Ruth Institute Blog

It just isn’t a real parade without bagpipes. EVERYONE knows that…

I think its because of shame. Wishy-washy cultures like ours, corrupt and hypocritical and selfish and piggish and wasteful and imperialistic and generally evil and terrible, have no moral authority, and gays are just ashamed of themselves when they see a woman in a veil, or a man who prays five times a day and takes care of his wife and family. As Gutfield was saying, it’s much easier to protest against someone that looks like Dad, because as a maker of this society they have no moral authority, they’re one of us. Even if they are as pious as a Muslim, they still cannot shame us because they’re still one of us and therefore hypocritical. Muslims aren’t to blame for this society.

@John Howard
“Even if they are as pious as a Muslim, they still cannot shame us because they’re still one of us and therefore hypocritical.”
Are you saying that all Americans are hypocritical?
Is that another way of saying that if anyone one has values, they will inevitably fail to live up to those values?
You are correct that Muslims are not to blame for the problems of our society.
Neither are they responsible for whatever is or has been the good of America.

I happen to be a bagpiper who has marched in many, many parades. As Margaret said, it just isn’t a real parade without the bagpipes!

@John Howard No, the real reason is that homophiles are afraid of Muslims because Muslims won’t tolerate them. They can’t push Muslims around with purchased judges as they do in the USA.

Glenn E. Chatfield :
@John Howard No, the real reason is that homophiles are afraid of Muslims because Muslims won’t tolerate them. They can’t push Muslims around with purchased judges as they do in the USA.

I’m unclear as to what you mean by your repeated use of the term “homophile.” It seems like you are referring specifically to gay men and lesbians, given the context of your statements. But on the other hand, technically a homophile is simply a person who is friendly towards and admiring of and supportive of gay people — akin to a francophile being particularly partial to French wine or an anglophile liking fish & chips. Just for example, all the thousands of straight people who belong to organizations like PFLAG and high school Gay/Straight Alliances or march in Gay Pride parades year after year, including many politicians. Can you clarify?

@Ari I never take anyone serious about the pipes. I get that stuff all the time. I played at two different nursing homes yesterday, one with Irish step dancers. I play shuttle pipes for those events, since the highland pipes would be too noisy. But it’s a great ministry to these people stuck in nursing homes.

@Emma Emma, back at the beginning of the 20th Century, homophile was what those who practiced homosexuality were called in the USA. Etymologically it means “love of sameness” – not being “friendly towards and admiring of and supportive of….” You just made that up. An Anglophile is one who loves the English in more than fish & chips, and a Francophile loves things French more than just wine. I am an Anglophile because of my heritage and I like all sorts of things about the English country, language, etc. You need to look up the meanings of these words!

Somewhere along the line the Germans came up with the idea of “gay” for male homosexuals and it took hold in the USA. Well, “gay” has a real meaning – happy. I don’t like words being abused by people with an agenda, and I think homophile is a much more definitive word. While I prefer to use the word “sodomite” for males especially, that becomes inflammatory. So I will stick to “homophiles” rather than “gays and lesbians.” It is more succinct.

On the other hand, another word developed a century ago identifying those who were supportive of homophiles and their agenda is “homosexualist” – and I happen to like that word also. So I will speak of homophiles and their homosexualist supporters.

“Of course, gay groups in the USA have not been shy to protest Mormons and other religious groups because of their opposition to marriage redefinition.”

If a religious group were trying to prevent me from enjoying equal rights under the law, I would be kind of angry too! If Mormons and Catholics don’t want to be criticized, don’t do things there deserve criticism.

If you don’t object to legal divorce, or atheists getting married, it’s a very odd thing to object to same-sex couples getting married!

@Glenn

I would also note that the new definition of gay effectively destroyed the old definition.

Ari, do you think I have a credibility problem? In what way?

Ruth Institute DOES harm gay and lesbian couples, as well as the children and relatives of these couples, by advocating a public policy of marriage discrimination. There are real, tangible harms. I have been anything but cowardly in vocally opposing such discrimination.

@Sean
Is Ruth Institute opposed to Civil Unions that give all the benefits and protections of marriage except the right to create offspring? I am not sure either. But you are, and that opposition hurts gay and lesbian couples and the children and relatives of those couples.

Ari, I don’t think that Sean even read the article or most of your comments about it. Or at least he is conveniently pretending that he didn’t, since he completely sidesteps the issue of Islam.

Look, Sean is essentially a troll. He repeats his standard talking points on practically every post, even when it has little to do with the subject at hand.

Enh. I think it’s complicated. Like most christians, most muslims, even if the don’t approve of homosexuality, aren’t going to actually go kill them. It’s not right to avoid hurting one religions sensibilities if you’re not worried about anothers.

Of course, they may be more sensitive because Muslims in the western world are also a minority, and not always treated nicely.

John Howard, the LAW is against civil unions targeted at gay and lesbian Americans: they represent a “separate but equal” accommodation, forbidden under statute and case law. I’d be all for them, if any couple had the choice to either get married or civilly joined. That’s not the case. Religionists and other homophobes appear to want to reserve marriage for straight people, and civil unions for gay people. That’s legally impermissible.

“He repeats his standard talking points on practically every post, even when it has little to do with the subject at hand.”

Well, until my “talking points” sink in, and so long as there is a thriving hate-gay-for-pay industry, I guess I’ll just have to keep repeating my “talking points.” I think I’ve been really patient at pointing out the constitutional impermissibility of discriminating against gay and lesbian Americans, how denying them access to marriage hurts them and their health and financial well-being, and also hurts their children. Children are better off, more secure, when their parents are married.

With all this injustice, it’s worth repeating “talking points” until the folks who don’t “get it”, get it.

@Sean Sean you keep citing the same irrelevant things. Why would Christians be against divorce when God permits divorce? And atheists marrying is also fine– as long as they are different sex couples. You have so many strawmen and red herrings, it’s no wonder your arguments don’t make sense. Try sticking to the subject at hand. You are cowardly against Muslims because you know they will cause harm.

@Leo I don’t accept people redefining words just to suit their agenda. “Gay” was stolen so as to sanitize an disgusting sexual practice. Point away from the behavior and make the focus all about “love.” I don’t buy it propaganda

If Muslims get in control of a country, they institute their laws, and in the countries with Muslim control, homophiles are indeed executed, as are adulterers.

@Sean
“John Howard, the LAW is against civil unions targeted at gay and lesbian Americans: they represent a “separate but equal” accommodation, forbidden under statute and case law. I’d be all for them, if any couple had the choice to either get married or civilly joined. That’s not the case. Religionists and other homophobes appear to want to reserve marriage for straight people, and civil unions for gay people. That’s legally impermissible.”

The Civil Unions I proposed, as I specified in the comment but you ignored, would not be “equal” because they would explicitly not have conception rights to create offspring, and the effect of marriage would be unified across all states to approve and protect the right to conceive offspring from the couple’s own genes. I believe Maggie has said she would support CU’s provided they were able to be permanently kept unequal and separate from marriage. And the courts have certainly said that unequal things should have different names.

And I don’t think they should be reserved for gay couples, I think any two people that don’t want approval to procreate should be allowed to get these CUs, even siblings and mother-son pairs. Yes, it might be abused for social security benefits or some other reason, but so could marriage be abused, so we’ll just have to hope not too many people do that. It wouldn’t really hurt anyone, just cost a little money. But if it helps resolve the marriage debate and stop human manufacture and preserves the rights of marriage, it’d be worth it.

I still don’t understand why you’re so determined to connect marriage with the right to procreate. All humans have the right to procreate; that’s a basic human right. The state may have some say about how it’s done but not much. You’re inventing a new ethical “wrong,” same-sex couple procreation, based on what? You’ve deem it unethical. Your personal opinion.

Marital status does not effect one’s right to procreate. You’ve wasted a lot of electronic ink insisting that same-sex couples not be allowed to get married so that they won’t procreate. Yet they don’t have to marry in order to procreate, once the technology arrives.

“I believe Maggie has said she would support CU’s provided they were able to be permanently kept unequal and separate from marriage. And the courts have certainly said that unequal things should have different names.”

Maggie who? And who cares what she thinks! Civil unions were created with the express intent to create a separate class for same-sex relationships, to appease straight people. Many straight people believe that straight relationships are superior to gay relationships, based on nothing but personal self-aggrandizement and/or animosity towards gay people.

While civil unions served a valuable purpose in getting people to recognize the inherent value of committed same-sex relationships, and the need for legal protection of these relationships, they are inherently illegal. There is no rational public purpose to have separate institutions for adult relationships, based on sexual orientation. Period. We’ve been down this road before, only between whites and blacks. It is almost unbelievable that we’re doing it again, this time because once again, religionists want different but equal groups treated differently, despite the law.

“I think any two people that don’t want approval to procreate….”

I really think you need help. Can you name one couple, straight or gay, who got married in order to have anybody’s approval for anything, let alone approval to procreate? The notion that an American citizen, or the citizen of any country, would need or want the government’s permission or approval to procreate is beyond bizarre.

“But if it helps resolve the marriage debate…”

It doesn’t. It’s like telling blacks they’re welcome to ride the bus, just so long as they sit in the back. Anything less than equality is unacceptable. There’s no reason for gay people to accept second-class status. I hope they don’t.

@Glenn E. Chatfield
What does pointing out the inherent corruption of theocracies have to do with this discussion?

@Sean
A federal law like Margaret Somerville and the PCBE and I have been calling for would Prohibit people from reproducing with someone of their same sex. It wouldn’t be their unmarried status that would prevent that, it would be the new federal law, similar to the way incest laws are what prohibit reproducing with a sibling, not prohibiting siblings from marrying.

Same sex couples would not be equal, they would not have a right to create offspring. That’s the crucial fact you don’t seem to grasp. If we don’t enact a law, if we leave same sex conception legal, then of course we should allow them to marry. You need to rethink your response to me with that understood, as it was based on the assumption that same sex couples would be allowed to create offspring.

The point was that homophiles are afraid of Muslims. And it isn’t a theocracy, it is the religious belief of Muslims.

@Sean “I still don’t understand why you’re so determined to connect marriage with the right to procreate.”

Because those two things were always historically connected. Sean has to pretend amnesia regarding the history of civilization, of English Common Law, and even of his own family history. I guarantee that Sean himself and every one of his ancestors and both his paternal and maternal sides was the product of a heterosexual union, and the vast majority of those unions, at least once humanity had reached the point we call civilization, were marriages. Sean’s ancestors would likely be puzzled by his attitude. Procreation outside of marriage was, of course, possible, but didn’t have the same legal and moral standing, and the children from such unions were considered illegitimate. Marriage was, in effect, a license to have sex (which back in the day meant the only kind of sex that produced children) and to grant the offspring of those unions a certain status, even if fertility wasn’t guaranteed.

Nature, not human law, renders homosexual unions inherently different from heterosexual ones. This difference is not at all like race. Interracial marriages can and do produce children. That is why the segregationists were so opposed to them. The Supreme Court recognized that a difference between race and sex. Baker v. Nelson came after Loving v. Virginia.

Back to the subject of this thread, which Sean conveniently ignores because he wants to hijack the conversation, modern liberalism has become a hierarchy of victimhood and identity politics. Islam, which is flourishing in part because of their strong family values, will be able to steamroller modern liberalism.

Are you harboring stereotypes and bias against your Islamic neighbors?

“Can you name one couple, straight or gay, who got married in order to have anybody’s approval for anything, let alone approval to procreate?”

Those people would be happy with the Civil Unions that didn’t officially approve and legitimize sexual intercourse then, that were defined as “marriage minus conception rights.” But everyone who wanted to feel marriage was a meaningful legal social approval of them having sex together would be able to still get married. Everyone who was waiting for marriage would have something to wait for, and even those that don’t wait for marriage will still be able to enjoy the status and legitimacy of publicly being approved to have sex, just as all their ancestors and everyone else has felt when they got married. People wouldn’t feel guilty in front of their grandmothers about living in sin, because their grandmother would now accept that they were allowed to have sex. They’d be happy for them instead of ashamed of them. Or, if they wanted to annoy their Grandmother, they could get one of these Civil Unions for all the other benefits, and continue to fornicate, without social approval and legal recognition and license to have sex and procreate, without the feeling of legitimacy that all their ancestors and everyone else enjoyed, etc. I don’t see why a couple would choose that if they were eligible to marry, though, do you? It’s clearly substantially less than marriage, for a couple that can marry. But for a couple that can’t marry because they are prohibited from procreating together due to incest laws or statutory rape or natural procreation laws, in other words, couples that can’t procreate anyway, it’d be essentially identical to marriage, and a lot better than nothing, or Designated Beneficiaries or something. (Couples that can’t marry due to one being married already would still not be allowed to CU, because of bigamy laws).

“The notion that an American citizen, or the citizen of any country, would need or want the government’s permission or approval to procreate is beyond bizarre.”

Really? Then you think that marriage is beyond bizarre. That has been the core essential common denominator of marriage since before the 10 Commandments. I think even Hammurabi’s Code comes after marriage: “If a man takes a woman as a wife, but has no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.” No maybe at Hammurabi’s time there was no formal license, no official record, no “by the authority vested in me by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I pronounce you man and wife”, maybe it was done informally, and maybe there was rampant unmarried sex and procreation going on, but nevertheless everyone who took a woman as a wife expected to be getting the government’s approval and permission to have intercourse with her.

@Leo
Um. Please do tell what part of my comment read as harboring bias and stereotypes.

@Leo
Still waiting.

“What does pointing out the inherent corruption of theocracies have to do with this discussion?”

Please document your point about inherent corruption.

@Glenn E. Chatfield
Germans came up with ‘gay’? Rubbish. Unless you are talking some Anglo-Saxon commonality hundreds of years ago.

@Glenn E. Chatfield Too late. No-one but a few old folk now dispute the double meaning of the word gay.