TFP Rally Disrupted by Pro-Homosexual Blasphemers Yelling “God is Dead”
We don’t associate with this group at all, but here’s a story from them I thought I’d share anyway for the sake of discussion.
Before I tell you about the aggressive blasphemers dressed in black who disrupted our rally, let me briefly mention that the tour for traditional marriage took us to Towson, the White Marsh Mall and Timonium on Thursday. At all three locations, the campaign had wide exposure and great support.
 |
| Location: White Marsh Mall |
In Towson, as we packed the van, a lady in the parking lot handed me a wad of cash: “Go get something for lunch,” she said, “and come back soon.” God bless her.
Hunt Valley Mall
This morning, Norman Fulkerson and Gregory Escaro joined us for the campaign. It was good to have the extra help. At the Hunt Valley Mall traffic was a bit slow and a number of people passed with an apathetic “what-do-I-care” attitude.
Nevertheless, loads of cars and trucks honked in support. So much so that a mall manager came out, concerned that our “political” signs might lead patrons to think that their establishment supports marriage. “We don’t get involved in politics,” she said.
Well, doesn’t marriage trump politics?
Next stop: Reisterstown Plaza Shopping Center in Baltimore. Here the support for traditional marriage was noticeably stronger than our previous location. Most of the blacks we met were extremely supportive and expressive.
Blasphemers in Black Yell “God is Dead”
(Caution: This video is troubling)
[Sorry. Please click this link to get to the video. -Betsy]
The homosexual movement’s well-oiled propaganda machine jumps through hurdles to find “nice” poster personalities to advance the acceptance of the immoral lifestyle. The more they hide the ugliness of sin, the more they advance their cause. For that reason, on television and so forth, a studied veneer of normalcy is tailor-made to avoid shocking American sensibilities.
But, today, on Route 45 in Timonium, the real face of the homosexual movement was visible to the public, this time, without the veneer.
 |
| TFP volunteer Alexander McKay (left) prays the rosary while a masked pro-homosexual anarchist yells blasphemies in his face. |
At our rush-hour location, after the campaign was well under way, a beat up car pulled into the intersection. Four individuals dressed in black within the vehicle screamed insult after obscene insult at us. We ignored them and continued the campaign.
However, within a few minutes, they parked and approached to disrupt our rally. Two more women in dark, drab clothing arrived shortly after, then another. The men, with black handkerchiefs concealing their faces, screamed profanities, insults and blasphemies in our faces. They also brought crudely made signs in favor of same-sex “marriage,” which they used to block our traditional marriage banner.
Loading ...
Good lord, Betsy. You see gays who are regular people, and you call it a “studied veneer.” You see a different set of gays who offend you, and you call them “the real face of the homosexual movement.”
That’s awful. Why do you assume one is fake while the other is real? And why do you assume only the face you don’t like is real? Why can’t there by just as great a diversity among gays — even gays who want legal equality — as among the general population?
These are real questions. It’s a terrible practice to stereotype people like this, and it’s even worse if that stereotype insists any good qualities on display must be fake while only negative features can be real.
I’m going to ask you to reconsider the wording of your post. Feel free to point out what you find offensive, but acknowledge that EVERY group has its good and bad members, instead of damning an entire group.
Rob, I didn’t write this article. “EVERY group has its good and bad members.” I agree. That part at the top in italics is all that I personally wrote. I guess it would be more clear if there was an author for this article. Like I said, I posted it for the sake of discussion.
Sorry, I missed the opening sentence. I’m glad you’re not the author, because I’ve wouldn’t have expected this from you. I have to wonder (and if you choose not to post this I’ll understand): Can you see why I might read such vicious stereotyping and view it as hateful bigotry? I’m not asking whether you personally think it is — just whether you can see why some of us might feel justified in saying so?
Again, so glad you’re not the author!
I’ve been studying logical fallacies and have been having a lot of fun with it. If I’m not mistaken Rob, your comment is something known as a red herring. Red herrings go like this:
Topic A is under discussion
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being related to Topic A
Topic A is abandoned
I would define Topic A as the homosexual blasphemers disrupting the demonstration. Topic B is when you wanted to discuss a single line of the article, pointing out how the author was stereotyping all homosexuals. When Betsy responded, Topic A became (temporarily I hope) abandoned.
Now, in your defense, I happen to agree with you. Stereotyping is wrong and all groups have their “normal” elements and their “fringe” elements. But it is not the point of this post.
So, to bring the discussion back to Topic A, do you have anything to say in regards to the protesters in the video?
Some of my thoughts:
People who give “the bird” while holding a sign saying “I support love” are not going to win any converts, if only because they show how confused they are about what love is. Also, screaming “God is dead!” only reveals one’s own confusion and anger; I can practically guarantee that not one single person among their opposition was moved a single inch from their position. If anything, the hatred expressed by the protesters probably solidified hetro marriage supporters even more.
No, Rob, I totally agree with you. Perhaps it was a mistake to post this at all. If it ruffles too many feathers, I will happily take it down. I’d never heard of this group, so I asked Dr. Morse about them. She said she is not comfortable with them because they’re so radical. I think once I’m sure you’ve gotten this reply, I’ll just take the article down.
This is more the kind of discussion I was hoping would come from this article.
Thanks Betsy, I appreciate that.
Rob, do you support the behavior of the same sex marriage supporters in this video?
Actually, now that things are going, I think it will stay.
No, Jennifer. I’ve only organized one protest, and if you’re curious, you can read about it here on my blog:
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/lutn
And video here:
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/light-up-the-night-video
Certainly the Methodist church I worked with and the faith-based food banks who received the half-ton of food we collected would approve of such an approach either.
On the flip side, this experience is why I always shake my head when people insist that Christians and proponents of marriage equality must be implacable enemies.
Oops, of course I meant to say the church and food bank wouldN’T have approved of the approach of these masked shouters.
JT, it seems like one person’s red herring is another person’s key issue.
It’s easy to see why a group that’s being denied its rights gets angry. I hope that gay people get equal access to marriage sooner than later. It would be enormously helpful to them, and to the children they’re raising.
I think this is a great indicator of how the “gay” activists lack tolerance. They are always demanding tolerance, but never give it. It’s always their way or the highway.
Glenn, that’s exactly the sort of stereotyping I was talking about.
@Rob Tisinai Why is it I can find dozens of examples almost daily of the lack of tolerance from homophiles? If a Christian photographer doesn’t want to photograph a SSM, they are slammed with a discrimination charge and forced to pay fines and attend indoctrination; where was the tolerance to say, okay I’ll go elsewhere? A dating service doesn’t want to include same-sex couples and gets sued and has to comply; where is the tolerance? Christian B&B owners don’t rent to SS couples and are brought before the courts; where is the tolerance? California fertility doctors don’t want to artificially impregnate a homophile and are sued rather than going to another recommended by the Christian doctors; where was the tolerance? Look at all the violence and threat in CA about prop 8; where was the tolerance? College students in counseling courses don’t want to counsel homophiles that homosexuality is okay and they get removed, fired, or other actions against them; where was the tolerance to go to another person? There is NO tolerance from the homosexual side when it comes to SSM. If you disagree with SSM you will be forced to comply or be punished.
And that’s stereotyping?
Glenn, if I may point out, you seem to be referring to the same group of people repetitively and suggesting they all have the same behavior. Is this not stereotyping?
I find it interesting how quickly the subject of conversation turned to the question of stereotyping. The real issue in this story is the awful behavior of the same sex marriage advocates. They are on film. I think their behavior is repulsive, just awful, truly hateful. The pro-Tradition people, whether you agree with their point of view or not, are making their point in a civil and respectful way. no profanity. no hate.
What exactly do you guys think is an appropriate way for them to react to the hateful screaming of their opponents? “oh well, lefties will be lefties.” “oh well, gay people are frustrated. people are angry. let’s give them a free pass on profanity and hate.”
i’m waiting for one of the ssm’er on this blog to dissasociate yourselves from this behavior, (rob’s comment comes close, but isn’t quite there) instead of spending your time on whether the pro-tradition group drew the wrong conclusion about it.
Jennifer, I don’t know how much clearer I can be than “no.” But if you’re looking for a fuller statement on a comparable situation, you can go here, where I did so on my own initiative without prompting from my opponents.
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/dont-make-children-cry-part-1
Now, since we’re all just readers of the article, we each have an equal right to extract what we see as the “real point.” Is this article merely about these particular activists, or would the author say he’s making a broader statement about marriage equality activists in general? I think it’s clear that he’s doing the latter. Which makes the article an exercise in vicious stereotyping.
“It’s easy to see why a group that’s being denied its rights gets angry.”
Strictly speaking, has anyone in “that group” been denied the right to marry? If their priority is to the children under their care, shouldn’t they be seeking to marry the person with whom they created the child in the first place? After all, it’s for “the children they’re raising.” Just out of curiosity, up to this point, how have they explained to the children they’re raising, the absence of the opposite-sexed parent? Specifically, if the parent with the child hasn’t strictly been denied the right to marry the opposite-sexed parent of that child, how are they explaining the deliberate decision not to do so?
And Glenn, I can point to awful positions advocated by opponents of same sex marriage. Does that mean it would be right for me to do what you did in your comment, and stereotype them all according to the actions of the worst people in the movement (like Peter Sprigg, who wants to deport or prosecute me for my committed relationship)?
And speaking of people like Peter Sprigg, if they want to criminalize my relationship, then that’s just hateful even if they say civilly, with a chuckle and a smile (as Mr. Sprigg did).
No, it would not be any more right for me than it was for you. And I’ve said so, once again on my own initiative without prompting from my opponents.
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/no-h8
I think it’s a lot to ask of people being denied a basic civil right to remain civil, “Dr. J”. Straight people appear to have no qualms as taking ownership of marriage, as if such a legal contract can be owned by a certain group.
I think gays and lesbians have been remarkably patient in pursuing their legal rights. In my family, it is I and my sister who are the most outspoken about gay rights, not our gay brother. I suspect it shocks homophobes, who assume all straight people are on their side. They love to refer to the homosexual radicals, as if a tiny minority of Americans think gays and lesbians deserve equal rights. Far from it. Sit back and watch as the families and friends of gay people assist in their right for equality!
@JT
Just to follow your line of thinking, folks carrying “Pro-marriage” signs while rallying to prevent certain citizens from marrying are hypocrites. Just saying.
It seems to me like posting this kind of video and treating it as if it were the norm is pretty biased and unfair. It’s kind of like if someone were to post a little video from a Westboro Baptist Church protest and claim this is typical of Christians and how they feel about gay men and lesbians, isn’t it? I mean, what’s the difference? But it’s clear that Fred Phelps doesn’t represent the vast majority of Christians any more than this guy represents the vast majority of gay rights activists.
The behavior of the masked insulters is fairly common, actually, and is often excused by the sort of remarks that Sean has just made.
The first premise of the pro-SSM campaign is that to disagree with the SSM idea is itself an act of bigotry. This is very commonly expressed in the comment sections of this blogsite by SSMers who feel entitled to throw around petty insults, ad hom attacks, and trollish behavior. Given their first premise — an axiomatic assertion actually — is repeated nonsensically by pro-SSM politicians, mainstream or otherwise, and by the leadership of the legal argumentation put forth in the media and in the courtrooms, well, the stage is set for excusing the sort of behavior exhibited in the video.
It is normal, I think, among SSMers to feign injury, to feign insult, to feign hurt feelings at the least provocation. Yet also normal for them to excuse, meekly or boldly, the deliberately injurious and deliberately insulting words and actions of those SSMers who seek to provoke defenders of marriage. This video is merely an example of a handful of protestors whose aim is to provoke rather than engage, of course.
Imagine if one of the people in the TFP people had responded in kind. That would be the focus of SSMers, such as Bob. Right Bob? You would not focus on the provocation but on the reaction. But since that reaction did not occur in the streets, you have chosen to focus instead of your perception of stereotyping in their written account of the event. I can tell you that I’ve seen and heard such insults from the supposedly mildest of SSMers at certain events in which the defenders of marriage were outnumbered, far less vocal, and yet very composed and earnest in presenting their viewpoint — at invitation.
No, I do think that this sort of behavior is far more common than you might like to let on. But, yes, I agree, that the vast majority of SSM[support]ers would rather present a less hostile face to the public. Underneath the surface, however, there is a starting axiom that stereotypes defenders of marriage as bigots, haters, and so forth.
“I think it’s a lot to ask of people being denied a basic civil right to remain civil, “Dr. J”. ”
Two fallacies here Sean: Two Wrongs Make a Right, and Ad Hominem.
Emma: “Just to follow your line of thinking, folks carrying “Pro-marriage” signs while rallying to prevent certain citizens from marrying are hypocrites. Just saying.”
Hmmm well let’s see. First I discussed red herrings, then I discussed my thoughts on the video. How do either one of these lead to what you said?
“It’s easy to see why a group that’s being denied its rights gets angry. I hope that gay people get equal access to marriage sooner than later. It would be enormously helpful to them, and to the children they’re raising.”
Two fallacies again: Two Wrongs Make a Right, and Red Herring.
I think you need to read up on what a red herring is, JT.
My point, worth repeating, is whatever incivility you perceive on the part of marriage equality supporters is justified: gay couples are being denied the equal right to marry, as required by our nation’s guarantee of equal treatment. The implication that marriage equality supporters, the vast majority of whom are straight, are somehow less civilized than the anti-gay crowd fails to acknowledge that gay couples have a lot to lose when they are denied the right to marry. The anti-gay marriage people have nothing to lose whether gays get married or not. So if you don’t have anything at stake (begging the question of why so many people even care about this issue), you don’t have much to get angry about.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
@Bob Barnes I refer to these incidents because they have been in the news fairly recently. But they are only examples of daily occurrences wherein homophiles demand sanction of their behavior/relationship and if it isn’t given then they go to court, attack, and whatever possible to force their targets into compliance. The video provides a perfect example of routine behavior.
@Rob Tisinai This sort is rare among opponents of SSM. What isn’t rare is those who want to punish people for not wanting to sanction SSM, or just homosexuality in general. That’s why they were able to get laws passed against “discrimination” for sexual orientation – that is unless that orientation is something other than homosexuality! That’s why there are countries where you can’t even preach from the Bible about homosexuality without getting fined or jailed. All I ask is that we who do not agree with homosexuality not be forced to sanction it, not be called bigots, hateful, etc.
@Sean This is exactly what I’m talking about. If you are against SSM, then you get labeled as a “homophobe” You claim equal rights and civil rights, but you have all of those. What homosexualists demand are special rights to claim marriage is something other than what it has been defined throughout history. It simply isn’t between members of the same sex.
@Emma No. Being pro-marriage is being pro real marriage, not faux marriage. Pro-marriage people are also against incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages.
@Emma Westboro is a non-Christian cult and its members are cultists. Just because they claim to be Christian, that doesn’t make them so. They don’t adhere to any essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and misuse the name of Christ for the sole purpose of spreading hate. So, no, posting this video is not analogous to posting one of Westboro, because Westboro doesn’t represent anything Christians do, while this video is very much an example of the way SSM proponents treat those against SSM.
Sean said: “a group that’s being denied its rights”.
There is no group right to marital status. The marriage law has no group criterion for ineligiblity nor for eligiblity. Yes, the SSM campaign’s emphasis is on the gay identity group, as your remark attests.
@JT
I was responding to this:
“People who give “the bird” while holding a sign saying “I support love” are not going to win any converts, if only because they show how confused they are about what love is. “
“That’s why they were able to get laws passed against “discrimination” for sexual orientation – that is unless that orientation is something other than homosexuality!”
@Glenn: You intend that as political hyperbole, right? You understand that it’s not actually true.
Chairm, there is an individual right to marriage, and gay and lesbian individuals are being denied that right. The choice of partner is crucial to marriage; we don’t do arranged marriages in this country. Therefore, “arranging” that someone has to marry only an opposite-sex partner violates the notion of “traditional” marriage that you and yours keep harping about. It is tradition in the US to marry a mutually consenting adult. That’s the tradition.
That only straight people have married in the past, creates no public purpose in denying marriage rights to gay people. For years, only men were allowed to vote. We changed that, didn’t we?
We are in an age when we have decided to stop using race, gender, age and other uncontrollable biological facts against people. I think you’ll be quite frustrated if you continue to want to determine people’s rights based on any of these naturally occurring and uncontrollable characteristics. Perhaps one day, some such characteristic will be used against YOU.
It certainly clarifies things for me: You believe that two wrongs DO make a right. Or to put it a different way, you believe that bad behavior by one group justifies bad behavior by another group. (If I’m wrong, please let me know. But this seems to be what you are clearly saying.)
I happen to disagree (strongly!), but at least you are putting your cards on the table.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Pro-marriage is just a term. It means what we say it means. I am pro-marriage. I believe my gay friends and relatives have the same right to marry their partners that I have. In no way whatsoever am I against marriage.
Sean, you cheapen the very principle of consent. It is no mere “tradition”. And, no, the man-woman basis of marriage does not require arranged marriages. Your thinking has become unhinged just to serve your contrarism.
The core meaning of the social institution of marriage is no mere tradition; it is a universal feature across the historical and anthropological records.
You said: “only straight people have married in the past”.
That is demonstrably false. One of the anti-8 litigants had been previously married, she the wife to her husband. There is no “straight” criterion for an individual’s eligilbity to marry.
Gay is a socio-political identity; no socio-political identity is a “uncontrollable biological fact”.
Meanwhile, consent is not a trump card for those scenarios ineligible to marry. Your gay emphasis is not substantive and does not match your own terms for SSM argumentation. The marriage law does not justly arrange, as you might put it, for consent to be used as a trump card over the lines of eligiblity and ineligiblity. Likewise, it would be unjust to arrange for gay identity to become a trump card in that way.
Since there is no “straight” requirement in the law; that lack of a legal requirement is decisively against your gay emphasis. Two “straight” women are as ineligible as two “gay” men; however, a gay man-woman duo would be eligible because there is no straight crtierion for eligiblity to marry.
Your political demand that all unions of husband and wife be treated as if they lacked either husbands or wives — so that they be treated identical to the one-sexed scenario — is already an example of your using pro-gay bigotry to undermine marriage law, the social institution of marriage, the special status of the core meaning of marriage, and marriages far and wide.
You might not want gay identity to be used against the gay identity group, but you sure are looking for gay identity politics to unjustly supersede all other considerations.
Emma, the SSM idea is a rejection of the marriage idea. Your SSM idea is not as you wish to describe it; the conflict of ideas does not make the pro-SSM side pro-marriage but rather anti-marriage.
The ways and means used by the SSM campaign are bigoted; the SSM idea, as presented by the SSM campaign, is itself a bigoted idea. Your attempt to recast the anti-marriage crusade as pro-marriage might depend on the alchemy of gay identity politics but support for marriage depends on the core meaning of the social institution which the SSM idea rejects.
That core: integration of the sexes (see the man-woman basis of marriage law), provision for responsible procreation (see the marital presumption of paternity of marriage law), and these combined as a coherent whole (see the foundational social institution of civil society).
Glenn E. Chatfield, the SSMers will use namecalling because their pro-gay bigotry requires them to pre-emptively accuse others of the very thing they themselves have indulged in. Their bigotry is on display and is at the root of their hyper-emotional disatisfaction with the special place that the core meaning of marriage has in our legal system and culture. Since marriage is perceived by them as a “straight” institution, that institution must be turned inside out; and their hyped-up charges of hatred and the like provide cover for the profound flaws in their pro-SSM argumentation. Their gay emphasis does not even withstand their own terms of argumentation.
So, in my view, it is reasonable to expect a civil discourse on marriage to respect disagreement, it is not realistic to expect the hardcore SSMers to settle for anything less than a complete refusal to allow that there is moral, ethical, and legal principles that justify the special status of the core meaning of marriage. It must be torn down so that their gay identity politics can be built-up. SSM is merely the political vehicle for this wider and more insiduous purpose.
@Rob Tisinai It is 100% true. Any other sexual orientation is denied the rights demanded by homophiles, even by homophiles! A polygynist has a sexual orientation for more than one woman, yet he is denied the right to marry more than one woman. A pedophile is oriented towards the young people, yet is denied the right to marry pre-teens (and usually anyone younger that 16 – depending on the state). (Oh, and don’t give that crap about children not being able to consent – we see consenting children pregnant all the time, and age of consent laws are reducing the age around the world so as to cater to the pedophiles. An don’t forget NAMBLA, the pederast bunch). The man who has a strong orientation towards his adult daughter is denied marriage. Same with mother/son, brother/sister. You deny those orientations. What about zoophilia, necrophilia and every other bizarre sexual orientation? You marginalize them, make all sorts of excuses why those aren’t valid, yet to those people, just like to homophiles, their orientation is just as valid.
@Sean No there not an individual right to marriage. Marriage has qualifications. If it was just an unrestricted right, then anyone could be married at any age to anyone or anything. There are qualifications to marriage, and those qualifications restrict it to opposite sex couples.
@Emma Pro-marriage is indeed just a term, but you were condemning “pro-marriage” advocates for restricting marriage. How about respecting their context when they say they are pro-marriage. Your idea of pro-marriage is anything goes. Marry a goat if you’d like.
Emma: “Just to follow your line of thinking, folks carrying “Pro-marriage” signs while rallying to prevent certain citizens from marrying are hypocrites. Just saying.”
You have reinforced my original point about red herrings. Instead of staying on track and addressing the video, you are changing the subject. I was discussing the video, and you did not address my point; instead of addressing my point, you want to divert it to calling marriage supporters hypocrites. It’s a good trick and many people fall for it, but I won’t. The fact is that the video clearly shows people “giving the bird” while SIMULTANEOUSLY showing a piece of paper saying, “I support love.”
And I’m supposed to accept the definition of marriage from people who do this, and from people like you who support them?
“I think you need to read up on what a red herring is, JT.”
Sean your psyops tactics are showing. Just continue to ignore what people say; insist they don’t know what they’re talking about regardless of how persuasively they make their arguments; accuse them of being ignorant; cast your red herrings (and other logical fallacies) about and insist they’re on target. Just keep doing it over and over and over and over, precisely the way you’re being instructed by whoever is encouraging you to be here. Some will fall for it.
And I’m supposed to accept the definition of marriage from people like you who deliberately use logical fallacies and propaganda techniques to make your point?
Glenn, you wrote: ““That’s why they were able to get laws passed against “discrimination” for sexual orientation – that is unless that orientation is something other than homosexuality!”
False. Laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation apply to gays and straights in exactly the same way.
@JT
And we’re supposed to accept the definition of marriage from people like Newt Gingrich, currently on wife number three, former mistress?
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“There are qualifications to marriage, and those qualifications restrict it to opposite sex couples.”
Actually, in my state they do not. They say a man may not marry his sister or mother or daughter etc, but they don’t restrict his choice to women.
I think there is an individual right to marriage, in that everyone has an equal right to marry, there can’t be any people prohibited from marrying. But there are qualifications on at what age everyone can marry, and what relationships are eligible. Marriage and procreation are synonymous in that sentence. All the relationships that can procreate together can marry, and vice versa. (There are different penalties and crimes from having sex with people we are prohibited from marrying, adultery is not the same as incest and statutory rape or fornication)
All the relationships that can procreate together can marry, and vice versa.
So in your view, the elderly and infertile may not marry?
Emma wrote-
And we’re supposed to accept the definition of marriage from people like Newt Gingrich, currently on wife number three, former mistress?
Ah, hypocrisy.
A charge that can only be used against people that have a set of standards in the first place.
Emma, JT has you pegged, as your most recent comment illustrated, again.
@Paul H
“It certainly clarifies things for me: You believe that two wrongs DO make a right. Or to put it a different way, you believe that bad behavior by one group justifies bad behavior by another group. (If I’m wrong, please let me know. But this seems to be what you are clearly saying.)”
You’re wrong. That’s not what I said. I’m starting to feel like I’m the only native speaker of English in here sometimes! What I said was, when someone is denied a fundamental right, he or she gets angry, maybe even does or says stupid things. It’s understandable, given what gay and lesbian Americans go through, now that the nation’s religionists feel empowered to “defend” marriage and quite actively work to deny equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians.
I didn’t say marriage equality activists were justified as a response to other peoples’ bad behavior, but rather, because of the injustice perpetrated on them. Is that clearer now?
“Sean, you cheapen the very principle of consent. It is no mere “tradition”. And, no, the man-woman basis of marriage does not require arranged marriages. Your thinking has become unhinged just to serve your contrarism.”
Actually I strengthen it. Fewer limitations means greater consent. When a gay man marries your daughter, for lack of other choices, he is giving less consent: his real desire lies elsewhere, but he’s willing to use your daughter for whatever companionship she might be able to provide.
My thinking remains as clear as a bell.
“You said: “only straight people have married in the past”.
Only straight couples then. Is that better? Gay marriage is a recent phenomenon, long overdue, of course.
“Gay is a socio-political identity; no socio-political identity is a “uncontrollable biological fact”
Sexual orientation is an uncontrollable biological urge. In fact, it shouldn’t be controlled or altered, despite the proclamations of religionists. I’ll stick with the medical community on this one.
“Since there is no “straight” requirement in the law”
Yes, there is. In 45 states, you have to be a straight in order to marry, that is, you must be a part of an opposite-sex (i.e., straight) couple. There’s no reason to use gender or sexual orientation to determine whom may marry or not.
“Your political demand that all unions of husband and wife be treated as if they lacked either husbands or wives — so that they be treated identical to the one-sexed scenario — is already an example of your using pro-gay bigotry to undermine marriage law, the social institution of marriage, the special status of the core meaning of marriage, and marriages far and wide.”
The only difference between different-sex couples and same-sex couples is genitalia. It is hard to imagine, in this day and age, that we would be a society that worships certain combinations of genitalia. That sounds very stone age to me, like the ancient phallic rituals of long ago in some societies. In practical terms, both kinds of couples live together, share resources, share a commitment, and raise children. So the important aspects of the relationship are identical.
“You might not want gay identity to be used against the gay identity group, but you sure are looking for gay identity politics to unjustly supersede all other considerations.”
And you want straight identity politics to supersede all other considerations. Why?
@Rob Tisinai Sorry, but you are wrong. There is no law preventing discriminating against incestuous couples, or pedophiles, or adulterers, or zoophiles, etc. the only “orientation” singled out is homosexuality and its various subsets.
@Emma Newt Gingrich didn’t make the definition of marriage – God did, and society has held to that definition for thousands of years.
@JT
“Sean your psyops tactics are showing. Just continue to ignore what people say; insist they don’t know what they’re talking about regardless of how persuasively they make their arguments; accuse them of being ignorant; cast your red herrings (and other logical fallacies) about and insist they’re on target. Just keep doing it over and over and over and over, precisely the way you’re being instructed by whoever is encouraging you to be here. Some will fall for it.
And I’m supposed to accept the definition of marriage from people like you who deliberately use logical fallacies and propaganda techniques to make your point?”
LOL, I think it’s called making an argument. I’m sorry you’re defenseless in countering it! I don’t ignore what people say, I’ve been very persistent in refuting ignorant statements, falsehoods and the occasional hate-based comment. Unless and until someone can articulate why same-sex couples must not be permitted to marry at law, I will have no choice but to maintain my point of view.
I don’t think you have to accept anything. No one will make you marry a same-sex person, ever. I promise you. It’s unfortunate that this legal matter has been derailed and shifted to a political one by religionists and conservatives. The majority does not get to determine the rights of a minority, even if it doesn’t like that minority.
It’s interesting that someone with a different point of view is engaging in propaganda and logical fallacies. How convenient for you. Have you googled other websites and organizations for more information and less “propaganda”? I recommend The Economist magazine debate, where Maggie Gallagher’s inane “children need a mommy and a daddy!” argument got trounced and mocked. Go to the nation’s leading medical organizations and read their policy positions on same-sex marriage. Visit the American Bar Association and see what their position on the matter is. Various religious organizations wish to marry their members, regardless of sexual orientation. See what they have to say on the matter. Just for starters.
@John Howard Whether your state has such restrictions is irrelevant. Man’s laws are not always right and moral, or have you forgotten slavery? God’s qualifications for marriage restricts it to opposite sex unions, and this has been the qualifications throughout history. Fiat immoral decisions by activist judiciary and legislatures, against the will of the majority of the people they represent, and even overturning Constitutional amendments by fiat, are still wrong.
Glenn declares:
“No there not an individual right to marriage.”
Um, yes there is. Thanks to the US Supreme Court.
“If it was just an unrestricted right, then anyone could be married at any age to anyone or anything. There are qualifications to marriage, and those qualifications restrict it to opposite sex couples.”
No one’s asking for it to be unrestricted: I think we can all agree that six-year-olds shouldn’t get married. But any restrictions must be constitutionally permissible. In this case, some states are treating straight people differently than gay people, with no public purpose. Other than, possible, to support notions of straight supremacy.
“Since there is no “straight” requirement in the law”
Sean wrote-
“Yes, there is. In 45 states, you have to be a straight in order to marry, that is, you must be a part of an opposite-sex (i.e., straight) couple. ”
No, Sean. No one is asked their orientation when they apply for a marriage license. There is no discrimination.
You are being willfully obtuse.
Sean, the man-woman basis of marriage and of marriage law is not an injustice. Quite the contrary. The SSM idea lacks justification. Imposing it would be unjust.
Sean you limited consent by describing it as merely a tradition. Your reply to that point was to dodge that point.
Sean,
“Only straight couples then. Is that better?”
Nope. Only man-woman duos. You keep pressing identity politics into marriage.
“Sexual orientation is an uncontrollable biological urge. In fact, it shouldn’t be controlled or altered”.
Whether what you asserted is scientifically sound or not, it is irrelevant since you have conceded that SSM would not be a sexual type of relationship at law. But you did refer to the socio-political identity which, as your shifted reply now concedes, is not an uncontrollable biological urge.
Sean said: “you have to be a straight in order to marry, that is, you must be a part of an opposite-sex (i.e., straight) couple.”
The first part of that sentence merely repeates the second part. The sentence is false. There is no straight criterion for eligilbity to marry. As I said, one of the four anti-8 litigants was married, she the wife to her husband. She is hardly the only example of this.
You now appear to concede that your SSM idea would segregate not just by sex but also by sexual orientation. Yet SSM is not a sexual type of relationship, at law, as you have already conceded, anyway. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to the law you envisage for SSM.
Sean, just because the SSM campaign is all about gay identity politics does not mean that the defense of marriage, myself, or the core meaning of marriage is all about identity politics. Quite the contrary.
If you need to find a mirror image of your pro-gay emphasis, then, look in the mirror. In terms of integration of the sexes and provision for responsible procreation, marriage, at the core, is not restricted by identity politics of any kind. In contrast, the SSM idea as promoted by the rhetoric of the SSM campaign, and by your own rhetoric, is applauded as having been constructed from gay identity politics.
Sean, you said a falsehood in hopes that your own reliance on gay identity politics might be excused. Neither my argumentation nor the defense of marriage sets up identity politics to supersede all other considerations.
Far from it.
But when you try to excuse your reliance on identity politics by accusing me of what your argumentation and rhetoric is built on, well, readers can take that as an open admission that you know the SSM campaign does seek to have gay identity politics supersede all other considerations. You just think that is excusable somehow.
Sean said: “Unless and until someone can articulate why same-sex couples must not be permitted to marry at law, I will have no choice but to maintain my point of view.”
It has been articulated. But you have no choice but to argue your point of view, as full of blatant contradictions and falsehoods as your own commentary has revealed.
Sean said:
“No one’s asking for it to be unrestricted […] But any restrictions must be constitutionally permissible. In this case, some states are treating straight people differently than gay people”.
Your own argumentation provides no just basis for limits on eligilbity to SSM. We have discussed your shrugs regarding incestuous and polygamous-like SSM and group-SSM. You have offered no justification for restricting eligiblity based on the SSM idea itself.
Meanwhile, for marriage law the gay-straight dichotomy is a no-show: there is no gay criterion for ineliglity and no straight criterion for eligilbity.
However, Identity politics is highly relevant to the SSM campaign. Instead of equal treatment of the people who populate the nonmarriage category, SSMers emphasize their favoritism for the gay subset of nonmarriage. But their argumentation does not match their rhetoric. There would be no gay criterion for those who’d SSM. There is no such requirement in the law where SSM has been imposed; and the SSM campaign proposes no such criterion. And SSMers, such as yourself, have conceded that SSM at law would not be a sexual type of relationship, anyway, so your conflation of gay identity and same-sex sexual orientation turns out to be a no-show, too.
@Glenn: “Sorry, but you are wrong. There is no law preventing discriminating against incestuous couples, or pedophiles, or adulterers, or zoophiles, etc. the only “orientation” singled out is homosexuality and its various subsets.”
Glenn, you need to be more careful with that word “only.” Sexual orientation non-discrimination laws treat straight and gay exactly the same way. Exactly. So it is false to say the “only” orientation covered is homosexuality. Heterosexuality is covered as well.
Sorry, I meant “can” as in, “is allowed to” not “is capable of.”
I should have said: “All relationships that are allowed to procreate are allowed to marry, and vice versa.”
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“Whether your state has such restrictions is irrelevant.”
It’s not at all irrelevant whether a state allows same-sex marriage or not. My point to you was that my state and many other states do not restrict marriage to opposite sex couples. I think that all states, every state, should restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, and that when people forget or ignore that some states allow same-sex marriage, it causes complacency to set in.
@Sean The US Supreme Court said there was a right to slavery – did that make it truly a right?
OH, so you want only SOME restrictions removed from marriage. By what moral standard can you justify not allowing children to be married? Or parents to children, or siblings, or multiple partners?
The Constitution does NOT permit marriage other than what was recognized by its authors as real marriage; i.e., OSM. SSM would never have even been considered in a sane and rational society. No one is treating homophiles differently than normal people when marriage is refused to them, any more than brothers and sisters are being treated differently when marriage is refused them. The definition of marriage does not include SSM. That is a fact of life for thousands of years. Your whining that it is fair treatment is like an orange complaining about unfair treatment by not being allowed in an apple pie.
It is not about “straight supremacy” (ah, another victim card), it’s about what is right and proper. Homosexual relations are certainly “supreme” in that they are the proper use of the human body, proper use of human sexuality, and the only way procreation takes place.
@ Sean: “Sexual orientation is an uncontrollable biological urge. In fact, it shouldn’t be controlled or altered”.
I forgot to address this one. “uncontrollable urge”?!?!?!? Behavior is always controllable. Would you let the pedophile get by with that claim?
Desire is not the same as behavior. I’m dying to eat a gallon of ice cream. That doesn’t mean I do it.
Humans cannot control sexual longings, and there’s no reason to try to. Sexual longings are morally neutral and natural.
“Homosexual relations are certainly “supreme” in that they are the proper use of the human body, proper use of human sexuality, and the only way procreation takes place.”
I guess you were fuming so hard at the thought of committed same-sex couples that you wrote that in haste LOL.
Either the individual governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.
@Sean We aren’t talking about “longings,” we’re talking about putting longings into action – i.e. behavior, which way SSM is about! Oh, and longings ARE NOT morally neutral. LOnging for same-sex, longing for children, longing for animals, longing for others’ spouses – are all morally wrong.
@Sean Sometimes typos get in the way – but you obviously knew what I meant.
“We aren’t talking about “longings,” we’re talking about putting longings into action – i.e. behavior, which way SSM is about! Oh, and longings ARE NOT morally neutral. LOnging for same-sex, longing for children, longing for animals, longing for others’ spouses – are all morally wrong.”
What are you talking about? Society has already legalized same-sex sex. That ship sailed when the Supreme Court legalized adult consensual sex in 2003. And yes, longings are morally neutral, actions are not. How you feel is just, well, how you feel. Acting on those feelings could result in immoral behavior, though.
Let’s talk about the morality of forcing innocent children to live outside of wedlock. Why is this immoral behavior acceptable to you?
@Sean Making something legal does not make it right and moral. Remember, slavery was legal. Abortion is legal. Prostitution is legal in many places. But none of these is moral or approved by God. So drop the idea that making something legal makes it right.
No, longings are not morally neutral. Some longings in and of themselves are morally wrong; Jesus said to just look at a woman with longing is committing adultery in one’s heart.
And who is forcing children to live outside of wedlock? If a child is forced to live among same-sex couples, he is certainly living outside of wedlock, since wedlock is between opposite-sex couples.
“Making something legal does not make it right and moral.”
Making something illegal doesn’t it wrong and immoral, especially in the case of marriage. Let straight couples marry, but not gay couples, makes no sense. And it harms children, who are better off when their parents are married.
“And who is forcing children to live outside of wedlock?”
The governments of 45 states.
Children are not better off when the SSM idea is imposed as the unjust replacement of the marriage idea. Children are not mandatory for those who’d SSM, and, according to SSM argumentation, this lack is decisive. Children and SSM are disconnected and SSMers know it.
Argh, Chairm, where were you when Sean and Mark clearly stated that they believe same-sex couples should be allowed to manufacture children that are their biological offspring? They know that their argumentation depends on demanding an equal right to create offspring with someone of the same sex. Are you in agreement with them or are you going to tell them that they are wrong and start arguing that only a married (or marriage-eligible) man and a woman should have that right?
@Sean
Children are often forced by the adults on whose care they depend to live in much less than ideal circumstances.
They are not in a position to complain about those circumstances, which may include alcoholism, abuse, divorce, and same-gender sexual relationships.
We as a society must discourage adults from foisting their perverse choices on helpless children, who deserve to live in a peaceful environment with their own loving mother and father.
@Sean Making it illegal for same-sex couples to marry certainly does make sense. We make laws to protect society, and homosexual unions degrade society. In those 45 states, if they allowed SSM, the children would still be living outside of wedlock. SSM is not wedlock – it is just a weed.
@John Howard So how do same-sex couples procreate offspring?
“Children and SSM are disconnected”
Just like OSM, no one needs to have children in order to get or stay married. But if a couple is raising children together, those children are much better off if their parents were married. That’s because married binds the couple together, and helps to keep them together to finish the important work of raising the children. Unmarried couples can more easily part company, leaving children in distress.
“Children are not better off when the SSM idea is imposed as the unjust replacement of the marriage idea.”
Same-sex marriage isn’t replacing different-sex marriage. It’s just extending the right to marry to same-sex couples, instead of limiting that right to opposite-sex couples. Leading medical organizations assure us that children are better off when their same-sex parents are married. Since research supports this kind of notion for different-sex parents, it just makes sense that it would also be true for same-sex parents.
Children, regardless of who their parents are, need and deserve security, in order to achieve their best chance at healthy, productive adulthoods.
It doesn’t really matter exactly how it would be done, it would be unethical whether it was done using stem cell derived artificial gametes, or synthetic DNA like was used to create a bacterium last year, or parthenogenesis like was used to make Kaguya the fatherless mouse in 2004, or the chimera technique used to make the motherless mouse last year.
@Sean
“Since research supports this kind of notion for different-sex parents, it just makes sense that it would also be true for same-sex parents.”
Since research tells us that children need water, will we give them just hydrogen and call it “water”?
“Children, regardless of who their parents are, need and deserve security, in order to achieve their best chance at healthy, productive adulthoods.”
Being deprived of a mother or a father is a loss. This loss should not be made more permanent.
Then Ruth, work to outlaw same-sex parenting and single parenting, if you truly believe these are destructive to children. Outlawing same-sex marriage only forces the children of same-sex couples to be raised outside of wedlock, which is a terrible punishment to place on a child. Besides, what is a child to think when he realizes that society thinks his parents aren’t good enough to get married, like his friends’ parents?
We could be creating a generation of troubled children, told that their parents, and potentially themselves, aren’t good enough for proper society. Religionists will blame the parents for being same-sex’d, when the actual problem is the bad messages being sent regarding society’s disdain for the parents.
If your concern is about dual-gender parenting, then obviously you have no objection to same-sex childless couples marring. Is that correct?
The SSM idea and the marriage idea are in conflict. Imposing SSM means replacement of the marriage idea with the SSM idea. All unions of husband and wife would be treated as if they lacked either husbands or wives. That would be unjust. But that is the SSM idea.
@Sean Children are NEVER better off in a same-sex union. They are then brainwashed to thinking such perversion is okay, and have a skewed understanding of human sexuality, and a large percentage become homophiles – a destructive lifestyle.
“OSM” is tautological – there is only one kind of real marriage.
Marriage is not an unqualified right no matter how many times you say it.
Children of SSM would not have a chance at a “healthy” adulthood, and SSM does not give security of normal marriages; SSM and SS unions are short-lived.
“The SSM idea and the marriage idea are in conflict.”
Only in your head. Straight people will still be permitted to get married, when same-sex marriage is legal everywhere. No state so far that has legalized marriage equality has outlawed OSM. The OSM idea is discriminatory and irrationally so. There is no reason that achieves a public or social purpose to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. None that have come out in any trials or other public fora, from what I’ve read.
@Sean You keep referring to “OSM.” That is a tautology. The only real marriage is between opposite sex people. You keep calling it discriminatory, as if you your continued claim it will somehow magically make it so. Sorry, lad, Marriage has always had a definition that has not included SSM. Only by by turning the world upside down and redefining words have the liberal judiciary been able to claim such a noxious weed exists.
@Sean
I will continue to state the obvious; that a motherless or fatherless home, however constituted, represent a loss to a child.
I hope, pray, and vote that our public policy will reflect that fact.
A good single parent will certainly acknowledge their child’s loss of either a mother or a father.
What a child will realize is that his parents did not think it was important enough for him to have a mother or a father to make that a priority in their own lives.
Society must agree with his recognition of loss, just as we agree that an orphan has lost someone, or that the child of an alcoholic has experienced loss.
It is cruel to do otherwise.
Disdain for the parents? No.
Respect for the dependent children and their needs? Yes.
@Ruth Thank you, Ruth, for that excellent thought!
“I will continue to state the obvious; that a motherless or fatherless home, however constituted, represent a loss to a child.”
And I will continue to state the fact: yours is an opinion unsupported by evidence. The loss of a parent represents a loss to a child. Not having one or the other gender represented is not a loss. There is growing evidence that two lesbians turn out the best adjusted kids. What is a loss, too, is for a child to find out the he lives in such a homophobic society that it won’t even let his lesbian parents get married, like they’re some kind of misfits or something. That’s a horrible message to send to a child.
“A good single parent will certainly acknowledge their child’s loss of either a mother or a father.”
Not if that absent parent expressed no interest in the child, or was abusive. You make a lot of generalizations, and are hurting people by doing so.
Readers will note that Sean switched from what I had actually said to his misrepresentation.
The SSM idea is bereft of justification for special status (marital status is a special status). It is bereft of justification for copy-pasting the limits on eligilbity that are based on the core meaning of marriage — a core meaning (i.e. the marraige idea) that the SSM idea rejects outright.
Even the gay emphasis of Sean’s rhetoric does not survive the terms of his own SSM argumentation. SSM, at law, would not be a sexual type of relationship so sexual orientation is irrelevant. The arbitrary reliance of SSMers on their gaycentric rhetoric demonstrates that they are stuck on stupid. Sean is no exception in that regard.
@Sean
We are at an impasse.
May God bless you and your wife and brother.
Ruth, I hope some day you can open your heart to God’s love and learn to accept all His creatures.
Ruth’s comments are accepting of all of God’s creatures.
Sean’s rhetorical retort is empty-handed.