Election Day and gay marriage
May 8, 2012 10 Comments
Most of my previous posts on the anti-gay amendment have focused on the public opinion, but as today is election day, I feel the need to vent a little about the policy. I can truly accept that many people feel strongly that “marriage” should be defined solely as between one man and one woman. Even if that belief is religiously motivated, I can still accept it. The simple truth is that the norm of marriage between one man and one woman is incredibly long-standing and pervasive throughout most all the world. Now what “marriage” is has changed dramatically without actually chaning the word “marriage” but I can understand a Burkean impulse to fight back against such a radical revision.
Two things I cannot abide.
1) Legislating with a constitution. Stupid, stupid, stupid!. Anybody heard of Prohibition. Constitutions are not for making policy they are for setting up the basic structures of government and for protecting the rights of citizens. That’s it. You don’t want same-sex marriage? Make a law for that (oh wait, NC already did).
2) Denying gay couples any of the legal protections and benefits of marriage. This “only legal domestic union” business is (as Jonathan Rauch put it) just plain mean. Now this, to me simply smacks of bigotry and small-mindedness. Just wrong. Gay couples are not going to go away and not going to stop have children just because some people decide that they are violating the bible. The idea that they shouldn’t have the legal protections that we generally provide to families is not only mean, as policy goes, it’s just plain stupid.
About Steve Greene
Passage of legislation like this will result in no fewer gays. It will just make their lives as miserable as possible. It’s not just stupid, it’s evil.
I am not for denying anyone their basic rights. I believe that a civil union affords all the rights of marriage without prostituting it and reinventing it.
This means you would oppose NC’s Constitutional Amendment– so we’re in agreement on this one (not that I’d agree with your terms about what this means about marriage).
What, exactly, does prostitution have to do with marriage? Please, explain how exchanging sex for money has anything to do with two people getting married?
Hey Mike
2. to offer (a person, esp oneself, or a person’s talent) for unworthy purposes.(from dictionary.com). So are you just being deliberately obtuse or do you not recognize a metaphor when you see it?:
This ironically is the same opinion as your far left leader
As you say: “… bigotry and small-mindedness.”
Perhaps the good Christians who support the amendment will start passing laws to allow killing witches, and stoning children who talk back to their parents. After all, its in the bible. Therefore, it’s right to do. Or next the Christians will be doing in NC what they’ve done in Africa, pushing for legislation to make being homosexual a capital offense. Why cure them when you can simply send them on to the Lord?
I sometimes wonder just how stupid people are. I just saw a review on a book that says the USA is failing because… the population has become Godless. Even though 80% of Americans profess to be Christian, 5% believe in other religions. 13.8% don’t really know what they believe. 1.2 % are atheists.
Fools and tools who wish for a bygone age that never actually existed at any time.
Fools and tools, terrified of homosexuals ravaging their children, even though a close heterosexual relative is far more likely to be abusing children.
Bigotry and small-mindedness indeed.
God revealed Himself through progressive revelation.l The things that you refer to were in the Old Testament based upon law. The New Testament is based upon love. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Why are you not attacking Obama for the same reason? And by the way I was abused as a kid by a homosexual priest so don’t talk to me about it unless you have been there.
Oh, I SEE NOW. The NEW TESTAMENT. Written by a DIFFERENT GOD.
With different views. Different laws.
Yes, yes. Just make up whatever satisfies how you want to read the bible. Just toss out the old testament. Ignore the parts you don’t like. You belong to one of those churches, do you? Your just making my previous comments points for me. A bunch of privileged superstitious hateful old men picking and choosing by voting which parts of the bible to keep, which to toss, which to give them power, which to take away from the woman, slaves, whoever.
Please, Mr. bible expert, please quote the sections of the new testament that refute the old testaments many sections allowing, even condoning slavery.
Sorcery is an abomination. New testament. So tell me the quotes of the new testament that say not to burn witches anymore? Seems your at odds with an awful lot of other God fearing bible thumpers.
Seems to me that you, like so many others, are just picking and choosing what you want to believe and follow from the bible(s).
Now, on to your little tantrum, aka, demand that I “don’t talk to me about it unless you have been there”…
I will talk about it to who I want, when I want and if you don’t like it, you can eat the corn out of my feces. Do you honestly believe this gives you the only right viewpoint, because you got diddled by a priest? If you don’t like it, tough. If you don’t want to read it, don’t read it.
How do you know your priest abuser was homosexual? Did he tell you he was? Perhaps he abused you because he was sexually repressed by his cult religion. Perhaps he diddled you because he was diddled by a priest. Perhaps he just enjoyed his power over others because he was emotionally infantile or a sadist. An adult male that sexualizes or commits sexual abuse on children is not necessarily homosexual. The person could be a pedophile and is a completely different animal indeed. Perhaps while he was abusing you he was imagining some TV woman newscaster spreading her legs.
Do you think your the only person in the world who has been abused? Are you honestly saying one must have been murdered to have an opinion on murder? (BTW, that was a metaphor. A very clear one.) I say:
I can recognize metaphors as well as I can recognize morons. I suggest you work on your metaphors.
More people are abused by heterosexuals then by homosexuals. More people are abused by heterosexuals per capita then by homosexuals. More men are responsible then women. By your reasoning the only ones who should be allowed to be married are lesbians.
You refuse to accept any facts. You live in a bubble. Because your not even bothering to think about the issues, you are operating entirely on emotion.
Facts About Homosexuality and Children: (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html)
“Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority’s most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women. ”
…
“…the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children.”
…
“The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).”
{END OF QUOTES}
Of course, we all know what you think of experts. Only those minority “experts” that agree with your minority view are considered “experts” by you. You ignore all other real experts and all the majority research that doesn’t support your narrow view. Your a horse with blinders. You are however quite in line with the American majority when it comes to the Bible. The majority picks and chooses which parts to believe, which to follow, which parts to ignore. So I guess you must feel pretty good to be in the majority about something.
Do you see the connection between your narrow view, and the horse with blinders? That’s a metaphor. There is actually a connection between the two. Not just a word picked out of thin air because it has bad connotations that you want to link with a group of people you seem to despise.
Finally, if you have ever watched a bunch of young children argue, they tend to spurt out opinions without reasoning, facts or argument. So do a lot of adults. Some of both groups will eventually learn that simply spouting opinions doesn’t help anything. You need to back up the dialouge with facts. And as someone once said, “You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.”
I hope I am not being too obtuse for you.
After reading the article, it sure seems like these people believe in a very capricious God.
It’s as if they are projecting how and what they think onto God… I wonder if the people who wrote the bible did the exact same thing?