2009.05.30
Discuss Saturday's commentary
Barring gays isn't what's needed to 'save marriage'
For the sake of democratic self-governance, I was relieved when the California Supreme Court upheld the will of the voters to amend the state constitution to define marriage as they wished. Progressives have tried to use the courts to bypass the rough and tumble democratic process for social change, but such resort to judicial fiat erodes the culture of self-governance. It is particularly galling for the losers, to be sure, that in an election that went overwhelmingly Democratic, it was African-Americans who turned the tide in favor of the ban on same-sex marriage, rejecting the analogy between the civil rights struggle and gay liberation.
Read more.
Read Saturday's letters to the editor.
RSS feed 
I think the absolute wisdom of The First Amendment is magnificent. Think about it. It upholds the ideal of a free and unrepressed expression of your opinions, thoughts, perspectives, and beliefs. It allows for few restrictions and guarantees that the right is sacrosanct. But the REAL beauty of this right is that in any given situation, on any issue under the sun, it is sooooo easy to see what you are up against. I can imagine that policymakers and "the powers that be" can often peruse the local paper or an online site of your choice and literally see what is on people's minds, what people value or not, what people understand or not. It is a veritable treasure chest of ammunition, entertainment, enlightenment and vexation.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 30, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Professor Henlicky,
Thank you for a brilliant and refreshing perspective on the issue. Your analysis touched the point as with a needle. Much appreciated!
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — May 30, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
"Progressives have tried to use the courts to bypass the rough and tumble democratic process for social change, but such resort to judicial fiat erodes the culture of self-governance." Such disdain for a very important and often last resort for redress branch of the government is very telling indeed. The court cases that helped inform and transform our society for the better seem to be conveniently left out of this treatise. I fully understand that those who seek to continually deny a legal recognition to gays would grasp at any straw that makes that premise more palatable to the religious activists and more the better if it ensnares a few "intellectual" homophobes as well. While his point on the irreverence for marriage among the heterosexual populace is well taken, however it is a separate issue and a red herring to the issue at hand. The reformers determined to beat back any recognition of the legal right to have a government contract (marriage) for gay people have no intention of actually upholding the sanctity of marriage as Mr. Henlicky posits should be the goal because that is NOT their goal, suppressing the rights of Americans they do not like is their goal.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 30, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
"suppressing the rights of Americans they do not like is their goal"
I disagree, Sandi. Gays have every right that I have and I have no desire to suppress any of them.
Comment by Patrick — May 30, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Sandi:
"Such disdain for a very important and often last resort for redress branch of the government is very telling indeed. The court cases that helped inform and transform our society for the better seem to be conveniently left out of this treatise."
Okay, fine. All I ask is that you don't, in the next breath, deny that such a use of the courts is a minority-tyranny.
I guess my question to you, Sandi, is what about prof. Henlicky's proposal do you find unacceptable? That is, what would you change?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — May 30, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
religious activists and homophobes..suppressing the rights of people they don't like...oh the hyperbole, the vitriol and yes the conflation. Could it be that the majority see marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 woman for the good of society? Give civil unions whatever rights people believe it is entitled to--don't call it a marriage unless it's between a man and woman.
Comment by BUD — May 30, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
BUD, why not call it marriage? What is "for the good of society"? Procreation? If so, then surely those who are unable to conceive should not be allowed to marry. After all, they are not contributing to the "greater good of society." (which is a familiar communist dictatorship line)
Marriage is, for all honest accounts, solely for legal and tax related benefits. That is all. You can try to conflate religious dogma, but it falls flat. Marriage in the Unites States is not a religious institution.
As I have said before, you can have a million wedding ceremonies conducted by a swath of rabbis, priests, ministers, reverends, imams, or whatever else and it does make a lick of difference. Unless you get a marriage certificate notarized by s public official, you are not married. How else do you think Britney Spears upheld the sanctity of her one week (if that) marriage in Las Vegas? Last I heard, Elvis impersonators aren't a religious figurehead.
Comment by George — May 30, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
There is no right to a legally recognized marriage for anyone. Various forms of government have granted licenses to opposite sex couples under certian other guidelines: age, not blood relatives, mental competence and not being currently married are some potential restrictions. If marriage was a right there would be no need for any license.
I don't defend the lack of legal recognition of same sex as a defense of opposite sex marriage. I defend the lack of legal recoginition on the grounds that it is not a right and that the costs to society will outweigh any benefits. Loss of tax revenue, more legal costs by those who will not recognize same sex marriage, more benefits costs to employers, families and citizens having to fight public schools over diversity days,ect. Currently, we can read about more and more tax schemes at various levels of goevernment and yet a major tax break is proposed for same sex couples. Churches and others: Boy Scouts: who refuse to accept same sex couples or homosexual behavior may have to fight in court to preserve their 1st Amendment Rigths. I believe that all of the big three auto makers have granted domestic partner benefits to their employees and one of the big three's major problems is excessive employee pay and benefits. How many parents through out the country have had to fight their schools over the advocacy of same sex behaviours?
I will agree that traditional marriage needs improvement but somehow expanding the definition of marriage outside of current and history standards does not seem to be an answer.
As far as same sex marriage being seen as a means of social stability, why not promote celebacy outside of marriage between men and women?
Comment by Patt — May 30, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
As Mr. Hinlicky has noted, marriage is not a religious covenant in this country, it is a government contract and the government should be able to set parameters on the contract but not discriminate based on sexual orientation. You are entitled to believe otherwise. The issues he and others seem to want to raise are certainly more valid than any attempt to label gay marriage contracts as an attack on the "sanctity" of marriage, but they are separate issues entirely. What we call the legal protections that the contract will afford same sex partners is not relevant. Like common-law marriages already in existence, partners consider themselves spouses and many of us cannot understand why anyone else cares in the first place. My 29 year marriage to a wonderful man has no more bearing on anyone else's marriage than the same relationship of a gay couple. The day will come and just like other civil rights and immigration laws that many still hate, you will learn to live with it.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 30, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Common Law marriage is not recognized in Virginia. I don't think it has ever been recognized in Virginia.
Why does anyone care? Well if there was no legal recoginition of the relationship and if the two or more people involved kept the relationship discreet, I would not care. I support "don't ask, don't tell" about sexual practices among consenting adults. This applies to hetro sexuals also. Do I really need to know from co workers, neighbors and friends about their foreplay, actual sex practices, number of times, number of partners ect?
It is not discrimation to not grant marriage licenses based on discrination and it is not hatred to disaprove of sex between two (or more) men or two (or more) women. Not approving of those activities is an American right, the 1st Amendment.
Comment by Patt — May 31, 2009 @ 7:49 am
What a fabulous, well thought out piece. The writer has obviously spent a long time reflecting on this issue...from ALL its angles..not just the knee-jerk "Them gays are a-sinnin' and goin' to hell" we've unfortunately come to expect. Kudos
"How many parents through out the country have had to fight their schools over the advocacy of same sex behaviours?"
I dunno Patt...why don't you do some research and put up some sources telling us just how many. My guess would be...zero.
For the record...telling kids it's not ok to treat people badly or disrespectfully because they may or may not be gay doesn't constitute "advocacy of same sex behaviors".
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 8:12 am
And a country whose airwaves are full of shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire", "The Bachelor" and all their clones has already lost its grip on what might be called the "sanctity of marriage". Actual advocates of the sacred marriage bond would be way better off addressing garbage like that, and less time obsessing about gays.
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 8:14 am
Patt: all of your arguments were the same ones used to deny interracial marriages. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now.
Comment by Rob Miles — May 31, 2009 @ 8:48 am
Schools pushing same sex marriage: California elemantary school teacher taking her students to her same sex marriage at San Francisco City Hall during school, parents in Massachusettes having to go to court to keep their elemantary school child out of diversity courses promoting same sex marriage, Heather has two Mommies as a text book and Ann Arbor Michigan schools cancelling their "diversity days" because they would not allow a student to put forth the Christian idea that not approving same sex behavior is not necessary a sign of hatred. They only wanted one point of view.
Kristian, teaching that not everyone must approve of homosexaul behavior is not un American, treating some one badly or disrespectfully.
Most of the arguments against inter racial involved the possibility of children. Two women or two men can not produce a child. The push for same sex marriage seems more about tax and legal benefits for two adults not currently entitled to them. It also seems that how the supporters supporter term "tolerance" looks more like mandatory approval by all. I tolerant homosexuals by leaving them alone in their own homes and organizations. However, the homosexauls have not tolerated Christians, Boy Scouts, Veterans ,ect who do not agree with their behavior. Law suits and disturbing church services are examples. I still find it amazing that minority group who faced the strongest discrimination in this country do not support the discrimination claim as evidenced by their voting in California. How does any supporter explain that?
Comment by Patt — May 31, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Marriage is, for all honest accounts, solely for legal and tax related
benefits.... George, you sweet talker you!
Comment by BUD — May 31, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
@George: "BUD, why not call it marriage? What is "for the good of society"? Procreation? If so, then surely those who are unable to conceive should not be allowed to marry. After all, they are not contributing to the "greater good of society." (which is a familiar communist dictatorship line)"
Testing every couple's fertility is not cost effective. However, when the couple is man/man or woman/woman, no test is necessary to determine with 100% certainty that they cannot procreate.
"Marriage is, for all honest accounts, solely for legal and tax related benefits."
The question, then, is WHY do married couples enjoy tax benefits? Why would the government bestow these benefits on married couples? My thoughts is that it is because the government hopes the couple will produce offspring, which is definitely good for society.
@Patt: "There is no right to a legally recognized marriage for anyone. Various forms of government have granted licenses to opposite sex couples under certian other guidelines: age, not blood relatives, mental competence and not being currently married are some potential restrictions. If marriage was a right there would be no need for any license."
In some places, certain sexual transmitted diseases also will disqualify you.
I don't necessarily agree, though, that everything that is a right can be done without a permit, though. But you are right, much like driving, Marriage is not a right.
@Sandi: "it is a government contract and the government should be able to set parameters on the contract but not discriminate based on sexual orientation."
They don't discriminate. As a straight woman, Sandi, you may (barring any of the example disqualifiers) marry a man. You may not marry a woman. If you were gay, you could marry a man, but not a woman.
The treatment there is the same regardless of your sexual orientation. The government allows you to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just because someone is gay and wants to do differently doesn't mean they are being discriminated against. Discrimination would be if you were allowed to marry another woman but a gay woman was not.
Comment by Jack — May 31, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
Maybe the problem would be solved if the tax breaks afforded married people were taken away. I'm sure the flat-taxers would buy into that. Why should getting married get you any more of a tax break than...say...getting an advanced degree, which presents more of a benefit to society than indescriminate spawning.
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Patt: "Most of the arguments against inter racial involved the possibility of children. Two women or two men can not produce a child."
My wife and I cannot produce a child. Older men and women (in their 50s and 60s, even older) get married all the time, and it's known that they will not produce children. It's a specious argument, and it's one that will probably be factually incorrect within the next 10 years as well. Already geneticists can produce a female offspring using the genetic material from the eggs of female donors. I don't believe this has been tested on humans yet, but it's only a matter of time.
Also, when cloning techniques advance enough, two men will be able to have their genetic material combined to have a child. They'll need a surrogate mother, or some technology that will allow the child to grow to term, but either way it will effectively end that particular objection.
Of course then you'll argue that it's "not natural" and doesn't count, won't you?
Patt: "The push for same sex marriage seems more about tax and legal benefits for two adults not currently entitled to them."
Yea, the nerve of teh gays wanting legal benefits. How dare some man who's been in a loving, committed relationship with another man for some time demand the right to make (for instance) medical decisions for him if he's unable to make them for himself? (And before you talk about medical power of attorney, remember that Virginia recently amended the state constitution to deny even that to members of the same sex.)
How dare two women who've been together for years want both of them to be considered the legal parents of the children they raise?
Patt: "It also seems that how the supporters supporter term "tolerance" looks more like mandatory approval by all."
I guess I see it differently, because I see the homosexual community desperately wanting tolerance (and, you know, equal rights) and mostly don't care two figs for your approval.
Yes, I read your "marriage isn't a right" argument, and it just doesn't fly. Whatever marriage is, men and women have the right to enter into it as long as they meet certain conditions. There's no logical reason why two men or two women shouldn't have the same right, meeting those conditions.
You make a lot of claims about the "costs to society" that allowing same-sex marriage would cause, but I haven't seen anything that shows more than a nominal detrimental impact, and the argument has been made that it could be an overall tax benefit for the Federal government. It's a tougher issue, to be sure, and I don't think enough study has been done as yet to confidently state one way or the other. In any event, do you think the possibility of some economic impact is reason enough to discriminate against them?
Patt: "I tolerant homosexuals by leaving them alone in their own homes and organizations."
And publicly stating that, since they can't have children, they don't deserve the privilege of entering into a legally recognized union that would give them the same benefits (and responsibilities) that "normal" people have. And actively fighting against any attempt they make to be granted just some common, human decency. Yea, that's tolerant.
Patt: "However, the homosexauls have not tolerated Christians, Boy Scouts, Veterans ,ect who do not agree with their behavior. Law suits and disturbing church services are examples."
Your wording is a little to vague to directly comment on, but maybe the homosexual community not tolerating Christians (though apparently many of them are themselves Christians) can be explained by the number of Christian groups that not only can't tolerate homosexuality but want to use the government to ensure that homosexuals will never be legally tolerated.
The Boy Scouts is a private organization, and I personally think they can deny membership to whomever they chose. However, to have that right they should not receive any public funds or benefits. If they wish to continue to receive such, they should not be allowed to discriminate against gays (or atheists, for that matter.)
Patt: "I still find it amazing that minority group who faced the strongest discrimination in this country do not support the discrimination claim as evidenced by their voting in California. How does any supporter explain that?"
Oh, don't fool yourself, Patt: that minority group knows full well they are discriminating against homosexuals. They're comfortable with that discrimination, just like you are, because their Bible tells them it's okay.
Comment by Rob Miles — May 31, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
Rob,
So do you think the Boy Scouts should be forced to admit alcoholics and drug abusers or lose federal funding? After all, those conditions can be said to be genetic. Is it discrimination not to allow them?
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
DT: yet alcoholics and drug abusers provide a dangerous environment for children to be around. By your inference, why do you feel that gay people are dangerous for kids to be around? Your argument is just silly.
Comment by scott — June 1, 2009 @ 1:01 am
DT: I don't know, is there some reason to think that an alcoholic or drug abuser is not responsible enough to care for the children in his/her troop? If there is a reason to think that, then I suppose it makes sense for the BSA to deny an alcoholic or drug abuser a position as a troop leader.
I don't know about you, but I don't equate homosexuality or being an atheist with inherently irresponsible behavior.
Comment by Rob Miles — June 1, 2009 @ 6:49 am
A point concerning the status of marriage between a woman and a man. I seen statements that say that why are people not concerned about the divorce and spending time on stopping legal recognition of same sex marriage? Since the passage of Virginia's Constitutional Amendment on Marriage, the Virginia Family Foundation has had more time to improve the status. In addition many churches have pre marriage preparation and marriage counseling. If the push for same sex marriage would stop, these groups would have more time for their efforts.
Rob, your comment concerning the minority group knowing fully well that they are discriminating against homosexuals seems patronizing. Do they need the social liberals to tell them how to think?
Comment by Patt — June 1, 2009 @ 7:00 am
Scott and Rob,
The Boy Scouts considers gay behavior morally wrong, just as you and I consider alcoholism and drug abuse wrong. All are of genetic origin. Boy Scouts correctly claim boys are more likely to be molested by gay men. So just as alkies and druggies pose possible harm to boys, and therefore can be rightfully, denied admission into the Scouts without penalty according to you, shouldn't that also apply to gays?
Comment by DT — June 1, 2009 @ 7:35 am
The theory that a gay adult male is going to molest a little boy makes slightly less sense than assuming a heterosexual adult female would.
I've always wondered what sort of household these gay-obsessers grew up in.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 8:07 am
Kristen, I think it's some bad mixing of math and logic. That crowd sees it as gay males like other males...and all pedophiles who molest boys by definition must be gay, therefore all gays are pedophiles and must be stopped.
To think of that kind of logic in another way, I heard a joke once that said God is love...love is blind...Stevie Wonder is blind...therefore Stevie Wonder is God. Same premise, same generally flawed conclusion, no disrespect meant to the great Stevie Wonder.
Comment by Other John — June 1, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Do the Boy Scouts allow Priests as troop leaders?
Comment by Blue John — June 1, 2009 @ 8:51 am
The Boy Scouts do not believe that sex between two men is acceptable. Few (none ?) publicaly acknowledged homosexual men advocate life long celebacy from same sex activity. Many (most ?) publicly acknowledged drug addicts or alcoholics are in recovery and would not advocate anyone to copy their behavior. If publicly acknowledged homosexual men would say that they are doing all that they can to stay aware from sex with other men, they may have an argument. But even then, would you want to leave a person struggling to contain their sexual behavior with teen age boys? Would you leave a bottle of liquor at the home of a recovering alcoholic?
Comment by Patt — June 1, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Rob, Scott, and Kristen:
Although I think it's fallacious, allow me to throw a remark at you that often is used by (some of) you elsewhere. I often hear in regard to another topic.
"It's the law of the land...GET USED TO IT!!!"
I'm curious, how would you respond to this in relation to the topic at hand?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 9:22 am
Actually, same sex molestations comprise half the cases. Same sex attraction is called homosexuality. That's why the Boy Scouts have to be careful. A gay Scout leader may not molest a teen but it adds a level of risk just like allowing heterosexual males to lead Girl Scout troops on campouts.
Comment by Henry — June 1, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Also, do you think we should legalize the marrage of a mature man and say a 14 year old boy, as some have argued? If not, why not?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 10:08 am
Patt: I am a straight female and quite capable of containing my "sexual behavior" around teenage boys. Homosexual does not equate to a pedophile.
Comment by HCS — June 1, 2009 @ 10:09 am
No more than we should legalize the marriage of a mature man and a 14-year-old girl, or a mature woman and a 14-year-old boy - and for the same reasons: 14-year-olds are not old enough to give a valid consent.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 10:11 am
Dan - that obviously makes sense. I will forever wonder why folks jump from allowing two adults to get married to allowing an adult to marry a child...it is painfully obvious that no one is trying to make it legal to marry a child, I just don't understand why that argument even comes up.
Comment by HCS — June 1, 2009 @ 10:14 am
Isn't this a bit arbitrary, Dan? Why would you discriminate against someone based on their age? And would you also agree that parental consent ought to be legislated to restrict abortions?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Do we allow the marriage of a mature man and a 14 year old girl?
Any sane rational person knows that the likelihood of sexual molestation exists EVERYWHERE. In every culture, in every institution, in every family, in every situation that a pervert can manage to put themselves so that they can perpetrate the crime. It is ABSOLUTELY no more of a gay problem than a heterosexual one and to say otherwise only destroys YOUR credibility and proves YOUR mindset. The fact that the supposedly most religious and pious leaders in a church have been proven to be monsters, should give anyone pause as well as the realization of the prevalence of deviant behavior. Lumping your fear and hatred for gays into the discussion of pedophiles is disgusting.
Gay marriage and/or civil unions (which is really all they actually are for the 50% that end in divorce) will indeed be the "law of the land" and yes, you will have to get used to it. Mark my words.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Kevin,
There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it. Age "discrimination" is common and accepted when it comes to engaging in adult responsibilities - driving, drinking, enlisting in the military, etc. Why would entering into marriage be different?
I have no problem with parental consent for abortions - as long as there is a viable alternative (a judge's review) for girls who have reason to fear their parents' reaction.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 10:24 am
Patt re #22: Perhaps if the Virginia Family Foundation (and other organizations like them) would stop putting their noses into homosexual relationships, they could spend more time working on marriage counseling and the like for everyone.
DT re #23: "Boy Scouts correctly claim boys are more likely to be molested by gay men." That's a phony, BS claim and you know it. (And you can translate BS whichever way you like.) Gay men are no more likely to molest children than straight men are. You know who molest children? Pedophiles. Pedophiles, both men and women, come in the straight and gay variety.
Pedophiles are a danger to children, and I would support the BSA not wanting to allow pedophiles, alcoholics, and drug addicts to be troop leaders. Adult males and females who are not a danger to children, and who demonstrate responsible behavior shouldn't be banned on something as stupid as sexual preference or lack of religious indoctrination. If the BSA wishes to continue to discriminate on those basis, that's fine; they just shouldn't expect public funding to help them with their private organization. They can't (or shouldn't) have it both ways.
Patt re #27: The BSA can "believe" whatever it wants concerning homosexuality and equating it with alcoholism and drug addiction (which is disgusting in its own right.) They just shouldn't be allowed to receive public funding or other assistance. Other groups that openly discriminate against minority groups aren't allowed to receive the benefits that the BSA does. Why should the BSA be treated differently?
Personally I would rather trust an openly gay person with my children than someone who is "struggling to contain their sexual behavior." In any event, if I had children in the Scouts (I don't have children, and I wouldn't support the Scouts if I did because of their repellent discrimination) I wouldn't trust them with any single adult on an overnight camping trip. I wouldn't care if they were straight (supposedly) or openly gay. I would insist that any overnight trips have at least two adults supervising, and more if possible. I would even volunteer my own time to make sure there were at least two adults on such trips.
Comment by Rob Miles — June 1, 2009 @ 10:25 am
Your comment that no one is trying to legalize such a marriage should be more moderate; most (but not all) don't argue for such. I'm clearly not arguing for it, I'm simply wondering if you have any morally significant reason why such a marriage shouldn't be legal. Therefore, if it's so obvious to you, then there should be no delay in your answering.
Thanks
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Sandi, so at the moment, if someone (Group "A") doesn't like the law they can scream all they want, but if and when the law is changed in their favor, then the people who don't like it (Party "B") will just have to shut up and get used to it?
I'm confused...
Comment by Patrick — June 1, 2009 @ 10:32 am
Kevin, clearly my answer is that no, we should not legalize marriage between an adult and a child.
I am just wondering what marriage between an adult and a child has to do with homosexuality?
Comment by HCS — June 1, 2009 @ 10:34 am
Sorry. For clarification's sake, # 38 was adreesed to HCS.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Dan:
In hopes of freeing yourself from the charge of arbitrariness, you simple point to other examples of arbitrary mores. This isn't real helpful. I'm asking for a morally significant reason for age discrimination.
Also, you said, "I have no problem with parental consent for abortions - as long as there is a viable alternative (a judge's review) for girls who have reason to fear their parents' reaction." When you say, "reaction," do you mean something like the parents refusing to allow the abortion, or something else?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Patrick - I'd like to comment on your post#39 even though it was addressed to Sandi.
I see what you're saying here...and you all are free to be opposed to gay marriage even if it were legalized...the difference in our arguments though say alot: We are unhappy with the current law because it bans a certain group of adults from participating in something the rest of us can freely enjoy. If the law changed in our favor, you would be upset with a law because it now allows everyone to be treated equal...? Care to explain?
Comment by HCS — June 1, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Patrick, except for the "shut up" part, yes. I am not so naive as to think that the law changing to remove the discrimination will make anyone who disagrees shut up any more than the Emancipation Proclamation, Roe v Wade or the Civil Rights Act did.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Kevin: "In hopes of freeing yourself from the charge of arbitrariness, you simple point to other examples of arbitrary mores. This isn't real helpful. I'm asking for a morally significant reason for age discrimination."
Kevin, I have seen evidence that you are a more thoughtful debater than this. The morally significant reason for age discrimination is clear, as I have stated: A 14-year-old is not emotionally or rationally capable of giving consent to enter marriage, just as they are not mature enough to drink, drive or enlist in the military.
Now, unless you want to argue that 14-year-olds should be allowed to marry - or drink or drive or enlist in the military - I'm afraid I don't see the point of this line of inquiry.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 10:51 am
HCS, I'm not opposed to gay marriage in the least bit. My point was that telling people to "get used to it" when they themselves won't is being hypocritical.
Comment by Patrick — June 1, 2009 @ 10:53 am
HCS:
"Kevin, clearly my answer is that no, we should not legalize marriage between an adult and a child."
Sure, we know this. I'll ask again...Why?
"I am just wondering what marriage between an adult and a child has to do with homosexuality?"
I don't think that the discussion is about homosexuality proper, but about augmenting or maintaining the legal framework of marriage. So, your question presupposes the gay-marriage position, the thing your supposedly arging for--your begging the question.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 10:54 am
Dan
Would you say that anyone who has sex with a 14 year old is guilty of rape?
Comment by Henry — June 1, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Henry,
The law says so.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Good grief...
Has this dead horse come to life again????
As a happily partnered gay guy, this debate is clearly based on nothing more than the homophobes fear of something. Frankly, I haven't been able to identify what it is just yet.
I'm not a fan of "gay marriage". Marriage is an institution and the last thing I want is to be "institutionalized". I believe that civil unions should be permitted between gay couples so that they can enjoy the same benefits and quiet enjoyment of life as those of the straight couples. If you want a "marriage", then you can have one.
The legal costs of making sure that a gay couples final requests are completed are much more costly than those of straight couples and for all intents and purposes, they shouldn't be.
This issue, thankfully for younger folks, isn't over. It is, however, over for me and my partner. We've taken the legal steps to make sure that no one can do anything to subvert our wishes as a couple and if either of us become incapable of making decisions, then the other has the legal right to make them.
Comment by Will — June 1, 2009 @ 10:59 am
To repeat everyone else....14 year olds are obviously children and not part of the discussion. This is along the same line of thinking that makes the jump from same-sex adult marriage to..."Why not just marry your Rottweiler".
If you want a question to be taken seriously, ask a serious question.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 11:00 am
Dan:
I’m sorry if you aren’t finding my tediousness as impressive as past experiences, but you’re still failing to make the necessary mores/moral distinction. Many cultures think that 14 is a quite suitable age for marriage. The same applies to the other examples you offer (e.g., some societies have no floor on drinking age at all). Such examples are mere mores, not normative morals. It’s a reason based on the latter that I’m after. If you can’t provide it, then just say so.
Also, you forgot one...
...You said, "I have no problem with parental consent for abortions - as long as there is a viable alternative (a judge's review) for girls who have reason to fear their parents' reaction." When you say, "reaction," do you mean something like the parents refusing to allow the abortion, or something else?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 11:06 am
Dan:
"Henry,
The law says so."
Would you be satisfied if this was the best argument we could offer: “No gay-marriage—Dan, ‘the law says so.’ Or does the stream of democracy flow only one way?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 11:11 am
Kevin, Dan answered your question quite well in post#45. Nothing more is needed.
Comment by HCS — June 1, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Kevin,
Do you want to argue that 14-year-olds should be able to get married? If so, make the argument. I don't see what that has to do with gay marriage, however.
On the parental consent, no, I was thinking more along the lines of girls that have reason to fear their father might beat them up; or, for that matter, cases where the father got the daughter pregnant. Should a teen in such a circumstance require her father's permission to get an abortion?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 11:13 am
The age of consent isn't a "more" here..it's a law.
"morals" are not relevant. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of whatever the Televangelist-du-jour propagates. No one has to prove anything to be "moral".
There is no "moral highground". People who claim to occupy it are either lying to themselves, or to everyone else. Or both.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Patrick #46: Like MANY things that were originally "law", or left out of the Constitution, not clear or that no law addressed, we WERE "used to it". Then through the magic of evolution and enlightenment of our society we came to see the wrongness of this discrimination. Like we did with Slavery, Women's Rights, Civil Rights, etc. and we changed our minds and now we want to bring the rest of the country into the sunshine and stop discriminating against a group of people who's only difference is their sexual orientation. Sorry if you think that is hypocritical. I prefer to call it forward thinking, brave and fair.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Kevin: "Would you be satisfied if this was the best argument we could offer: “No gay-marriage—Dan, ‘the law says so.’ Or does the stream of democracy flow only one way?"
Seriously, Kevin, are you and Henry arguing in favor of 14-year-olds having sex and getting married?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Kevin, the fact that the ONLY argument you have against gay marriage is the "we'll have to let 14 year olds get married if we let gay people get married" speaks volumes about the validity of such opposition.
Comment by HCS — June 1, 2009 @ 11:22 am
For those making the argument that the same sex marriage falls under the legal precedence of interracial (discrimination against which was rightly outlawed):
They aren't the same thing! Race is genetical while sexual orientation has not been proven to be genetical.
The scientists have looked for a gene linked to homosexuality and every time they think they have it, the same argument shoots it down: There are homosexuals who don't have the gene and heterosexuals that do.
The DNA evidence is that race is genetical and therefore unlawful to discriminate against someone because of their genetic makeup.
However, if legislatures want to create a category called same sex unions and give them all of the same legalities of marriage (including having to go through divorces) I don't have a problem with it. It would also let the churches off the hook because they would conduct "marriages" and only clerks of court, etc. could conduct both marriages and same sex unions.
In this state, and in every other it has been brought to a vote to the populace, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman so you would have to call it something other than marriage. Like it or not, the majority of people within a state still have the right to amend their constitutions.
Comment by BobH — June 1, 2009 @ 11:28 am
"Genetical"?
Anyway, Bob, genetics do not determine morality. It would be just as wrong to ban Protestants from marrying non-Protestants, for instance, though being a Protestant is not a genetic condition.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 11:41 am
They haven't found a gene marked "Sandi" either and yet, here I am. I know that gay people are born gay. I do not make the argument in terms of racism in any aspect other than it was also an abomination for the religious fanatics in the same way homosexuality is and it was discrimination for no good reason. That being said, I could certainly live with your "solution" of civil unions and think that would be acceptable as "marriage" has become a loaded term.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Dan,
You have mentioned in posts on this topic before and in post #13 the comparison to gay marriage and interracial marriage was made.
Based on genetics, it is not a valid comparison. Race is genetical. Homosexuality is not. Therefore the courts ruled correctly that interacial marriage bans were discriminatory. A person cannot do anything about the race that their genetical makeup gives them.
Just further explanation.
Comment by BobH — June 1, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Great to see that some of the same people who were irate over Wanda Sykes joking that Limbaugh's kidneys fail are now so enamored of free speech that they are gleeful at the murder of a doctor who helped women who needed it. "I guess God sent someone, like he sent Joshua into Jericho"
Free speech yes, protected speech yes, hate speech, YES.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Bob,
"Genetical" is not a word, first of all. Second, civil rights are not incumbent upon genetic conditions. As I said, prohibiting inter-religious marriages would be just as unconstitutional as prohibiting inter-racial marriages (and, I would argue, as unconstitutional as prohibiting same-sex marriages).
Even if being gay is a choice (could you choose to be attracted to men instead of women, Bob?), gays and lesbians should not be stripped of civil rights protections, any more than people who choose a particular religion should be.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
BobH: discrimination against sexual orientation is compared to racial discrimination primarily because there's no logical reason to discriminate against either. Whether sexuality is "genetical" or not is besides the point (I suspect it is "genetical" in the same way that left or right sided dominance is "genetical", but it doesn't matter either way.)
As Dan pointed out, what religion you choose is not "genetical", but most of us recognize that discriminating against someone's religious preference is unethical. Some of us even recognize that discriminating against those who don't have a religion or believe in god(s) is also unethical.
But at least you allow for a different class of union for same-sex couples, and I agree that it should be enough as long as they receive all of the same legal protections that heterosexual couples have. The state should consider all unions as civil unions, and let people decide if they are "married" or not. It's just words at that point.
Unfortunately, the majority of voters in the "for Lovers" state said that same-sex couples can't even legally enjoy those benefits. Will said he and his partner have taken the steps necessary, and Will I hope that those steps stand up in court if need be. As I read the so-called "marriage amendment", all such legal arrangements are void if it's decided that they are giving you the same benefits as if you were legally married.
Comment by Rob Miles — June 1, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
"Why not just marry your Rottweiler".
Ah, that's a question I'd ask you, Kristen. If you think it's such a stupid idea, then do tell. For in reading your posts, trying to reason as you do, I can't think of an objection to save my life!
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
"The fact that the supposedly most religious and pious leaders in a church have been proven to be monsters" Somewhat vague statement but the evidence does not support the statement. The highest estimate of Priests accused (not convicted) of misconduct that I have seen is 2%. From a CPA's perspective, 2% from 100% is 98%. I believe that 98% is a higher number than 2% and your statement is false. Also, the teaching profession probably has a higher rate of pedophiles than any profession: "all teachers are monsters?????"
Now that the Virginia Constitution has been amended and on the Federal Level there is a Defense of Marriage Act, if the drive to have same sex marriages legally recoginized would stop right now, then the Virginia Family Foundation and Churches would have more time to help existing and potential marriages succeed. The supporters of same sex marriage are starting to remind me of the communists: "peace will occur when all opposition to us stops" What do you want Rob, Sandi, ect: keep pushing your view point and have no peace? Or give up the fight and accept the fact that very few states will recoginze same sex marriage? I think good Christians (and others with moral values) or ready to keep fighting if necessary.
Rob: do you think that enlighted social liberals are needed to help straighten out those ignorant minorites that voted to keep the same sex marriage ban in California?
Comment by Patt — June 1, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
@HCS: "I am just wondering what marriage between an adult and a child has to do with homosexuality?"
And some of us are wondering what a homosexual relationship has to do with marriage.
@HCS: "We are unhappy with the current law because it bans a certain group of adults from participating in something the rest of us can freely enjoy."
This is not true. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Heterosexual and homosexual people may get married.
@HCS: "If the law changed in our favor, you would be upset with a law because it now allows everyone to be treated equal...? Care to explain?"
I'm not really sure here how anyone is not treated equally. You may marry someone of the opposite sex. That applies the same way whether a person is straight or gay. Straight people are not treated any differently than gay people. Joe is not allowed to marry Steve. Whether Joe is straight or gay is irrelevant.
Ahh, Joe WANTS to marry Steve. Well, I WANT to get free milk at Kroger like poor people do, but it doesn't work that way.
@Kevin Stevenson: "do you mean something like the parents refusing to allow the abortion, or something else?"
Probably fear that her parents will take away her cell phone or driving privileges or remove TXTing from her plan.
@Kristen: "If you want a question to be taken seriously, ask a serious question."
To some people the whole idea of Joe marrying Steve is ludacris. You're trying to take something abnormal and make it normal.
You're so quick to dismiss someone's love for their dog as ridiculous, where that person may truly have those feelings for his or her dog. And just like you say that it is a joke, some people consider gay marriage to be the same thing.
@Dan: "I was thinking more along the lines of girls that have reason to fear their father might beat them up; or, for that matter, cases where the father got the daughter pregnant. Should a teen in such a circumstance require her father's permission to get an abortion?"
No, she should get her mother's permission... unless she has two dads. Weird.
@Kristen: "The age of consent isn't a "more" here..it's a law.
"morals" are not relevant. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of whatever the Televangelist-du-jour propagates. No one has to prove anything to be "moral"."
Funny hearing that come from you.. marriage is between a man and a woman, that is also the law. You ready to just deal with that?
@Dan: "Seriously, Kevin, are you and Henry arguing in favor of 14-year-olds having sex and getting married?"
I doubt they are.. I certainly wouldn't. However, it just continues to be funny how some people find their idea (gay marriage) to be common sense while another's idea (marrying a 14-year-old, marrying a dog, etc) to be ridiculous and silly.
@BobH: "They aren't the same thing! Race is genetical while sexual orientation has not been proven to be genetical."
Knowing plenty of gay people myself, I am of the opinion that genetics has nothing to do with it at all. It is choice. The term bisexual was invented by the homosexual community to give a name to those who change, so that the illusion that gay people do not change orientations can continue to be argued.
One of my closest high school friends is a gay/bisexual woman in a relationship with another woman for twelve years. They have child and are trying to get another one. In high school, she had sex with many guys. Dated one of the most handsome athletes at school. After a couple of years of college, became gay. Hmm.
She was talking over the weekend, though, about how hot Keith Urban was at his concert the other night.
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
"Great to see that some of the same people who were irate over Wanda Sykes joking that Limbaugh's kidneys fail are now so enamored of free speech that they are gleeful at the murder of a doctor who helped women who needed it. "I guess God sent someone, like he sent Joshua into Jericho"
"
Sandi
Have you ever heard the term "strawman"? I haven't heard anyone here say they are gleeful that Tiller was killed. I think many of the pro-abortion people are pretty happy that Tiller is dead so they can wear the bloody shirt. But I don't hear pro-life people gleefully celebrating Tiller's death.
Dan,
Unlike race, your sexual orientation can change.
Comment by Henry — June 1, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Patt, the "evidence" most certainly supports my statement. If you want to quibble over percentages, be my guest. There is NO acceptable percentage of pedophiles in ANY context on this planet. so YOUR statement is the one that cannot be supported. I did not use any number or percentage I simply said leaders. Take that as one or take that as 50% I cannot care less because with victims still coming out of the darkness there is no real way to quantify and you are grasping at straws.
People were willing to fight to the death against slavery being abolished. People were willing to fight to the death to keep women from voting and not being chattel. People were willing to fight to the death to prevent integration. Your point being because we are willing to fight a wrong we are communists? I think the analogy goes the other way. It is communists who so abhor gay and Liberal people that they will kill them rather than grant them civil rights.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Henry: "Unlike race, your sexual orientation can change."
Though I doubt that sexual orientation can change, it is irrelevant. You can change your religion, too. That doesn't mean some religions don't deserve civil rights protections.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
My post #64 belongs in the "pro-life" murder thread. My mistake. There are several posts gleeful and happy for his death and they are not from 'my side'. We don't need a strawman argument, we have 'the right'; All any Liberal ever needs, thanks!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
"Knowing plenty of gay people myself, I am of the opinion that genetics has nothing to do with it at all. It is choice. The term bisexual was invented by the homosexual community to give a name to those who change, so that the illusion that gay people do not change orientations can continue to be argued."
You're entitled to your opinion. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Whether or not it matters is a different story.
And bi-sexual doesn't apply to those who "change". Bi-sexual means someone's equally likely to have a relationship with either sex.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Dan:
“Do you want to argue that 14-year-olds should be able to get married?”
I’ve stated plainly that that is not my purpose. (I suspect you are aware of this, however. I think your asking this to avoid the question I’ve posed to you.) Nevertheless, hypothetically speaking, what if I was, what would your response be? “Too bad, Kevin, that kind of marriage isn’t legal!” “Of course,” I’d say. “So too, Dan, neither is same-sex marriage.” Therefore, on your own terms the argument would be over.
But, if you aren’t satisfied with my using your own standards, then here’s the real point:
We are discussing what are and are not appropriate bounds for what we call “legal marriage.” In principle, then, the argument lies in what such bounds should be. Therefore, to change (marriage bounds) or not to change, that is the question.
I’ll restate my question for you: If, in terms of your own position, we should change the marriage law (but according to Kristen, this can’t happen, as laws are constant) to include (1) two people of the same sex, then what moral grounds (not mores, convention, etc.) would you have to object to one who would argue for (2) trans-generational marriages, if and only if the 14 year old was of sound mind and consensual?
As it stands, (2) is more analogous to the current legal standard (e.g., heterosexual), and has trans-cultural and historical precedents. So far, you’ve offered non-answers. Do we conclude therefore you haven’t any moral norm to appeal to?
What if say a young girl from a culture where 13 years is an acceptable age for marriage found herself wanting to marry an older man in America, would you support discriminating against this young ladies personal cultural context?
Now, “Should a teen in such a circumstance require her father's permission to get an abortion?” If the answer is no, then who decides? The 14 year old girl? If so, haven’t you stated that such a one is not capable of making such a decision? Your being arbitrary and inconsistent again--this is special pleading.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Kristen:
Because what I’m about to say isn’t breaking any “law of the land,” and you say that morals are subjective, you have no right to say that the following remark is wrong.
“Kristen, your posts drip with the most philosophically slothful, intellectually irresponsible, and morally handicap rhetoric I’ve ever read; and thereby do not warrant being called intelligent discourse.”
Can you live consistently with your professed beliefs?
Be careful how you respond; you may just betray your true beliefs, that there are objective moral norms, and they are in fact “relevant.”
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Sorry Jack, either you really do not know very many gay people or you have been fed a real line "I am of the opinion that genetics has nothing to do with it at all"; that is just not plausible in any sense except the dark ages.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Kevin,
A 14-year-old is incapable of legal consent to either sex or marriage. I do not understand why that is so hard for you to understand, except that you are being purposefully obtuse.
There is no similarity or valid analogy between "trans-generational marriage" and same-sex marriage. The latter involves two consenting adults; the former does not.
I'm sorry, but your analogy is simply invalid.
Kevin: "If the answer is no, then who decides?"
As I said at the start of the conversation, a judge should decide. So, no, I am not being arbitrary and inconsistent.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
Kevin I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I guess you outsmarted me. Maybe that's due to my philosophical sloth.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Kevin, Because what I am saying is protected as free speech and that is the "law of the land" you have no right to say that I am wrong:
'Kevin, your posts are the most pseudo-intellectual drivel mixed with misogynistic, religious and fantasy caricatures of reality that I have ever encountered and are a complete waste of space by someone who obviously prides himself on an intellect he does not possess and cannot be called debate, or discussion much less discourse.'
You really should worry more about what your posts show is YOUR true belief than you should about what others post.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Dan
How does a 14 year-old getting married hurt your mariage in any way?
Comment by Henry — June 1, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Ok, and with the approval of that post, I am officially pulling the plug on using this device or ones like it to phrase insults against fellow participants in this blog.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
I have to wonder about this fixation with 14 year olds. It's somewhat troubling.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Weird, Sandi, I got the strange sense you thought my hypothetical comments were morally wrong. "Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Whether or not it matters is a different story." (per, Kristen, # 74)
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Jack...
From somewhere in your post#69....
From my lips to your ears buddy, sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. The choice is whether you live a lie to yourself or whether you choose to be honest with yourself.
Take it from someone who's there...who walks the walk (and not at all effeminate)...who talks the talk (and very clearly I might add)...and who lives it each and every day. I get up and do exactly what I'm supposed to do. I want no more or no less recognition for doing those things.
What I demand are the same tax and other government sanctioned benefits of male/female couples since I am in a relationship and have been for the past 7 years. I don't want to have to pay lawyers handsome fees to draw documents that protect my wishes and financial interests and those of my partner just because we're not a male/female married couple. Anything less is pure and unadulterated discrimination against a rather sizable group in our population.
Someone brought up the notion that it was the African-American culture that became the stumbling block to "gay marriage". I don't really care what the African-American community has to say about gay marriage insofar as they have their own crosses to carry...we have ours.
The gay community's responsibility is to articulate the agruments for civil unions (and gay marriage if you must have it) in such a way as to make arguments against them mute and irrational (and from the looks of most of them, that's a pretty easy thing to do).
Comment by Will — June 1, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
Kristen
I agree whole heartedly with post #74! But a majprity of gay people do not see it as a choice.
Comment by BobH — June 1, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
"I have to wonder about this fixation with 14 year olds. It's somewhat troubling."
Why Kristen! Are you fourteenaphobic?
I disagree Will. I know plenty of people who go both ways. I also know people who married, had children and then became gay. I can live a lie for a while. But marriage/kids is way too much to overcome. As a straight man, there is no way I could fake my sexuality for that long.
I'm sure there are gay people who would like to take advantage of the benefits of marriage just like there are white men who would like to take advantage of the benefits of affirmative action.
Comment by Henry — June 1, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Bless you Bob but I think you're really agreeing with Jack #69.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Kristen
He lost me half the way down on that lengthy post (#69). You are right though although Will tends to disagree with you (about it being a choice) even though you both seem to share the same view on homosexual marriage.
I do take exception to the equating of sexuality with one's race. And many make the argument that since interracial marriages were once illegal, and that was overturned (albeit some 160+ years after the birth of this country), that gay marriages should be treated the same way.
And I say that race is genetic based (there Dan, I didn't use the made up word of genetical). You do not have a choice about your race. People who are gay will try to sell us that it is not a choice, that it was the way they were born. Which, if it were true, would make more relevant the interracial marriage argument to the gay marrriage issue.
I agree with you Kristen, that it is a choice being made. Unlike race, there is no genetic link determined to cause gayness. Instead of judges legislatiing from the bench about it, let elected state representatives bring the issue to debate and take a stand on it (as in Vermont). It does fall into Amendment 10 of the constitution. The progressive states will make arrangements for some legal coupling by same sex couples and people have a right to live wherever they want to in the USA so if they don't like the laws in one state they can move to another (I mean if radar detectors are your issue, Virginia is the only state that bans them. If you don't like that, you can move to another state). This is basically the same issue, just on the touchy issue of sexuality.
Peace
Comment by BobH — June 1, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
Kevin...
You've obviously twisted this debate much more out of shape that it needs to be twisted.
First, in most states, the legal age of consent is 18 years of age. The gay community isn't trying to change that...consequently, your argument (fixation) with trying to marry off a 14 year old girl is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Second (and probably lost on either your age or failure to research) 14 year old girls were in fact allowed to marry back around the turn of the century. The reason being that given what the mortality rate was in those days, the powers that be wanted to be sure that women could reproduce during their child bearing years. Now that healthcare has advanced giving women longer and healthier lifes (not to mention longer child bearing years) the point of having a 14 year old bride in basically mute.
The one point of your argument that you could be considered spot on is the issue of current law as it stands in most states today. That is that marriage is/should be defined as between a male and a female. That's the part of the law that people like me are fighting to change.
These baseless fears, that if two men or two women marry, heterosexual couples will somehow be harmed is ludicrous. No one has yet been able to tell me how a gay couple down the street would prevent a heterosexual couple from having sex and pro-creating.
The arguments that are being put forth these days against gay marriage have less and less credibility and I firmly believe will vanish sooner rather than later.
Comment by Will — June 1, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Henry: in post #81 you asked "how does a 14 year-old getting married hurt your mariage in any way?" You asked Dan, but my answer is "it doesn't". And if there existed no reasoned argument against 14 year olds getting married, then I would support 14 year olds getting married.
But there is a reasoned argument against it. Over the past century or so, we've learned more and more about how children develop emotionally and physically. There is now ample evidence that the areas of the brains that are responsible for decision making aren't fully developed until into their 20s. That doesn't mean younger people can't think or make decisions, but that they aren't as capable of informed reasoning, especially when under stress, as older adults.
Based on these findings and other observations, our society determines that most adult responsibilities come at the age of 18, and that is what we typically define as an adult. I won't get into the argument about alcohol here, though that's one bug that sticks in my craw.
Anyway, if evidence becomes available that shows the previous evidence wrong, and that development actually happens sooner, I could see a situation where the "age of majority" could be lowered, or possibly even raised. I doubt any evidence would push it all the way back to 14, but it has to be recognized that IF the evidence pushed it back that far, the reasoned person would have to acknowledge that fact.
How this applies to consenting adults getting married is still beyond me (to mirror the sentiment of some of my fellow advocates for equal treatment for homosexuals.)
Comment by Rob Miles — June 1, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Henry...
With all due respect buddy, you don't choose to be gay or straight or in your example, bi-sexual. It's the way you are.
Peer pressure will make a lot of people do things that they wouldn't ordinarily do. Because of peer pressure, I was engaged to be married (to a woman) during my senior year of college. She was a great girl, but the chemistry just didn't work. Fortunately, she called off the wedding and it was the greatest day of relief in my life.
Shortly thereafter, I finally admitted my sexual preference to myself, and my whole life turned around for the better.
You have choices for sure...the choice to either live a lie or not and the choice to be honest with yourself and those you care about.
I choose not to lie to either myself or my family or my friends. Some people do and I've found that it's become a living hell for most of them.
Comment by Will — June 1, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
BobH, is #89 totally willful or are you confused?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Sandi,
I was agreeing with Kristen. And I don't feel confused. There are testimonials out there from people who were gay and went straight and admitted that it was a choice. Even Elton John who is gay, went straight to the point of a heterosexual marriage, and then back to being gay admist it is a choice, a preference.
I am quite sure you don't have any choice with regards to race, that it does come from your genetic makeup. Sexuality has never been proven to come from genetics. The 2 are not the same and interracial marriage should not be used to justifying same sex marraige because race is not the same as sexuality.
I don't see how that is confusing in any way.
Comment by BobH — June 1, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
How do you get engaged to someone if you are not attracted to them? I can't see myself getting engaged to a guy in order to fake something. That's an awful lot of trouble for something that doesn't interest me. My experience is that these things can sometimes shift over time.
My brother is gay and to my knowledge, he has never been on a date with a woman. He just has no interest in women in that way.
Comment by Henry — June 1, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
That doesn't sound like your brother had a choice, Henry.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Henry, you're making the classic mistake of equating your life with everyone else's experience. You can't imagine being engaged to a guy in order to fake something, but you don't live in an environment where you're expected to enter into a relationship with a man. In fact, you live primarily in the opposite environment.
Can you honestly not understand how a gay person wouldn't feel the pressure, all of their lives, to live like a "normal" person and get engaged, and even marry, someone of the opposite sex? It's what is expected, and by some of the posts here it's no wonder they would fear being ostracized if they don't conform to that way of living.
I imagine a lot of gay people stay in marriages that they know they don't belong in, at least on a subconscious level. I imagine a lot of gay people, in order to hide what they are from friends and family, and even from society as a whole, spend a lot of time arguing against gays getting married and what a sin in the eyes of god it is.
Comment by Rob Miles — June 1, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Henry...
Perhaps your brother didn't feel the same peer pressures that I felt going to a small private college and growing up in a small town. It was expected of me in that I was the only boy in the family and on top of it, when I go to the great dance in the sky...the name goes with me.
I would tend to say that your brother was/is perhaps the most honest in his life.
As for this crock of nonsense (and yes, it is the biggest crock of bull$*&# that I've ever read/heard) about being able to switch back and forth...you are simply reacting to the career/peer pressure of the time. That boat simply doesn't float with the reality.
Comment by Will — June 1, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Will:
You can call it “twisted” or whatever you like. And you can attempt to impugn my character with terms like “fixation.” But what you perceive as fixation is actually frustration. I’ve asked over and over for a moral argument against trans-generational marriage; one that’s not reduced to social conventions, mores, etc. This has been to no avail.
If morals are reduced to social conventions or the like, then whatever the majority says is right by definition. So far, reductive ethics is all that’s been offered, therefore, what the majority says determines what’s right (if you guys are correct, that is). Thus, because gay-marriage violates the dictates of the majority, it is unethical by definition.
I’m sure that you don’t like the conclusion—the ends—but it follows. Frankly, I personally dislike the means, the ethical standards that’s been put forth by others. Nevertheless, even by your standards, your position doesn’t hold water. A relativistic ethic always bites the hands that feed it.
You’ve came along and argued that the normalcy of 14 year old girls marrying was only a necessity in antiquity. The reason: procreative purposes, increasing family size, etc. I hope you can see the self-refuting nature of your argument.
You said elsewhere, “From my lips to your ears buddy, sexual orientation is not a matter of choice.” Granting your deterministic view of human nature, how can you turn and hold some scumbag who would hate a gay for sake of being gay culpable or morally responsible for his thoughts and actions? This assumes an objective moral criterion of some sort. So, if you’re correct concerning human nature (we’re genetically preprogrammed), could he not respond: “Hey pal, ‘from my lips to you ears buddy,’ (genetically predetermined) to be a gay-hater is not a matter of choice”?
Besides this, if there are no objective, moral laws by which we may make judgments regarding human behavior, on what ground can you say someone’s “intolerance” of gays is wrong? If there’s not such laws, then you are being intolerant of that individuals subjective moral belief that such intolerance if right. Thus, who are you to shove your morality down another’s throat?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
Henry, it sounds to me like you have never had to live a lie and deny who you really were. Many gay people have heart wrenching stories of being rejected by those they love and those they thought loved them when they revealed themselves and we ALL know how many in our society have treated gay people and many still do. That you have no clue how that feels even though you say your brother is gay is just beyond my ken. You have the right to feel anyway you want, but it is honestly not for you to decide how other people should feel or act. Your experience is just that 'yours', not anyone else's.
BobH, I tried to help you out, but you are solid on your own now. I am more comfortable that science knows homosexuality is genetic than I am about global climate change and man made damage and I am very sure of that. But you keep that tin foil hat handy in case it is catching.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
@Kristen: "And bi-sexual doesn't apply to those who "change". Bi-sexual means someone's equally likely to have a relationship with either sex."
Then what would you call someone who used to be straight and is now gay or used to be gay and now straight? I've been told many times on these comment threads that it is genetic and you don't change your sexual orientation. However, there are many who have.
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Rob,
I hear you. The perpetuation of the gay lifestyle (at least until cloning gets more reliable) depends on heterosexuality.
Not to go off on a religious tangent but you mentioned God. I believe everything is possible through Christ Jesus and if one does not wish to be homosexual one can pray and I believe transformation is acheivable.
I truly do understand that many who are gay feel like it is the way they were born and therefore the way they are. There just isn't any evidence to back that up in genetics. So if someone is truly "born gay" there has to be another answer why.
Unfortunately, as you cite gays living a lie in straight relationships, there are also gays who do choose to be gay but use the "I was born this way" excuse to not have to take responsibility for their choices. That isn't right either.
I don't profess to have the answers. I accept people who are gay despite being raised in the south where it was scorned. Having come to know several gay people on a friendly basis I realize they are nice people, good people, like the majority of heterosexuals also are. I know that I prayed for help in accepting a lifestyle that I found repulsive. One that I couldn't understand at all. And now that has been answered.
If it is of any comfort, it was also an issue during the time of Paul. This debate has been around a long time. Is homosexuality a sin? Yes, it is. But, I also, as a heterosexual commit sins. They crucified the only person who was without sin. I don't ever want to get into "degree of sins" where one person's sins are deemed to be worse than another's. There is no Biblical justification for any of that type of thought. At the same time, I also never want to redefine what sin is to exclude whatever activity I am doing. That is every bit as wrong.
I think the same sex civil unions as a LEGAL remedy, with each state passing its own laws and rules about it, and those states that don't want to adopt it, is the best alternative. It won't be marriage, because that is between a man and a woman. Other than that it can be every bit as legal and fulfilling.
Peace to all
Comment by BobH — June 1, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
@Dan: "A 14-year-old is incapable of legal consent to either sex or marriage."
In some places 14 is old enough.
But let's set that aside... at what age do you consider appropriate? 18? if so, why 18? Are you saying that the girl is capable of making a decision the day she turns 18 more intelligently than one week prior?
18 is just an arbitrary number that we have picked to signify that a person has reached adulthood. Does it mean that they are mature enough to make adult decisions? Maybe, maybe not. We certainly don't give them all a test.
For the same reason we don't test every heterosexual couple for fertility before they get married. It is not cost effective. We put requirements in place and once they meet them, we wish them the best of luck with their lives. At 18 we wish you the best of luck with your adult life. if you are a man and a woman wanting to get married, we wish you the best of luck with your married life.
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Sandi,
Cite for me the study that finds homsexuality to be genetic. I will guarantee that any gene that has been found to be causing homosexuality can be found in heterosexuals that have no homosexual tendencies and there will also be homosexuals who do not have the gene.
It is not based on genetics. And that is probably a really good thing! Would you want someone to start getting abortions because their fetus had the gene associated with homosexuality? I wouldn't.
Comment by BobH — June 1, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
"Then what would you call someone who used to be straight and is now gay or used to be gay and now straight? I've been told many times on these comment threads that it is genetic and you don't change your sexual orientation. However, there are many who have."
Maybe I'd call them lying. Who knows. I haven't dedicated enough of my free time to contemplating the sexual motivations and "activities" of others. If gays "claim" they were born gay, I'd be inclined to believe them. Not being gay, I certainly don't have any first hand experience to counter that contention. If anyone else does, I'd certainly defer.
If we're going to start banning marriage between undesireables, why not just start banning ugly dumb people from getting married. Surely the state has no vested interest in those particular characteristics being propagated.
Jack I sort of agree with you on the 18 being arbitrary thing. I don't think 18 is nearly old or mature enough to sign up for something as serious as military service. 25 might be a better age.
I wonder how many 25 year old recruits they'd get.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
When I read all these posts about whether or not homosexuality is "genetic or a choice"....I mentally insert "RWerism" in place of homosexuality.
I think, with careful consideration and lots of prayer, there might be hope for you guys.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Well Kevin...seems like you believe you have all your bases covered. I hate to rain on your parade, but you don't.
Quoting you "If morals are reduced to social conventions or the like, then whatever the majority says is right by definition. So far, reductive ethics is all that’s been offered, therefore, what the majority says determines what’s right (if you guys are correct, that is). Thus, because gay-marriage violates the dictates of the majority, it is unethical by definition." That interpretation could be correct were it applied universally across all of the aspects that "the majority" wishes to exercise it's moral authority. Unfortunately, the majority picks and chooses the conventions it feels best suits its particular needs. In this case, I suspect that both yours and my hand gets nipped from time to time.
As for my comments regarding 14 year old girls marrying, there is nothing self-refuting about it. It's a statement of fact. I have an aunt that was married when she was 14 years old with the blessing of my grand-parents. Do a little research on the topic. You'll be enlightened.
In another paragraph of the same post, you bring up an interesting point and one that probably is the most pressing in overcoming the obsticles that I, as a gay man, encounter in some (and fortunately not all) segments of society.
The notion of "hate". Hate is an interesting emotion. In my 50+ years of life experience, I've come to the conclusion that hate is a learned emotion rather than a genetic one. Phrases like "I hate the NY Yankess" from a Mets fan or "I hate Chevrolets" from a Ford lover are the product of things they've been taught. I don't hate Henry much like I hope Henry doesn't hate me. I can honestly say that I do have one person that I hate and have admitted so very openly and without reservation and that's Rush Limbaugh. But that's for another discussion.
You can teach a person to hate or to love. Its been my experience that you live a lot happier life if you teach to love. The only judgement allowed (presuming you believe in the higher power and are not an agnostic) is the person upstairs.
But perhaps the most direct way to approach this topic is this: Why not treat everyone with the same degree of love, care, dignity and respect that you yourself would like to be treated. At the end of the day, we'd all be a lot better off.
Comment by Will — June 1, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
@Will: "What I demand are the same tax and other government sanctioned benefits of male/female couples since I am in a relationship and have been for the past 7 years. I don't want to have to pay lawyers handsome fees to draw documents that protect my wishes and financial interests and those of my partner just because we're not a male/female married couple."
Are you saying that as a straight couple my wife and I wasted money having an attorney draw up a living will?
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
@Kristen: "And bi-sexual doesn't apply to those who "change". Bi-sexual means someone's equally likely to have a relationship with either sex."
So my gay friend isn't gay at all? She is bisexual.. that's what you're saying?
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
"I mean if radar detectors are your issue, Virginia is the only state that bans them. If you don't like that, you can move to another state"
I'm actually surprised that the constitutionality of this ban has not been challenged.
Because a radar detector is nothing more than a radio receiver that signals the user when receiving specific radar signals, and since the Communications Act of 1934 expressly prohibits regulation of receiving equipment by the Government, any state attempting to ban radar detectors would be violating the license granted it by the F.C.C. (excerpt from NYT article)
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
@Will: "First, in most states, the legal age of consent is 18 years of age. The gay community isn't trying to change that..."
And just like we disagree with what you are trying to change, you would disagree with the person trying to change the age at which girls are allowed to marry or have children.
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
@Will: "With all due respect buddy, you don't choose to be gay or straight or in your example, bi-sexual. It's the way you are."
With all due respect buddy, I choose to be straight. Thank you.
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
When did you make that choice, Jack?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Comment earlier to Will: "You’ve came along and argued that the normalcy of 14 year old girls marrying was only a necessity in antiquity. The reason: procreative purposes, increasing family size, etc."
So is it not fair to assume that marriage these days is defined by the government for the same reason? Procreation, increasing family size, etc as Kevin stated.
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
@Sandi: "You have the right to feel anyway you want, but it is honestly not for you to decide how other people should feel or act. Your experience is just that 'yours', not anyone else's."
But Sandi, you are expecting us to feel and act as if homosexuality is okay and normal.
It would require the majority of us to feel that way in order to make gay marriage legal in Virginia, and that is what you are trying to convince us to feel.
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
@BobH: "Is homosexuality a sin? Yes, it is. But, I also, as a heterosexual commit sins."
This was covered in a sermon at our church just a few weeks ago. There is a difference between the sins you commit and someone living as a homosexual. There are different levels of sin. Typically, when you pray, Bob, you will ask for forgiveness for your sins, and you will make attempts to not commit them further.
The difference with living as a homosexual, is that even if the homosexual asks Jesus to forgive his sins, they are not making any attempt to stop sinning.
There is a very big difference there.
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
@Dan: "When did you make that choice, Jack?"
When I was very young... my grandfather had a HUGE satellite dish at his house. Not the kind we have now, a BIG one... like the ones on top of the television stations. He also had a descrambler and my brother and I would watch porn late at night. I remember seeing all of the sexual activity and when I saw a man and a woman, naked, on screen together.. I pointed at the woman and said "I'd much rather get with that." And so my team was chosen... just like that.
Comment by Jack — June 1, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
How long did you contemplate joining the other team?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
No Jack, I stand by what I said about how anyone feels. I do not expect to ever change all minds about homosexuality any more than all minds have been changed about abortion, segregation, affirmative action, taxes, or politics. The issue to be decided IMHO, is whether the civil contract called a marriage license is allowing a group of people to be discriminated against only because of their sexual orientation. I believe that we are and I do not feel that we will have to wait for all or even the majority to agree with me before the Supreme Courts agrees and interprets that the government is not allowed to do that and makes all civil contracts of marriage open to people with same sex attraction as well as opposite sex attraction. Obviously many on 'the right' agree which is why the rush for states to write those laws that will be the ones struck down in the end. I do not count on anyone being brought into the fold kicking and screaming, I count on everyone respecting the rule of law as interpreted by the Supreme Court like they have all the other changes since our Constitution was written and decisions started being handed down.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
OMG, Jack, is Divorce a sin? Is adultery a sin? Is a woman cutting her hair a sin? Is a woman wearing men's clothes a sin? Is a woman teaching men a sin? Is a woman being a church leader a sin? Is eating shellfish a sin? Pork? Is saying the F-word a sin? You guys are seriously taking the cake on this one. How old are your children. You may be in for a rude awakening one day.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Sandi,
I am still waiting for that data you cited on genetics....
Jack,
Show me a verse in the Bible where one sin is mentioned as greater than another. I haven't seen it yet. If you know so much about it, it shouldn't be hard to find it.
Comment by Bob H — June 1, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
Jack...if your lesbian friend slept with you she is indeed bisexual.
And frankly...no one cares if you find homosexuality "okay and normal". It's one of those cases where...again...your entitled to your opinion. Your opinion doesn't matter.
I don't find most RWers "okay and normal". And the self-proclaimed "pro-life movement" I find FAR from "okay and normal". Few people, Jack, have a varied enough life experience to make themselves expert on "okay and normal".
Once again...none of this navel-gazing has import where the law is concerned.
.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
BobH, you appear confused again, I said "I know that gay people are born gay" I cited no data or studies and do not need any, thanks. I also know there is a God, I have no data to prove that either. I know lots of things, just ask me. I can name the capital of any state or country in the world too. Just ask me.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Sandi,
Huh? Read your post #100. "I am more comfortable that science knows homosexuality is genetic".
Science has never proved that and you appear to be unable to name any source that supports that.
Again, it is a good thing to me that it is NOT genetic. I would not want anyone having a child to get an abortion because the fetus carried the "gene" for homosexuality. Fortunately, there isn't one. And they have looked for it.
So, you aren't born with it in your DNA.
Comment by BobH — June 2, 2009 @ 7:36 am
Not long... but I do know people who have thought long and hard about it. For example, my friend I mentioned earlier. She played for one team all the way through high school and a couple of years of college before switching.
Comment by Jack — June 2, 2009 @ 8:08 am
@Sandi: "The issue to be decided IMHO, is whether the civil contract called a marriage license is allowing a group of people to be discriminated against only because of their sexual orientation."
Then the answer is simple, no. The law allows for you to marry someone of the opposite sex. The same rules apply whether you are straight or gay. That, by definition, is not discrimination.
If I were to say that gay people are not allowed to sit in the front of the bus, but straight people are, that would be discrimination.
If I were to say NOBODY is allowed to sit in the front of the bus, straight, gay, white, black, Jewish, Christian, Muslim... that is not discrimination.
That is exactly the case here. NOBODY is allowed to marry someone of the same sex, whether they are gay, straight, Christian, Jewish, white, black, blue..
Comment by Jack — June 2, 2009 @ 8:11 am
@Sandi: "I believe that we are and I do not feel that we will have to wait for all or even the majority to agree with me before the Supreme Courts agrees and interprets that the government is not allowed to do that and makes all civil contracts of marriage open to people with same sex attraction as well as opposite sex attraction."
Ahh... I see. You're not expecting a majority. You're just waiting for the judges to legislate from the bench.
Typical.
Comment by Jack — June 2, 2009 @ 8:13 am
@Bob H: "Show me a verse in the Bible where one sin is mentioned as greater than another. I haven't seen it yet. If you know so much about it, it shouldn't be hard to find it."
Exodus 22:15: "He that smiteth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death,"
Continuing in Exodus 23:1: "If a man steal an ox or a sheep and kill it or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep".
Different degrees of punishment clearly are indicative of some sin being considered more sever than other.
John 19:11: "Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."
2 Peter 2:17 and Jude 13 both speak of "blackest darkness" reserved for deceivers of the church.
Comment by Jack — June 2, 2009 @ 8:27 am
No Jack, I am waiting for the Justices to have the courage and conviction that cowards in the legislature do not. If you call that legislating from the bench, so be it. There is great precedence for it and a reason the judiciary was given such power in the first place. I certainly do not like every decision ever made, but the Supreme Court has righted enough wrong, clarified enough law, and interpreted the Constitution as I do often enough for me to feel comfortable that they will be the ones to right this one as well.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 8:58 am
Jack...
Re your post #108...I don't know if you and your wife wasted money on having an attorney write a living will for you or not. In most states, you can draft your own living will, have it witnessed and notarized and you're done. It's not rocket science to write one.
The problem is that in my relationship, I have to go to great lengths naming my partner as PoA and also drafting documents that in the event of my death, all my posssessions including cash, real estate and personal property go to him and not my blood relatives. I have to have a special deed drafted and recorded so the real estate goes to him.
Re your post#112...are you saying you are a closeted homosexual living a lie to yourself and your family? Hummm, that's even more wierd.
Re your post#114...There is no evidence that gay civil unions or marriage will prevent straight couples from doing what they've always done and that's to procreate. If a gay couple in a civil union living down the street from you prevents you and your wife from having sexual intercourse, then the problem is between you and your wife, not the couple down the street (unless you swing that way...)
...and Jack...be very careful as to how you throw the Bible around as your source for all that's right/wrong. Remember that the Bible was written by men interpreting a set of events. There is no evidence to support that they themselves were not influenced by the same sorts of prejudices and foibles that our society is faced with today. While a great guide to live by, I believe (and it's served me pretty well over the years) that the underlying message from the Bible is to treat all with the same degree of love, care, dignity and respect that you yourself would like to be treated.
Comment by Will — June 2, 2009 @ 9:32 am
Will,
Regarding comment #112... how could my telling you that I am straight lead you believe that I am homosexual?
"There is no evidence that gay civil unions or marriage will prevent straight couples from doing what they've always done and that's to procreate."
People who buy a hybrid car, such as a Prius, get a tax break for that. There is no evidence that if those same tax breaks went to a person who bought a Hummer that the first person wouldn't be able to still buy a Prius. However, the tax breaks weren't intended for the second person as they were the first.
"I believe (and it's served me pretty well over the years) that the underlying message from the Bible is to treat all with the same degree of love, care, dignity and respect that you yourself would like to be treated."
I agree. I do not feel that I have treated you with any less love, care, dignity or respect than anyone else.
Comment by Jack — June 2, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Jack, I think it's in the wording. You said you choose to be straight, that implies that you have a viable option and choose one particular way over the others. For me, I am straight. I know it, there is no doubt, there is no choice...it's just who I am. Maybe your choice of words was wrong.
Comment by Other John — June 2, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Come now Jack, surely even in your little bunker you have heard of people who decry homosexuals while actually being a practicing one. I think you have convinced me that you are a religious, gun loving family guy hetero, but I sure could have lived without the knowledge that you had sex with a Lesbian friend (but Lord knows I share personal stuff as well). I appreciate that you also believe that you have not treated Will "with any less love, care, dignity or respect than anyone else" but I beg to differ. Just as science cleared up the flat earth, evolution, gravity and outer space mysteries, I think it will one day confirm the truth of what 'being gay' is. Until that time, I have chosen in my best Christian belief to live and let live. I do not find crime, harm or degeneration coming from the gay community, I find love, acceptance and dignity and I am more than willing to make room at the table in my church, my life and in the rights and privileges of the laws of our land. I would dearly love to meet Will and get to know him. Call it marriage or civil union, I can only see the benefit to society when more loving open and honest homes are committed to the act of the spirit of the marriage contract. If these couple also are helping to raise the children who need loving homes (as many are) more power to them and keep it coming. I am sorry that our message from the same Bible is so different and in truth I tend to like you very much despite our many differences and I cannot say that about many of the posters I disagree with here (maybe it is your charm).
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Jack,
Type of punishment does not equal degree of sin. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the sin of homsexuality is any worse than any other sin. Jesus said several things in contrast to this: "Let those among you who are without sin cast the first stone" (no distinction made about degree of sin there at all) for instance. "Judge not lest ye also be judged" (clearly telling all of us that none of us should judge other people). "How can you see the fault if your neighbor when you cannot see the log in your own eye?" Again, look at yourself and not others. Jack, how can you ignore these important parts of the Gospel?
Also, I might add, the 11th commandment. The new commandment Jesus gave to his disciples "To love each other as I have loved you". That applies to all of us....
You really get into a messy situation when you try to say one persons sin is greater than anothers.
Will: You are wrong about the Bible. It is not the Canterbury tales. It is not a loose collection of writings written by people thousands of years ago. It was written by God through those people. There were other books that God also wrote through people that were not included for canonization by the Catholic church that are unfortunately lost forever now.
Peace to all!
Bob
Comment by BobH — June 2, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
@Other John: "Jack, I think it's in the wording. You said you choose to be straight, that implies that you have a viable option and choose one particular way over the others."
No, the wording that I chose is correct. There is another option. Many years ago (when I was in my late teens/early twenties) my friends and I would go dancing at "The Park" (not even sure if it is still around). Prominently gay clientele there.
Anyways, on many occasions I was approached by gay men. Being that I am straight, I would mention that to them and no harm--no foul.
However, had I chosen to, I could have gone home with one of those men. It certainly would have grossed me out, but physically, I was capable. I am in control of my muscles, therefore I could have walked out to a car, gotten in, and gone wherever and done whatever I had chosen to do.
I have always chosen NOT to have those types of relationships with men. I am definitely straight.
Just because I have always voted Republican doesn't mean that my arm muscles are not capable of pressing the Democrat button if I chose to do that.
Comment by Jack — June 2, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
For the record, I did not have sex with my lesbian friend. Nowhere that I know of did I mention that. I said that she was a very close (best friend) of mine and that she had sex with men.
I don't recall saying anywhere that I was one of them.
Comment by Jack — June 2, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Jack,
You misunderstand the point, I think. Yes, a straight person could, I suppose, choose to have sex with a member of the same gender. As you said, though, that would "gross you out." Would you choose such a reaction? Or is that the natural reaction of a straight man to the thought of sex with a gay man?
If you don't choose that reaction, then you did not choose to be straight. It then follows that a man who is not grossed out by the thought of sex with another man - who is, in fact, the opposite of grossed out - probably didn't choose that reaction either and, in fact, did not choose to be gay.
Orientation - attraction - is the issue here, not action.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 2, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
@BobH,
As I cited earlier: John 19:11: "Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."
If I tell a lie (a sin) I will ask the Lord to forgive my sin and I will attempt to not commit the sin again.
However, if Will (sorry for using you as an Example, Will...) were to ask for forgiveness for his sin (homosexuality) he has no intention to attempt to not commit that sin again tomorrow.
I believe that there is a difference between committing a sin and completely living in sin.
However, that being said, I am not trying to judge Will. I have many friends who are homosexual, and that is fine with me. I just do not support same sex marriage.
Much like the gun debate that we have here often. Sandi doesn't believe that I should be able to carry a gun. She is welcome to that opinion. However, my carrying of that gun doesn't hurt her personally in any way. That doesn't change the fact that she will continue to disagree with it and disagree with (and potentially lobby against) any legislation that extends those rights. That doesn't, however, mean that she is being hateful, disrespectful, rude, or less loving or caring towards me as a person.
I feel that parallels this conversation perfectly.
I disagree with the concept of same-sex marriage. I have no problem with homosexuals personally except that I feel the same-sex marriage thing is an attempt to get something one is not entitled to. And maybe nobody should be, but that is a different debate. I believe homosexuality is a sin, and I believe that living in sin is much different than committing a sin or multiple sins for which you ask forgiveness and make an honest attempt to not commit again.
Comment by Jack — June 2, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
I have never had to "choose" to be heterosexual any more than I've ever "chosen" not to scrape road kill off the ground and cook it. Neither ever occurred to me.
Following Jack's logic, every day we opt not to commit murder or spray paint a garage door, we're actively "choosing" not to do it. Some things just don't present themselves as options and require no choice.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Sorry Jack, I guess I misunderestimated what I read. I am actually relieved to here that I was wrong this one and only time!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Jack...
Re your post#131, I appreciate the quality of the discussion between us and agree that you've treated me quite nicely in the debate as I hope you would agree that I've treated you. I do have a problem with the analogy you're attempting between a Hummer and a Prius vs Gay and Straight...but we try the best we can.
As for tax issues, life issues and the like...all I want is the fair and across the board application of the rules, regulations, breaks and tax code across the entire population that is of the legal age of consent. Sexual orientation should not be part of the equation or if it is, then it should be applied equally for gay couples as it is for straight couples.
By the way Jack, I'm please to know that the Park offered what you and your friends were looking for in terms of a fun place to dance and party. You'd be amazed at a lot of other things we do well.
BobH...I respect your opinion about the Bible but can not say that I wholeheartedly agree. I think its a great guide to live by but I have no evidence to support that the people who were penning the books of the Bible were actually receiving their inspirations from some higher being. It's possible that they were inspired by the events surrounding them but that begs the question then if those folks could have been so inspired then, whats to say that we couldn't have folks today who are just as inspired?
Comment by Will — June 2, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Will,
You think Moses got the 10 commandments then from whom?
I am sure they were inspired by the events they saw, but they recorded them, they didn't create them.
This is one of those fallacies about the resurrection. Because the accounts are slightly different depending on whose gospel you read those that don't wish to believe look for the "cracks" in the story. But then, have you ever been to a trial where several witnesses saw the same thing and testified exatly the same about it?
I live in sin. I accept that I cannot live without sinning. It continues to happen. I accept that. The Bible says you and I were a sinner while still inside our mother's womb. To try to live without sinning is to kid yourself. The grace of it all is that Jesus paid the ultimate price of our sins and took them onto himself on the cross. That's what saves us. We are not saved by our good deeds we are saved to do good deeds. In other words you are not saved by not trying to sin but but acknowledging He died for our sins.
I know of no reason why a homosexual cannot preach the word of God. It is not written that only a person free from sin can preach the gospel (there was only the one and they crucified him). Marraige is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman. So, coupling by same sex would have to be a civil/legal matter and not one performed by a church (at least not a church who claims to be based on Biblical theology). Other than that, they should have all of the joys, and pains, of their unions.
Peace,
Bob
Comment by BobH — June 2, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Our church would allow homosexuals to worship with us. However, homosexuals do not qualify for membership and cannot play a role in church leadership.
BobH... I agree that we are all sinners. If you told a lie today, or even committed adultery, I'm sure you would ask Jesus for forgiveness. I doubt you would follow that up with "but I'm planning to commit adultery again tomorrow." That is essentially what a homosexual is doing... provided they even ask for forgiveness.
Will... I do agree that you treat everyone respectfully, not just me. Anyways... a couple of friends of mine have been deejays at The Park (back in the day... late 1990s, early 2000s). I only make the comparison between the hybrid thing and marriage thing as a "tax benefit with a particular qualifier attached to it." Nothing more. I'm not claiming that they are of equal importance or anything like that.
Comment by Jack — June 2, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
BobH, I sure never thought I would say such a thing but I have enjoyed reading your posts in this thread so far even if I do not agree.
Will, I am not sure of the Methodist stand on homosexual members or leaders but I can assure you that if I find out such a caveat exists for service to the Lord, my membership would be removed so fast the sign would ignite from the friction. I would be honored to sit in a pew next to you or any other gay person and to work with same in any capacity (in fact, I probably have) and I apologize on behalf of people who do not know any better.
Much more of this and my own personal biggest sin is about to break out all over and whether God will forgive me will be the least of my concerns.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
The Methodist Church does not deny membership to homosexuals. However, they do not allow homosexuals to hold worship leadership positions.
From the United Methodist Church (umc.org):
Regarding Clerty
¶ 304.3
While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals1 are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.2
1. "Self-avowed practicing homosexual" is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual. See Judicial Council Decisions 702, 708, 722, 725, 764, 844, 984.
2. See Judicial Council Decisions 984, 985.
Regarding the General Council on Finance and Administration
¶ 806.9
[The General Council on Finance and Administration] shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality or violate the expressed commitment of The United Methodist Church "not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends" (¶ 161.F). The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures.19 This restriction shall not limit the Church’s ministry in response to the HIV epidemic.
19. See Judicial Council Decisions 491, 597.
Comment by Jack — June 3, 2009 @ 7:37 am
Sorry, the first part should have said "Regarding Clergy", not "Clerty"
Comment by Jack — June 3, 2009 @ 7:38 am