Just as it looks like maybe we can have a relatively high-minded campaign with two presidential nominees who both can appeal to us independents, the Kulturkampf flares back up.
This delighted The Wall Street Journal this morning, which as the official spokespaper of conservatism went out of its way to affirm Democratic fears of the "Republican attack machine" when it gleefully greeted the California Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex "marriage:"
Gay Marriage Returns
Just when the news was filling with stories about a Republican Party gasping for air, along comes the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision yesterday legislating gay marriage. The GOP certainly hasn’t done anything to deserve such luck.
Recall how in November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court, also by a 4-3 vote, issued a similar gay marriage pronouncement. It dogged Democrat John Kerry all the way to Election Day. The issue got so hot that the liberal fever swamps came to believe that Karl Rove had invented this greatest of all "wedge" issues.
Nope. Judges invent wedge issues. Always have. As with California’s Supreme Court, many of the berobed judiciary take it as their solemn duty to do the people’s thinking for them on the modern world’s most difficult and divisive social issues. So it was with Roe v. Wade, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared 50 state legislatures irrelevant. The aftermath has been more than 30 years of the abortion wars….
Oh, and in case you think the WSJ‘s characterization of the left as wont to impose judicial fiat in spite of
what the people of our republic may want is a bit overboard, check out this quote from the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom (that’s him at right):
"As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It’s inevitable. This door’s wide open now. It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not."
So there. Pow, zing. I just want to go on record right now as saying that in the culture wars, I’m a conscientious objector. I just don’t want to have this fight.
I tell you how this always feels to me — like the two sides in these culture battles are allied with each other against the rest of us. How else do you explain both sides — from the voice of the political right to the gay rights folks — being so happy about this development? When both the Karl Roves and the Gavin Newsoms are thrilled, it’s time for the rest of us to duck, because here it all comes again.
Related Posts
Whoa! The Republicans have appeasement, surrender in Iraq, stooopid FISA restrictions to enrich trial lawyers, domestic petroleum prohibitions, gay marriage, and reparations to whack Obama: they might not lose so badly after all.
But I think that they, like my beloved Chicago Cubs, can find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Gay marriage is a non-sequitur, a fruitless communion, an insult to nature itself.
Go green, America — because male and female trees can get something done, but same-sex trees are just neighbors.
If the trees get wind of this gay-marriage ruling, the polar bears have a long swim ahead of them.
Apparently, the California Supreme Court can’t see the trees for the forest.
Don’t fret Cak, you still have the compulsive flip-flopper who supports 100 years in Iraq, and is best buddies with the most unpopular president, EVER.
Cak, voters in Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi booted your boys even before Barr cranked up his rhetorical barrage on the “liberal” McCain and before Ron Paul’s fanatics sabotage your little get together in Minnesota. This is snatching districts from the bowels of Red America – Mississippi, Louisiana, and the former SPEAKER of the House’s turf.
Mr. E, the Republicans will always have the Democrats going for them.
Furthermore, I think you mislocated the bowels of America, which serve states of all colors indiscriminately. They are located in California, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Please explain to me again how “homosexual marriage” hurts “real marriages”? Do you really think your beloves is going over to the ‘dark side’? (and which side do you think is the ‘dark side’?) Of course, these unions don’t produce children; neither do plenty of others. But, until you can show me that your problems exist in the real world, and are not simply texts yanked out of context from the Bible, please excuse me from having a snit about it.
Karen –
I think the issue for conservatives is that in virtually every culture for the past several thousand years, marriage has been recognized as an institution and foundation for the maintenance of culture, of civilization, because it accommodates / controls what still appears to be the hardwired differences between the male and female of our species.
In other words, marriage is a communally recognized contract that enables the female to coerce a male to support her and the young that he sires over a lifetime, however short or long that may be. While this may seem silly to some, marriage has proved to be a successful institution in that our species has survived. How empirical this result is remains a matter of debate, but it does seem true because the male of any species is interested in passing on his genes to posterity and does not seem to mind an enlarged definition of posterity, preferring by nature a wide audience of receptive females to bear his offspring. How does any individual nurturing female reach a reasonable accommodation other than by means of a contract enforced by the other members of the society?
In this vein, gay marriage sends the wrong message since it does not support the commitment to carrying on the culture. Any homosexual relationship is by definition barren and a prescription for the extinction of the species.
At that said, in these modern times when most folks believe that if it feels good, just do it, reasonable folks are willing to accommodate private contracts for mutual support over a lifetime as long as it’s not called “marriage.” They have a concern about cultural confusion, over what folks will end up considering essential for the continuation of the species, not just in a reproductive sense, but also in what it takes to raise offspring that can continue the species.
To further muddy the waters, sex is a behavioral phenomenon affected by culture and individual wiring and is not well understood by science. While there’s certainly a universal taboo against incest, incest does occur. In this modern age should we allow it, or are there cultural concerns? Or polygamy, a practice found in a few cultures? Ditto for pederasty, bestiality, and Tupperware parties. Where do we draw the line?
The only line should be consenting adults. The culture can survive a few people who decide not to reproduce.
Cak offers a high minded perspective on gay marriage many of his fellow supporters protest with signs reading “God hates fags”.
Why is homosexuality ranked near the top of the republican family values totem pole but poverty is completely overlooked, save Huckabee’s attention. It was not addressed in the debates. McCain ignores it on his campaign site. But, it is the most discussed topic in the Bible. Why is that family value, caring for others, not a hot button issue for Cak, McCain, W?
Cak offers a high minded perspective on gay marriage many of his fellow supporters protest with signs reading “God hates fags”.
Why is homosexuality ranked near the top of the republican family values totem pole but poverty is completely overlooked, save Huckabee’s attention. It was not addressed in the debates. McCain ignores it on his campaign site. But, it is the most discussed topic in the Bible. Why is that family value, caring for others, not a hot button issue for Cak, McCain, W?
This ought to stall the illegal immigration legislation politicians were using to pander to the right. Time to pick on a different bogeyman for a while.
In a nation with the productivity and high wages of America, most poverty is due to choice:
* dropping out of school
* not learning a trade
* getting pregnant out of wedlock
* alcohol and drug abuse
* committing crime
Democrat policies encourage this sort of misbehavior.
I can understand to some extent what you are saying, Mike. But to say that one group can have ‘civil unions’ which afford the same rights and require the same responsibilities as marriage, while only another group can have a ‘real marriage’ is pure duplicity. It’s a social message of second class citizenship. And what about those homosexual couple who adopt? They take on the responsibility of children, and the ones I know personally seem to be raising their children well. Is this worse than those who have children, then renege on their contract via divorce? To me the answer is simple (albeit not popular) A social contract is a contract is a contract. Get the Church out of the state’s business. Let people who are interested in “marriage” first sign a state contract, which obligates them to care for children and each other, but which allows escape for various reasons, with or without penalty (ie. alimony/child support). I’m sure that there are lawyers out there that can write a dilly. Then let those who ascribe to their Church’s idea of marriage, and who think they can truly make a go of it, get married in the Church of their persuasion, when they are ready. This Church might or might not accept gay marriage, and might or might not demand “until death do us part.” or other expectations of loyalty.
Everyone gets to recognize the civil union, and if another Church allows marriage that you don’t believe in (gay couples, marriage of divorcees, etc.), well, they aren’t your church, and no one can account for their tastes.
As for pederasty–its not among consenting adults. Usually, although not always, the same problem is true for incest, not to mention the negative results of inbreeding on one’s children. Bestiality is just plain animal abuse. Even the state’s civil union would require 2 consenting adults, who, without explicit or implicit coercion choose to live together.
Meanwhile, with our economy in the tank, our national debt completely out of control, the need to deal with the Iraq war and the middle East some way or another, an army that has been effectively maimed by the mismanagement of this war, and the need to develop an oil policy that doesn’t leave us dependent on our enemies, and which doesn’t worsen the environmental mess we’re making, why are we worried about California’s marriage laws? Why can’t we let California worry about them? I don’t think this debate needs to be a top item on anyone’s agenda.
It is? I would suggest that a person’s relationship with God, or perhaps the other way around, God’s relationship with us, is the most discussed topic in the Bible. Granted, poverty is an important topic, but I see it as a symptom, not a root cause addressed. Ditto with homosexual behavior.
But I primarily have just a few questions for Karen and others:
1) Why are statements in the Bible prohibiiting homosexual behavior with regard to the people of God considered to be “out of context,” though they seem to be very much in context. Do they not mean what they say, OT and NT?
2) Agreed that their are a multitude of sins that are discussed in the Bible, and we tend to single out what we want to address–why minimize any of them at the expense of others?
3) Have we thought through the long-term implications of gay “families”? What about children who grow up, 20, 30 years from now, and know nothing else? It is, of course the gay agenda that this be a perfectly acceptable lifestyle along with heterosexual behavior, but my little experience is that their intention is to push their agenda vigorously, and militantly, if need be. Of course, it does not help when the other side responds militantly, either. But have we really studied where this is leading us? Are we really going to be better off as we increasingly abandon the traditional family? Did dear old Mrs. Doubtfire get it right? And are these really, as you seem to suggest, trivial issues?
4) Why is bestiality considered to be “animal abuse.? What about “consenting” pets? I would wager that, once the above “war” is conceded, this could very well be the next one, for what is the difference, ultimately, between humans and animals apart from the traditional Christian world view?
I can appreciate your desire to keep church and state separate, Karen, but I’m afraid it is not quite that simple. Luther’s “Two-Kingdom” principle can be more easily pushed that way, but Reformed tradition, which I am now a part of, acknowledges more the fact that the two cannot be completely disentangled.
At what point are Christians allowed to address the culture, in your view?
Mike’s view of marriage evidently means that two adults of the opposite sex who choose not to procreate should not be able to define their relationship as a “marriage,” nor should a couple where the female is the primary breadwinner, since she has clearly not “coerced a male to support her.”
And Brad, you may think you are claiming CO status in these culture wars, but by equating Karl Rove with Gavin Newsom you pretty much are coming down on one side. I understand you would have religious issues with this; to come to terms on that front, I recommend a healthy dose of reading Andrew Sullivan.
Could you consider, Brad, that gay rights folks are happy about this because it means that a lot of people’s lives will be made happier and more fulfilled? Does it have to be a political motivation?
Remember, Brad, there was a time when marriage or relationships between a black and white person of opposite sex was opposed with the same kind of arguments made by Mike and others above.
What Newsom is saying is that, this too shall come to pass.
I don’t understand why the happiness and love between two people should be so upsetting to others. What is it about a loving, long-term, permanent relationship between two adults that is so troubling?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…I can think off the top of my head of five or six same-sex couples who have been together (some in formal marriages, some not) for years and years, some of the most loving and rock-solid relationships I know. Why they shouldn’t have the legal status of marriage is completely incomprehensible to me.
It doesn’t seem that complicated to me. Brad, you may want to stay on the sidelines on this one, but I’ll choose to be on the side of love, stability, the wish for people to find a loving lifelong partner throughout their lives. I wish the same for my little 11-month-old son. Whatever gender that partner turns out to be would not matter to me…I would only want him to find the same kind of love I’ve been lucky enough to finally stumble into in my life.
What agenda do you think gays are pushing. They cannot make anyone homosexual, anymore than we can force anyone to be heterosexual, although we’ve tried for many generations now, resulting in miserable marriages, and even more miserable lives spent in closets, not to mention lynchings along the way. The Church has plenty to say about this; that’s why I advocate giving Marriage back to them. In this society, the traditional concept of marriage has long been destroyed be serial marriage, and those so disgusted with fake trappings that they now just shack up, and thumb their collective noses at society. Let a contract be a contract, and marriage return to what it should be: a sacred vow and a channel of God’s Grace. If a denomination accepts gay marriage, let them; it’s God’s Grace and his job to sort it out, not ours.
Oh, yes. By “taken out of context” I mean its either lifted from the cultic lists of Leviticus that would equally forbid you to wear blended fabrics, or, more usually, lifted out of cultural context. To a person of the times, the real sin of Sodom is a hospitality sin. If you fail to recognize that, you can make almost no moral sense of Lot’s offer of his daughter.
In Paul’s letters we continually forget the pederastic bent of Greek culture, and the brothels of the times.
Marriage is a status conferred upon couples by the several states. Therefore, it is subject to the 14th Amendment requirement of equal protection. It seems to me that based strictly unpon law without considerations of tradition mucking up the waters that eventually same-sex marriages will be universial.
Religious institutions and individuals may not have to recognize them as marriages except in matters already addressed by statute.
Roe v Wade was definitely a results-oriented decision validated by weak legal reasoning. There is no need of such trickery here. Same-sex marriage can stand on its own.
Herb, even a cursory look will reveal that the topic of the poor is most often addressed. The priest at Brad’s and my church pointed this out. He knows a little something about this topic.
The underlying theme is our relationship with God, but I am speaking of explicit topics. Topics that result in some Christians carrying signs with “God Hates Fags” and in the GOP to take such a strong and activist interest.
Given that and the fact that homosexuality is barely addressed, I raise the question of why Cakora and the GOP in general get so worked up over homosexuality but turn a blind eye to poverty if both are addressed in the Bible and Jesus certainly paid a great deal more attention to the latter.
Herb, you’re often a thoughtful commenter here so I was doubly disappointed to see you parrot the Rovian locution “gay agenda” in your comment above.
Has anyone else noticed that the word “agenda” is more often linked to the word “gay” than to any other term in political discourse? You rarely hear about the “African-American agenda”, the “environmentalist agenda,” or even a “neocon agenda.” Somehow gay men and women, to an extent beyond any other group of people, have an “agenda.” Of course “agenda” implies something secret or sinister, and the loonier of our bigoted friends out there indeed have it in their tiny little hate-infested minds that the goal is to “convert” straights, preferably extra young ones.
Karen’s point about the civil aspects of marriage vs. religious answers Mike’s objections perfectly. along the same lines, tinged here with the personal.
Herb, there is no gay agenda. There is only the human agenda.
Herb, re-reading my last comment I realize that I must hasten to add that I do not consider you to be among the “bigoted” etc group I referenced above. The point was that those are people who I expect to use the term “gay agenda,” but that I think you are above that.
Phillip,
Perhaps my use of “agenda’ was unwise, and if so, I apologize for that. I was not trying to say that other groups do not equally have “an agenda.” And I did not mean that I have not known gays that are amiable people. But I have also known many who have endured a great deal of harassment for their conviction that homosexual practices are wrong. Of course if one causes such a reaction by being unkind to begin with, or deliberately provokes it, such harassment may be deserved. And God hates no one, and I didn’t say he does.
But there is a very definite push against those of us who do not accept gay practices (I do not speak of gay orientation) that we will accept it, or else. All is not as neutral as you seem to think it is.
Karen, I think you are muddying the waters unnecessarily. Levitical (OT) law is, at times, primarily illustrative, but some prohibitions carry over, and are universal. We know these, because they are repeated by Jesus, and/or his chosen apostles in the New Testament, and therefore have authority for His church. The early church had to wrestle through the whole issue of relationship to the OT Law, and they came to some basic conclusions in Acts 15, among them that Gentile believers should not engage in “fornication” as the Jews would understand it. And how the Jews understood it is defined in Leviticus 18, which prohibits all kinds of incest (which Roman law did not in all cases), and homosexual practice. Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 extend this prohibition on the basis that it is unnatural. The priestesses and culture of prostitution at Corinth were well known to Paul–but the will of God was still the same. Culture does not change that. The Biblical testimony is unequivocal.
Randy, it would be interesting to list the number of topics that the Bible actually does take up, and how often. I am not sure that the importance of a topic is to be measured by how many verses pertain to it, but I’ll let that one go.
And for those who think the topic is important, but want to avoid the extremes on both sides, I would suggest this discussion at getreligion.org. It is going to be interesting to see how these legal decisions are going to be applied to those of us who lead evangelical churches and organizations in the coming years. Stay tuned; it could get interesting.
Interesting commentary, but most seems to be of the latte cafe crowd, quoting this or that and proving conclusively that the what they know
of what you think is always wrong and they who always know best for everyone will settle this social value issue once and for all.
News flash: The fundamental social unit of society is the male-female reproducing family. It is embedded in law, although in custom many forms of family actually function as social units.
Once this basic sexual distinction is redefined as malemale or femalefemale as the social unit, it is nanoseconds until the age of marriage vanishes and identifies with puberty, 12 year olds menstruating now are marriageable.
Next, the number of marriageable partners will be assailed, so numerous individuals can have multiple partners of any sex at the same time, so long as they officially contract by law for their partner group.
Just as interbreeding the human races was once banned, but breeds were freed to breed with whomever, Then the species of the marriage choice will eroded,
and dogs and cats, favorite dedicated companions of human love, will be marriageable partners.
We are entering an era when good ideas supercede good sense, and
when major influential social movers and shakers are educated beyond their intelligence.
Woe unto the public; beware of the adolescent plutocrats.
Whoa, Herb’s back! Welcome!
If we’re going to thump the Bible, I’ll acknowledge that the poor are mentioned but I missed the part about Caesar’s programs for helping them and would appreciate a pointer to the book, chapter, and verse where it’s mentioned. Helping the poor on one’s own is an act of charity; establishing a government program to redistribute income is not, it’s merely a popular and legal form of theft, with the Farm Bill as Exhibit A.
As a simple matter of justice no one has the right to the fruit of another’s labor, but it’s another matter if individuals freely and graciously give time, energy, and money to help others. That’s virtue, and that’s what the Bible is all about as I understand it.
I’ll be quite blunt: in the US most poverty is a matter of attitude and upbringing. I acknowledge that the elderly and infirm may be poor through no fault of their own, but my reading and experience have convinced me that many of the poor are impoverished because they do not and will not adopt the habits of success.
I realize that some folks have so many obstacles that they’ve lost hope. Charles Karelis, a philosopher and former president of Colgate University, puts it this way: “Poverty is less a matter of having few goods than having lots of problems.” Karelis has a compelling analysis and argues strongly for some government programs, but more research is warranted. I agree with her.
I recently had another disturbing experience in working with the poor in getting ahead, but just as another minor success loomed, bad habits reappeared to ruin years of effort. So I have no answer other than to do what one can to help the innocents.
I have seven living siblings, only one is poor, primarily because of substance abuse, usually heroin — that’s what was found in the bloodstream of one of her kids at birth — but she’s an equal-opportunity abuser. She’s exhausted the patience of state agencies and women’s shelters in Illinois, Missouri, Arizona, and California. She used to be smart, pretty, and a hard-worker, but she’s now back in prison out west for fraud and theft.
In 2000 while the problem sister was entering prison in Arizona, my youngest sister who’d been unable to have kids of her own got lawyered up and adopted the inmate’s two children, aged one and two at the time. Getting the kids’ father’s consent was relatively easy because he was and is behind bars in California. I saw the kids again today — they are healthy, smart, and loved. No government funds were used in this heroic act, and I helped build a dollhouse for the gal.
Many government family services people will tell you that all they can do is relieve the worst symptoms. Yet the elites push for government solutions while castigating the private entities — churches, Scouting, the Salvation Army — that have answers and have proved that they can make a difference.
Scouting brings me back to a good way to close this lengthy tirade on the culture wars. Scouting is about service and personal growth, not about sex. The whole Boy Scout brouhaha arose when the organization learned that a scoutmaster was a gay activist, raising practical and cultural issues. On the practical side, if the Catholic church’s sex scandal teaches us anything, it’s that ya gotta keep watch out over who’s watching over the kids. The male of the species is a predator, so if his wiring / software points him toward males, he’s no more a suitable leader for young boys than a heterosexual male is for young girls. That’s so obvious that only an intellectual could think otherwise.
As to culture, many if not most Boy Scout troops are sponsored by churches; there are even awards for different religions in scouting. But even scout troops sponsored by non-religious entities serve to further traditional cultural norms, so there’s a natural resistance to the nonconventional.
Herb, nit-picking Leviticus, which the Pharisees did, was repudiated by Jesus. He never spoke yea, or nay, of homosexuality. His major speech on marriage condemned divorce, and he forgave the woman ‘taken’ in adultery (I can’t help but ask, ‘what happened to the man’?). Jesus spoke of the poor, of social justice, of inclusiveness (he was after all a ‘wine-bibber and glutton’ who ate with ‘prostitutes and tax collectors’).
Citizen – Er, I will join you in drinking to that.
If you are at a public wireless hot spot, be sure to call a cab to get home.
I missed the part about Caesar’s programs for helping them and would appreciate a pointer to the book, chapter, and verse where it’s mentioned. – Cak
Where is it in this book that the government is to outlaw or curtail matters dealing with homosexuality?
You fancy yourself as an ideologue and not a party hack. This quote validates the latter, which is my very point.
The GOP is self-identified as the party of “family values.” The strongest element of its base is conservative Christians. The integrity of this values foundation is undermined by the almost capricious selection of God’s words to uphold. Your effort to protect marriage from the “gay agenda” while being dismissive of the poverty agenda being a perfect illustration.
I’ll be quite blunt: in the US most poverty is a matter of attitude and upbringing. – Cak
You read a philosopher from Colgate and had relied on a little personal experience to conclude this? The 2000 Census reports that 1.5 million military veteran families are in poverty. Was it their attitude or their upbringing that caused this?
In regards to upbrining, there are an estimated 15,000 homeless children in South Carolina. I guess you are right, it’s upbringing. Too bad the bible doesn’t specify that the government should get involved, otherwise the GOP might actually pay some attention to this issue.
Mike,
Thanks for the welcome, but it looks like I had better stay out. There is a big unwritten sign here that seems to say, “Evangelicals not wanted.” This is evidenced by the fact that, if you bring up something from Holy Scripture, well, that is “nit-picking.” I guess I wonder if it isn’t nit-picking when we take our favorite “stories” from the Bible, such as John 8 and use it as a basis to actually dismiss all of Jesus’ moral position which was obviously based on the (original intention of the) Old Testament. He was a Jew after all, and in many ways a Jewish rabbi, he even taught like a Jewish rabbi, with his 12 disciples. Maybe there are some things that are to be assumed, because of his Jewish background?
But one thing is clear–when one brings up certain topics here, there is a lot of “snarling” ‘How Dare You!”s Brad is right in that sense–there are certain topics that cannot be discussed without going to “war”. As soon as I bring up the subject there is no real engagement of the issues, just dismissal.
It is already considered a “hate crime” in certain areas of North America to even speak on certain subjects in church. One cannot simply exegete Scripture from the pulpit, without being hauled into court. Evangelicals fear, rightly or wrongly, a “tightening of the noose.” Forgive me if I am inventing conspiracy theories (evangelicals are good at that), but this blog seems to me to be evidence of intolerance of certain views, even if they are presented in a civil manner.
As I wrote before, the next few years could become very interesting.
P.S. Nobody is even remotely taking up the questions I asked about “where is this taking us?” All I get in response is either snarl, snarl, or “I know gay families that are very nice and peaceable.” What kind of argument is that?
Whoa! The Republicans have appeasement, surrender in Iraq, stooopid FISA restrictions to enrich trial lawyers, domestic petroleum prohibitions, gay marriage, and reparations to whack Obama: they might not lose so badly after all.
-Mike
The political philosophy of neo-conservatism is rapidly and thankfully approaching irrelevancy in this country. And given it’s track record of complete failure this can’t come a minute too soon. The American people are finally waking up to the utter failure of this diabolical movement to enrich a handful at the expense of the rest of us. The last 8 years have exposed the (conservative) man behind the current. The list of failures due to neo-conservatism over the last 8 years is extensive:
Conservatism has failed to protect America and Americans (9-11). It has failed to manage the nation’s natural resources ($4/gallon gasoline; $5 diesel). It has failed to maintain the health of Ameircans (47 million uninsured; declining relative life expectancy compared to the rest of the world). It has failed to achieve economic prosperity for Americans (stagnant wages, increased unemployment). It has mortgaged our future with enormous and growing national debt. It has failed to address the serious problem of world terrorism (Obama runs free; Al Qaeda grows stronger). It has failed to protect the integrity of the Constitution and international law by promoting terrorism and illegal spying on it’s citizens. And most importantly coservatism has failed to protect the integrity of America’s good name by misusing and abusing American military power (Iraq quagmire).
Those who remain in the neo-conservative movement inspite of it’s utter failure to govern will try to change the subject and scare the American people with trivial culture issues like gay marriage but this too will fail. The American people are starting to wise up to the scare tactics of the neo-con movement. They understand the real danger is not from the marriage of Adam and Steve but rather from the grotesque attempt by conservatives to steal from working class Americans to enrich a few lazy people in the top echelon of American wealth. The neo-conservatism movement has been outed for it’s failure’s to effectively govern. And not a moment too soon.
Herb, I have no wish to ‘snarl’ at you. You asked me some questions and I answered them in good faith. I can see that we each view the Bible and the Christian tradition in a different way. But I trust that both of us are sincere in our beliefs, and that we can both put aside the areas we disagree on and pray together for God’s grace for all. As for where all this is taking us, I don’t see it as ‘taking’ us anywhere, except to an acceptance of each other, as we are.
Herb –
Actually, much of the banter here is a hoot. bud attempts to construct a coherent argument, Randy E. is just agin whatever I write, so their responses are always interesting. As an atheist I put forth a cultural argument against same-sex marriage. When the conversation turned (actually, it seemed to veer pretty sharply) to poverty, I thought folks were defending government programs by citing the Bible, but I guess my turn too was too sudden. I should have used my blinkers.
Conservatives and neo-conservatives have significant differences, the big one being the size of government with the latter preferring a large, friendly one; this reflects their origins in the Democratic Party.
Republicans face a whipping at the polls not because of their conservatism, but because they’ve abandoned conservative principles and patiently await their turn at the trough. Their biggest problem right now is fear, so it’s every man for himself. That will only exacerbate their woes and fundraising potential: who wants to contribute to scaredy-cat wimps?
Voters aren’t stupid: recent wins by Democrats in the House are due to the fiscally and socially conservative candidates — Blue Dogs — they’ve put up, not by running flaming liberals. Good tactics by the DNC to increase its headcount, and given its track record in enforcing party loyalty, more power in the Congress. The Blue Dogs will push a bit for some fiscal responsibility, but the budget will balloon financed by higher tax rates and further penalties on the successful. Bad times for folks who own good businesses, a great time to be a farmer, and an interesting time for those who produce, market, or consume energy. Welcome to the Dark Ages…
You Evangelicals will be packed off to cry in the wilderness. The Left will stop at nothing, the marginalization of John Hagee is just a start. But hey, commandments are a lousy way to run a modern, caring society. Just accept that the most you can live with is the Ten Suggestions.
Mike, about your “cultural argument” against same sex marriage, what you are really saying is marriage provides the stability needed for families to flourish. This applies to both homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.
JimT – I disagree. Males and females are wired differently and have different operating systems. I’d expect a male-male couple to be quite different from a female-female couple; in the former no one is ever right, in the latter neither is ever wrong. There’s no complementarity.
I can do all these, my wife can’t. But there’s a whole bunch of things she does better than I; just ask her.
Males occupy the extremes of intelligence and behavior (accomplishment); someday science will discover the female perspective and personal pride genes that explain the differences.
From a cultural perspective I think it’s important to maintain the point that the optimal setting for the family is a male-female couple, even if that offends some. I admit that I’m not smart enough to know why, only that it’s worked in most cultures for millennia with slight variations for extended families, cousins, and polygamy.
Cak, I’m only “agin” your asinine comments, e.g. “dem = commie”.
The debate on gay marriage in this country is entirely steeped in Christian conservative context, whether based on ideology or as a political wedge issue. Maybe a sprinkling of atheists like yourself are offering up a secular argument, but that would be the exception. Hence, any attempt to argue in favor of prohibiting gay marriage is rightly viewed in the context of this as a GOP issue. After all, it’s your values party that is pushing this.
My point is not whether we should base policy on Christian faith but the inconsistency of the GOP in doing this, e.g. family values includes the marriage issue but not poverty.
BTW, if there is no higher power and hence no absolute Truth, then isn’t morality purely an egocentric endeavor? If so, this permits supporters of the 9-11 terrorists to justify their attack as a moral act because they believed it so. (Here you go Herb, jump in.)
I’d not call morality purely an egocentric endeavor because it has to operate in a cultural setting and is based on shared beliefs and conventions. It is apart from the law but certainly influences the law. It took the West a lot of bloodshed and idiocy to work out the religion thingy and its relationship to government, and we’re still ironing out the kinks. So far we’re somewhat successful in operating governments that serve folks of many faiths.
I do agree that the 9/11 attackers and those behind it believed that what they were doing was right and good. They regard subjugating women, polygyny, and stoning homosexuals in the same manner. I think most of us here find their notion of morality repugnant. I also think that such conventions should give pause to multiculturalists who argue that all cultures are equivalent. They clearly are not.
I’m not going to get maudlin about cultural issues, but we’ve made a fine mess of the family and marriage over the past fifty years and are suffering the consequences: antisocial, irresponsible behavior. Teachers see it in schools, employers see it in the workplace. I’m just not in favor of too much more experimentation. Call me a stick in the mud.
The point remains, all families, hetero or homo, need a nurturing environment. The institution of marriage is primary in this regard.
Stick in the Mud,
Your phrase “such conventions” is the key to my point. Suicide attacks and the way women are treated (see Texas polygamy camp) may very well be conventional for many – “shared beliefs in a cultural setting” as you stated.
It appears that you suggest there is a threshold for such convention to be justified. What is this threshold, whether “most of us” agree? If so, we are in effect adjudicating morality. Perhaps if enough of “them” disagree with us, the table is turned and we become immoral.
Pardon me, Karen, but you seemed rather intent on putting down my questions rather than answering them.
Can I just reply a bit to your point on Jesus’ silence with regard to homosexuality? (Arguments from silence, by the way, are very precarous.) Any Old Testament scholar worth his salt will know that Jesus was silent because he did not disagree with the Old Testament verdict on the subject. Homosexual behavior was as repugnant to the Jew as eating pork. Jesus said what he thought about eating pork and what was intended by these laws, the result of which changed the food laws for the early church, but by being silent on the subject of homosexual behavior, he essentially affirmed the will of God as revealed in the Law. It was only in the context of Greek culture (Corinth and Rome) that the Apostle Paul had to explain the command for early Gentile Christians—that the OT prohibitions hold. That does not mean that practicing homosexuals are not to be loved and associated with, but it does mean that homosexual behavior is a sin, as is adultery, lying, and a host of other actions.
We tend to associate Pharisaic nitpicking with being hypocritical and picky about specific sins, but we forget that the opposite is also true. The Pharisees tried to get around what marriage was as God intended, and , Jesus goes back to the Old Testament law—Genesis 2– in order to establish the Created order: one man united with one woman.
I’m not trying to be obtuse or difficult or Pharisaical. I do think we often decide to go in certain directions without thinking of the implications of what it is going to be like when we get there. Ultimately, we do not break God’s laws. It is we who are broken as a result of transgressing them.
I think I just did, Randy. Everybody’s going to think I am some kind of moral crusader, which I am not. I have been exegeting and applying Scripture, as my main occupation, for over 35 years, however, and it bugs me the way we, especially professing Christians, treat it.
And to prove I am not a moral crusader,here is a good read, distributed by Jim Wallis and the Sojourners, a group that I don’t always agree with, but always respect, especially for a more balanced engagement of Christians in the public square than is often practiced.
Herb, I don’t remember Jesus saying a thing about eating pork (I do remember him sending demons into a herd of swine, leading to their drowning–I expect the owner of that herd was not happy). But, question? How can you respect, and treat a person fairly, and yet call him a sinner, and refuse to recognize his significant other? Not everyone can manage complete celibacy without it causing more problems. And certainly we do not wish to encourage sexual promiscuity. Jesus does not speak to many things. That did not mean that He agreed totally with them. They just were not a primary problem during His life. He had plenty to deal with in terms that the people of His time, and all times, could understand. I just do not think that this is a problem that we have to have a cultural war over. Can’t we get together on what we can agree on, and work to meet those mandates–poverty, injustice to name a couple, that Jesus certainly commanded us to care about.
Randy – Your point is spot on and well made. My response is that within a political unit wherein several distinct cultural and religious groups exist, it’s best to let the political process resolve differences over time and avoid a top-down fiat from a benevolent leader, a judiciary, or entrenched political entity. Politics — the give and take among disparate groups — will generate the logic that leads to a mutually agreeable solution.
That’s what happened with women’s suffrage. That’s what did not and likely could not happen with slavery, so good folks went to war to make a point. It was an expensive exercise in blood and treasure, but a worthy one. To this day related issues remain a matter of deep thought and extended discussion in conservative circles where folks work to reconcile the principle of states’ rights with civil rights in order to have a consistent approach. The minor point is that while Republicans generally did support and assure passage of civil rights legislation, some Democrats opposed to such later switched to the Republican Party. The discussion centers on an analysis of the events, the short-term results, and the longer term results.
In our nation’s political system there’s a delicate balance and constant tension between popular opinion in the political realm and adherence to the constitution, that document that, among other things, protects our rights. You and I may agree in principle that the US Constitution has that threshold you mention, but disagree on what that really means. So far, any constitutional challenge to the ban on polygamy has survived judicial scrutiny. However our political process arrived at that ban, it remains the law.
In like manner, I argue that the establishment of same-sex marriage should be left to the political process because of its inherent understanding of cultural issues. Others may argue that it’s a right under the constitution. To be fair, I’ll acknowledge a similarity in logic with the fight against slavery and segregation — you may have good points — but I might respond with something about the cultural foundation of the constitution and argue that the Kaleefornia Supremes overstepped their authority given the contents of that state’s constitution.
Here is the law, in part:
Leviticus 17:7 — And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
And what Jesus said about the law:
Matthew 5: 17-19 — Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
If “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled,” the swine is still “unclean to you,” because heaven and earth have not passed.
His allowing the demons to enter the swine who then jumped into the sea and drowned just confirms that swine, from his point of view, were indeed unclean, and if anyone were raising them — a Jew raising animals that Jews had been forbidden to eat — well, that pork farmer’s feelings probably weren’t worth much concern.
Pardon me for not looking up chapter and verse, but after Christianity was revealed to the gentiles, didn’t Peter say that gentiles were not bound to the Jewish laws?
Herb, just to touch on a couple of points you made…you said “there is a very definite push against those of us who do not accept gay practices…that we will accept it, or else.” Within yourself, your family, your religion, no one forces gay practices on anybody. The question really is a particular religion’s forcing its views on civil society. The question is actually pretty close to the creationist-evolution argument within the schools.
The problem is that your religion, if I’m not mistaken, views homosexuality as a sin by choice, whereas modern science is coming down on the side that it is not a choice, but an inherent trait of nature which occasionally appears in humans. God’s gift, you might say. Certainly any gay man or woman I’ve ever known has never thought of it as a choice, any more than my being heterosexual and attracted to women was a “choice” for me.
So when you say that simply allowing gay men or women to have the completely fulfilled aspects of a married couple is a forced action against “those of us who do not accept gay practices,” how is that any different from certain Muslim groups living within Western European countries objecting to many commonly held Western practices they see every day around them, as being “forced” upon them? If they themselves are only being “forced” to accept allowing others to live freely, but allowed to follow their own religious precepts within their religions and communities, is that not legitimate? Is it only supposed to be different here because we are a majority Christian country? And in any case, there is much dissent within the Christian community on this issue, as I’m sure you’re well aware.
As we come to understand homosexuality as “nature” rather than “nurture,” that also answers one of your other questions, the “where is this all taking us?” question. There are societal changes relating to marriage that are much more fundamental to where our future is heading, for example the change to the two-career family, at first an advance due to feminism, but now almost calcified into a necessity in today’s economy, where surviving on one income (if you have children) is very difficult.
There will always be a certain percentage of homosexuals within humankind; unless you perhaps believe that natural selection would favor them for some reason, I don’t see why it should reach levels that would threaten the basic predominance of heterosexuality, and the continued propagation of the species.
Given our planet’s booming population, I have to ask again, can we be sure that the possibility of being gay is not a gift from God?
“Given our planet’s booming population, I have to ask again, can we be sure that the possibility of being gay is not a gift from God?” — Phillip
Hoping this question is not serious, but fearing otherwise, the answer is still an emphatic no.
Besides, the thrust of all this, heterosexuality vs. homosexuality as it affects survival of the species, what Jesus and Peter said, is not the issue the California Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage brings to bear.
The issue is whether government should treat same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples the same with regard to marriage.
Should Joe Blow and John Doe be able to file jointly if they room together and decide to make a facetious lifetime commitment with suitable prenup simply for the financial benefit of filing their income taxes jointly until such time as they decide to change their situation as simply as changing clothes?
The answer still has to be no.
Red button issues drive the elections. It had to come up. Fear and hate swing votes. No debate on a blog is going to change either sides opinion. My two cents on the subject are that no one is forcing the churches to conduct marriage ceremonies or give their blessing to the unions. It is purely a contractual transaction entered in to to protect both partners treating all adults equally. In a separation of church and state, the religious aspect of the union remains in the churches hands, as it should.
You don’t have to invoke any religion as a reason to reject homosexual behavior. Religions are merely recognizing that it is an unhealthy behavior, having dozens even hundreds of partners in unsantitary acts that spread all manner of venereal diseases. HIV-AIDS is a venereal disease, just like syphillis. Both are deadly.
The recent scandal in the Catholic Church of pedophile priests is a good example of how homosexuality is not about “consenting adults”. Over 95% of the cases involved homosexual molestation.
Many of the groups advocating legalization of “homosexual marriage” also want marriage redefined to include and decriminalize polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality.
Cak, you are pushing the discussion into a different direction. My point was on absolute Truth in terms of a higher power. The Constitution plays a role in determining morality, but it was created by man. These “self-evident” truths, previewed in the DoI, were evident to man based soley on what he perceieved to be truth?
My position is that absolute Truth can not be determined by man alone. How were the colonists the adjudicaters of truth? How does any secular entity or man himself corner the market on truth and morality if it’s left to the will of the majority, as you apparently argue? This process leaves truth in flux as the majority changes every few centuries. With Muslims outnumbering Catholics now, it’s a matter of time before they become the majority. At that point, is their morality absolute Truth?
My belief is that God (Allah, Yahweh) is the purveyor of Truth. We interpret it to the best of our ability but we do not determine actual Truth.
Homosexuality is a behavior choice just like smoking and drinking. None of these are human requirements. Karen doesn’t have any problem banning smoking because she fears smoke. She doesn’t fear homosexuals so they are o.k. This is the culture war in a nutshell. We want to ban what we fear but have no problem with things we see as harmless.
Randy – I acknowledge, even applaud your view but not your source of truth because I don’t share your faith. I mean no insult; I have tremendous respect for believers and view religion as an important component of culture that brings a remarkable vitality to the American experiment. In my younger days I was a member of a church and even went to a seminary for several years, but that was some time ago. Herb and I and a few others have exchanged views on religion and lack thereof, quite cordially, I assure you.
This is:
(H/T Lopez at NRO.)
Homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle choice, because it is not natural. A truly libertarian view is to let the smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts and homosexuals kill themselves. Homosexual behavior spreads to disease to unwilling 3rd parties with much more surety and deadliness than these other vices. That is why civilized societies seek to control it.
How is a monogamous partner lifestyle unhealthy? The debate on gay marriage always ends up being defined by misconceptions, untruths and outright lies. Homosexuality and pedophila are two different things. Unhealthy sexual practices spread disease amongst both heterosexuals and homosexuals. What happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is not my concern. The key words are adults and consenting. But like I said earlier, fear mongering is the easiest way to sway votes for the Republicans.
Monogamous homosexuality is not the issue, because it is so rare, and it is already tolerated.
The problem is that such relationships are not only rare, but rarely last longer than 2 years. The bulk of homosexuals are promiscuous, and carry venereal disease to unsuspecting partners.
As already stated, many of the groups backing “homosexual marriage” actually don’t want a relationship with a single consenting adult – they want to decriminalize pedophilia, polygamy, and child prostitution. Go look up NAMBLA. Go look at the 95% of of Catholic priest cases, which involved homosexual pedophilia.
Will the federal government allow same-sex spouses to collect widow/widower benefits from Social Security? How about private pension funds? These are issues that will have to be addressed sooner or later.
Which (in the meantime) is why the gay/lesbian community should really be pushing for privatizing Social Security in order to prevent the government from being involved in the decision.
Personally, this is one of those “who cares?” issues for me… despite being a member of a Southern Baptist church. In fact it’s one of those cases where my opinion has “evolved” over time. Having worked with two gay men recently who were in longterm committed relationships, I came to realize that some people just want to be together and love each other. If they want to call it “marriage”, I don’t care.
Our society is impacted more by overt sexuality (whether it be hetero or homosexual) than by gay marriage. We need to do something about a culture that thirsts for news about Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and Paris Hilton just as much as we need to make Queer Eye for The Straight Guy unnecessary.
Another incident that impacted my opinion on the subject was when I learned a school principal was involved in a longterm gay relationship. It wasn’t really a shocker.. the guy did his job well and was just a decent, bright guy. But we saw him in Target one night with his partner and when he recognized my wife and I, he sort of drifted away from his partner’s side and came over eventually to talk to us. It seemed like this was a common occurence… having to put on an act in public. I felt sorry for the both of them.
So, like Lee, I look at it from the Libertarian perspective — but unlike Lee, I consider it a case of letting people do what they want to do as long as they are not harming anyone else.
Penultimo, of course the question was absolutely serious. Your emphatic “no” can only be based on what you believe your God to be. As far as the “facetious commitment” goes, I think you’re thinking too much of that Adam Sandler movie! We all certainly know numerous examples of hasty, ill-considered heterosexual marriages that are later casually abandoned, often with children suffering as a result. Married gay men and women certainly would have a long way to go to match the record in modern times set by married heterosexual couples today.
Richard, homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice” only in the sense that it is actively practiced or not…which makes it no different from the “practice” of heterosexuality. You can be innately straight but make the choice as to whether or not to be completely abstinent, monogamous, serially monogamous, or rampantly promiscuous, and also choice extends to having children, how many to have, or to have none.
As far as some of the other comments here, Tim C said it best: they are characterized by “misconceptions, untruths, and outright lies.”
The tide is slowly turning, ignorance and prejudice will slowly recede. As interracial marriages were once banned but are now accepted, so too will gay couples eventually have the option of marriage, reaching all states within a generation or so. Even South Carolina–I’d say by 2035 for sure.
The ignorance I see is among those who buy the myth of “committed monogamous homosexuals”, while ignoring the pedophile groups and worse who are big supporters of the “homosexual marriage” sham.
Like tax subsidies for hybrid cars, they support it because the media told labeled debauchery as hip, and opposing it as, “ignorant, bigoted and homophobic”.
“Letter to a Wound”-W.H.Auden
Thanks to you,I have come to see a profound significance in relations I never dreamt of considering before,an old lady’s affection for a small dog, the Waterhouses and their retriever, the curious bond between Offal and Snig,the partners in the hardware shop on the front.Even the close-ups in the films no longer disgust nor amuse me. On the contrary,they sometimes make me cry;knowing you has made me understand.
Auden was a great poet, whose mediocre works have his sexual deviance as the subject matter.
But Auden is irrelevant to the issue of legalizing behaviors which drastically shorten the lives of the practitioners, render most of them miserable, spreads disease to so many innocent people, and preys such much on children.
Cak, the discussion has been very cordial. Regardless, you haven’t answered my question about justifying morality based on majority rule.
Which majority?
* The majority of adults at a polygamy kibbutz in Texas?
* The majority of hedonists in metro San Francisco?
* How about the majority of voters in the states of the Confederacy, who wanted to secede?
I feel sorry for the man/man and the woman/woman people in our society. They have truly missed the most wonderful love known to mankind when the result of a happy sexual union produces a beautiful child.
> They have truly missed the most
> wonderful love known to mankind when the
> result of a happy sexual union produces a
> beautiful child.
Or doesn’t. There aren’t a whole lot of abortions going on in the lesbian community, I would imagine.
The number of out-of-wedlock births and abortions in this country are going to have far greater impact on our society than whether two guys/gals want to proclaim themselves married and derive the legal benefits of that union.
I don’t think slugger was thinking of women being abandoned to raise illegitimate children as part of that “wonderful love”, either. It is another social trajedy, along with the man/man, woman/woman, man/boy, man/man/man/man/man… problem.
Lee,
I was referring to a legal marriage between a man and a woman. I was not referring to children born out of wedlock.
When we have a marriage and procreation and a happy family and responsibility for raising the children you brought into this world, we are saving this country for our children. It is up to us to raise our children with all the elements to keep our country and the world with morality, work ethic, belief in God, and self sufficiency. You are the master of your fate and the captain of your soul.
I am concerned that the children that are being raised today want to be given everything instead of reaping the rewards that they put forth to better their lives.
Obama has the idea that he can take from the productive and reward the non-productive with all they desire without being responsible for their own future. Divide and conquer?
The children being raised in the society today feel that they do not need an education nor do they need to be responsible for their own lives. Obama is going to reward them with care from the cradle to the grave.
When do the people that work thier butts off to make a living and pay the taxes on what they earn, decide that they will join the people sitting on the porch and wave at the the people going to work everyday. Do we then turn into a third world country?
I could go on and on but you know what this is all about. If you want to elect a president that will turn against capitalist form of government and adopt liberalism/marxist/communist form of government, then you are going to destroy the future of your children and destroy our country.
I know you were, slugger.
I was replying to Doug, who was trying to find a benefit to homosexual relationships, by putting it one notch above the rampant child abuse of illegitimate births. That’s poor company.
Obama is one of those children, abandoned by a Marxist father.
Mr. Muller, you seem to love to wallow in the most lurid stereotypes. The ordinary gay person is neither diseased, miserable nor a child molester.
JimT, it is a FACT that Obama was abandoned by his Marxist father, so I guess that does fit the stereotype for black children in America, since the FACT is that over 70% of them are born out of wedlock, and 35% of the parents spend time in jail.
Your stereotypical “ordinary gay person” may not be diseased or a child molester, but they are not ordinary, either.
If you want to exclude as “extrodinary” those gay persons who have such high rates of venereal disease, alcoholism, drug addiction, and suicide, and molest children at an order of magnitude greater rate than do heterosexual predators, that’s your attempt a delusion.
JimT, Lee’s posts are a fact of life we endure in Warthern World. In the past Lee claimed to be a WIS reporter, a sheriff, a marksman, an engineer, an economist, and a school hall monitor…
He also believes Obama has been a successful suicide bomber.
JimT, Enjoy Lee’s posts for the entertainment value they provide. His mind seems incapable of processing factual information so never expect any type of rational exchange of information. But we still love him.
“take from the productive and reward the non-productive.” –slugger
Slugger, we already have a system of income redistribution in this country. I won’t call millionaires non-productive, so let’s just say here we take from the productive and reward those who’ve already been rewarded.
Or, if you’re having a hard time making ends meet, here we punish you for being a LOSER. Doesn’t matter how hard you work, how much you play by the rules, how strong your family values are.
I don’t know why just because somebody makes less than $35,000 a year you call them non-productive. Isn’t it enough for somebody to struggle to make it in our society? Do you have to call them names too?
Randy E is lying again.
I never claimed to be a “WIS reporter”, nor a sheriff.
I am a consulting engineer and economist.
I never called Obama a “suicide bomber”, but he does have a circle of friends who are convicted bombers, and is cozy with Muslim terrorists.
“Non-productive people” are those who work for the government, and produce nothing that they could sell in the free market, or who consume more welfare and tax rebates than they pay in taxes. They consume wealth created by others.
Why would any industrious person support Obama or Clinton, who are threatening to confiscate and “redistribute” more of the wealth they created?
I see what you guys are saying. It’s hard to have a rational discussion with somebody when they don’t present anything rational. I mean, what do you say to “ordinary gay people are not ordinary.” I suppose I could say “Yes they are” but what’s the point?
Oh well….
Christians are under attack in America! Take Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America. Written by Robert S. McElvaine for example. This worthless
“historian” attempts to attack Christians with the bible! This book is likely to be the reference book of the Anti-Chris. I found this great review of Grand
Theft Jeses that tears the arguments Dr. McElvaine to shreds.
So that you might know how bold and brazen some of the “homosexual” people can be, I would like to share this with you.
I listen to WBT lll0 Radio at times. About l month ago on the morning show with host Keith Larson, a lesbian called into the show promoting a camp that she and her partner wanted to open someplace in the mountains of North Carolina. She said that the name of this camp was LICKALOTTA. Sure enough there is a website called camplickalotta.com. Larson thought she was putting him on for a while but finally realized that she was serious and was promoting the camp and wanted people to meet at that given place in the mountains on that given date (I do not remember the date and place not having interest in such things).
This is just an example of people promoting their lifestyles.
Having been close to the medical profession most of my life, I have been made aware of things that these people do to each other that require emergency room treatment. Need I say more?
I maintain that they have a right to live together and do whatever in the privacy of their bedrooms. I maintain that they do not have a right to marriage under the law of God and under the law of every state in the US except California (which we should give back to the Mexicans because they already have taken over).
Someone, a few comments back, noted with approval the civility of his exchange with another reader. I would like to take that a step further and thank all (or at least, most) of y’all for a discussion that I believe we can boast was more civil and constructive than what you would find on most blogs. This is gratifying.
As I have noted, this is simply an issue I wish would not come up, as it is an unnecessary distraction that will ADD to polarization when we sorely need to be finding common ground on truly pressing matters — such as energy independence to name but one.
Why is this not a pressing issue? No, it’s not just because it doesn’t concern me, so don’t bother typing that. It’s because, as with so many such issues, I do not see this as being one of inalienable rights. None of us has an unfettered “right” to marry anyone we choose. You can’t marry your first cousin (at least I hope not; I haven’t looked that up), or an underage girl.
Further, I don’t see marriage — as a legal, political construct — in terms of what an individual GETS TO DO in our society. We don’t have marriage because I want to be married to my wife, or you want to be married to your husband. We have it because society has a stake in regularizing these relationships. Societies from hunter-gatherers through agricultural through industrial have seen a SOCIETAL interest in having rituals and documentation to establish that, in the view of the society, this person is married to that one, and not to this other one.
There are the minor reasons for this, which closely relate to the reasons we have property laws — to avoid disputes (and potentially violent ones) before they arise, and resolve them fairly when they do. The logic of these could potentially be applied to same-sex relationships, I suppose.
But frankly, I see no reason why marriage would ever have developed as the institution that it is if it weren’t for the fact that sexual relations between a man and a nubile woman have a marked tendency to produce offspring. And it is definitely in the society’s interest to have a binding arrangement which allows us to say that this man and this woman (and particularly the man, who would be more likely to shirk this duty otherwise) are responsible for THIS child. This gives children a better chance of growing up healthy as constructive members of the society, and makes them less likely to be a societal problem.
Whenever I point this out, people raise irrelevant objections, such as “What about couples who can’t have children,” because of age of the woman, or lack of sperm motility in the man, or whatever. My answer is, “What about them?” My point is that if ALL couples were sterile, or most of them (or perhaps even a significant plurality, we would not have marriage, and therefore would not be having this discussion. (And never mind the couple who DECIDE to be childless — even if all couples did so, we’d have to have marriage, because frankly, I would not trust most fertile couples to keep that promise.) The institution would not have arisen as it has. We might have other sorts of contractual relationships between people engaged in sexual relations, but not THIS sort of arrangement.
Because I see marriage this way (within legal and cultural contexts), I see discussion of same-sex “marriage” as nonsense. And remember, when we speak of marriage in the legal and cultural context we are NOT talking about whether two people have a RIGHT to do anything, or to see each other however they see fit. We are talking about whether society has any interest in recognizing and affirming the relationship the way we do heterosexual relations.
Does society have NO interest in the stability of homosexual relationships? I wouldn’t say that. In the era of AIDS, one can mount a relevant argument for arrangements that would discourage homosexual promiscuity. It can be credibly presented as a public-health issue, at least among gay men. After all, encouraging heterosexual monogamy is also a public-health issue — just not PRIMARILY that.
Some have made that very argument. But I don’t hear it all that often. Like abortion, this issue is too often couched in absolutist terms of RIGHTS, and that very fact militates against any meeting of the minds between the warring sides in the Kulturkampf.
By the way, I have the same complaint about the issue of health care.
I don’t advocate universal health care because I believe we have a fundamental RIGHT to it, and I think it unfortunate that too many advocates of a national health plan couch it that way.
I advocate it because it is decidedly in society’s best interests — not only providing for a healthier populace, but also encouraging job mobility, economic creativity and all sorts of other good things that are discouraged when people won’t leave a job to try something new because they are terrified of losing their insurance.
This reminds me of one of the many instances in which Bill Clinton disappointed me as president. One day I heard him explain at some wonkish symposium the compelling need for universal health care in just such terms as I just used. He saw it, rightly, as an imperative in our increasingly global economy, if Americans were to be able to compete and excel. He was very persuasive.
But a few days later, when his wife’s plan was unveiled, he presented it in a dumbed-down, here’s-what-it-can-do-for-YOU way, brandishing a special health care card that would supposedly be the medical salvation of each of us as individuals. That was, for me, a big turnoff, and an even bigger letdown.
Well, I do see it as a matter of rights. The right to form a family of one’s own choosing certainly has to be one of the most fundamental rights there is. There is no other institution as powerful as marriage to foster strength and commitment. I don’t see how the gender of the family members affects the need for stability.
What I find as the most ironic, not to mention hypocritical, aspect of this debate is how people refer to gay people as diseased, promiscuous, and unhappy, but in the next breath say they oppose the very institution that could form a basis for stability these relationships need. One would think these people would be wholeheartedly in favor of marriage for that very reason.
No one objects to that small number of homosexuals who want to live together and mind their own business.
They are the poster children for “gay marriage”, and the defenders want to talk about nothing else. But the forces behind the issue want to redefine “marriage” and “family” to include polygamy and child molestation. Just go look at the freaks promoting this in San Francisco. They aren’t the “loving, committed couples” used to sell it to the public.
Until those “loving, committed” individuals have the gumption to take back the issue from NAMBLA, the polygamists, and the hedonists, decent society is rightly going to oppose it all.
Slugger, I always find it sad that people will offer up some anecdotal evidence or blatant prejudicial assertion that homosexuals much more promiscuous than heterosexuals.
Regarding your flippant remark about Mexicans in California, Mexican-Americans like my mother and my grandparents are AMERICAN. Go to the northeast and you will see large swaths of Italian-Americans. Perhaps we should return New Haven to Italy?
Randy E.
My remarks about the Mexicans in California (or any other place in the US) was directed to the illegal. I did not make myself perfectly clear. I am glad that you are Mexican and legal and hope that your decedents did not start out with a free trip to the US to have a “citizen birth”.
I have no predigest against any race. I do have a problem with anyone that is breaking the law and thumbing their noses at the law. Even when this country was settled every town had to have the marshal or the sheriff to keep law and order or only the crazy with the gun would survive.
We try to teach our children the obey the law. Some do and some do not. The choice eventually is up to the individual. When we have the illegal buying guns, cars, alcohol dope etc and the outcome is death to the innocent, I have as real problem.
Sorry that I offended you in anyway. When we turn the country over the lawless, let us see who survives.
Back to the right for man/man or woman/woman to marry, I am not for that union. Why do they want to get married when they can have all the rights as married people now that the employer is recognizing the union? I think that they just want to rub their noses into all the people that are not of their gender. Flip us the bird. Whatever you want to call it.
The old saying is that I have friends that are gay and they are wonderful people is very true.
An average of 30 partners is promiscuous.
A 2004 study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city’s homosexual male population.
According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago’s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area’s homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.
As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland — known as Chicago’s “gay center” — have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.
The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago’s citizens appears in the book, “The Sexual Organization of The City” (University of Chicago Press), 2004.
Lee,
I know a proctologist that could make a killing if he would move his practice to Chicago.
Nothing like posting fact to make the liberals scurry back under the refrigerator.