alone. To say someone is a bigot is to make a factual claim about them, like saying they’re a Republican (possibly a redundancy*) or they like chocolate ice cream. You’re making a statement about how they think - not about what society feels about that. The statement can be true or false, and which it is depends upon their beliefs or psychological states - not anything to do with society at large.
It’s true that whether a certain form of bigotry is socially acceptable changes with time, which is what you seem to have in mind. But that’s completely different from the question whether a certain attitude constitutes bigotry in fact. Racism is a form of bigotry that was once openly acceptable and now is not. Homophobia has always been a form of bigotry also, but only lately is becoming unacceptable. But those changes in social acceptance do not change the matter of fact about what kinds of attitudes or feelings constitute racism or homophobia. And if you think bigotry is bad, claiming that a certain form of bigotry was once acceptable is not a defense to the charge of being a bigot.
You seem to be losing the thread. The issue, again, was whether it is reasonable to ban equality of marriage rights on the grounds of sexual preference and to ban equal recognition of valid marriages even after they have occurred. I also note the moral bankruptcy of using long-discredited, racist Jim Crow laws to impose new forms of discrimination when legal equality has been granted. You respond with one red herring after another:
- Homophobia used to be popular
- It’s not bigotry if people approve of it
- It’s anti-Christian to oppose Christian bigotry
- Only religious people are allowed to use the word “marriage”
- It’s unfair to accuse whites of racism for passing Jim Crow laws
- Sexual orientation is not innate
. . . and a bunch of others.
Aside from the fact that you were factually wrong in your statements about most of those, notice that none of them has anything to do with the issues at hand. (Recall what I said above about denying the existence of the problem.)
Not only are they conceptually unrelated to the question of gay marriage, but even if you were right about any of the points you make, my claim that the opposition to marriage equality is an expression of bigotry would remain untouched. (Homosexuality is chosen? So what? It’s still bigotry to deny people legal rights because you don’t like the choice.) You simply aren’t discussing the question - which seems to me highly suggestive of an inability to face it, or discomfort with the likely consequences of doing so.
* I kid! I kid!**
** On the square.
Comment 7/18/2008
“sexual orientation is not something a person is born with as color of their skin is.”
Now we are starting to get down to it. I suppose people choose other personality traits as well. Anyone who has had kids knows that at a very early age - before the capacity for choice exists - kids exhibit personal traits that stay with them for life. Different kids, same family, different traits. Nurture certainly can modify personality, and once older, personal choice can as well, but if you don’t believe kid are born with certain personality traits you haven’t been around them as they begin to grow.
And given that, along with the fact that in my case I did not choose to be heterosexual, I’m going with one is born with sexual preference. Especially since there is no evidence to contradict it. Just anti-gay folks trying to stack the deck.
Comment 7/18/2008
“Bigotry” is not defined by societal values - it’s a factual description of a particular attitude toward or treatment of particular groups, motivated by hostility alone.
Interesting that you would redefine what motivates bigotry and then choose to ignore that when referencing anyone who is opposed to gay marriage. The vast majority of Christians that I know do not have any hostility towards gays (unless you also want to add your own twist to what the word hostility means.) Most that I know (including myself) are opposed to gay marriage based on what the Bible states. That is a part of religious freedom.
You respond with one red herring after another:
- Homophobia used to be popular
- It’s not bigotry if people approve of it
- It’s anti-Christian to oppose Christian bigotry
- Only religious people are allowed to use the word “marriage”
- It’s unfair to accuse whites of racism for passing Jim Crow laws
- Sexual orientation is not innate
To address the above I will say that I am going to guess you misunderstood what I said rather than intentionally lying, taking things out of context or twisting to suit your needs.
- Homophobia used to be popular - If saying something is a widely held view in society, then that is true (even though using phobia is an insult to people who have actual fears).
- It’s not bigotry if people approve of it - not sure where you got this from. I never said or even implied this.
- It’s anti-Christian to oppose Christian bigotry - now this is a twist of significant porportions. I never said bigotry displayed by Christians is acceptable. I also never said anything about opposing Christian bigotry. What I was referencing was your many instances on this site where you attack people who hold Christian beliefs. You show much more anger and hostility towards Christians than I have ever shown towards gays. And yet you are very comfortable in calling me a bigot (you have labeled all Christians as such) but will not hold yourself to the same standard. Which in reality means that your bigotry (hatred or hostility) towards Christians is acceptable in your eyes.
- Only religious people are allowed to use the word “marriage” - this is not a red herring. It is a political position based on a religiously held viewpoint that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
- It’s unfair to accuse whites of racism for passing Jim Crow laws - please show me where I said anything about not accusing racist white people of being racist. If you can’t then this is evidence of you reading something into a comment that simply wasn’t there and shows more about your prejudices than it does about anything else.
- Sexual orientation is not innate - I stand by my position on this. No scientific evidence of any kind has come forth to prove otherwise. Once it does, I will change my position.
For some reason you also chose to ignore the comments I made about being willing to follow the laws laid out by society. I do not have to agree with gay marriage, but if the governing bodies pass legislation approving of it, then so be it. I will abide by the laws.
UPDATE: Fixed some HTML typos. [KTK]
Comment 7/18/2008
Big U, the fact that neither you, nor anyone you know, nor anyone at all for that matter, chose your sexual orientation does not carry any weight with you? Since it has not been scientifically proved, and it is convenient for your other beliefs, you will ignore the life xperience of everyone you know and cling to the possibility that some people choose their sexuality. I guess that means you are a fan of those homosexual reprogramming organizations. Take a gay person and teach them how to be straight. What a horrific thing tdo to someone.
Comment 7/18/2008
Big U:
It seems we have a bit of a standoff. I can’t conclusively prove that sexual orientation is innate. You can’t conclusively prove that it isn’t. So where does that leave us? I would think we should err on the side of caution in that case. In the absence of compelling evidence one way or the other, it’s better to err on the side of treating it as innate, rather than treating it as a “choice” and running the risk of discriminating against people who can’t help their nature.
The vast majority of Christians that I know do not have any hostility towards gays
No hostility they just want them treated as second-class citizens. Heterosexual people can marry the willing life partner of their choice (barring incest), but homosexuals cannot. We’re talking about two consenting adults, with no compelling reason to prevent them from doing what they want to do. If you’re going to restrict freedom, it seems to me you should have a compelling reason for doing so, beyond just “I think it’s icky!” or “Scrolls that are four millennia old say it’s bad!”, which is what most arguments against gay marriage tend to boil down to.
If saying something is a widely held view in society, then that is true
Well, yeah, it’s true, it’s just no excuse. What was the point of bringing up the fact if not to defend the widely-held view, or those who held it? If lots of people used to be wrong, that doesn’t make them any less wrong.
(even though using phobia is an insult to people who have actual fears)
My turn to go all Webster on your ass
:
[Bold mine.] Although, too be fair, I agree it’s an awkward word in this situation. There just doesn’t happen to be a better word. It’s kind of like misogyny, but for homosexuals.
What I was referencing was your many instances on this site where you attack people who hold Christian beliefs.
Maybe I read him a little differently than you did, but it seemed to me that he was criticizing the beliefs more than the people who hold them, although it’s certainly true he was holding the people accountable by extension. And whether or not they deserve that criticism depends on the belief. I suspect even most Christians would be highly critical of other Christians who still believed that slavery is acceptable, for example. It’s clearly condoned by scripture and never explicitly condemned, but pretty much everyone acknowledges that slavery is bad, and would not pull punches in their criticism of someone who believes otherwise.
It is a political position based on a religiously held viewpoint that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Well, yes it is, but if it’s a political position, then it shouldn’t be immune to either criticism or ridicule. And, in my estimation, it’s worthy of both. In the US, in particular, this is so: we have an explicitly secular government, so there’s simply no justification for codifying explicitly religious tenets into law (although we have a nasty habit of doing it anyway, e.g., “blue laws,” etc.). When you can come up with a secular justification for discriminating against gays in marriage, then you’ll have a valid political argument, but not before.
If somebody tried to pass a law making it illegal to work on Sundays (or, depending on your perspective, Saturdays), they’d be laughed out of the legislature. And that’s one of the big ten commandments, the most important things you guys ascribe to. Marriage hasn’t been explicitly defined as being between one man and one woman since Genesis 2, as far as I can tell, and some of those Old Testament cats had dozens of wives and concubines. It’s hard to make a Christian argument against gay marriage when you can’t even get working on the Sabbath banned (and wouldn’t even try to do so). Oh, and before you go all Old Testament / New Testament on me, let’s remember that the New Testament doesn’t exactly have a rosy picture of marriage, either. And then there’s this, which I’ve always found hard to square with the whole “New Testament releases us from the Old” crap. But I digress…
please show me where I said anything about not accusing racist white people of being racist
You didn’t exactly do that, but you did keep bringing up that non-whites exhibited racist behaviors also, as if this somehow either excused the racist behavior of whites, or made it not quite as bad as it otherwise would have been.
Sexual orientation is not innate - I stand by my position on this. No scientific evidence of any kind has come forth to prove otherwise.
Wrong again. But even if that weren’t the case, you can’t provide evidence that it isn’t innate, so as mentioned above, why should the burden of proof be on everyone but you? You’re the one who wants to disqualify a group from a right based on the trait in question. You should have to justify that disqualification.
I will abide by the laws.
That’s all well and good, but to use an extreme example (no, I’m not accusing you of anything of the sort), just because some white guy doesn’t act illegally toward blacks doesn’t mean that guy isn’t a racist. Getting back to your specific case, it seems that you’d be obeying the law, but grudgingly. You’re the one who wants to preserve (or, in Canada’s case, restore) discrimination, but you keep trying to put the burden of proof on us as to why we shouldn’t discriminate, rather than presenting a compelling argument for why we should do so.
Comment 7/18/2008
Ted:
Well stated, and in exponentially fewer words than I used.
Comment 7/18/2008
Not well typed though. I had the tip of my left middle finger removed a while back, and my typing (which was never great) has taken a big hit. Thank god I’m not writing software anymore. Humans tend to be better at determining intent than compilers. (Although, and this is before all you whippersnappers were computer-aware - or born in most cases - there was a compiler that came out of Cornell back in the 70’s that took a stab at correcting what it determined to be typos in the source code. What a freaking nightmare that was! I can’t recall the name of the language. It was “C” (for Cornell) followed by the name of an existing language. I’m sure I’ll think of it about 3:00 AM…
Comment 7/18/2008
By extension, if it is stated that homosexuality is innate and sexual preference is innate, then preferences such as pedophelia and necrophelia must also be accepted as being innate and then should be acceptable in society. No one is being harmed in necrophelia, and pedophelia is alive and well in several countries in the world so who has the right to say it is wrong for people to act on their instincts??? IS this actually a position you are willing to ascribe to or are you going to say that discrimination against this type of desire is legitimate?
Comment 7/18/2008
yes.
no.
but seriously, if you can’t see the difference — and think of the simplest reason pedophilia can’t be accepted, which reason doesn’t apply to homosexuality — then that alone is ample evidence to show you are a bigot. after all, what else could blind you to something so obvious?
the decedent’s survivors may object to such a use of the corpse, though. and since said corpse is their chattel property, they should get veto power at very least.
Comment 7/18/2008
TG,
*Drum roll…* Misogayny.
And for the moment, it’s a Google-whack.
Comment 7/18/2008
So was this whole elaborate fiasco just a polysyllabic jaunt down to “Guys fucking guys is like guys fucking kids street?”
Also, the opposing homosexuality on religious grounds, and attempting to restrict their rights because of that, was covered early on here. If practicing your belief infringes upon more fundamental - universal - rights, it gets overridden.
Comment 7/18/2008
digglahhh - no it wasn’t but I can see how that would be assumed. My point is this: If sexual preference is innate and innateness is used as a reason for something being acceptable, then all sexual preference is acceptable. If not all preferences are acceptable, then why are they not? In several Asian countries for example, sex with children is perfectly acceptable (listing a child as anyone under 15 for example). What right do we have as a society to say our moral stand is better than any other country’s? Religion can’t be used and besides, many countries in the world would say the US has lost any right to claim moral superiority in anything. And really, deciding what is acceptable is indeed a moral decision.
As far as Nomen’s comment regarding the body being chattel, that is dangerous territory because in many countries children are seen as chattel so by his definition the parents who control the chattel can do whatever they want.
Now be clear here. I am not saying being gay is = to being a pedophile. If sexual preference is innate, that then includes, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, beastiality, pedophelia, necrophelia, sadism, masochism, etc. are all equally innate and therefore if one is considered acceptable BECAUSE it is innate, then logic and reason states that ALL MUSt be acceptable.
Comment 7/19/2008
BU,
Come off it. This line of thinking is bullshit, and you should know it.
The fact that necrophilia can be restricted due to chattel property right doesn’t mean that that’s the only reason that pedophilia can be restricted.
I’m pretty sure that, even with your Christian upbringing, you can tell that there’s a difference between an immature person and a lifeless body.
Sure, if children are owned by their parents, then, yes, those parents get to disallow sex with the kids. But that doesn’t mean that those property rights are the only thing that determines who the kids can be screwed by. Because TA DA! they’re people! See, actual features of reality are important. Sex between adults and children, sex between persons and inanimate objects, and sex between mature gays are pretty much entirely unrelated.
Now, you are right about one thing: Innateness of something isn’t what warrents its legal protection. It’s unfortunate that people got distracted by correcting your suggestion that sexual orientation was always voluntary, but that’s a just too absurd for most us not to balk at.
Comment 7/19/2008
we don’t live in any of those countries. such countries — if they truly do exist; i notice you don’t mention any sources or name any names — are backwards, barbarian cesspits. in the western world, we’ve learned better.
what the fuck do you think a set of ethical standards are for, if not to judge the conduct of people by? if you truly don’t think you have any right to judge other people’s conduct by your own ethical standards, what right do you have to go disapproving of homosexuals?
and you also missed the big, glaring, obvious difference between homosexuality and pedophilia which i alluded to. homosexuality doesn’t hurt anybody; pedophilia hurts kids. that is why the former is acceptable and the latter isn’t. innateness only means we can’t blame a person for having the inclination to do something; that still doesn’t mean we must allow them to do that thing, if it would cause harm to others.
that you would overlook such a simple, clear distinction and instead go chasing after hypothetical cultures where children are chattel, in order to (how does this not make your head explode?) argue for ethical neutrality towards such cultures on the grounds of cultural relativity no less — that is just such a ridiculous stretch for someone in your position to make that there is only one logical conclusion left to me.
you’re stretching madly to avoid the conclusion that homosexuals are people, and you’re willing to stretch any logic to any length to not have to admit that fact.
Comment 7/19/2008
okay nomen wake up. First example - India. The girls in the family are married for a dowry. No dowry, no movement. They do not have the choice to marry as they wish. Thus, they are chattel.
**what the fuck do you think a set of ethical standards are for, if not to judge the conduct of people by? if you truly don’t think you have any right to judge other people’s conduct by your own ethical standards, what right do you have to go disapproving of homosexuals?**
Read this thread before you get all high and mighty. I’m the one who has been told I am not allowed to apply my ethical standards because they are wrong. So then when I ask who has the right to determine proper ethical standards I get cursed at????
And at the same time, the answer is still not given. By what authority does western civilization have the right to condemn any other nation? What do you use to determine ethical standards? In the past, the largest proportion of ethical standards have been as a result of following religious directives. It has been stated on here that religious directives are no longer acceptable for determining acceptable ethical standards. So what do you use to establish proper ethical standards? Keep in mind that western society’s ethical standards have changed significantly over time and will continue to do so making them relativistic standards if there is no foundation from which to work.
The argument was made that since homosexuality is innate, it is therefore acceptable. The results of the act had no bearing on its acceptability. Thus if innateness is to be used as an argument, the results can not be applied to any other types of innate preferences.
AS far as pedophelia is concerned, how young is too young? 12? 13?14?15?. and who has the right to make the arbitrary decision of what age is appropriate?
Now I would hope you are smart enough to realize that I do not agree with the idea that sexual preference is innate. Therefore I am not put in a position to accept as logical and reasonable the rest of the argument I have presented that stems from the innateness argument. However I do not see how anyone who classifies sexual preference as innate and therefore acceptable can come to any other conclusion without bringing in moral or ethical codes which can move with the wind if they are not based on something outside of whatever anyone thinks is okay at the moment.
Comment 7/19/2008
Dan M. _ I understand your comments but I have been told that my religious standards can not be used to determinine what is or is not acceptable in Western society so then I simply ask what grounds are ethics based on? When civilizations around the world have significantly different standards, whose is right?
Comment 7/19/2008
no, depriving somebody of choice is not in itself enough to make them chattel property. look up “chattel” in the dictionary. hint: prisoners are deprived of not only the running of their own lives, but even of their freedom, yet they are not chattel.
(yes, this is something an American — even a mere naturalized one, such as myself — has reason to be nitpicky about. this nation has a history of chattel slavery, and there was a reason the word appeared in that context also. one does not lightly call another human “chattel”, like you’re doing. if you want to go there, you had damn well better make sure you know what you’re talking about.)
no, you have not been told any such thing. you have been told that you are not allowed to enact your standards into LAW, because they are bigoted.
i’d go into the reasons we do not want bigoted laws, but i’m not sure you’re quite ready to go there yet. let’s see if you can get this more basic point first. i repeat: you’re perfectly welcome to apply your ethical standards, just as the rest of us are. you’re not allowed to impose them on anybody else, however. trying to have them made law would be imposing them on other people, so that’s not allowed.
no, that was not made. (if it was, it shouldn’t've been.) it’s a bit more complex than that, and perhaps some of us assumed you’d be able to grasp a few of the details without explicit help. homosexuality being innate means we cannot ethically blame people for being homosexual; that’s not the same as it being acceptable. however, since homosexuality is also harmless, both in itself and in the expression and practice of it, there’s no obvious reason it should not be acceptable.
red herring. you really like the taste of that fish, don’t you? but we’re not discussing the age of majority here; we’re talking about homosexuality, with a side order of ethics 101. try to stay focused.
Comment 7/19/2008
Again Nomen, you purposely avoid answering a direct question: What gives people in western civilization the right to say their moral or ethic code should be the standard. If you are unable to answer that, you do not have the right to force your ideas on anyone or to call anyone who disagrees with your perspective a bigot or anyother name.
Comment 7/19/2008
again with the red herrings. we aren’t discussing ethical relativism here, nor moral sociology. stay on topic!
(and somebody like yourself asking anybody else not to push their ethics on people… your momma had you inoculated against irony with the extra-strength vaccine, didn’t she?)
Comment 7/19/2008
By the way KTK made his initial post, ethics relativism and moral sociology are an inherent part of it. He makes very clear statements about anyone who is opposed to gay marriage. Several of those statements could easily be classified as hateful and bigoted. My initial response indicated that what society accepts or does not accept changes over time and that the bigotry he was showing was now acceptable within society while the bigotry that was at one time acceptable is now frowned upon by society.
I never stated that Christians do not push their brand of ethics on others. What I have said is that anyone who says it is improper to impose one’s beliefs or perspectives on others must by necessity be willing to accept the fact that they are being dishonest by then pushing their own beliefs on others.
It was stated on here by Ted that “we all agree that we don’t want the religious beliefs of some to be codified and applied to all”.
Tgirsch stated “we have an explicitly secular government, so there’s simply no justification for codifying explicitly religious tenets into law”
No one disagreed with those statements which would indicate that most on here agree with it. Thus it is reasonable to ask “who determines what ethics are acceptable?” and it is also reasonable to question why anyone could justify that North American ethics are the best ones when they are based very heavily upon a religious base that is now despised by so many within North America.
Comment 7/19/2008
Sorry to respond to an off-topic comment, but this thread has devolved anyway…
Re India and families requiring dowries for women and women not having a say in their marriage. Having worked with three guys from India who all went through the process of getting married while they were at my company, I can say with complete confidence that this is, at a minimum not universally true. I imagine it is more common in the lower castes, but for the elite, it just ain’t the case, and has not been for quite some time.
(In reality, only two of the three can be considered. Believe it or not, the third guy did the “buy a Russian bride” thing. And it actually worked out for him, at least for five or so years. I lost track of him after that. When he went over to Eastern Europe - forget which country she was from - to get her, with a big wad of cash, we really thought we would never see him alive again. But he did it.)
Comment 7/19/2008
BigU: He makes very clear statements about anyone who is opposed to gay marriage. Several of those statements could easily be classified as hateful and bigoted.
No, you’re wrong about that. Evidently several of those statements made you, as anti-gay bigot, uncomfortable. That’s all.
My initial response indicated that what society accepts or does not accept changes over time and that the bigotry he was showing was now acceptable within society while the bigotry that was at one time acceptable is now frowned upon by society.
Except that he wasn’t showing any bigotry, you’re quite right. Once upon a time, openly racist bigotry was acceptable within society: now it’s frowned upon. Right now, homophobic bigotry is largely acceptable within society - it’s considered quite fine for someone to admit in public that they believe lesbians and gays should have lesser civil rights than straights, for example. One reason homophobic bigots are frequently made uncomfortable by reminders of how society has changed with regard to racist bigotry, is that they fear in the same span of time, their own bigotry will become as unacceptable - they can continue to fulminate against “gay marriage”, but that will just mark them out as oldfashioned bigots.
As for this transparent attempt to equate homosexuality with pedophilia: The argument was made that since homosexuality is innate, it is therefore acceptable.
No, Big U. You tried the argument that since people choose their sexual orientation, it’s okay to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. It was pointed out to you that sexual orientation is not chosen - whether genetic or not, it’s certainly something that no one can consciously decide on.
(Unlike religion, which people do consciously decide on.)
But the fact that no one chooses their sexual orientation doesn’t mean that we should condone the acts of men who rape women, or adults who rape children, or men who rape men, or any kind of rape at all. Sexual orientation and rape are not the same thing.
Comment 7/20/2008
Jesurgislac:
Good to see you over here. I usually only see you hanging out at ObWi. How’d you find your way to our lowly blog?
Comment 7/20/2008
I’m not familiar with this individual, but it seems he/she would be an excellent addition to the local chatter.
Comment 7/20/2008
Why thank you!
I wandered over here via Avedon Carol’s blog: she linked to this post.
Comment 7/21/2008
Homosexuals have nothing to worry about. Their man has said he will be president for the next 10 years. Surely in that time he will be able to straighten out all those people who believe homosexual acts are sins. The future, at least for the next ten years, is looking bright for our 57 states.
Comment 7/21/2008
Derf’s inner Fred is just dying to get out, isn’t it? It’s only a matter of time before he calls us liars.
Comment 7/21/2008
Big U:
By extension, if it is stated that homosexuality is innate and sexual preference is innate, then preferences such as pedophelia and necrophelia must also be accepted as being innate and then should be acceptable in society.
Let’s set aside, for the moment, the fact that you just morally equated homosexuality with pedophilia (I wouldn’t have expected you to go so low, honestly), and take your statement apart:
P1: Sexual preference is innate
C1: Pedophilia and Necrophilia must also be innate
C2: Pedophilia and Necrophilia should be socially acceptable
C2 simply does not follow from C1. Violent urges are also innate, so being innate in and of itself doesn’t make something acceptable. Who is harmed must also enter into the equation.
That said, however, I also reject the idea that C1 follows from P1. Maybe it’s innate, and maybe it isn’t, but I don’t think there’s anywhere near as much reason to presume innateness as with homosexuality. For one thing, I’m not sure if we observe necrophilia and pedophilia elsewhere in nature. We do observe homosexual behavior in other parts of the animal kingdom.
Getting back to the thing I set aside earlier, I don’t think it’s fair to classify pedophilia and necrophilia as a “sexual preference” like any other. (It would be rather like classifying cannibalism as a “dining preference.”) To my mind, the only options for “sexual preference” are “hetero,” “homo,” and “bi.”
On the rest, I’m sad to say, you seem to be a moving target. Normally you’ve been pretty reasonable on our blog, but on this particular issue, it just seems like you bounce all over the place, as if looking for a reason — any reason — to condemn homosexual marriage (and homosexuality in general) that will “stick.” I hope you don’t mind me psychoanalyzing you for a moment, but it seems as if you’re really wedded [bad pun intended] to the idea that homosexuality is somehow wrong, and it’s bothering you that you can’t come up with a coherent reason for why you think that is (other than, of course, an appeal to scriptural authority, which is unlikely to fly here). The fact that you so willingly drew a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia seems telling to me. (For the record, pedophilia seems to be an almost exclusively heterosexual problem. My understanding is that most pedophiles exhibit no homosexual urges in adult relationships.)
One more thing:
AS far as pedophelia is concerned, how young is too young?
According to Judeo-Christian (primarily Talmudic) tradition, three years old is the minimum age at which a girl can marry. She can be betrothed at birth. Fortunately, this tradition has been abandoned by Jews and Christians alike. More recent Rabbinic tradition states that a boy cannot wed until thirteen, and a girl cannot wed until twelve; but men are required to wed by the age of 20.
Comment 7/21/2008
Ted:
I’m pretty sure Jes is a “she.” And she has her KTK-esque moments, both the good kind and the bad kind.
I agree that she’d be a welcome addition. It would increase our liberal Brit population by at least 33%. 
Comment 7/21/2008
“I Wish That I Had Jessie’s Girl” Rick Springfield 1981. In other words, Jes isn’t just for women any more.
Comment 7/21/2008
tgirsch > I am in no way equating homosexuality to pedophilia on a moral level. I am equating them on an innateness level.
1. Either sexual preference is innate or it is not. Simple. (I personally do not believe it is 100% innate so therefore it is not an issue for me to discern between all types of preferences and assess them on moral grounds. However, anyone who sees them as innate can not condemn one without condemning all.
2. You believe that only hetero, homo and bi are innate. Find me any scientific studies that prove this to be so. I have been criticized and challenged many times on these boards to show scientific proof. Please provide this. Unless you can, you are making a judgement call (which is your right). Then we get into the area of who has the right to make judgement calls? Whose standards are to be applied? Why?
I realize I have appeared to be a moving target on these things but if you take a close look at the thread, I am simply following the progression of things. Statements are being made and I am asking questions that flow naturally from the position taken.
Now I have been called a hater and a bigot simply because I feel the term marriage should be reserved strictly for the union of one man and one woman. I thought I have made it clear that I have no issue with all of the other rights gays have/had in Canada (which prior to the change in the marriage laws were 100% identical to straights). So if I am such a hater and a bigot, why would I be willing to accept the other rights?
And again, several of my questions have simply been ignored while several other parts of my statements have been discussed. I do not understand the reasons for that.
Comment 7/21/2008
Jes > I should have been more clear in my comment. Based on comments in his initial statement labeling anyone opposed to gay marriage as a hater combined with other comments regarding religious individuals, it appears clear that he is bigoted towards religious individuals.
[i]But the fact that no one chooses their sexual orientation doesn’t mean that we should condone the acts of men who rape women, or adults who rape children, or men who rape men, or any kind of rape at all. Sexual orientation and rape are not the same thing.[/i]
No one in western society condones rape of any kind. But, if we are to reject any religious tenets from determining what is right and what is wrong, then who is to decide what is and is not acceptable? Who gets to say that western morals are the proper ones? On what basis?
Comment 7/21/2008
simple — we try to stay on topic, even though you try to bring in red herrings a lot.
Comment 7/21/2008
ah, Nomen. Fred’s left-wing twin.
Comment 7/21/2008
well, there was that one Ig Nobel-winning study of a male mallard repeatedly mounting a deceased female mallard. but mallards are well known as ridiculously oversexed critters, so i’m not sure that should count for much.
(reference: http://improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2003 under Biology.)
Comment 7/21/2008
argh, correction: on re-reading the Ig Nobel website, that 2003 paper documented a case of homosexual necrophilia in mallards, not heterosexual such. i still don’t think it should count for much — i’ve seen enough of male mallards to not be very surprised.
Comment 7/21/2008
Tgirsch >just so you know, necrophilia has been observed in mallards, squirrels, toads and of course the most well-known, the praying mantis. That took me less than 5 minutes to find on the net.
Comment 7/21/2008
Big U writes: “1. Either sexual preference is innate or it is not. Simple. (I personally do not believe it is 100% innate so therefore it is not an issue for me to discern between all types of preferences and assess them on moral grounds. However, anyone who sees them as innate can not condemn one without condemning all.”
Huh? I’m not sure how you can state this with such finality. You are saying that all innate human traits must be assigned the same moral judgement? If one is good, they all are good, ipso facto. I really don’t follow this.
Comment 7/22/2008
Big U could, i think, profit from a few classes on ethics and philosophy in general. he seems quite baffled by some concepts (non-absolutist ethics, for instance, as well as ethics in the absence of divinity) that have been well beaten to death for many centuries — millennia, in some cases.
i’m kind of conflicted, because amateur philosophizing on ethics used to be a favourite time-waster of mine. but the subject is just way too big to get into in this kind of forum. even a rough outline would be hard pressed to fit in a blog comment, and those are so compressed they raise more questions than they answer. if this was usenet, maybe…
of course, if this was usenet, we’d have a lot more trolls and spam. but we’d also have proper threading and killfiles. decisions, decisions…
Comment 7/22/2008
Will no one answer this question? Who has the right to determine what is right and what is wrong? Which society has the right to establish what is right and what is wrong? The Greeks, who were at one time the height of civilization, determined that man/boy relationships were not only okay but encouraged. In today’s day and age, those same men would be jailed. Society’s values have changed. So, without a religious base of some sort, who has the right to condemn other countries or societies?
Ted > It has been argued long and often that since homosexuality is innate, then it is morally and ethically wrong to say it is inappropriate behaviour. If its innateness is the reason for this stance then logic would dictate that innateness would be a solid reason to not condemn any other type of sexual orientation. If a person ascribes different levels of moral judgment to innate traits, on which basis do they do so? Please explain clearly what moral code has the ultimate authority and why.
Comment 7/22/2008
pick one, any one. really. most obviously you could pick the fact that different behaviours, no matter if they’re all innate or not, can have different outcomes.
but you already knew that, because you have been told as much on this very thread, and ignored it. so, really, i don’t know why i bother; you’re asking freshman-level philosophy of ethics questions and listening with a primary school mindset. hint: there is no “ultimate authority” in philosophy.
Comment 7/22/2008
Innate behaviours do not result in any outcomes. Acting on desire results in an outcome. Determining what is or is not a harmful outcome is based on perspective and moral standing. What is moral in one society could very easily be immoral in another.
Comment 7/22/2008
leaving aside that that is an astonishingly silly and wrong thing to say, if we take it as true for the sake of argument, why should something that has no outcome carry any moral value whatsoever? if a behaviour doesn’t effect any change, why bother calling it “good” or “bad”?
other than that, Big U, i think you’re actually (finally!) starting to think down the right lines. well, for a sociological ethicist, which in practice is most people. keep it up!
Comment 7/22/2008
The thing is Nomen, it is the gay movement that is saying homosexual acts are acceptable because homosexuality is innate. They are the ones presenting the argument for it. Based on what you are saying, you believe the gay movement is wrong in taking that position and that the idea that it is innate is completely irrelevent to any arguments relating to homosexual activity.
Comment 7/22/2008
In all fairness, who can resist fucking a dead toad?
Comment 7/22/2008
The thing is Nomen, it is the gay movement that is saying homosexual acts are acceptable because homosexuality is innate
This isn’t the totality of the argument by any means. They say homosexual acts are acceptable because they are natural expressions of love. They are harmless; they are, in fact, often positive. They take place with mutual consent. They are healthy. These things can’t be said about necrophilia.
Comment 7/22/2008
digglahhh - I am not saying that is the totality of the argument but it is one of the foundations that has been presented often. To compare homosexuality and how it is treated to race and how that is treated is to say both have the same foundation. i.e. skin color is innate, and sexual preference is innate. I am not the person presenting this argument as a valid one and to this point, no one has been able to logically deal with the natural progression of thought resulting from such a claim.
Comment 7/22/2008
Rather, I think the problem is nobody other than yourself considering the thought progression you are referring to as natural. You seem to be just casting aside all the nuance, and restating the argument simply by assering the lowest common denominator over and over.
Comment 7/22/2008
I need some clarity digglahhh.
The point has been made that race and sexual preference are both inherent and because of that fact, it is bigotry to be opposed to homosexuality just as it is to be opposed to race.
Now, if that is the case, then the same MUST be said for any other sexual preference. To not do so automatically shows a willingness to rank sexual preferences according to acceptability but that has been argued against in the past.
Now when it comes to the acting out on sexual desires, who is the authority on what is and is not acceptable? It has been clearly stated on this thread that religious ideals must not be used. Therefore it is a moving target with no solid foundation. Am I right or wrong on that? And if I am wrong, why am I wrong?
Comment 7/22/2008
Big U, nobody on this thread has made the argument that homosexuality is moral because it is innate behavior. Is that clear? Nobody on this thread has made that argument (well, on this thread anyway). So you are asking people who did not make the argument to defend it, and implying validation of your POV if the commenters here don’t defend it.
Why not address the arguments made by the commenters here? Save your innate question for someone who posits it as a reason for accepting homosexuality as moral.
(disclaimer, I have not closely read every single comment above, KTK in particular is usually too verbose for my modern attention span, so if someone has in fact made this claim, feel free to counter them. I certainly have never used that defense, and never would.)
Comment 7/22/2008
Oops, too quick to submit…
Big U, let me ask you two questions. First, are you comfortable with the concept that laws should be established and enforced with a blind eye towards all religious beliefs? That separation of church and state thing? If so, can you provide any justification for legal discrimination against homosexuals?
This might be where we differ; it is going to take a lot of convincing to get me to agree to restrict the rights of any specific group of people. I would rather err on the side of allowing behavior that perhaps should be restricted rather than risk unjustifiably restricting behavior.
Comment 7/22/2008
Big U:
Find me any scientific studies that prove this to be so. I have been criticized and challenged many times on these boards to show scientific proof.
And you have yet to provide a cogent explanation as to why the burden of proof should be on us to establish that such things are innate, rather than being on you to establish that they are not. You started all this with the assertion that sexual preference is “not something people are born with” (i.e., it’s not innate). The burden of proof should be on you to support that claim, not on us to prove you wrong.
But as has been pointed out many times, this is a red herring anyway, since innateness is not in and of itself a justification for accepting or condemning anything.
Further, I don’t know why you insist that pedophilia is simply a “preference” like any other. I’d really like to hear an explanation of why you continue to insist this.
Statements are being made and I am asking questions that flow naturally from the position taken.
Well, the questions may “flow naturally” if one is predisposed toward discrimination against gays, I guess, but apart from that, I don’t think they flow all that freely. It looks more to me like a case of “that didn’t work, let’s try this instead.” But maybe that’s just me.
just so you know, necrophilia has been observed in mallards, squirrels, toads and of course the most well-known, the praying mantis.
Well, give the man a cookie. Now if you can just explain how it’s relevant, we’ll be on to something.
Seriously, though, credit for actually looking something up, even if you couldn’t be bothered to link it. 
Will no one answer this question? Who has the right to determine what is right and what is wrong?
That’s easy! God! Now if we could only figure out which bloody one!
Seriously, that’s rather like asking “Will no one answer this question? How can we reconcile quantum gravity with relativity?”
In any case, because we are imperfect creatures with an imperfect understanding of right and wrong, we collectively decide what’s right and wrong. This means that there will simply never be 100% consensus. It doesn’t mean that morality is completely arbitrary. We justify our arguments about right and wrong with facts and logic, and do our best to develop a coherent moral and ethical system around that, modifying it when we find obvious flaws.
Again, this all brings up an obvious counter-question, addressed to you: how does the introduction of religion help here? The answer: it doesn’t. If anything it serves to muddy things even further, by attempting to take absolutist and often contradictory edicts that were given centuries or even millennia ago, and apply them to modern life. In truth, most of what even most Christians would describe as “Christian values” are very selective with respect to the scripture. You won’t find an explicit condemnation of slavery anywhere in the Bible, for example. The closest you’ll get is a list of people who you can’t take as a slave. Neither will you find an explicit condemnation of genocide. Or of abortion. Or of racial discrimination. Or of sexism. In many cases, you’ll find more arguments for these now-recognized-as-immoral establishments than you will against them. So how does introducing religion help?
At a very basic, superficial level, I suppose it could be satisfying to say “morality comes from a perfect God.” But when you start peeling back the layers and trying to decipher that, apply it, etc., it gets muddy really quickly.
It has been argued long and often that since homosexuality is innate, then it is morally and ethically wrong to say it is inappropriate behaviour.
You’re missing a few clauses in there. Because it’s innate, and because it involves consenting adults, and because nobody is harmed by its practice (any more than by any other sexual behavior), and because there’s no compelling reason to prohibit it or discriminate against it. For all those reasons, taken together, discrimination against (and even disapproval of) homosexuality is a form of bigotry.
I am not saying that is the totality of the argument but it is one of the foundations that has been presented often.
But see, that’s the problem. You may not be saying that it’s “the totality of the argument,” but you’re arguing as though it is, or at least as though the rest of the argument fails without that plank, neither of which turns out to be true. Even if homosexuality were, in fact, a simple lifestyle choice (if, for example, you could just “decide” to be homosexual tomorrow), it would still be bigotry to discriminate against it for all the other reasons that have been listed here ad nauseum.
The point has been made that race and sexual preference are both inherent and because of that fact, it is bigotry to be opposed to homosexuality just as it is to be opposed to race.
No it hasn’t. You’re grossly oversimplifying the argument that’s been made. You’re fixated on this one point of detail, when it’s not, in fact, the crux of anything. It serves only to emphasize the compelling nature of the arguments in favor of treating homosexuals with dignity and respect; it isn’t a primary justification, as you seem to think it is.
[For what it’s worth, I’ve always thought that the whole nature/nurture aspect of the debate is overblown, by both sides. To homosexuality’s opponents, it really doesn’t matter whether or not it’s innate: if it is, then it’s a “horrible affliction” to be “treated” and “cured,” as several Christian groups have tried to do; if it isn’t, then it’s an aberrant lifestyle choice to be condemned and cast out. Either way, gays are icky, and should be cured or condemned. Conversely, as argued above, I highly doubt people who support the rights homosexuals today would stop doing so if they suddenly became convinced that it was a choice rather than an inherent trait.]
digglahhh:
They say homosexual acts are acceptable because they are natural expressions of love. They are harmless; they are, in fact, often positive. They take place with mutual consent. They are healthy. These things can’t be said about necrophilia. [or, for that matter, of pedophilia.]
Ding ding ding! Give the man a prize!
You seem to be just casting aside all the nuance, and restating the argument simply by assering the lowest common denominator over and over.
Again, ding ding ding.
Comment 7/22/2008
tgirsch >
In comment #16, you pointed out that sexual orientation and race are the same thing in regards to neither being voluntary. For me, that states that you feel sexual orientation is innate. Unless I am mistaken that would mean you brought up the argument of innateness, not me.
Re: the necrophelia issue, in comment #51 you brought up the fact that comparisons are not valid because pedophelia and necrophelia are not observed in nature. From this I made (possible incorrectly) the assumption that you were saying homosexuality is different than the others because it IS found in nature. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood your intent.
Re: In any case, because we are imperfect creatures with an imperfect understanding of right and wrong, we collectively decide what’s right and wrong. This means that there will simply never be 100% consensus. It doesn’t mean that morality is completely arbitrary. We justify our arguments about right and wrong with facts and logic, and do our best to develop a coherent moral and ethical system around that, modifying it when we find obvious flaws.
There are vast differences amongst cultures. In fact there are other cultures which are more in concencus about what is right or wrong and they do things which western society feels is incredibly innapropriate and morally wrong. With no foundation other than concensus and the prevailing logic of the day, morals will inevitably waver and move to the lowest common denominator.
Now back to the original post KTK made and then my response. I have no issue whatsoever with discrimination on certain grounds for certain issues. While I feel it would be inappropriate to deny equal rights to gay couples, I do not see marriage as a right. I see it as a societal approval of an act. In Canada, as I said before, gay couples had each and every right that married couples had (as did common law couples). The only thing they could not do is claim they were married. As this did not deny them any rights whatsoever, my feeling was and still is that the desire to obtain the ability to marry had far more with forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle than it did in obtaining a right. For me, this single discrimination (assigning marriage as between one man and one woman) did nothing to hurt or harm any gays in any tangible way.
Because it’s innate, and because it involves consenting adults, and because nobody is harmed by its practice (any more than by any other sexual behavior), and because there’s no compelling reason to prohibit it or discriminate against it. For all those reasons, taken together, discrimination against (and even disapproval of) homosexuality is a form of bigotry.
Now this is funny. I disapprove of sex outside of marriage (which means I disapprove of living common-law as well). According to what you are saying, I am bigoted against them. That makes no sense but you are entitled to your opinion.
Comment 7/22/2008
Big U:
Re: Comment #16, mea culpa. But that still doesn’t help your argument much. If being black were voluntary, would it then make bigotry against blacks okay?
From this I made (possible incorrectly) the assumption that you were saying homosexuality is different than the others because it IS found in nature.
You need to read again, then. I was saying I was aware of a lot more evidence of homosexuality being innate than of necrophilia and pedophilia being innate, irrespective of the rightness or wrongness of these. I was basically responding to yet another attempt by you to shift the burden of proof of innateness onto us. No more, no less. Ironically, in demonstrating evidence of innateness there, you undermined your own position about the lack of evidence of the innateness of homosexuality.
With no foundation other than concensus and the prevailing logic of the day, morals will inevitably waver and move to the lowest common denominator.
Again, what’s your point? You act as if religious-based morality doesn’t suffer from these faults. Heck, pick two different Protestant Christian denominations and you’re likely to find significant moral and ethical differences of opinion. So remind me again how this is supposed to help? (Oh wait, that’s right: you never answered that question.)
[ Side note: My wife is a Christian, and she attends a church with a sizable homosexual population. Her congregation actually performs marriages for same-sex couples, even though in our state these marriages have no force of law. So even within Christian circles, there’s a great deal of disagreement on morality even on the very issue we’ve been discussing. ]
I have no issue whatsoever with discrimination on certain grounds for certain issues.
Me, either, if compelling justifications for such discrimination can be given and defended.
I do not see marriage as a right.
I know a lot of libertarians who see progressive taxation as unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean they get to stop paying taxes.
In Canada, as I said before, gay couples had each and every right that married couples had (as did common law couples). The only thing they could not do is claim they were married.
Just to make sure you understand what you’re doing here: You’re coming out in favor of “separate but equal.” When your position is summarized like that, are you sure it’s something you want to stick to?
I disapprove of sex outside of marriage (which means I disapprove of living common-law as well). According to what you are saying, I am bigoted against them.
Does the term non sequitur mean anything to you? Do you argue that people who have sex outside of marriage should have a different legal standing (and lack the same choices of states of legal standing) as those who do not? If yes, then I guess maybe you are bigoted against them, but I wouldn’t have expected you to hold such a position…
Comment 7/22/2008
If black people chose to be black, based on your statement earlier (comment 16), even you feel it would be okay to be bigoted against them as you would not see that as bigotry at all. You said bigotry against people based on their faith or political choices etc. is acceptable because they are choices so it is not really bigotry. Which should then make bigotry against anyone else’s choices okay as well. Which means (using your position) that bigotry against people who choose to engage in homosexual acts is not really bigotry because they are making the choice to live the way they do. I disagree with that position and say that any type of bigotry is unacceptable. But because I disagree with one political position the gay community has taken, I am deemed a hater and a bigot.
Personally I feel bigotry is wrong at all times. But I do not define bigotry as disagreeing with or disapproving of someone’s choice. I define it as the dictionary does. Hatred. And I know you are fully aware of the differences between hatred and disagreeing with or disapproving of someone’s choice.
I can disagree with someone’s choice but as long as I do not force them to take on my perspective, respect their right to act how they want and do not denigrate them or call them down, I do not feel I am being bigoted. If I label someone as being something simply because of the group they belong to AND show hatred towards that person because of how I view them, then that is bigotry. However, wanting marriage to remain as it was (between one man and one woman) does not denigrate anyone, call anyone down or show hatred to anyone.
Women-only gyms are acceptable. Women-only clubs are acceptable. But, at least here in Canada, men-s only gyms and men-only clubs are not permissible. Heck girls are allowed to try out for high school boys sports teams but boys are not allowed to try out for high school girls sports teams. And those are but a few examples of discrimination that is practiced and accepted based solely on arbitrary decisions related to what gender a person is. Society does not have to be 100% the same to be equal. A civil union would provide the exact same benefits as a marriage so there was no legal reason whatsoever to change anything regarding marriage. And there is also no reason whatsoever to accuse all those opposed to same-sex marriage as haters and bigots unless the person doing so is himself or herself bigoted against people who take that position.
Comment 7/23/2008
Big U, other than completely mashing up Tgirsch’s position at the top of your last comment, all well and good. Except for one thing. If gay people want to get married and your laws prevent them from getting married, they are being discriminated against. In a material way. It’s just that simple. If civil unions are equivalent to marriage and you have a need to keep the homos separate from you, let’s do this. Only gays can get married. Straights get the just as groovy civil union. You would be OK with that, right? I mean, the gays should be, so you should be too. Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, the discrimination becomes a little more poignant.
Comment 7/23/2008
Ted, I have never said it would not be some form of discrimination. But as I thought I made clear, society has discrimination all over the place and justifies it all the time, often for no reason other than things such as gender. Discrimination is not always hate. It is not always bigotry. Things do not have to be identical to be equal or fair. I don’t even have to like the fact discrimination exists but I realize that based on society’s decisions, it will.
In situations where a group is not harmed by discrimination I have no problem with it. Give me this answer: what rights would a gay couple have with marriage that they would not have with a civil union? If there are none, then it has absolutely nothing to do with equality, it has strictly to do with trying to force society to say both types of relationships are identical. No one has EVER been able to detail what legal rights would be withheld simply because the word marriage is restricted to a one man / one woman combination.
Comment 7/23/2008
I should clarify my comment regarding discrimination. Discrimination based on race is reprehensible and should never be allowed in any way shape or form. For me this includes reverse discrimination but I understand the reasoning behind it and am willing to acknowledge that in certain situations it may be necessary.
Several people on these boards are 100% in favor of certain types of discrimination so please do not jump on me for saying discrimination is sometimes acceptable.
Comment 7/23/2008
Big U, come on. Women only gyms? So men are being discriminated against? In a material way? For that to equate to the marriage situation, Canada would have to have certain places where only straights can get married (we will call these places Christian churches for now) and then other places (which far out-number the straight-only places) where both gays and straights can get married. Can you see that difference? You do understand that there are gyms in Canada where men can be members right?
Clinging to thee trivial examples really does nothing to advance your position. And enough with the “there is discrimination all around us so what’s a little bit more” crap. We are talking about a specific law that is intended to prevent a group of people from doing something they want to, and everyone else is allowed to. That is active, institutional, material discrimination. Against a minority group that gets socially discriminated against on a frequent basis. To counter that with “men can’t join Curves” is just silly.
Comment 7/23/2008
Oh, and you didn’t answer the question. Would you be willing to just flip sides and have civil unions for straights and marriages for gays? Should be a wash, after all, you vehemently claim there is no reason to object to the situation as it now is. Please think for a second and answer that question. Would you care if the situation was flipped?
Comment 7/23/2008
Big U,
Perhaps we can make a semantic tweak here and resolve some of the misunderstanding. RE: the sexual preference debate, replace “preference” with “orientation.” Maybe that’ll help, maybe it won’t.
Comment 7/23/2008
Digg, I gotta say, with respect to the whole “sex in the animal kingdom” subthread, wtf? My dog humps my leg. Given that behavior, I am unwilling to consider the possibility that certain animals practice necrophilia. s for pedophilia at the zoo, just what is the age of consent for each species? And do we get down on the parents of a mule for practicing bestiality? (Or my dog for semi-attempting it?) To attribute deviant sexual predilection to animals is giving the critters a bit too much credit for sorting things out, I think.
Comment 7/23/2008
Ted,
If gays had historically used the term marriage for hundreds of years to describe same-sex unions, then I would have no issue with using the phrase civil unions for straight people and having them keep the term marriage.
Now I ask again. Can someone, anyone, please tell me what actual real rights gay couples would not have if they had civil unions? Any???
We are talking about a specific law that is intended to prevent a group of people from doing something they want to, and everyone else is allowed to.
The only thing being prevented is the use of a word to describe their relationship. Otherwise they are missing out on nothing.
Comment 7/23/2008
Big U, you are joking right? If it’s just a friggin word, and they want it, give it to them. Why would you not, other than for spite.
It’s so easy for someone who has, to look at someone who has not, and ask “why aren’t they satisfied?” But of course you are unwilling to swap places with them, so you know they are missing something.
Clearly we will make no progress here. Most of us see the intrinsic value in being treated the same; you obviously do not. If nothing else, it is a matter of principle.
Comment 7/23/2008
If it’s just a friggin word, and they want it, give it to them
Clearly, people think the word marriage carries a great deal of weight. But in what sense? No one can (or at least no one has been willing to) provide an example of what right is being missed out on by using the term civil union so obviously I must be correct in my perception that the ability to used the term marriage is simply an attempt to force societal acceptance of a lifestyle. If my perception is incorrect, tell me how.
As far as intrinsic value in being treated the same, I would need far more detail than you are likely able or willing to provide. You just said it was okay for men and women to be treated differently. You are clearly okay with people of different political stripes or belief systems being treated differently. So what do you mean by everyone being treated the same?
Comment 7/23/2008
I give up. Thankfully, in short order you will be in the minority and legal discrimination against gays will be relegated to the dustheap of history (in our countries). But hey, it will probably hold on in Iran for quite some time, so if people (people you don’t know and will never meet) getting married really upsets you, you will have options
Or maybe not, because even if you flee to a more backward location, those gays in the US and Canada will still be getting married, so I guess your angst will continue. Feel free to wrap it up. Obviously I’ve run out of constructive things to say.
Comment 7/23/2008
*sigh*
Sorry to get back to this thread late. And I admit that I’ve not read the longer comments this time. However, to answer BU’s question as to what is missing in civil unions:
First, note again that the US and Canada are different here. According to BU, Canada does actually give all the legal rights of civil marriage to those with a civil union, whereas no proposal of civil unions in the US have anything like that effect.
Second, note that history has shown, very clearly, at least in the US, that “separate but equal”, whether ever actually equal, is a situation that virtually guarantees eventual inequality. It’s pernicious, in the legal sense. A distinction that starts without a difference can do nothing other than breed difference. And that’s even assuming that there was ever actual equality to begin with. I think Ted’s gedanken experient makes perfectly clear that that’s a pipe dream: How many straight couples chose to go get civil unions, or proudly celebrate their civil unions? None, because everyone knows that there’s a difference underlying the distinction.
Finally, quite simply, what gays want out of marriage is history. What those of us who want equality are asking for is the millenia of emotional baggage and connotation and association and memories and feelings. When I wed my girlfriend, that doesn’t mean “oh, they’re going to stay together”, it means “well, they have chosen to share their lives”. Even if we were in Canada, and even if there really was legal equality, and even though no law can distinguish between those two, every sane and caring person who has ever seen a good marriage knows the difference.
Maybe not every gay couple wants to get married, but even a Christian should be able to see that some want that option.
Comment 7/26/2008
“Maybe not every gay couple wants to get married, but even a Christian should be able to see that some want that option.”
I see that they want that option. So what? A lot of people want the option to do things that are morally reprehensible. Society doesn’t need to give them that option.
Comment 7/27/2008
Thanks Fred for making your side of this debate so clear. You’re now on record for thinking it morarally reprehensible to choose to share your life with a loved one. Bravo.
Comment 7/27/2008
“You’re now on record for thinking it morarally reprehensible to choose to share your life with a loved one.”
Love is not a good reason for immoral behavior. You may love money, but that doesn’t mean you can steal to get it. You may love to screw your neighbor’s wife, but that doesn’t make it right. If you want to believe that homosexual acts are okay, don’t try to justify it by using the word love. Just admit that you are a pervert, and you will do anything you please.
Comment 7/28/2008
Fred, at least you are honest about your hatred and bigotry on this issue. Of course you are on record stating that fornicators are also morally reprehensible in your opinion. It must really suck to be you and have to vote for a morally reprehensible man to be president. What sort of message are you sending to you family by doing that? Will god even forgive you for it? I’m not sure he will.
Comment 7/28/2008
I’m sure you’re really concerned that God will not forgive me for upholding morality. It is not hate to agree with God. BTW, I don’t have to vote for anyone.
Comment 7/28/2008
True. Safest thing would be to not vote. No need to risk the wrath of God. Probably you should exercise your evangelical calling and spread the word on Sunday to your fellow congregants. Save as many souls as possible. Just stay home on election day. Especially if McCain picks a cultist for VP. Now that would really be flirting with Lucifer!
Comment 7/29/2008
Fred,
wrt #90, I’ll be generous and assume that you missed the point. I was answering BU’s question about why gays want marriages rather than just civil unions.
In that context, what marriage consisted of didn’t include what was included in the civil unions — that is to say, not that icky homosexuality that you’re so freaked out by. What that leaves, is just social. Primarily, it leaves how gay couples express the similarity between their relationships and heterosexual relationships. And for the last couple hundred years, marriage has, at least at its best, been about love.
So, your comment #91 (perhaps accidentally) called loving relationships morally reprehensible. But I’ll grant you that this time, you had a reasonable misunderstanding.
Now if you could just actually provide some explanation of how the shape of one’s pink bits can be relevant to what is morally reprehensible, without resorting to translations of stories about sky fairies, we might even get somewhere…
Comment 7/29/2008
“your comment #91 (perhaps accidentally) called loving relationships morally reprehensible.”
I did no such thing and you know it. Of course, why would I not expect someone who supports perversion to pervert my words. Same old, same old. Liberals are liberals so they act like liberals. No surprise there.
Comment 7/29/2008
Look, you whiny little douche-bag, since you quoted my comment and disagreed with it, I fucking know what you were disagreeing with. You still haven’t managed to mature past grade school.
(And I’m sure you’d like to claim that I’m using childish name-calling. Thing is, I mean each of insults, quite particularly.)
Comment 7/30/2008
What a classy guy you are, Pope. You really need to do something about your anger. Why are you so full of hate?
Comment 7/30/2008
That’s right, Dan. Adultish name-calling, FTW!
…As we stumble into triple digit comments
Comment 7/30/2008