Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Christian Right Marches On!

The Christian Right Marches On!

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Bush has yet to realize, but only because his is not the brightest bulb on the block, that the Republicans are now riding the tiger of the Christian Right, and dare not dismount. Karl Rove knows all about this but is arrogant enough to think he can handle the reins…

The Republicans saddled up on this tiger decades ago and have occasionally took a chance and jumped off when they realized that by being too closely associated with these rabid fanatics would be cutting into the true God of the Republicans: $$. During the 90s the Christian Right complained long and hard about being ignored by the Republicans when the latter realized they were alienating a lot of Mr & Mrs Middle America.

With Bush’s first run for the White House the Republicans, desperate to wrest the WH from Democrats went out and made a LOT of promises to the CR trying to once again woo them. The Republicans were amazingly successful – too successful. They and the powers of the CR went out into America’s “outback” to beat the bushes, driving out the ignorant, the poorly educated, the disenfranchised. People who find America moving on into the 21st century and desperately want to pull it back to the 1890s.

Now they have a monster on their hand. A monster that has been slavering for decades to rule over the lives of Americans and now sees it’s time is finally at hand.

Such a semi-theocratic state would of course be absolutely disastrous for the Republicans true love – the almightly dollar. Tens, if not hundreds of billions could easily be lost if the Christian Right actually got a toe-hold in the courts, congress, etc. Wielding the big stick the CR will surge ahead at the State level attempting to start up little local theocracies.

If you think this can’t happen ask yourself this – how the hell did the XVIII Amendment bringing about Prohibition ever happen?

Powered by

About Marlowe

  • http://screenrant.com Vic

    Wow, so now Christians are monsters?

    Vic

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Fanatics bent on theocracy are the target of the post, Vic. It’s difficult to misunderstand the point Alethinos makes, without a deliberate and willful act of malicious word twisting on the part of the reader.

    Plenty of Christians are not right wing aspiring theocrats, even though the fanatics may not accept such people as “true” Christians.

  • http://screenrant.com Vic

    the Republicans are now riding the tiger of the Christian Right

    the ignorant, the poorly educated, the disenfranchised.

    Now they have a monster on their hand.

    Didn’t take any word twisting there.

    I don’t believe that Christians (outside of fanatics, which exist in any group) want a theocracy.

    What Christians want is the moral values of Christianity brought back into the mainstream and the same respect paid to the Christian religion as to say, the Muslim religion in the media and on sites like this.

    Vic

  • alethinos59

    What Christians of this ilk want is to impose their WORLD VISION on the rest of America – regardless of what THEY want. It is an illusion that there was some “golden age” where everything was perfect.

    I agree that there is a TERRIBLE lack of morality these days. I deplore it. What I deplore MORE is a group of people who think THEY have some RIGHT to impose their version of MORALITY on everyone else.

    Yes it IS a monster that the Bush Adm., is trying to ride. Any group of people that begin to slide into such narrow-minded fanatical visions of a “perfect world” are terrifying.

    As for RESPECT for Christianity… I respect and believe in Jesus Christ. I recognize those people who seem to be living the life Christ taught.

    What I do NOT recognize as Christian are those with a deep psychosis that manifests itself in a burning desire to punish others into being “like me”.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Regarding the contradictory statements in comment 3:

    First: I don’t believe that Christians….want a theocracy.

    Second: What Christians want is the moral values of Christianity brought back into the mainstream

    um, that IS a theocracy, to those of us who do not fit what the ‘values of Christianity’ then have to live under. There are non-law-breaking gay people, athiests, agnostics, all kinds of people who would have to live under the ‘moral values’ of Christianity, and who get punished for ‘not fitting in’. Can’t get more theocratic than that.

  • Peter Duncan

    Aren’t christians americans? Don’t they have the right to vote the way they feel? Why do you think ‘your way’ of life should be imposed on the rest of us. Why can’t you just accept the fact that there are more of us than of you. Isn’t this country built upon a majority rule? Although both candidates tried to idenify with the ‘christians’ the repubs just did a better job of it. What’s wrong with that?

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    Isn’t this country built upon a majority rule?

    uhm….no, it’s not.

  • boomcrashbaby

    I don’t want my way of life imposed upon you. My way of life consists of raising a child, working hard, not breaking laws, paying taxes, cleaning house, etc. I certainly don’t want to impose any of this upon you.

  • Peter Duncan

    Well mark if the majority doesn’t rule and you’re in the minority then what are you belly-acheing about?

    Gay one-just for the record….aren’t you all about gay marriages and abortions? Don’t you want to impose that lifestyle upon the rest of the nation?

  • boomcrashbaby

    Gay one-just for the record….aren’t you all about gay marriages and abortions? Don’t you want to impose that lifestyle upon the rest of the nation?

    ‘gay one’? I guess that is to me.

    Religious fanatic, you think I want to impose a lifestyle of abortion? Never heard of the concept, no that is not what I’m about.

    Impose gay marriage on the rest of the nation? Not at all, if somebody doesn’t want to be in a gay marriage, they don’t have to be.

    What I want is a separation of church and state. Peter, if you want to condemn my family, that is your perogative, but the state should not condemn or refuse to recognize my family because of your religious belief.

  • Peter Duncan

    Very slick!!!!

    Impose gay marriage on the rest of the nation? Not at all, if somebody doesn’t want to be in a gay marriage, they don’t have to be.

    Try speaking to the issues. One- we already have a separation between church and state. Second, most people in this nation, whether they are christian or otherwise don’t want same sex marriage. Third-exactly who is pushing their values and life styles upon whom?

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    ok, this has been repeated thousands of times before but…

    so you’re christian. say you’re married.

    now, how does the existence of a gay & married couple impose ANYTHING upon you?

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Distorted Angel

    Mark, I have yet to see anyone actually offer an answer to that question, which speaks volumes. Similarly, the existence of safe, legal abortion doesn not impose abortion on those women who choose not to have one, but there are many in this country who would like to see their own personal choices forced upon the rest of us.

  • boomcrashbaby

    we already have a separation between church and state

    And christians are working overtime to erode it. Now we have Federal National Parks stating that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood.
    source

    Second, most people in this nation, whether they are christian or otherwise don’t want same sex marriage.

    Who cares? Most people in the 50’s didn’t want desegration either. America isn’t about pandering to the prejudiced, it is about equality for all.

    Third-exactly who is pushing their values and life styles upon whom?

    Can you tell me how I am pushing my lifestyle on you?

  • Peter Duncan

    we already have a separation between church and state

    And christians are working overtime to erode it. Now we have Federal National Parks stating that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood.

    Ok, to address point one- You agree with me that there already exists a separation between church and state. Why are you so afraid of some notion. If it is a silly notion then you have nothing to fear. Plus, it just strengthens the agrument for a separation of C & S.
    Second, most people in this nation, whether they are christian or otherwise don’t want same sex marriage.

    Who cares? Most people in the 50’s didn’t want desegration either. America isn’t about pandering to the prejudiced, it is about equality for all.

    Well voters in eleven states cared enough to voted it down. Some of those voters were non-christians and some were democrats. And please don’t compare your plight to desegration you do the blacks a disservice.

  • boomcrashbaby

    You agree with me that there already exists a separation between church and state

    No, I don’t agree. There isn’t a complete mesh between religion and government but there is enough there to cause harm/oppression/violence to many people.

    I wasn’t comparing my ‘plight’ to desegration. I was stating that what is ‘popular opinion’ in this country isn’t necessarily what equality for all is about.

    And it’s interesting to note, that not only did you not answer the question Mark posed, you left it out of your response to me as well, as to how it is imposing my lifestyle upon you. Perhaps you can’t answer it because it doesn’t exist?

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    And please don’t compare your plight to desegration you do the blacks a disservice.

    that’s not what the comparison was about.
    it was about the idea that a majority of the citizens thought it was OK, despite the fact that it denied equality to a minority.

  • Peter Duncan

    I ‘cherry-picked’ the questions I chose to answer just like you and Mark did. I take good notice that you only chose toanswer the questions you wanted to. I also noticed how you immeadiately ‘bent’ the question to your liking instead of anwering it straight up.

    Let’s go thru it once more…

    there is a separation of Church and State and your last answer is a bunch of gobblelly-goop.

    In every state where the issue of same sex marriage was raised it was sounded defeated. It even happened in liberal states (Ma, Or). In some cases two thirds of the voters voted no to same sex marriages. You said who cares…well now you have your answer…almost everybody thats had the question put to them.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    our responses were attempting to answer your statements (“there is separation of church and state”) by way of example.

    twist away, then!

  • boomcrashbaby

    what question did I not answer?

  • boomcrashbaby

    In every state where the issue of same sex marriage was raised it was sounded defeated.

    Yes, I know. When equality is put to a vote, it will usually lose.

    You said who cares…well now you have your answer…almost everybody thats had the question put to them

    You miss the point. When it comes to equality, who cares that the majority opposes it. Lady Liberty should overrule.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Rights that can be voted away don’t exist for anyone.

    The very definition of a human right is something that is not open to majority rule. It is an area reserved for individuals or minorities to retain their differences from the majority. Majority opinions sometimes coincide with a coherent definition of rights, but it is never the majority opinion that tells us whether or not something is a right.

    Thus the election results Mr. Duncan gleefully cites are meaningless in this discussion, except to indicate the rising power of those who would eviscerate the concept of rights by imposing their own theocratic morality on everyone else.

    Seen in a coherent light, it is clear in this case that it is the Christian fundamentalists who wish to impose their values on others, and it is equally clear that the gay people merely wish to secure the freedom to live as they choose, without being forced to navigate through a legal system that is prejudiced against them.

  • Peter Duncan

    Victor,

    You seem like an intelligent person.

    The ‘rights’ you speak of are state-granted and do not come from the almighty. If you don’t believe me then ask the California Supreme Court who ruled all of the marriage licences granted to same sex couples are null and void.

    It is not glee that propels me to inform you of this fact but the realist in me.

  • curt

    peter,
    are you homophobic?
    just curious.

  • alethinos59

    The problem is that so many who align themselves with the “Christian Right” are so ignorant, not only about the history of Christianity itself but also about the founding of this country.

    They assume (because they’ve been told) that the Founding Fathers were evangelical in their outlook. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most did attend church but many were also more than a little untrusting of established denominations. They believed in God. Most believed in Jesus…

    However, they would have run fast and hard from the Christian Right today…

    As a point here: most the Founding Fathers were very, VERY leery of partisan politics, I.a., political parties. Some wanted to outlaw them altogether. But most realized that they were, unfortunately an evil that could not be eradicated. Most shared the outlook of Hume on parties. They recognized 3 broad categories of parties… Those of mutual interest – usually economic were obnoxious but understandable. The one they feared the most though were parties of “principal”. (See Novus Ordo Seclorum, pp 162-163). The absolutely most destructive of these to modern democracy were parties based on religious principals which brought people to a certain “madness” (p. 163)

    History has shown us that any time a group manages to gain power and feel they have a “mandate from God” as so many Christian Right pulpit pounders are saying today, a real danger looms for that society.

    We all have a RIGHT to LIFE, to LIBERTY and to PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.

    If the Christian Right really wishes to influence the hearts and minds of their fellow Americans they might try to bring forth the real message of Christ and patiently educate others on the spiritual values that are critical to finding a life of true happiness…

    If they persist however in trying to bring on their own peculiar variation of the Inquisition… Things are going to get very ugly here in America.

    That was not in any shape, fashion or form the Vision the Founding Fathers ever had for this country.

    Lastly… Don’t rely on what your preacher tells you on Sunday morning about the HISTORY of both your religion or this country’s beginnings. Begin an independent investigation of the truth – find authors and works that are as BALANCED as possible.

    Unless of course you are afraid of the reality of things…
    Jim
    La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Rights are inherent in persons, never state granted. This is the founding principle of the United States. It is the chief justification Thomas Jefferson cited for this country’s revolution against the British Crown in 1776.

    In the clearly stated views of the Constitution’s authors, the function of governments is never to grant rights. It is to recognize and uphold those rights which already exist, independently of any majority opinion.

    Realism admits that every government will uphold rights imperfectly. However, any government that abandons its duty to pursue constant improvement in this regard starts down the road toward losing its legitimacy, according to the ideals expressed in the Unites States Constitution.

    It’s sad to see that Mr. Duncan and so many Americans are now ignorant of their own country’s basic founding principles. Such ignorance is not likely to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

  • Peter Duncan

    Victor,

    You need to let the Calif judges know that they do not have the power to render those same sex marriages null and void.

    Curt- you are indeed curious.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Thanks to most everybody for showing me that not all Americans are so easily fooled. Unfortunately it’s not only gay people who are going to have their right severely trampled on in the future.

    If the Christian Right really wishes to influence the hearts and minds of their fellow Americans they might try to bring forth the real message of Christ

    Since Jesus hung out with prostitutes, and spoke against the imbalance of wealth, and advocated tolerance and acceptance, it’s clear the Christian Right cannot bring forth the real message of Christ, because it is a liberal message.

  • Scoota Rey

    If Jesus was a politican, I’d think he’d be somewhere on the left.

  • Scoota Rey

    Oh yeah, fuck those Christian Right bastards who want to impose their way of living upon everyone else.

    Also, God gave us a choice how to live our life as we choose, so no human should have the right to tell someone how to live.

  • alethinos59

    Steve…

    Jesus did indeed do those things. What is so sad for those ultraconservatives today is that they refuse to understand that Jesus could do this without feeling the need to condemn those individuals… He certainly did not condone immoral behavior. But then He didn’t suffer a deep PSYCHOSIS that so many in the Christian Right do today – a burning NEED to PUNISH and CONDEMN others.

    God will deal with us all. We are all sinners on one level or another…

    The message of Christ was simple…. We are spiritual creatures temporarly dwelling in this physical world. We have souls, created by God. The best way to approach God is to do your very best to reflect the attributes of God. Love, mercy, kindness, justice, trustworthiness… Faith AND good works. Neither alone will cut it…

    But too many of these pulpit pounders have only one desire: POWER. Preaching the Sermon on the Mount puts people to sleep – esp., since it isn’t put into action. But what these people do is APPEAL to the BASE nature of Man. That base nature is bloodthirsty. Witness the mullas who convince poor, ignorant children to slap bombs on their bodies and blow themselves up. The Qu’ran doesn’t say they’ll go to heaven by murdering innocents! But these fools don’t THINK for themselves. They rely on another person to tell them WHAT TO BELIEVE…

    Here in the churches these people appeal to that dark element in EACH OF US to look down on others – to drag them down in order to make ourselves feel holier-than-thou….

    So sad…
    Jim
    La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • Scoota Rey

    Amen. Preach on it, brotha!

    Halleuah!!!

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Peter, I don’t have time to consider all you’ve said, so I will focus on your two major reasoning errors.

    ~ That the U.S. is a Christian nation, and, therefore, Christians get to run it.

    ~ That majority rule should be decisive.

    You are mistakenly assuming we live in a theocracy. We don’t. Most Americans identify themselves as Christians, but that doesn’t mean citizenship and religion are merged. Christians have no more right to run the country than anyone else.

    There are checks on majority rule because it often becomes a way for a wrongheaded mass to abuse the rights of minorities. If we took what you are saying seriously, Peter, racial segregation would still be the law of the land. Women might not be allowed to vote. In the recent election, we saw how a self-righteous, unschooled majority will treat a minority if given free rein to do so.

    The America you envision, theocratic and majority ruled, would be a very hostile place except for those like you.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Our founders feared the “tyranny of the majority” for a reason, didn’t they?

  • alethinos59

    Mac…

    If by “Christian nation” you mean that the majority of people in this country see themselves as believing in Jesus than you are correct. If on the other hand you are stating that this is a CHRISTIAN STATE you are dead wrong.

    The Constitution was not founded on “Christian” principals. It was founded on a spiritual element that recognized INALIENABLE RIGHTS INHERENT in us – given us by God. God is God. He is all our God. Different names are irrelevant. We all have different names for the color blue also – that doesn’t change the fact that it is what it is.

    The Christian Right has this delusion that at some time there was a “golden age” of Christianity in this country. The closest that actually comes to being true is the dreadful, suffocating, deeply disturbing time of the Puritans – a group so obnoxious in their disdain for life and joy that even the British couldn’t stand them and kicked them out of England!

    I firmly believe that is the world the Christian Right would have us return to…

    If that ever becomes a reality I WILL move to Canada – I don’t care HOW cold it is….
    Jim
    La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • Peter Duncan

    This conversation has gotten outta hand.

    Why do you consider it tyranny of the majority when 62% of the voters decide that they don’t want same sex marriages in their state. I do not live in a state that voted on such an amendment. I am only reporting the results of the fair vote back to you folks. Not only did the voters decide that same sex marriage wasn’t for them, but the Calif Supreme Court decide to render the same sex marriages licences null and void. (All 4000 of them) These people are not ignorant as you people suggest. They are americans who have expressed their preferences thru voting or thru the rule of law. Furthermore, there is a proposal to make this an amendment to the Constitution. It can only get there if it enjoys a broad base of support. So where’s the tyranny?

    I have no idea what Mav Diva points illustrate because they are not mine. But certainly, this is a country where the majority (of those that vote) will determine what policy is. It is not determined by the minority…never has been and hopefully never will.

    Why is this so hard to comprehend?

  • Taloran

    I am a happily married, straight father of two, who believes in freedom of choice in all things (with the caveat that one’s choice does not harm others or interfere with the choice of anyone else.)

    I choose not to own firearms, but respect the right of those who choose otherwise (as long as they do not choose to harm others – defending one’s home against intrusion with a firearm is not a choice.)

    I choose to eat meat, but respect the right of vegetarians to refrain from doing so.

    It can be argued that I chose a heterosexual lifestyle (it can also be argued that I did not choose, but it was my genetic predisposition to be hetero). I respect the right of others to make a different choice (or, if it is not a choice, respect them for being the person created by their genes)

    If my wife were to become pregnant again, I would not want her to have an abortion. I believe that deliberately stopping a human heartbeat, for whatever reason, is fundamentally wrong. However, if a woman feels that it is in her best interest, for whatever reason, to abort a child she is carrying, then I wish her well and support her decision while not necessarily agreeing with the “rights and wrongs” of the matter.

    I choose not to attend religious services of any kind, and to discourage my minor children from participating in religious activities until they are old and wise enough to make an informed decision about their choice of religion. I respect the right of any adult to choose to attend church, synagogue, or any kind of religious service that pleases them.

    How does the choice of a gay couple possibly interfere with the choices I’ve made in my life? How, as Peter Duncan says above, does the choice of any two people to marry “force their personal choices upon the rest of us?” If they choose to marry, it doesn’t affect my life or my family, any more than my next-door neighbor’s religious beliefs, my other neighbor’s collection of handguns, or my co-worker’s vegetarianism. To believe that another’s lifestyle choice can affect you or degrade the moral fabric of society indicates an extremely insecure psyche.

    Make your choices, and let other people make theirs.

  • boomcrashbaby

    This conversation has gotten outta hand.

    because there is disagreement?

    Why do you consider it tyranny of the majority when 62% of the voters decide

    Tyranny: exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government.

    the Calif Supreme Court decide to render the same sex marriages licences null and void.

    You keep going back to that. The court decided that the marriages were null because they violated law. The court did not rule if the law itself was constitutional. That case is pending and a ruling expected soon.

    They are americans who have expressed their preferences thru voting or thru the rule of law

    why is it so difficult for you to understand that equality isn’t a ‘preference’?

    this is a country where the majority (of those that vote) will determine what policy is

    This is not a country founded on mob rule. Many laws are passed by voting that are subsequentially overturned because they are detrimental to the basic principles of America.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Peter, what you are saying is ‘hard to comprehend’ because it is inaccurate. Both the executive and judicial roles were created as a check on the electoral process. Many of the changes to the original state of the American citizenry we take for granted would not have occurred if they had been left to majority rule. Ultimately, the equality of homosexuals will likely be decided by the Supreme Court under an expanded interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Unfortunately, considering the current state of the Court and new appointments by Bush, that may be a long time coming.

    Occassionally, I get someone with the same patronizing tone you’ve displayed here in my Constitutional Law class. They are usually the worst students. That is because they think they know things they don’t.

  • Taloran

    Peter, you are failing to understand the obvious – that rights are inalienable, and that while the government has the clout to take them away, it does not have the right to do so – the government of the United States exists to provide equal rights to all, not to a majority who voice their opinions on election day.
    In certain parts of the country, perhaps the whole country, it was against the will of the voting public to give the right to vote to women (obviously, the voting public was all male at the time.) Did that mean that the majority of voters could or would be right to withhold the right to vote from women?

    By extension, the same goes to the question of gay marriage today. Because a majority of voters believe in creating a sub-human class of people who cannot marry, does it make it right to do so?

    What if they chose (and it is possible, no matter what you may say) to remove the voting rights of Jews? Or Hispanics?

    What if they chose to take a vote about rounding up all the Muslims in the country and putting them in internment camps, in the name of national security? Would a majority vote in that case make it the right thing to do? Would the majority rule make it correct to remove the rights of said Muslims? Before you scoff, it happened before, to the Japanese during WWII.

    If you take away a solitary right of one person, you’ve opened the door for all rights to be stripped from all people.

  • alethinos59

    Peter…

    For reasons I am not going to go in here I voted against the gay marriage prop here also… But I have also opposed VEHEMENTLY the Christian groups here that have put on the ballots measures that BLATANTLY attempt to discriminate against gays and lesbians simply BECAUSE they are gay and lesbian…

    For some reason you equate MAJORITY with “it’s alright”. The majority of Germans backed Hitler. Was that alright? Since when has the MAJORITY equaled what is fundamentally right?

    At one time the MAJORITY of Whites in Southern States felt slavery was perfectly fine. Was it?

    If the MAJORITY of Americans suddenly voted that there be absolutely NO public display – of any kind, any where, of Christmas, would that be RIGHT?

    Is any of this getting through to you?

    Do you think God voted Bush into office? Can you find for me in ANY of the writings at the time of the founding of this country from ANY of the Founding Fathers where they said, “equal rights for everyone – unless of course God gives the majority of people a CLEAR MANDATE.”

    Jim
    La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Alethino, you are mistaken. I was restating what Peter believes. (Strangely, he seems to suffer cognitive dissonance when his own views are restated, though.) As a student of the constitution, I am well aware that its writers were not envisioning a theocracy at all. Indeed, Jefferson, a deist, was very uncomfortable with the notion of relying on divine guidance to decide societal issues.

    I also think this a good time to give credit to some of our more ‘domineering’ presidents, who, as much as the courts, have made America a better country.

  • boomcrashbaby

    I voted against the gay marriage prop here..But I have also opposed…measures that BLATANTLY attempt to discriminate against gays and lesbians simply BECAUSE they are gay and lesbian

    oxymoron anyone?

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    There’s a blog topic for sure, Alethino. You must explain what you mean. Is there a legitimate basis for voting for an amendment that would make gays ineligible to marry in the absence of anti-homosexual bias?

    If I remember correctly, you live in Portland, so I’m very curious to hear your answer.

  • Taloran

    “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” –Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814.

    “Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” –Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

    “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” –Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, 1800

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Thanks for posing those quotations, Taloran. That‘s Jefferson.

  • Taloran

    Mac Diva states above “(The Constitution’s) writers were not envisioning a theocracy at all”

    Quite the opposite:
    In 1797 the United States entered into a treaty with Tripoli, in which it was declared:
    “As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of Musselmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” This treaty was written under Washington’s presidency, and it was ratified by Congress under John Adams, signed by Adams.

  • Peter Duncan

    This conversation has gotton outta hand, not because there is disagreement but because of the name calling and the fact that we are all talking about different things. For example, I am talking about majority rule and not mob rule. Secondly, these amendments came thru the legislative process and were voted on by the citizens of that particular state. Same sex mariages are not made in heaven as Victor implied. As you have already admitted, there exist a separation of Church and state in this country, both at the federal and at the state level. Ranting doesn’t change this fact. As a rule of law, the cal supreme court decided that they (gay marriages) were in violation of existing laws. They weren’t lawful….surely Mac a lawyer like yourself can understand this.

    Lastly, each of you personalize your comments as to demean me. One calls me unbalanced and another indicate that I am a know-it-all….but you’re all wrong. I am just saying that we are all americans and as such we all have the same basic rights. One of theose rights is the right to vote as you see fit. If this issue had never come to a vote then maybe just maybe I could understand your argument. But such isn’t the case. It has come to a vote. In eleven states and it was rejected in every one of them. It was rejected by a majority of voters in a fair election. Over and over again. I did not vote on this amendment. I did not sit on the Supreme Court. I did not start the constitutional amendment. Many others did and it is their right to do so. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean they are stupid or ignorant or have an extremely insecure psyche.

  • Taloran

    I made an error putting Peter’s name in the same paragraph as my sentence “To believe that another’s lifestyle choice can affect you or degrade the moral fabric of society indicates an extremely insecure psyche” in comment 37. It was not meant as a personal attack, but a generalized statement. I should have put in some sort of separation, or said “One who believes that…” I apologize for my oversight, and apologize to Peter if he felt that was a personal attack. It was not meant to be so.

    I get rather heated when discussing the matters of civil and human rights, and do not edit as carefully as I should.

    I still stand by the statement (not an attack) in my next comment however, that he is missing the obvious, that rights are inalienable, and if we strip one person’s right or rights, we open the door for all the rights of every American to be taken away.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Lord, man. (And, I’m not even religious.) The California court decided that the mayor of San Francisco used an improper process to grant marriage licenses to gays. It did not rule on the substantive issue of the legality of gay marriage at all. Again, you are presuming too much because of insufficient knowledge.

    There are laymen with a good understanding of the legal issues around here, including Taloran, Bhw and Steve (Boom). I suspect that is because they do the research to know what they are talking about. It shows when someone doesn’t.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Peter, I’m not sure, but I think I’m the only one here directly affected by these laws/amendments, and I don’t believe I’ve every called you anything. I have been civil.

    Same sex mariages are not made in heaven as Victor implied.

    Neither is marriage. Marriage started out as a transfer of property (woman) from father to husband. Marriage included polygamy, harems, concubines, etc. none of which fall into your definition of heaven, I assume. Marriage is mutable and changes to fit societies needs.

    ,i>As you have already admitted, there exist a separation of Church and state in this country, both at the federal and at the state level.

    For the record, I do not think the separation is absolute and it is constantly having to be defended against. there ARE instances where they merge, when they clearly shouldn’t.

    each of you personalize your comments as to demean me

    I do not personalize this to demean you. If you cannot comprehend why it is personalized to me, well, then what can I say?

    As a rule of law, the cal supreme court decided that they (gay marriages) were in violation of existing laws.

    As I stated previously, yes, they were in violation of existing laws and a ruling is expected within a few months that will determine those existing laws are unconstutional and they will be struck down. At that time those marriages can be reinstated. The courts did NOT rule that the marriages are wrong. The court ruled that the marriages violate current law. You don’t seem to be able to understand the possibility that the current law is a violation of equality as determined by the Constitution.

  • Peter Duncan

    Apology accepted.

    Some rights are unalienable, some are granted by the federal gov’t and some are granted by the states. In particular, we are discussing the last category.

    Are you saying that states shouldn’t have the right to determine who should and who shouldn’t be married?

  • Taloran

    “the current law is a violation of equality as determined by the Constitution.”

    And that is the crux of the biscuit – the law IS inequal, and therefore must be struck down, period. The newly passed amendments banning gay marriage must also be struck down, as they inherently remove rights from a group of people.

  • boomcrashbaby

    apology accepted? For what? I said I didn’t personalize it for you and I didn’t call you a name. So I have nothing to apologize for.

    Are you saying that states shouldn’t have the right to determine who should and who shouldn’t be married?

    My opinion is that as long as they are consenting adults, then no, the state has no right to define our relationships. Children are a different story because they aren’t mature enough to handle the responsibilities of relationships, other than that, if you wanted to marry 15 women, and if I wanted to marry a man, that is our own business, that is between us and the Lord and the state has no right to punish/reward relationships between consenting adults. The state should not recognize relationships, it should treat individuals as individuals, since that won’t happen and since the state DOES reward relationships, it’s got to reward relationships YOU don’t approve of too.

  • Taloran

    Rights are NOT granted by the government! Rights are rights, period, inalienable and available to everyone regardless of color, creed, or sexual preference. The task of government is to protect the rights of all, without discrimination. The Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) tells us what the government cannot do, and among other things, it cannot take away rights. It was specifically written NOT to tell us what the government can do – that fits in between everything spelled out in the document that the government cannot do.

    And yes, I am most certainly saying that the government (state, federal or otherwise) has no justification for determining who can and cannot be married. The government CANNOT classify one group of people as having fewer or different rights than any other group.

    It’s all right there in the legacy the founding fathers left us.

  • Peter Duncan

    The gay fellow wrote:it’s got to reward relationships YOU don’t approve of too.

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I didn’t vote on this amendment. My opinion about gay marriage is secondary to these posts. Let’s see if we can get several things straight.

    States currently issue marriage lics. There is no state that currently recognizes gay marriage. There are some in this country that would prefer to have a constitutional amendment of this subject. It such an amendment passes….by 2/3 ratification (please check my facts on this one Mac)then it will become the law of the land.

    Nobody said….it was right or wrong…only that it is the law of the land.

    As one blogger said… Is any of this getting through to you?

  • boomcrashbaby

    yes, Peter, we understand that. What we are saying is that we don’t just shrug our shoulders and say ‘oh well it’s the law’. Haven’t you ever heard of unjust laws? Or when a law passes is it final to you?

    The gay fellow wrote:it’s got to reward relationships YOU don’t approve of too. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I didn’t vote on this amendment.

    No, but you made your lack of approval clear, and it was to that which I am debating.

    ?? the gay fellow wrote? I feel like saying ‘hello? I’m in the room too’.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    In the interest of solidarity, I declare myself a symbolic ‘gay fellow’ to keep Steve (Boom) company. I know how it feels to be singled out as if some trait of yours undermines your opinions.

  • alethinos59

    Ahhh Mac… Sorry. I thought there was something odd about all that!

    Yes I did vote against the gay marriage amendment as it stood here in Oregon. I also am in full SUPPORT of full rights/priv., for gay CIVIL UNIONS….

    I support equal treatment for ALL citizens. I have defended attacks – (so far luckily not physical!) against gays, simply because they are gay.

    However….

    As radical gays/lesbians attempt to push their agenda I find their insistance that I accept homosexuality as NORMAL to fly in the face of REALITY.

    Homosexuality is not “normal” in the standard definition of the word. If it were hetrosexuality would be “deviant”. In teaching classes on Greek history I’ve found it odd and disheartening that these radical gays will attempt to distort history, claiming for instance that homosexual behavior was accepted as normal by the Greeks. There were times when it was more tolerated and times when it was less. And times when it wasn’t accepted at all… They’ll say Plato backed homosexual behavior. It’s a distortion, plain and simple. There are numerous passages in Plato’s dialogues where Plato condemns homosexuality.

    Homosexuality is a deviation from Nature. It always has been. It always will be. Simply because it has been, from time to time more or less tolerated in certain societies doesn’t make it “normal”. All sorts of human behavior has been with us since the beginning and has been at certain times more or less tolerated. Doesn’t mean it was “normal” either… Here I am talking as a Platonist. I am talking about Nature. Natural law. The purpose of man the “telos” in Greek terms.

    So gay marriage is to me ridiculous. Marriage is a personal and social contract between a woman and man for a two-fold purpose: it welds society together and the union brings forth children into (hopefully) a stable, nurishing environment. That has been the understanding more or less of marriage for thousands of years…

    When radical gays attempt to tell me that gay MARRIAGE is NORMAL I balk. When gays tell me they need to have the same rights and privilages that married couples do I say ABSOLUTELY.

    The fact that you are gay doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have those same rights. However, don’t expect me to ever accept that your lifestyle is normal. It isn’t.

    That being said my gay friends, of which I have a good number, know damn good and well that if they need a voice at a public meeting I’ll be there.
    Jim
    La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • alethinos59

    Peter you are right… Things do get heated at times and I have a very biting satire. Sorry for being rough on you… I’ll try to watch my tone…

    (Course, any of da rests of you that piss me off – WATCH OUT!)

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    My reasons for supporting gay rights are:

    ~ Doing so helps a segment of society, and

    ~ Granting homosexuals equal rights will do no harm to the rest of us.

    So, my question is how do you foresee, for example, gay marriage, being harmful to the body politic, Alethino?

    I tend to blow off some of the more far out stuff that radical fringe minority group members come up with. I never used the word ‘womyn.’ When the Afrocentrics start talking about melanin making people superior, I tell’em that’s bullfeathers. When fellow Indians claim the Earth is speaking to them, I suggest they ask where the closest unclaimed gold mine is. My inclination in regard to what you said about your experiences with radical gays and Greek history would be to raise a brow and move on.

    Incidentally, the claiming of historical figures by MSSE (Minorities in Search of Self-Esteem) is not new. Currently, there are people trying to claim Abraham Lincoln is gay. Previously, there were people trying to claim he was black. Not to mention the claim he was illegitimate. (Maybe Bastard Nation was behind that one.) I think such claims are basically a cry for acceptance. The people who do this are thinking: If some important historical figure had this unapproved of trait, tnen it is acceptable after all.

  • alethinos59

    Mac…

    My point in all this does come from spiritual/platonic level. I believe consequently that life has telos – purpose. Marriage is not simply a “thing” which is unconnected to reality.

    The essence of the argument is the term “normal”. Homosexuality is not “normal”. It is not a fulfillment of nature. It is an aberration.

    Be that as it is… I have gay and lesbian friends. They know damn well I’ll defend them to the death. I will also defend the struggle for equal rights in society. They have a right to not be discriminated against. They have a right in their shared lives to not be hassled by courts, insurance companies, housing authorities – realtors.

    The term “marriage” implies certain things. It is a critical building block of society. It is in a scientific analogy the first BOND between ATOMS of two different ELEMENTS. Molecules are formed. Society grows. Ties are made. Families united. Children result from this union, and so on…

    Anyways we could go on and on along this tangent which is fine… But we might want to take this off line…

    Jim
    La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • Taloran

    “marriage… is.. the first BOND between ATOMS of two different ELEMENTS.”

    Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse here? The word itself comes from the Latin maritus, husband, which is derived from mas, male. Any implied marriage of other objects (East and West, Atoms, etc) is a derivative of the original meaning, which was to bond a woman to a man. And bond was precisely the right term, meaning she was to be his property to do with as he pleased.

    The definition of marriage has changed over the many centuries, to the point where it now means (at least to me) two people choose each other (through love, ideally) to be mates for life (again, ideally.) In all societies of which I am aware, the two people are meant to be a man and a woman.

    But, the government cannot grant rights to certain groups of people without granting those rights to all groups of people – marriage must be a universal right, or no one should be allowed to be married. The restriction on marriage between people of the same gender creates a class of people with fewer rights than the rest, which is NO DIFFERENT from removing the right to vote from Jews, the right to education from women, or the right to reproduce from Caucasians.

  • boomcrashbaby

    In regards to the comments by alethinos about homosexuality being abnormal, I remember a few years back of a couple of gay people directing me to sources that showed, within nature, that when overpopulation occurred (I think it was in the insect world), a large amount of insects were suddenly born sterile.

    The assumption was that nature was trying to counter balance the overpopulation, of course there would be no way to prove this.

    Their logic then went to homosexuality being nature’s attempt to control overpopulation. While there is no way to prove that, if one believes in intelligent design, then one can believe that homosexuals have a purpose here on earth, for what reason we might not know yet.

    Which of course might make us fall outside the realm of ‘normal’ but not fall into the realm of abberation.

    Personally, I would wonder about the self-esteem of ANY person who would be friends with someone who considers them an abberation.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Thank you, Mac Diva, for your willingness to stand along side me. During the next 4 years (and beyond), gay people could use many decent friends like you.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Distorted Angel

    The essence of the argument is the term “normal”. Homosexuality is not “normal”. It is not a fulfillment of nature. It is an aberration.

    I would argue, alethinos, that we’re all part of nature and that aberration is in the eye of the beholder.

  • alethinos59

    Dear Boom…

    Aberrant behavior in animals due to forces operating on them is not the same as choice. Also, since homosexual behavior has been an element IN human society since day one… Long before “population” concerns.

    I’ve heard the arguments like this for decades. They don’t wash. There is no gene that brings on homosexuality either. When the DNA scientist reported a preliminary finding about this years ago he warned the reporters to not run off claiming such a thing and they did. He later clarified it and said there was no evidence for genetic predisposition to homosexual behavior…

    I’m sorry Steve if I don’t conform to what you want from people who will protect your rights. In the end though I’ll be their to protect them.

    And in the end God really doesn’t care what your particular bent was… He wants to know what kind of life you led – were you kind, loving, generous, helpful…

    Jim
    La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • alethinos59

    TALORAN…

    >>The definition of marriage has changed over the many centuries< < I've heard this argument before also... It doesn't wash. Marriage has changed in class definitions over the centuries for sure. But there was never confusion about it being a man and woman... >>But, the government cannot grant rights to certain groups of people without granting those rights to all groups of people – marriage must be a universal right<< The government doesn’t grant rights to people. The rights are inherent in us as humans. Government’s job is to recognize them. Protect them. Government recognizes marriage. It doesn’t grant marriage. It is an institution that predates governments… And government does recognize that there are elements of society that are given greater consideration due to past injustices – witness Affirmative Action. We could go on and on about this. The point is that I know a great many people who will NOT allow the Christian Right to trample on gays. At the same time they refuse to recognize gays living together to be in a marriage. A civil union – yes. All the rights INHERENT in that civil union – which are identical to the rights with married couple – yes. Is it a “marriage”? No. This is where the radical gay element of the gay community made a HUGE mistake this last election. Mistaking millions of Americans attitude of “live and let live” with an acceptance of their radical agenda. It simply will not happen. Consequently millions came out to vote – and unfortunately vote for Bush. Let’s remember where the real danger lies… Jim La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    This is where the radical gay element of the gay community made a HUGE mistake this last election.

    First, what is the “radical gay element”? And second, what did they — or any other gays — do during this last election that was such a big mistake?

    I’ll answer that second one: nothing. A comparitively small number of gay couples got married in Mass. and Calif. and somewhere else [Oregon?]. In Mass., the state supreme court ruled it unconstitutional to discriminate against gays in marriage. According to our state constitution, that was the correct ruling. That case was decided in May of this year, and had been in the courts for a very long time before that.

    That ruling gave gay couples across the country hope that they, too, could get married. These are not radical people. They are everyday Americans who simply want to have equal access to the legal and societal benefits of marriage.

    For the life of me, I cannot figure out what is so radical about wanting to get married to the person you love.

  • alethinos59

    BHW…

    I’m sure it is difficult for you to understand. I don’t blame you for the confusion. Regardless – the political analysis across the US has made the point I just reiterated. You may not agree with what I said but the facts are that millions of people did come out to vote BECAUSE of that issue showing up on the ballot.

    Where I work virtually every person voted (there are only about 17 of us there). Of the 15 who did vote 14 voted for Kerry. One voted for Bush. All 15 voted against the gay marriage amendment. These 14 consider themselves liberal, easy going – dead set against the Christian Right. Every one of them said if the amendment had been to grant – via civil union – the exact same rights to gays as married couples already enjoyed they would have voted for it.

    It’s important I think for the Gay Community to look at this rationally. There are smarter ways to win the desired goal – which are the rights.

    Jim
    La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Alethinos, maybe I am reading you wrong, but, what I’m getting from your remarks is “separate, but equal.” I can imagine a member of the White Citizens Council, after Brown v. Board, saying:

    I’m very fond of my Nigra friends. I would take them into my own home to protect them from the Klan. But, white is white and Nigra is Nigra. It is not natural for’em to be going places and doing things like white folks. Yes, they ought to have schools, but the schools don’t have to be the same as ours. There’s nothing wrong with having Nigra schools.

    How are civil unions different from ‘Nigra schools’?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Thanks for the not-so-subtle insult.

    Every one of them said if the amendment had been to grant – via civil union – the exact same rights to gays as married couples already enjoyed they would have voted for it.

    This is the perplexing part. They’re willing to vote essentially for equal rights, but not the same word being attached to those rights. Why not? What’s with the word being so important? Is it a power thing? A “I don’t want to be put in the same category as them” thing?

    There’s definitely an element of homophobia to it: We’ll let you have all of this stuff, but you can’t have that name. THAT’S ours, and you’re not one of us, really, and we want to make sure you and everyone else know it.

    It’s a way of making sure people know right away that you’re not gay when you say you’re married.

    The latent homophobia came rushing to the surface when all these otherwise liberal, open-minded people voted to keep themselves elevated above another group of people they supposedly think should have equal rights, didn’t it?

    So I guess gays will be “unionized” and heteros will be married, unfortunately….

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Bhw, I can tell you are not from the South. In Southern cities, the names of streets traditionally changed when they reached ‘the colored section.’ So, Peachtree Way would suddenly become Dexter Street. If the street became ‘white’ again, there would be a third or fourth name. I still get lost in Atlanta sometimes because it has so many streets that do that. The point was not to share an address with people the dominant group, whites, considered inferior. So, the reasoning you just described is old hat to students of the civil rights movement.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    MD, you’re right. A rose by any other name, I guess. Such a shame that human nature doesn’t change. [Ironic, isn’t it, on a thread that has covered what is allegedly natural?]

  • alethinos59

    BHW…

    I was so hoping you wouldn’t play the “homophobia” card… This is equivalent to Jews playing the anti-Semitic card anytime anyone suggests the problems in the region are created by both sides. In their mind they are NEVER at fault under any condition, anytime, anywhere…

    We don’t know one another… So it is irrelevant for me to point out my friendships with gays, lesbians and bi-sexual.

    Perhaps we’ve reached an impasse for the time being?

    Jim
    La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    This is equivalent to Jews playing the anti-Semitic card anytime anyone suggests the problems in the region are created by both sides. In their mind they are NEVER at fault under any condition, anytime, anywhere…

    It’s only equivalent if you believe gays are at fault for being gay.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Aberrant behavior in animals due to forces operating on them is not the same as choice.

    So you are of the argument that homosexuality is a choice? Being gay, I am convinced that it is not, and cannot be swayed otherwise because that would be to concede that which I know is not right. When you are in public and a beautiful woman walks by you, do you choose to be aroused/attracted? To me, it is an absurd thought.

    Also, since homosexual behavior has been an element IN human society since day one… Long before “population” concerns.

    I agree. I did not say that I subscribe to the theory. My quest for a family took over 5 years of hard work, inspired by my parental urges. I am capable of seeing the distinction between orientation and parental urges, so my point was, as I stated, that perhaps there is a reason for homosexuality that we can not fathom yet.

    There is no gene that brings on homosexuality either.

    There are respected scientists that claim that there is a strong possibility of it being genetic and there are respected scientists that claim there is not. All I have to do is look inside myself to see that I do not choose to feel an attraction but that it happens naturally and that is enough for me, even should a scientist tell me otherwise.

    As for the distinction between orientation and behavior, all I can say is that the expectation that a person refrain from physical contact for their whole life is not very realistic or compassionate and it would run counter to the biological need of love and companionship within us all, that is required for survival.

    I’m sorry Steve if I don’t conform to what you want from people who will protect your rights. In the end though I’ll be their to protect them.

    Jim, that’s all I need. Thank you for being willing to fight for my rights. I’ve said often that it is unrealistic to expect all people to open their arms to us. However, even when my own partner is wrong on something, I will certainly let him know. It doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate all that he’s done for me. As for my self-esteem/friend comment, I would consider you an acquaintance with no ill will, but would not consider someone with such a line of thought to be a friend. That is me speaking for myself, not for any community and it has to do with a lifetime of my own battles with self-esteem and pride. The biggest sin I have probably ever committed is pride. As for heaven and hell though, if I’m going to hell, I’m going to take the scenic route.

    This is where the radical gay element of the gay community made a HUGE mistake this last election. Mistaking millions of Americans attitude of “live and let live” with an acceptance of their radical agenda. It simply will not happen. Consequently millions came out to vote – and unfortunately vote for Bush.

    I’m too busy right now to go search for the link, but the initial thoughts after the election was that it was mostly based on gay marriage. However it was based on moral issues, and when people were polled as to what was the moral issues they voted on, terrorism, Iraq, greed, poverty, abortion and one or two others came in before gay marriage. Gay marriage was the main reason for 9% of Bush voters. 9% of 160 million is roughly 4.8 million, about the number Karl Rove expected to bring out because of the wedge issue. 4.8 million isn’t too bad a number, out of the whole country and it’s not quite the ‘hot’ issue you make it out to be, while I will concede that it is still an issue for many people.

    I can’t fathom the need to have two things equal but titled differently, but yes, that is the sentiment of millions. It just makes no sense to me.

  • Taloran

    alethinos59:
    “The government doesn’t grant rights to people.”
    It’s not supposed to – rights are supposed to be universal and inherent. However, by removing the rights of a certain portion of the population to do a certain thing, the government IS INDEED granting that right to other portions thereof.

    “The argument… that the definition of marriage has changed… doesn’t wash”
    Really? In medieval France marriage was between a Christian man and woman – Jews could not legally wed (and there were precious few who were neither Jew nor Christian). In early medieval Spain, under the domination of the Moors, only Muslim men could wed, and the powerful men among them could take any woman (Christian, Jew, or Muslim) to be their bride, despite any objections from the woman’s family, including her then-husband. If you had the clout, you could have the woman, period. So the argument that the definition of marriage has not changed is complete hogwash, and I propose that permitting two people of the same gender to marry would only be a natural step in the continuing evolution of the tradition.

    Is my marriage to a person of the opposite sex less of a marriage because it was performed by a judge, and not “in the eyes of God?” I am less anti-religious now than I was 20 years ago, but if I had it to do over again, I would again refuse to be wed in a church or on other hallowed ground by a “man of God.” To propose that marriage is a “holy union” is, in my opinion, to add outdated medieval superstition, claptrap and hocus-pocus to the bond created between two people who love one another and choose to spend their life together. If I were to choose to make that decision with another of my gender, I can understand the Church refusing to sanctify the marriage, as they are perennially stuck in the past and will remain so. But for the government of the Land of the Free to refuse is simply an abominable injustice.

  • alethinos59

    Mac…

    I can’t believe you would equate 1/6th of the human race and the mistreatment they suffered with this issue… The ISSUE here for gays is to attain the rights found among married heterosexuals. They need ACCESS to those RIGHTS. Not to the term marriage. The union between two gays will not produce – biologically – a child.

    Good healthcare should also be available to all. The health of the human body – the ability to assure its maintained – (i think) should be a recognized right. I hope we get it. If we do however I can guarantee you that my insistence on being able to have a gynecologist as my primary care physician will – on each visit – raise the eyebrows. Sure, I have the right to health care – but I am not the SAME as a woman. She has different needs than I do…

    The effort here with all this on your part is to force the acceptance of homosexuality as normal. That’s simply not going to happen. Do humans that live homosexual lifestyles deserve equal rights? Absolutely. Does that mean that their homosexuality must be accepted as normal? No.

    Gays might not like that – they may insist it isn’t fair. But in the end – if they have the same rights – what are they left to complain about? That the vast majority of humanity refuses to accept their sexual behavior as normal? That they don’t get to use the word marriage?

    Really?

    That’s what you want to make your stand on?

    Jim
    La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • Taloran

    And I reiterate “the restriction on marriage between people of the same gender creates a class of people with fewer rights than the rest, which is NO DIFFERENT from removing the right to vote from Jews, the right to education from women, or the right to reproduce from Caucasians.”

  • alethinos59

    Folks… We’re arguing over things will likely be discussed for decades to come… My concern is over the Christian Right and their aims. If you want to be pissed at me because I don’t conform to what YOU want in a heterosexual DEFENDER of your rights – I’m sorry. I have gay friends that don’t like it at all. I have others that are fine with it…

    Right now I desperately need a martini… My mom’s in the hospital and a major Hollywood actor has said their interested in one of my scripts…

    Where the hell’s the gin?

    Jim
    La realtà morde… E non libererà uno

  • alethinos59

    And the last thing I am going to say tonight on this…

    Plato:

    …mankind are eternally disputing about rights and altering them and that every change thus made, once made, is from that moment valid, though it owes its being to artifice and legislation, not to anything you could call nature…
    (LAWS X 889e/890a)

    We’ve been arguing for 2500 years… I’m sure we’ll be continuing on with it for a few more years yet…

  • boomcrashbaby

    The union between two gays will not produce – biologically – a child.

    Neither will two seniors getting married or someone marrying someone else barren or impotent.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Good point, Boom. According to the definition of “normal” given in this thread, pre-menopausal women who are infertile are aberrant. Therefore, we should give them equal rights, but they shouldn’t expect normal people to accept them.

    alethinos/Jim, we can agree to disagree. Have a good night, enjoy the gin, and good luck with the Hollywood director.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    I wasn’t around to read this topic and it’s too lengthy for me to respond specifically, but I’m down with the whole Boom solidarity thing.

    I bang chicks fortissimo, but I’m a gay fellow too. Judge me accordingly.

    That is all.

  • Peter Duncan

    My word you people have much to say. I am glad that some of you were able to end this thread in a civil manner. It was rather contentious at one point.

    Now I don’t want to kick up any more dust, however I did find the comment that most of the voters (regardless of the political persuasion) voted against the same sex proposals rather telling. It goes a long ways in explaining how people are difficult to categorize.

    This thread started off by categorizing the christian right as being a ‘monster’. But the issues that separate the right and the left are much more complex. Jim’s stand against gay marriages definatly teaches us that.