Saturday, June 25, 2011
Good News, Everyone!
47 Comments:
By 
TigerHawk, at
Sat Jun 25, 06:35:00 AM:
So much better that this happened by legislative action than through the courts.
By 
, at
Sat Jun 25, 08:46:00 AM:
My point too; it seems almost quaint that the legislature passed a law and not the courts.
By , at
Sat Jun 25, 10:31:00 AM:
Marginalizing the Jewish, Christian and Muslim view of Marriage as an ignorant bigoted artifact is a HUGE mistake. The Religious liberty protections are worthless given the change in the fundamental definition, and tax exemptions will be toast. Sodomy will be injected into the curriculum and Adoption Clinics shut down.
Bigots should be marginalized, but biology isn't a bigot. There will be long term consequences for severing Marriage and family. Fertility rates will do down, divorce will go up, out of wedlock births will go up, monogamy and fidelity will do down. Some of these trends are well established as Marriage has come to be an institution to meet adult emotional needs, not a child's need for their Mom and Dad. Same Sex Marriage will only accelerate these trends and make them harder to reverse.
Polygamy and adult incest marriage are next.
By Aegon01, at
Sat Jun 25, 11:01:00 AM:
Yes, I'm sure two people committing to each other for life will increase the rate of polyamory, debauchery, and good old-fasioned Old Testament hedonism. That makes lots of sense.
My children are going to think that the idea it's taken us this long to legalize this thing is ridiculous.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Jun 25, 01:30:00 PM:
Homosexuality is nature's way of reducing the number of humans on the planet.
By , at
Sat Jun 25, 01:56:00 PM:
I am going to New York to marry my Dad.
I should be able to beat some estate taxes that way.
By , at
Sat Jun 25, 04:12:00 PM:
sad,...the two percent of the american population who are homosexual are able to shove their opinions, beliefs and values down the throat of the 98 percent who are not.
By Bomber Girl, at
Sat Jun 25, 04:21:00 PM:
anon 4:12, so it the opinion/belief/value that two people who love each other should be able to marry that has been shoved down "our" throats? amen to that then.
By Elise, at
Sat Jun 25, 04:38:00 PM:
We don't know what the consequences of legalizing gay marriage will be. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do so but I recommend reading Megan McArdle's take on it as a cautionary exercise:
A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other
And I know that it's considered the height - or depth - or bigotry and stupidity or some other detestable "y" to raise this issue seriously but once we begin redefining marriage I truly do not understand what the logical, rational argument is against expanding it to include polygamy. There is no rational reason to consider marriage something allowed only between a man and a woman; it is simply the way we've always done things. So why is there a rational reason to consider marriage something allowed only between two people?
By Bomber Girl, at
Sat Jun 25, 05:17:00 PM:
I agree, Elise, we don't know what the consequences are. The libertarian views mentioned in the link are interesting (e.g. "privatize marriage" - get the state out of it), but, as noted, hard to put into place since the government and private business are so intertwined in marriage through tax law, health care benefits and an extensive list of items which in theory should have nothing to do with the act of getting married, except as to what has evolved culturally and economically. Like the mortgage deduction...
By , at
Sat Jun 25, 06:18:00 PM:
Sickness. It is really sickening. Homosexuality is against both the Divine Law and the Natural Law. You can not legislate a fiction into reality.
I will not accept that. America has become sick along with the Republican majority in the NY Senate that let this pass. A tiny dysfunctional immoral minority gets its way. It can shove its immorality in our faces.
America is the land of Soddom and Gommorah. It will go that way as well.
By , at
Sun Jun 26, 12:18:00 AM:
Sharia law can fix this problem once and for all.
By Aegon01, at
Sun Jun 26, 01:19:00 AM:
WLW, when gay people start crucifying straight people on fences for their sexuality, I might sympathize with you more. But straight people beat them to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
But the more people do "God's work" by destroying, persecuting, and marginalizing His 'enemies', the more you undermine Him and His Son's teachings.
Being an Old Testament Christian must get really depressing sometimes. The New Testament doesn't have any of the blood or vengeance or death, just love, kindness and forgiveness. In the end, which philosophy do you think will really help us the most as a species?
By , at
Sun Jun 26, 08:02:00 AM:
In an age of bigotry and hatred, why punish love?
By , at
Sun Jun 26, 08:39:00 AM:
This NSFW stand-up piece says it all:
Greg Giraldo Broke Back Mountain
By , at
Sun Jun 26, 09:57:00 AM:
"WLW, when gay people start crucifying straight people on fences for their sexuality, I might sympathize with you more. But straight people beat them to it."
What an appalling comment. I really don't care much one way or the other on this issue but I think equating WLW's expression of quite understandable dislike of what the NY Legislature just passed with the homophobic and murderous actions of a bunch of Wyoming college drunks is a horrible thing to do. Will you play this homosexual "race card" in response to every criticism?
You, sir, are no better than an angry crank at the corner table of a cheap bar, drunk, and muttering into your gin.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Jun 26, 10:12:00 AM:
@Ignoramus, the too-young death of Greg Giraldo was one of last year's great tragedies.
I tend to think that one's position on gay marriage has a lot to do with one's circle of friends. As somebody who has a fair number of gay friends in committed relationships that strongly resemble marriage, I have a hard time seeing how the institution of marriage is weakened by including them. I think it is strengthened, in part because it takes away the already prevalent requirement that we treat unmarried gay couples as equivalent to married straights (such as in health care benefits). That threatened to force us to treat shacked-up straights as the same as married straights, which would have been very corrosive. Now we can reinvigorate the distinction between married and not, which I think is good for marriage.
By , at
Sun Jun 26, 10:35:00 AM:
Ace has an "worth reading" post on this subject.
My own views have been shaped by watching an elderly acquaintance struggling with inheritance issues. His forty year long life partner, the family income producer, has died and our friend has not inherited the continuing income from his partner's pension assets. Admittedly, this has something to do with poor legal and financial planning but if the man had been treated as the spouse he was in reality he would not now be facing a poverty stricken old age.
By Jim Miller, at
Sun Jun 26, 12:16:00 PM:
Doesn't it seem ironic that the man who signed this bill, Andrew Cuomo, refuses to marry his mistress?
(He should at least make her officially his maitresse en titre, in my opinion.)
By Elise, at
Sun Jun 26, 03:08:00 PM:
Perhaps Sandra Lee is refusing to marry the Governor. Although my understanding is that it's a mutual decision.
By , at
Sun Jun 26, 04:46:00 PM:
If I'm a New York divorce lawyer, I'm jumping for joy.
The New York legislation required a handful of Republicans to cross lines that they wouldn't cross two years ago. Governor Cuomo got them bribed by some hedge funders who support the cause.
Cuomo is on roll. He's the Democratic version of Chris Christie, but hasn't gotten the same attention. He's closed a big deficit without taxes, and is getting a property-tax cap through. No Hamlet on the Hudson, I expect he'll run for the Big House in 2016.
The New York gay marriage legislation now includes provisions to protect churches etc from lawsuit and other legal retaliation. Let's hope this works. It hasn't for the Boy Scouts. My big issue over gay marriage has been "tolerance" getting turned into mandated "acceptance". And I suspect it will.
By , at
Sun Jun 26, 04:52:00 PM:
"Love is in the keeping of the commandments". The Church has always taught the sexual morality of the Old Testament. Nothing has changed.
Christianity is about teaching what is NORMAL; what is right and true. Homosexuality is an abnormality, a condition of original sin. Cancer is also an abnormality in the cells. Homosexuality is an aberration, a deformity in the psyche of humans. The urge to murder is also in the psyche of humans and is an abnormality, should we allow it? Homosexuality is a perversion that needs to be kept in the closet and one hopes to break it one day with the help of grace.
Flaunting it, and the state legitimizing not only its practice but allowing them to marry is teaching children and young adults. The State of New York has just sanctioned a perversion of the natural order. What does this do with otherwise healthy people?
Bad drives out good. This is farm sense: One bad apple destroys the bushell. 53% of Americans now approve of homosexuality. Why? because of the media promoting it along with MTV. We are teaching bad behavior instead of good.
This is down right evil. America is becoming more evil and it is snowballing. America can no longer promote and uphold The Good, The Standard, The Beautiful, the Normal. It is about furthering perversion and abnormality. It is abnormal. To accept abnormality and a normality is the perversion of human character. It is about normalizing original sin. Parading dysfunctionality. Is that what we teach children? Is this how a society lives or dies? By legalizing abnormality?
Bad drives out good. There is no such thing as neutrality; either Good persecutes evil or Evil persecutes good. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The persecution of orthodox tradtionalist Christians is next. It is already happening. If you don't accept homosexuality---you are refused a job. Go to any college or university, try getting a job and profess a hatred of homosexuality and teach that its evil. You will not be hired. There is no such thing as a middle ground.
By , at
Sun Jun 26, 07:33:00 PM:
Re:
"This has taken way too long to come into being. Hopefully this will start a trend and help gays and lesbians across America be accepted in their communities.'
I see.
So your thinking, Aeogon01 is that with the correct government coercion, we can all live in peace and harmony together?
There is a political party in this country that you will feel very at home in.
By Bomber Girl, at
Sun Jun 26, 09:18:00 PM:
WLW, if I were interviewing someone for a job and he/she spent his/her time "professing a hatred of homosexuality" and "teaching that it is evil", I would likely put that CV aside, you are correct. I would not ask the question. If the person brought it up, it would occur to me this person has hatred on his/her mind, and not the job.
By , at
Sun Jun 26, 10:17:00 PM:
Fair enough, Bomber Girl.
But would you ban the Boy Scouts from any use of public property, ban their getting 501(c) tax status, etc?
Would you legally sanction a religious couple running a bed and breakfast who won't take in a gay couple?
By Bomber Girl, at
Sun Jun 26, 10:57:00 PM:
if you are asking me a legal question, Ignoramus, I can't really answer you since I do not know the relevant laws. if you want a personal response, if my son asked my opinion of the boy scouts, i would question their leadership and judgement. if i learned a religious couple turned away gays from their B&B, I would not stay there.
By Aegon01, at
Sun Jun 26, 11:01:00 PM:
Anon at 10
If his criticism had to do with some practical matter like "Well two straight people could get married and collect free benefits" I could live with that and move on. His problem is with homosexuality as a human characteristic. If it were up to him, he'd see it "cured" out of humanity, which is an offensive idea to me (which has been tried and has made the lives of thousands of struggling young people that much worse).
If he is saying that "America would be better off if there weren't so many queers," which is what I've been getting from his comments, I'd say he's the "angry crank muttering into his gin."
By , at
Sun Jun 26, 11:31:00 PM:
Bomber Girl doesn't have the guts to follow her premise to its logical conclusions. Same Sex Marriage is no different than Interracial Marriage. "Homophobia"=Racism. Orthodox Christians and Jews should be treated as if they were members of the KKK. No difference. Just ignorant bigots.
Exemptions for private business' would be like bringing back Jim Crow.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Jun 26, 11:56:00 PM:
I think blogger ate my comment. Just as well, as it was intemperate.
Gay marriage is quite different from interracial marriage. Interracial marriage has been recognised everywhere for centuries, only forbidden in a few countries for a short period of time. And even then, the argument was that it should not happen, not that it was impossible.
Regarding gay marriage - an issue that was not on the radar forty years ago and a fringe issue twenty years ago - as having taken a long time is simply foolish. Reasoning with your feelings isn't going to be very persuasive. Nor is accusing all straight people of crucifying Matthew Shepherd or misrepresenting Christian teaching so that you get the fun of calling them bigots persuasive either. The joy of being self-righteous oozes out of your comments, you wonderful, uber-moral person, you. Feeling that, the joy of regarding others as subhuman, you can perhaps begin to understand where tyrants get their elites who rationalise the violence of others.
And please, do not pretend to tell me what Christ's teachings "really" are unless you are willing to publicly commit as a believer. You're certainly not the only one, but it's worth challenging anytime someone tries it. Striking the breast and gazing into the sunset about what does and does not undermine His work is most unattractive.
By Bomber Girl, at
Mon Jun 27, 06:28:00 AM:
Anon (oh gutsy one at 11:31), if my logical conclusion is that bigotry is wrong, so be it. It has affected many across the centuries, including gays, black, christians and jews. My logical conclusion is that it applies to all.
The fact that young Aegon1 sees this as such should not be mocked, AVI. Is that what Christ teaches?
By , at
Mon Jun 27, 08:14:00 AM:
"Can't we all just get along" Famous 20th Century Philosopher
Gov Christie is making some "contra" headlines over what he said yesterday. The headline is invariably "Christie against gay marriage" when he's actually for gay civil unions.
The bid/ask spread between "civil unions" and "marriage" goes to the difference between (1) equality in law and "tolerance" and (2) mandated acceptance. (1) doesn't trouble me. (2) could become bad politics and a bad legal precedent.
Once upon a time, civil rights was actually about overturning state power that got in the way of organic social progress. That's been flipped around. Matthew Sheppard does not equal Emmett Till.
Gay activists won't stop at "gay marriage". Expect lawsuits against the likes of the Boy Scouts. etc. We'll have intra-state and inter-national disputes over legal reciprocity. We'll have issues over tax policy. Expect quotas in desirable jobs, promotions, credit, etc. It's a thumb in the eye to religious orthodox of all stripes. The likes of Karl Rove love this.
Meanwhile, there's high odds of a debt default on August 2. There's no talk of what happens on August 3. But that's another thread ....
By Bomber Girl, at
Mon Jun 27, 08:27:00 AM:
To me it would be more logical that the state grant civil unions status - not "marriages" - (between two consenting adults of whatever persuasion) and if religions institutions wanted to sanctify their own version of marriage, they do should so (as they do now). But that is not the way society has evolved, hence, the unfortunate "bid/ask" in legal quarters.
By , at
Mon Jun 27, 11:43:00 AM:
Ignoramus brought up the best point, which I forgort, in this whole thread that shows the proof that granting homosexuals rights will harm others and that is the Boy Scouts. I'm an Eagle Scout. Scouting was the best thing I ever did. Enjoyed the hell out of it.
Right now, the Boy Scouts are suffering discrimination. The Boy Scouts are denied access to all sorts of things. Homosexuals, when they find out the Boy Scouts are camping somewhere, apply pressure to have them removed. They then call the Boy Scouts Bigots and a hate group. They use ad hominem attacks to demonize the Boy Scout program. It is already happening, already going on.
If you don't accept homosexuality---you will be persecuted! You will be demonized and you will be discriminated against. All of this is ALREADY happening to the Boy Scouts!
And the Assistant Village idiot is really over the edge here when he claims Interracial marriage has been recognised everywhere for centuries, only forbidden in a few countries for a short period of time.
There is absolutely NO historical facts that back that up and yes, allowing interracial marriage was the stepping stone to Gay marriage!
The Bible condemns miscegenation in many references! St. Isidore of Seville wrote: WHAT THE LAW OF NATIONS IS. 1. The law of nations concerns the occupation of territory, building, fortifications, wars, captivities, enslavements, the right of return, treaties of peace, truces, the pledge not to molest embassies, the prohibition of marriages between different races. And it is called the 'law of nations'.
From another source:
(1)The Roman fear of barbarisation is marked by a law of A.D. 370 or 373, which forbade marriages between provincials and barbarians on pain of death.
The cat was let out of the bag when the "civil rights movement" attacked the laws against miscegenation. The attack upon these led to the "civil rights for gays to marry" thing. Yes, gay marriage is just like interracial marriages, both are unrighteous.
The world is built on Righteousness---not on "civil rights". As Plutarch said, "We are not in the world to give the laws...but in order to obey the commands of the gods". This "civil rights" stuff is just plain-ol Marxism; cultural marxism!
Righteousness is what Christianity is based on. We are to be righteous.
By Aegon01, at
Mon Jun 27, 12:23:00 PM:
AVI,
I admit that I'm being too reactionary about this. WLW gets my goat in a way that Trolls (that is, Internet Trolls) rarely do.
As for my Bible knowledge, I was raised Episcopalian (and confirmed as that) and went to church enough as a kid to get a pretty good idea in my head as to what it was about. I was a genuine Christian until I was about 16 or 17, then I read too much Existentialism in English Class. I also took a yearlong class in high school where we interpreted the Bible as a literary work and worked out the symbolism, the attributes and general teachings of the two Testaments, and such. On a side note, have you ever read the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? It's really...interesting.
But that's beside the point since anybody can (apparently) interpret a religious text however they want, and make their individual claim about how God wants things. Why else are there so many Protestant branches?
Nevertheless, I apologize to the audience in general for my part in breast striking. I will say however that it seems to be quite popular in this thread and I didn't want to be left out.
And WLW, the Boy Scouts decided gay people aren't good enough for the Pinewood Derby. Regardless of whether or not they're within their rights to decide that thing, don't you think it makes sense that some people would get angry over that? Do you *really* expect gay people to peacefully accept it? Maybe you aren't surprised by their reaction, but you'd still prefer if they didn't.
What if your son was gay and you thought he should follow in your footsteps and be an Eagle Scout, because it's fun and you learn plenty of useful skills? He'd get rejected for not being "reverent" enough, and they'd politely suggest that he go to Pray The Gay Away.
By , at
Mon Jun 27, 01:00:00 PM:
Just because you don't like what I have to say, just because I counter your enthusiasm, does not make me a troll. I find it interesting that when I participate on a liberal blog and disagree with the post, I am automatically considered a troll.
My sister is gay. Just because I have a relative who is that way, doesn't make me roll over. It shouldn't make any of us roll over. Pray for them. Say hello, but I don't condone it and in company those things ought to be suppressed.
Christ said, "Deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me". We have to Deny ourselves our wickedness. We are to keep our ugliness to ourselves and keep it in the closet. Outwardly we are to maintain social and religious standards. Uphold them. Do our duty to our kinsmen. Uphold the good and if we have to slip, we slip in the darkness, out of sight and mind and keep it private.
We are to uphold the social good and promote it. What is normal and right we are to promote and keep hidden our human dysfunctionality which we all have.
The Boy Scouts have not said that "gay people aren't good enough" is that the Boy Scouts take an oath to be "morally straight". When a man or boy openly states his homosexuality he can NOT be "morally straight". The Boy Scouts is about Virtue, Honor, and Duty. All based on Victorian Christianity; on an orthodox traditional Christian morality. This is why the Boy Scouts do not allow homosexuals in their ranks. And this is precisely why they are persecuted.
Paramenides had a dictum, the principle of non-contradiction. Contradicitions can not exist. It is Either/Or. Either homosexuality is persecuted or anti-homosexuality is persecuted. The Homosexuals, or Evil, will not let sleeping dogs lie. The Stand of the Boy Scouts is an affront to the Homosexuals that demand that the Boy Scouts adopt their ways. There will be homogeneity.
The Boy Scouts will not be allowed to be exempt from the Marxist culture. You can not allow for exemptions like you can NOT racially profile so that 4 year olds and 92 year olds are to be patted down. A White 50 year old Male who lived his whole life in America is forced to be patted down because there can be NO exemptions. A ailing grandmother with cancer was forced to take off her adult diaper because "she is a threat to bring down an airline"? Really?
Standards are forced across the board. Catholic adoption agencies are going out of business across England because of political correctness.
The persecution has begun.
It is Either/Or. The Lion can not lie down with the lamb. The Lion will always eat the lamb. Aesop said the same thing with the Scorpion and the Frog tale. The Scorpion will always sting; it is his nature to do so. The Marxists of this country WILL compel obedience to political correctness. Political Correctness is a psuedo-religion that demands obedience to its will.
By Elise, at
Mon Jun 27, 01:52:00 PM:
Well, this exploded. Let's see. Of course the Boy Scouts should be allowed to exclude gay young men; that's freedom of association. Those who are distressed by that are free to start their own organization which can be virtually identical to the Boy Scouts and is open to those of all sexual orientations; that's freedom of association also. Then the marketplace can decide whether to pick one or the other - or to let both survive.
Similarly, the Boy Scouts should be free to use any camping area or public facility which could be used by any other organized group. If the First Baptist Church or the Rainbow Coalition, for example, could reserve a camping area, the Boy Scouts should be able to do so. And they shouldn't be harassed for doing so.
Religious organizations should be free to refuse to marry gay couples. Private businesses should be free to refuse to provide services to gay weddings (and mixed race ones; mixed religion ones; ones between US citizens and non-citizens; ones where the bride is too young or too old; ones where the business owner thinks the potential husband is verbally abusive to his bride to be; ones where the age difference between the celebrants is too great or too small). Anyone whose primary concern about a wedding is getting a particular caterer or photographer or B&B shouldn't be getting married.
At the same time, it's perfectly fine for someone who has been turned down by a vendor due to sexual orientation or race or age or whatever to make that fact widely known so those who are offended by those decisions can refuse to patronize the business.
Private and religious adoption agencies should be able to set whatever limitations they want on who can adopt so long as the people providing the babies are aware of those limitations. If those agencies are receiving public money, the situation changes. If, however, the only government involvement is the government's insistence that it vet the adoptive parents - which I think is reasonable - then the State should just vet the ones the agency tells them about, not insist the agency expand its roster.
Finally, I agree with Bomber Girl - and this is the Anchoress' position also if I remember correctly. The government should get out of the marriage business. It should offer civil unions or pairing contracts or whatever it wants to call them for any two people who want to be treated as a couple under the law. Marriage becomes a matter for religion or whatever ceremonial setup people want. And the State doesn't care whether you go through a non-government ceremony or not. Once you do the State thing, you're hitched in the sight of the law.
And, since I'm nothing if not pig-headed, I still want to know this. If we believe that two people who are in love should be able to get married, why don't we believe that three people who are in love should be able to get married?
By , at
Mon Jun 27, 01:56:00 PM:
It is a canard that if anybody says the Boy Scouts will be left alone. Separate but equal was killed by the Civil Rights era of the 60s and 70s.
There is a huge connection between the civil rights of the 60's and the homosexual movement. Both are tied to the Marxists. Both were Marxist led movements.
The Civil Right movement destroyed "Separate but equal" for the races in the 60s. There were laws of separating the European from the Negro. This was all destroyed and everything was DEsegregated!!!!!
In this new homosexual culture there is no separate but equal! All things will have to adopt homosexuality! There will be no exemptions. No segregation. If there is no segregation by race, there will be no segregation by sexual orientation. Everything will have to be equal and therefore the Boy Scouts will eventually come around to accepting homos or face disbandenment. It is already shrinking.
The Civil Rights of the Negro and its paradigm is the same for the Homosexual. Once you let in the Negro---you adopted the homosexual course as well. All of it is Marxist.
America is a Marxist country and it will demand Marxist morality which is political correctness.
By , at
Mon Jun 27, 02:27:00 PM:
WLW - you sound like a racist wingnut. Homosexuals have certainly adopted the language and tactics of the civil rights movement. But that does not mean Homosexual behavior (a consequential choice)is the same as melanin content (a benign characteristic).
By , at
Mon Jun 27, 04:46:00 PM:
What an amazing thread! If all of us have gay friends and/or relatives we should all be able to recognize that support for public morality and civic virtue has little to do with sexual orientation and is just as common in gay people as straight. The Venn diagram of political and sex orientation has plenty of overlap too. My point is that I really see little connection between homosexuality per se and immorality.
Earlier in the thread someone asked the difference between civil approval of homosexuality and of polygamy or other perversions. These other sorts of relationships are easy to distinguish as they do not take place as public commitments between two consenting adults in accordance with law. For those five states recognizing gay marriage the opposite is true. There is no appetite that I have observed to legalize polygamy or other oddball human relationship types, and bringing these sorts of subjects up is a strawman argument only.
By , at
Mon Jun 27, 04:49:00 PM:
By the way, and merely as an aside in celebration of Federalism, I wonder how many more states (or will thereby any more at all?) will choose to legislate gay marriage into law.
By Elise, at
Mon Jun 27, 06:02:00 PM:
To Anonymous at 4:46pm:
I don't think asking for an explanation is an argument, much less a strawman argument. You have essentially re-written my question as: Who defines perversion?
To you, polygamy is perversion but gay marriage is not. Why? Polygamy is actually far, far more common in human history than gay marriage. Is polygamy a perversion only because no one is talking about legalizing it? (Or, more accurately, because there is not widespread acceptance of it as a valid life choice in the US?) If so, does that mean gay marriage was a perversion 40 years ago but is not now? Is polygamy a perversion in the United States in 2011 but not a perversion in Saudi Arabia in 2011 or in US territories in 1861? And would you argue that there *is* a connection between polygamy and immorality?
You see the problem. You state:
Earlier in the thread someone asked the difference between civil approval of homosexuality and of polygamy or other perversions. These other sorts of relationships are easy to distinguish as they do not take place as public commitments between two consenting adults in accordance with law.
Why, then, was it wrong for someone five years ago to write:
Earlier in the thread someone asked the difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriages. These other sorts of relationships are easy to distinguish as they do not take place as public commitments between a consenting man and woman in accordance with law.
In essence, your argument is that there are no absolute values in society; that perversion and immorality are defined simply as whatever cannot achieve a 51% approval rating; and that morality and civic virtue are defined simply as whatever can achieve a 51% approval rating. That's a perfectly rational stance to take but it does inexorably lead to the conclusion that there is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy.
By Bomber Girl, at
Mon Jun 27, 06:28:00 PM:
Hard to imagine anyone would wish more than once spouse at a time on anyone. just sayin.
By Aegon01, at
Mon Jun 27, 06:35:00 PM:
To nobody in particular, and to clarify my position, I wanted to say that I think that any private organization has the right to refuse any service to anyone they want. I still think they shouldn't, but I wouldn't try to stop them with legislation. The churches obviously shouldn't be forced to marry anybody they don't want to. I think they will probably suffer some consequences (like bad press) from it, but that's life.
I am also willing to entertain arguments that deal with benefits and other state programs that will have to change as a result of this. That's a very legitimate concern.
What I will continue to fight is the labeling of an entire group of people as immoral or evil simply for their private lifestyle.
Also for the record, I don't think homosexuality is a choice, at least for the vast majority of them. If it were, I really doubt teenagers are really so masochistic that they would deal with years of torment if it weren't a part of their core identity. However, I also think it doesn't really matter if it's a choice or not, People shouldn't be persecuted for what they do in the privacy of their homes (and that rule applies to more than just sexuality).
By , at
Mon Jun 27, 11:00:00 PM:
Some last thoughts on this:
In the late 1970s, NYC almost went under. The White Bread were leaving, But Gays came in, especially in the marginal Manhattan neighborhoods that are now the choicest of current NYC real estate. Their commitment helped save the City. Thus, because of this, Gays have earned square miles of local politcal support, I dare say.
This past Sunday, NYC had its annual Gay Pride Parade. Was Cuomo's timing of his signing Gay Marriage coincidental? We wonder! I can only imagine the parade scene. Old rugby song: "There was frigging in the rigging, 'a wanking on the planking." Good for them. NYC has gotten way too Disneyfied for me.
But should we export this to the rest of America by fiat? Not necessarily. Go figure.
By , at
Tue Jun 28, 07:34:00 AM:
Is polygamy a perversion only because no one is talking about legalizing it?
Society's preeminent interest is in promoting a paired family unit, for property reasons and child raising reasons. That is why my principal reliance, which in your question you ignore completely, is on two people relations. Interpreting my comment as purely utilitarian misses that point, but I will admit there is a little tinge of utility in my argument (though probably not for the reasons you might guess).
As I mentioned earlier in this thread I have recently witnessed the inheritance travails of an elderly homosexual man. If "marriage" is too sensitive a term for most Americans to accept using as it relates to homosexual unions then I could easily accept it's functional equivalent, a "civil union", so long as that accommodation encompasses the property and inheritance rights also associated with marriage. Surely, that is not a problem for even those people here who argue against homosexual marriage on moral grounds.
If we agree on that issue, then I suppose the only issue left would be child raising. Frankly, though I completely understand the desire to have and raise children, homosexuals can only accomplish this artificially. While it is certainly true that some heterosexuals have the same problem it is in those instances a biological failure, a mistake, while in homosexual life it is entirely the norm. Biologically, then, homosexuality is a mistake.
Having said that, I am fully prepared to accept arguments that homosexual couples can be excellent parents. Society has an interest in promoting those couples who have chosen "marriage" or civil unions ability to adopt. If you believe, as I do, that most (and maybe all) homosexuality is biological in origin- as opposed to a "lifestyle choice"- then those children are likely to be heterosexual as adults.
So, I see differences in homosexual life as compared to other forms o human sexual interaction. Are there pedophiles among homosexuals? Sure, I would guess, but is there any evidence that perversion occurs more frequently than among heterosexuals? You ask me about polygamy, and I freely admit thy polygamy is the norm in early humanity. Civilization has sought to end polygamy, to promote and protect the the property rights of wives and children. I am against polygamy for that reason, and I regard it as an enormous threat to the rights of women and interests o civil society.
By , at
Tue Jun 28, 08:58:00 AM:
Western Culture is at its base, the Graeco-Roman culture. Both of these states, Church and state went together. These ancient states, other than the period of Athenian democracy, was based on authority. Plutarch said, "We are not in the world to give the laws...but in order to obey the commands of the gods". The other sentiment expressed by Socrates in the question of suicide, was that since human beings are the chattels of the gods, we are not allowed to take our own life. God or gods were the central facet of culture.
This was the sentiment of Graeco-Roman culture. Hellenism is the foundation of Western culture.
The Enlightenment was a revolution against this culture. The Enlightenment, which America, Marxism, Socialism, is a product of, posited that Man is the center of the universe and not God. The Enlightenment taught that Man, and not God, is the measure of all things.
This is what is playing out. Who makes the rules? God or Man. Do we follow the rules laid out by God or do we follow what man wants to do. Clearly, there is a divide between those who follow God and those who are materialists. Man is God and so Man makes his own rules.
Plutarch, a priest at the Doric Temple of Delphi, said something that is anti-american, and anti-enlightenment, "We are NOT in this world to give the laws...but in order to obey the commands of the gods". This is Old European Culture and Tradition. We belong to God and God is our Lord. Jesus Christ said, "If you love me, you will obey me".
The question really is, Does God make the rules? Is God really God or is Man God? And Man makes the rules.
By Elise, at
Tue Jun 28, 12:32:00 PM:
Anonymous at 7:34:
Actually, you brought up perversion. You began by referring to polygamy as a perversion. Now you’ve moved to referring to it as a bad idea, damaging to society, likely to have unintended consequences. Similarly, there are people who consider homosexuality a perversion and oppose gay marriage on those grounds. However, there are also people who oppose it because they consider it a bad idea, damaging to society, likely to have unintended consequences. These views by the opponents of gay marriage are as rational as your views on polygamy.
I don’t ignore your reliance on two people relations; I simply don’t consider it any more valid than the reliance by those who oppose gay marriage on male-female relations. That is, any definition of marriage is simply arbitrary.
And that’s my point. There is no rational reason to say marriage between a man and a woman is good but marriage between two men or two women is bad. Neither, however, is there any rational reason to say marriage between two people is good but marriage among three (or four or sixteen) people is bad. All the arguments you present for why polygamy is damaging to society are just refurbished, recycled versions of the arguments gay marriage opponents present for why gay marriage is damaging to society.
Raising polygamy in the context of a discussion of gay marriage is simply a shorthand way of asking, “If you are going to redefine marriage away from the form it has taken in our culture for centuries, where will you draw the line?” I have never heard an answer to this question that does not rely on making the same arguments about other forms of marriage that gay marriage opponents make about gay marriage: either other forms of marriage are perversion or they are bad ideas, damaging to society, likely to have unintended consequences. If those arguments are invalid for gay marriage, why are they valid for other forms of marriage?
I don’t object to gay marriage. I object to policy decisions based on feelings; to a refusal to acknowledge logical conclusions; to a lack of humility about altering a bedrock of society; and to the conviction - which probably arises from the just-listed attributes - that anyone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage proponents is beyond the pale. If I were writing a blog post on gay marriage proponents, I’d call it, “Do you feel like we do?”
And that brings me full-circle, back to the McArdle piece I referenced in my first post: we do not know what the effect of legalizing gay marriage will be, any more than we know what the effect of legalizing polygamy would be. It thus behooves us to not label as stupid, ignorant, bigoted, short-sighted, ridiculous, not worthy of response, or crazy anyone who worries about what either of these forms of marriage will mean to society.
(And I’m out. Anytime I have to re-write a comment because my original version exceeded Blogger’s length restrictions, it’s time for me to quit commenting. :)
