Today on Blogcritics
Home » Liberal Groups Demand the Exclusion of Groups That Exclude Groups

Liberal Groups Demand the Exclusion of Groups That Exclude Groups

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

From Agape Press:

Several liberal organizations are displeased that the Colorado-based men’s ministry Promise Keepers has been granted permission to use facilities at the University of Arkansas for one of its stadium events. Critics claim PK is non-inclusive and intolerant and should therefore be precluded from visiting the campus.

Next month, Promise Keepers will be holding a conference at Razorback Stadium on the University of Arkansas campus in Fayetteville. However, groups like the Arkansas chapter of the National Organization for Women, the Washington County Green Party, and the Omni Center for Peace, Justice, and Ecology want the Christian men’s outreach organization barred from the campus. PK is being accused of intolerance of non-Christian religions and promoting a narrow-minded viewpoint.

I think the headline I used pretty much says it all. George Orwell would be proud — or would he be frightened?

cross posted at JackLewis.net

Powered by

About Danny Carlton

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    “several liberal groups?”

    Could that be more vague? And, no the link does not elaborate in the slightest.

    Why is this important to you? Why do you believe “Agape Press? Why did you make this post?

    Ask some more questions and maybe do a little research yourself ???

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Clarification – groups are mentioned but just, that mentioned. Nothing about if or what they said. “However, groups like … ”

    “Such as” would be the correct phrase there.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I think the headline I used pretty much says it all. George Orwell would be proud — or would he be frightened?

    He probably would be bored with this post and with biased agape press.

    Liberal groups work for tolerance and diversity among us all, if there are groups out there, like almost all conservative Christian ones, that are hellbent on ostracizing and condemning others, then it is perfectly natural to not want to be around them. You don’t have to tolerate the intolerant and you can still be a tolerant person.

    I thought Promise Keepers had been on the verge of bankruptcy for several years ever since the news reported how they teach their Christian males that a woman’s place is in the home and subservient. They still hangin on?

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    “Liberal groups work for tolerance and diversity among us all.” What a crock of Mydol inducing cramps.

    Good grief. Steve S. your argument can be made by both sides. Liberal groups have no lock on virtue and are intolerant of others with whom they disagree.

    They are only interested in thinksame groups. Anyone whose assumptions conflict with theirs is, *surprise*, not tolerated. Some liberal groups “are hellbent on ostracizing and condemning others” because they are Christian. Some Christians think homosexuality is a sin. They don’t tolerate it and I don’t see that, in a free country, they have to.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    tolerate murder?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    yeah, plainavy, it works both ways. When I was referring to liberal groups, I was speaking in the context of the ACLU and it’s supporter organizations, not the whole liberal field. Sorry for not being clearer.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    They don’t tolerate it and I don’t see that, in a free country, they have to.

    On an individual level, I don’t think they have to, in a free country either, as long as another’s right isn’t infringed upon in some way. It’s a societal wide intolerance on a large scale, from one group to another, that is unacceptable, rights always get trampled on in cases like that.

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    Murder is one of the Ten Commandments–Christians are bound to uphold that, even if in an imperfect world that standard isn’t always upheld.

    The ACLU–tolerates Nazis, pedophiles, and KKKers. But not Christians. No wonder the Dems lost 2004.

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    The Commandment against murder, that is!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    The Dems lost 2004 because of the ACLU? Kerry will love to hear that.

    as far as them ‘tolerating’ those groups, refer to a famous quote by Voltaire. I’m not sure why you brought them up, they aren’t mentioned in the article above.

  • Bennett

    “No wonder the Dems lost 2004.”

    How does this come into the conversation? Are you saying that ALL Christians are Republicans?

    Are there NO Christian Democrats?

    Hey, get a clue!

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    The Dems lost b/c of liberal bias (and resultant hubris) against Christian red staters. Steven S. brought the ACLU into the conversation as the intended “liberal group” of his previous post: “When I was referring to liberal groups, I was speaking in the context of the ACLU….”

    The pitch of “you don’t have to tolerate the intolerant, and still be tolerant,” is just self-contradictory nonsense. It’s a way to soothe one’s hate with the angelic balm of asserting one’s essential goodness.

    To that remarkable rejoinder, “Hey, get a clue!” everybody, or at least I thought everybody, knows that one of the defining characteristics of the Red Staters is a pronounced proclivity for Christianity, whereas every schoolboy should know that among the Blue Staters, secular reason is held sacred and the Christian religion is barely tolerated, if at all, even by those who profess to practice it.

  • BillB

    RE Comment 4

    >Some liberal groups “are hellbent on ostracizing and condemning others” because they are Christian.< Christian propaganda. Liberals take issue with Christians who wish to impose they're repressive and exclusionary "morality" on others. I have some lovely Christian friends who wouldn't dream of telling others how to live.

    And then there are those who would withold basic rights because one is gay, or deny personal freedom in choosing to die because only God can take life. Or maybe force a Moslem to listen to Christian prayer in school because we're a "Christian nation". Etc. etc.

    >Some Christians think homosexuality is a sin. They don’t tolerate it and I don’t see that, in a free country, they have to.< What? If it were truly free, their repressive opinions would find no foothold to take root and would simply disappear with the breeze. Currently the so called freedom you speak of equals repression for many.

    >Liberal groups have no lock on virtue and are intolerant of others with whom they disagree.<

    You need to check yourself here Plainavy. Liberal groups are intolerant of INTOLERANCE! Those of us on the liberal end of the spectrum will defend your right to SPEAK your conservative mind – but impose you narrow view of creation and purpose on the rest of us! I don’t think so.

    What some conservatives just don’t get is that liberalism is INCLUSIVE and does not attempt to IMPOSE upon others.

    Pro choice does not mean you MUST get an abortion.

    Pro gay does not mean you MUST be homosexual.

    Pro contraception does not mean you MUST only have sex for pleasure.

    Pro euthanasia does not mean you MUST choose to die.

    Note to REAL conservatives: When are you going to shed the lunatic religious right?

    You’ll do us all a favor when you put them off on their own where they belong.

    Now what DOES liberalism try to impose? Fairness and justice. Does the application of this idea sometimes overstep reasonable bounds of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. Yes. It’s our job to hash this out in an equitable fashion.

    Just how this equity manifests must be colored with respect and compassion or it will be meaningless.

    I believe that true conservatism actually overlaps with true liberalism, as crazy as that may sound to some. True conservatism is more libertarian than activist Christian.

    One, Liberalism, comes to freedom from the notion of individual rights and the other, Conservatism, comes to freedom from the notion of hands off government. True that at times these ideas can colide but they are often in agreement.

    Now don’t get me wrong, there are some wacko liberals as there are wacko conservatives.

    The wacko liberals are not currently running the democratic party.

    Big difference..

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    RE: Comment 13 by BillB

    >Some liberal groups “are hellbent on ostracizing and condemning others” because they are Christian.<>>Christian propaganda. Liberals take issue with Christians who wish to impose they’re repressive and exclusionary “morality” on others. I have some lovely Christian friends who wouldn’t dream of telling others how to live.< <

    But you apparently have some "lovely" liberal friends--so unlike the naughty Christians whom "liberals take issue with"--who are willing to tell Christians what the tenets of their own religion ought to be. The liberal gown is "lovely" but the liberal body it covers is dictatorial.

    >>And then there are those who would withold basic rights because one is gay, or deny personal freedom in choosing to die because only God can take life. Or maybe force a Moslem to listen to Christian prayer in school because we’re a “Christian nation”. Etc. etc.< <

    Or force a Christian to listen to lectures on Islam, or force a Christian to have his or her children given sex education in public school at inappropriate ages, or force a Christian to smile on the sin of homosexuality, or force a Christian to forego the sanctity of gender roles, etc., etc.

    >Some Christians think homosexuality is a sin. They don’t tolerate it and I don’t see that, in a free country, they have to.<>>What? If it were truly free, their repressive opinions would find no foothold to take root and would simply disappear with the breeze. Currently the so called freedom you speak of equals repression for many.< <

    Repression is in the eye of the beholder. If our country were "truly free" your "repressive opinions" wouldn't exist either.

    >Liberal groups have no lock on virtue and are intolerant of others with whom they disagree.<>>You need to check yourself here Plainavy. Liberal groups are intolerant of INTOLERANCE! < <

    Oh claptrap. The "liberal groups" of which you speak are selectively intolerant. They embrace the "right" kind of hate; the kind of hate they approve of.

    And what on earth does my needing to "check" myself mean? Do you mean that I must be silent? That I must self-censor b/c I dare say things that go against the grain of your party line? What hypocrisy! With any luck we might not be talking at cross-purposes in this little informal forum, and already you are demanding my silence. Do you see a problem here?

    >>Those of us on the liberal end of the spectrum will defend your right to SPEAK your conservative mind – but impose you narrow view of creation and purpose on the rest of us! I don’t think so.<<

    Yeah, right after I “check” it and denude it of any thing that might make you think. I AM speaking my conservative mind and what I’m getting from you is one-sided, exclusivist, and intolerant.

    And newsflash: I’m libertarian enough not to want you thrown in jail for spouting your secular liberal angst.

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    RE: continuation on comment 13

    >>What some conservatives just don’t get is that liberalism is INCLUSIVE and does not attempt to IMPOSE upon others.< <

    What some liberals don't get is that liberalism is just as virulent and antagonistic of others' basic beliefs and founding assumptions as the dreaded fundamentalists that liberals are always howling about.

    >>Pro choice does not mean you MUST get an abortion.< <

    But it creates a culture where babies are not sacred, where life is a matter of "choice," where children having babies are encouraged to hide their "decisions" from their parents--that's an anti-family and anti-parent agenda, all stemming from the "innocent" "pro-choice" line on abortion.

    >>Pro gay does not mean you MUST be homosexual.< <

    It's not so simple. Studies of children raised by homosexuals found that those children were more likely to experiment with or adopt that lifestyle. The ever growing prevalence of homosexual representation in the media is likewise probably a catalyst to experimentation. For many Christians, acceptance of homosexuality is not an option precisely b/c there is no middle ground of ongoing stability, in the face of accepted, visible homosexual lifestyles, in gender roles and family structure. Also, to have the homosexual lifestyle and aesthetic thrown into Chritians' and Moslems' faces is painful and disgusting to them. Homosexuality isn't about individuals; it's about a cultural shift that 1 billion Muslims, among others, aren't into.

    >>Pro contraception does not mean you MUST only have sex for pleasure.< <

    But pro-contraceptions takes away the mystique and quality of sex at a cultural level--the proper metaphor is inflation: if the coin is available everywhere, it's worth is less.

    >>Pro euthanasia does not mean you MUST choose to die.<<

    Yeah, I don’t really think euthanasia is that important or defining of an issue. Some Christians, I understand, see it as the thin end of the wedge for the culture of death–a culture that sees life as less than a gift from God, and more of a biological convenience that, given enough inconvenience, should be terminated.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Steve S. brought the ACLU into the conversation as the intended “liberal group” of his previous post

    ooops. I was the one that brought up the ACLU, and then wondered aloud why you mentioned them. I got my threads mixed up.

    Although looking at the list of those who were mentioned in the original post (NOW and the Green Party, et. al), it was a mixup but still keeping it in good company.

  • Bennett

    Where is “Danny Carlton”, and why doesn’t he address any of these issues?

  • BillB

    >But you apparently have some “lovely” liberal friends–so unlike the naughty Christians whom “liberals take issue with”–who are willing to tell Christians what the tenets of their own religion ought to be. The liberal gown is “lovely” but the liberal body it covers is dictatorial.< So you meant >because they areN’T THE RIGHT KIND OF Christian< Thanks for making my point for me.

    >what the tenets of their own religion ought to be.< You're a lost cause. You're not even tolerant of other Christians!

    >lectures on Islam< Do you mean teaching history or world religions? I for that.

    >sex education in public school at inappropriate ages< Here we may agree to some degree.

    >force a Christian to smile on the sin of homosexuality< Smile? Accept to the point of not discriminating against them. But alas your security in your Christianity will likely tumble to the ground in the face of such abomination.

    >or force a Christian to forego the sanctity of gender roles, etc., etc.< Gotta keep those uppity women in the kitchen.

    >Repression is in the eye of the beholder. If our country were “truly free” your “repressive opinions” wouldn’t exist either.< Repression is in the experience of the oppressed. Exactly how are you religiously persecuted?

    >Oh claptrap. The “liberal groups” of which you speak are selectively intolerant. They embrace the “right” kind of hate; the kind of hate they approve of.< In case you didn't get through my whole post I acknowledged wackos of all stripes. Any liberals that hate allow themselves to be led by fear. Same for anyone else.

    >And what on earth does my needing to “check” myself mean? Do you mean that I must be silent?< You wondered then you decided. Wrongly though. I meant analyze yourself and your positions.

    >And newsflash: I’m libertarian enough not to want you thrown in jail for spouting your secular liberal angst.< Huh? If you were more conservative you'd want me in jail?

    >But it creates a culture where babies are not sacred, where life is a matter of “choice,” where children having babies are encouraged to hide their “decisions” from their parents–that’s an anti-family and anti-parent agenda, all stemming from the “innocent” “pro-choice” line on abortion.< I disagree but more to the point you're waaaaay off the point.

    >It’s not so simple. Studies of children…< I disagree but more to the point you're once again waaaaay off the point. Either you don't want to hear it or you can not comprehend.

    >But pro-contraceptions takes away the mystique and quality of sex at a cultural level–the proper metaphor is inflation: if the coin is available everywhere, it’s worth is less.<

    You mean it’s not different for everyone. If I only knew it fit in such a neat little simplistic package.

    Well we obviously are not going to sway each other here. My last word.

    Freedom is sacred.

  • Shark

    Day Five of the Christoid Spam Attack!

    Gee, I wonder if Eric can round up a few hundred other drooling pricks whose idea of an original blog essay is to cut and paste Christoid “press releases” and add profound observations like, “I think the headline I used pretty much says it all. George Orwell would be proud — *or would he be frightened?”

    * (Carlton edited out, “bwahahahaha!” for the sake of brevity!)

    PS: Hey Carlton, John BambiNeck says the bus is leavin’ in a few minutes.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    To quote Orwell/Eric Blair,

    “He learned with astonishment that all the workers in Pornosec, except the heads of the departments, were girls. The theory was that men, whose sex instincts were less controllable than those of women, were in greater danger of being corrupted by the filth they handled.

    ‘They don’t even like having married women there,’ she added. ‘Girls are always supposed to be so pure. Here’s one who isn’t, anyway.’

    She had had her first love-affair when she was sixteen, with a Party member of sixty who later committed suicide to avoid arrest. ‘And a good job too,’ said Julia, ‘otherwise they’d have had my name out of him when he confessed.’ Since then there had been various others. Life as she saw it was quite simple. You wanted a good time; ‘they’, meaning the Party, wanted to stop you having it; you broke the rules as best you couId. She seemed to think it just as natural that ‘they’ should want to rob you of your pleasures as that you should want to avoid being caught. She hated the Party, and said so in the crudest words, but she made no general criticism of it. Except where it touched upon her own life she had no interest in Party doctrine. He noticed that she never used Newspeak words except the ones that had passed into everyday use. She had never heard of the Brotherhood, and refused to believe in its existence. Any kind of organized revolt against the Party, which was bound to be a failure, struck her as stupid. The clever thing was to break the rules and stay alive all the same. He wondered vaguely how many others like her there might be in the younger generation people who had grown up in the world of the Revolution, knowing nothing else, accepting the Party as something unalterable, like the sky, not rebelling against its authority but simply evading it, as a rabbit dodges a dog. “

    Sounds familiar?

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Oops, I missed a key selection of some relevance,

    “…She began to enlarge upon the subject. With Julia, everything came back to her own sexuality. As soon as this was touched upon in any way she was capable of great acuteness. Unlike Winston, she had grasped the inner meaning of the Party’s sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party’s control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship. The way she put it was:

    ‘When you make love you’re using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything. They can’t bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simpIy sex gone sour. If you’re happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?’

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    ==============
    | |
    | Don’t Feed |
    | the |
    | trolls |
    | |
    ==============

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    The trolls? I think you mean the regular members who have been here longer than you. I don’t think a troll fits that definition.

  • JR

    What, just because I’ve been under this bridge for a couple of years now, I can’t be a troll anymore?

    That’s not fair.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I wonder how successful BlogCritics can become if it continues to turn into a Christian evangelical recruiting station.

    You never see those types of sites on any top 100 list. Bad decision if you ask me.

  • Nancy

    Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is a ‘troll’ in the blogging sense of the word? I have a general sense from context, but exactly what behavior/language does it imply? Thanks.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    it implies ‘goading’ or flaming. Somebody who doesn’t want to discuss/debate but wants to just stir shit up. That’s my understanding of the term.

  • gonzo marx

    actually, there are 2 definitions..the one Steve says is most common

    amongst “olde skewl” folks…back in the day of newsgroups, forums and BBS systems..it also implied someone that was in the media quite a bit and read everything..the fishing analogy “trolling for a conversation”

    not always negative…in the Massive Muliplayer gaming world..it can be seen as a sign of Respect and experience..

    here on BC i introduced myself a few months ago as “an olde Troll”

    so you can decide which fits whom

    clarification R us

    Excelsior!

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    >>So you meant >because they areN’T THE RIGHT KIND OF Christian< Thanks for making my point for me.<<

    No, that's what you were suggesting: you only want to celebrate and work with the most liberal Christians, but want to villify or marginalize conservative Christians (the wrong kind in your eyes).

    >what the tenets of their own religion ought to be.<>>You’re a lost cause. You’re not even tolerant of other Christians!< <

    Uh, don't know where you came up with either observation.

    >lectures on Islam<>>Do you mean teaching history or world religions? I for that.< <

    Comparative religion is one thing, but celebrating one world religion (Islam) at the expense of another (Christianity) is wrong. And liberals in the schools "teaching" world religions aren't always just dispensing general information. The work in the trenches can too often take the direction of indoctrination.

    Strange how the ACLU is silent when the tenets of Islam are being taught, but if the tenets of Christianity were to be taught in public schools I'm sure the ACLU would come in screaming separation of church and state.

    >force a Christian to smile on the sin of homosexuality<>>Smile? Accept to the point of not discriminating against them. But alas your security in your Christianity will likely tumble to the ground in the face of such abomination.< <

    The no middle ground argument I made in the previous post was lost on you wasn't it?

    >or force a Christian to forego the sanctity of gender roles, etc., etc.<>>Gotta keep those uppity women in the kitchen.< <

    That's a cute simplification. There are a number of conservative and Christian commentators and leaders who are women--and even they recognize the destructive role that having so many women in the workplace has on children and families. Feminist propaganda would have so much daycare and schoolcare and uninhibited divorce and abortion that families would have little solidity and would hardly spend time together, children would hardly be nurtured or bonded to their own parents. Read about the history of the Kibbutz. Failure came b/c women wanted their own children (not to mention what the men wanted as unique fathers).

    The ironies of your position abound. The liberalism you espouse is just a mirror of the free market, only you would extend the agency of economic actors into the "private" realms of the family, lineage, and gender identification--everyone is free to choose parents, gender, children; it's a bloodless vision of interchangeability. No one's role is unique (man, woman, or child) and you have a perfect recipe for governments treating people as creatures of the state. Liberals are supposed to be all about the privacy of the bedroom, but they have no compunctions about state intrusion into family life. You think you're gaining individual freedom but you are paving the way for government intrusion into private life. The family is an institution that stands outside and is a bulwark against government influence. Without the family, government will train and "raise" individuals according to its own programs.

    >Repression is in the eye of the beholder. If our country were “truly free” your “repressive opinions” wouldn’t exist either.<>>Repression is in the experience of the oppressed. Exactly how are you religiously persecuted?< <

    No need to personalize this. And you need to read more carefully. I've already discussed the "pain and disgust" visited upon Muslims and Christians alike by a culture of visible homosexuality. Tell me if inducing "pain and disgust" on someone isn't a form of oppression.

    >Oh claptrap. The “liberal groups” of which you speak are selectively intolerant. They embrace the “right” kind of hate; the kind of hate they approve of.<>>In case you didn’t get through my whole post I acknowledged wackos of all stripes. Any liberals that hate allow themselves to be led by fear. Same for anyone else.< <

    I think I'm talking to one right now: you fear and hate conservative Christians and certainly demonize them all.

    >And what on earth does my needing to “check” myself mean? Do you mean that I must be silent?<>>You wondered then you decided. Wrongly though. I meant analyze yourself and your positions.< <

    Amounts to the same thing. You patronizingly demand that I ruminate and reflect over my wrongheadedness--what is the intended result of that but a bullying into submission and silence? One can't talk while one is in contrite self-analysis (Christians would just use the term "repentance"). Your sense of righteousness mirrors the righteousness you despise in religious fundamentalists, only yours a fundamentalist secular liberalism.

    >But it creates a culture where babies are not sacred, where life is a matter of “choice,” where children having babies are encouraged to hide their “decisions” from their parents–that’s an anti-family and anti-parent agenda, all stemming from the “innocent” “pro-choice” line on abortion.<>>I disagree but more to the point you’re waaaaay off the point.< <

    No, you just don't get it and don't help matters by not explaining your assertions.

    >It’s not so simple. Studies of children…<>>I disagree but more to the point you’re once again waaaaay off the point. Either you don’t want to hear it or you can not comprehend.< <

    You should take the time to explain yourself more. These sputterings of schoolyard debate tactics are doing nothing to articulate your positions. You "disagree," but won't say why. You claim I'm "off the point," but don't clarify. You then conclude (!) that I'm in a (false) dilemma of either being unwilling to "hear" you or being stupid. And liberals are always the ones to brag about their sophisticated educations as compared to Red State conservatives'.

    >But pro-contraceptions takes away the mystique and quality of sex at a cultural level–the proper metaphor is inflation: if the coin is available everywhere, it’s worth is less.<>>You mean it’s not different for everyone. If I only knew it fit in such a neat little simplistic package.<<

    You continue to reduce (simplify) these matters to the level of individual choice, ignoring the forces of culture or any reflection on the desired or undesired consequences on the form of culture, or how such reflections could factor into the rational motives of conservatives, Christian or otherwise. How simple and easy everything must be for you: individuals are sacred and society and its future is not. We have only to let individuals choose and can ignore the fact that individuals live in a society that shapes them.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    To all the new fundamentalist Christians here:

    I’ve already discussed the “pain and disgust” visited upon Muslims and Christians alike by a culture of visible homosexuality. Tell me if inducing “pain and disgust” on someone isn’t a form of oppression.

    There is no constitutional right that you can only see things you like.

    BlogCritics consists of conservatives and liberals, Christians and Muslims, atheists and agnostics, gay people and straight people. The whole gamut.

    WIthin the last week or two, there has been an influx of evangelicals who come here to proselytize. Because the nature of your Christian evangelicism requires you to impose your religion on others, sometimes you forget that evangelicism doesn’t mean the recipient is always willing.

    It’s so funny to watch you try and force your propaganda upon others and then cry victim when it isn’t embraced.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Agreed, but how do you curtail it withou resorting to censorship? Free speech reigns.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I’ve already discussed the “pain and disgust” visited upon Muslims and Christians alike by a culture of visible homosexuality. Tell me if inducing “pain and disgust” on someone isn’t a form of oppression.

    Well, if it is, then conservative Christians are guilty of oppressing gay Americans, aren’t they, since they induce pain and disgust in/on gays on a daily basis with their continued “abomination” talk.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Not to mention that they do all in their power to ensure that queer Americans remain unequal under law. There is no quantifying the amount of pain and suffering caused by the oppression. It, in my experience, is unending. And depleting. And debilitating. And unbearable.

  • Eric Olsen

    I hope no one is saying we should exclude anyone from Blogcritics due to their religious beliefs.

    I think the cross-pollination of the last week or so — that’s all it’s been — has been absolutely fascinating.

    I agree it was perhaps a bit jarring to get about 50 new members with some doctrinal similarities in a short period of time, but of those 50, many haven’t posted anything, one has quit outright due to the effrontery, and I am certain others will drift away and we will be left with the cream of the crop — those whose work is up to our standards, those who are intellectually curious and willing to defend their positions against all comers, and we and they will be the better for it.

    In other words, out of almost 1000 Blogcritics, you are talking about a change of maybe 1%. I think we’ll weather it.

  • ClubhouseCancer

    Ms. Davis, I’d say you’ve got it right.
    Just let them blather on, and soon they say something like:
    “I’ve already discussed the “pain and disgust” visited upon Muslims and Christians alike by a culture of visible homosexuality.
    or:

    liberals in the schools “teaching” world religions aren’t always just dispensing general information. The work in the trenches can too often take the direction of indoctrination.

    People who actually use their capacity to reason then read this stuff, recognize it for what it is, and skip to something else.

    The point in at least attempting a rebuttal, as you know, is not to convince the poster (who in this case sounds unconvincable), but others following the thread.

    Free speech rules!

    Praise Zeus!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I don’t think anybody should be excluded from here for their religious beliefs, if you are referring to me. I am not clear on the rules of BC in terms of using it to market one’s own product though. Offering an opinion on what is right and wrong is one thing, proselytizing is all about selling a product though. Example, in my time here, I have tried to educate people on the discrimination and inequality my community faces, but I have NEVER tried to convert someone to the homosexual lifestyle.

    I dunno. I’m here to stay myself, I’m a fighter, but I do think that if this proselytizing continues, the clientele here will change. People come here to debate and exchange ideas, not to bear witness to the bully pulpit. Just my two cents.

  • gonzo marx

    in Response i will begin to evangelize the One True Word of JuJu the Elephant god!!

    it will be Required for all to bare their Witness and cavort in the manner they deem Fun with 2 or more consenting Adults and whatever toys or props bring them Joy

    any shirking will be deemed by JuJu, may his tusks be praised, as blasphemy …punishable by a visit from Archangel Mistress Twink..

    that is all for now…next Sermon will be when i need the collection plate refilled due to an extensive ether binge…

    film at 11

    Excelsior!

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    Agreed, but how do you curtail it withou resorting to censorship? Free speech reigns.

    Agree totally that free speech reigns. The only recourse is to encounter hate speech and propaganda with the opposing point of view.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Oh, Steve, sweetie, please… When you use that damnable phrase, please put it in quotes as it is one of those clobber phrases antiglbt fundies use against us and because the (godidon’tevenwanttotypethesewords) “homosexual lifstyle” is a fallacy. It doesn’t exist any more than a “heterosexual lifestyle” does.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Careful Steve S ::: I have tried to educate people on the discrimination and inequality my community faces, but I have NEVER tried to convert someone to the homosexual lifestyle.

    A lot of people think gays can actually do this connverting thing. Humor is lost on the obsessed and turns into further “proof.”

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I noticed that right after I published my comment Natalie. The right wing is so pervasive in their redefinition of words that sometimes it just happens even though I try to keep it back in reality. I should have said I never tried to convert anybody to homosexuality.

    Temple, it is ironic isn’t it, that my community is the one who gets accused of converting, by evangelicals, when the very definition of the word evangelical is basically ‘to convert’.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I should have said I never tried to convert anybody to homosexuality.

    And yet, I bet dollars to donuts that the reverse is true, that at least one person has tried to convert you to heterosexuality.

    Ironic, innit?

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    what?! there’s no ‘homosexual lifestyle’?

    dang, i thought you guys played naked Twister every night while listening to show tunes.

    that after spending most of the day trying to convert people to your side.

    ;-)

  • gonzo marx

    and in Recognition for his Virtue and Service..JuJu declares Steve shall lead us all in the Ritual of Cavorting as stated in the earlier Proclamation…

    let the libertine lasciviousness begin!

    Excelsior!

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    A little too ironic, oh yeah, I really do think.

    And some of those evangelical converters wield electroshock.

    Several years ago, I did an investigative report on so-called ex-gay ministries (aka conversion or reparative therapy). Take a read and learn about them. Some of them are very nice if IMO misguided people. But they’re scary as hell to me and many people. And the damage they can do and have done…

    PartOne

    PartTwo

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    gonzo marx – blog – puh-leez

  • gonzo marx

    bah..they cannot convert those that are Faithful to JuJu ,may his tusks always be shined, the Elephant god!!

    so be True..yea, i say unto thee…Cavort with gleeful abandon in the manner you find pleasing with Consenting adult participants!!

    may those that stand athwart the Path be trampled under the shining square toenails of JuJu, causing the holy cuticles to blacken with thier intolerant ichor!

    so let it be typed, so let it be done!

    Excelsior!

  • Eric Olsen

    some great comments subsequent to mine, thanks!

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    yea, c’mon gonzo…get a blog.

    aren’t you from maine?

    c’mon, what else ya got to do up dere? ;-)

  • HW Saxton

    If the Pro-Christian shock troops were
    not so creepy and scary, I’d have to be
    putting on a dry pair pants after having
    wet myself from laughing about some of
    the most illogical arguments I’ve ever
    read/heard in my life. I swear to god/
    allah/jehovah/buddha/krishna and juju.

    After statements like how one billion
    Muslims all find homosexuality such an
    effrontery,the mind boggles. Sure their
    religion says it’s a “SIN”,as does the
    Christian faith, but out of a BILLION
    people I’d have to guess that there just
    may be one or two that are gay maybe ?
    Or maybe 1 or 2 hundred thousand ?
    Or maybe 1 or 2 million?

    It’s just these so simply refuted,tired
    points of argument that make them all
    look like such horse’s asses to me.
    I mean fer chrissake if you’re going to
    argue the at least make it an argument.
    Not just an endless f***ing stream of
    contradictory statements.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Yes, Mr. Saxton, these people and their arguments make no sense to me. I must take issue with the notion that the Christian faith necessarily considers homosexuality a sin. Millions of Christians, myself included, don’t share that interpretation. Now, I am only an amateur theologian, but there are renowned, respected professional theologians, Christian and non-, who don’t believe homosexuality is sin. And still, the law of the land reflects the theology of the anti-queer fundie branch of Christianity. Horses’ asses they may be, but they have ALL the power. And people suffer because of it EVERY DAY.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    I don’t care – I’m going to hell anyway:)

  • gonzo marx

    no need for Suffering..accept the tender Embrace of the holy Trunk…JuJu accepts all and never Forgets that all bipeds are the same to Him…

    JuJu is pleased that 2 are ready to begin the festival of Cavorting, and desire to learn more of JuJu’s , may his ear flapping cool our fevered brows, Teachings…another even Recognizes His elephantine Wisdom…

    we will ponder just how to spread the Word…but we find time management a big pain in JuJu’s, may the pleasing aroma of his Flatulance wash over all, hindquarters…

    what we mean is , there are so many preparations that need doing before the Cavorting…3 barrels of Viagra..a tanker truck of rasberry flavored “motion lotion”…and do you have any Idea how long it takes to shave a gerbil and clip it’s nails?

    we will see how JuJu, may His holy Trunk never be clogged by the phlegm of intolerance, desires this, his humble servant and Narrator, to proceed…

    but rest assured..we have heard you Desires…

    Excelsior!

  • HW Saxton

    Natalie, I over generalized. I was just
    mainly thinking of the fundementalist
    types such as plainavy that posted here.

    I just have to wonder why someone elses
    personal business is such a concern of
    theirs and what makes them so damned
    hateful in the first place? Can’t they
    see how contradictory they are? Or are
    they just hiding behind what ever they
    feel like gleaning from the scriptures
    and ignoring the overall message ?

    Not that I necessarily believe in any of
    the scriptures personally as I’m not a
    religous person but I do wish peace on
    everybody.

  • HW Saxton

    Natalie, I over generalized. I was just
    mainly thinking of the fundementalist
    types such as plainavy that posted here.

    I just have to wonder why someone elses
    personal business is such a concern of
    theirs and what makes them so damned
    hateful in the first place? Can’t they
    see how contradictory they are? Or are
    they just hiding behind what ever they
    feel like gleaning from the scriptures
    and ignoring the overall message ?

    Not that I necessarily believe in any of
    the scriptures personally as I’m not a
    religous person but I do wish peace on
    everybody.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    This headline has been bugging me all day. I have been trying to interpret it mathematically, and if anyone can, they deserve a Nobel prize, methinks

    Consider S=the universe of all groups

    Consider E= the group of all groups that exclude groups

    Consider X= groups excluded by E

    Now, you would expect S=E+X, but E dictates that their universe, cannot contain X, yet S is the universe of all groups.

    Consider further, a new group Y that is the group of all groups that do not exclude any group.

    Therefore, you would expect that Y=S, however, this headline asserts that Y cannot include X, thus you have Y=S-X, but since Y=S, therefore 0=-X, or X=0

    Thus there can be no groups that exclude other groups, and we are one happy family.

    But remember, though, that S=E+X, thus, S=E, and S=Y => Y=E=S

  • HW Saxton

    Gonzo, You almost had me for a convert
    to the ways of JuJu. The cavorting fest
    sounds like licks and I would kick down
    some cash towards those edible leopard
    skin body suits for the ladies.

    But then ya hadda mention the elephant
    flatulence! I got stuck on car trip once
    when my dog had digestive trauma and it
    must pale to that of JuJu’s elephantine
    proportion. So I must respectfully pass
    this time around.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Free speech and all, but, come on, Messrs. Aaman and Marx: Do you really think humor is appropriate here? We are talking about profound human suffering and you guys are making light of it. That just adds to the pain, and thank you, I can’t take any more pain right now.

  • gonzo marx

    HW..saddened are We by your reluctance..but still you are Accepted to the Cavorting!!

    JuJu, may his wrinkled flesh ne’er know the mites of bigotry, loves All…His Wisdom accepts that he is but one Face amidst the 9 billion Names of Creation..and thus, he loves All..even agnostics and unBelievers…for JuJu, praise be unto his 47 acre ears that he hears our Pleas with, acknowledges no Heresy under the Kingdom of Infinity…

    this is why he allowed his only begotten Son to be taken into bondage by Barnum…so the Message could be brought fomr the Jungle and into the New World…

    rejoice Kindred!!

    We have just experienced an epiphany wherein Aaman hast been Elevated to the office of Magus of Mathematics for his exemplary work!

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    you’re right nat.

    as an antidote, i prescribe a nice cup of green tea…savored while listening first to American Beauty followed by Blues For Allah.

    (note: Reckoning may be substituted for American Beauty)

  • gonzo marx

    Natalie..in all seriousness for just a moment here..

    i would do nothing to add to anyone’s burden of Pain for whatever Reason

    one great Definition fo rthe uman condition has been “Man is the animal that laughs”

    i like that definition myself…and why do we laugh?

    good Question…i believe if you look closely, Laughter is usually a Response and/or Respite from pain…either observing it in others, or to chase it away from ourselves…

    if my mad peckings at a keyboard even made you lift a single corner of your mouth into a smile, then i am most pleased…in that Instant, the ghosts of whatever bother you were blocked out by the radiance of Humor steming from a shared sense of the Absurd…a communication of defiance aganst the Dark

    when examined as Satire with just a hint of the Ironic, perhaps you will see that my peurile prose brngs discomfort only to those who cannot laugh at their own foibles…and should cause no one any Pain…

    my Apologies if any mad rantings from the like of me have caused you Hurt, please know…such is not my Intent..

    /end serious

    Excelsior!

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    You didn’t have a /begin serious there

  • gonzo marx

    true..but the “in all seriousness” is enough to toggle the command

    now..hush before they all Realize i am just a scripted ‘bot program!!

    an aside to Natalie…i just reread the Thread…what is it here that is hurting you so much?

    the original Topic seems just a bit high on the silly meter…to my way of Thought, any group that pays it’s money to rent a “space” has every right to utilize it according to the terms of the rental agreement…i don’t read anywhere, even in the “Agape Press” Article that states otherwise…i DO find a complete lack of details or corroboration for the baseline Postulate put forward…

    hence my own Sarcasm

    thanks for Reading..

    Excelsior!

  • HW Saxton

    Gonzo, Everytime that I read your posts
    on JuJu,I keep hearing it in a voice not
    unlike that of: Apu,Husband of Manjula,
    Purveyor of Wisdom and Squire Of The
    Squishy Machine.

    Also,I formally withdraw my declination
    to attend the Cavorting. Is it BYOB?

    PS: Who came first Ganesha or JuJu ?

  • Bennett

    Did you mean “elepiphany” by any chance?

    Just wanting to help out the cause of JuJu.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    What causes me pain here? Besides every breath I draw? Pretty much all of it.

    Mr. Marx, I am an animal who has almost completely lost the ability and will to laugh. (Thanks, Amerikkka!) If you were unequal under law; vilified by so-called people of faith, cursed to have your human worth bandied about and debated by all of society and the media; and told that you are objectively evil and disordered, unfit to love, unworthy of being a family, and a heretic to your religion and/or deity of choice, you might understand my pain. That *I* feel this pain isn’t important, though. I am worthless. But millions of people feel this pain. Some have learned to deal with it. Others can’t. But you must know that people are suffering terribly. All of those juju jokes or whatever are meant to poke fun at the fundies, I know. (And that isn’t good either.) But you have to understand that not everyone will find it humorous. And some will find it painful.

    Please do me a favor, sir. Read those links I posted and read about people in pain. If you find that something worth joking about, that’s your right, go for it. Just know that somewhere out there, someone is weeping as a result.

    Another thing I am noticing needs to be addressed: Folks, unless you are someone who actually knows me (meaning whatever connection between us is mutally agreed upon), it is rude and disrespectful to call me by a nickname. I have to put up with the first-name crap, however much I hate it, but using the nick is just too much to accept. Only certain humans are welcome to cross that line in my mind, and few of them are here. You will call me what you want regardless of my feelings, but I assume kind people will opt not to be deliberately nasty.

    Do as you will, of course. Free speech reigns.

  • http://darkeroticism.blogspot.com/2005/04/new-global-way.html swingingpuss

    Ganesha didnt pass through a virgin vagina but was made from clay. He is truely ‘pure’. By virtue of this fact JU-JU is a lesser deity ;)

  • HW Saxton

    SP, Is that really true about Ganesha
    being made of clay? And would it be from
    clay made from possibly the Ganges river
    or it’s banks? I’m guessing here.

    I ask this in all seriousness,as I don’t
    know anything about the origins of the
    Hindu religion.

  • http://darkeroticism.blogspot.com swingingpuss

    Briefly, various stories about his origin, all symbolic of rebirth and renewed energies, as well as Oedipal expressions of the creation myth – long story, but he was formed from clay, head cut off, and then replaced with an elephant’s head. Perhaps a longer post is in order on mythology

  • HW Saxton

    That’s cool,swingingpuss. I appreciate
    the answer. I find the origins of most
    all non-christian religions to be very
    fascinating.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    BTW, Mr. Marx, the problem lies in the comments section. Re: the Promise Keepers and the university, I think they should allow the bigoted group to meet. They should not force anyone to attend, though.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Ms. Davis it’s kind of silly, despite your excessive, cult-like formality of Mr. and Ms. and Mrs. in a decidedly informal arena to call Gonzo, Mr. Marx.

    See it’s a fake name, like.

    It’s just very off-putting, especially since you have not – that I have read – outlined why you think this is at all important.

    If you are like this in public, it seems a deliberate ploy to keep people away.

    /amateur psychology]. I know you will be offended in some way by my statement here – and I apologize in advance for that.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    First, Mr. Stark, nothing in your posting is in the least offensive. No apology necessary.

    Yes, I want to keep people at a distance. What’s wrong with that? I have to protect myself.

    It may be off-putting, but informality with strangers and nonfriends makes me uncomfortable. I know your country’s culture is all about informality, but your culture isn’t mine. I don’t and won’t conform just for the sake of conforming. If conformity arises from doing something honest, that would be fine, but me calling you Temple, for instance, given that we are not friends, is too familiar for my comfort. And being treated informally by people I do not know well strikes me as bad manners.

    As I have said, you all will do as you choose. My feelings don’t matter and I don’t matter. I have merely stated my feelings on the subject. You will do what you must, but don’t expect me to do something that would increase my level of discomfort.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Well I called you by your first name, Ms. Davis, and I apologize for it, I didn’t mean to be offensive.

    I’m reminded of that song by Madison Avenue. “Don’t Call Me Baby’.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Steve, I feel perfectly comfortable having you refer to me by my first name. Hell, you are welcome to call me by my nickname if you want. You are my friend and I am so thankful for you.

    Cool tune, BTW.

  • gonzo marx

    Ms. Davis…

    as you Requested, i have indeed read your Links above. uncertain that i “grok in fullness”, i do believe i have gleaned some small portion of the Anguish you reference…most poignant to me is the Incident where a “councilor” states “you can’t be a Christian and gay”…or “deceived into the pit of Hell”

    Hubris = stating that any Man can Know the “Will of God”

    most would consider me a “heretic”, and i do have some familiarity of attempted Persecutions aimed towards me and/or mine, my personal tendencies are geared towards self-defense and conflict resoloution…one Hopes that Avoidance can be achieved, even better when done via the medium of Words as Symobls of communication and Ideas

    i noted 2 salient points about the people you were writing about visiting…one you caught immediately yourself…all were getting paid for it, this “minstry” was how they made their living…the second was that they did not attempt any type of Dialogue, the closest was asking some sterotypical Questions for whichever Form Letter “answer” they had prepared

    as cited by Duchartre in his work on Commedia dell’Arte, “the Italian Comedy”

    *George Sand, who calls the Comedy of Art “…an uninterrupted tradition of fantastic humor which is in essence quite serious and, one might say, even sad, like every satire that lays bare the spiritual poverty of mankind.” *

    as i’ve Grown, certain changes in the methodology of my Interactions of Conflict have occured and made the tenets of the Ethic i adhere to, deeper and stronger.

    i take complete Responsibility for any and all of my own Actions , and accept the Consequences resulting from my Choices. External forces can rend only my flesh…what is “Me” can only be Affected by my own Choice

    my earlier Satire was NOT directed towards you or your own Plight…it was aimed at the original Post..you seem to Understand the aim, but perhaps not the Purpose when you said
    * All of those juju jokes or whatever are meant to poke fun at the fundies, I know. (And that isn’t good either.)*

    my Aim was towards the Authority of Doctrine/Dogma…
    as i have stated, for the purpose of Civil Liberties, any “groups” that want to rent a hall should be allowed to do so within the boundaries of the contract of said rental…even JuJu appreciates when his Followers gather to rub blue mud into their bellies and Rejoice

    you state…
    *But you have to understand that not everyone will find it humorous.*

    i say,
    i should certainly hope not..i would think some might even be outright Offended…and some will hopefully smile

    you then say…
    *And some will find it painful.*

    then for that i feel Regret…such was not my Intent, but i accept Responsibility for my words

    i will do my best to not be overly “familiar” or to presume the offering of Advice…but allow me to share on further Quote…

    *this Body holding me
    reminds me of my own
    Mortality…
    embrace this Moment
    Remember…
    we are Eternal
    all this Pain is an
    Illusion.

    Tool

    Excelsior!

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    I love that Tool song. See, that’s the thing. I think getting to the eternal is the good thing. That’s the prize. I am just tired and weary of the prison that is this flesh and your country. Morphine isn’t handed out for this sort of agony.

    Thank you for reading my articles. It was quite an experience. My mom, editor, and pastor were scared to death for me that weekend. So was I. But to make this somewhat relevant, in terms of the topic at hand, the ministries make me think of Ann Coulter and her stated wish to nuke ‘em and then convert ‘em. ‘Em being your government’s enemies. It’s pathological. I don’t approve of you so I have to turn you into me. And punish you if you refuse to conform. Ewww.

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    RE: Comment 30 posted by Steve S on May 27, 2005 12:45 PM:

    < >

    Seems like most of the other people posting here are liberals. The mutual back-patting is nauseating. Where are all those “new” fundamentalists whom you think you are addressing?

    >I’ve already discussed the “pain and disgust” visited upon Muslims and Christians alike by a culture of visible homosexuality. Tell me if inducing “pain and disgust” on someone isn’t a form of oppression.<>>There is no constitutional right that you can only see things you like.< <

    We have zoning laws, for instance, that restrict adult book stores to certain areas of a town. People have V-chips and neighborhood associations that restrict visual and other traffic. There are media rating systems in play for people's protection. And there are a variety of rights: communities define obscenity and then pass laws protecting people from what is held to be obscene. Sounds like a right to me, a right to protect people from things they don't like. For example, the public nude yoga in San Francisco, while seemingly tolerated in that community, wouldn't fly I'm guessing in much of Texas.

    >>BlogCritics consists of conservatives and liberals, Christians and Muslims, atheists and agnostics, gay people and straight people. The whole gamut.< <

    Sounds like the internet. What's your point? And if you break into Kumbaya, squeaking glee about the society of the melting pot, I think I'll find some chapstick and smear my computer screen with it.

    >>WIthin the last week or two, there has been an influx of evangelicals who come here to proselytize.< <

    Oh dear. The Others have arrived on the island. What are we to do?! Please provide a link or two to their posts so that I may examine these creatures' musings for myself.

    >>Because the nature of your Christian evangelicism requires you to impose your religion on others, sometimes you forget that evangelicism doesn’t mean the recipient is always willing.< <

    Hold on. My "Christian" evangelicalism? I didn't know you were conducting a trial here. I don't even think I said I was a Christian. All I did was give voice to other ways of seeing and feeling that, from most of what I've read here, get treated quite uncivilly and uncouthly on this board.

    I'm not trying to impose my religion on anyone. There's been no talk of doctrine, no testifying. I have been trying to discuss the issues that seem to divide a number of us in cultural and secular terms and lay out as frankly as I can the difficulties between conservatives, many of whom are Christian, and what I and many others take to be liberal secular fundamentalists.

    >>It’s so funny to watch you try and force your propaganda upon others and then cry victim when it isn’t embraced.<<

    “Funny” ha-ha or “funny” weird?
    And “force”? Where is your evidence that force has been suggested or used? And “cry victim”? Perhaps you imagine that I claimed victim status for myself–you all keep wanting to personalize these things in ways that do not seem productive–when I wrote this: “Also, to have the homosexual lifestyle and aesthetic thrown into Christians’ and Moslems’ faces is painful and disgusting to them. Homosexuality isn’t about individuals; it’s about a cultural shift that 1 billion Muslims, among others, aren’t into.”

    Did you think I was making up the reactions of many Christians and Moslems to homosexuality? Tell me: What homosexual activist is going to take up residence, say, in Saudi Arabia or in Iran? Do you honestly think that person’s life would be worth much?

    You gripe about and fret over conservative Christians, some of you not just dreaming of slandering them and others of you treating them with routine, that is to say, mindless disdain, and yet lesbigay life has achieved levels of visibility and celebration in this country unmatched in the history of the world (the ancient Greeks had no mass media). Judeo-Christian culture, whatever its faults, gave us many of the roots of democracy and tolerance that so many of the liberals on this board espouse but practice so poorly when people who fundamentally disagree with them appear in their midst.

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    RE: Comment 32 posted by bhw on May 27, 2005 12:53 PM:

    >I’ve already discussed the “pain and disgust” visited upon Muslims and Christians alike by a culture of visible homosexuality. Tell me if inducing “pain and disgust” on someone isn’t a form of oppression.<>>Well, if it is, then conservative Christians are guilty of oppressing gay Americans, aren’t they, since they induce pain and disgust in/on gays on a daily basis with their continued “abomination” talk<

    I think you’re right. Both sides oppress each other. The Christians, in general, respond with the “hate the sin but not the sinner” line. They still aim to convert the individual sinner and remove the behavior, but at least aim at a humane, soul-saving resolution to the sinner’s sin–however misguided some of you may think their actions or motives.

    Do lesbigays have a similar line? Hate the Christian’s fundamentalism and dogma but love the individual? The immediate goal isn’t conversion of the Christian. The aim seems to be to defang the conservative or fundamentalist Christian; to have this person’s religion no longer make universal claims about a given class of sins (relax on proscriptions against homosexuality and adultery but stay vigilant against murder, for instance).

    Both sides want to rearrange the beliefs of the other. That’s a fundamentally obnoxious abuse of power. The oppression runs both ways, and neither side of course sees itself as oppressive. Looks bleak.

    What would a meaningful treaty in a culture war look like? Would that be possible?

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Is bleak.

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but I have no wish to rearrange fundies’ beliefs. They can hate or “love” anyone they want and worship anyway they wish — just keep their religion out of the laws that govern those not of their ilk. That’s all. Whether a denomination wishes to allow marriage equality is one thing, but when that denomination aims to keep all americans from access to civil marriage, we have a problem. And I refuse to accept the label of oppressor when they are in charge, they are punishing me daily, and I have no need to change them. Do remember who calls the shots and remember it’s he or she who is equal under law that is in the catbird seat.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Plainavy wrote: “The aim seems to be to defang the conservative or fundamentalist Christian; to have this person’s religion no longer make universal claims about a given class of sins”

    Universal claims? Are you seriously implying that being recognized as equal rather than universal — as if these claims about sin are somehow superior — is a form of oppression?

    Did you think the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part of the First Amendment was written for only one religious belief?

    I can understand how it might feel like oppression, but its just the same equalization that has been going on for several decades now. Why resist it?

    In America, there is supposed to be a separation between church and state and this separation is why there should be no “culture wars” fought in the public square at all — especially in the 21st century.

    The state exists to recognize, protect and defend human and civil rights (that does include the prosecution of crimes that violate civil and human rights, BTW), it was never intended to be the arbiter of our consciences. We cannot have freedom — or honest repentance for our sins, for that matter — without free will.

    Oppression is not the pain and/or disgust suffered by people who cannot accept/deal with the fact that some people are homosexual.

    And homosexuals are not oppressed when conservative Christians exercise their freedom of speech to read Leviticus 18:22 aloud.

    Homosexuals are oppressed because their civil and human right to marriage is not currently recognized by the state, which is not supposed to be biased toward any particular religious doctrine.

  • RealCOn

    Wow! — I go out for a day of golf — I come back to my computer and I find over 80 posts already… It’s as if somebody tied a chicken to a stake in the forest to see if there is a fox around — and dozens of them show up…

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Well, what did you expect, RealCOn?

    How can us foxes resist a chicken tied to a stake in the forest when that chicken clucks about suffering the “oppression” of equality?

  • RealCon

    Equality???

    Next month, Promise Keepers will be holding a conference at Razorback Stadium on the University of Arkansas campus in Fayetteville. However, groups like the Arkansas chapter of the National Organization for Women, the Washington County Green Party, and the Omni Center for Peace, Justice, and Ecology want the Christian men’s outreach organization barred from the campus.

    That’s equality??

    Of course it is — fascist style!

  • RealCon

    BTY — anyone has the right to marry — any man has a right to marry any woman — and any woman has a right to marry any man…

    Why is that not equality?

  • BillB

    To Margaret Romao Toigo,

    God speed! But there is much terrain to bridge.

    Bill

  • RealCon

    Margaret Romao Toigo sez —

    “Homosexuals are oppressed because their civil and human right to marriage is not currently recognized by the state, which is not supposed to be biased toward any particular religious doctrine.”

    “any particular doctrine”???

    How about a “particular religious doctrine” that claims —

    1. Having a harem?

    2. A union between two different species of animals — one of which is human?

    (We may get a real centaur yet)…

  • Benett

    Realcon,

    Margarette wrote “..which is not supposed to be biased toward any particular religious doctrine”

    This is in no way is an open door for beastiality. There are laws against that sort of thing.

    You kind of twisted her statement 180 degrees.

  • RealCon

    Re; Comment 88

    I know what Margarette wrote… that is what I replied to…

    Now you say —

    “This is in no way is an open door for beastiality. There are laws against that sort of thing.”

    Keep in mind that until the recent past — when the People’s Republic of Massachusetts’ highest court ruled otherwise –there was a law against what you seem to be promoting…

    No twist…

    Keep going and we will get a centaur…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    yes, realcon there was a law. Just because something becomes a law doesn’t mean it is just. Laws get struck down all the time.

    You always take one fact and look at it alone, but that isn’t how life works. You have to look at how things interact together.

    When there were laws against sodomy, although gay people were rarely charged with the crime, it was used to brand the gay person a criminal in child custody cases or in property disputes, etc. These laws punished us even if we were never charged with anything related to them. When the Supreme Court ruled that conservatives have no constitutional right to regulate the sexual activity of consenting adults, we were no longer technically criminals. We ARE law abiding citizens.

    That factors into rulings on marriage. If something was a law at one time, that doesn’t mean it was Just.

  • Real Con

    Re: Comment 90

    Steve S sez

    “yes, realcon there was a law. Just because something becomes a law doesn’t mean it is just. Laws get struck down all the time”…

    Re: Comment 88 posted by Benett

    “This is in no way is an open door for beastiality. There are laws against that sort of thing.”…

    SS — Thank you for making my point … how long will it take for Benet’s “law against that sort of thing.”… to be struck down???

    Now go discuss it between the two of you…

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Mr. Realcon, in other words, you support barring particular law-abiding citizens from being allowed to the pursuiit of happiness under law?

  • RealCon

    It all depends on what makes you happy — can a man who is happy without a harem be denied that pleasure?

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    If a gay person wants to marry the perform of his choice, you are happy to deny him that under secular law despite the fact that he has broken no laws. Which makes you a terrible person, in my book.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Yes, RealCon, equality.

    Promise Keepers will be holding their conference at Razorback Stadium, they have not been barred from doing so just because several groups objected.

    Where’s the inequity?

    The right to marry, which is part of the essential human right to self-determination, includes the right to marry the person one chooses, provided that the person one chooses is of legal age and competent to consent to enter into a legal contract. Deliberately ignoring this basic principle is a transparently prejudicial form of intellectual dishonesty.

    If so-called “protectors and defenders” of marriage need to resort to such tactics in order to cover up the fact that they have no pragmatic arguments to support their anti-homosexual bigotry, then these “protectors and defenders” of marriage should be re-thinking their position instead of maintaining contrivances of logic that are very easily exposed as the fallacies they are.

    In order to win this particular “culture war” battle, all you have to do is answer one question: Which specific civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated by the secular, legal recognition of same sex marriage?

    If you cannot answer that one question clearly then you must admit that your position is not based upon pragmatism, but rather upon arbitrary prejudice.

  • RealCon

    Re: Comment 95 posted by Margaret Romao Toigo

    “In order to win this particular “culture war” battle, all you have to do is answer one question: Which specific civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated by the secular, legal recognition of same sex marriage?”…

    Well since you posed the question — you must have an answer to it —

    Which specific civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated by the secular, legal recognition of same sex marriage?

    I await your answer…

  • Bennett

    Gadzooks, I knoew that post would come back and bite me in the ass.

    I should have made myself a bit clearer, in semi joking about “laws against” re beastiality. The obvious difference (which I don’t expect you to recognize) between laws against beastiality and laws making homosexuality illegal is that homosexuality is something between two consenting adults. Not an adult and an animal. But hey, twist this to your hearts content.

    And you DID twist Margarette’s words 180 degrees to make a highly questionable point.

    Methinks this “conversation” is going nowhere.

  • RealCon

    Re: Comment 97

    “Gadzooks, I knew that post would come back and bite me in the ass.”

    Now that you’ve been bitten —

    Let’s consider — “ Having a harem?”

    Be careful — you’ve already been bitten once…

    P.S. Methinks this conversation is going just fine…

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Why of course I have the answer to The Question.

    Which specific civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated by the secular, legal recognition of same sex marriage?

    None. There is not one single civil or human right that will be denied and/or violated by the secular, legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

    Now, will you answer the question, please? It shouldn’t be too hard as people who are oppressed or living under the threat of oppression can usually enumerate their unrecognized civil and human rights clearly and without hesitation the very first time they are asked to do so.

    For example, lets try the flip side of that same question: Which specific civil and human rights are currently denied and/or violated by the state’s failure to legally recognize secular same-sex marriages?

    The human right to self-determination and the civil right to equal representation and protection under all of the laws of this land.

    See? It’s easy to explain how people are oppressed when the oppression is real.

  • Bennett

    Realcon,

    With your response to Margarette’s question consisting of simply parroting it back to her, without any attempt to address it?

    “Re: Comment 95 posted by Margaret Romao Toigo

    “In order to win this particular “culture war” battle, all you have to do is answer one question: Which specific civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated by the secular, legal recognition of same sex marriage?”…

    Well since you posed the question — you must have an answer to it —

    Which specific civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated by the secular, legal recognition of same sex marriage?

    I await your answer…”

    That’s so weak, and yet so illuminating, and a perfect example why I feel this “debate” is going nowhere.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    And given that so many in this horrid country are on Mr. Realcon’s side, this becomes a compelling proof of the US being opposed to the very ideals upon which it supposedly was founded — equality and justice under law for all.

  • RealCon

    mar·riage

    “The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife… The state of being married;
    wedlock…

    Nobody is being oppressed..

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    RE: Comment 80 posted by Natalie Davis on May 28, 2005 12:59 AM:

    >>Can’t speak for anyone else, but I have no wish to rearrange fundies’ beliefs.< <

    Whether you wish to change religious people's beliefs or not is, I'm afraid, irrelevant. I think my analysis in the previous post warrants consideration: each side wants the other to change fundamental beliefs. That makes compromise or even living together difficult at best.

    You make the live-and-let-live-in-civil society plea, but you are making this plea with religious people in mind, and religion isn't the same thing as civil society. The goals of religion and civil society may be different.

    From a civil libertarian point of view, anything goes as long as person A isn't harming person B. But what needs to be recognized is that religious people are defining "harm" more broadly than criminal or property law. They are seeing harm, rightly or wrongly, at a cultural level in the changes to the status of children, marriage, gender identity and gender relations, as well as the structure of the family. As long as liberal secularists pretend that these social changes don't matter, or insist that the harms that social conservatives see are unimportant, then we are in for continued antagonism between left and right.

    >>They can hate or “love” anyone they want and worship anyway they wish — just keep their religion out of the laws that govern those not of their ilk.< <

    Religion is already part of the law (no murder, bearing false witness).

    >>That’s all. Whether a denomination wishes to allow marriage equality is one thing, but when that denomination aims to keep all americans from access to civil marriage, we have a problem.<<

    Right, it’s a struggle over the meaning of civil institutions. The idea of marriage originally, remember, is not a civil notion but a RELIGIOUS one. To expect the entire religious community (or even just those who are only socially conservative) to ignore civil redefinitions of key theologically maintained concepts is folly.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    And to expect us to just go along with this madness is folly as well.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Ms. Davis, the people who are on RealCon’s side are not as numerous and powerful as they would like people to think they are.

    Sure, they get a lot of media attention because they’re radicals and radicals make for better ratings shares than moderates. But don’t be fooled.

    The truth of the matter is that the side of the “culture war” that tries to make its case for the institutionalized oppression of gay and lesbian people (as well as the case for several other ridiculous policies) with logical fallacies, statistics, facts and Scriptures taken out-of-context and evasion is weak and actually gets very little to no support from the vast majority of Americans.

    Most Americans support the recognition of “civil unions” that provide the same protections and benefits of marriage.

    While this is an unacceptable “separate but equal” proposition, it does reveal that most Americans do not agree with the religious conservatives position on homosexuality.

    I tell you this not to defend my fellow Americans — some of whom are very cruel in their dispensing of injustice — but to offer a small ray of hope that the ideals upon which this country was founded are still important to most of us and that all of that loud and obnoxious complaining coming from our religious conservatives is about the fact that they have been steadily losing support for their causes for several decades now.

    Just listening to the way these paper tigers roar on and on about how they are oppressed every time they are relegated to the status of being considered equal instead of superior under the law ought to clue you in to just how ridiculous the causes of so-called “culture warriors” really are.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    As justice is the focus of my entire existence, I am well aware of it. But my belief is that things remain the way they are because of the inaction of supposedly decent people. IF most Americans truly believed in justice for all, they would stand up against their lawmakers rather than quietly cluck about the situation while doing nothing. Yeah, many may be with the forces of good on principle, but it appears they aren’t willing to stand for what they believe. Which means that their beliefs don’t really matter — action does.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    BTW, Ms. Toigo, it is apparent that you get it, including the fact that “civil union” is not equality — and I appreciate it.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Actually, the civil libertarian view is that anything goes as long as person A isn’t encroaching upon the civil and human rights of person B.

    The concept of “harm” is too broad and subjective to be pragmatically applied to civil laws as there are many ways to “harm” others without encroaching upon their civil and human rights.

    For example, some people may suffer “harm” from the civil recognition of same-sex marriages, shifting gender roles and the diversification of the demographic composition of families, but they cannot enumerate which of their human and civil rights have been denied and/or violated by this social progress.

  • Bennett

    Realcon

    same sex mar·riage

    “The legal union of a man and man or woman and woman. The state of they’re being married;

    wedlock…

    Nobody is being oppressed..

  • Bennett

    “The idea of marriage originally, remember, is not a civil notion but a RELIGIOUS one.”

    How do you figure? No one got married before Christianity came along? Don’t make me laugh! There may or may not be “religious ceremonies” accompanying a marriage. But they are separate issues entirely.

  • RealCon

    Re: Comment 110

    No one got married before Christianity came along?

    Is that your question — or are you parroting someone else?

  • RealCon

    Just what is it about “marriage is a legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife” — that is so hard to understand???

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Ah, so this thread is like a gulag for insane ranting. I understand now.

    Dave

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Well, Dave, with the way that the supporting “logic” behind RealCon’s assertions has been unraveling in the face of pragmatism before our very eyes, this thread has become a gulag for an insane something, but I wouldn’t call it “ranting,” when it’s just a manifestation of cognitive dissonance in the form of deliberately obtuse denial.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    It may well turn into full-fledged ranting. As a true believer RealCon cannot EVER accept that he might be in error, therefore when repeatedly hammered with reality he has to retreat to repeated assertions AKA ranting or perhaps just flee.

    Dave

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Full-fledged ranting coming from a true believer who cannot ever accept that he might be in error is a form of concession in my book. And I don’t care if it is acknowledged or not, victory is mine!

  • RealCon

    Anything to avoid the question

    JUST WHAT IS IT ABOUT — “MARRIAGE IS THE LEGAL UNION OF A MAN AND WOMAN” — THAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Ok, you’ve got a point, Margaret.

    Oh, and RealCon – you want a response, ok.

    What is that a quote from, the book of RealCon?

    If it’s a dictionary definition, so what? Dictionaries describe things as they are. Their definitions are not legally binding. If we change what marriage means then the dictionaries will change their definitions to match.

    Dave

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    RE: Comment 81 posted by Margaret Romao Toigo on May 28, 2005 01:25 AM:

    Plainavy wrote: “The aim seems to be to defang the conservative or fundamentalist Christian; to have this person’s religion no longer make universal claims about a given class of sins”

    >>Universal claims? Are you seriously implying that being recognized as equal rather than universal — as if these claims about sin are somehow superior — is a form of oppression?< <

    This is not news. Religion makes universal claims, claims it feels are superior to those of civil society (God's law versus man's law). Religion makes claim on eternal truths. You must know this to be true, whether you agree with religion's doctrines or not.

    So do I "seriously imply that being recognized as equal rather than universal...is a form of oppression"? Recognizing homosexuals as equal, a civil matter, is not the problem. The problem is that a religious person is going to categorize the homosexual acts as "sin," again, whether you agree with that categorization or not. An Iranian Mullah, for example, sees homosexuality as a sin just as a Baptist fundamentalist or a Mormon does.

    You seem to be expecting civil society to hum along nicely no matter how far secularizing developments in it go against the grain of religious conservatives' beliefs--and most Americans still identify with religion. Do you really think that religious people--I'm talking true believers--are going to stand by while the forces of secularization run over every cherished sentiment their religions teach them?

    >>Did you think the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part of the First Amendment was written for only one religious belief?< <

    These things have less to do with codified law than with culture and politics, and activist judges, on the left or the right, can make newspeak look like toddler twaddle when it comes to reinventing the meaning of language and law and turning those things inside out.

    >>I can understand how it might feel like oppression, but its just the same equalization that has been going on for several decades now. Why resist it?< <

    I think you are seeing a number of ordinary people (Red Staters, the Silent Majority, the large middle) who have begun to question the directions that increased secularization have taken us. If you turn up the heat too fast, the frog WILL jump out of the pot.

    >>In America, there is supposed to be a separation between church and state and this separation is why there should be no “culture wars” fought in the public square at all — especially in the 21st century.< <

    That's interesting, sort of outlawing religious speech in the public square. Largely that's been accomplished culturally and cognitively--I have to pitch my arguments here in secular language. None of which means that everybody has to goosestep happily or can raise no objections with the direction that certain cultural groups want the culture to go.

    >>The state exists to recognize, protect and defend human and civil rights (that does include the prosecution of crimes that violate civil and human rights, BTW), it was never intended to be the arbiter of our consciences. We cannot have freedom — or honest repentance for our sins, for that matter — without free will.

    Okay. But what’s always been at stake has been the definition and recognition of different rights, right? The state as umpire is fine, but who’s making the rules?

    >>Oppression is not the pain and/or disgust suffered by people who cannot accept/deal with the fact that some people are homosexual.< <

    How can you be so sure? And I don't think the sense of disgust is merely an individual phenomenon. People in the Red States, let's say, are wondering where all this can go and are having serious doubts.

    >>And homosexuals are not oppressed when conservative Christians exercise their freedom of speech to read Leviticus 18:22 aloud.< <

    Didn't Canada throw someone in jail, citing his reading of anti-homosexual biblical passages as hate speech?

    >>Homosexuals are oppressed because their civil and human right to marriage is not currently recognized by the state, which is not supposed to be biased toward any particular religious doctrine.<<

    I can see why you say that. One would think that homosexuals, being human beings, would have the right to do anything that anyone else in the culture might do. The problem is that homosexuality and heterosexuality do not reproduce society very well together. They don’t reproduce the same society.

    The state’s long term interest in these matters, as for example the state having an interest in the education or welfare of children, is unclear at present. But I suspect many Red Staters are clear on the issue. On the one hand, religions that see homosexuality as a major affront to God and human dignity are obviously going to object to sinful behavior; on the other hand, social conservatives are obviously going to object to mockeries of traditional gender and the displacement of fathers, certainly, but also to alternative patterns of development and sexual awareness for young men and women. Strict Mormons, for instance, won’t allow dating until 16; men and women are kept quite separate in traditional Islamic societies. These are sacred matters.

    Just to illustrate the point of social incommensurability, I remember one homosexual activist, lecturing on C-SPAN some years back saying that one of the conflicts between heterosexual culture and homosexual culture was that monogamy was not as valued in the homosexual community. Now I don’t want to make much of the point, but only to add to it the comment of the two gay racers on The Amazing Race this past season, Lynn and Alex. In one of their interviews they stated that they’d been together for, I think, five years, and commented rather wittily that that was “like 20 in gay years.” My suggestion is that we have some reason to suspect that the measure of monogamous commitment, among a number of other things, is not exactly the same in the two communities. Therefore, there are likely deep differences touching on the basics of human love and commitment and living arrangements (not to mention the sacred) between the two groups that account for much of the strife, the cultural war, between them.

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    RE: Comment 110 posted by Bennett on May 28, 2005 04:38 PM:

    “The idea of marriage originally, remember, is not a civil notion but a RELIGIOUS one.”

    >>How do you figure? No one got married before Christianity came along? Don’t make me laugh! < <

    If you can identify any modern secular societies with notions of civil society and civil rights existing PRIOR to Mosaic law or ancient Sumeria (2500 to 3000 B.C.), I'd love to hear about it.

    Remember, religion and its rites (that includes marriage) predate the emergence of modern civil society (usually seen to parallel the Renaissance).

    >>There may or may not be “religious ceremonies” accompanying a marriage. But they are separate issues entirely.<<

    Sure, you can take an originally religious institution and strip it of its sacred character, but then what have you got? E.g., circumcision for dubious aesthetic reasons, standing practice, and possible health benefits but with less sensuality: I’d say the rite had become bloodless, but the double entendre isn’t all that funny. Likewise, marriage as a rite stripped of sanctity seems a Pyrrhic victory at best.

  • RealCon

    Re: Comment 118

    “If it’s a dictionary definition, so what? Dictionaries describe things as they are. Their definitions are not legally binding. If we change what marriage means then the dictionaries will change their definitions to match.”

    BIG — BIG — IF —

    Do you always deal in fantasy???

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    My suggestion is that we have some reason to suspect that the measure of monogamous commitment, among a number of other things, is not exactly the same in the two communities.

    When you consider how difficult Christians make it for us to build a foundation together, we get no spousal benefits, we have to take extra steps often at a large legal expense to join our finances/assets and yet cannot join them together for tax purposes , we get no family benefits from society, etc. it should be fairly easy to understand that there is more pressure and more inconvenience placed on gay relationships. Also factoring in the fact that you won’t let us get married means we can walk away from each other without having to go to divorce court. This makes it easy to leave a relationship without really trying to work things out. Allowing us to utilize the same resources/privileges you do in order to make our family foundations strong will result in stronger family foundations.

    Once again, the problem lies with the fundamentalist.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Not necessarily with all fundamentalists, but those of the control-freak variety…

  • RealCon

    The “control-freak” variety — are those who come from the hippie counterculture..

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    RealCon, are you on some sort of acid flashback? What hippie counterculture are you talking about? Aside from Shark the rest of us are living in the 21st century.

    Dave

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Even if we would rather be in the summer of love than here…

  • Bennett

    Plainavy, re comment 120

    From what I’ve read of Ancient Greece, “marriage” was more of a transfer of ownership of the young woman to her husband. And although the very wealthy or ruling class may have had extravagant “pagan” ceremonies, standard fare was a feast at the home of the bride, followed by consummation at the home of the husband.

    This also seems to be true of Predynastic Egypt (5500 – 3100 BC.), where royalty had large affairs with offerings to the gods and other religious rituals, marriage for the commoner was basically a transfer of ownership. This isn’t to say that these relationships were without love or affection, just that the emphasis wasn’t necessarily a religious one. As always, it depends on the depth of the belief systems of those involved.

    It’s obvious that “marriage” predates Christianity, and that it was a term used to describe a union between those joining their lives together. Whatever Christians decide about what is the “right and correct” definition of marriage is arbitrary and should relate only to christians. Christians didn’t invent marriage, they just made up a set of rules surrounding marriage, for the members of their church.

    You wrote “Likewise, marriage as a rite stripped of sanctity seems a Pyrrhic victory at best.”

    Sanctity does not necessarily mean the tenets of organized religion, or ceremonies restricted to Judeo Christian tradition.

    My wife and I had a wedding ceremony that did not contain elements of organized religion, but it was filled with love and sanctity.

    Far from a Pyrrhic Victory!

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    Comment 104 posted by Natalie Davis on May 28, 2005 03:59 PM:

    >>And to expect us to just go along with this madness is folly as well.<<

    I don’t think “just going along” is the only other option. But as long as the other side is considered to be “mad” then there’s not much to discuss, all imagination of options is dead, and any pretence to tolerance is hollow.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    I didn’t say they were necessarily mad. Sane people have been known to spout madness on occasion. At the same time, there is no room for compromise because I believe in equality and there is no compromising that. Either everyone is equal under law or equality does not exist.

  • RealCon

    Re; Comment 125

    “What hippie counterculture are you talking about? Aside from Shark the rest of us are living in the 21st century.”

    The problem is your reasoning makes you look like you were born in the 21st century…

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    RE: Comment 105 posted by Margaret Romao Toigo on May 28, 2005 04:06 PM:

    >>Most Americans support the recognition of “civil unions” that provide

    the same protections and benefits of marriage.>>

    Doubtful. You must have been cherry-picking for data. These findings

    below are from the Pew Research Center, a fairly middle of the road outfit, oft cited in the liberal media:

    “By nearly two-to-one, more Americans oppose (59%) than favor (32%)

    legalizing gay marriage.”

    “Granting some legal rights to gay couples is somewhat more acceptable

    than gay marriage, though most Americans (51%) oppose that idea.”

    (“Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality:
    Republicans Unified, Democrats Split on Gay Marriage,” Nov. 2003.

    http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=765)

    >>to offer a small ray of hope that the ideals upon which this country was founded are still important to most of us [Americans]….>>

    Yes I’m sure Hamilton, the Adamses, Payne, Franklin, Madison, Washington, et al., struggled mightily in founding this country so that homosexuals could marry.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    I am sure however that they didn’t struggle so mightily to bar law-abiding citizens from being equal under law — not when the nation’s most important documents clearly acknowledged the right of everyone to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They couldn’t cover everything, which is why there are amendments, for example, to the Constitution.

  • RealCon

    Re: Comment 129 posted by Natalie Davis

    “ Sane people have been known to spout madness on occasion…”

    OK — you may be sane but —

    Marriage between a man and a woman makes sense — they couple nicely… and as an added benefit — the human race continues…

    But — if man were intended to have sexual intercourse with another man… his anal canal would be in front — not in his behind… BTY …is it like taking an enema? Does it result in a good bowel movement?

    And if woman were intended to have sexual intercourse with another woman… (whatever it is that they do)… something could have done through “evolution” (possibly creation) to help… whatever it is that they do…

    And some who want “equality” …want these perversions to be called “marriage”?

    “Equality” is what we have now — any man has a right to marry any woman — and any woman has a right to marry any man…

    It’s been that way for thousands of years…

    Now that is fairly simple to understand — is it not??

  • Bennett

    “It’s been that way for thousands of years…”

    Actually, up until a few years ago it was against the law for a “white” person to marry a “black” person, gender irrelevant.

    Today, it’s legal.

    Many folks like you [realcon], thought that the world would end if “mixed marriages” became legal.

    Guess what?

  • RealCon

    Bennett — Give it up!

  • Bennett

    Not likely.

  • RealCon

    Unfortunately!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Marriage between a man and a woman makes sense — they couple nicely… and as an added benefit — the human race continues…

    if that is the reason you place upon marriage, heterosexual people can choose to get married and get the benefits of contributing to the population BUT refrain from populating. And here I am, having populated and can’t get the benefits. This reasoning is pretty flawed.

    We are now over 6 billion. The human race is not in danger of people quitting having kids.

  • RealCon

    Re: Comment 138

    “Marriage between a man and a woman makes sense — they couple nicely… and as an added benefit — the human race continues…”

    “We are now over 6 billion. The human race is not in danger of people quitting having kids.”

    ———-
    OK – I’ll rewrite it with your note…

    Marriage between a man and a woman makes sense — they couple nicely… and as an added benefit — the human race continues…

    [Note: According to Steve: The human race is not in danger of people quitting having kids.]

    But — if man were intended to have sexual intercourse with another man… his anal canal would be in front — not in his behind… BTY …is it like taking an enema? Does it result in a good bowel movement?

    And if woman were intended to have sexual intercourse with another woman… (whatever it is that they do)… something could have done through “evolution” (possibly creation) to help… whatever it is that they do…

    And some who want “equality” …want these perversions to be called “marriage”?

    “Equality” is what we have now — any man has a right to marry any woman — and any woman has a right to marry any man…

    It’s been that way for thousands of years…

    Now that is fairly simple to understand — is it not??

  • Bennett

    Realcon,

    For you, and your kind,

  • Bennett

    “…is it like taking an enema? Does it result in a good bowel movement”

    This turns you on, admit it Realcon.

    As one of the other real Blogcritics noted, you have an attraction with all things anal.

  • RealCon

    Bennett — Now you’re really grasping…

    Nice try…

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Plainavy, religious people are free to categorize the homosexual (or any other) acts as “sin,” and people are free to agree or disagree with that position. These are our First Amendment rights.

    If “recognizing homosexuals as equal, a civil matter, is not the problem,” then what are you worried about?

    Homosexuals cannot deny or violate your First Amendment right to your religious beliefs, they need their civil and human rights recognized (BTW, privileges are “granted,” rights are recognized, secured and guaranteed).

    “Secularizing developments” in a civil society whose primary founding principle is freedom of religion and whose people cherish every sentiment their various and diverse religions (and denominations and sects) teach them? Is that even possible?

    Did this Great American Theocracy that is allegedly crumbling before our very eyes ever actually exist? Did I miss/forget some of my American History?

    “These things have less to do with codified law than with culture and politics, and activist judges, on the left or the right, can make newspeak look like toddler twaddle when it comes to reinventing the meaning of language and law and turning those things inside out.”

    But you don’t have to use “newspeak” or toddler twaddle or legalese or other funky semantic tricks to understand that our Constitution plainly recognizes, secures and guarantees our right to our various and diverse religious beliefs.

    The public square is not only about speech, everyone has the right to free speech in the public square, what you do not have the right to do is to change the authority of the state under our Constitution to deny rights to a group of people because some other peoples’ religious doctrine says that they are “sinners” — and when they cannot clearly demonstrate that their civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated if the “sinners” civil and human rights are recognized by the state.

    And numbers don’t matter because the will of the majority — no matter which color of state it might live in and no matter whether it is silent or loud — is irrelevant to the recognition of any of our civil and human rights.

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    Comment 127 posted by Bennett on May 28, 2005 09:21 PM:
    Plainavy, re comment 120

    My original claim was that “The idea of marriage originally, remember, is not a civil notion but a RELIGIOUS one.” That holds for contemporary American society, where the religion in question happens the majority of the time and through our history to be Christianity–we had a Christian-centered idea of marriage established long before we were worrying about civil unions for homosexuals.

    As for the wider context of world cultures, in the Greek example I was inclined to say you had a point but if you look at Jana Shopkorn’s seminar paper “‘Til Death Do Us Part': Marriage and Funeral Rites in Classical Athens” the matter is not clear (at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/classes/JSp.html). Shopkorn quite clearly speaks of marriage as a sacred institution: “The identity of the Classical Greek world is established through the traditional sacrifices and rituals…practiced in…the sacred wedding and the dramatic funeral…interwoven with ritual meaning and overlapping rites.” She’s using the language of religion (rites and ceremonies) to talk about this stuff because marriage was a religious institution.

    Care has to be taken because contemporary partisanship over marriage has even invaded the rendering of scholarship in this area. One commentator gives Greek marriage more of the spin you did, merely a sort of transfer of chattel and wealth; others though talk about types of marriage and use religious language (“marriage rites”) and religious icons or symbols (“offerings to Aphrodite” or invocations of the goddess Demeter or of mythological figures–Persephone, the “virginal bride”) to describe them. See the set of articles at http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greekmarriage/.

    My own sense is that while some marriages may have been, then as at any other time, as much or more about economic and political ties than about anything else, an “offering to Aphrodite,” I have to assume, was often meant in a genuinely religious way. I see no reason to believe that the Ancient Greeks (most of the available data only goes back to 700 or 800 B.C.) were anywhere near as cynical about religion as modern Westerners.
    As for Egypt, you made a nice try at anachronistic and ambiguous renderings of ancient religious practices surrounding marriage, but there’s no answer to the well known idea that civilization has developed from more integrated beginnings (religion, public life, economic life, marriage, art, death rites, the divine status of Pharoahs and kings or chiefs) where in less complex societies these were all bound up in unified practices that only later began to fragment into different “spheres” of practice as modernity took hold.

    >>It’s obvious that “marriage” predates Christianity, and that it was a term used to describe a union between those joining their lives together.>>

    Marriage predating Christianity is irrelevant. You haven’t proven that marriage predates religion. Marriage has existed in other ancient cultures, no one questioned that, and it is difficult at best, as shown with the Greek example, to disentangle religious elements from the concept of marriage. So it remains a stretch to say that Predynastic Egypt or Ancient Greece were examples of what I termed “modern secular societies with notions of civil society and civil rights.”

    >>Whatever Christians decide about what is the “right and correct” definition of marriage is arbitrary and should relate only to christians.< <

    The historical development that has bequeathed the concept of marriage to us in America may be many things but to suggest that it is all merely "arbitrary" goes too far. We have the concept of marriage we do, not b/c we are a Confucian or any other sort of society, but precisely b/c Christianity lies at our roots. When most of our American ancestors and parents married they did so, not by a Buddhist monk or a Yaqui Shaman, but in the majority of cases in a church by a Christian preacher (or priest, or minister) who likely mentioned a few precepts directly tied to the Bible. That's not arbitary or made-up--that's our history, that's the concept of marriage we are invoking and working with today.

    >>Christians didn’t invent marriage, they just made up a set of rules surrounding marriage, for the members of their church.>>

    Christians didn’t invent religion either. So what? By that reasoning, are you saying that Christians don’t practice a real religion or that their notions of marriage are meaningless? Marriage has existed in most societies. In every instance it has been surrounded with religious rites, ceremonies, sanctification, precepts, etc. Even without “organized religion,” you noted how your wedding “ceremony” was filled with “sanctity.” Why invoke such religious categories to describe a marriage? Because the idea of marriage we have is inherited from Christianity, for better or for worse, and that makes marriage in America a religious concept first of all.

  • RealCon

    Re: Comment 143 posted by Margaret Romao Toigo

    “And numbers don’t matter because the will of the majority… is irrelevant to the recognition of any of our civil and human rights.”

    Interesting — who is going to decide what “our civil and human rights” are?

    Margaret?

  • RealCon

    For billions of people — marriage between a man and a woman has made sense for eons… Now a few want to pervert it to achieve “pleasure”…

    Will “marriage” increase the “pleasure”?

    If “pleasure” is what you want — you don’t need “marriage“…

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    RealCon, it’s late. Perhaps I will give you a civics lesson on our three-branch system of government and how it was designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority some other time.

    Unless somebody beats me to it. I hope.

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    RE: Comment 122 posted by Steve S on May 28, 2005 07:47 PM:

    >>Allowing us to utilize the same resources/privileges you do in order to make our family foundations strong will result in stronger family foundations.< <

    This has been Andrew Sullivan's argument, the conservative Catholic homosexual (yeah, that's quite the concatentation there). The argument certainly gives one pause, but liberal secularists should spend time answering the social conservatives' concern that the two sorts of "families" do not reproduce the same society.

    In research on children rasied by homosexuals, one of the internal debates has been whether there are differences among children raised in a heterosexaul home and children raised in a homosexual home. Some researchers say there are no differences and some say there are. And the ones who say there are differences (more sexual experimentation by girls, less sexual experimentation by boys, a greater willingness to pursue homosexual relationships), argue to their liberal colleagues that those outcomes are good things because we want a more homosexual friendly, gender flexible society.

    The researchers themselves are at odds over how to publicize and what to make of the data. Do you think the folks in Indianapolis, Indiana or Macon county, Georgia are going to feel good about such findings? How do you pitch the Sullivan argument to them if they feel that the result will be to rearrange their kids’ and grandkids’ sexualities?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    But — if man were intended to have sexual intercourse with another man… his anal canal would be in front

    says who?
    who said ‘thou shalt put breeding parts in the front’?

    When you find some girl willing to give you a BJ, just say ‘no, that’s not what it’s for. God did not intend for me to experience that’.

    BTY …is it like taking an enema?

    Not that I’m aware of. Do you spend a good half hour trying to ram your enema in?

    Does it result in a good bowel movement?

    will that answer get me any closer to my equality?

    And some who want equality …want these perversions to be called marriage?

    No, RealCon, after all this, you still don’t get it. I don’t want my anal sex to get married. I want the love and commitment that we have in this law-abiding household to get the same structural support as the next household. I want my daughter to have the same societal support that other children get. It is our right and just because a lot of people think we’re disgusting is not a reason to deny civil liberties.

    Now that is fairly simple to understand — is it not??

    It’s all simple to understand. It has nothing to do with marriage, but you got to bring up body functions.

  • gonzo marx

    to RealCon, who asks..*who is going to decide what “our civil and human rights” are?*

    simplicity itself, me boyo…already done up for you, printed and published quite the while ago..

    we like to call it the Constitution of the United States along with the Bill of Rights

    mebbe ya have heard of them…it’s a kickin’ band…

    it appears to your humble Narrator that much fo this Argument stems from the simple Fact that one group feels as if they are being damaged because of being offended whereas the other group can cite a clear chain of historical evidence fo Persecution and unequal treatment under our Nation’s Rule of Law…

    let’s take a look at that for a Moment, shall we?

    in comment #119 plainavy sez…
    *The problem is that a religious person is going to categorize the homosexual acts as “sin,” again, whether you agree with that categorization or not.*

    this is the fallacious Postulate that underlies much of one side’s Argument..

    and to this Margaret sez..
    *The public square is not only about speech, everyone has the right to free speech in the public square, what you do not have the right to do is to change the authority of the state under our Constitution to deny rights to a group of people because some other peoples’ religious doctrine says that they are “sinners” — and when they cannot clearly demonstrate that their civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated if the “sinners” civil and human rights are recognized by the state.*

    take a second..parse the two carefully
    one stems from what the Individual believes to be a tenet of their Faith…the other is a person fo Faith logically explaining a tenet of our Nations’s “essence” as outlined by our Rule of Law

    the very Documents which Declared and Constituted our Nation were very clear…our “inalienable Rights” were “endowed” as Individuals within a Society…we are governed by the Rule of Law as established by “We the People”

    and Interesting thing to note here, gentle Readers…you have 4 regular Commentators, none of whome are either “gay” nor “fundamentalists” all in Agreement…such diverse and distinct schools of thought…

    Margaret
    Bennett
    Mr Nalle
    and your humble Narrator

    all arriving at the same Conclusions, utilizing the tools fo Logic and the Constitution.

    personally..i still fail to see where the real problem is…isn’t “love thy neighbor” a prime tenet?

    my favorite has always been the perfect line that binds the sublime of Poetry to the epistomological perfection in description of an Ethic…”do unto others as you would have others do unto you”…..and wasn’t THAT supposed to be the only “Commandment”?

    glad to see that the Majority around BC stands together on the Issue of basic human Rights and the principle of “equal protection under the Law”

    JuJu, may his mighty tail keep the flies of Bigotry and Hypocrisy away from the Holy Anus,is pleased..and wants me to return to the Cavorting…the lime jello with lil marshmellows has set…very tought to fill a whole pool…but now we can go bobbing for bisexuals!!

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    but liberal secularists should spend time answering the social conservatives’ concern that the two sorts of “families” do not reproduce the same society.

    I’m a liberal gay Christian, although not a church attending one. I have a partner and a child that’s biologically mine through surrogacy. What do they want to know about us not reproducing exactly?

    Do you think the folks in Indianapolis, Indiana or Macon county, Georgia are going to feel good about such findings? How do you pitch the Sullivan argument to them if they feel that the result will be to rearrange their kids’ and grandkids’ sexualities?

    I don’t understand the question. YOu say that a child growing up in a same sex household MAY grow up differently, then ask me how I can reassure some straight folks that their kids sexualities won’t be rearranged? I guess my answer would be that their kids won’t be living with gay parents?

    I can’t speak for other gay parents, most that I know of in our support groups are pretty religious church goers. But I can speak for me, and my daughter will be open minded and tolerant and will not be hindered by puritan values. She will respect her body and so I know she will treat it right, but she will respect it due to self-esteem and not the threat of something, whether the Lord or disease or public scorn. There will be no negative teachings, no negative beliefs and no negative judgements in regards to sex. She will learn about the consequences and the responsibilities and that she will be accountable. I treat my daughter as an adult now, and she already responds in kind. In that aspect, my daughter will be far different than those grandkids in Macon Georgia.

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    Comment 132 posted by Natalie Davis on May 28, 2005 11:16 PM:

    “The nation’s most important documents clearly acknowledged the right of everyone to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    Again, these matters cut both ways: The social conservatives and religionists are pursuing their vision of happiness too, rest assured.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    yeah, their vision of happiness happens to involve stigmatizing and oppressing a group of people. We’re very well aware that they are pursuing it. They have been all along.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>The problem is that a religious person is going to categorize the homosexual acts as “sin,” again, whether you agree with that categorization or not.< <

    It occurs to me that there's not one word about 'sin' in the Constitution.

    >>Tou have 4 regular Commentators, none of whome are either “gay” nor “fundamentalists” all in Agreement<<

    Where are the gay fundamentalist commentators when you need them?

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    plainavy sez…
    *Again, these matters cut both ways: The social conservatives and religionists are pursuing their vision of happiness too, rest assured.*

    an fascinating take on it..so, we are to gather that the “pusuit of happiness” that “social conservatives” and “religionists” is one that denies equal protection of Rights under the Rule of Law?
    even tho the Happiness this “group” Pursues doesn’t have anything to do with the two “gangs” you have cited?

    ok..just to try and see this clearly..let’s see if it passes the “smell test” shall we?

    in a future Time, the world holds 12 billion people…for hundreds of years the governing Organizations fo the World have handled all Reproduction in vitro, and social Custom has sttered people to thinking that homosexuality was the vast majority of “normal” behaviour

    just a hypothetical..no need to get yoru panties in a twist..just follow me for another few seconds…

    now you, gentle Reader…are part of the 10% of folks that just plain old gets turned on by the opposite sex…and you happen to live in the United States of North America under the still living Constitution with it’s 283 Amendments..

    you are ostracized, told to keep your self “in the closet”, and are not legally able to marry your Love and openly share your Life

    do you feel Oppressed?

    try reaching into the Past, and inserting “Christians” in there..add the whole Romans and lions bit for Fun

    “all Men are created Equal”

    that’s in the social Contract of our Nation

    “so unto others as you would have others do unto you”

    that’s the only Law a really Wise Teacher said to live by

    bigotry against people Disgraces both of those Quotes

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Where are the gay fundamentalist commentators when you need them?

    Cruising the AOL chat rooms probably. Better leave the discussions about marriage to gay liberals who actually value relationships.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Plainavy wrote:“The argument certainly gives one pause, but liberal secularists should spend time answering the social conservatives’ concern that the two sorts of ‘families’ do not reproduce the same society.”

    The biological function of procreation is not a family value. Commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation are family values. Defining families by demographic composition is cynical and selfish.

    The suggestion that the foundations of marriage and family are biological connections and/or specific configurations of people demeans the value of marriage and family with the idea that the coupling of the flesh is more important than the coupling of minds, hearts and souls.

    The recognition of a diversity of family configurations strengthens our family values with a moral emphasis on the commitments people make to one another to work toward meaningful and purposeful relationships. A narrow definition of families as some biological/demographic prescription gives us no values at all.

    Plainavy wrote:“The social conservatives and religionists are pursuing their vision of happiness too, rest assured.”

    And that is your right, but you don’t have the right to oppress other people in your pursuit of happiness because you are encroaching upon their right to pursue happiness.

    This is all very plain and simple, there is no need to use convoluted logic or to twist words around in order to make these points.

    If you have to rationalize your position with irrelevancies about how people might raise their children and by arbitrarily confusing religious doctrine with the principles of our Constitution, then you should probably reflect upon the substance of your position and why you cannot justify it in concise, pragmatic terms.

  • RealCon

    Good to see all you lib-ee-rals out “licking” your chops over this subject — we thank you and the Supreme Judicial Court of the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts for doing more to defeat John Kerry than the quagmire in Iraq and other disasters of this administration could ever do…

    Non urinat in ventum!

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Plainavy wrote:“The argument certainly gives one pause, but liberal secularists should spend time answering the social conservatives’ concern that the two sorts of ‘families’ do not reproduce the same society.”

    The biological function of procreation is not a family value. Commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation are family values. Defining families by demographic composition is cynical and selfish.

    The suggestion that the foundations of marriage and family are biological connections and/or specific configurations of people demeans the value of marriage and family with the idea that the coupling of the flesh is more important than the coupling of minds, hearts and souls.

    The recognition of a diversity of family configurations strengthens our family values with a moral emphasis on the commitments people make to one another to work toward meaningful and purposeful relationships. A narrow definition of families as some biological/demographic prescription gives us no values at all.

    Plainavy wrote:“The social conservatives and religionists are pursuing their vision of happiness too, rest assured.”

    And that is your right, but you don’t have the right to oppress other people in your pursuit of happiness because you are encroaching upon their right to pursue happiness.

    This is all very plain and simple, there is no need to use convoluted logic or to twist words around in order to make these points.

    If you have to rationalize your position with irrelevancies about how people might raise their children and by arbitrarily confusing religious doctrine with the principles of our Constitution, then you should probably reflect upon the substance of your position and why you cannot justify it in concise, pragmatic terms.

  • RealCon

    Glad to see all you lib-ee-rals “licking” your chops over this subject… We want the thank you and the Supreme Judicial Court of the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts for doing more to defeat John Kerry than the quagmire in Iraq and all the other problems of this administration could ever do… thereby enabling Bush to appoint federal judges to the bench — who follow the Constitution — as it was written…

    Non urinat in ventum!

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    once again, rather than actually engage in the Discussion, we get some Insidious attempt at Distraction via juvenile taunts

    Margaret remains the Winner and still champion

    >and there was much Rejoicing<

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • RealCon

    Yeah — just declare victory and go home!

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    but RealCon…
    i am home…Cavorting

    besides, you still owe me for a tub of popcorn

    Excelsior!

  • HW Saxton

    Why are those on the right side of the
    political spectrum always such angry &
    bitter people ? You guys are winning as
    it is, what else could you guys want?
    Today the Courts,Tomorrow The World ???

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Why are those on the right side of the
    political spectrum always such angry &
    bitter people ?<<

    Come again? This is the standard criticism of those on the left, not on the right. The left is all about doom and gloom and pessimism. The right tends to be about optimism, positive solutions and hope. Neocons excepted, since they’re leftists who got lost.

    Dave

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Mr. Saxton, that’s exactly why I live in such a constant state of depression and fear.

    In fairness, though, there are lots of bitter and angry libs. Their bitterness and anger makes sense to me, though. It’s hard to be happy when some right-wing theocrat’s jackboot is always on your neck.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Not the whole right, Dave. A portion of it — the right does currently include the neocons and the fundamentalists, like them or not — is bitter and angry, in spite of all the wins.

    Authoritarians are like that. You can’t be an authoritarian — liberal or conservative — unless you are a an angry and bitter pessimist who has little to no faith in your fellow man.

    Conversely, you can’t be a libertarian without optimism, hope and faith in your fellow man.

  • sydney

    RealCon,

    Your posts are extremely frustrating. You’ve been ignoring the important questions people ask you, and you’ve been purposefully misinterpreting other people’s comments so as to support your agenda. How you cannot be embarrassed by the degree to which you try to deceive yourself, if beyond me.

    What exactly is your argument? From what I gathered, in your own words, it comes down to this;

    “For billions of people — marriage between a man and a woman has made sense for eons… Now a few want to pervert it to achieve “pleasure”… ”

    So, you can’t see any harm gay marriages are causing to anyone else, but you don’t like that the status quos is being changes.

    The most bizarre of all your comments was in response to Margaret’s suggestion that “In order to win this particular “culture war” battle, all you have to do is answer one question: Which specific civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated by the secular, legal recognition of same sex marriage?”…

    Instead of answering it, you conceded that this is true and then you say “well if you posed the question, than you must have an answer. I await your answer”.

    Explain to me real con why you wouldn’t answer the question? Of course you didn’t because you can’t think of any way in which gays violate your civil rights. Homosexuals offend your sensibilities and that is there crime against you. There is no real offense here. Secondly, Margaret obviously doesn’t need to answer the question, because she is obviously of the view that there is no civil rights violation. So why would you ask her too? It makes no sense whatsoever. Are you really this stupid, or are you just trying to be an ass?

    Now the sick part here is that you are probably aware that your arguments don’t make any sense, yet you keep writing nonsensical stuff. What exactly do you hope to achieve? You would have been better off keeping your mouth shut because at least then we all would have thought that there is the possibility that we were wrong on this issue. AS it is now, you’ve simply reaffirm our belief that those opposed to gay marriages are just caught up in their own fears.

    REalCon, almost everything you’ve posted here today was completely illogical or stupid. From now on, I suggest you either attempt to make some valid points or you just stay out of the discussion. There’s no sense in you running around frustrating everyone while having no real point to make.

  • RealCon

    I get a big laugh out of the “left” preaching — over and over — about — WHY this country should accept “homosexual marriage”… ‘

    You can make up your weak excuses forever…

    It ain’t gonna happen…

  • sydney

    You obviously did’nt grasp what I Was sayin in the last post because you’ve gone done it again REalcon.

    Yet another comment that DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING.

    Essentially your saying “you’ll never change my mind, I’m resolute.”

    A great dipossition for debate..

  • RealCon

    You got it.

    I gave you my position.

    Others gave me theirs… and I don’t buy it…

    And (after many posts) you don’t buy mine.

    Marriage is open to debate?

    NO…

    Marriage is between one man and one woman… end of story…

    That’s the essence of the “debate”…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    RealCon, throw out all of history in which marriage included polygamy, harems, slaves and all sorts of other arrangements including arranged marriages which were built on economics rather than love.

    Marriage is between one man and one woman… end of story…

    just focus on the one incomplete sentence that supports your ideology, disregard everything else and close the debate.

    Then go home.

  • RealCon

    I am home…

    It is you who is adrift…

    You just can’t accept the reality that marriages have ALWAYS been between…

    MEN AND WOMEN..

    NOT BETWEEN MEN AND MEN…

    NOT BETWEEN WOMEN AND WOMEN…

    Now… Go cogitate that…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    It’s not true that marriage is an unchangeable institution.

    Not only do different societies differ in their institutions of marriage, but even in Western society marriage has changed a great deal.

    Perhaps the biggest change is that marriage is now a partnership of equals, which was not the case originally…

    And actually if you research history, you’ll see that there have been instances of same sex marriage.

    Some ways in which marriage has changed:

    * polygamous marriage was accepted in many periods of history and is still accepted in parts of the world (although not in the West)

    * in medieval Europe marriage was not based on sexual love, nor was it regarded as a place where such love should flourish

    * marriage is now gender neutral
    1) wives and children are no longer the property of the husband
    2) a woman’s property does not become the property of the husband on marriage
    3) the husband is no longer regarded as “the head of the household”
    4) marriage is now racially neutral

    * the age at which people may validly marry has been different at different times in history
    marriage no longer has to be for ever

    *there’s little social stigma in ending a marriage
    1) divorce is now easier
    2) divorce no longer requires one of the partners to show that the other partner was at fault
    3) divorce is now available on demand – this indicates that both partners must continue to consent to be part of a marriage if it is to survive; the consent given at the wedding is not sufficient if either partner no longer wishes to be part of the marriage
    4) changes in the approach to divorce demonstrate changes in the way in which courts and legislatures regard marriage
    5)property and children’s rights in divorce are regularly changed

    * people who want to have sex or children are under no pressure to marry

    Marriage is mutable to accomodate the changing needs of society. To go on the presumption that in most all instances gay people have been denied the right to marry whom they love in the past, so it should remain that way, is an outdated presumption. We burned witches at the stake too, I’m sure when the practice was dropped there was some ole diehard who bitched ‘but we’ve always done it this way’.

  • RealCon

    What’s to stop polygamy — harems — bestiality, etc… from becoming “the law of the land”…

    And — as you stated — they have existed in the past (and elsewhere today)…

    ====
    Re: Comment 90

    Steve S sez

    “yes, realcon there was a law. Just because something becomes a law doesn’t mean it is just. Laws get struck down all the time”…

    Re: Comment 88 posted by Benett

    “This is in no way is an open door for beastiality. There are laws against that sort of thing.”…

    ====

    How long will it take for Benet’s “law against that sort of thing.”… to be struck down???

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    since marriage mutates over time, it’s possible that polygamy may come back in, it’s already allowed in other parts of the world still. In terms of bestiality, I would say that all participants are not consenting adults would put a lock against that one.

    Regarding your scenario about laws changing and the possibility of beastiality coming into play, refer to the consenting adult issue. Allowing two males to marry, does not open a door for a non-consent scenario.

    It’s called common sense, RealCon. You know this stuff, you’re just refusing to think it though to the LOGICAL conclusion.

  • RealCon

    Right — it’s possible that polygamy may come back into the courts… and maybe harems could also be ruled “constitutional” by some lunatic judge…

    But don’t get hung up on bestiality — that was used to show an extreme case — but one that could eventually come before the courts — and some judge (who likes animals)?

    Who knows what would happen on this slippery slope?

    Most people in this country don’t want the possibility of polygamy… or any other perversion… to change what has always been between “man and woman”…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    well, realcon, so what if a bestiality case comes before the court? The court will dismiss it as stupid. I’m not going to sit back and continue to be oppressed because some irrelevant, unrelated case may come up in the future, by somebody who doesn’t know better. Whatever.

    Most people in this country don’t want

    So if most people in this country wanted to kill all citizens at 26 years old, like in Logan’s Run, you’d be okay with that. Mob rule is your philosophy we can gather.

    Since when in American did we decide that the citizens, the majority get to dole out equality? Last I heard, we didn’t, so this argument is moot. When desegregation occurred and African Americans were bused into schools, there was a large majority who didn’t like it. Didn’t matter.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    “What’s to stop polygamy — harems — bestiality, etc… from becoming ‘the law of the land’…”

    Poor Mr. Straw Man is getting tattered and smelly after being pushed down that same slippery slope into that same vat of red herring so many times.

    Face it, RealCon, you have lost this debate not because of your debating skills, but because you chose to take an untenable position.

    You cannot win this one because there are no pragmatic justifications for oppression, which is why you have no choice but to concede or continue to resort to the use of logical fallacies, evasion and other transparent semantic trickery in vain attempts to keep defending something that is logically indefensible.

  • RealCon

    What is “logically indefensible” is what the looney left is trying to convince the country is a “right” that is not in the Constitution of the United States…

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Your cognitive dissonance is showing, RealCon.

    Womens’ suffrage was not recognized by the Constitution until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. This, the abolition of slavery and suffrage for men of color — as well as the the future recognition of homosexuals’ right to civil marriage — were possible because of the 9th Amendment:

    AMENDMENT IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Didn’t you ever take a civics class?

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 181 posted by Margaret Romao Toigo

    Thank you so much for recognizing that “Womens’ suffrage was not recognized by the Constitution until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. This, the abolition of slavery and suffrage for men of color — were possible because of the 9th Amendment:”…

    Thank you for helping me out.

    What you have described here are CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS — passed by a process which you will have to use to get what you want…

    Now if you want to change the Constitution of the United States of America — go out and do it by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT…

    Or — alternatively do it by changing our laws (you know — through that thing we call the legislature) — either state by state — or by an enactment of the Congress…

    BTY — didn’t you learn this in Civics class?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Rights are recognized through all of those means as well as by the courts.

    Exactly how homosexuals’ right to civil marriage will eventually be enumerated, no one can predict, but it is inevitable that it will happen because that right has already been discovered and officially recognized by the courts.

    Since there is no pragmatic justification for relegating homosexuals to the status of second-class citizenship, it’s just a matter of time now. Remember the 9th Amendment.

    You can fight against it as that is your right, but you will ultimately lose because while social progress moves forward in fits and starts, it never leaps backwards in a free society.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Rights are recognized through all of those means as well as by the courts.

    Exactly how homosexuals’ right to civil marriage will eventually be enumerated, no one can predict, but it is inevitable that it will happen because that right has already been discovered and officially recognized by the courts.

    Since there is no pragmatic justification for relegating homosexuals to the status of second-class citizenship, it’s just a matter of time now. Remember the 9th Amendment.

    You can fight against it as that is your right, but you will ultimately lose because while social progress moves forward in fits and starts, it never leaps backwards in a free society.

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 184

    It doesn’t cost anything to dream..

    Dream on…

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 184

    Don’t forget that Massachusetts is an aberration…

    Remember the presidential election of 1972?

  • RealCon

    Just trying to be helpful

  • Bob

    A few points, regarding various posts.

    1) the claim that the liberal position does not impose its views on others (pro choice doesn’t mean you have to have an abortion etc). So gun control is just exercising your right NOT to own a gun? We DONT have to pay taxes in order to fund schools that teach values we disagree with? We dont have to subsidize the gay lifestyle by both providing medical care for AIDS patients as well as funding research for a cure? We don’t have to live in a society where parts of our country have decended into third-world savagery due to the fact that the ACLU & “civil-rights” groups have prevented us from taking necissary corrective action? Affirmative action ISN’T denying me a job or college admission due to my gender & skin color?

    2)”Why are those on the right side of the
    political spectrum always such angry &
    bitter people ”

    I was born & raised a far-left liberal (by Seattle standards!). The mindless, vitriolic, & fanatical hatred of most of the leftists I was exposed to was one of the catalysts that caused me to challenge their core assumptions & eventually reject most (but not all) of their expressed views.

    3) Gays are not being discriminated against or having their civil rights violated by disallowing same-sex marriage. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else: They can marry a person of legal age, the opposite sex, & no more than 1 at a time. Same as everyone else.

    Dan Savage of “The Stranger”, a gay man, is in fact legally married to a lesbian. No one tried to stop them. The two of them enjoy all the rights & privleges of any other married couple.

    4) Personally, I have no problem with polygamy. Provided it is practiced by free & independant people who have the option to decline. This would of course disinclude arranged marriages & the cultures that practice them, as well as cultures where women are not truly free to decline marriage. (In other words, ALL the cultures that currently openly practice polygamy).

    I have read stories written by American women in what are called “plural marriages”. They frankly seem happy as clams! Many have high-powered careers outside the home.

    This is not to say that polygamist are any more “discriminated against” than gays. Not a law in the worls can keep multiple people from cohabitating & deciding for themselves that they are married. Society & government just doesn’t have to grant their views any legal validity.

    5) A lot of you seem to be missing the point that what you call “oppression” is just freedom of association, which by definition means the right to exclude those whom you find objectionable, without having to meet someone elses standards as to what you should or shouldn’t find objectionable.

    6)your quotes on the meaning of the first amendments establishment clause shows a major gap in historical knowledge. At the time of the constitutions writing “religion” meant by definition “christianity”. The Founding Fathers had just fought a war against a country with a specific official church, which had broad powers over the lives of ordinary citizens.
    The understood meaning of this clause was that one form OF CHRISTIANITY could not be elevated above another form OF CHRISTIANITY. In other words, the government cannot dictate that Baptists are right & Mormons are wrong, or Methodists are right & Catholics are wrong etc.

    7) The belief that the courts decide on issues of equality (not the people) is the result of the courts simply assuming upon themselves powers that the Constitution never granted them, & politicians being too cowardly to stand up to them.

    What do you think would happen if the Supreme Court issued another expansive ruling, & Congress & the President simply refused to enforce it?

    Take school busing. What if the legislature simply refused to allocate money to implement their decision (which is perfectly within their rights)? The courts could protest until hell froze over, but what could they do?

    8) Finally, a word to our leftist posters:

    Never assume that simply because you have been getting away with something for a long time, that the issue is “settled”, or that it has aquired the status of a right. Any right you think you have can be invalidated by just replacing enough judges with ones who don’t agree with you.

    Thats the danger in supporting an activist judiciary. When you put tools of oppression in place, its not safe to assume that they will allways be in the hands of those who share your social & political views.

    Nuff said.

  • JR

    Don’t forget that Massachusetts is an aberration…

    Remember the presidential election of 1972?

    Yeah, the one where Massachusetts was the only state that didn’t vote for the criminal.

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 189

    It could have been even better if the Republicans had a better candidate…

  • JR

    Take home message: Massachusetts was right, everyone else was wrong.

  • RealCon

    McGovern was a better person — he just got in with the wrong party…

  • RealCon

    Before I leave this entertainment and go out and do something productive —

    HEAR YE… ALL OF YOU…

    Listen to BOB !

    He makes sense…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    A lot of you seem to be missing the point that what you call “oppression” is just freedom of association

    no, Bob. Denying me the 1,000 federal rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage is not freedom of association. Denying me the 700+ state rights, benefits and privileges of marriage is not freedom of association.

    They can marry a person of legal age, the opposite sex, & no more than 1 at a time. Same as everyone else

    Margaret, your assertion earlier that these people are far more destructive to family values than gay people are, has just been substantiated yet again. Here they clearly believe that love, commitment and trust are not the vital components of a stable home to raise children in. All that is needed to raise children is a penis and a vagina. It is clear they define family values differently than the rest of us and are destroying the sanctity of marriage in their definition.

    We dont have to subsidize the gay lifestyle by both providing medical care for AIDS patients as well as funding research for a cure?

    How clueless. We are witnessing the decimation of millions in Africa apparently because they are out hitting the circuit parties every night. And most importantly, the last clause of his sentence indicates he does not want to seek a cure for AIDS because he believes it is a disease of immorality. So religion is yet again setting the standards in the medical field (if they get their way). First pharmacists can turn women away and now this.

    This christian world they want is so cold and evil. It’s a horrid horrid place.

  • Bob

    Nixon was never even ACCUSED of a fraction of what we KNOW Clinton did.

    Nixon was in all ways a political liberal (affirmative action, welfare, wage & price controls, EPA, ESA, got us out of Vietnam, etc). The leftist hatred for him was due solely to his earlier involvement in anti-communist activities (IE spies in government & elsewhere).

    His accusations were later PROVEN true through both the Vernona intercepts & the released KGB archives after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    His greatest crime was not being photogenic on live TV, & telling the truth about Leftists.

  • Bob

    Steve:

    Who is this “they” you refer to

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Re: 193

    NO.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    YOu and people like you, Bob, who believe that gender is what defines marriage and that love and commitment need not apply. Apparently you are okay with Dan Savage marrying a woman for federal benefits but then getting a little dick on the side.

    That’s not marriage to me, and I refuse to make such a laughing stock of the institution, I value it and consider it more holy than you do.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    When you put tools of oppression in place, its not safe to assume that they will allways be in the hands of those who share your social & political views.

    Leave it to Bob and his ideology to see that the broadening of Rights is a form of oppression.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Somebody named Bob has strolled in here to reiterate the same flawed arguments and logical fallacies we have all heard numerous times before.

    Except that Bob has no problem with polygamy (provided that people have the option to decline), so that particular straw man will been spared another perilous ride down the slippery slope for now.

    Freedom of speech is all about imposing one’s view upon others who are free to agree or disagree. Oppression is not the imposition of prejudicial viewpoints upon the oppressed.

    Oppression is the arbitrary denial and/or violation of civil and human rights.

    The “imposing viewpoint” angle is a a form of cognitive dissonance for freedom-loving American bigots who want to believe that freedom and rights are privileges that can be granted or revoked at their whim just because they are uncomfortable with the fact that some people are homosexual.

    Homosexuals are denied their human right to self-determination as long as they are not free to marry whomever they choose within the same boundaries of age, competence and numbers as everyone else. To suggest that homosexuals are not oppressed because they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is obtuse, condescending and hateful.

    Freedom of association does not extend into other peoples’ rights. You have the right to exclude those whom you find objectionable as long as you do not encroach upon their civil and human rights in doing so. You certainly do not have the right to deny civil and human rights to people whom you find objectionable for arbitrary reasons.

    The assertion that “At the time of the constitutions writing ‘religion’ meant by definition “Christianity,'” is nothing but a big fat juicy rationalization that is based upon contrivances of out-of-context logic.

    And, “The understood meaning of this clause was that one form OF CHRISTIANITY could not be elevated above another form OF CHRISTIANITY.” is just plain ridiculous when you consider that our Founders were generally Deists or Unitarians who believed in some form of Supreme Being, but rejected the divinity of Christ and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.

    Talk about a major gap in historical knowledge!

    Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

    -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

    Issues of equality and human and civil rights can be decided by the courts when no other remedy is forthcoming and even when remedy is forthcoming. America is not a Democracy, the mob does not rule here.

    I’m a gay rights advocate who also understands that our Second Amendment enumerates our right to keep and bear arms (I am a libertarian independent, not a “leftist” or a “liberal.”).

    I am on the side of human and civil rights, sometimes that’s left and sometimes its right, neither one has a monopoly on protecting and defending our rights.

  • sydney

    There is no reasoning with bob and realCon. They know their arguments are illogical but are stuck upon not wanting what they “feel” is wrong.

    So long as their decisions are based on emotions they’ll continue to spout crap that doesn’t add up.

  • Bob

    Steve, your self rightous indignation has rendered you somewhat incoherant. Please tell me more about “people like me”. I would be interested to compare your shallow stereotypes to reality.

    When did I indicate that I did not want a cure for aids because it is a disease of immorality? Did I specifically state that homosexuality was immoral at any time? The question should be why is AIDS elevated to such a higher priority than other diseases, & why has the gay community fought so hard against treating it like any other communicable disease? (mandatory testing, public posting of HIV status, confinement for those with HIV who will not cease any activities that spread disease, etc). Personally, I think it should be mandatory information on all drivers licenses. You know, babe I think your hot but could I see your ID first?

    As much as I dispise the man, Fidel Castro dealt with AIDS very effectivly. he had the entire population tested, anyone positive was relocated to a secure camp, & they were only released after being fully educated & swearing not to engage in sex (safe or otherwise) with any non-infected person. As a result, AIDS is nearly non-existant in Cuba.

    Wheras I feel the deepest of sympathy for individual Africans who have contracted AIDS through no fault of their own (rape victims, wifes infected by unfaithful husbands etc), The fact is Africans themselves (collectively) are responsible for the epidemic. They refuse to abandon cultural norms which spread the disease. They also rejected using condoms because, & I quote: ” we dont want some white doctor telling us how to have sex”, unquote.

    Please tell me more about the “horrid, cold, evil christian world” I desire. You would maybe prefer the enlightened views on homosexuality practiced in the Muslim world? Or in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe? Or Castro’s Cuba?

    At any point in time have I specifically indicated my religious affiliation?

    Personally, I couldn’t care less what Dan Savage does with his dick or anyone elses. I believe the marriage was more a political statement than anything else.

    Also I don’t think he’s getting dick on the side. I’m pretty sure its the main course.

    Please read comment 188 section 2 again.
    You are the epitamy of what I am talking about.

    I seem to recall that the African AIDS epidemic began ONLY after AIDS exploded on the gay scene in America, due to the refusal of (primarily) the gay community to take the necissary steps to prevent its spread.

    & Natalie: responses like 197 probably seem profound to people who think “hey hey, ho ho, (fill in the blank) has got to go” constitute an intelligant argument. For those of us who don’t count their IQ on their fingers, they are just infantile temper tantrums.

  • sydney

    Bob says:
    >>3) Gays are not being discriminated against or having their civil rights violated by disallowing same-sex marriage. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else: They can marry a person of legal age, the opposite sex, & no more than 1 at a time. Same as everyone else.<<

    –Bob, this is the logic you’d expect from a 10 year old. And I’m being serious.

    Heterosexuals have the legal right to choice and to have their sexuality recognized in marriage. Homosexuals, haven’t the right to have their own sexual orientation recognized in a legal marriage. These are obviously not the same rights.

    Are you purposely trying to deceive us, or have you deceived yourself? OR are you just not very intelligent?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    You want to call me angry? You’re damn right I’m angry at fundamentalists. They are the bain of progress and democracy in this country. They are attacking my family. HOw the hell am I supposed to react to that?

    A HELL of a lot more people ought to be shouting and in your face, telling you to quit trying to rewrite historical documents, quit trying to pretend you are the one wanting to define the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, quit trying to moralize disease, and keep your faith where it belongs, in your heart. Only when your faith in your heart isn’t strong enough, do you need outside reinforcement for it, like laws and pushing your ideology in public, civil institutions.

    Call me angry, so what, call everyone else crazy for not being angrier.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    I think Steve was referring to you and others like you, Bob.

    You see, those of us who value marriage and family are getting sick and tired of the way you and others like you disparage our family values in your efforts to keep homosexuals oppressed in America.

    You and others have degraded the institution of marriage and debased the meaning of family by making them into mere matters of biology and demographics.

    With all of your talk about procreation and what nature intended to go where, you have made marriage into nothing but a license to have sex and reproduce (as if one was ever required for either one), you have made values such as commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation irrelevant to the clinical mechanics of reproduction and anachronistic gender identities.

    Because of this, it has become imperative to reinvent marriage to preserve its viability as an institution that brings people together in love, commitment, loyalty, trust, mutual respect and cooperation to form the essential building blocks of civilized society known as families.

    In order to strengthen the social institutions of marriage and family, we must expand their definitions so that we can prevent the moral values that make successful marriages and strong families from being lost and forgotten in the midst of a senseless culture war over the relatively trivial issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.

    Understand something, Bob. I am a married heterosexual woman. My husband, my children and I do not have to worry about being oppressed.

    But we have been degraded by the cynical propaganda of anti-homosexual bigots who reduce marriage and family to their basest meanings because it is politically expedient.

    Not to mention that the fact that I am enjoying rights that some of my fellow Americans are being arbitrarily denied really bothers me.

    You see, Bob, you and others like you think that your marriages will mean less if homosexuals’ right to civil marriage is recognized. For me, it’s just the opposite. When same-sex marriages are legally recognized by the state, my marriage will mean more to me because marriage will no longer be defined in terms of its biology and demographics, but by the commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation that are essential to marriage.

  • Bennett

    Notice how Bob totally ignores that Margarette shot the hell out of his assertations?

    So much for intellegent debate. Bob’s about to start ranting the way Realcon started ranting when his boat wouldn’t float.

    Nice one Margarette. Game, set, and match.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Excuse me please, might we discuss the stigmitization and oppression you place upon me, the second class citizenship and continued demonization, you wish for my family, over a cup of tea?

    Sheesh.

  • Bob

    Heterosexuality is the default norm amongst humanity, whereas homosexuality is a deviation from that norm. Society has no need or obligation to recognise the gay sexual orientation. If it chooses to do so that is fine, but to declare it a “right” is ludicrous. Congress could choose to cease to recognize heterosexual marriage as well if they chose to, but they don’t

    A right, under our constitutional republic, is enumerated by amending the constitution. This requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of congress & ratification by majority vote of 3/4 of our state legislatures.

    Margaret, what are or are not “civil & human rights” are simply a matter of opinion. It is a linguistic trick used to attempt to assign moral authority to what are simply peoples opinions as to the right way for society to be governed.

    There is NO guarantee of equality in the constitution, nor was this nation founded apon its assumption. Nor does its assumption have any particular moral validity.

    As long as the majority does not choose to support gay marriage, neither any of you or your surrogates on the courts have any business trying to impose it upon us.

  • Bob

    Margaret: Quick test. Read your last post & tell me how many assumptions you have made about me that are not in any way supported by my statements.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Mr. Bob, I was merely answering the question posed in 193. I increased the font size because one word was very hard to see on the screen.

    Again, Ms. Toigo, excellent job. Thanks!

  • Bob

    Bennet: please do the following:

    1) quote my exact assertion (verbatum).
    2) quote where Margaret “shot the hell out of my assertions” (verbatum).

    I promise to try not to start ranting: Just show how my boat sank.

    remember: assertion is not proof.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Society already recognizes the right of gay and lesbian people to be gays and lesbians, we just need to work on getting their right to civil marriage recognized because a free society is obliged to recognize the all of the human and civil rights of all of its citizens.

    Rights are indeed enumerated in our Constitution and its Amendments. They can also be recognized by the courts because America is not a Democracy, the mob does not rule here. Don’t you know how our system of government works to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority?

    Civil and human rights are not matter of opinion unless you are trying to deny them to an individual or group.

    And linguistic tricks that are “used to attempt to assign moral authority to what are simply peoples opinions as to the right way for society to be governed.” are not necessary to the recognition of our civil and human rights, but they are essential to those who are trying to justify oppression.

    Bob, I’m going to make yet another assumption about you. I assume that you, like RealCon, do not have an answer to The Question, “Which of your specific civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated by the secular, legal recognition of same sex marriage?”

    Maybe you can answer it, but my assumption is that you probably cannot. I assume that you won’t even bother to try.

    If you can provide a clear and logical answer then you win this particular battle in the “culture war.”

    However, if you cannot answer it clearly and logically, then you must concede that your position is not based upon pragmatism, but rather upon arbitrary prejudice.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Bob sez..
    *A right, under our constitutional republic, is enumerated by amending the constitution.*

    i refute that factually inaccurate “definition”

    our “inalienable Rights” are granted as Citizens….to modify, or restrict those, for the good of the Nation by means of the Rule of Law as established and defnied in the Constitution is the prupose of our “duly elected Representatives”

    not the other way around..which is how you seem to believe it works based on what i have Quoted from you…

    i know you, gentle Readers, have spotted the difference…now, i Wonder if he will tackle Margaret’s question on “oppression”????

    film at 11

    Excelsior!

  • Bob

    The Question, “Which of your specific civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated by the secular, legal recognition of same sex marriage?”

    First off, it wouldn’t matter if I couldn’t. You have not shown any valid reason why a person MUST prove their rights are violated to oppose gay marriage. This is an arbitrary standard you have made up to create the impression that you are winning the argument.

    How about the first amendment? Prohibiting the “free exercise of religion”? What if an employer who does not approve of gay marriage wants to give benefits to the hetrosexual spouses of employees, but not “gay marriage” spouses because of their religious beliefs?

    How about the right to raise your children with whatever beliefs & values you deem appropriate? gay marriage would be seen as social validation of lifestyle.

    The issue here is not a “rights” issue.

    It is a case of the fact that a GREAT MANY people see this as yet another example of what Daniel Patrick Moynahan called “defining deviancy down”.

    Current & former members of NAMBLA have leadership roles in the gay rights movement. You may scoff at the concept of the “slippery slope”, but those of us who have been around since the 60’s have seen it in action. How long will it be before pedophilia is declared an acceptable “alternative lifestyle”, & speaking out against it is condemned as “hate speech”.

    You can see this in how laws originally designed to prevent overt, deliberate racial discrimination have morphed into arguements about “disparate impact” & “institutional racism”, & how “equal opportunity” has evolved into demands for proportionately equal outcomes.

    To the leftist mindset, nothing is ever enough. Every victory is used as a platform for evermore egregious & outragous demands. It is the proverbial camel getting his nose into the tent.

    You are using a “victory by definition” approach, which is considered an illegitimate debate meathodology.

    Example:”Civil and human rights are not matter of opinion unless you are trying to deny them to an individual or group.”

    Wrong! Civil and human rights ARE a matter of opinion.

    You claim “society” recognizes this & accepts that. this is an example of what is known as “intelectual incest”.

    This is accomplished by stating that those who disagree with you are either evil or stupid, thus justifying summarily excluding their views. Then amongs the people left (those who agree with you), you can then say “see, we all agree so it MUST be true!”.

    Courts only have the right to recognize rights expressly granted by the constitution. The fact that they have taken it upon themselves to invent additional rights not clearly enumerated basically constitute a judicial coup, & has no legitimacy. Judicial restraint is not the same thing as mob rule.

    Other than these clearly enumerated rights, the majority is entitled to rule.

    PS, I answered your question, now you answer mine.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    You believe in ‘the tyranny of the majority’, then.

    I hope you enjoy your new Communist Chinese overlords in a few years:)

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    ummm..no..you didn’t Answer..you declared it to not be a valid Question…you did this by Opinion and via fiat..NOT from any type of Logical reasoning..

    next Bob sez..
    *Wrong! Civil and human rights ARE a matter of opinion.*

    thus Invalidating our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law in a single sentance!!

    give Bob credit for testicular fortitude at least…

    we now return you to your regularily scheduled Program as we Await Margaret to continue the ass-whuppin’

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • Bob

    1) first I explained why it was an invalid question, This is because SHE failed to prove the assumption apon which the question was based.

    I then gave examples anyway.

    2)human & civil rights (as used by the poster) are NOT the same as constitutional rights! They are rights created out of thin air! Basically, its a way of saying “this is how the constitution would read if it were written right”

    There is currently no law allowing gay marriage, yet you claim I am “Invalidating our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law in a single sentence!!”

    Majority rule applies ONLY within the confines of the soverein nation, (& only within the parameters allowed by the constitution), who’s members have the right to exclude others from participation. Where did this “Chineese overlords” thing come from?

    Gonzo, your qualifications to determine who is whippin whose ass are what? Beyond them telling you what you want to hear I mean.

  • Bennett

    BOB WROTE:

    The Founding Fathers had just fought a war against a country with a specific official church, which had broad powers over the lives of ordinary citizens.
    The understood meaning of this clause was that one form OF CHRISTIANITY could not be elevated above another form OF CHRISTIANITY.

    MARGARETTE WROTE:

    “The understood meaning of this clause was that one form OF CHRISTIANITY could not be elevated above another form OF CHRISTIANITY.” is just plain ridiculous when you consider that our Founders were generally Deists or Unitarians who believed in some form of Supreme Being, but rejected the divinity of Christ and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.

    Talk about a major gap in historical knowledge!

    Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

    -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

    BOB WROTE:

    Current & former members of NAMBLA have leadership roles in the gay rights movement.

    BENNETT WRITES:

    ahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

    Good one Bob.

    Whew, this is better than Letterman.

  • Bob

    so bennet, this is your idea of intelligent debate?

    PS Jefferson was a rare exception amongst the founding fathers. Quoting him as if he represented the entire body is disingenious.

    PS as for the gay rights/ NAMBLA connection, look up Harry Hay (just for starters)

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    My assumption was correct, Bob cannot answer The Question and his excuse is that he thinks it doesn’t matter because he has somehow re-written the United States Constitution to suit his agenda.

    In America, when you want to deny rights to a group of people, the burden of proof is on you, not them.

    Homosexuals are clearly oppressed because their civil and human rights are not fully recognized and the only justification for their continued oppression is if it can be demonstrated that the recognition of their civil and human rights will deny/violate the civil and human rights of others.

    Bob cannot answer the question and thinks it doesn’t matter because he already knows — but will likely never admit it — that the recognition of homosexuals’ right to civil marriage will not deny/violate the civil and human rights of others and this makes the case against the secular, legal recognition of same-sex marriage untenable.

    The First Amendment secures and guarantees our right to free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press, it most decidedly does not secure and guarantee anyone’s right to practice arbitrary discrimination in the workplace (or any place else for that matter) because no such right exists.

    Now, if someone makes the assertion that he is oppressed because his right to practice arbitrary discrimination in the workplace has not been recognized, then we ask The Question, “Which of your specific civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated by the recognition of the right to practice arbitrary discrimination in the workplace?”

    Since the answer, in this case, would be that the recognition of such a “right” would indeed deny and violate the rights of others to not be relegated to the status of second-class citizenship, then the right to practice arbitrary discrimination in the workplace does not exist.

    Rights are not a matter of opinion, there are very specific tests — such as The Question — that determine whether something is a right or not.

    We all have the right to to raise our children with whatever beliefs and values we deem appropriate. This right will not be infringed upon by the secular, legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

    You most certainly do not have the right to oppress people because you wish to socially invalidate them, especially when you cannot even demonstrate that the recognition of their rights will deny or violate your rights.

    The slippery slope is not a concept, it is a logical fallacy and I’m not biting. Effective debate is based upon logic, not emotional arguments about baseless causalities.

    Bob’s slippery slope does not read like it was intended as a pragmatic argument, but rather as transparent propagandizing of the Chicken Little variety.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>2)human & civil rights (as used by the poster) are NOT the same as constitutional rights! They are rights created out of thin air! Basically, its a way of saying “this is how the constitution would read if it were written right”<<

    Human and civil rights predate the Constitution and are based on the principles of Natural Law. The Constitution derives from an interpretation of Natural Law, but does not supercede or replace it. The basic, fundamental rights which all people have just by existing can’t be changed or eliminated by any document.

    Dave

  • RealCon

    In America, when a group of people wants to claim a radical new “right” — the burden of proof is on them…

    1. They can go to the Federal Constitution and see if their radical new “right” is enumerated there…

    2. If it is not there — they can go to Federal statutes to see if their radical new “right is enumerated there…

    3. If it is not there — they can go to their State laws to see if their radical new “ right” is enumerated there…

    4. If it is not there — they can lobby the Congress and their state legislatures to create a new law granting their radical new “right“…

    OR — they can lobby activist judges to grant their radical “new right” out of whole cloth…

    That is what happened in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

    Keep in mind that the courts in this country are suppose to see that the written law is upheld — not the creation of new law to grant new radical “rights”…

    There is no “oppression” — there is no “denial of human rights” — there are no “rights unprotected” — where the “claimed rights” are nothing but radical new “rights” — claimed by a radical vocal group…

    Yes — the recognition of homosexuals’ right to civil marriage will deny/violate the civil and human rights of others — by breaking existing law. When existing law — created to protect society as a whole is broken — it leads to anarchy… and this makes the legal recognition of radical same-sex marriage untenable…

    The slippery slope is not a concept, it is factual part of history…

    And stop trying to find your radical new “right” in the US Constitution — it’s NOT there..

    The First Amendment — most decidedly does not secure and guarantee anyone’s radical new “right” to legalize “homosexual marriage”…

    Rights are not a matter of radical opinions, there are very specific tests — such as where in the law is the new “right” enumerated?

    Margaret is correct on one point — effective debate is based upon logic, not emotional arguments about baseless claims…

    So — please Margaret — stop making baseless claimns…

  • Grace Marie

    You liberals are a bunch of idiots. You think that you must have the freedom to express your views, but you think that Christians shouldn’t have the freedom to express their views. What a bunch of hypocrites you are. The ACLU is not for our civil liberties except the civil liberties of the abortionists and gays, and terrorists. Isn’t that nice that they hate their own country and always condemn it. People who go against their country should go and live in a terrorist country. NOW!

  • RealCon

    Dave sez — “Human and civil rights predate the Constitution and are based on the principles of Natural Law. The Constitution derives from an interpretation of Natural Law, but does not supercede or replace it. The basic, fundamental rights which all people have just by existing can’t be changed or eliminated by any document.”

    Now Dave — tell us… What does the Natural Law say about “homosexual marriage”?

    I await a logical, well-reasoned, factual response from you…

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    The ACLU is not for our civil liberties except the civil liberties of the abortionists and gays, and terrorists.

    I wonder which of those categories El Rushbo fits under, because the ACLU has defended him.

  • Brian

    Tolerant? Jesus Christ said if someone hits you to “Turn the other cheek”. He says retaliation is the wrong thing to do.

    Fundamentalist Christians today are the most INTOLERANT of all. Remember that it is easier for a camel to make it through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man (*W is one) to enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Okay — Civil liberties are for idiots as well as people who are tolerant. I am tolerant of idiots, just not tolerant of idiots who use their stupidity to hurt others.

    Bush said the stupidest thing I have ever heard today “Fetuses are unborn life and I will not allow the destruction of life to save other lives.” HOLY CRAP! So the Death penalty is wrong? Didn’t he commit more people to death in Texas in the name of “killing to save lives” than John Wayne Gacy?

  • Brian

    RE: Marriage — Not in it’s current form before about 500 AD. It was invented to keep track of deaths and births and taxes. The Latin Church invented the current iteration (1 man — 1 woman) so they could keep track of lineage of property.

    Jewish law allowed marriage and concubuines and slaves and all sex was fine and all births were fine.

    Romans encouraged wild gay sex parties — remember? Marriage there was OPEN and useful only to help manage death and property ownership (same as most Feudal societies).

    Jesus was not married or was he? It doesn’t say in the bible except that Mary M. was is favorite disciple (but not one of the 12) and stayed with him always.

    Jesus rejected things of this world except for how they could help the sick and the poor. THAT SURE IS FU*KIN LIBERAL!! Why don’t more Republicans act like Jesus instead of pretending to be Christians?

  • RealCon

    Brian — what’s your point?

  • RealCon

    Is Brian claiming that “homosexual marriage is “constitutional”?

  • Bob

    “Romans encouraged wild gay sex parties — remember? Marriage there was OPEN and useful only to help manage death and property ownership”

    & shortly thereafter the Roman Empire collapsed, because the people lacked the will to preserve it.

    Something I’d just as soon avoid.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Bob, to equate the fall of an empire with a sex party is beyond absurd. ONly those who actually fear sex or know little about it, would buy into that.

    There are many reasons for the fall of the Roman empire. One of the reasons attributed is the decline in moral values. But if you actually read your history books you will see they are talking about rampant crime in the streets, political corruption, watching gladiators battle to the death, etc. THIS is what historians refer to when talking about the decline in moral values.

    Look up the Sacred Band of Thebes at that time. It was an army entirely made up of gay people. It was infamous in it’s fighting capabilities and it was respected throughout the land. That doesn’t sound like they would be referring to that when talking about a decline in morals.

    Other reasons for the fall of the Empire are:

    Public health
    Political Corruption
    Unemployment
    Inflation
    Urban Decay
    Military Spending
    Inferior Technology.
    source

    History shows the will of the people probably wasn’t lacking and probably wasn’t the cause of the fall.

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 231

    As its #1 reason — your source states;

    “Those morals and values that kept together the Roman legions and thus the empire could not be maintained towards the end of the empire”

    Your own source states the primary reason for the fall of the Roman empire was the decline in moral values.

    You try to pull a sleight of hand by adding other reasons intended to downplay the primary reason…

    Good try…

    P.S. We are far afield of the Constitution — too hot to handle?

  • RealCon

    Regardless of what took down the Roman empire — our Constitution does not secure and guarantee anyone’s radical new “right” to legalize “homosexual marriage”…

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    and i will keep telling you it is already their Right to “marry” whomever they want and it is only social discrimination that prevents it…

    some Courts have ruled that way already (the latest one in New York was written really well)

    it’s a matter of civil liberties and human rights, not “sin” or if it “offends” someone…

    in America, under the Rule of Law framed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Rights of ANY minority are protected form the tyranny of the Majority…

    but we’ve done this Dance to death, and you’re still trying to beat it until you get some glue…

    so enjoy…i know i enjoyed the Cavorting this weekend…oh yes, and JuJu,may his peanuts be always dry roasted, says hi and that he Hopes you feel better soon…

    Excelsior!

  • RealCon

    The fundamental issue here is a problem based on theoretical analysis, compounded by legal restrictions. If there were more synergy available, a bench mark could be achieved whereby our mindset would accommodate the proper leverage needed for a win-win conclusion. A value-added proactive approach that is result-driven would empower a knowledge base that would enable us to think outside the box. To achieve a fast track conclusion, we need a game plan based on best practice so that our focus is not out of the loop. That coupled with a strategic fit would show a quality driven result. However, the bottom line is that when all the bullshit is taken out of the equation all that is left is the garbage that radical left wing nuts are putting out about their “right” to “homosexual marriage”…

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Regardless of what took down the Roman empire — our Constitution does not secure and guarantee anyone’s radical new “right” to legalize “homosexual marriage”…<<

    The Constitution doesn’t say a single word about marriage or gay marriage. What it does say that’s relevant is that anything not addressed in the Constitution is reserved for individuals and the states to resolve, so if your state doesn’t have a specific law against gay marriage, it ought to be legal.

    Dave

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    The use of the expression “activist judges” does nothing for your credibility here, RealCon. You cannot re-write our Constitution to suit your bigotry, and that is all there is to that.

    We’re supposed to move forward, to progress beyond our petty prejudices. We’ve made good strides in getting over the obvious fact that people come in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, colors and styles and we are beginning to get over the obvious fact that some people are homosexual.

    Progress is a force that is beyond our control, it cannot be sped up or slowed down, it just happens a little bit at a time, which is why society is so very different now than it was in the days of our Founders. Slavery has been abolished, black men vote, women of all colors vote, we desegregated ourselves because we now understand that race is nothing but a political construct and homosexuals have had many of their civil rights recognized in only the past 30 years or so because we now understand that homosexuality is just another variation of the human condition.

    Many people objected very strongly to all of that progress over the years and the people who supported it stood up and tried to move it along more rapidly, but progress has its own pace because it is collective, not distributive.

    Throughout all of American history, new rights have been recognized and oppression has been overcome and there were always people there to stand in the way, but all any of them ever did was to prolong the suffering of their fellow man because the collective force of progress is not affected by the ranting and doomsaying of narrow-minded, dogmatic bigots, it is a part of our better nature as sentient beings with a natural need to live free, which is in all of us — some people are just afraid of it, perhaps because liberty is such an awesome responsibility.

    Oh yes, and what Dave said (which was so eloquent that I just have to copy and paste it), “Human and civil rights predate the Constitution and are based on the principles of Natural Law. The Constitution derives from an interpretation of Natural Law, but does not supercede or replace it. The basic, fundamental rights which all people have just by existing can’t be changed or eliminated by any document.”

    The world is passing you by, RealCon.

  • sydney

    Querstion for Bob and RealCon…

    What is it about homosexuality that freightens you or that you object too?

    Just explain to us what it is that you are so offended by, please. Do you find it an immoral act? Do you think homosexuals are a harm to themselves, or to society at large? What do you feel will happen if gay marriages are legalized?

    I’d like to get an understanding of where your comming from, what causes your to be so afraid of recognizing gay rights.

  • RealCon

    Thank you for bringing up Natural Law… which is based on the moral theory of what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong are decided by a majority of the people. And what is right and wrong has been decided in the case of “homosexual marriage”…

    Screaming over and over… to change what is right and wrong won’t work…

  • sydney

    Well if right and wrong are determined by mob rule, or the majority, than screaming over and over certainly would work.

    All I need do is evanglelize and convert my childeren and soon enough I might have tipped the scales and changed wrogn to right.

  • RealCon

    Sydney — No — not mob rule — just the majority in this country…

    “All I need do is evanglelize and convert my childeren and soon enough I might have tipped the scales and changed wrogn to right.”

    You are really mathematically-challenged !

  • sydney

    REalcon,

    explain where my math goes wrong.. please… apparently I am really mathematically challenged cause I don;t know what the fuck your talking about

  • RealCon

    Sydney — I see you are also grammatically-challenged…

  • sydney

    REal con,

    If you want to act like an idiot than maybe there it’s not worth my time, but if at some point your going to start answering questions than maybe we can sort out your problems.

    Now, I’ll pose the question again and we’ll see if you anwer.

    You said the majority determines right and wrong. We’ll I said that if that is, indeed, true, than screaming over and over, and converitng people to your point of view could possible turn your minority into a majority. In otherwords, lobby groups such as the christian right would be extremely influential in determining right from wrong. Is this not the case?

    Now tell me where my math is wrong in that scenario. Or do you feel insecure about discussing the issues?

  • RealCon

    Sydney — Go back and re-read what I responded to…

    “All I need do is evanglelize and convert my childeren and soon enough I might have tipped the scales and changed wrogn to right.”

    Soon?

    How will that SOON change the majority in this country?… It doesn’t ADD up — now does it?

    BTY — what is this “insecure“ crap all about? … Are you dragging out an old Communist trick ?…

  • sydney

    REalcon,

    Once again your writing makes no sense at all.

    The word “soon” denotes a relative length of time. I was saying that over a course of time, evangleizing and preaching might convert members of the majority to change their point of view. As such , what was once considered “right” might later be considered “wrong”.

    Now I don;t know how much clearer I can explain that.

    I’m becomming more and more convinced that your a little slow on the uptake REalCon. 3 of every 4 posts you write, don’t make any sense.

    Anyway, so in your version of america, the majority should determine right from wrong. Well thankfully, the people that penned the constitution didn;t believe in this philosophy.

    If they had believed in that philosophy they wouldn’t have emmigrated from England and europe in the first place. They came here to excape persecution enflicted by the majority.

    So which is it realCon? Rule by majority or rule by consitutional rights?

  • RealCOn

    Sydney — I am not surprised that — to you — my writing makes no sense at all.

    And I am not surprised that you are “becoming more and more convinced that your (sic) a little slow on the uptake…“

    I am also thankful to hear from you that — “thankfully, the people that penned the constitution didn;t believe in this philosophy.”…

    I am also pleased to hear from you that — “they wouldn’t have emmigrated from England and europe in the first place. They came here to excape persecution enflicted by the majority…“

    But — you overlook that — once here — THEY were the majority… I’m sure that somewhere there has to be a majority (are you an anarchist?)…

    And as to your question — “Which is it realCon? Rule by majority or rule by consitutional rights?

    Neither — they are not mutually exclusive…

  • ClubhouseCancer

    Ok, we get it, Mr. RealCon.
    I know you think you;re fascinating arguments are just air-tight, brilliant and original, but we’ve heard it before:
    You think being gay is morally wrong. Because of that, you think it’s OK to deny gay people the right to marry each other, because to allow it would mean the government validating something you think is morally wrong. You’ve said several times in many ways here that the discussions should end there.
    One side equates gay sex with straight sex, in that it’s an expression of love between two people. You equate it with bestiality.

    We get it. So why not let the discussion end there? You have what you want — no gay marriage. So what’s the problem?

    By the way, RC, I think you’ll find much of what you’re looking for in terms of the constitutional right to marry in the oft-overlooked 9th Amendment.

    But it’s clear you’re not looking.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Thank you for bringing up Natural Law… which is based on the moral theory of what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong are decided by a majority of the people. And what is right and wrong has been decided in the case of “homosexual marriage”…<<

    No it’s not. Were you educated in an Islamic Madrasa or something? Natural law has nothing to do with the moral theory of right or wrong and it certainly has less than nothing to do with majority consensus of what is right or wrong. The one defining characteristic of natural law is its immutability.

    Dave

  • Bob

    sydney:

    Read & comprehend this instruction CAREFULLY before responding.

    Your question:

    “Querstion for Bob and RealCon…

    What is it about homosexuality that freightens you or that you object too?”

    Please quote my EXACT statement where I indicated that homosexuality frightens me, or that I object to homosexuality.

    Do not respond with a question. Do not “interpret” my statements or read between the lines. Give me a verbatum quote.

    Thank you.

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 248

    I’m sure you’ve heard it before — so why do you want to hear it again… Are you a masochist?…

    I do not think being gay (happy) is immoral… But — I do think “homosexual behavior” is immoral… and I certainly believe it is not deserving of being elevated to what has been known as “marriage” since the beginning of this country…

    However — I have not argued the morality issue so far… and I don’t want to argue it now — because I don’t have to… it’s the law…

    If you want to change the law…

    Go out and change it — in the prescribed ways…

    If you believe that there is something in the Constitution — that I cannot see — then go about your business — but please stop berating those who oppose your views without presenting a cogent case for making a change which most find absurd…

    Look closely in the Constitution for what you want…

    But it’s clear that either you’re not looking… or — having looked — you don’t like what you find…

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 249

    No Dave — I wasn’t “educated in an Islamic Madrasa or something?” Were you?…

    If you believe that “Natural law has nothing to do with the moral theory of right or wrong” — where are you finding your concept of Natural Law?

  • ClubhouseCancer

    >>>>I do not think being gay (happy) is immoral…

    Mr. RealCon, it’s obvious from shit like this that this discussion is some kind of joke to you, and that you’re so sure of your superiority that you can play immature games with people whose lives are seriously impacted by this.

    I’m sure you don’t care, but constantly being told you’re abnormal and that the way you show your love for another person is disgusting really hurts.

    You will see this when you/your pastor/son/daughter/best friend/mom/bowling buddy/mailman/Senator comes out as gay. Until then, feel free to laugh it up.
    “Gay” means “happy,” right? Haha ahhaha, that’s great.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>If you believe that “Natural law has nothing to do with the moral theory of right or wrong” — where are you finding your concept of Natural Law?<<

    The Declaration of Independence, the writings of John Adams, Jefferson, Burke, Locke, Montesquieu, Aristotle, etc. It’s not exactly an underexplored concept.

    Dave

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 254

    Yes — I do not think being gay (happy) is immoral…

    And it’s not some kind of joke…

    Homosexuals hijacked the word “Gay” — For eons it was called “homosexual” — I don’t like euphemisms… and — who decided that “gay” was the appropriate euphemism for “homosexual? I could think of some words which would be more appropriate…

    And — I don’t like the euphemism — “choice” — to describe abortion — the killing of a human being is killing — the only “choice” is whether or not a human being will die..

    It’s all liberal crap to me…

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Gay etymology.

    Damn. The homos have stolen the word “gay” from happy people and the rainbow from God’s chosen people. What will they steal next?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Have you ever heard of the Federal Marriage Amendment, RealCon? It is a proposed amendment to our Constitution that reads:

    “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

    Now, don’t get too excited yet because this amendment has about the same chances of being ratified as the Flag Burning Amendment.

    Do you know why the FMA was proposed in spite of the the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?

    Because the legal experts on both sides of the issue have already determined — this was quite some time ago — that DOMA and similar legislation will not stand up to the Constitutional acid test, even if it is heard by a conservative court.

    It has already been discovered that it is unconstitutional to ban the civil recognition of same-sex marriage.

    The cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle and the all toothpaste has been squeezed out of the tube.

    And now, in order to make the oppression of homosexuals constitutional, nothing less than a constitutional amendment is required.

    If you don’t believe me, just ask some of the folks who support the FMA/MPA.

    Why do we need the MPA? Is amending the Constitution really necessary to protect marriage?

    Throughout the late 1990’s and as recently as 2003, 38 states and the federal government passed laws designed to protect traditional marriage. These are called Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs). We need the MPA because one federal judge can overrule both the Federal DOMA and the DOMAs of 38 States by declaring they violate the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Full Faith and Credit clause requires states to recognize contracts and agreements from other states, such as marriage licenses. Any federal judge can also strike down all the DOMAs by ruling that they disenfranchise homosexuals and thus violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of Equal Protection. The amendment was originally passed to give equal rights to former slaves.

    What is happening is not an accident. It is the implementation of a specific plan made public by Lambda Legal and homosexual activists. Over a decade ago, they realized they could not win a same-sex marriage vote in any State; thus they started a specific plan to win a lawsuit in a liberal State Supreme Court and then force recognition across the country through the Full Faith & Credit Clause. On May 17th of this year, same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. Using the U.S. Constitution, they have now sued to force same sex marriage on other states and eventually leading to the entire country. On July 20, 2004 Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, filed a federal lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft to have their Massachusetts marriage license recognized in their home state of Florida.

    RealCon, you may be living in denial of the Constitution and how our system of government works, but anti-homosexual activists and their attorneys are savvy enough to know and understand that their cause does not afford them the luxury of engaging in deliberate Constitutional obtuseness.

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 255

    So Dave —

    Tell me more–

    You say that your definition of Natural Law is based on Jefferson (among others)…

    Well — what did Jefferson say in the Declaration of Independence?

    ” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    America was founded on these words written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Inspired by the concept of Natural Law, Jefferson set forth the moral principle of “inalienable Rights,” common to human experience and recognizable by reason alone.

    So… where are you finding anything that contradicts what I said?

  • sydney

    “Please quote my EXACT statement where I indicated that homosexuality frightens me, or that I object to homosexuality.”

    Your right that you never indicated why homosexuality frightens you, so that’s why I’m asking? The inference is clear…I’m asking you to state the exact reasons.

    Or do you simply advocate the denial of gay rights as a random pastime?

    Oh.. maybe that’s it! You support equal rights for homosexuals, but you don’t think they should receive these rights because you feel the constitution doesn’t provide for it? Very noble of you, to crusade against homosexuals though your heart tells you ought not.

    My misunderstanding! EVERYONE MAKE A NOTE;

    BOB FEELS THERE IS NOTHING UNETHICAL ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 258

    I have heard of the Federal Marriage Amendment…

    “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

    I am excited — because this amendment has what I believe will get rid of the absurd claims being made here by the looney left…

    And — if things are going your way — sit back — relax — and let it happen…

    Why are you rambling so much — and being so uptight about it?

    Why don’t you go out and do something else — like make NAMBLA the “pride” of our country?

  • sydney

    REalcon says;

    “I am excited — because this amendment has what I believe will get rid of the absurd claims being made here by the looney left…”

    Margaret constantly backs you into a corner where you haven’t any rebuttal and so you always admit she’s right and walk out as if you some how proved her wrong. haha..

    Your quote, this time, suggests you’ve admitted that the constitution does indeed provide for homosexual unions, and that an amendment is needed to prevent them.

    So I’ll paraphrase what you’ve said, in case you didn’t understand yourself;

    Your quote takes the position of “sure, but if this amendment goes through, then I’d be right and you’d be wrong”.

    Your always carrying on like this and I don’t know if you see when your wrong or if your just not able to comprehend the difference between your being wrong and right. It’s as if you haven’t a grasp on the words, or the language being used.

  • RealCon

    Sorry Sydney —

    It is clear that in responding to your posts — that I am communicating with a fool —

    I obviously don’t agree with Margaret — but she has made her case — and I respect her for her ability to make her case in a cogent way — but you make no sense at all…

    So don’t hang on Margaret’s coattails to blabber on…

    Sayonara…

  • sydney

    haha,

    I was actually hanging on her coattails. Good call, REalCon. She shares most of my views and articulates them far better than I do.

    But that has little to do with my criticisms of you, and your writing, which, incidentally, you seemed to have stolen from me and are now trying to use them on me. Haha.. you think I don’t recognize my own remarks! You stole my insults Real Con!

    oh well, sayonara then RealCon. Glad to hear your takin off.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>America was founded on these words written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Inspired by the concept of Natural Law, Jefferson set forth the moral principle of “inalienable Rights,” common to human experience and recognizable by reason alone.

    So… where are you finding anything that contradicts what I said?<<

    Does the Declaration of Independence – which does not delineate natural law in specific, but only in general terms – say one word about making moral judgements of any kind? You maintain that natural law deals with good and evil or right and wrong. It does not. Natural law deals with rights and those rights are morally neutral, as demonstrated by their enumeration in the Declaration of Independence.

    Dave

  • RealCon

    Dave —

    The Declaration of Independence states…

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights…”

    Now — just who was being referred to as the CREATOR?

    Could it have been the God of the Bible — and if that is the case — what does the Bible say about “homosexuality”…

    If that is not the case, which god was it referring to? …Zeus?

    P.S. And please don’t try to connect “unalienable” with “homosexual marriage”…

  • gonzo marx

    oh RealCon…

    id does say “Creator”..does it say which one?

    does it say Yahweh?….nope
    howabout Jehovah?…..nope
    not even JuJu is covered..

    could it be due to the fact that most of the Founders were considered Deists and not Theists?

    ok..too esoteric for you..how about the pragmatic..

    in their escaping from whatever country they came from..many feared religous persecution, hence things like the First Amendment…so that this new Nation could NOT ever be controlled by ANY “faith”…citizens could “worship” as they wanted…or not at all

    hence the sticking to secular Law..NOT “morals”…NOT “sin”…

    hence outlining the powers and limitations of Government, NOT limiting or delineating the Rights of the Citizens…but limiting the Power of their duly elected Government

    hence “checks and balances”

    and so on and on

    but you knew that and just enjoy being obtuse so folks will type at ya…

    consider this my “good” deed for the day then…

    enjoy…

    Excelsior!

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 266

    If “most of the Founders were considered Deists…”

    Can you tell me — which god did they worship?

    Did any of them attend a church — that might give you a clue…

    I looked… and looked… and looked in the Declaration of Independence… and I could not find even a remote connection between “unalienable” rights and “homosexual marriage”…

    The closest I could come was:

    He [King George III} has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good…

    I guess that the Founders were chiding ol’ George because he didn’t believe in the wholesomeness of “homosexual marriage” and how necessary it was for the public good…–

    I could not find any other connection — but I am sure you will find one for me…

    BTY — I saw nothing that referenced any dissatisfaction with the Church of England — was that accidentally overlooked by the Founders…?

    Let’s see what it was they really were escaping from…

    ***

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that

    Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

    The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

  • sydney

    Gonzo,

    I’m not sure realCon is simply being obtuse. All day long I’ve been thinking he’s just trying to be argumentative by stating things that are obvioulsy wrong.

    I’ve changed my mind, I think the discussion is above his head.

    take for instance this remark from one post back which doesn’t make any sense…

    “P.S. And please don’t try to connect “unalienable” with “homosexual marriage”…”

    I take it he meant don’t connect “rights” with “homoesxual marriage”. But even this is ignorning what the decleration of independance says, which is that all men are created equal and as such deserve equal rights. Apparently, REalCon feels he can decide what the creator didn’t intend to create homosexuals and that they should be ecluded from the decleartion of independance.

    There are many more examples like this. I really think he may be unaware of what he’s saying, and what others are saying to him.

  • gonzo marx

    this is so entertaining..ok

    sydney..i ain’t even gonna speculate..

    RealCon sez…
    *Can you tell me — which god did they worship?*

    who cares?…can you prove they actually Woshipped anything?

    RealCon sez…
    *Did any of them attend a church — that might give you a clue…*

    some did indeed attend church…some did not…from Jefferson’s and Franklin’s own writings they acknowledge that it was needed at times to be seen as a good member of the church for political purposes…

    now..not all attended church..but every Signature on the Declaration you quote did attend regular Ceremonies..

    can you tell me what they were and what common Belief was held by each of these men?

    if you guessed that they were all FreeMasons you would be correct…the rest you can look up for yourself

    now, RealCon..go look up the difference between Deist and Theist

    after that..RealCon goes on to show us his cutting and pasting skills…our boy has come a long way, folks

    unfortunately he has made yet another mistake in Logic

    the Declaration does quite the bit to announce intent…and it is one of my favorite pieces of Prose..

    but it is NOT any kind of legal document

    it is form our Constitution that our Rule of Law and structure of Government come from

    so keep your red herring…i had lunch

    Excelsior!

  • RealCon

    RE: #268

    Not worth commenting on…

    Go see #266 for something with substance…

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 269

    Yes — this is so entertaining…

    When Sydney and gonzo team up — it‘s a two-ring circus..

    Gonzo now sez — “who cares which god they worshipped… “

    In #266 — Gonzo brought it up…

    “does it say Yahweh?….nope”
    “howabout Jehovah?…..nope”
    “not even JuJu is covered..”

    So why bring it up — if no one cares? (I’m sensing a little bullshit going on here)

    Gonzo sez — “.can you prove they actually Woshipped anything?”…

    Followed by — “some did indeed attend church…some did not…

    And — “Jefferson’s and Franklin’s own writings they acknowledge that it was needed at times to be seen as a good member of the church for political purposes… ”and “not all attended church., but every Signature on the Declaration you quote did attend regular Ceremonies..”

    So — were they just a bunch of hypocrites ?…

    Whatever they were — reading their minds now is an exercise in futility… one thing we do know is that the Bible has been used to take oaths in the Congress since DAY ONE and the Bible was used in our public schools until the 1960’s… (when Madlyn Murrary O”Hare made the Founders turn over in their graves)…

    SO — Gonzo — anything ringing a bell…?

    Finally — gonzo has come onto something (tell your cohort who brought up the Declaration of Independence) — it’s the Constitution that matters…

    YES — and we come back to square one —

    Therefore — I remind you of —

    ****

    Comment 222 posted by RealCon on May 30, 2005 10:48 PM:

    In America, when a group of people wants to claim a radical new “right” — the burden of proof is on them…

    1. They can go to the Federal Constitution and see if their radical new “right” is enumerated there…

    2. If it is not there — they can go to Federal statutes to see if their radical new “right is enumerated there…

    3. If it is not there — they can go to their State laws to see if their radical new “ right” is enumerated there…

    4. If it is not there — they can lobby the Congress and their state legislatures to create a new law granting their radical new “right“…

    OR — they can lobby activist judges to grant their radical “new right” out of whole cloth…

    That is what happened in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

    Keep in mind that the courts in this country are suppose to see that the written law is upheld — not the creation of new law to grant new radical “rights”…

    There is no “oppression” — there is no “denial of human rights” — there are no “rights unprotected” — where the “claimed rights” are nothing but radical new “rights” — claimed by a radical vocal group…

    Yes — the recognition of homosexuals’ right to civil marriage will deny/violate the civil and human rights of others — by breaking existing law. When existing law — created to protect society as a whole is broken — it leads to anarchy… and this makes the legal recognition of radical same-sex marriage untenable…

    The slippery slope is not a concept, it is factual part of history…

    And stop trying to find your radical new “right” in the US Constitution — it’s NOT there..

    The First Amendment — most decidedly does not secure and guarantee anyone’s radical new “right” to legalize “homosexual marriage”…

    Rights are not a matter of radical opinions, there are very specific tests — such as — where in the law is the new “right” enumerated?

    Margaret is correct on one point — effective debate is based upon logic, not emotional arguments about baseless claims…

    So — please Margaret — stop making baseless claims…
    ***

    And now I must also say — please gonzo — stop making baseless claims…

  • gonzo marx

    oh RealCon…you are such a suprbly silly bit of electrons hitting my screen

    how could i possibly accede to such demands when you don’t really mean them

    since the first half of your ranting in the last comment was taking stuff out of context..i will gladly let the record stand for our gentle Readers..

    as for your requoting yourself..
    i have said it before..and many Supreme Court Justices and Decisions go along with it…

    the Constitution does NOT limit a Citizens Rights..and it is NOT th epurpose of Amendment to formulate “new” Rights…

    ALL RIGHTS are given…what the Constitution does (with the Bill of Rights and Amendments) is describe the limitations, structure and mandate of our Republic

    just how many Thread will you continue to spam and rouse that dead horse of yours form the glue factory?

    no matter…you keep showing that you are just a solipsistic Agenda slave..

    i’ll keep poking Fun

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • RealCon

    Gonzo —

    In America, when a group of people wants to claim a new “right” — the burden of proof is on them…

    They can go to the Federal Constitution and see if their “right” is enumerated there…

    1. THE RIGHT WASN’T THERE FOR ALL CITIZENS TO VOTE — SO…

    Article XV of the Constitution was enacted…

    “ The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”…

    2. THE RIGHT WASN’T THERE FOR WOMEN TO VOTE — SO…

    Article XIX of the Constitution was enacted…

    “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex…”

    Get the picture — just because you might think that “inalienable” rights would have allowed these “rights” to be self-evident — they weren’t…

    And so it goes…

    And if it is not there — they also can lobby the Congress and their state legislatures to create a new law granting their new “right“…

    OR — they can lobby activist judges to grant their radical “new right” out of whole cloth… as was done in the the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts…

    Nuff said?

    (I doubt you’ll ever get it)

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    RealCon, do you know the judges who ruled FOR gay marriage in New York and in California are conservative Republicans nominated by conservative Presidents? How’s that for ‘activist judge’?

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    People who post and run (especially opinions) actually undercut their own arguments. Although possibly Danny Carlton is responding to comments under an assumed name…

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    RealCon sez..
    *In America, when a group of people wants to claim a new “right” — the burden of proof is on them…*

    and i say, they are NOT claiming anything “new” merely desiring Recognition of human and civil Rights that are already theirs..

    interesting that the two samples you cite of Amendments are very similar to what we are discussing..

    both are simple re-iterations and clarifications of what was already defined for “all Men”…those amendments are merely defining that “all Men” means both blacks and women

    thanks for making my point for me

    or do you contend that homosexuals are not “Men” as defined by the Constitution and that we need an Amendment to spell it out for you?

    that does seem to be your point…and i guess we will see which way it goes, eh?

    thanks for sharing your open minded tolerance, we can only hope that it serves as an example for others of yoru political persuasion..

    heh

    Excelsior1

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 276

    I knew gonzo wouldn’t get it…

    Let me try again…

    1. As we all know — before the 14th amendment — ALL citizens did not have the “right” to vote AND before the 21st Amendment — WOMEN did not have the “right” to vote…

    2. As we all know — the Declaration of Independence gave a different impression when it stated that —

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    3, As we all know — the “inalienable rights“ granted by the 14th and 21st Amendments were not provided for in the Constitution (our basis of law)… although they were alluded to in the Declaration of Independence… (but an illusion is not the law)… Keep in mind that when the Declaration of Independence was penned — we were not even a country — so how could any laws be made?

    4. As we all know — the determining law is the Constitution — not the Declaration of Independence…

    5, Now — what does this tell us? — It tells us that what we might think of as “unalienable rights” — are only “unalienable rights” if they are granted by a Constitutional Amendment…

    6. So — gonzo — you are wrong in saying “ they (adherents of “homosexual marriage”) are NOT claiming anything “new” merely desiring Recognition of human and civil Rights that are already theirs..”

    7. It appears that gonzo is again bouncing back and forth between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (something he will no doubt deny — as he has done before) …

    8. Then gonzo sez — “interesting that the two samples you cite of Amendments are very similar to what we are discussing.. (no shit)…

    9. That’s my point — if you want a new “right” — you must follow the 14th and 21st amendment process…

    10, Bonzo certainly stays confused longer than most — gonzo goes on to claim his absurd position again — He says — “both are simple re-iterations and clarifications of what was already defined for “all Men”…those amendments are merely defining that “all Men” means both blacks and women…”…

    10. Well — I have to wonder — will gonzo ever stop bouncing back and forth between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution ???

    11. Now for the interesting part — gonzo sez — “or do you contend that homosexuals are not “Men” as defined by the Constitution and that we need an Amendment to spell it out for you?…

    12. Gonzo — I will pay you $100 for each occurrence of the word “MEN” in the Constitution — if you will give me $100 if the word “MEN” does not appear at all in the Constitution…

    13. Put your money where your mouth is…

    14. Or shut up…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Gonzo: “Jefferson’s and Franklin’s own writings they acknowledge that it was needed at times to be seen as a good member of the church for political purposes…”

    Actually, it goes a good bit beyond that. Jefferson was quite outspoken in his writing after he left office and freely acknowledged that not only was he not a practicing christian in the sense of his times, but he was openly hostile to christianity, the Bible and organized religion of all sorts. He didn’t set foot in a church or religious ceremony for the last 20 years of his life. While he was president he rejected all attempts to pass national days of prayer and religious-based holidays. He did acknowledge the existence of a creator, but not an active god, which is characteristic of deism.

    The god of Deism is a creator god and nothing beyond that, and clearly not the god described in the Bible. Deists did not believe in the need for written scripture, church services or organized religion or ritual of any sort.

    Dave

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    FACT CHECK: It is the 19th Amendment that enumerates womens’ right to vote. The 21st Amendment was the repeal of the 18th Amendment (Prohibition 1919-1933, RIP).

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    thanks Mr Nalle..i had not wanted to push the Point that far…good to onow i’m not the only one that has read some of this stuff..

    as for RealCon

    1.disagree
    2.correct
    3.partial credit
    4.correct
    5.disagree…and i realize this is a baseline Postulate for your Argument..as is #1
    6.obviously i disagree
    7.i don’t deny i cite language from both , since i consider both Important in this type of Discussion
    8&9 blah blah blah
    10. probably not..i like Jefferson
    11.here i confess i made a mistake..”Men” are not defined in the Constitution…but my point remains the same…however i do admit the Mistake
    12.see above…but take what ya like from the money you owe me for all that popcorn…$100 a kernal, and you have had at least one large tub…
    13.see above
    and finally..
    14. never…no matter how much you Wish it

    {8^P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Excelsior!

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 278

    So what?

    RE: Comment 279

    Thanks for the correction.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    So what? So you now acknowledge that there’s no hint of Christianity or the Christian god in our founding documents. Cool. No argument then.

    Dave

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 280

    Gonzo — you are too much…

    I believe that you have thrown enough bullshit here to fill a barn…

    RE: Comment 282

    Dave — Some of that stuff (re: #280) is coming out of your ears…

    We got off what you are now bringing up a long time ago…

    What woke you up?

  • RealCon

    Dave–

    You say — “The god of Deism is a creator god and nothing beyond that, and clearly not the god described in the Bible.”

    I don’t know about this “god of Deism“… Please describe for me the nature of this god… i.e., tell me what you know about him / her… (take your pick)…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Is this remedial romantic philosophy 101, RealCon? But I’ll help you out.

    Thomas Paine compared deism to christianity and explained how it was a new, synthetic religion designed to replace imperfect christianity and its reliance on ritual and scripture. Read this – http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8cf4c04867.htm

    Deism has a lot in common with pre-Christian Hellenistic religion and the belief in the Demiurge. Like the god of the deists he’s a remote figure who created the world and left it to develop on its own.

    Deism is basically god without church, religion or bible. The simple and most completely abstract version of monotheism.

    Dave

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Damn, Dave, hit the Post button much?

    8-)

    I deleted all those repeated comments. Let’s see if they actually disappear from this page.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Damn, they posted? Sorry about that. Was getting a server error every time I tried, so I kept trying until it stopped.

    Dave

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    That’s okay. They’re easy to delete. I was doing a test post that showed up 3 or 4 times, too.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    So, anyway, isn’t one of the core characteristics of deism the reliance on reason, rather than the bible or some other document, to basically deduce that god exists?

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 285

    If the “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence was based on a new, synthetic religion — what did the Founders know about him / her / it ?

    Did “it” — have any instruction or teaching for the Founders to follow?

    Did “it” tell them what is “right” or “wrong“? Was there any “right” or “wrong” to follow?

    If there was no “right” or “wrong” — how did the Founders know we have “unalienable rights” — or any other “rights”?

    If all they had was “reason” — I can’t see how agreement could have been reached by the Founders on that basis alone — just think of what would happen if all those posting here tried to agree — based on “reason” alone…

    I have a hard time reconciling this philosophy with what the Founders actually did…

    This philosophy of this synthetic religion raises more questions than I have the time to address right now…

    Stay tuned…

  • RealCon

    Final thought for the day — I like the gods of the Greeks and Romans better than the “synthetic” god… which is purported to be the “guiding light” of the Founders…

    The Greek and Roman gods were “democratic” — they shared power…

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    RE: Comment 143 posted by Margaret Romao Toigo on May 29, 2005 01:19 AM:

    >>The public square is not only about speech, everyone has the right to free speech in the public square, what you do not have the right to do is to change the authority of the state under our Constitution to deny rights to a group of people because some other peoples’ religious doctrine says that they are “sinners” — and when they cannot clearly demonstrate that their civil and human rights will be denied and/or violated if the “sinners” civil and human rights are recognized by the state.<<

    The constitution isn’t impervious to historical or political forces. Your point can’t be that there are no cultural or political struggles in America today between conservatives and liberals, or that all the struggles for power in America have nothing to do with naming judges to the supreme court, passing laws, or any of that Federal level stuff.

    So how does what you are saying link back to issues of tolerance that Carlton’s review (and Limbaugh’s) book called attention to, giving rise to all these posts?

    And how does your test of mutually injured rights apply to the claim (David Limbaugh’s) that contemporary Christians have endured acts of intolerance?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Final thought for the day — I like the gods of the Greeks and Romans

    You should read up on the history of Greek and Roman Gods, RealCon. Read about catamites and Ganyemede, the young boy-God who was Zeus’s personal bitch.

  • RealCon

    Steve — when I said that — my tongue was so far in my cheek — it still hurts…

    My point was that if you believe that what Dave said was true about the Founders not being Christian — they would have been more in tune with the “democratic” gods of mythology — than a single “omnipotent” god… (like the Christian God of the Bible)…

    If what Dave said is true — it makes more sense that the Founders would have preferred something more like a dictatorship — more in line with their “synthetic — “omnipotent god“…rather that a “democracy that pretty much followed the teachings of Jesus…

    Get it?

    If not — there’s more coming…

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    Comment 159 posted by Margaret Romao Toigo on May 29, 2005 12:00 PM:

    Plainavy wrote: “The argument certainly gives one pause, but liberal secularists should spend time answering the social conservatives’ concern that the two sorts of ‘families’ do not reproduce the same society.”

    >>The biological function of procreation is not a family value.< <

    An irrelevant point to the one I was making. You need to address the issue. Social conservatives have one vision of family values (think of it what you will). The reason for much of the cultural and political struggles today (because of which books like David Limbaugh's have apeared) has to do with these differing visions.

    I pointed out that "the two sorts of 'families' do not reproduce the same society." Your implied answer to the the social conservatives' concerns is not constructive. You merely offer up the competing view and belittle the opposition.

    >> Commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation are family values. Defining families by demographic composition is cynical and selfish.< <

    There wouldn’t be families without procreation. “Commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation” are also good values for a football team, a business venture, an army, and anything else you want to call “family.” You don’t see a difference between a family and a well run corporation.

    >>The suggestion that the foundations of marriage and family are biological connections and/or specific configurations of people demeans the value of marriage and family with the idea that the coupling of the flesh is more important than the coupling of minds, hearts and souls.< <

    Are the majority of families in America (or in the world for that matter) composed of blood relations?

    On your account, there’s little difference between one’s co-workers, friends, and family.

    Why do more step-parents and live-in partners commit significantly more abuse on children than biological parents?

    >>The recognition of a diversity of family configurations strengthens our family values with a moral emphasis on the commitments people make to one another to work toward meaningful and purposeful relationships. < <

    Whatever, but you've got to know that the other side sees yours as a repugnant idea. On your view, we’re all interchangeable. Everyone’s connections are voluntary, subject to momentary passions, likes, dislikes, financial options, job opportunities, whims of fortune. Not much stability in this. Do you even need sacred covenants or God? On this worldview, why would you need “marriage”? All you need is a contract. Morals for you are about convenience, about who “I” am willing to “commit” to (i.e., make a contract with) at any given moment.

    This is a sad and limited view of commitment, not only with romantic relationships, that can deepen and mature in time, that sometimes need a greater than human, sacramental basis and blood ties for people to seek compromises in humility. But it’s a sad view too especially where children are concerned. Your “mommy” or “daddy” can be anyone who is willing to adopt you (who cares who brought you into the world or why), or anyone who the state will pay to take care of you, or different people at different times. Do you think children would choose to be foster kids or orphans? Do you think kids like divorce or going to different “parents’” homes on different days of the week or times of the year?

    >>A narrow definition of families as some biological/demographic prescription gives us no values at all.<<

    Well, that “narrow definition” has given us our ideas of what families can be and the values that we recognize today as familial, so your conclusion has no real basis. Most families in the world today are composed on the “narrow definition” basis.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    My personal vision of family values is pretty much the same as the so-called “social conservatives” (which is really just another flavor of authoritarian), but I don’t feel the need to have the state enforce those values upon society. I’m too concerned about the log in my own eye to get up in arms about the specks in my neighbors’ eyes. I don’t know about you, but I do not look to the state for my values, which come from a Higher Authority.

    There wouldn’t be people without procreation and without people there wouldn’t be families, which — if you value the concept of family — are groups of people who share loving bonds of commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation under a wide variety of circumstances.

    Families often share common genes, but that is not essential to the basic morals that are required to sustain families and their values. And it is quite evident that biological connections do not guarantee success, you need character for that or your “connections are voluntary, subject to momentary passions, likes, dislikes, financial options, job opportunities, whims of fortune. Not much stability in this.” (and indeed, there is not).

    “Do you even need sacred covenants or God? On this worldview, why would you need ‘marriage�’ All you need is a contract. Morals for you are about convenience, about who ‘I’ am willing to ‘commit’ to (i.e., make a contract with) at any given moment.”

    Plainavy, you are mixing church and state together here and that could be the reason why so many people are apprehensive about the civil recognition of same-sex marriages.

    In the eyes of the state, marriage is just a contract that outlines secular, legal rights, benefits, responsibilities and obligations. It is oppressive to deny this basic civil right to a group of people simply because certain religious dogma says they are sinners.

    In the eyes of God, of course, marriage is much much more. It is a sacred covenant in which two people commit to one another before God (and the state, too because that is the practical thing to do).

    Churches have always been free to recognize or shun marriages — there are some churches that have been holding marriage or equivalent ceremonies for same sex couples for decades now — and they will remain free to do so because of the First Amendment.

    But no matter what sort of marriage and family one chooses — or doesn’t choose, sometimes God does work in mysterious ways when He brings people together — the fact remains that the loving bonds of commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation require a certain amount of moral character to sustain and to focus on the clinical mechanics of reproductive biology is an affront to those values, especially when it is done for the purpose of rationalizing oppression.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    As always, I second what Margaret says. If I could add an additional response to this:

    There wouldn’t be families without procreation.

    I’m gay and I have procreated and I am still in a monogamous relationship with another man. Shouldn’t be too hard to figure that one out though.

    But what I wanted to point out is that if on a societal or civic standpoint, you go on the premise that the primary function or reason for family support is for procreating, then you lessen the value of families where adoption took place. The primary definition of family isn’t creating kids, it’s raising them.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>My point was that if you believe that what Dave said was true about the Founders not being Christian — they would have been more in tune with the “democratic” gods of mythology — than a single “omnipotent” god… (like the Christian God of the Bible)…< <

    I don't see anything to support this theory. More likely they would be closer to agnostics or atheists than polytheists. Their beliefs were more akin to the Hellenistic period than the golden age.

    >>If what Dave said is true — it makes more sense that the Founders would have preferred something more like a dictatorship — more in line with their “synthetic — “omnipotent god“…rather that a “democracy that pretty much followed the teachings of Jesus…<<

    Well, that just makes no sense at all. There’s very little democratic in the teachings of Jesus, and certainly nothing supporting dictatorship in the beliefs of the founding fathers. That’s what they were reacting against. How you got that out of anything I wrote is utterly baffling.

    The whole point of deism is that God expects us to rule ourselves in accordance with the basic rights of natural law.

    Dave

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    Comment 159 posted by Margaret Romao Toigo on May 29, 2005 12:00 PM:

    Plainavy wrote: “The social conservatives and religionists are pursuing their vision of happiness too, rest assured.”

    >>And that is your right, but you don’t have the right to oppress other people in your pursuit of happiness because you are encroaching upon their right to pursue happiness.< <

    David Limbaugh’s book is all about the documented violation of Christians’ rights. People’s rights get violated all the time, and people pursue cultural and political agendas to secure rights to themselves and to wrest rights from groups they don’t want in power or don’t like. Acts of intolerance happen in the real world and the best way to reduce their occurrence is to understand the motives behind them.

    The questions I’ve been attempting to answer in a number of posts here, and which you have refused to engage, are why do acts of intolerance happen, what is the basis of the cultural struggles today?

    Part of my answer has been that we have groups of people with incommensurate interests about fundamental human issues: family, gender, sexuality, the sacred (or denial of it). These are real sticking points today. Putting your fingers in your ears and pretending they don’t matter to people or pretending that thinking about them is stupid and can’t possibly rise above the question of equal rights is just another act of narrow-minded intolerance.

    >>This is all very plain and simple; there is no need to use convoluted logic or to twist words around in order to make these points.< <

    Do you have any examples of “convoluted logic” or “twisted words”? I am willing to answer fair questions (not loaded ones or overly complicated ones) about what I may or may not have meant.

    >>If you have to rationalize your position with irrelevancies about how people might raise their children and by arbitrarily confusing religious doctrine with the principles of our Constitution, then you should probably reflect upon the substance of your position and why you cannot justify it in concise, pragmatic terms.<<

    You beg the question of what’s relevant. Point out how people raising their children in radically different ways is irrelevant, or show where I’ve confused religious doctrine arbitrarily with constitutional principles. I think we should try to have potentially constructive discussion of these issues. You think the issues are settled solely on the basis of rights and I do not. Do you think Limbaugh’s book has no basis in reality or that Christians were not treated to acts of intolerance in the cases he documented?

    You speak of “concise, pragmatic terms”—what could be more practical than the cases documented in David Limbaugh’s book or understanding the reasons why different cultural and political opponents pursue their agendas?

    Reducing all of today’s political and cultural struggles to a civil rights discussion ignores everything that’s interesting about the issues Limbaugh’s book raises and refuses any thinking about the basis of the cultural and political forces that are at odds today.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Plainavy sez..
    *You think the issues are settled solely on the basis of rights and I do not.*

    and this is why attempting to discuss this rationally with you is fruitless.

    our Nation operates by the Rule of Law, as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights..we are, as stated in the First Amendment, a secular Nation.

    you keep attempting to couch the Argument in terms of “faith” or religiously dictated “morals”…which is fine , in your church…but meaningless in a secular, pluralistic society that was designed to allow various “faiths” , creeds, agnostics and atheists to live together in a civilized fashion

    Plainavy sez..
    * or understanding the reasons why different cultural and political opponents pursue their agendas? *

    easily enough seen by any objective Observer…
    homosexuals seek recognition of their civil and human Rights as defined by the Constitution, including the right to legally marry under secular law and obtain the duties, priviledges and obligations pertaining to such a union

    “Fundamentalists” seek to spread their religion and the “moral values” that derive from their dogma, up to and including making them part of our Nation’s Laws and ostracizing those that fall outside their circle of the “saved” by saying, quite publicly, that they will “burn in hell” or are “deceived by the devil”, etc…

    now..as for these “documented cases” of “persecution” of Fundamentalists..i do not have access to a copy of this book, so would you please cite some documented cases, with city where it happened so police records can confirm it?

    i will gladly listen to the Argument you put forward if you can show me a documented case of..oh..let’s say some Fundamentalist being dragged to death behind a car for his “lifestyle choice”

    but i am also more than willing to listen to ANY “documented” (think police report with a conviction and/or non-partisan witnesses) instance of said “persecution”

    fair enough?

    (don’t let my screed stop you, Margaret or Steve!)

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Pretty soon they’ll say they were persecuted here – if they haven’t already sais so, somewhere.

  • BillB

    Hey Gonzo-

    >and this is why attempting to discuss this rationally with you is fruitless.<

    This has been an entertaining thread, and you, Temple, Margaret and the rest have fought the good fight but I came to the above conclusion way back in Comment 18.

    You’ve made all the right points but oh to have ears and eyes, yet not hear or see.

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 298

    Dave sez — “The whole point of deism is that God expects us to rule ourselves in accordance with the basic rights of natural law“.

    Now what in the world are… “the basic rights of natural law”?

    If — all I have to go on is that I was “created” by a “Creator” — I could “naturally” conclude that I could do whatever is good for ME — not what is good for “my neighbor”… There is no :reason ” to do unto others as I would want others to do to me”… More likely — I would do unto others before they did me under…

    If I am stronger than my neighbor — and he has something I want — why should I not take it from him?… Isn’t that a “natural” instinct?

    Why can’t the physically stronger take from those who are physically weak?

    Isn’t survival of the fittest consistent with Natural Law?

    And — who told Dave what the Creator expects us to do?…

    A man in the Thirteen Colonies who says he was a Deist in 1776 was most likely a man who had been brought up in a Christian environment — which undoubtedly colored his thinking and behavior… and Christian thinking clearly shows up in the Declaration of Independence…

    A Founder could say he was a Deist — but if his conscience was formed by the Ten Commandments… and the Sermon on the Mount… and he had been brought up to believe in the “Golden Rule” — he could declare anything — but his actions would show his true beliefs — which in this case clearly show were Christian beliefs…

    Where in the world — would “unalienable rights” come from — if not from Christianity? … What “reason” would draw the conclusions which the Founders came to — if not Christianity?

    If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and looks look a duck… it most likely is a duck… (regardless of whether the duck says it is not a duck)…

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 300

    Gonzo… sez to Plainavy –“and this is why attempting to discuss this rationally with you is fruitless.” — As if gonzo is rational… (gonzo — did you say this with a straight face?)…

    And I thought gonzo had gone away — but I guess he is a glutton for punishment…

    Gonzo then sez — “our Nation operates by the Rule of Law, as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.. we are, as stated in the First Amendment, a secular Nation.”…

    Now gonzo — don’t forget you already lost one $100 bet — so watch your tongue…

    It has become crystal clear that no matter how many times you are shown to be wrong — you bounce up like a jack-in-box — which is reminiscent of your bouncing back and forth on what is in the Declaration of Independence and what is in the Constitution… and now you are again obfuscating ( as in “to obscure or obfuscate the truth”) what is and what is not in the Constitution…

    I doubt that any of us — having beaten the subject to death — is likely to say anything that has not been said before — or that will convince others of an opposite opinion…

    But — I must admit that in this series of posts — that gonzo has been both baffling and funny — It certainly would be dull without gonzo…

    Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit…

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    RealCon sez..
    *If –*
    and
    *If*
    and
    *was most likely*
    and
    *which undoubtedly*
    and
    *if his*

    and a few more “ifs” tossed around…
    he makes a nice nod to the “Ten Commandments” so lets have a look and see how many of these made it into the Constitution, shall we? we’ll go for the Original translations from the Hebrew texts…

    1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
    ok..that one didn’t seem to make it

    2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
    nope..that didn’t make it either
    3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain
    nope again…

    4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    some towns and parish’s have “blue laws” , but again, not in the Constitution..
    5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
    nice hallmark thought..but again..not in there
    6. Thou shalt not commit murder.
    we have a winner!!…but doesn’t every civilized culture have a law against this? so, it’s not just “christians” that are against murder…hell, even JuJu doesn’t like murder
    7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    nope once more..nothing in the Constitution about this…
    8. Thou shalt not steal.
    another winner!..but again, everybody has a law against this one
    9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
    a semi winner!..not in the Constitution, but we do have federal laws against Perjury…
    10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
    sorry again, you can “covet” all you want

    so, 3 out of 10..and everybody in Civilization gets those…even a lot of pre-civilized cultures figured these three out..australian aborigines had these and never even heard of Yahweh until a few hundred years ago…

    now we get the reference to “the Sermon on the Mount”…really good stuff there..you might try reading it, RealCon, before you go and get all intolerant of your fellow “Man” next time…but please, gentle Reader, pass it thru the above “test” yourself..

    and finally, my personal favorite…the “Golden Rule”…even the Prophet of JuJu, “Ted” Theodore Logan, knew the Rule of “be Excellent to each other”…

    so, where did our Founders “get it”…

    good Question…instead of speculating, try reading Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and some of the others…hell, as many of them as you like…

    and now, ask yourself, what did all of these men, and every man in the Continental Congress, have in common?

    clue…it wasn’t ducks

    “what is, they were all Freemasons, Alex?”

    enough from me for now…

    Excelsior!

  • RealCon

    An example of Natural Law…

    If all there was on this planet was the sudden appearance of two men and two women — it would be “natural” to expect the two men to each couple with one of the two women and vice versa — the only issue might be which one to couple with…

    Anyone who thinks otherwise — is in need of help…

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    well now, since homosexuality stands pretty firm at about 10% of the population…your scenario would be a dice toss

    make it 100 people and you would see the differnce, eh?

    and the only “help” i’m in need of is the winning Powerball numbers…

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • RealCon

    There are indeed aberrations in nature — but — the question remains as to whether it is an aberration of nature or whether it is the result of environment…

    Considering the influence of NAMBLA — your estimate could go higher…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Considering the news of the last 5 years or so, I would say the Catholic Church is your version of Nambla. Now let’s compare percentages.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Where in the world — would “unalienable rights” come from — if not from Christianity? … What “reason” would draw the conclusions which the Founders came to — if not Christianity?<<

    Christianity has nothing to do with reason, and the founders of our nation came at the end of a period known as the Age of Reason which was in large part a reaction against Christianity. The basic rights of natural law which you seem to think come from Christianity actually come from the works of writers like Descartes, Locke, Burke, Montesquieu and Rousseau. They’re very simple. You have the right to life, liberty and property, and can exercise those rights to the extent which they do not interfere with the rights of anyone else. That’s it. The natural law basis of all human rights. And not a single word in there about God or Christianity or the Bible.

    Dave

  • RealCon

    Gonzo –Our Constitution was a reflection of the society at the time — long before Harry Hay was dicking around — The Founders did not approve or condone homosexual acts…

    They had no reason to approve “homosexual acts” — whether aberrations in nature — or otherwise — and certainly never would have approved “homosexual marriage”…

    If you believe they would — I will sell you the winning Powerball numbers for the next drawing — if you will pay me for them — in advance… (the amount I want now is 25% of the winnings)…

    For you — I might take only 10%…

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    can you show/quote me anywhere that one of the Founders expresses an opinion on the matter, one way or the other?

    if not, how can you know their Minds and Thoughts when you have made it apparent you have not even read their works, as evidenced by Mr Nalle flat out stumping you earlier in this Thread?

    and finally, before you go comparing folks to criminal organizations..take a look at number 9 above and repeat it to yourself s-l-o-w-l-y…

    we can only hope you learn something..

    Excelsior!

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 310

    1. Writers like Descartes, Locke, Burke, Montesquieu and Rousseau had nothing to do with writing our Constitution. Let’s get that cleared up…

    2. The “Age of Reason” made happy talk for some writers — but they played the role of the National Enquirer today… They were simply a bunch of rabble rousers…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Ok, RealCon. I give up. You’re just a moron. Go read some of the founding fathers writings sometime and then read Montesquieu and Burke and tell me you don’t see an absolute and direct connection. Burke could have written the Declaration of Independence if he’d been on hand at the time. Thomas Paine cribbed virtually all his ideas from Burke and Rousseau ferchrissakes.

    Dave

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 314

    Dave — yes – you are a moron…

    Why are you hung up a non-issue — The Declaration of Independence was written long before there was a United States.. I thought we settled that a long time ago…

    The Constitution is the relevant issue…

    If you cannot get “homosexual marriage” — based on “ the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle…”

    Do you favor doing the following —

    “THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE TO THESE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTUTUTE NEW GOVERNMENT…”

    Now tell me — is that part of our Constitution?

    The Declaration of Independence is not where this issue will be decided…

    Stop being a moron…

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    RealCon, I already answered this question ages ago, and I figured we’d moved on from the Constitution since you so clearly have no argument on a constitutional basis.

    Remember the little bit about how those things not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states and individuals. I bet that you could if you tried.

    Remember how there’s not one word about marriage in the Constitution. I bet you could remember it if you really, really try.

    Dave

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 316

    Dave – we never “moved on” from the central issue — which is what is in the Constitution — and what is not…

    I asked you why you are still hung up on “deism” and the Declaration of Independence?

    One more time — before I get back to the “social contract” that is relevant here…

    We can plainly see that your so-called deist (non-Bible believing) founders — did the following…

    1. They relied on the Bible in their official oaths…

    2. They encouraged the Bible to be used during government proceedings…

    3. They enabled the Bible to be read in public schools…

    Now if the Founders did not believe in the Bible — why did they allow the Bible to take such a place of prominence in everyday life? (according to your rantings — I would expect they would have outlawed it)…

    And now back to the Constitution…

    Yup — there’s not one word about “homosexual marriage” in the Constitution… That’s why if you want it — there is only one way to get it —

    ARTICLE X.

    THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY. OR TO THE PEOPLE:

    It is clear from Article 10 of the United States Constitution that the courts have no business being involved in powers not delegated to it by the Constitution — and there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the states from defining “marriage”… which is what has been done for over 200 years…

    So — it is up to the State legislatures, or to the people through their vote to decide the matter… not “activist judges”…

    If you want –“homosexual marriage” — go out and campaign for it…

    Of course — Margaret has already conceded that is not the way advocates of your cause are proceeding… they want “activist judges” to grant what is not allowed by the Constitution…

    The courts are there to interpret laws already passed — not make new laws…

    So the issue is whether we as a country will allow “activist judges’ to make laws which clearly should be decided by the people through their elected officials — or whether un-elected “activist judges” will be allowed to usurp the power of the people…

    Vincit omnia veritas!

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Plainavy, if you can provide just one documented example of Christians who were oppressed or persecuted simply for being Christian, I will speak up for their civil and human rights with the same passion as I do for the civil and human rights of gay and lesbian people.

    You see, I didn’t actively choose a “side” in the “culture war,” it was chosen for me by default because I have always been on the side of human and civil rights and against the side of oppression and that automatically places me in the “culture warrior” camp that fights for those principles.

    “Culture wars” are supposed to be fought amongst churches. The state should not even be involved in such matters, outside of securing, recognizing, protecting and defending civil and human rights.

    The wages of the presumption that it is logical and reasonable to expect that “virtue” can be coerced with secular laws are the direct opposite of the original intent of such legislation.

    Man-centered civil laws intended to deter sin instead of protecting our civil and human rights have made our society and culture more humanistic and less spiritual, which is evident in the battles of divisive “culture wars” that are the direct results of the politicization of the Christian faith, which opportunistic politicians have been exploiting for many years.

    All of those objections to displays of the 10 Commandments on government buildings should have come from Christians, not secularists (though their Constitutional interest in the matter is certainly understandable), because the presence of the Decalogue on government buildings now carries with it the most unseemly suggestion that the first Holy Commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” (Exodus 20:3) refers to the United States Government.

  • http://plainavy.blogspot.com Plainavy

    RE: Comment 143 posted by Margaret Romao Toigo on May 29, 2005 01:19 AM:

    >>Plainavy, religious people are free to categorize the homosexual (or any other) acts as “sin,” and people are free to agree or disagree with that position. These are our First Amendment rights.< <

    Over the first 152 posts here I outlined a cultural argument in light of disproportionate measures of "tolerance" meted out by liberals and to liberal causes as opposed to conservative and religious ones. The ACLU's unequal advocacy for pro-life activists (see John Bambenek's blog on this) is a case in point.

    The main claim of Danny Carlton’s opinion on David Limbaugh’s book was that liberals suffer from a certain hypocrisy, the self-anointed tolerant who pick and choose what they tolerate despite their claims to pure equanimity.

    The initial claim I made in this electronic forum was that “Liberal groups have no lock on virtue and are intolerant of others with whom they disagree. […] Some liberal groups ‘are hell bent on ostracizing and condemning others’ because the [others] are Christian. Some Christians think homosexuality is a sin. They don’t tolerate it and I don’t see that, in a free country, they have to.”

    So the initial issue was tolerance, the effects of intolerance, and the reasons for cultural struggle and politicizing activities on the parts of both conservatives and liberals. The “discussion” from the first 80 posts led me to offer the idea that

    “Both sides oppress each other. The Christians, in general, respond with the “hate the sin but not the sinner” line. They still aim to convert the individual sinner and remove the behavior, but at least aim at a humane, soul-saving resolution to the sinner’s sin–however misguided some of you may think their actions or motives.”

    “Do lesbigays have a similar line? Hate the Christian’s fundamentalism and dogma but love the individual? The immediate goal isn’t conversion of the Christian. The aim seems to be to defang the conservative or fundamentalist Christian; to have this person’s religion no longer make universal claims about a given class of sins (relax on proscriptions against homosexuality and adultery but stay vigilant against murder, for instance).”

    “Both sides want to rearrange the beliefs of the other. That’s a fundamentally obnoxious abuse of power. The oppression runs both ways, and neither side of course sees itself as oppressive.”

    The point of saying that Christians (or other religious groups) are going to categorize certain behaviors as sin isn’t to acknowledge their right to do so. That goes without saying, or one had hoped. The point was that they do, that that’s part of their self-definition, and whatever one thinks of the constitution, its articles and amendments, or the human or civil rights allotted citizens at any given time, that the political and cultural struggles proceed apace regardless. Ironically, books like Limbaugh’s document cases where religious expression is denied, censored, or punished, suggesting that something deeper than plainly recognized rights is affecting court decisions, and that something is intolerance against Christians. That’s Limbaugh’s thesis in a nutshell.

    As the opening issue was tolerance and intolerance of others, academic debate over who has what rights misses the point of ongoing cultural politics, of electoral struggles, of underlying motives for both conservatives and liberals. I tried to draw attention to those motives, especially, given the majority liberal audience here, the motives of many social conservatives (the Red States that won the 2004 election).

    In Comment 81, I was quoted where I described the possible motives or goals of liberals in the current cultural wars:

    >>Plainavy wrote: “The aim seems to be to defang the conservative or fundamentalist Christian; to have this person’s religion no longer make universal claims about a given class of sins”< <

    >>Universal claims? Are you seriously implying that being recognized as equal rather than universal — as if these claims about sin are somehow superior — is a form of oppression?< <

    Evidently, much of what I’d written made little impression. Equality is not the issue. We already have a society where acts of intolerance, running in against both sides, are an accomplished fact. I responded by trying to explain the difference, for religious people, between civil law and revealed law, a distinction whose motive force a number of liberal posters want to erase or ignore:

    >[…] Religion makes universal claims, claims it feels are superior to those of civil society (God’s law versus man’s law). Religion makes claim on eternal truths. <>So do I “seriously imply that being recognized as equal rather than universal…is a form of oppression”? Recognizing homosexuals as equal, a civil matter, is not the problem. The problem is that a religious person is going to categorize the homosexual act as “sin,” again, whether you agree with that categorization or not. An Iranian Mullah, for example, sees homosexuality as a sin just as a Baptist fundamentalist or a Mormon does. <>You seem to be expecting civil society to hum along nicely no matter how far secularizing developments in it go against the grain of religious conservatives’ beliefs–and most Americans still identify with religion. Do you really think that religious people–I’m talking true believers–are going to stand by while the forces of secularization run over every cherished sentiment their religions teach them?<>>If “recognizing homosexuals as equal, a civil matter, is not the problem,” then what are you worried about?< <

    Not much communication going on here it appears. Let’s turn the question around: If homosexuals have equal rights then what problems can anyone have with Christian and socially conservative groups? According to liberals, America still denies homosexuals equal rights. The 2004 elections struck popular referendums in every state they were on the ballot. Clearly, the issue comes down to one of tolerance and intolerance, and the way to track that, to best understand it, is through the culture of the social movements involved, not a discussion of rights, and a clear recognition of the motives of either side.

    There are active--to understate the matter--ongoing cultural and political struggles over abortion, gay marriage, feminism, sex education, euthanasia, and political correctness and speech codes on campus. Law school debates over civil rights are not going to resolve these controversies or help us grasp their essential nature. The liberal secularists want conservative Christians or Muslims, for whom homosexuality is a sin, a categorized evil, to either re-write their religious doctrines (as many liberal denominations have done) or to live in a world that they see as increasingly hostile and filled with what their scriptures and teachings tell them is evil, an offense against God and nature. No one can pretend to treat religious motives lightly after 9/11.

    (I’m not the only one suggesting the need for actual understanding. Silas Kain suggests in his recent gay agenda setting post that “in order to achieve tolerance, we must tolerate the intolerant and work to find those things which are common to all sides. As long as the lines of communication are open, dialog can be exchanged.”)

    >>Homosexuals cannot deny or violate your First Amendment right to your religious beliefs, they need their civil and human rights recognized (BTW, privileges are “granted,” rights are recognized, secured and guaranteed).< <

    We’re talking at cross-purposes. My claims have not centered on rights. My claims have had to do with cultural tolerance and intolerance, the way people treat each other now and the reasons for their treating each other the way that they do. If you wish to argue that b/c homosexuals should or do have equal rights under the law in America, that therefore none of the cultural struggles currently in motion should exist, then good luck with all that. My arguments have to do with the fact that the struggles exist (pragmatism, right?).

    Different groups experience acts of intolerance directed toward them b/c of their political and cultural beliefs. The current political landscape, the 2004 election results, the Pew Research Center’s findings, posted in comment 131, on the majority of Americans’ attitudes against homosexual marriage, all show very practical results of cultural and political struggle.

    Why are we having cultural and political struggle today between forces of secular humanism and forces of social conservative and religious groups? I’ve addressed that by pointing to the motivations of religious conservatives, something liberals imperfectly understand or refuse to understand:

    >I’ve already discussed the “pain and disgust” visited upon Muslims and Christians alike by a culture of visible homosexuality. Tell me if inducing “pain and disgust” on someone isn’t a form of oppression.< Steve S. replied (here we go again with rights talk):

    >>There is no constitutional right that you can only see things you like.< <

    >We have zoning laws, for instance, that restrict adult book stores to certain areas of a town. People have V-chips and neighborhood associations that restrict visual and other traffic. There are media rating systems in play for people’s protection. And there are a variety of [assumed and protected] rights: communities define obscenity and then pass laws protecting people from what is held to be obscene. Sounds like a right to me, a right to protect people from things they don’t like. For example, the public nude yoga in San Francisco, while seemingly tolerated in that community, wouldn’t fly I’m guessing in much of Texas.< There’s no need to reduce (simplify) these matters to the level of individual choice or constitutional rights, ignoring the forces that shape culture or refusing any reflection on the desired or undesired consequences of cultural and political struggles on the form of culture, or how such reflections could factor into the rational motives of conservatives, Christian or otherwise.

    If the constitution is so clear about human and civil rights, then why are we engaged in cultural and political battles over marriage amendments or the appointment of federal judges or the election of conservative Christian presidents?

    One answer is that conservatives and liberals fundamentally disagree over the directions our culture and society should go. I tried to spell out some of the reasons that social conservatives and conservative Christians are concerned. I did that, not in the hope to convince or convert, but in the hope to find some common ground from which to discuss these issues constructively. I have been trying to discuss in cultural and secular terms the issues that seem to divide a number of us and lay out the difficulties between conservatives, many of whom are Christian, and what I and many others take to be liberal secular fundamentalists.

    The cultural war wages along a number of well known fronts, regardless of the different groups’ interpretations or understandings of the constitution. For example, there are conservative and Christian commentators and leaders who happen to be women--and even they recognize the destructive role that having so many women in the workplace has on children and families. Feminist propaganda would have so much daycare and schoolcare and uninhibited divorce and abortion and ordinary women working crummy days jobs (it’s called “work,” not “happy fun-time,” for a reason!) that families would have little solidity and hardly spend time together, children would only be tenuously nurtured by or bonded to their own parents. Read about the history of the Kibbutz. Failure came b/c women wanted their own children (not to mention what the men wanted as unique fathers).

    Much secular liberalism just mirrors the free market, only to extend the agency of economic actors into the “private” realms of the family, lineage, and gender identification—in some communal fantasy where everyone is free to choose parents, gender, children; it’s a bloodless and cold vision of interchangeability. No one’s role is unique (man, woman, or child) and you have a perfect recipe for governments treating people as creatures of the state.

    Conservative Christians are alarmed and active because secular society sees no problem of conscience in creating a culture where babies are not sacred, where life is a matter of “choice,” where children having babies are encouraged to hide their “decisions” from their parents–that’s an anti-family and anti-parent agenda, all stemming from the “innocent” “pro-choice” line on abortion.

    Studies of children raised by homosexuals found that those children were more likely to experiment with or adopt that lifestyle. The ever growing prevalence of homosexual representation in the media is likewise probably a catalyst to experimentation. For many Christians, acceptance of homosexuality is not an option precisely b/c there is no middle ground of ongoing stability, in the face of accepted, visible homosexual lifestyles, in gender roles and family structure. Also, to have the homosexual lifestyle and aesthetic thrown into Christians’ and Moslems’ faces is painful and disgusting to them. Homosexuality isn’t about individuals; it’s about a cultural shift that roughly 2 billion Christians and 1 billion Muslims, among others, aren’t into. Clearly, conservative religious people aren’t going to want to participate in a culture that promotes alternative sexualities and that promises a future society where their own children’s commitments to traditional family structures will be challenged.

    In education, social conservatives have a legitimate stake in what their children are taught in public school. Naturally, they question any compulsory education system that forces (or surreptitiously obliges) a Christian or his or her children to listen to partisan or Pollyanna lectures on Islam, or force a Christian to have his or her children given sex education at inappropriate ages, or force a Christian to accept the sin of homosexuality, or force a Christian to undergo the dissolution of the sanctity of gender roles, and so forth.

    Pro-contraception agendas take away the mystique and quality of sex–the proper metaphor is inflation: if the coin is available everywhere, it’s worth is less. Pro-contraception mocks, at a rapid pace in a media society, the modesty and privacy surrounding sensual experience. For religious groups that advocate chastity until marriage, is there any doubt that public brandishing of sexual images and information cause embarrassment and pain?

    To return to an early claim, many Christians think homosexuality is a sin. They don’t tolerate it and I don’t see that, in a free country, they have to. They have cause to act against it in the political and cultural arena, which they are doing. They see threats to their families and to exercising their religion freely if the wider society tells them and their children that their religion teaches shameful and terribly wrong things about sodomy, going after “strange flesh” or sexual perversion, and fornication.

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 318

    Margaret sez — “if you can provide just one documented example of Christians who were oppressed or persecuted simply for being Christian, I will speak up for their civil and human rights with the same passion as I do for the civil and human rights of gay and lesbian people.”…

    “A small group of 11 Christians, representing the group “Repent America,” preached the Bible to a crowd of people attending the homosexual “OutFest” event October 10, 2004. They displayed banners with Biblical messages. After a confrontation with a group called the “Pink Angels,” described by protesters as “a militant mob of homosexuals,” police arrested the 11 Christians and took them into custody.

    After a preliminary hearing in December, a judge ordered four of the adult Christians to stand trial on three felonies and five misdemeanor charges. If convicted, they face a maximum of 47 years in prison. A fifth juvenile will stand trial in the juvenile justice system facing the same eight counts.

    The Philadelphia city prosecutor, Charles Ehrlich, attacked the Christians as “hateful” and referred to preaching the Bible as “fighting words”; the judge agreed. The American Family Association’s Center for Law and Policy is representing the defendants.’…

    I found this example in less than 30 seconds… I believe that given an hour or so — I would have no trouble finding many more…

    And this is the US Government… not some wacked out extremist…

    Here is only one documented example of Christians who were oppressed or persecuted simply for being Christian…

    So — don’t pretend it doesn’t happen…

    Now show us some of the passion that you promised…

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    ok..and what were the actual charges brought up , please..

    could be interesting..i note you give only the defendants words and viewpoints here

    it will be Fun to see what the court transcripts and witness testimony say

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Hard to believe Plainavy could write so much based on such fundamental misconceptions. It all comes down to this.

    >>In education, social conservatives have a legitimate stake in what their children are taught in public school. Naturally, they question any compulsory education system that forces (or surreptitiously obliges) a Christian or his or her children to listen to partisan or Pollyanna lectures on Islam,< <

    Islam is banned from the schools just as much as Christianity is.

    >> or force a Christian to have his or her children given sex education at inappropriate ages,< <

    All the schools I know of allow you to opt your kids out of sex ed.

    >> or force a Christian to accept the sin of homosexuality,< <

    Ok, let's have an example of Christians being forced to become homosexual.

    >> or force a Christian to undergo the dissolution of the sanctity of gender roles, <<

    Ok, please point to an example of a Christian being forced to dress in drag.

    You see, there’s your problem. You think that because someone else chooses to live differently than you do, that is somehow hurting you. Well, it isn’t. We’re all autonomous individuals, and what one of us does in our own life isn’t the business of anyone else. The attitude that you can dictate your morality to others is what people find so offensive about you religious extremists.

    Dave

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 322

    Dave sez — “what one of us does in our own life isn’t the business of anyone else. The attitude that you can dictate your morality to others is what people find so offensive about you religious extremists.”

    Dave — are you ready for nudes walking down main street?

    If not — do you consider it offensive?

  • RealCon

    RE: Comment 321

    Gonzo sez — “i note you give only the defendants words and viewpoints here”…

    No gonzo — get out your reading specs…

    The Philadelphia city prosecutor, Charles Ehrlich, attacked the Christians as “hateful” and referred to preaching the Bible as “fighting words”;..

    That is what the Philadelphia city prosecutor said…

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    true nuff..i stand corrected, mea culpa..

    now, what were the charges?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Dave — are you ready for nudes walking down main street?< <

    Me? Sure. But I doubt everyone is.

    >>If not — do you consider it offensive?<<

    Not at all. I rather enjoy it.

    But I do see where you’re going with this, and so long as they aren’t having sex in public I don’t see why anyone should be offended by two gay people together. Sorry, what’s the difference between two gay guys walking down the street together and me and my hetero buddy walking down the street?

    Dave

  • Bob

    response to post 322:

    >>Islam is banned from the schools just as much as Christianity is.<<

    WRONG!

    New York schools specifically allowed muslims special rooms to go to to pray DURING CLASS TIME! Teachers were forbidden from in any way penalizing them for lost class time. The school district, when asked, refused to make a similar accomidation for Christians.

    California school districts had a mandatory pro-islam indoctrination, during which students were REQUIRED to don muslim garb, assume muslim names, & specifially state “there is no god but Allah, & Mahhomed is his prophet”. All in the name of teaching tolerance.

    As an aside, islamic law considers this to constitute a bona-fide conversion to Islam. If any of these students were to later renounce Islam, they could be legitimatly killed for apostacy according to Sharia law.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>>>Islam is banned from the schools just as much as Christianity is.< <

    WRONG!

    New York schools specifically allowed muslims special rooms to go to to pray DURING CLASS TIME! Teachers were forbidden from in any way penalizing them for lost class time. The school district, when asked, refused to make a similar accomidation for Christians.<<

    Then the school district is wrong, and if legally challenged they'll certainly be told so by the courts.

    >>California school districts had a mandatory pro-islam indoctrination, during which students were REQUIRED to don muslim garb, assume muslim names, & specifially state “there is no god but Allah, & Mahhomed is his prophet”. All in the name of teaching tolerance.<<

    Again, likely not legal.

    The fact that a few schools do stupid and inconsistent things doesn’t change the basic realitty that not one law or ruling banning religion from schools, or the separation of church and state mentioned in the Constitution says one word about banning christianity rather than other religions. It’s separation of ALL churches from the state.

    Dave

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Plainavy, I appreciate all that you wrote in that long post, but what it boils down to is that there is a supposed to be a separation between church and state because of all those cultural/ethical differences you mentioned.

    In America, we are supposed to be free to live our lives as we please as long as we do not encroach upon the civil and human rights of others in doing so.

    If you personally believe that homosexuality is wrong/sinful/unnatural, that is your right and you may not only say so, but you are also free to try and convert homosexuals so long as you do not harass, intimidate or otherwise violate their civil and human rights in your attempts to do so.

    But you cannot expect the state to deny homosexuals their civil and human rights just because the teachings of some churches say homosexuality is a sin. And that really is all there is to that.

    I understand where you’re coming from, I really do. The world seems out of control, not only with open homosexuality (which was practically unheard of outside of our major cities only 30 years ago), but also with divorce, abortion, contraception, pornography (and other unwholesome entertainment), drugs, teen pregnancy, euthanasia etc., the directions toward realizing true freedom in our culture and society.

    True freedom is a scary thing for most people, that is why America is called the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    Courage is required because when our right to exercise our own free will and conscience is recognized, some people will inevitably take that to mean that they are free to engage in decadence, debauchery and vice, while others may take it to mean that the state’s failure to ban the temptations of sin and vice will rob all of us of our virtue.

    But why look to the state — which was not intended to have authority over our consciences and free will — for remedy?

    Why look to an Earthly institution (government) that is made up of flawed mortal humans who were elected by a bunch of other flawed mortal humans for deliverance from temptation and sin?

    I submit that the reason why certain social and cultural developments are so troubling to some people is because they have been lobbying the state for their salvation when they should be praying to God for it instead.

    “If the constitution is so clear about human and civil rights, then why are we engaged in cultural and political battles over marriage amendments or the appointment of federal judges or the election of conservative Christian presidents?”

    Because while our Constitution might be quite clear on these points, people are not because freedom as it is spelled out so plainly in our rather minimalist Constitution (it’s only 4 hand-written pages long) is a frightening proposition in which the state leaves us to fend for our own souls in the face of Earthly temptations.

    However, because true freedom includes freedom of religion, we are not really left alone to fend for our own souls, are we? We have our numerous and diverse faiths to see us through and give us the strength to resist temptation and live moral lives.

    To expect the state to step in and save us from the temptations of the flesh is not only a redundant layer of authority which the state does not have, but it is also detrimental to sincere repentance.

    Secular, authoritarian laws that are intended to place restrictions upon free will (and by the same measure our civil and human rights) for the purpose of deterring sin are not really within the purview of man because man is not fit to judge what is or is not sin, that is up to God.