“Protecting marriage” or hating gays?

First, I’m not exactly sure what Jim and Bob getting married or not has to do with “protecting” my marriage.  But lets grant that it does.  I like Jon Rauch’s take that laws/amendments that also ban civil unions are just plain mean.  But hey, he’s gay and I’m liberal.  Who else thinks the proposed NC Constitutional Amendment smacks of bigotry and mean-spriritedness?  How about a couple of people who have spend their careers arguing against same-sex marriage.  From last week’s N&O:

We are native Southerners and we oppose legalizing same-sex marriage.

One of us (David), reared in Mississippi, has for more than two decades directed a think tank, the Institute for American Values, that aims to strengthen marriage and reduce divorce and unwed childbearing. In 2010, he served as an expert court witness in California’s widely followed “Proposition 8” marriage case.

The other (Elizabeth) grew up in North Carolina and has for a decade directed the Center for Marriage and Families at the same institute. She has made her case against same sex marriage in national opinion pieces, book chapters and reports. We believe that marriage is a uniquely important institution that unites mothers and fathers to their children.

But as marriage advocates, we oppose the state marriage amendment now being debated in North Carolina…

If you want to create a backlash against mother-father marriage – if you want to convince people that the real agenda of marriage advocates is not protecting marriage, but ignoring and ostracizing gay people – then this amendment might be to your liking. [emphasis mine]  But we believe that the cause of marriage is hurt, not helped, by gratuitously linking it to the cause of never under any circumstances helping gay and lesbian couples.

Well said, dare I say that the agenda of many supporters of the amendment is ostracizing gay people?  Emphatically yes.

About Steve Greene
Professor of Political Science at NC State http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/shgreene

20 Responses to “Protecting marriage” or hating gays?

  1. I have to admit that I have a hard time swallowing the concession with which you led this, even hypothetically.

  2. Wayne says:

    You brought up some interesting points.

    Personally, I think the social experiment being played upon the US is mean. No one told us 40 years ago that the gay agenda was ‘gay marriage’ and the gay right to ‘access’ our children.

    But, 40 years on, that is the state of affairs.

    How do we protect the society and the children? How do we protect the definition of marriage, which was a religious definition for thousands of years in every culture I am aware of.


  3. Derek says:

    Wayne, which religious definition would like to preserve? Polygamy? Keeping concubines? Marrying family members? Arranged marriages? Child brides? All have have been supported by religions at various times.

    What does “access to our children” mean? The right be a school teacher? God forbid we turn away qualified people from that job. You do realize that most pedophiles are not gay, right?

    Gay folks have been around for a lot longer than 40 years, and I don’t think their struggle for equal rights is really an experiment or an agenda anymore than the civil rights movement of the 60s was.

    As a Christian and a married father of two, I wish my homosexual friends were able to enjoy the same rights that I do. Anything less is un-Christian and un-American.

  4. So typical of the liberal mindset, any difference of opinion is not only not tolerated but you must demonize or diminish the person with whom you disagree.The only accepted opinion has to agree with the liberal orthodoxy or it is totally illegitimate. Smacks of fascist regimes.

    • itchy says:

      1. You have not refuted any argument, you have just made an (arguable) observation that Derek’s arguments fall within a set of arguments. This has no bearing on their validity.

      2. The speed with which you can go from “you must demonize or diminish the person” to “smacks of fascist regimes” is amazing.

      • Hey Itchy
        I was referring to a previous post that now seems to have disappeared. I have no problem with the speed of my deductions. I saw communism close up when I was stationed in Berlin Germany. Any critique of the regime was met with imprisonment, torture and even death as it was under Hitler. The far left liberals demonize anyone who do not agree with their liberal orthodoxy. They say that they value diversity but that is a total lie. Conservative viewpoints fall within that realm and they definitely don’t even show any respect for the difference of opinion or our constitutionally guaranteed right to have it.

        John Wilder

  5. Derek says:

    I apologize if I demonized or dimished anyone in my comments. My goal is simply to point out the fallacy of using a “Biblical” definition of marriage as one woman and one man as there are many places in the Bible that defines marriage much differently. Maybe the un-Christian comment was unduly harsh, but I see loving my God and my neighbor is the basis for my faith. Gaining equal rights for all people falls clearly in that second part, and I believe should take a higher priority than the definition of a word.

    As for the un-American part, I think “with liberty and justice for all” and “all men are created equal” are kind of important declarations made by our country. Clearly there have times in which we have fallen short of these ideals (slavery, women’s rights, etc.), but a constant effort towards these goals seems to be a pretty patriotic thing to me.

  6. Hey Derek
    I have a degree in Bible, show me chapter and verse where there are other definitions of marriage. As to homosexuality it is forbidden in both the Old and New Testament. It is listed as an “abomination” to God. Abomination is the “worst of the worst”

    Now having said all of that, I was sexually abused as a young teen by a priest. Obama’s own education czar saw nothing wrong with a gay teacher molesting a young teen aged student and by his own admission did not even bother to report it as is required by law. We also have
    NAMBLA the North American Man Boy Love Assn which has the same non profit status as a church lobbying Congress to decriminalize sex between men and boys.

    Civil unions give homosexuals the same rights as marriage without prostituting the term marriage.
    We now have gays in the military. I personally don’t care what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom but don’t flaunt it under my nose. I find it personally offensive.
    Gays have civil rights and no one is trying to take them away and I personally don’t hate gays, I hate the sin but love the sinner. As to hating gays, I was referring to Steve’s original post.

    • Mike says:

      The “bible” is just a collection of stories, some with a little bit of fact, some with lots of fiction, all strung together. There are parts of the bible which have been removed and some added by a vote of church elders. It is simply a bunch of words written by humans.

      There is no reason to base societies laws on a book that has been poorly translated from second, third and thirty hand stories. A book that people pick and choose what parts to follow.
      Certainly that is why so many point to it as an excuse for slavery. No were does it state in the bible that slavery is wrong. On the contrary, it says its fine. You just have to treat them well.

      If you choose to live your life by the bible, that’s your choice. But the United States, last I heard, is supposedly a “free” country that has freedom of religion.

      Although it seems to me that in the US you are only free to live as the majority deems to let you. Its funny how so many Americans wave the flag and sing their praises of their constitution, but but are so quick to push it aside to get their religion codified into law.

      Now I want to know if you think the world is 6000 years old, and if you think dinos lived with humans.

      • itchy says:

        I think you’re forgetting the real victims here. Yes, one day, maybe Christians will have representation in our government. Maybe we’ll close business on their holidays, install references to their deity on our money and edifices and public mantras and pretend it has nothing to do with favoring them.

        But we’re a country with freedom of religion, where equally implausible superstitions — including the refusal to believe in any of them — get equal time and consideration.

        Until then, standing up for the rights of a minority group is clearly just another war on Christians.

    • Mike says:

      So, which is it, gays are pedophiles, or priests are pedophiles or are pedophiles pedophiles? Are you saying that since you are the victim of abuse that makes you an expert? Because everything I have seen from real experts says that heterosexuals are much more often pedophiles.

      Most of your blathering has nothing to do with gay marriage, at least not in reality. Perhaps in your mind. You seem to be blaming Obama, a priest, an education czar, nambla, congress, and the military. For a person who claims so much education, I find your writing scattered and confused. They may all be connected in your mind, but in reality, not so much. Of course, this is usually par for the course for people talking about these sorts of issues. Its all emotion and no reason. No rationality.

      I simply don’t understand the necessity to preserve “marriage”. I have never seen or heard anyone who gave any reasonable justification to refuse giving homosexuals the right to marry. Nor do I see any reason to preserve the “term Marriage”, as you point out yourself. It is words. Simply words.

      It is people who make a marriage work, if it is a civil union, or a full court press in a church with priest or rabbi.
      Funny how all these people gung ho against gay marriage are not desperately trying to ban divorce. I mean, isn’t divorce REALLY the enemy of marriage? The fact that they are not trying to ban divorce almost makes it seem all very hypocritical. Much more then almost.

      “Oh no, I don’t hate gays, it’s the BIBLE that makes me rail against them!” You know, that book patched together from scraps of paper, written down by barely literate superstitious upright walking apes who thought the sun revolved around the earth, and if you went in a boat too far, you would fall off the edge of the earth. The same people who burned and tortured “witches”.

      At one time being married was nothing more then two people saying to each other that they would be mates. They didn’t need any law, and didn’t need a priest and it was considered valid. That was done thousands, of years ago, and a lot closer to now as well. But they also had marriages well before Christianity. Every religion had marriage. But give it to Christians to believe that marriage is something they invented.

      It takes a special religious zealot to believe that they own the institution of marriage.

      Christendom doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage, no matter how much you wish it to. This argument is nothing more then religious zealots forcing their religion down other peoples throat.

      None of the people who “don’t want it flaunted in front of them” have to go to any gay marriage. They don’t have to watch gay people live their lives any more then they need to watch anyone else living their lives. Whats really offensive is religious zealots bigotry and the tiny minds that run America’s churches that are desperately trying to keep alive thousand year old hatreds.

  7. Derek says:

    One, I’m pretty sure King David’s marriage was not a traditional marriage of just one woman and one man.

    Two, I am sorry for your trauma as teen, but conflating pedophilia with homosexuality is mis-stating the issue. They are completely separate–we are talking about two consenting adults getting married not the abuse of children by persons with significant problems.

    Three, civil unions do not give couples the same rights (and amendment 1 in NC would even remove this as an option). http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

    So if civil unions are the solution, we must make “marriage” a purely religious institution with no legal connotation, and a “civil union” a legal contract inherent with state and federal rights. If so, all couples must be allowed to enter into civil unions so that we are all equal under the law. And churches can marry couples as they see fit. No one forces your church to marry a gay couple, but if mine wants to, we can. Everyone has the same rights, and you don’t have to validate anyone else’s view of marriage. Sounds like an appropriate separation of church and state with respect for different religious viewpoints.

  8. No David sinned egregiously against God and was punished for his sin. Sadly there is way too much pedophilia in the gay lifestyle. I respect your right to your point of view, will you give me that same respect. We fundamentally disagree.

    • itchy says:

      Luckily, there are no straight pedophiles, so heteros can get married as they like.

      John, no one has said they do not respect your right to your point of view. I have never read that on any forum I’ve ever visited. That is not the same as respecting your point of view, however. You may earn that, but you aren’t entitled to it.

    • Derek says:

      Okay last response. I see David’s sin as taking the only wife of Uriah when he already had multiple (half a dozen or so I think). Based on Nathan’s parable this seems to be a reasonable interpretation. This theft, abuse of power and adultery was compounded by having Uriah killed. All of this is besides my original point that David had multiple wives which I offered as support for my argument that the Bible does not define marriage as only one man and one woman.

      How about we say there is way too much pedophilia period? Because really 1 is too many. I don’t want to go down the road of arguing the question that your statement begs–is there not too much pedophilia in the straight lifestyle?

      I respect your point of view, and tried to find a middle ground at the end of my previous response in which we could both define marriage within the confines of our religious understandings without denying legal rights to anyone group.

      • Hey Derek

        Yes it was indeed common in the old testament to allow multiple wives and concubines. That all changed with the Proverbs 31 woman who was then tasked with taking care of all the husband’s sexual needs. I am not saying that anyone on here has disrespected my opinion but it is quite common for liberals to do.

  9. And I will again state for the record that I don’t hate gays any more than I hate blacks becasue I disagree with Obama on issues and policies and I am DEEPLY offended when poeple dismiss my views with some extreme prejudice and accusations which was the original intent of Steve’s rant

  10. itchy says:

    John Wilder, since the post by the far-left liberal fascist who threatened you with imprisonment, torture and even death has disappeared, I suppose I can’t comment on it. From your description, it was wrong of that Hitler-like commenter to demonize you.

    • Yes and my answer to that guy has disappeared as well but I am not accusing anyone, I have had other emails disappear into thin air thart were not in any way controversial. I don’t know if it is a blip in the internet or what. My main rant was against Steve’s original rant claiming that conservatives hate gays and that is just not the case

  11. Mike I respect your right to disagree

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: