Sen. Larry Craig
Apparently, many “concerned Americans,” are “deeply troubled” about the “latest” - or should I say - “most recent” misconduct “allegation” regarding one of our “esteemed elected officials” namely Senator Larry Craig. (My quotes are used for proper emphasis and, especially, for political correctness.) I am neither concerned nor deeply troubled. Frankly, I am totally baffled and bewildered! Where is our sense of fairness and good judgment?
If it is okay, for a Democratic President of the United States to engage in oral sex with a young female intern in the Oval Office of our nations revered White House, what is the big deal about a Republican Senator hitting on an adult male undercover cop in the stall of an airport men’s public toilet?
Have we lost all respect for “the right to privacy” for “our nations leaders” who are dedicated are to “properly represent their constituents” and to “serve with dignity and resolve?” Where IS the ACLU on this one? Do our legislators need a Fairness Doctrine?
God Bless America....and Let Freedom Ring!
This letter has not been edited.
It was hard to get the gist of your letter, but I think the point should be made, considering you mentioned the Clinton scandal, that during that time Craig went on television and called President Clinton a "naughty, nasty boy." Then it turns out that Craig aopparently engages in behavior that would make Larry Flyntt blush.
The reason the story has the legs it does is because it's simly too delicious to see such a blatantly hypocritical public figure fall as a result of his own hypocrisy, plus the fact that he's doing so with about as little grace as one could imagine.
Posted by Jeff on August 31, 2007 02:12 PMIt is now illegal to tap your toes and put fingers under stall walls in public restrooms.
What next?
Posted by on August 31, 2007 02:13 PMEveryone wave bye-bye to Larry now.
Better wave under the stall wall so he'll see it.
Posted by HistoryRepeats on August 31, 2007 02:20 PMDick said:
"If it is okay, for a Democratic President of the United States to engage in oral sex with a young female intern in the Oval Office of our nations revered White House, what is the big deal about a Republican Senator hitting on an adult male undercover cop in the stall of an airport men’s public toilet?"
A) Clinton was impeached.
B) Nobody cares what Larry Craig wants to do with his genitals except idiot fundamentalist Christians. The issue is his lying about it, and the fact that he was convicted of a crime.
Posted by Charles B on August 31, 2007 02:43 PMWhat has happened to Senator Larry Craig is horrible. What law did he break? Has anyone read the police transcript? It is shameful what the police have done to this man.
I find it odd that the same people who are so upset about the government logging phone calls to foreign terrorists would gladly ridicule a man unfairly persecuted by the police.
With all the crime in this nation, why is a cop sitting in a bathroom playing footsie in hopes of catching a consensual act? This is an absurd outrage. People are being murdered while police are sitting on toilets.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 03:02 PMJohn II
What nailed Senator Craig was not so much that he may have been "...in hopes of catching a consensual act..."; its that for many years he preached about government backed family values and leading virtuous lives. Then chastised Clinton vociferously for having sex outside of marriage while apparently seeking the same for himself.
Some people, like yourself, may actually accept at face value what the Senator provides as an explanation. Others, like myself don't because there are too many questions raised within his explanation. For example, how many people using -- not maintaining or cleaning -- a public restroom is going to pick up an errant piece of toilet off the floor; a dirty floor in a bacterial laden environment?
How did the cop see the weeding ring on his hand if it was on the opposite side of where the cop was sitting unless the senator twisted around to place his left hand under the partition?
If he truly was innocent why didn't he hire an attorney and fight to be cleared in order to defend his reputation; rather than negotiate a fine and "try to make it go away?"
Too many loopholes in his story and the taped interview to assume he was "set up." What he does in his own private sex life is his business. But he pulled it out of his private life when he acted in a public forum.
Posted by mongoose on August 31, 2007 03:45 PMmongoose said:
"its that for many years he preached about government backed family values and leading virtuous lives. "
What "government backed family values" are you referring to? And, what is wrong with preaching about leading virtuous lives? Whether or not he practiced what he preached does not change the fact that living a virtuous life is a good thing.
"Some people, like yourself, may actually accept at face value what the Senator provides as an explanation. Others, like myself don't because there are too many questions raised within his explanation. For example, how many people using -- not maintaining or cleaning -- a public restroom is going to pick up an errant piece of toilet off the floor; a dirty floor in a bacterial laden environment?"
I'm not an idiot, mongoose. I'm fully aware of what Mr. Craig was probably intending to do. The point is that he did not do anything wrong before he was arrested. There was no lewd conduct. Shouldn't the police be required to gather a little more evidence before ruining someone's life?
"If he truly was innocent why didn't he hire an attorney and fight to be cleared in order to defend his reputation; rather than negotiate a fine and "try to make it go away?""
Can you imagine the enormous embarrassment he must have been feeling? I find it completely understandable that we would try to minimize the publicity.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 04:07 PMSo,its only ok to be a homo as long as you are the right kind of homo,a democrat?
Posted by on August 31, 2007 04:18 PMJohn 2,
I guess you don't really believe in the advice about, "Avoid the very appearance of evil". Or at lesat you don't when it, perhaps, ought to apply most aptly, to that of a U.S. Senator - a Republican Senator, naturally.
B .b.b.b.but Clinton . . . ! Again, naturally!
As to "enormous embarassment he must have been feeling": Are you attempting to argue that a U.S. Senator, a man who is experienced in making laws, as well as in dealing with the law as it applies to others, would be too "embarassed" to go to court, with a Lawyer for defense, were he NOT guilty?
Naivete of that magnitude really doesn't become you, John. Nor does it serve to excuse Senator Craig either. And, when it comes down to that, he did "plea bargain" himself into a lesser offense, before his guilty plea. And with that you say he is a "victim"? And you still protest that you're "not an idiot" too?!?
Did you listen to the tape on channel 9 - or on any of the other stations? The cop sure didn't think Craig was just a naive victim of some kind.
And when his fellow Senators - including the leaders of his own Party - are distancing themselves from him the way they are, you still plead "enormous embarassment" as an excuse for a guilty plea?
Oh, but of course, we all must remember that Ted Haggard - on of those "genuine(ly) religious folks you admire so much - said he didn't do it either - or did he?
Typical Jones and John spin, out of both sides of the mouth at the same time.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 31, 2007 04:29 PMJohn II
"What "government backed family values" are you referring to? And, what is wrong with preaching about leading virtuous lives? Whether or not he practiced what he preached does not change the fact that living a virtuous life is a good thing."
The Republican Party in general tied their cart to promoting alleged "family values" (i.e., the push for defining "legal marriage") promoted by the wannabe Theocrats -- Focus On The Family, etc. -- and talked about how the party stood for virtue, family values, etc.
There is nothing wrong with preaching moral values and the perceived value of leading a virtuous life. Skipping over the debate of what criteria and whose point of reference should be used in determining those characteristics, Senator Craig was compromised by preaching one thing and then getting caught violating those same tenants himself in a public restroom -- hypocrisies are not easily overlooked by people.
"Can you imagine the enormous embarrassment he must have been feeling?"
Hell yes, I can imagine his embarrassment. He not only got caught trolling for an indiscreet tube steak in a public restroom, he was caught proving that he was a public hypocrite. He should have thought of the consequences himself before getting caught by others.
I don't care what party they may be a member of, hypocrites in government should be railroaded out when uncovered.
Posted by mongoose on August 31, 2007 04:34 PMI heard on CNN that Sen. Craig has decided to resign his senate seat. The real reason for his resignation is not that he committed a crime but because he was a hypocrite.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 31, 2007 04:39 PMOld Grouch,
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never uttered the word Clinton here. In fact, I do not believe Mr. Clinton should have been impeached.
As for Ted Haggard, I'm not familiar with him. I heard some details involving a possible gay sexual affair but I had little interest in exploring the subject further.
I really don't care if Mr. Craig is a Republican or Democrat. What I do care about is the proper gathering of evidence before an arrest is made. Based on the details of his arrest, I'm not sure what he did that was illegal. And I'm positive the whole situation did not warrant an actual police sting. Couldn't the whole problem have been solved by a simple banging on the door and yelling "Knock it off!"?
You're a smart guy, Old Grouch, even though I disagree with most everything you say. Do you honestly believe his actions leading to his arrest were lewd? Do you think we should apply similar criminal assumptions for other behaviors? Perhaps, if a young black man walks into a convenience store with an angry snarl on his face, the police would be justified in arresting him because he showed patterns of a robbery?
mongoose,
What does "legal marriage" have to do with Mr. Craig? How does that make him a hypocrite?
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 04:51 PMJohn II, I actually agree with you for once, and also
totally echo your sentiments about such a ridiculous waste of a cop's time.
I'm getting tired of seeing fellow Americans' tragic stories of personal humiliation getting dragged across the front page news - from Ted Haggard to Senator Craig. I understand its hard not to call them out on what appears to be blatant hypocrisy, but wouldn't some mercy and compassion send a stronger message than glee at their personal ruin?
Posted by mytwosense on August 31, 2007 04:52 PMJohn II
Solicitation of sex, in contrast to seduction, etc., is illegal. The is a subculture set of signals, gestures and language which are well established as indicating solicitation. Perhaps no one of the signals Craig used -- hand face up with wiggling fingers, alleged peering through the crack of the stall, bumping of ankles, etc, -- would not have resulted as it did. But, put them all together a trained vice cop responded correctly without elements of entrapment -- the cop didn't make the moves; Craig did.
Posted by mongoose on August 31, 2007 04:58 PMJohn II, mts - Same feelings here. I read the officers statements and don't see where any actual crime was committed.
I'm certainly not defending the guy. I don't even care about his sexual curiositues but even with prostitution you need more than a wink and a nod to prove solicitation.
I guess you just need to be very careful should you ever lift your foot off the floor of a public restroom.
OG:
"Are you attempting to argue that a U.S. Senator, a man who is experienced in making laws, as well as in dealing with the law as it applies to others, would be too "embarassed" to go to court, with a Lawyer for defense, were he NOT guilty?"
No one is saying he wasn't looking for some. The embarrasment he was afraid of was most likely the exposure of his sexual secrets especially with his stance on gay rights. Which, contrary to what many here believe, isn't hypocracy.
There is nothing hypocritical about someone who is homosexual, believes homosexuality is wrong, and keeps his homosexuality under wraps. He's actually acting more consistently with his beliefs than not. And if/when he has furtive encounters in men's rooms, that is an act of weakness, not hypocrisy.
Posted by KW on August 31, 2007 05:09 PMAgain, mongoose, the moves Senator Craig made were not illegal. I understand his moves follow a pattern of criminal behavior. But, don't you think more evidence should be gathered before an arrest is made? Would you be in favor of arrests for other crimes that may have followed a pattern?
This reminds me of the movie Minority Report. Have you seen it? It's about cops who can predict when a crime will be committed so they arrest the would-be criminal before he actually commits the crime. In some cases, such as planning a murder, it is necessary to nab the guy before he commits the crime. But, even then, the police are required to actually record the would-be murderer acknowledging he did, in fact, want to kill someone. There was no such evidence in Mr. Craig's situation.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 05:11 PMjohn II
"What does "legal marriage" have to do with Mr. Craig"
Senator Craig was one of the advocates of an amendment to ban gay marriages as he promoted the gay lifestyle, and infidelity in general, were bad and damaging influences on family values and the American life.
mytwosense
"I understand its hard not to call them out on what appears to be blatant hypocrisy, but wouldn't some mercy and compassion send a stronger message than glee at their personal ruin?"
I agree with you to the extent that it shouldn't be a media circus as all of these turn out to be. Hypocrites, if and when caught, should be summarily ejected from an office of public trust. The question will always remain if they were a hypocrite and lied about one phase of their life, can we rely on their overall character and integrity.
Unfortunately, a sad fact of life in general is that the public enjoys a train wreck, will slow down and gawk at a car accident; and, as witnessed by the constant "celebrity watch", it gets a perverse thrill out of seeing the rich, powerful and high profile people fail. America loves a circus.
I would have been just as happy if, when caught Craig would have just faded into the sunset. But, his trying to cover it up, or minimize it and go on with his life only poured gas on the fire to be lit.
One someone preaches, whether from a pulpit or public office how other's should live their lives they should take extra care to practice as they preach. To get caught violating their own advocated virtues invites the resultant circus.
Posted by mongoose on August 31, 2007 05:13 PMJohn II
"But, don't you think more evidence should be gathered before an arrest is made?"
That's why he was able to plea it done just to disorderly, or lewd conduct -- they didn't have the evidence to convict for solicitation. Another reason why, if he was as innocent as he alleged after the fact, he should have retained an attorney and fought not only to prove his innocence, but to make a public statement about how easy it is to be falsely accused and warn the public. But, instead he tried to sweep it under the carpet -- another indication of hypocritical guilt.
Posted by mongoose on August 31, 2007 05:20 PMmongoose said:
"Senator Craig was one of the advocates of an amendment to ban gay marriages as he promoted the gay lifestyle, and infidelity in general, were bad and damaging influences on family values and the American life."
Again, mongoose, where's the hypocrisy? Mr. Craig did not attempt to marry the cop.
I look to politicians to pass laws that I support. Whether or not they actually practice the values they preach matters very little to me. Preaching about "family values" and marital fidelity is a good thing even if the preacher has weaknesses in those areas.
I tell my nieces all the time that drinking and smoking are bad even though I always have a beer during and a cigar after dinner. That doesn't mean those vices are not bad and should be discouraged. Perhaps, I am more guilty because I am family rather than a politician.
But, if you're looking to get rid of all politicians who do not practice what they preach, I'm afraid you'll lose a large part of the Democrats. For example, Mr. Edwards is a multi-millionaire, private jet flying, large mansion owning, $1000 hair-cut, investor in companies that foreclose on New Orleans homeowners, preacher of good environmental behavior and supposed sympathizer of the poor. Should he resign because of his hypocrisy?
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 05:34 PMmongoose said:
"Another reason why, if he was as innocent as he alleged after the fact, he should have retained an attorney and fought not only to prove his innocence, but to make a public statement about how easy it is to be falsely accused and warn the public."
Easier said than done when you're a public figure. Especially, in a culture that convicts through the media. Our public jesters such as Jay Leno and David Letterman would have had a hell of time cracking jokes about Mr. Craig if he went to court. He would have been punished whether or not he was proven innocent in a court of law. That's not fair and it's not right.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 05:40 PMJohn II
"Easier said than done when you're a public figure. Especially, in a culture that convicts through the media. Our public jesters such as Jay Leno and David Letterman would have had a hell of time cracking jokes about Mr. Craig if he went to court. He would have been punished whether or not he was proven innocent in a court of law. That's not fair and it's not right."
It's happening anyway. That's life in the real world. He knew of the penchant for public scandal before he trolled the restroom - you might say that he was thinking with the wrong head.
If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.
Craig set the criteria by speaking out for family values, denouncing the gay lifestyle and preaching a virtuous life for all (his glass house).
He solicited illicit sex in a public restroom (his throwing stones).
I have no sympathy for the man. He created his public image that he subsequently proved to be false. He made himself fodder for the public jesters.
Posted by mongoose on August 31, 2007 05:55 PM"Craig set the criteria by speaking out for family values, denouncing the gay lifestyle and preaching a virtuous life for all (his glass house)."
mongoose, I've asked you numerous times about this. What's wrong with what he preached? And, I have not seen a quote where he denounced the gay lifestyle. Also, I see nothing wrong with preaching about a virtuous life. What did he actually say about living a virtuous life? Do you have a quote?
Regardless, he was not arrested for hypocrisy. He was arrested for...what? You tell me, what did he do that was worthy of being arrested?
You keep repeating yourself but you are not explaining yourself. I'm willing to hear your side of the story. Just give me some details.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 06:04 PMJohn 2,
If you prefer a form of punishment for lesse majeste, perhaps you should wend your way to, say Singapore; or perhaps Malaysia, oe Myanmar (Burma as we used to know it). These are all places where criticism of the ruler(s) is severely restricted; and "sweeping things under the rug" - for the ruling class - just a matter of course.
If, as you wrote a few postings back, "(You are) not an idiot, (and are) fully aware of what Mr. Craig was INTENDING to do", at what point do you fail to invoke the Solicitation laws? When you find out he's a US Senator? (A Right-wing one especially?) Or . . . ?
The Miranda message is very specific. It informs the individual that he/she has the right to a Lawyer. it also informs him/her that in the event he/she is unable to afford an Lawyer, there will be a Court appointment made. How do reconcile refusal to take advantage of the opportunity of requesting a Lawyer as something arising from "enormous embarassment"? Especially since one not only has the Miranda Statement read to him/her, but is also asked - several times - if he/she understands each and every part? And is also required to sign papers to the effect that he/she not only has had it read, but that he/she DOES UNDERSTAND?
Oh! But of course! A US Senator shouldn't even need to be Mirandized. He's above the law that applies to mere common people.
As to "punishment": If you can't stand the heat, you don't belong in the kitchen.
KW,
It is one thing for someone to BE a homosexual and still believe that it is some kind of "sin"; as well as preaching to others that this is so. It is a real psychological nightmare, of course. But, there is a TOTAL difference between it and the Craig approach.
It is quite something else to DENY BEING something - indeed to hold one's self forth as actually BEING the opposite, insisting that this opposite is the "normal", or "preferred" state; preaching against, and faulting others for BEING - as well as for not accepting the preacher's point of view - and then going off and DOING exactly what one is loudly insisting is wrong for everyone else. That's hypocricy! And it certainly shows itself to be hypocricy when it prefers to "sweep the incident under the rug", rather than accept the reality, and instead go on INSISTING that one is NOT.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 31, 2007 06:26 PMOld Grouch,
You just did what mongoose has been doing: repeating yourself without answering questions. I asked you the following questions:
"Do you honestly believe his actions leading to his arrest were lewd? Do you think we should apply similar criminal assumptions for other behaviors? Perhaps, if a young black man walks into a convenience store with an angry snarl on his face, the police would be justified in arresting him because he showed patterns of a robbery?"
You are arguing what occurred after his arrest. I'm arguing what happened before his arrest. The point I keep find myself making over and over again is that there was not enough evidence gathered to justify his arrest. My other point is that the effort put forth to arrest him was overkill. Why not just bang on the door and yell "Knock it off!"? Was an actual police sting necessary?
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 06:44 PMGive it up John 2. He was arrested for lewd conduct in a public men's room. His signals, peering and physical contact constituted violation of the local statutes for solicitation. He approached a trained vice cop who was in there looking for gays on the make. He didn't initiate the contact, Craig did by looking through the cracks, signaling and touching the cop in a suggestive way. He was cited and given the opportunity to defend himself and prove the charge false. He chose not to. You don't like the local statue on solicitation, fight it and prove it wrong. Until then, Craig violated the law in place.
He has a 100% record of voting anti-gay and pro family values. Below is a sketch of the record and other investigative work already going on. Since he's resigning it will probably die. But if he didn't resign there are more men who are going to come public.
This is the man who, at the height of the Clinton impeachment trial said, "Bad boy, Bill Clinton, you're a naughty boy. The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy. I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator Craig was arrested for "lewd conduct" in the men's room of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on 11 June 2007. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of "disorderly conduct", was fined "more than $500" and received a 10-day jail sentence (suspended, of course) and a year of probation.
He has a virtually 100% anti-gay record in the Senate, consistently voting against gay marriage, civil unions, and hate crime penalties for crimes against homosexuals.
________________________________________
[1] A long-time outspoken conservative, Larry Craig was "outed" by gay activist Mike Rogers. Rogers has not revealed his sources, and Craig denies the claim. On 17 October 2006, Rogers wrote in his blog, "I have done extensive research into this case, including trips to the Pacific Northwest to meet with men who have say they have physical relations with the Senator. I have also met with a man here in Washington, D.C., who says the same -- and that these incidents occurred in the bathrooms of Union Station. None of these men know each other, or knew that I was talking to others. They all reported similar personal characteristics about the Senator, which lead me to believe, beyond any doubt, that their stories are valid." At a press conference on 28 August 2007, Craig insisted: "I am not gay. I never have been gay
Like mongoose said, he threw stones from behind his own glass walls.
Senator Craig is not on trial here. He confested to his guilt. He will resign, as Bill Clinton should have. The issue is hypocrisy. He may have committed no crime, but he should have challenged his innocence in court. Just like you or me.
Or maybe he should have held himself to a higher level of standards, as a representative of his constituents, to those standards.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 31, 2007 07:55 PMJohn 2,
Insofar as a driect answer to you questions:
1. I have not read the Statute - or Ordinance - under the provisions of which the arrest was made. The vice cop definitely appears to have known whether or not the actions fit the area of those prohibited. He made the arrest Thus, what I might think, or believe, about that is moot; and of no importance.
2. The matter of "profiling" is something else again. You are trying to arrive at an equality between "apples and oranges" that doesn't hold in reality. This is the same kind of non sequitur approach you use when comparing what one person calls "socialistic capitalism" to "standing in water and not getting burned by a fire."
In fact, John 2, the SUSPICION of a "pattern of support for terrorism" is already cause for arrest without warrant, and incarceration without bail or habeus corpus. It's called the Patriot Act, just in case you've forgotten - as you tell me you sometimes - rather conveniently - do with pertinent facts.
If Craig were all that "innocent", why didn't he challenge the Statute, or Ordinance? His guilt - admitted by plea to a lesser charge, also covered by wording of Statute or Ordinance - lies in that area; NOT in what you, or I, think, or believe about how the Law might have been worded, or "should have been worded". Neither of our opinions concerning that has any bearing on the matter.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 31, 2007 08:03 PMOnce again we have the sad spectacle of a wife, standing by her man. Even a man who might prefer to be standing by another man.
A whole bunch of lives ruined, indirectly because of American`s desire to keep homosexuals in the closet.
He could redeem himself by working for gay rights, that would be a start.
This shouldn`t have been a crime, any more then prostitution. We are a young country, got a ways to go.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 31, 2007 08:30 PMSharon B
Part of the tragedy originates from politicians like Craig who pander to the religious right wing, or wannabe Theocratics, in order to gain their voting blocks. While there may not be anything wrong with the "Family Values and morality first" groups, by seeking their support and advancing their positions one should take extra precautions to adhere to the basic tenants and not end up looking hypocritical by violating them.
Posted by mongoose on August 31, 2007 08:42 PMMongoose. I agree but you pretty much said all that already.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 31, 2007 08:56 PMSo you're basically saying that by holding on to laws that had a religion origin the people who support those laws to keep there voters happy are braking those laws and making a fool out of themselves. Sound simple enough.
Posted by on August 31, 2007 09:20 PMFascinating discussion about why someone should or shouldn't be forced to resign because he is gay, or because he is gay but doesn't want to admit it, or because he is gay in a particularly distasteful way...
What is interesting to me is that when a Republican is caught doing something like this, he is driven out by other Republicans. When a Democrat is caught, say, with $100,000 hidden in his freezer, or letting someone run a prostitution ring out of his house, he remains a voting member of Congress, and the Dems circle the wagons and plan damage control with him.
It has nothing to do with hypocrisy, or pleading guilty to a misdemeanor, or hate speech, or lewd behavior, or anything other than the fact that Republicans won't tolerate bad behavior by their own members, and Democrats think the only behavior bad enough to run someone out of office for is being a Republican.
Craig is toast. Fine by me-now let's hold the rest of the Senate and House to a higher standard of behavior, whether we personaly like the way he votes or who he plays footsie with, or not.
Democrats get a pass when they committ murder ,treason,take bribes,child molest ,drive while doing drugs ,steal and especially when they lie.They owned 80% of the media,what do you expect.Why do you think idiots and crooks vote for them.
Posted by Keith on August 31, 2007 09:33 PMOkay, it comes out here: I am happy that yet another Godda&m republican who tried to besmerch the good name of Bill Clinton is caught with his pants down. HA FREAKIN HA, PUN INTENDED. The hypocritical bas%ard had it coming. HA FREAKIN HA PUN INTENDED.
I am having an off night, in case you couldn't tell. I normally don't take sides in these stupid debates of Repugnants v. Devilcrats but, I made the exception here because it was too good to pass up.
Have a great weekend all. I will check in again from time to time.
darfor said:
"He has a virtually 100% anti-gay record in the Senate, consistently voting against gay marriage, civil unions, and hate crime penalties for crimes against homosexuals."
I don't see any of those actions as "anti-gay".
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 09:43 PMThis is an odd situation. mytwosense agrees with me and I agree with Sharon B. KW agrees with mytwosense. If Truth shows up and agrees with all of us I may just have to re-evaluate my outlook on life. I think the usual disagreement from Old Grouch is keeping my grounded though.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 09:54 PM"I don't see any of those actions as "anti-gay".
Almost by definition those are ant-gay votes. Only a bigot would deny that. And apparently you deny it.
That's because your a narrow minded mental midget who has already made up your homophobic mind that one of your right wingnuts couldn't possibly be caught trying to give a bj on the sly. He had to be framed and couldn't be a hypocrite jerk because he is one of your champions trying to cram your religious right wing values down our throats so we live according to what you feel is the right way to live. Keep scrambling you'll justify his actions and be convinced he was framed and then you can sleep okay at night. I bet even the sandman will come and help you.
Face it, he was one of "them" in the closet. Drop a quarter in his ear and he would drop to his knees and his teeth would retract There are a lot of "us" out there -- bump me under the stall.
Posted by on August 31, 2007 10:06 PMCalm down, 10:06. I have no problem with gays. I think hate crime laws are silly. I think marriage is something outside of federal regulation. The same goes for "civil unions". I'm not homophobic.
Where have I ever disparaged gay people?
I don't even think he was "framed". He was most likely going to engage in some kind of lewd behavior. But, he didn't do anything lewd before he was arrested. I've said this numerous times now. Sure, he displayed patterns of one who was about to engage in such conduct. But, do you feel that's enough evidence to arrest someone? Why doesn't that bother you? You think he deserved what he got simply because he didn't vote in favor of laws you desire? Now, that certainly meets the definition of a "narrow minded mental midget".
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 10:30 PMRepublicans = GOP
And you fools thought it meant Grand old Party. Silly you. it's Gay Old Party -- is your registration up to date?
Posted by on August 31, 2007 10:43 PMHow clever...
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 11:05 PMLet's break this thing down.
In the arrest tape, Craig is trying to explain away his actions.
OK, I can buy that he spreads his legs so wide that maybe his foot encroached into the other stall and made contact with the foot of the person in it. Although, I must say that I've never done that or had anyone else do it to me.
But he had no reason to be putting his hand under or rubbing the bottom of the stall wall.
He claims he was picking up a piece of paper.
Uh huh.
This holier than thou senator is picking up a piece of paper (which he didn't even claim was his) off a germ ridden floor in a busy airport public restroom.
Gross and nasty. The only piece of paper that I would consider picking up off such a floor better have a president's picture on it, and I'd still use a piece of toilet paper or something.
i can't even begin to address the allegation that he was peeking at the officer between the crack in the stall wall. Creepy, if true.
But on other hand, I was appalled at the strong arm tactics of the officer.
"You can just pay a fine and this whole thing will be behind you"...
....or you can go to court and fight this embarrassing allegation in front a judge and the media.
I don't consider what happened in the bathroom stall to be entrapment but what happened in the interrogation room was definitely extortion.
With all that said, I can't say that I feel sorry for Craig.
I would hope, but do doubt, that he would learn something from this experience.
Now he knows what its like to have his character attacked and to be minimalized as a person based solely on other people's assumptions about him.
Now he knows what its like to be labeled a pervert and a deviant by people who do not know him and regardless of whether he did anything to deserve those denigrations.
Now he knows what its to have his friends abandon him and his fellow citizens marginalize and punish him based on their presumptions about him.
Now he knows what its like to have people tell him that they know better what is in his heart and head than he does.
Now he knows what it feels like to have that shoe on the proverbial other foot, even if it doesn't fit him.
One would hope Craig would have an epiphany and realize that he is now being made to face the hatred and prejudice that gay people in America face every day. The same hatred and prejudice that he himself has promulgated his entire life and career.
One would hope, but like I said..I doubt it.
All he probably learned was that a little stopover weinie isn't worth all the trouble it can get you in. I'm sure he'll just order in from now on.
Posted by Thomas on August 31, 2007 11:07 PMJohn II
Many things constitute a crime before the actual act of commiting the crime intended. Consider soliciting prostitution, conspricy of all types, incitement to riot, threats of violence... merely displaying a gun is a felony sometimes, regardless of whether the trigger is actually pulled or not. The fact that Craig was arrested before the "act" took place is really not relevant if you conceed that his intention to commit the act is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. But in the end, when he plead guilty, he removed the obligation of the government to prove anything at all, whether about intention or actual acts. And, frankly, prohibiting sex in public places where kids might show up is perectly reasonable. I would return to the days when obscene language in the presence of children would get a person a fine, personally. He could not have been arrested if he simply pushed a note that said, "meet me at my hotel in one hour, you hotty!" and a hotel room key under the door of the stall that the cop was sitting in. It was the idea of that behavior in a public place that got him busted.
poor poor warry cwaig, it make johnny boy and kretin keith sad little piggies
Posted by on September 1, 2007 12:05 AM12:05
Wow, that would be an incisive argument, if you at least spelled the baby-talk words consistently. I think it should be "wawwy cwaig" and "kwetin kieth" if your "r"s are pronounced as "w"s, like you did in "cwaig," shouldn't it? I bet you're a liberal college professor somwhere huh? That would explain the masterful logic and undeniable power of the argument, mispelled baby-talk words notwithstanding...
Thomas-
"Gross and nasty. The only piece of paper that I would consider picking up off such a floor better have a president's picture on it, and I'd still use a piece of toilet paper or something."
It would depend on which president's picture was on the paper, wouldn't it? I might use the picture instead of the paper, myself...
Posted by Noggindog on September 1, 2007 12:33 AMThomas declared:
"One would hope Craig would have an epiphany and realize that he is now being made to face the hatred and prejudice that gay people in America face every day. The same hatred and prejudice that he himself has promulgated his entire life and career."
Some of you guys have serious daddy issues. What hatred and prejudice did Mr. Craig promulgate?
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 05:40 AMJohn 2,
As with Jimmy Jones, you dearly love beating dead horses, don't you?
1. The attempt to enshrine in the Constitution of the United States, by process of Amendment, a definition of a social and civil contract that would exclude gay people from enjoying the rights and privileges inherently contained in that contract is prejudice.
Most prejudice is born of ignorance; and the degree of ignorance displayed in the fervor of defending this particular instance of discrimination usually also demonstrates a great deal of hate as well. (In the case of Craig, it might well be that self-hate often found in those who refuse to assimilate suppressed and repressed parts of themselves.)
2. The constant effort to prevent gay people from enjoying the rights and privileges of the civil and social contract mentioned above, by enshrining the definition aforementioned into State Constitutions as well, is also evidence of prejudice.
3. Advocating that the provisions of the Constitution concerning "Full Faith and Credit of State Acts" be eliminated in the case of gay people and the aforementioned contract, is evidence of prejudice.
4. Advocating the elimination of any and all Statutes concerning civil protections against discrimination in housing, employment, and other areas of civil life for gay people is evidence of prejudice.
And, congruently and concomitantly, voting for any and all Legislation designed to bring about the above instances of prejudice, and make them a part of Law, is itself evidence of prejudice.
Repeatedly, on the floor of the US Senate, as well as in speaking engagements elsewhere, Mr. Craig has advocated each of, and all, the positions mentioned above; and has voted accordingly as well.
The matter of personal "hatred" is moot, as I do not have an anamnesis at hand; though I have made some observations on the potential and possibility above, from the experience gained in some 45+ years of shrinking heads as a secular vocation.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 1, 2007 09:36 AMAgain, I don't see the opposition of gay marriage laws as some kind of anti-gay prejudice or hypocrisy. The same goes for hate crime laws.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, most if not all of the Democrat candidates also oppose gay marriage.
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 09:50 AMI have a lot of gay friends. Maybe we should ask them if Larry is seen as friend or foe.
Thomas, loved your post. Wish I had said all that.
I guess if John II doesn`t see DOMA as anti-gay prejudice it isn`t. That is where the opposition to gay marriage will end up. With a group trying once again to gut our Constitution with petty amendments.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 10:39 AM“esteemed elected officials” namely Senator Larry Craig, says Richard Doran in which the Senator supports Bush in irrational conduct that has killed in excess of a million Iraqi and displaced millions not to mention the Americans disabled and killed because Saddam tried to assassinate the elder Bush. The elder Bush warned Junior not to invade Iraq but via great chicanery Bushie managed and still "esteemed elected official namely Larry Craig condemner of those born left handed, such as himself, tosses his lot in with Bushie. Ah, give me a break with this "esteemed...." I don't berate the "esteemed" for being born left-handed; I berate him for militating against those born left-handed. (Hank and Keith: Left handed means gay; the facts).
Posted by Richard Grimes on September 1, 2007 10:45 AMHi Sharon,
John2 can't "see" - much less understand - anything for what it is, if it conflicts with his "one-note", fossilized, "ideas". As with Jonesy, he really knows little or nothing about anything; but he's always the Pluperfect Pundit on the meaning of everything. The Batman & Robin, Hekyl & Jekyl, shtick is where they're both at; and with advancing age, where they will continue to be. Or, as the old saying has it: "The only difference between a rut and the grave is the length."
By the way, have you read Jonesy's latest fatuous flatulence on "religion"? (Down on one of the Vick/abortion lines.) I've said all along he ought to have his own pulpit. And he's right out there proving my point!
Have a good holiday weekend. Hope to see you around next week.
Johnny boy,
We all know, already, your propensity for wasting time with rhetorical questions, couched in the way to get replies in terms of your already fossilized excuses for ideas.
You really are more tiresome, and tiring, than your true confreres and disciples, "AnAmerican", and that ilk.
Now, go tell your Mommy she needs you; and let the intelligent adults carry on such discussion as may be pertinent.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 1, 2007 11:36 AMJohn 2
You are mistaken regarding: "most if not all of the Democrat candidates also oppose gay marriage." A major platform of the Democratic Party is to oppose a so called marriage amendment which would exclude same sex marriages. The Democrats while a minority in Congress successfully stopped such an amendment from being pushed through by the Republican majority.
Do you support an amendment defining a marriage as only between a male and female; prohibiting same sex marriages? Do you in general support legislation which which defines proper moral codes and behavior for society as a whole?
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 11:43 AMMongoose, I know you didn’t ask me, but I’ll answer your question anyway.
The proposed amendment defines marriages between one man and one woman. So, it’s not only about same sex marriage, but any other possible combinations not meeting that definition, including 1 man 2 woman, etc. Therefore, one could call it anti-more-than-two too. Why don’t you? Why couldn’t a mongoose marry a goat also? May be because while we have some standards left, some people don’t want it lowered any more. That includes me.
Uno
Regardless of your perception or assumptions of my personal sexual proclivities, that was not the point of the question; rather you touched on it by stating "...because while we have some standards left, some people don’t want it lowered any more.."
My questions, since you answered the qualifier directed to John II, are -- who set the standards that you seek to maintain?
On what authority are the standards based?
If they are as important as some think they are, why do you suppose the "founding fathers" didn't codify such standards in the constitution?
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 12:24 PMI find the whole thing creepy. But it's not that uncommon this day and age.
Image going to the john in an airport, only to discover a couple of homosexuals having sex in the stall next to you! The excuses offered for this detestable behavior are laughable. Gershen Kaufman, a professor emeritus of psychology at Michigan State University offers this doozy: "Cruisers are not sex offenders. They are deeply, deeply closeted. There is a lot of self-hatred and shame and they can't allow themselves to come to terms with their sexuality." I'm sorry, but I find his justification for their behavior disturbing. It's hard to pity perverts. Prof. Kaufman then asserts, "There is also the added element of danger and being discovered." What it's really all about is the element of danger. Pervs could care less about traumatizing kids – or offending adults. What they really want is to get away with it.
Posted by on September 1, 2007 12:41 PMRegarding Sen. Craig's recklessness behavior, which is the point of this piece, some conservatives are arguing that Bill Clinton committed adultery, defiled the oval office, lied under oath and remained in office. They bring up the names of Sen. Ted Kennedy, Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Gerry Studs and other devious Democrats who were involved in dastardly deeds yet refused to resign, and still represent the people. The public expects immoral behavior from liberals! Everyone knows that liberals have a different set of moral standards than conservatives do. For one thing, most liberals are secular humanists, hence they're not big on biblical morality. Liberals hold that the state has the right to force citizens to accept what is contrary to their religious conscience. (This includes the Christian belief that homosexuality is immoral.)
Now, Sen. Craig is supposedly a staunch conservative. As such, he believes what the majority of conservatives believe, which is that the family is the backbone of a healthy society. Conservatives hold that traditional (biblical) morality is the best protection against societal evils.
And, "Conservatives believe that traditional morality serves as the best protection against the ills that plague society. The government should encourage policies that promote morality and discourage immorality. Personal freedom demands personal responsibility, and liberty is no excuse for irresponsible behavior." {Quoted from:
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/theconservativephilosophy/p/social.htm
Posted by on September 1, 2007 12:52 PMMongoose, good questions.
Frankly, I don’t care what sexual preferences you enjoy. But when you take those preferences and ask the state to legally sanction them, I do. I also have something to say about them if you practice your “sexual preference” in public. It’s also against the law, so apparently I’m not alone who thinks that.
As far as setting the standards; those are the same standards not legally recognizing the marriage between 3 or more people, or any other combination thereof. I don’t know what the founding fathers had in mind about this issue, but we do know that Ben Franklin suggested that copulation mostly should take place for reproduction when he said “CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.” Do you agree with that? I don’t.
Apparently some of those founding fathers also enjoyed the company of slaves, not just for hard labor…or was it? Those long trips on the ocean too, who knows what some of those guys where up to, the point is the founding fathers didn’t marry each other.
Charles B, It’s time for you to come out of the stall !!
(I couldn’t resist…lol)
Uno
My wife will be happy that you aapprove of our monogamous heterosexual relationship without having to ask for additional legal approval; and, we're getting too old to be tempted to consider satiating our passions in public. But, you still didn't answer my questions other than conceding, that like me, you have no idea what was on the mind of the men crafting the Constitution.
What are these standards that you perceive are being lowered?
On what authority or basis were laws put into effect that limit "traditional marriage" to one man and one woman? And let's skip the absurdities about cross species interludes and stick to the specifics relating to human relationships.
Many societies in this world recognize marriage and family structures different than ours. What makes our "standard" preferable over others?
What constitutes the "values" that you seek to maintain?
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 01:26 PMmongoose,
Sadly, the only answers you will get are those such as the anonymous posting from 12:52 PM. These are assertions - "conservative" assertaions - and therefore are . . . assertions. But, identified as "conservative" assertions, they are supposed to stand as unquestionable fact.
I have given up citing the available texts and materials on the subject that counter the assertions with actual facts concerning the status of marriage over the Centuries. Those making the assertions won't bother to read them; either because they do not have the ability to perceive the evidence or, simply, because having already closed their minds, they just don't care about facts.
Most of the time, I really believe it's the absolute inability to perceive - much less comprehend - something that doesn't fit into the already follilized mind-set they've acquired from their preacher/priest/guru/whatever.
They will cite the "authority" of their mythology book, much as if that were the only text necessary for life - as with the Moslem approach to Al' Qran. Or they will fall back on the words, "standards", "values", etc., as if these somehow were so universal as to be utterly necessary - as well as totally obvious - to all human civilization. But, actually cite a logical premise for any one or all these strictures? Not hardly!
And that's not even considering the bulk of those who can't even begin to construct a logical syllogism in the first place, knowing nothing about logic to begin with.
It's the same with those who project how horrible this or that would be - as if it really IS, as ding an zich. The "sex in airport restrooms" asserters - equally without foundation in reality or fact - but assertive as to what others "are doing", because they fantasize it happening. And their sick imaginations are "more moral" than reality.
I do notice that they remain preponderantly totally anonymous, without even a screen name. Almost as if - at least unconsciously - they recognize just how ridiculous, and silly, their own dirty minds actually are; and are ashamed of themselves exposing that.
In any event, this is an area in which there is furious heat, but very little light, most of the time. Best of luck getting a sensible answer. (And, it would have to be LUCK!)
Posted by Old Grouch on September 1, 2007 02:01 PMMongoose, one wonders if your wife would be still happy with you, if one day you bought home a younger version of her, with less miles, and the 3 of you would be “happily” married. Thus the standard.
Let me give you another example, it may illustrate my point better; a drug addict or alcoholic is perfectly happy, only family members and friends around them know that they destroy they own life. Usually at the cost of taxpayers too.
Another one; if anything, history thought us (at least some of us) that there always be people pushing the envelop. Yesterday’s outrages things are today’s norm. Today’s outrages are tomorrow’s norm. Is that progress? And one must ask the question, where will it end? I’m sure there are some things you’re not approve of, and glad it’s against the law. Who are you to set standards or laws?
You said “And let's skip the absurdities about cross species interludes and stick to the specifics relating to human relationships.” – absurd? Apparently it’s not that uncommon, it even has it’s own name, bestiality. So, who are you to call it absurd, when it’s been practiced throughout history and found in all cultures.
You also mentioned “Many societies in this world recognize marriage and family structures different than ours.” – I love it when some people points to other cultures for approval. Does that mean that we should follow Iran’s lead and hang gays? Eat dogs, but not cows? Do a little cannibalism? It works both ways, you know.
Old Grouch,
I was gonna let you be today, but you said something which got my attention:
“The "sex in airport restrooms" asserters - equally without foundation in reality or fact - but assertive as to what others "are doing", because they fantasize it happening.” – really? Are you sure about that? May be you should write in protest to ABC News for lying, if you would read this please, in it’s entirety:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3534199&page=1
George Michael? How many others?
mongoose said:
"You are mistaken regarding: "most if not all of the Democrat candidates also oppose gay marriage." "
So, which Democrat candidates are in favor of gay marriage?
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 02:46 PMSo, John II, if you don't have a problem with Larry Craig preaching family values, I hope you'll similarly defend Al Gore and John Edwards for preaching conservation.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 1, 2007 03:45 PMJohn II
The Defense of Marriage Act will most likely -- note, not guaranteed to be, most likely -- be extensively modified, or eliminated over the next couple of years. Pay attention to the "allowances" to be made through such actions.
On the campaign trail, all of the Democratic candidates are talking about expanding gay rights. Each of the candidates has called for ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed services, even though that policy was put in place by President Bill Clinton -- the husband of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Though only Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and former Ohio Sen. Mike Gravel favor gay marriage, all the Democrats say they support civil unions that would give same-sex couples most of the rights and benefits available to married couples.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is in favor of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act -- another initiative that was favored by President Clinton -- a move that some legal experts believe would require all states to recognize gay marriages sanctioned by any state.
And the remaining candidates -- including Clinton -- would repeal at least a portion of that law, to allow gay couples whose marriages are recognized by any state to receive the federal benefits available to married couples.
Recent months have featured several Democratic candidates talking about their positions on issues important to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities in highly personal terms.
In the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, 55 percent would oppose a law allowing homosexual couples to marry, giving them the same legal rights as other married couples, while 40 percent would favor such a law.
GAY MARRIAGE
Favor
40%
Oppose
55%
Republicans hold particularly strong views against gay marriage: 71 percent of them oppose it, and 27 percent favor it. Democrats and Independents are more evenly divided; 45 percent of Democrats support it, as do 45 percent of Independents.
Younger people are much more likely than older Americans to support gay marriage. Sixty-one percent of 18- to 29-year-olds favor it; that drops to just 18 percent among people 65 and older.
Opposition to gay marriage is strong among conservatives (71 percent oppose it), blacks (63 percent) and Protestants (64 percent). Catholics also oppose it, though by a smaller margin than the entire population; 44 percent favor it and 50 percent oppose it.
Uno
Nice dissertation at 02:17 PM. But, you still haven't answered the basic questions. Try a direct answer to the standards and authority issues. Dancing around doesn't provide answer, just subterfuge designed to either hide the fact that you don't have the answers; or, are for some reason to state the answers.
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 04:26 PMPreaching conservation? No, I have no problem with that. At the same time, I would not hold Messrs. Gore and Edwards as champions of their cause either, just as I wouldn't take marital advice from Mr. Craig.
There is a big difference between what these gentleman are preaching. Mr. Craig supposedly (I've never heard of him before this politically fatal contretemps) preached about family values. [Does anyone have a link to a transcript of such preaching?] Messrs. Gore and Edwards preach about the quickly arriving end of the world as we know it.
Family values issues are much more personal. Sure, we need good family values to keep America strong. And, apparently, Mr. Craig has hurt his own family by his actions.
But, Messrs. Gore and Edwards preach about something much more direct and immediate. I believe Mr. Gore has been preaching about the flooding of New York City in a matter of a several years. Yet, both of them do not conserve. They live in enormous homes that consume much more energy than they need. They fly private jets. Mr. Gore even had the audacity to stage a highly polluting show to raise awareness (and who wasn't already aware) of the dangers of pollution.
So, while Mr. Craig has definitely hurt his own family by his actions, he has not impacted mine in the least. Yet, Messrs. Gore and Edwards, if we are to believe what they preach about the environment, have directly affected the environment in which I live.
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 04:28 PMUno
Sorry. Last sentence should have read...or, are for some reason afraid to state the answers.
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 04:28 PMMongoose, because I believe that marriage is between one men and one woman. You right, it did look like I was dancing around the issue, I’ve tried to provide you with examples as to why I believe that.
Posted by Uno on September 1, 2007 04:33 PMmongoose,
Thanks for that lengthy answer to a simple question. Please allow me to paraphrase it:
Only two Democrat presidential candidate supports gay marriage. No leading Democrat presidential candidate supports it.
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 04:33 PMJohn II
"...we need good family values to keep America strong."
Again, you and Uno keep talking about "standards to maintain" and "family values". Yet, when asked to define what "good family values" are; what constitutes such values and standards, you skip around and never provide direct answers.
Define YOUR above quoted statement. Both as to what constitutes "good family values", why they are "good", and on what authority or basis do you support your definitions.
A direct would be appreciated.
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 04:38 PMUno
So based on your belief, everyone in America is expected to meet and maintain your standards. Is that correct?
I haven't challenged either your nor John II's believes. All I've asked for is your definitions of your positions, and on what you base your definitions. You've finally given me a straight definition of what you view as marriage; now, on what to you base your position besides just echoing Topal in Fiddler On the Roof, Tradition...
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 04:46 PMmongoose,
Good family values to me means the marriage of one mother and one father.
As for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage, I oppose it. I believe marriage is a deeply personal and religious act that should not involve the government. I believe any such governmental definition of marriage should be left to the States to decide and not the federal government.
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 04:55 PM"Good family values to me means the marriage of one mother and one father"
So, once again we're back to the old gem of thinking that the gender of the participants if more important than the love and commitment they are supposed to share.
"The marriage of one mother and one father" is in NO WAY any guarantee that they will be good parents. There are MILLIONS of examples to the contrary!
Just as there are millions of examples of single parents successfully raising children who grow up to be productive, law abiding members of society.
You want to live in a Beaver Cleaver world that doesn't exist.
Furthermore, you comment about the "governmental definition of marriage should be left to the states to decide.."...
Well, if we had allowed that...the state of Virginia, as well as many others, might still be denying marriage licenses to inter-racial couples.
The federal government, through the supreme court, had a duty to tell the states that they do not have a right, under the U.S. consititution to deny equal protection to anyone because of their color.
The rights of gay couples to marry will eventually end up in the supreme court, too.
Conservatives are scared to death of this happening because they KNOW that their bans are unconstitutional.
That's why they were scrambling to pass the marriage amendment in order to basically backdoor their bans.
Make no mistake...gay marriage will be a reality in America one day. It may not be as soon as some of us would like, but it will happen.
It's called equality folks, and if you're against that...well, you're un-American.
Mongoose,
“So based on your belief, everyone in America is expected to meet and maintain your standards. Is that correct?” pretty much, yes. It’s funny how you put it, making it sound like I’m the only one who believes that, and somehow I was able to force that on you for decades. It looks like we are on the path of having gay marriages legalized. My question was, is it really something desirable? Times change, but is it really for the better? I’ve never seen so many drug addicts, child molesters and kidnappers, married high school teachers dating young boys, wives disappearing, murderers paroled, school shootings, graffiti, gang members, mothers killing their own children trash in my life than in the last couple of decades. If you think it’s all good progress, than good for you sir, I don’t.
Anon 07:12PM
"Well, if we had allowed that...the state of Virginia, as well as many others, might still be denying marriage licenses to inter-racial couples."
This is a straw argument that I believe causes more animosity than illustrative assistance to support the rights you advocate. While I'll grant that we still have racism in this country, laws such as you offer as a "what if" have gone by the way.
It's almost as ridiculous as the example of man marrying an animal the other side argues in supporting a legal definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Both are canards spun to fit the desired scenario and support their preferred outcome.
On the one hand you have those desiring to maintain standards of moral virtue by advocating laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Anything else is outside the scope of perceived decency and moral living; if not outright debauchery. These folks are usually basing their moral stance on some form of religious precepts that were adopted either directly into secular law, or used to reinforce “proper interpretation” and set “standards of moral decency” throughout the nation. They view efforts to permit polygamy or same sex marriages as threats by the immoral forcing their perversions on everyone.
On the other hand you have gay people supporting same sex marriages; and, to a lesser degree, some who advocate polygamy, in sharp contrast to our traditional moral standards folks. Some of these arguments are also based on religious interpretation, quite often of the same “scriptural" source, that differs from the traditional accepted interpretation. Others from this perspective reject any form of deity and claim that human love is limited strictly to the provenance of that love – the individuals involved. Either way, the traditionalists are guilty of forcing their religious or conventional morals on everyone.
The question is how to determine which side has the morally superior position. Who has the right to force others to accept their position as being the universally correct one for all.
Any takers on presenting one side or the other?
Uno,
Can you even begin to understand how incredibly offensive it is for you to equate a gay couple wanting to make the commitment to each other that you are able to make with the person you love...with so many negative things.
Other than you being opposed to it, what does a couple couple wanting to marry have to do with "drug addicts, child molesters, kidnappers..etc?
Please explain how you are able to equate something that two people are doing out of love for each other with other people committing acts of crime and self-destruction.
History is rife with examples of one group using the good old "slippery slope" imminent threat argument that you are using to justify their oppression and even extermination of another group that they don't like.
The Klan did it to blacks.
Nazis did it to the Jews.
They all basically said.."oh, if we allow THOSE people to live here, to have the same rights as us..the world is gonna end".
Guess what, Uno? The world is still spinning.
The Netherlands has gay marriage, they decriminalizd marijuana and even have legal and regulated prositution..and PER CAPITA, their crime rate is lower, they have fewer abortions, fewer cases of sexually transmitted diseases, less poverty and they stay married longer.
They took the trip down the slippery slopes that you are so afraid a long time ago of and they're better off in many ways than we are.
Stop living in fear, Uno.
Or, if you choose to live in fear, at least stop trying to scare everyone else with your empty rhetoric.
It won't work.
Posted by Thomas on September 1, 2007 08:43 PMUno
Once again you're making assumptions of what my moral basis is. All I've been doing is asking questions. You're the one lecturing on how you see "things", and how they're effecting us.
And, may I ask, what does; "I’ve never seen so many drug addicts, child molesters and kidnappers, married high school teachers dating young boys, wives disappearing, murderers paroled, school shootings, graffiti, gang members, mothers killing their own children trash in my life than in the last couple of decades", have to do with the foundation of what you call standard values? I do agree that it's a dismal picture you paint.
I, too, find this an abysmal turn to the worse for our country. How do you propose to address the problem outside of advocating maintaining "standard values" without providing a foundation to base the premises on?
You lecture me well. You slander by innuendo the morals you assume I maintain without determining in fact what my moral basis may be. And without providing anything beyond rhetoric, you don't provide a foundation on which you base your standard values; nor, why your values are superior to the values held by those of other philosophical constructs.
Are you going to define and defend your position, or keep slandering and lecturing those who don't automatically agree with the premise foundation that you haven't defined nor defended?
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 08:55 PMThe question is how to determine which side has the morally superior position. Who has the right to force others to accept their position as being the universally correct one for all.
**********************************************
Mongoose, that was my post above. I forgot to put in my name.
The question is not to determine who has "the orally superior position".
The question is to determine the legality of one group of people deciding, voting on and denying the constitutional rights of another group to be treated equally under the law.
This isn't about who has the bigger moral ego to feed.
If gay marriage is legal, no one is going to be forced to marry someone of the same sex.
Ergo, people who are opposed to gay marriage really have no stake in the issue. Their rights are still intact. Their marriages are still valid.
We're not trying to "force them to accept our position". They can still be personally opposed to gay marriage.
But they do not have a constitutional basis to prohibit it.
Posted by Thomas on September 1, 2007 09:04 PMThomas
First, what the hell does, "The question is not to determine who has "the orally superior position," have to do with the topic?
"But they do not have a constitutional basis to prohibit it."
That's still to be determined. How long do you suppose it's going to take to finally be resolved completely? Hasn't the DONA muddied the waters in a way that's going to delay final adjudication?
"Ergo, people who are opposed to gay marriage really have no stake in the issue. Their rights are still intact. Their marriages are still valid."
Are you saying that they have no "moral basis" on which to base an objection? How so?
"They can still be personally opposed to gay marriage."
That's where we currently sit, no?
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 09:15 PMSomeone can be morally opposed to many things...the use of tobacco and alcohol, pre and extramarital sex, etc...but what LEGAL right do they have to prevent someone else from partaking in these things if if the only possible effect it has on them is their awareness and opposition to it?
Heterosexual supporters of gay marriage have said over and over..."a gay couple getting married has nothing to do with me, it doesn't affect my marriage in any way, shape or form".
So what legal basis does someone who CHOOSES to be offended by gay marriage have to deny it?
They don't own the institution of marriage.
They can't prove that it will harm them in any way.
All they can do is make the same slippery slope baseless suppositions that Uno makes.
They do not have any true valid stake in gay marriage because they cannot prove how it will negatively affect them personally.
It really is that simple.
The law cannot judge one side to be morally superior to the other. They can only determine which side has a factual basis for their argument.
Gay couples can prove their side by showing the more than 1,000 benefits and rights that are inherently granted to a legally married couple by the LEGAL contract of marriage.
The same sex marriage bans effectively place a gender restriction on a legal contract.
That is a blatant violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
It's tantamout to saying, "No women or blacks need apply"..because it is denying due process for a person based on the personal characterics rather than their qualifications.
2:15,
Keep your s*** in your own side unless you want to get booted!
It ain't against the law..but its offensive!
Thomas, “Please explain how you are able to equate something that two people are doing out of love for each other with other people committing acts of crime and self-destruction.” – I think you missed my point entirely. The question I’ve put forward was simple, where will it end? Not where will it begin, it already has, and we are slipping down on that slope. Thus my comments about child molesters, etc. Pandora’s box have been opened, if you think it has not, prove me wrong. One only have to read the news. All I’ve done is drawn the line. Today it’s gay marriage, tomorrow it’s first cousins, father and daughter, you tell me where will it end. Some people’s definition of love is pretty far fetched.
Anyway, Thomas, I want you to know that I don’t hate you, we are only talking about legalized marriage here, and not extermination (I don’t know how that came up). I wish you and your partner good luck, I’m pretty sure one day you guys can get married, I just don’t think it’s right.
Anon at 7:12. So conservatives want a back door approach for their bans?
the old slip ups are the best. So slap me that was just to good to resist.
If we dump religion for social moral guidance, then we judge each issue on whether or not it is constitutional first.
Next we look to see if it creates social problems for others. And no I don`t mean it offends them. This is why some forms of gambling and prostitution, which should be constitutional, are illegal, because people have been convinced these activities cause harm to others. Collateral damage so to speak. They bring up drugs and other crimes as if gambling and prostitution always bring them along.
Because money comes into the equation, issues like alcohol and recreational drug use go from legal, to illegal , to legal over and over.
Marriage, which only legitimizes relationships that could exist without it, is a social construct that has undergone some alteration from culture to culture.
The primary function of marriage is to let the community know who has sexual access to whom. This is done with ceremonies, rings, wearing different hair or clothing styles after marriage etc. Usually only for women, until lately when men wear rings also.
The primary functions of the family are to raise, protect , and train the children to take their place in society, and the extended family does the best job of this.
Marriage and family are two different issues but conservatives usually lump them together.
I can oppose dumb people getting married. Some oppose homosexuals and bigamists.
There is no "moral authority" we make it up as we go along. As humans, we lost our instincts and are now confused as what to do.
Religion, tradition, deviant behavior labeling based upon "what is good for society" all are attempts to sound authoritarian on a subject where we are the authority and we have to make the decisions all by ourselves.
Like always, some folks just evolve slower.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 10:14 PMThomas
So far you’re the only one to provide a response beyond personal “feelings”. Perhaps those opposed to same sex marriage on this blog don’t have any solid moral nor legal objections, just personal objections. Interesting…
~~~~~~~
Uno
I’m still having a hard time determining what you’re basing your objections on regarding same sex marriage; especially by equating it to the opening of Pandora’s Box without supporting what the box consists of?
“Some people’s definition of love is pretty far fetched”
Based on what besides your “traditional views”? Why are your views superior, "more moral", or the "right answer" for the safety of society than someone else's?
~~~~~~~~~~
Thomas
I do have a couple of questions based on your response, if you don’t mind.
“The law cannot judge one side to be morally superior to the other. They can only determine which side has a factual basis for their argument… Gay couples can prove their side by showing the more than 1,000 benefits and rights that are inherently granted to a legally married couple by the LEGAL contract of marriage “
Weren’t the marriage contracts originated for the union of man and woman to recognize the religious practice of joint union to protect the property rights of the two joining? Cannot a “special or unique” situation contract be constructed based on special criteria?
Can the claim of exclusivity of the contract call for a man and woman be involved before a marriage contract can be considered?
Do you believe a civil contract (that’s all a marriage license or contract is, though oft-times sanctioned by a religious organization) which recognizes a same sex union as legally protected as a “marriage”, but not called “marriage”, to be less or equivalent?
How do you overcome the Federal Definition of marriage as reflected below?
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides
that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the
words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.
"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Based on this act, isn’t the battle front on the state by state level first?
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 10:22 PMWhere's the blowhard john2 in this discussion? He's always whining about family values and how we are losing it. Its best for America but I can't defend it your answer john2?
Can't defend your belief, only whine, piss and moan about it not being respected johnboy?
Posted by on September 1, 2007 10:37 PMMongoose, One quick question. What happens if one party changes their sex?
I never gave that much thought.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 10:38 PMMongoose, something tells me that you have a hard time with many things. I’ll simplify it for you, give an inch and some will take a mile. I hope I don’t have to explain that to you.
“Why are your views superior, "more moral", or the "right answer" for the safety of society than someone else's?” – you ask me questions like that, than you complain that I lecture. You figure it out, I think I gave you more than enough clues.
Also, I have a question for you; do you think the police unlawfully kidnap people when they arrest them for a crime?
Sharon B
I would speculate that if, for example, a man trans gendered and became a female then married a male, it wouldn't be a point of contention in regard to same sex marriage...or would it?
Would the question be of the moral decision to trans gender; or, would it still be considered a physically deformed male marrying a male?
An enigma wrapped in a question, compounded by being boxed in a conundrum...
Where does free will fit in this equation?
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 10:46 PMJohn II is over on the Jesus had friends who were capitalists forum.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 10:48 PMWhat happens to a valid marriage if one changes gender?
I think Uno just self destructed.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 10:58 PMUno
"...I think I gave you more than enough clues..."
Yes, you did convince me that you are basing your position simply on a piously perceived superior moral position with a foundation of sand based on your selected religious construct; with total rejection of any other construct, whether religious based or not. In other words, out of arrogance.
"...do you think the police unlawfully kidnap people when they arrest them for a crime?"
No. We have constructed a secular based system of law which permits duly authorized law enforcement agents to make arrests in order to enforce those laws.
Such laws are constantly evolving. What was once illegal may be changed to be legal at a later date (i.e., prohibition). Other things that were legal can become legal by the will of the people (i.e., the smoking ban for public facilities). So what people can be legally arrested for is subject to change.
What's your point? Laws are not set in stone.
Posted by on September 1, 2007 11:02 PMReally, Sharon? Would you care to explain just how one changes gender?
Posted by Uno on September 1, 2007 11:05 PMSorry. I changed computers and neglected to enter my identity for the 11:02 PM post.
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 11:05 PMOkay, changes sex. Changes the outside and takes hormones. Am I confusing gender and sex?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 11:11 PMUno
"Would you care to explain just how one changes gender?"
Perhaps Sharon can describe the step by step procedures involved for you whereas I can't; but let me introduce you to Ms Renee Michelle Grahn, formally known as Rick Grahn:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5687491,00.html
Trinidad is known for more than being a nice retirement community.
Sharon,
That was my post earlier.
And puns aside...that is what the marriage amendment is...a backdoor attempt to make the bans that were passed constitutional after the fact by changing the constiution to permit something that would not currently pass muster.
Even criminals get a better deal. You can't be tried on charges that weren't in the books at the time you commited the crime. Lawmakers can't go back and change the laws and then charge people retroactively.
But that is what the marriage amendment is trying to accomplish.
Then to address some of your points -
I never said we need to dump religion. I never addressed religion at all.
But "social moral guidance" doesn't have to be based on religion.
Social moral guidance can simply be based on mutual respect...live and let live and do no harm....which is really the foundation of what the constitution is about.
Uno,
Wanna play the slippery slope game?
Ok..let's go the other way.
Let's imaginea country ruled only by the value of religious conservatives.
Well, actually..we don't have to..there are active examples - Iran is a big one. And let's not forget what happened in Afghanistan.
A mere 30 years ago, despite being ruled by a dictator in the Shah, Iran was a thriving westernized country. Women were doctors and lawyers and politicans. The economy was thriving, people had modern conveniences.
Then religious conservatives overthrew the Shah...and for the last 30 years Iran has been a military backed theocracy. Women have lost all their freedoms and people are barbarically tortured and killed for the pettiest offenses.
Is that the world you want to live in, Uno?
Remember..we're talking slippery slope here.
Personally, I would rather take my chances living in a country with gay marriage, drug dealers and all the other things you fear...than live in a country where I have to fear the government and church more than anything else.
And lastly, Mongoose..
No I do not believe the battle front should be the states..but that is reality.
Iowa is a prime example. It will have to fought at local levels and then, if necessary, escalated to federal....just like Amendment 2 was.
Hillary Clinton lost me as a supporter because of her contention that gay marriage should be decided at state levels.
There are legally married couples in Massachusetts ...many with children..and some day one of those couples might have to move to another state...say because their job moves or to care for a parent...and they will be forced to choose between their job or their responsibilities...and the protections they and their family have in Massachusetts.
They essentially will be exiled to living there because of DOMA.
And that will be the constituional undoing of DOMA.
It fences a group out and denies them due process (equal treatment) that is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Now, I have a question for you and anyone else who chooses to answer it?
If you are married...do you consider your marriage vow to be the most important statement you have made in your life?
If so, doesn't that make marriage, in itself, a form of expression?
How do we justify denying one group of people, based on their sexuality and/or gender, the right to make an expression that others are allowed to make...based on their sexuality and/or gender?
Morality again?
Well, many people are morally opposed to flag burning and swastikas and racial epithets...but guess what...it doesn't matter if the statement you make is morally offensive to someone else...you still have a First Amendment right to make it.
And...as far as the whole semantics issue of marriage vs civil union...it's ridiculous to me.
It's petty. It's saying .."Ok, you can have what we have but you just can't call it the same thing."
I'm sorry, but that's bull---t.
People who believe that gay couples should accept "civil unions" should be willing to accept having their marriage reclassified as the same. PERIOD.
See what can
Sharon B
You had it right the first time. Besides the hormone treatments, etc., the major "change" is accomplished by Gender Reassignment Surgery. They literally, slice, dice, reverse and transform either male to female, or vice versa. The hormonal treatments change the chemistry to coincide with the new physical.
Modern science at it's cutting edge. Trinidad, Colorado is one of the leading Gender Reassignment centers in the world.
The above referenced article was in today's RMN. Tells the story of an Aurora Police Detective making the change and staying with the department.
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 11:24 PMThomas
Very good arguments/ Still, I'm a slow leaner and have a couple of questions.
~~~~~~~~
Regarding, "How do we justify denying one group of people, based on their sexuality and/or gender, the right to make an expression that others are allowed to make...based on their sexuality and/or gender.."
Does this mean I should be able to join my wife's for women only health spa? That's equal rights regardless of gender.
How does that differ from a marriage contract being reserved to a man and woman as participants.
It fences a group out and denies them due process (equal treatment) that is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."
Where does this legal argument stand in progressing through the courts; at any level?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Wanna play the slippery slope game?
BRAVO! Excellent example of a slippery slope. Slopes can slide for or against one's beliefs; for or against the betterment of a society. Therefore, one must be careful of what they wish for and evaluate ALL possibilities; not just those that at first blush are the most comfortable or appealing.
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 11:40 PMUno, most of the men attempting to have anonymous sex in public rest rooms are married. Most claim to be christian. I feel just awful for them. They should come out and be proud. Then, they could have an honest relationship and not have to resort to flings 'n things.
Uno, most of the men attempting to have anonymous sex in public rest rooms are married. Most claim to be christian. I feel just awful for them. They should come out and be proud. Then, they could have an honest relationship and not have to resort to flings 'n things.
Uno, most of the men attempting to have anonymous sex in public rest rooms are married. Most claim to be christian. I feel just awful for them. They should come out and be proud. Then, they could have an honest relationship and not have to resort to flings 'n things.
Thomas, didn`t intend the post to you in particular. Sorry I just started typing.
I am all in favor of same sex marriage. I think humans can make their own morality.
I think we are saying the same thing.
I think we should dump religion in making moral decisions. Worked for me and my family.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 11:43 PMAFlamingFagAndProud---
Good for you. But please, in the future just hit the post button once and avoid being a flamingposter>
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 11:48 PMThat’s ok Mongoose, for a minute there I thought it was Old Grouch.
So, Old Mongoose, my point is laws can and will change, but I don’t have to like them or agree with them. Arrogant? Only to those who disagree with me.
Good points Thomas, I wouldn’t want to live in Iran either because of that, even as a straight male. I don’t think “religious conservative” describes them accurately, it’s more like murderous freaks in the name of religion. They use religion to get away with evil and it’s not supposed to be like that. At least you are just as stubborn as I am, I like that. A man with principals, unbendable.
Gender Reassignment Surgery, nice, may be I can have an Age Reassignment Surgery once in a while. A little pull here and there, injections, and I’ll just change my legal age. Would that make me younger, or just look younger?
Hey, Flaming, how would you know? And why did they get married to begin with? Singles can do whatever they want.
Posted by Uno on September 1, 2007 11:53 PMAFlamingFag, do you have a brother named Keith or one who calls himself Captain America?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 11:53 PM“Singles can do whatever they want.” – let me take that back…except for kicking my foot under the stall…
Posted by Uno on September 1, 2007 11:55 PMUno
If you find the Age Reassignment Surgery, or the fountain of youth, call me and we'll car pool.
I called your position arrogance only because you never volunteered a philosophical basis for your moral positioning. You have essentially just kept repeating your views and alluded to the moral decay of our society as examples substantiating that view.
Yet, you never tied same sex or polygamous marriage into being an element of that decay. Somehow I fail to make a connection, for example, between a female adult teacher seducing a minor student to a cause and effect of same sex love.
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 11:56 PMMongoose, “If you find the Age Reassignment Surgery, or the fountain of youth, call me and we'll car pool.” – it’s a deal, something tells me we gonna need a school bus once the word gets out.
I have to turn in, good night all….
Mongoose, now you know how women feel when teen pregnancies are listed with juvenile delinquency and crime stats.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 12:05 AMSharon B
Your comments went over my head re teen pregnancies. Can you enlighten an old man as to the analogy you put forth?
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 12:18 AMWhile we don`t want our teen pregnant it is natural for that to happen. Then those stats are linked with crime and delinquency, things that are not natural.
Women, even young ones, having babies should not be viewed with crime. Just as homosexual behavior and same sex marriage should not be linked with all those things Uno listed.
Catch you tomorrow.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 12:23 AMSharon B
Duh...got it. Don't try to put square pegs in round holes. As simple as it was I tried to over/under think it! It is late...I am old...I am dense...
Good night all...
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 12:43 AMI`m off to bed this was a good forum.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 12:45 AMWow, I missed a lot on this thread. This comment bothers me:
"Where's the blowhard john2 in this discussion? He's always whining about family values and how we are losing it. Its best for America but I can't defend it your answer john2?Can't defend your belief, only whine, piss and moan about it not being respected johnboy?"
When do I preach about family values? In fact, I believe this is the first time I stated my view on the matter of gay marriage. I was simply answering mongoose's question. I think I stated my case succinctly and clearly:
"mongoose,
Good family values to me means the marriage of one mother and one father.
As for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage, I oppose it. I believe marriage is a deeply personal and religious act that should not involve the government. I believe any such governmental definition of marriage should be left to the States to decide and not the federal government."
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 08:40 AMJohn 2,
Perhaps you might then explain how you reconcile the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constituion with your idea of allowing the States to define marriage.
Mass. has already allowed marriage between those of the same gender. If you actually do hold the position that the Constitution is to be interpreted, or applied, "strictly", how then do you defend the so called "Defense of Marriage Act", which seeks to nullify the Full Faith and Credit Clause? (And, by the way, does so by a Legislative Act, rather tha by Amendment, as prescribed in the Constitution itself.)
I am sure you won't give any direct answer here; since you always merely skip out, and avoid questions that deal with your own illogical - and frequently contradictory - statements of position. But, then again, miracles do happen - or so we are told.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 09:52 AMJohn II
"Good family values to me means the marriage of one mother and one father"
Do you believe we should have public laws defining this conditional definition of good clause for marriage?
Do you believe your definition should take precedent over views held by others -- i.e., two men who profess love for each other and believes their marriage would constitute a good family? They could adopt children and have a family setting and work together as a family unit. Is your view superior to theirs?
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 10:07 AMOld Grouch,
When do I ever skip out on questions?
I view marriage as a religious endeavor. If a State chooses to honor a non-religious contract between two (or more) individuals to form some sort of shared living agreement, then so be it. Other States should also honor the specific contract.
mongoose asked:
"Do you believe we should have public laws defining this conditional definition of good clause for marriage?"
I thought I already answered this question. Marriage, to me, is a deeply religious institution. The only public laws I feel are necessary are laws relating to contractual agreements such as money, child custody, etc.
"Do you believe your definition should take precedent over views held by others -- i.e., two men who profess love for each other and believes their marriage would constitute a good family? They could adopt children and have a family setting and work together as a family unit. Is your view superior to theirs?"
Well, of course, I feel my view should take precedence just as some gay men think their view should take precedence. If I didn't think so, I probably wouldn't have the view to begin with.
I think all of my views are superior to all opposing views. If I thought my view was inferior, I would abandon that view for a stronger one.
As for the definition of a good family, it is an ideal one. Of course, variances could also be considered good. But, in general, I believe one mother and one father is the best scenario for a family. Men and women are different; they are not fungible. Men have qualities that children need. Women have qualities that children need. A family of two fathers and no mother robs children of the qualities of a mother.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 10:44 AMJohn II
"Marriage, to me, is a deeply religious institution."
Can we have marriage in this society without religion? Since we already have civil marriages performed by , for example, judges, do you recognize people marriage in a civil proceeding to be "married" by all definitions of the word?
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 10:48 AMLike I've already stated, I don't believe government recognition of marriage is necessary outside of honoring and enforcing a contract. Remove religion from marriage and all you have is a legal contractual agreement between two parties.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 11:10 AMJohn II
Then you essentially have no objection to people of the same sex, nor more than two individuals entering into a legal contract, calling it marriage, and presenting themselves to the world as a family unit. Is that correct?
This contract could be entered into with or without the sanction of a religious institution depending on the acceptance by such an institution.
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 11:14 AMMongoose, gays have the same rights as any other individual. They do adopt children, have heath care, and whatever else you can think of. You and your ilk make it sound like gays are persecuted and excluded from all that. May be you can explain why 3 people still can’t get married if it’s protected by the constitution’s 14th amendment equal protection clause. Or at least elaborate on why it would apply to one group of people but not to others. Do you support marriage between 3 or more people?
“What's your point? Laws are not set in stone.” – that was my point. Thus the slippery slope, and the question where will it end? I used examples of the degrading society it leads to. You guys turned it around accusing me of equating child molesters with gays, when clearly it wasn’t the intention. The intention was to illustrate what it can lead to.
Somebody made a point earlier that we no longer live in a Leave it to Beaver setting. My question was very simple, is it really good that we don’t?
mongoose,
I have no problem with gays entering into a contractual living arrangement and calling themselves a family.
Having said that, I do oppose handing children over to such an arrangement. I also oppose children being adopted by baseball teams, football teams, General Motors, Starbucks, NBC, the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, or any other legal entities not consisting of a single mother and a single father.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 11:43 AMWhat does marriage have to do with love? I've seen many unloving marriages. I've been living with the same wonderful woman for more than 32 years and we're never gotten married but we love each other dearly.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 2, 2007 11:51 AM“What does marriage have to do with love?”- good point. In countless cases it’s not, it’s a matter of convenience, chance to make money, gain citizenship, pressured into it, etc. So, it’s abused a lot, does abusing it even more makes sense?
Posted by Uno on September 2, 2007 12:06 PMIn my view the ideal family is the extended family, but any loving family is better then foster care.
Uno, change is not degrading society if people are better off.
I think the concept of same sex marriage is just too new for most people. Well 60% or so. I had a hard time with the concept of marital rape and a prostitute having a man arrested for raping her.
I had to see rape as violence, not a married mans right or a customers right.
In time, the mental concept of marriage will change but the younger folks will have an easier time with this.
Uno, if the society works better for individuals and children because of same sex marriage that is good.
As to where this will end, well it won`t. The reshaping of society is a never ending process. We change, we grow, we pass laws and we strike them down.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 12:17 PMUno
“You and your ilk make it sound like gays are persecuted and
excluded from all that.”
You still don’t know what I’m advocating for or against. You assume that I’m arguing against you. Just as Thomas assumes that I’m arguing against him.
Perhaps I’m just exploring, in depth the various positions people have taken in this controversy. Don’t you think it possible that through a full and open discussion exploring the positions and justifications of each side that an individual may end up agreeing with you? Or, are you assuming that your evaluations are so subjective or antiquated that one would reject your arguments?
You paint a very accurate and dismal portrait of the state of our society:
"I’ve never seen so many drug addicts, child molesters and
kidnappers, married high school teachers dating young boys,
wives disappearing, murderers paroled, school shootings, graffiti,
gang members, mothers killing their own children trash in my
life than in the last couple of decades"
If I understand your point through this description, the moral and ethical basis of determining right from wrong, and the need for assuming personal responsibility in order to maintain equilibrium in society is sorely deteriorating. We have laws against all of the transgressions you list, and are constantly adding more laws in attempt to regulate society. Yet, these illegal actions are escalating in occurrence and intensity, defeating the argument that we are nullifying laws and sliding down the slippery slope of decay.
The question then becomes can we dictate or regulate human morals and ethical behavior through public law. Where we do set standards of acceptable behavior that are recognized by the majority population it’s quite obvious that we have an ever increasing number of people who flaunt those attempts at regulating human behavior and pursue their own pleasures and gratification at the expense of others. So we apparently cannot legislate nor dictate what we might consider desirable morality. All we can do is institute laws protecting one from another and punishing those who violate the laws.
My question regarding same sex marriage, or even polygamy, is how allowing it under our laws designed to regulate behavior and protect people from transgressions by others, whether physically or financially, would circumvent the intent of laws for protection. If two people of the same sex are committed to forming a union together and seeking to lead a non-intrusive, productive family based life in the pursuit of the future, how is that detrimental or harmful to others in the society? What potential for transgressions against others does this union provide that are not present in a union between a man and a woman? Isn’t it mainly objectionable because it violates pre-set and often religious based traditions, and is in fact not a danger to society other than our comfort level set by on our traditions?
“Do you support marriage between 3 or more people?”
That’s the first time you asked me directly for my position without telling me what my position was.
I’m not comfortable with it. However, I’m exploring why I’m not comfortable and seeking any rational justification for prohibition of it if it can’t be shown to be harmful to society but only an affront to traditions or religious based biases. Hell, I have a hard enough time maintaining equilibrium with one wife. Two or more would be impossible.
John II
"...I do oppose handing children over to such an arrangement...or any other legal entities not consisting of a single mother and a single father."
Can you document or demonstrate the harm in children being in such an environment; or, is this just a personally held belief based on your own religious or philosophical foundations?
If it is religious based, I'm not asking your to defend your religion. If it is based on your secular philosophical understanding of what is "correct and desirable", I would like to hear the reasoning and apologetics supporting the position.
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 12:33 PMSharon, good points. I guess that makes me one of those who is not crazy about changes and social experiments, because I’ve seen too many failures and no accountability.
Posted by Uno on September 2, 2007 12:59 PMmongoose,
There are multiple reasons for my belief. The first is based on nature. It takes one man and one woman to conceive. I do not believe this is some accidental occurrence.
Furthermore, there is evidence that a mother and a father provide the best environment for raising children. I do not have the links for such studies at the moment and would rather not be forced into spending my Sunday searching for them.
Please allow me to turn the questioning to yourself. Do you believe there is an ideal environment for the raising of children that should be treated with priority over all other environments?
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 01:01 PMJohn II
"I have no problem with gays entering into a contractual living arrangement and calling themselves a family."
Almost answered, but not completely, the questions asked.
To reiterate; if a man and a woman get married in a civil ceremony by a judge, do you recognize that as a MARRIAGE?
If a man and a man got married in a civil ceremony by a judge, would you recognize that as a MARRIAGE?
In both questions, are the people in fact conjoiners in a contract of MARRIAGE?
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 01:05 PMJohn II
"Do you believe there is an ideal environment for the raising of children that should be treated with priority over all other environments?"
Absolutely, with equivocation.
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 01:10 PMCorrection
Absolutely, with equivocation SHOULD read, without equivocation...
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 01:12 PMmongoose,
Feel free to expand on that answer. I'm heading out to the shooting range. I'll be back later to read your reply.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 01:18 PMlol! the shooting range, I wonder who's picture is the target
Posted by Uno on September 2, 2007 01:24 PMJohn II
Expand?
An ideal environment would consist of loving parent, or parents, striving to nurture the health, physical well being, emotional and intellectual development of the child in a positive manner through childhood, adolescence and into adulthood. Instilling in that child positive traits and habits of intellectual curiosity and reasoning, an understanding of and capacity for human love and interpersonal relationships, along with a positive moral compass and solid work ethic.
Mongoose, I’ve asked earlier if your wife would mind an addition to the family. I didn’t tell you to get one. “Hell, I have a hard enough time maintaining equilibrium with one wife.” – I know what you mean. There are times, like for a week every month, when my best friend is a book titled “How to stay alive by keeping your mouth shut at the right time for Dummies”.
Society decaying, I see a parallel with that with justice decaying. Example (no, not gays); the average stay in prison for murder is about 7 years. Talk about diminishing the value of life. If you do a search on the internet you will find some pretty scary statistics about this subject.
I have to go too, will check back later…
"with a positive moral compass and solid work ethic." - by who's standard?
Posted by Uno on September 2, 2007 01:40 PMUno
"...by who's standard..."
I believe that's the point of this entire discussion. By who's standard and why is that standard preferable or of more legitimacy than another's?
Would you like to present a standard and justification as to why it's better than another? Has enforcement of your standards by civil law stopped the moral decay you referred to?
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 01:46 PMTo all: The children placed in same sex homes for adoption, were not denied a traditional family. They didn`t have the option.
Marriage is not about the raising of children. It is about a commitment of love between consenting adults.
Some never have children.
Once again we are confusing marriage and family.
Marriage lets the community know who goes with who. Family lets the children have training and protection.
I will go loudly nuts if someone doesn`t see these two issues, while closely related, are not the same.
Help!
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 01:55 PMUno said:
"Gays have the same rights as any other individual. They do adopt children, have heath care, and whatever else you can think of. You and your ilk make it sound like gays are persecuted and excluded from all that. May be you can explain why 3 people still can’t get married if it’s protected by the constitution’s 14th amendment equal protection clause. Or at least elaborate on why it would apply to one group of people but not to others. Do you support marriage between 3 or more people?"
**********************************************
I realize you addressed this to Mongoose, but I would like to reply.
First of all, Uno...
We do not have the right to marry the person of our choice because, as I've said before, there is a gender restriction being placed on a legal contract.
We do not have the right to serve our country unless we agree to censor ourselves and lie about who we are and who we love. You are not required to do this.
As to your question about polygame, I will gladly address that.
For almost 140 years, the U.S. has only recognized the legality of marriage between two individuals.
Polygamy would be an exception to this.
No one is being denied the right to marry but you may only be LEGALLY married to one person at a time.
Only recently when the issue of gay marriage started coming up did people realize that there were no gender restrictions on it so they have been scrambing to enact them.
So let me break it down..completely, so there is no confusion.
Polygamists are still allowed to marry the persons of their choice, but like everyone else in this country they are only allowed to be LEGALLY married to one of them at a time.
Gay people are not allowed the marry the person of their choice because of the gender restrictions being placed on the legal contract.
Polygamists want an exception to the laws, gay couples want inclusion in them.
Does that answer you question?
Marriage should be defined...LEGALLY...as a civil contract between two consenting adults.
Posted by Thomas on September 2, 2007 01:55 PMmongoose:--
I think you have twisted john2 up. He won't answer direct questions but just repeats himself. Hes like keith and the other wingnuts by stating what he believes in, won't (or can't) answer questions and leaves when pined down. Watch out he's going shooting to make up for his weak spine. Guns do that for right wingnuts.
kc
Posted by on September 2, 2007 01:57 PMThomas
"Marriage should be defined...LEGALLY...as a civil contract between two consenting adults."
Are you excluding the people (and there are a bunch) advocating for legal multiple party marriages (polygamy)?
On what basis? Or, are you only concerned about your own corner of the world and don't want to "rock the boat" anymore than necessary to accomplish your objectives?
Also, by excluding marriage from a religious context and making it now just a civil matter, aren't you preempting, hijacking a term which essentially was developed and nurtured by religious constructs? Is that fair to say you want the same thing without the same underlying requirements? (Refer to my same question re gender exclusivity in the health spa example above; "Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 11:40 PM")
Why do you insist that a civil contract between two people be called by an archaic religiously based term? Doesn't "civil union" cover the "civil Contract" adequately?
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 02:14 PMJohn 2,
Not really a direct answer. Just manages to raise an additional question or two.
1. If marriage be a "religious endeavor", then how do you reconcile the First Amendment to the Constitution to your attitude of regulating it in the States?
2. Again, since the Constitution DOES NOT recognize marriage contracts as "religious matters", and the State of Mass. does permit same gender marriage, how do you reconcile the Defense of Marriage Act and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution?
As to the questions concerning marriage (this time actually posted by mongoose, as I can now read, having managed to adjust focus point and hearing insert), before a Judge, and/or before any Civil Authroity entitled to perform marriage by reason of his/her office in State or local Government.
These ARE marriages. They ARE marriage as it has been recognized by both Federal and State governments throughout the history of our nation.
1. Do you, or do you not acknowledge this?
2. Or do you hold civil marriage to be something other than valid and genuine in this country?
3. Do you propose to institute a definition of marriage as a part of an established religion in the United States?
4. Were such a religious definition - as with the one presently stopped in Congress - to actually be adopted, what do you propose to do about all the already established civil marriages in the nation?
5. Were a religious definition to be established by Amendment, what do you propose to do with those who refuse to join the established cult, or cults; or submit to a religious ceremony?
6. How do you propose to enforce a religious definition of marriage?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 02:28 PMMongoose,
I have no personal issue against polygamy.
I do believe it has, traditionally, been a tool of oppression for many of the women in it.
But this isn't about my feelings on polygamy.
I was addressing Uno's...once again..slippery slope argument that gay marriage will somehow lead to polygamy..etc, by correctly pointing out that polygamists are asking for an exception to laws that already allow them to marry one person of their choice but are not being amended to excluded gays from doing the same thing.
And Mongoose, check your history. Marriage, was initially about property and business, not religion. Religion co-opted marriage.
There is no reason that marriage cannot be both civil and religious if the participants choose it to be so.
It already is.
You can get married in a church or a city hall. You can be married by a priest, a judge, the captain of a ship..anyone who has the legal authority to do so.
And why hold on to the "archaic" term of marriage...because despite whatever it's roots may have once been..in today's society and culture it is widely acknowedged recognition of a commitment.
We simply want to change the laws to include us. People who grudgingly want to include us in the legal rights but have an issue with semantics want to basically reinvent the wheel by creating new language to defend delicate sensibilities.
Love is love is love...
Marriage should be the same.
We shouldn't have to call our relationship something else just because someone else chooses to be offended.
Thomas, good answer, thanks. I think, what I left out is to say that you do have the legal right to marry one woman. For obvious reasons you probably didn’t see that as an option.
Posted by Uno on September 2, 2007 03:30 PMNow here is some of my views on one man one woman marriage (because they not off the hook either) and it’s probably going to upset some of you:
I believe that the way this marriage business conducted today is a joke in some cases. It’s easier to get married than to buy a car. So I propose the following:
First timers: require the completion of a training course before marriage licensee is granted.
Zsazsa Gabor types: three strikes and your out, no more license after the third divorce. Grow up.
Britney Spears types: a 3 month cooldown period between requesting and granting the license. Request it when you get engaged. No more overnight marriage.
Anna Nicole Smith types: Gold diggers. That’s a though one. May be based on a formula between time spent being married vs the % of inheritance or divorce settlement of combined wealth.
Common law marriage: eliminate it. Either you make a commitment or not.
Thomas
Thank you for very honest and direct answers. I believe that both you and Uno, in his own manner, where pretty straight shooters in explaining your positions and the rational behind them.
I have to admit that when this controversy first boiled over to the attention and focus of public debate I was was against same sex marriages.
I wasn't against homosexuality as I overcame that "boogie man " while serving in the Special Forces in Vietnam and had a team member who discussed his sexuality honestly with his team members. In a five man team where you live in extremely close association and reliance on each other you tend to get to know the true character of each other better than most men know their wives. I trusted this man with my life and gave him my friendship for over two years without qualification. I never felt my sexuality was threatened nor compromised by his orientation.
My objection was strictly based on the traditional standard of morality that I had been raised under and maintained as an adult. I couldn't explain any logical rationality to defend marriage as being just an institution between a man and a woman other than "it's not natural" or, it's not what marriage was - supposedly - designed for.
However, while exploring my mind set I kept running across what I perceived to be illogical assumptions in supporting that position. Primarily, what right do I have to insert my concept of morality on others; especially by force of law. For the religiously orientated individual this could be argued as actually going against scriptural teachings.
I grasped on to the debauchery escalating in our society as justifying my standards as being of more value than what I saw taking place. But I also soon realized that those crimes and acts of transgression against others were being committed by people of all orientation. The laws we have to determine what is permitted in this society are not capable setting a standard of morality to be followed. Violating those laws only means that we have pushed the envelope too far and intruded into the rights or well being of other. People who feel they are above the law also feel they are above standards or morals held by others -- they have the "right" to pursue their own agendas. It was not so much a lack of morality, but lack of knowing and accepting mature personal responsibility of action in relation to others.
Laws excluding same sex marriage do not act as a means to protect one party, or parties, from causing harm to others. At the most they preserve a comfort level of those in disagreement and a protection of traditions which have become the accepted norm. On the other hand, such laws are intrusive and causing, at the least, emotional (not to mention financial) harm to those it denies the legal and emotional benefits of marriage to.
Like Thomas said, the fact that two people of the same sex can enjoy the societal sanctity and protections of marriage does not diminish my marriage to my wife of 33 years one iota. My marriage is just as it always has been -- a loving union between two people with societal acknowledgment and protection.
Without going into all the legal mumble jumble that both sides like to throw into the stew, I can't see where society will be damaged by allowing same sex marriages. It may bruise and offend established sensibilities, especially among the religious segment of our population, but it doesn't open the door nor encourage anyone to commit transgression against others.
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 04:34 PMThe All Time Freudian Slip Award goes to....(drumroll)...
Uno!
For this gem:
"Mongoose, because I believe that marriage is between one men and one woman."Posted by Charles B on September 2, 2007 05:54 PM
John II said:
"feel my view should take precedence just as some gay men think their view should take precedence."
The difference being, that you want to deny them rights enjoyed by you.
They do not seek to deny you rights.
Posted by Charles B on September 2, 2007 05:58 PMmongoose,
For quite some time, I have been posting the name of an excellent text on the subject of marriage - one which was written by a Yale Professor of History.
John Boswell: "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe". (Probably available either at your main library or by way of Barnes and Noble.)
The religious aspect is dealt with there, at some length. And, since it is rather obvious that no one has bothered to read it, I can say that it will be a real "eye-opener".
The "True Believers" - whose "religion" is soooooo "superior" - and who were blathering away about "Theology" on one line - will, of course get their panties all in a knot. But, history is history. Fact is fact. And dismissing either by way of criticizing the writer's lifestyle does no more than expose how basically stupid people are who refuse to learn.
Anyway. Have fun. It does provide a great deal of information that is just . . . . . .swiftly swept under the nearest rug by most of those for whom SOME ONE ELSE'S possible "marriage" is going to bring on the "end of the world". - AS HE/SHE KNOWS IT, that is.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 05:59 PMCharles B. grumbled:
"The difference being, that you want to deny them rights enjoyed by you.
They do not seek to deny you rights."
Sure they do. Everyone's view overrides someone else's "right" directly or indirectly. In this case, my desire to see that children are placed in loving homes with one mother and one father is threatened. The same goes for abortion: in this case I am protecting a third party, not myself.
Similar issues occur with government programs like Social Security. I do not want to be a part of it. I do not want to contribute to it and I do not want to benefit from it. I wish for that money to stay in my bank account. The same goes for the tax rate. Why should I have to pay taxes at a higher rate than most people? The answer is that the majority of people decided to take more from me than themselves.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 06:19 PMOld Grouch
Boswell’s research and subsequent position was one of many that I read during my quest of curiosity and understanding. While I do appreciate and accept his premises, they are not without controversy and conditional qualifiers. I’ve provide one such source below for your perusal.
I found my personal understanding and acceptance to be based on the pros or cons of denying same sex marriage in the context of causing either harm or benefit to society. Once any religious or traditional views of societal norms are set aside I could find no logical justification for denying same sex marriage. I found no validity to the slippery slope argument as the perpetrators of crime in this country – the violations of civil laws to protect society – come from all ethnic, religious and sexual orientations. Therefore, the violators were committing their acts outside the scope of moral or ethical bounds outlined in our societal laws. We’ve already started the proverbial slide due to a lack of personal responsibility and respect of others as individuals, or collectively as a society. Self gratification, greed or callous disregard of others is driving the antisocial behavior in America.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpted from Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con by Andrew Sullivan Copyright © 2004 by Andrew Sullivan
Boswell's argument stands or falls on his interpretation of a series of documents relating to a singular ritual practiced in the Christian church during antiquity and the high middle ages, principally in the lands of the eastern Mediterranean. The bonds between men that are confirmed in these church rituals are cautiously (and a little coyly) labeled by him as "same-sex unions." For his arguments to have the force that he wishes them to have, however, the words "same-sex" and "union" must be construed to mean "male homosexual" and "marriage." If they signify other sorts of associations that happened to be same-sex in gender, or unions that were meant for purposes other than marriage or a permanent affective union, then his claims fail.
For this reason, the narrative chapters of his book are ancillary, in that they digress on other aspects of the general problems of marriage and family formation in a way that is designed to support Boswell's claims about the supposed same-sex marriage rituals. His larger investigation of the nature of "heterosexual" marriage and love, and their attendant vocabulary in the Greco-Roman world, is undertaken to demonstrate that his interpretation of the "same-sex union" rituals is the most probable one.
Given the centrality of Boswell's "new" evidence, therefore, it is best to begin by describing his documents and their import. These documents are liturgies for an ecclesiastical ritual called adelphopoiesis or, in simple English, the "creation of a brother." Whatever these texts are, they are not texts for marriage ceremonies. Boswell's translation of their titles (akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin and parallels) as "The Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men" or "Office for Same-Sex Union" is inaccurate. In the original, the titles say no such thing. And this sort of tendentious translation of the documents is found, alas, throughout the book. Thus the Greek words that Boswell translates as "be united together" in the third section of the document quoted above are, in fact, rather ordinary words that mean "become brothers" (adelphoi genesthai); and when they are translated in this more straightforward manner, they impart a quite different sense to the reader.
.
John 2
Its always better to put kids with one man one woman. This kid would have been better off with loving homosexuals.
“…gut-wrenching starvation death of 7-year-old Chandler Grafner…
“More than two years before he died, at the age of 4, Chandler had expressed fear of the man caring for him, Jon Phillips, who had voluntarily taken custody of him. Phillips is the father of Chandler's half- brother. Phillips and his common-law wife Sarah Berry have been charged with first-degree murder.”
“Arapahoe County was the first to investigate neglect, and the report criticized two of its practices. Jefferson County later placed the child with Phillips and Berry without a comprehensive assessment and despite warnings from the boy's birth mother, who had lost custody, that he was abusive and might hurt the boy. Jefferson County was cited for five violations of state policy, Denver with one”
The only studies i find that support man woman parents being better are from religious based groups. Not very objective to base risking a kid's life on
Posted by on September 2, 2007 06:53 PM6:53 (why no name?),
Would you apply the same logic to the black race? I could easily post links to murders by black folks all across America.
Any moron can post exceptions to a rule in the vain attempt to demolish the rule itself.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 07:09 PMReligion is destroying this country. Youve got the holier than thou bible thumpers on one side trying to force their crap down our throat as the only proper way to love and live, and the rest of us on the other side vomiting back the garbage being forced fed to us. Each side is fighting for their own way to be the one to control, pulling hard from their side against the other. Just like playing tug of war with a sheet of paper the country is tearing apart. Who gets to say I told you so?
You religious bigots make me sick
Posted by on September 2, 2007 07:28 PMYou socialist bigots make me sick. Bring it on.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 07:48 PMI came back to see how the discussion was progressing. I guess while disappointed I shouldn't be surprised that it eventually headed south to the sewer. It was informative and interesting while civility and an open exchange of ideas reigned. So for that part it, I thank you for the opportunity to participate.
Have a good evening.
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 07:59 PMMongoose and Old Grouch likes to write these long assays.
Is 163 posts a new record?
Charles and Sharon opened my eyes. Now I only support marriage between one surgically unaltered born as man single heterosexual to one surgically unaltered born as woman single heterosexual of proper age individuals.
Mongoose you wimp out?
Uno
Sometimes to explain a position rather than just assert one, longer writings are required. Assertion, while simple, quite often comes across as arrogance by inferring that anyone not accepting the assertion as fact is inferior to the asserter.
And yes, I'm wimping out. The wife realized that not all the time spent on the computer was generating work product, and is a little "miffed" about being ignored.
Enjoyed it -- look forward to future discussions.
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 08:55 PMlater mongoose, I'll check in with mine, good point...tell her we doing research...lol
Posted by Uno on September 2, 2007 08:58 PMmongoose,
I completely understand the wife part. My wife also gets "miffed" .
"I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead. — Mark Twain"Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 09:00 PM
"Some people think they perfect. Usually they are the one with most flaws." ----Uno
Posted by Uno on September 2, 2007 09:18 PMUno, may I quote you?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 3, 2007 12:11 AMMongoose,
I appreciate your straightforward honesty and it's refreshing to hear someone actuallly put some thought into these issues.
It's very frustrating and disillusioning, as an American citizen, to have something as personal as your love life be tossed around like a political football.
Uno, I appreciate that you are at least giving the subject some deeper thought as well.
Something I would ask you to consider....
I knew a woman a few years ago who lost her partner of 18 years. Her partner was diagnosed with cancer and died only two months later.
The deceased partner left her partner all that she had in her will. But the surviving partner could not afford to pay the inheritance taxes on home they had shared for 15 years and had to sell it and move.
She had spent 15 years paying a mortgage on that home with her partner and when she died...she had to pay inheritance taxes to inherit her partner's interest in the home.
If they had had the protection that marriage provides this wouldn't have happened.
It was a truly sad thing to witness..her having to let go of something she held so dear and had worked so hard for...all while she was still trying to cope with the grief of losing someone she loved so much so suddenly.
While I didn't know this couple personally, I was aware of their situation after it happened.
Two men...together for 6 years. One was killed in car accident by a drunk driver.
The deceased man was estranged from his family becasue they disapproved of him being gay.
They had never made out wills.
After he died, his family came out of the woodwork and claimed everything that the surviving partner couldn't prove was his.
They didn't own their home but the family took things that they had bought together and threw away or gave away many of his personal belongings...clothes, photo albums, etc...things that his survivor might have cherished.
Just so there is no misunderstanding, neither surviving partner was upset about the financial value of anything they were losing.
But they were devastated that they were being kicked when they were down. That as Americans who happened to be gay, they were deprived of the protections that other people had when they encountered the same end of life predicaments.
And that is what is truly ironic about this whole thing...
The people who claim they are defending "traditional" marriage are the ones who are making this about sex.
"One man, one woman"
...why don't we just say "one penis, one vagina"...since they are making it about gender...and those are what most people consider to be the tell-tale signs of gender.
They're not talking about love and commitment as qualifiers for marriage, but they're insisting on penises and vaginas.
So ask yourself...is marriage about what you feel in your heart and your head...or is it about what you have between your legs?
Thomas, I understand where you coming from, good stories you smoothie. What you asking me to do is to give up something I strongly believe in, and I can not do that.
Perhaps there are other ways to deal with what you described. I think inheritance tax should be either eliminated or the ceiling raised so high, it would affect only the super rich. A lot of people lost their properties and family farms because of it, it’s disgusting. They where forced to sell it, just so they can pay the IRS, and it’s not right. This system is not unique to gays, a lot of people have problems with it, and get kicked by the government while down. Gay or straight, married or not, people spends a lot of time (and money) having to look for loopholes, consult lawyers, even go to court on some of this stuff.
Come to think of it, I’m not sure if getting married really has that much advantage.
“They're not talking about love and commitment as qualifiers for marriage, but they're insisting on penises and vaginas.” – I agree, that’s why my sept 2, 03:58 post.
Sharon...lol...why not.
Posted by Uno on September 3, 2007 09:19 AMThomas,
Don't be such a wuss. No one is stopping gays from being in a loving and committed relationship. There should be a way for people to enter into contractual agreements so one partner can receive financial benefits.
I just don't want kids involved in your scenario. The reason we say one man and one woman instead of one penis and one vagina, is simple: There are important differences between the sexes besides their anatomy. Children need the benefits that each gender offers.
Posted by John II on September 3, 2007 09:32 AMmongoose,
Sorry I wasn't around to continue last evening; but a dinner engagement took over.
I also have read the critique. It is ironic, in that it presumes that the modern concept of "brotherhood" applied to the "unions" in history.
The point Boswell was making - and which is very pointedly ignored in the critique - is that, regardless of current translation, the Services indicate that the coming together of two persons of the same gender was NOT something that was immediately judged on the basis of whether or not there would be some kind of sexual activity in the future. Indeed, as Boswell points out, our modern approach to "homosexuality" did not exist, even in the Church, at the time.
True, there were those who condemned any and all sexual activity, as there are today. And there were those who would restrict sexual activity to the "purpose of procreation", etc., etc., again as there are today. BUT, these were NOT the voices of authority at that time. And, indeed, there is much material available refuting their particular views as being, somehow, a part of Christian Faith - whatever the Codex Justinianus had to say about earthquakes, tidal waves, etc., etc.
Now, the Western Church - Romanism - went on to develop a system of legalism, wherein anything and everything concerning the every day social, political, economic, and other realities of life was included as part of the relgious "duties and obligations" of the individual. And "disobedience" to any part of this legal formulary became "sin", since by way of "Unam Sanctam", the Roman Pope claimed not only SPIRITUAL sovereignty and suzerainty over the world, but TEMPORAL sovereignty and suzerainty as well.
The Protestant Revolutionaries merely took this form of Theocratic politics for granted, with the ultimate Treaty ending the 100 Years War proclaiming the status of "Whoever the Prince, his the relgion".
Thus, we have today's embedding of religious superstition - that sexual acts are, somehow, both "sin" in the spiritual realm and "criminal" in the secular.
The critique of Boswell you cite takes this for granted as well - as so many of the writer's remarks show. Boswell is questioning the validity of the whole concept; and giving good evidence of its development, in the face of the earlier reality of the non-existence of this position for over a thousand years.
The current arguments also take this whole superstitious (religious-sin/legal-criminal) concept for granted a great deal of the time.
And, this is where the problem becomes a quagmire. The whole of the "slippery slope", "moral", "values", etc., presentation relies upon the superstitious (religious-sin/legal-criminal) concept; while the fundamental of the First Amendment to Constitution of the United States is that of the "wall of separation between church and state".
Let's get "religion" OUT of civil government; and keep it OUT.
Marriage is a civil and secular matter of contract. And as such should not be subjected to superstition (religion) concerning those who seek to enter the contract.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 3, 2007 09:34 AM“Life is like taking the trash out. You always throw something away, just to regret it later.” -- Uno
Posted by Uno on September 3, 2007 10:30 AMJohn II, can gays get married, in your perfect world, if they sign an agreement never to have or adopt children?
Would you then see the difference between marriage and family?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 3, 2007 11:57 AMDon't be silly Sharon of course not. Homophobs would be afraid that by giving an inch they would take a mile. Small bigot minds live as paranoids that their religious morals will be compromised because theirs is the only right religion and knows how we should all live.
Posted by on September 3, 2007 12:07 PMSharon B.,
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I've already said numerous times that I have no problem with gays entering into contractual agreement to share each others finances. Keep kids out of it and I'm fine with that.
Posted by John II on September 3, 2007 12:08 PMNotice how the homophob avoids the M word. A contractual agreement is ok, but don't dirty his marriage by calling it marriage. What a religious hypocrite He can't prove that kid's do better with man and woman without using religious based issued studies.
Posted by on September 3, 2007 12:32 PMJohn II, unless you can show statistical problems effecting children in same sex households, this is all your opinion and nothing more.
Back up the idea that gay households harm kids as much or more than straight ones.
Put black, brown or female headed in place of gay, and you would be a bigot.
Stop hiding behind children.
I wasn`t being sarcastic. That was a real question.
Would you let two 80 year old women get married. Too old to have or adopt kids?
No matter how you avoid saying it, you don`t think gayness is natural and you think kids can "catch' it.
Otherwise you just want to punish gays for being gay by limiting their rights.
Either way your a homophobe. Dress it up any way you like, it`s still visible.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 3, 2007 01:19 PMCharles B, I’ve got your award right here…lol
Posted by Uno on September 3, 2007 01:44 PMJohn II,
You are obviously hung up on some completely groundess issue of gays and children.
The question is why?
Is it about pedophilia?
Pedophilia is not about sexuality. Pedophilia is about control and manipulation. And the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexually orientated.
There are no absolutes, John.
Just because someone is raised in a home with a traditional mother and father does not mean they are going to become a productive member of society.
Likewise, there are plenty of people who have grown up in non-traditional parenting situations - single parents, gay parents, etc..who HAVE grown up to be fine citizens.
One of my best friends is heterosexual but his father is gay and he was raised by him and his partner of 30 years. This friend is a great guy, married to his wife now for almost 5 years. Having gay parents made him a very accepting, non-judgmental human being.
Like it or not, John, gay people are just as capable of concieving children as anyone else...and a home with two loving parents is better than growing up in institutions.
And lastly John...I never said that anyone was stopping gays from being in loving and committed relationships. But they are being prevented from having the same benefits and priviledges that comes with marriage.
That's what this is about.
And don't call me a wuss. I'm a bigger and better man than you'll ever be.
Your issue over g
Hi Sharon,
Very early on, John 2, made it clear that, for him, marriage was a "religious" matter, a form of belief-system.
Obviously, anything - by way of question, or by way of dispute with, or rejection of, that which is a "religious matter" (belief system) - is not going to get an answer that would conflict with the contents of the belief-system as such. Which is one illustraton of the reason I have said so many times that a belief-system is not debateable.
Within the belief-system itself, the concept of "marriage" is a fixed absolute. And, no fixed absolute admits of modifications. By the very nature of being a fixed absolute, it can't.
In debate, on the other hand, concepts are laid open to comparison, contrast, and the potential of modification.
Debate begins, and depends, upon the foundation of logic. And, using logic to present, develop, and expand the alternate views of a concept, the concept itself may ultimately arrive at the status of an absolute. But, this is an absolute based upon a foundation that is different from an absolute that itself IS the content of a belief-system.
The belief-system, in and of itself, is really neither "right", nor "wrong". It may be "rational", or "irrational"; but those are external judgments, not affecting the belief-system itself. And John 2 has the same right as anyone else to his belief-system(s), and the free expression thereof
The problem here is that, unfortuantely, John 2 presents his belief-system as if it were debateable; i.e. as if it formed ONE possible point of view in the development of a concept as an absolute. However, this is a matter of starting with the premise that the "cart MUST come before the horse" - which puts forth a belief - an already fixed absolute - as an axiom, rather than as a postulate, or premise in development.
Thus, with John 2, it is a matter of accepting, or rejecting, the belief system - the, for him, already fixed absolute - NOT a matter of seeking to find a potential absolute - or workable postulate - by logical debate and exposition of alternatives. And it is useless, and a complete waste of time and effort, to attempt debate with ANY religious belief system.
And, it is upon this matter of "religion" that the matter of marriage will always be bogged down in a quagmire.
Get religion OUT of the matter of civil contracts; and keep religion OUT of civil government.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 3, 2007 02:33 PMjohn2 is either homophobic bigot or a religious bigot, but a bigot either way. Sharon brings up good point about older getting married with no kids involved. john2 still homophobic about calling "contract" marriage. He's afraid it will include him in dirty thing if homosexuals also married -- dirt by being called married the same.
Do you want take the kids away from a widow or husband widow since they no longer have 1 man 1 woman in family? How about deivorced people, john2. It no longer a loving relationship raising the kids.
Do you think someone will become gay by breath the same air. You people do more to hurt society and morals by forcing you or ideas of right, wrong, proper and natural down everyone else throat -- causes rebellion and more activity and demonstration against your bigotery.
This is great country of freedom and opportunity. Why make walls around people and make all live like you?
Please excuse my spelling and english. I am learning english as I am immigrant (legal with visa and application for to become citizen).
Posted by Kaji' on September 3, 2007 03:31 PMI'm enjoying people saying "well the democrats have a guy who had 100k in his freezer.... blah blah blah" as if it's some kind of comparison. First that guy hasn't (yet) been convicted of anything. If he is I'm sure he'll be tossed out of Congress.
The point here is Craig PLED GUILTY. Period. End of discussion. Once he did that he lost all support. I for one as a "liberal Republican" would've defended him if he'd not pled guilty (until he was adjudicated) just as I'd defend that clown with the frozen 100grand. But he pled guilty.
I do see a bit of hypocrisy though in the matter of Congressman VItter. He basically "confessed" that he'd visited a prosititute which is an ILLEGAL act. In other words he "pled guilty" in the court of public opinion and if he was charged by the police (which I doubt) he'd probably be convicted and I'd support his ouster then. But not until he is convicted of a crime.
Clinton was a jerk and slept around but the fact remains he was impeached for his trouble (which is basically a conviction) but not for the act itself rather the witchhunt afterwards. I'm more pissed congress wasted $40m dollars proving he had sex with a legal aged consenting adult in private than the fact he tried to cover it up. How many people would lie if they'd done the same thing? Most of us.
Compare apples to apples. $100k in a freezer means NOTHING until a conviction comes in. Likewise Rick Renzi (R-AZ) who is under investigation for a land swap scam and Allen from Alaska who built the "bridge to nowhere" and whos house was raided by the FBI and IRS for various alleged improprieties are all INNOCENT until proven guilty.
But Criag pled guilty. Period.
EJM
"I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I've already said numerous times that I have no problem with gays entering into contractual agreement to share each others finances. Keep kids out of it and I'm fine with that.
Posted by John II on September 3, 2007 12:08 PM "
Considering 90%+ of all kids are molested by family or friends of family (people they know) and well over 95% of kids these days are raised by HETEROSEXUALS it would seem to me maybe heterosexuals should stop exposing their kids to other heterosexuals who end up molesting them.
Right?
EJM
Kaji'
Welcome to the United States.
Part of our freedoms is the right for people to have differing ideas, including religious affiliations, along with having the right to voice those positions.
With this wide diversity of ideas comes initial strife as they collide with each other in a public forum. Ultimately, our society will evolve with new understandings and laws reflecting that understanding. That's how we continually grow in maturity and strength as a nation.
While we make mistakes and stumble periodically, the wide diversity of ideas and the character of the people advocating the ideas pull together and lift us to greater strengths and heights in human rights and responsibility.
Keep in mind, Kaji, that as far as countries go we are fairly young. By joining us you will have a part to play in helping shape our evolving development. Don't be a stranger to public forums such as this and the input of ideas -- everyone's is welcome.
Posted by mongoose on September 3, 2007 04:10 PMKaji, you are doing good with your English. I could never write in a foreign language. I struggle with English.
Welcome.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 3, 2007 05:23 PMDoes anybody else notice that our esteemed family values man, John II, has avoided providing a straight, honest answer to mongoose three times, Sharon B twice and Thomas twice when asked if his approved civil contract between same sex marriage partners would be called a marriage, just like a traditional marriage?
Is that an example of family values and good morals, John II? Skirt around and avoid providing a direct yes or no answer no less than seven times? Shoot, you could work for the Bush administration being that slippery and evasive with your answers!
One more time, John II, a chance to demonstrate your honest family values and moral code:
If two people of the same sex have a civil ceremony and have a civil contract, would you recognize that as a Marriage?
Ken G
Posted by on September 3, 2007 05:34 PMKaji, welcome to the USA.
Thank you for not wasting any time, and calling over 60% of Americans bigots, I’m sure they all appreciate that. Did you even unpack yet?
“You people do more to hurt society and morals by forcing you or ideas of right, wrong, proper and natural down everyone else throat -- causes rebellion and more activity and demonstration against your bigotery.” – nicely put. I’m sure you calling people ugly names have nothing to do with you trying to force your ideas on others, is it? And better yet, do you have something against morals, right and wrong, proper and natural? Would you mind if somebody just barged into your home and took everything, because to them it’s the right thing to do? And if you can’t tell the difference between right and wrong, why would you care?
“Why make walls around people and make all live like you?” – Tell me the names of those bad Americans who forced you to come here and have to put up with it, I’ll make sure they don’t get away with it.
"morals, right and wrong, proper and natural"
Why should I have to accept your definition of these? Why don't you accept mine? Why don't we find common ground in between?
Your way or the highway?
Nice welcome to a new person.You question her values because she won't accept yours, the American standards are better than hers. Way to demonstrate the American closed minded bigot is alive and doing well. You putz...
Posted by on September 3, 2007 07:00 PMUno
Are you still playing the hard nosed old conservative and wreaking havoc on the sensibilities of those more sensitive than you?
Posted by mongoose on September 3, 2007 07:07 PMUno,
You keep trying to infer that the people who support gay equality are guilty of the same things as people who are opposed to it because we are trying to force our beliefs on them just as they are on us.
But what you continually fail to grasp is that we are not trying to enact any laws that will directly affect their lives.
Do you understand and acknowledge that?
We have never tried to pass an Amendment 2 type law that would prevent heterosexuals from having legal recourse if they were fired or denied public accommodations because of their sexual orientation.
We have never tried to pass laws making it illegal for heterosexuals to adopt, even if the child was a planned conception that they were part of.
We have never tried to pass laws that deny heterosexuals the opportunity to marry the consenting adult of their choice.
The laws we seek to enact are only meant to secure the equality that we are guaranteed by the constitution. They have no tangible impact on those who oppose them.
Both sides are advocating their values and beliefs, but we are not taking things the extreme degree that they are by trying to enact laws that marginalize them as citizens.
I ask you to understand and acknowledge this. To ignore or reject it indicates that you are more invested in rhetoric than reality.
Posted by Thomas on September 3, 2007 07:09 PMAnon at 7:00 I assume you know what a putz is?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 3, 2007 07:10 PMPost 07:00 PM, I assume you addressed it to me.
First, Kaji means “rudder” in Japanese, and from that I’m not sure if you can tell male from female. In fact it’s more like male. Please don’t be so “closed minded”.
Also, if you want to change something, then by definition you are the one intruding on something already in place. So, your logic sounds…rather puzzling to say the least.
Mongoose, yes I am. Others more sensitive? I didn’t know that calling people bigots was sensitive, but I’ll take your word for it. So far I’ve refrained my self from doing it, but just a matter of time…
Posted by Uno on September 3, 2007 07:25 PMMr. Uno, I not Japanese, from Indonesia. Full name to hard for most to say. Kajitansotiaki, Kaji' for short is easyer.
I don't try to force you to take my beliefs. Maybe I ask wrong but why you force not just me but all others in America take you beliefs?
I married to American man and have 2 childs. Yet I don't see why married has to be 1 man 1 woman?
Sorry if I make you mad.
Posted by Kaji' on September 3, 2007 07:29 PMUno
I'm proud of you. Keep a stiff upper lip. Ad hominen games really do diminish arguments. A little gentle jab and jibe keeps it interesting. Name calling is a killer to discussion.
Give ol' Kaji a break. He/She may be having difficulty expressing things in English and comes across a little blunt.
See you later. I'm taking the wife to Outback as contrition for ignoring her the last couple of days...damn dog house is uncomfortable....
Posted by mongoose on September 3, 2007 07:35 PMI did not compose the following but thought it was very well written. It was posed on the www.youdebate.com site under the issue of gay marriage.
I do not know who the author is but I give them full credit for their words.
"The burden of proof is on opponents to gay adoption/marriage/homosexuality in general.
American society is founded on the notion of negative liberty (as posited by John Locke), which states basically that the limits of one person's freedoms is only defined by how those freedoms infringe (or not) on other peoples' freedoms.
Gays do not have to justify what they want or do; conservatives must give good reasons why they should not be allowed to.
Religion is not a suitable basis for such a reason, because religious doctrine does not direct law in america (so sayeth the separation of church and state). beyond that, there is no scientific (social, physiological, or otherwise) evidence that supports any claim that there is anything wrong with homosexuality, including gays rights to adoption and marriage.
When it comes down to it, one always finds conservatives' arguments are predicated not on any logical thought process, but rather on prejudice (disgust, fear, discomfort, whatever). It always comes back to that. All of their logic is specious. They start with a prejudice, and then just search for arguments that superficially support it. that is no way to pursue truth, or a path towards a better society.
So...in reference to marriage specifically, marriage is actually not a bond under God (not necessarily anyways, and certainly not for atheists/agnostics). Rather it is a legal contract recognized by the American courts.
Since the judicial process should be separate from religious doctrine, why should a religious position have any bearing on that civil process?
Besides, not all religions even oppose gay marriage or homosexuality in general. When the Mormon Church tried to represent all of religion against the gay activists in Hawaii, a Buddhist sect stepped in and reminded them it has more members then them in Hawaii, and has no problem with same-sex marriage."
And here's another worthwhile quote:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
Thomas Jefferson
Posted by Thomas on September 3, 2007 07:38 PMMongoose, I want to go with you….no, not to the doghouse, to the Outback.
Posted by Uno on September 3, 2007 08:17 PMThomas, your 07:09 post looks fishy.
If you want to get married to get more benefits that it will raise the cost, thus impact on other people.
“Both sides are advocating their values and beliefs, but we are not taking things the extreme degree that they are by trying to enact laws that marginalize them as citizens.” – come on Thomas, you guys been kicking Christian groups out of public schools left and right, while creating gay groups in the same. Who are you kidding? Advocating the gay lifestyle to youngsters as perfectly acceptable, even if parents disagree with it is not extreme? What was all that at the Boulder high school a couple of months back all about than? Have sex regardless of gender, feel free to do whatever, try whatever drugs you desire, I’ve heard the tape recording with my own ears, so don’t tell me it’s not happening. How many of these kids gonna die as a result of that, Thomas, and who’s gonna be responsible? I bet you not gonna volunteer.
Dear Kaji, it takes a lot more to make me mad than what you said, I’m not mad at you. My interpretation of your name was wrong, sorry. As it’s stands right now, most people believes that a marriage should be 1 man 1 woman, for various reasons. It is also the current law. This law is being challenged by people claiming that it was never valid to begin with. So, the way I see it, the people who wants to make the change from what we have is the ones forcing their view on others, and not the other way around. It’s like playing chess, and the looser wants to change the rules claming that it was always wrong, but not as simple as that. Thank you for replying.
Posted by Uno on September 3, 2007 09:15 PM“To ignore or reject it indicates that you are more invested in rhetoric than reality.” – here is the reality Thomas, please stay out of or schools, I don’t want my kids to die from AIDS, stay out of our wallet, we pay enough benefits (actually way too much already), and the men’s restroom, if you don’t know how to behave. And religion still has nothing to do with this.
Sorry I’m so blunt, you just kept pushing me.
Uno, none of that applies to lesbians. So now what do you say?
Can my lesbian AIDS free, fully employed friends get married? Their kids are all grown and they are grandmothers now.
You are a very angry man. All that stuff about Christian`s being kicked out of school came from people like me who want religion free schools, not homosexuals.
You are blaming homosexuals for problems they did not cause.
Children can not, I repeat this, can not be talked into switching sexual preference.
Some school children are gay, letting them know others are too, helps them.
Your kids are safe, but what in Gods world would you do, or who would you blame, if one of them, or one of your grand kids is gay?
Please, please think about that.
Anyone can have a gay child, grandchild etc.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 3, 2007 09:51 PMAnd there you go again, Uno...
Lumping gays in with the great morass of 'villains' that you fear and blaming them all for everything that you disapprove of regardless of whether they had anything to do with it or not.
Let me ask you something, Uno...
You seem to expect public institutions to accommodate religion...but do you expect churches to give a platform to anyone in the public realm that has beliefs and/or values that differ from theirs?
I doubt it. You want a double standard.
And once again..with your reference to the Boulder High issue..you have reverted back to your slippery slope rhetoric while infering, and very falsely so, that a gay organization had something to do with it.
And since you're so worried about kids dying, Uno...why don't you think about this...
THIRTY THREE PERCENT of all teen suicides are gay youth.
Teenagers who are so afriad of being different..who have been conditioned throughout their lives, by their churches and politicians, by the negative portrayals they see in the media and even by families and friends, to believe that they will ostracized and unloved because something that they don't understand and feel powerless to control...the feelings that go along with their emerging sexual orientation ...that they would rather die.
I know about this stuff, Uno, because I have seen it first hand. I worked as a facilitator for a gay youth group several years ago and worked with dozens of kids who had attempted suicide at one point or another in their young lives.
Can you wrap your mind around the the reality of a 17 year old kid who has multiple scars from slitting her wrists in repeated attempts to end her life?
Do you even care?
Don't pretend that you care about kids, Uno, unless you care about all kids.
And as for your first line...
"If you want to get married to get more benefits that it will raise the cost, thus impact on other people."
First of all..don't just make a statement like that...PROOVE IT.
Secondly...you're proving that YOU are the ones who want SPECIAL RIGHTS.
You're ok with gay people paying taxes that help pay for you and your spouse to have marital benefits...but when we want the same.."oh, we can't do that because then that would cost us"...
Wow! Talk about a unbelievably selfish, self-serving and incredibly SPECIOUS argument...not to mention absolutely unconstitutional.
Do you understand what you are saying?
That's like saying to someone..."Even though you're equally qualifed as the other applicants for this position, we cannot offer you the same benefits they are getting because that would mean that they would to contribute to them out of their earning...oh, but...you will still have to contribute towards their benefits out of your salary".
You cannot deny someone equal opportunity out of consideration for the finances of those who have the opportunities.
It would seem that if you can't allow us to have the same opportunities you have, the only logical and fair solution is that all the legal benefits of marriage, should be disolved.
Are you going to be the first to volunteer to give up all your legal marital benefits, Uno, if it will put the whole gay marriage issue to rest?
Posted by Thomas on September 3, 2007 10:07 PM“To ignore or reject it indicates that you are more invested in rhetoric than reality.” – here is the reality Thomas, please stay out of or schools, I don’t want my kids to die from AIDS, stay out of our wallet, we pay enough benefits (actually way too much already), and the men’s restroom, if you don’t know how to behave. And religion still has nothing to do with this.
Sorry I’m so blunt, you just kept pushing me.
Posted by Uno on September 3, 2007 09:24 PM
...and now you've showed your true face, Uno.
By the way...do you have a deed for YOUR schools?
Cause I've been helping pay the mortgage on them. Or, in your self-centeredness, were you not aware that we pay taxes, too.
And read my post above...I'll "stay out of your wallet".if you stay out mine..and while you're at it...stay of my bedroom and keep your hands of our constitution.
And as for the comments about your "kids dying of AIDS" ....
At least we could tell the Klan by the nice, white hats they wore.
Oh..and Uno..
"Sorry to be blunt...but you pushed me".
Posted by Thomas on September 3, 2007 10:23 PMThomas, if you push them long enough and hard enough, the truth comes out.
.I wonder if anyone has ever changed their minds on this issue, without finding out they have loved ones or friends who are gay?
I suspect Uno has boys and he watches them every day to make sure they don`t go gay.
God help them if they do, because Uno will not.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 3, 2007 11:24 PMSharon,
Remember the neighbor kid's dad in "American Beauty"?
...Uno...
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 06:56 AMSharon,
I don't really feel that I was pushing Uno.
I asked him to understand that there is a difference between gay americans fighting for and defending their right to be treated equally under the law which has no tangible impact on the people who oppose us...whereas they are trying to pass laws that do have a very tangible impact our our lives.
As you noted before in your response to him, he is lumping gays together in with a large group of people that he scapegoats for all the problems that he percieves in society (i.e. separation of church and state).
I was quite honestly dismayed at the vitrol that came back in his response because earlier posts he had made in this thread led me to believe that although he still had his doubts and suspicions he was at least making the attempt to consider things from perspectives other than his own.
As I've always tried to represent...I respect everyone's right to have viewpoints that differ from mine...but I draw the line when they try to enact those viewpoints as laws that directly impact my or anyone else's liberty.
And yes, people do change their mind on this issue. Here is something I wish more people really thought about and understood.
In 1969, the Stonewall riots in NYC happened because cops were still harrassing and arresting gays for simply dancing together in gay bars.
Today, we're talking about the right of gay couples to have the right to marry.
In 1992, Amendment 2 which would have denied gay people the right to have legal recourse if they were fired or denied public accommodations passed by a margin of only six percent (47 to 53).
Ten years earlier that margin would have been much greater.
Today, polls have indicated that a similar measure would fail by a greater margin than it passed 15 years ago.
The tide is turning, but slowly.
And it's because of people like you.
People are realizing that every gay person...is somebody's brother or sister, aunt or uncle, neighbor, co-worker, best friend..etc..
We're not the boogeymen that we were once portrayed to be.
More and more non-gay people are "coming out of the closet" and saying.."hey, I know gay people and they're not that different that anyone else .they get up every day and go to work, they have mortgages and bills, they pay taxes, they worry about making ends meet, etc...leave them alone and let them live their lives".
We know that we wouldn't have made the gains towards securing the equality that we shouldn't have to fight for anway if it weren't for people like you...
So, THANK YOU!
Posted by Thomas on September 4, 2007 07:33 AMAnd Sharon...
You bring up another point.
Does Uno or any other person opposed to gay equality believe that my parents PLANNED to have a gay child?
My mother, an open minded loving woman, struggled with my coming out because she had to let go of all the things that she thought I would be and accept me for who I was.
But her love for me was never in doubt and today she's incredibly supportive and only wants me to be happy and have all the same opportunities that my brothers and sisters have. (Our father is deceased).
Gay people exist in every culture, in every country, in every possile financial and political scenario and have existed throughout all of history.
There are gay people in Iran and Iraq just like there are gay people in America.
Oral Roberts had a gay son. Cher had a gay daughter. Newt Gingrich has a gay sister.
I wish people like Uno would understand that gays aren't "those" people...but as I said in my previous post...we are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters, etc.
Frankly, I hope nobody related to Uno ever turns out to be gay, because I don't think he is up to the challenge of loving someone unconditionally..but I hope he proves me wrong.
I’m on vacation, so watch out
Sharon, we had this conversation back a couple of months ago. Lesbians die from AIDS too, and other STD, supposedly from having sex with men?
When you said “Thomas, if you push them long enough and hard enough, the truth comes out.” – The truth comes out? Once again, I’ve told everyone months ago exactly what I think of this whole issue. I think it was a post to mommay, and others, apparently I have to keep repeating my self to make up for your lack of memory.
Thomas, the issue was gays marriage, which I still don’t know what that has to do with sen. Larry Craig.
Once again, I think gay sex is sick (and I said that dozens of times), marriage is between 1 man 1woman.
I don’t have to be pushed to tell you exactly what I think, I will get more blunt after while, to drive the point home.
You said gays have issues with inheritance, well so is everybody else.
Same on adoption.
“Frankly, I hope nobody related to Uno ever turns out to be gay” – not to my knowledge, may be they hiding…
Thomas, “I was quite honestly dismayed at the vitrol that came back in his response because earlier posts he had made in this thread led me to believe that although he still had his doubts and suspicions he was at least making the attempt to consider things from perspectives other than his own.” – yes did consider your perspective, I did’t just give you that impression.
But than you said “To ignore or reject it indicates that you are more invested in rhetoric than reality.” – Now, that’s something I will not take from you, or Christians or anybody else.
I even put up with being called a putz without retaliation. Geez…
Thomas, about amendment 2; I think non-work related discrimination in the workplace is wrong. Period. Some jobs, especially professional positions require dress code, proper attitude, etc. You guys all know that. Putting in things like race and sexual orientation can be a double-edged sword, here is why;
You hire a black guy or a gay, or when the law went into effect (no, not amendment 2, that was struck down) they already had a job at your company (lets say you’re the boss). They under-perform, and it’s obvious (yes it does happen). You hesitate to do anything about it, because you don’t want a lawsuit. Resentment among co-workers sets in, productivity goes down, what do you think is gonna happen? The dude gets fired anyway, and may or may not ends up in court. More importantly, do you think that boss (may be you) will seek out another black or gay to hire? I bet, not anytime soon.
I think you guys (and I thought I made that clear) keep missing my point. I don’t want marriage between 1 men and 1 woman being messed with, regardless of sexual orientation or number of people involved. That includes gays, swingers, heteros, dogs, cats, sheep, the surgically altered, ok?
You all harping on gay rights, while I included everyone in this issue. I think it makes a big difference.
Thomas, I remember you calling me a bigot more than once, so am I a bigot for not wanting 3 heteros married also?
Uno...you are exposing your ignorance and intolerance to everyone quite abashedly now.
Unlike you, apparently, I would not judge an applicant based on their color or sexual orientation or on whether I had problems with previous employee who shared similar attributes.
Every person deserves to be judged on their own qualifications.
So, to answer your question, Uno...even I had had a previous black or gay person who underperformed, I would not hesitate to hire another black or gay person for that same position if they were qualified...because I don't take those things into consideration when I hire, choose my friends, etc.
You obviously do.
I'm done talking with you, Uno. It's futile to try have an intelligent discourse with someone who doesn't respect another person because of things they've decided about them without even knowing them..which is what you're doing in regard to gays.
You said it yourself, you "think it's sick"
Well, I think you're a hateful, narrow minded bigot and to me, that's sicker than anything.
There. We both know how we feel about each other. Let's just leave each other alone.
Posted by Thomas on September 4, 2007 10:36 AMThomas,
Uno has expressed his beliefs concerning both gays and gay marriage. By its very nature, a belief-system is not debateable. You are not going to '"convert" him, anymore than he will "convert" you.
Within the context of the expressed belief system, the fixed absolutes are unmodifiable. And, what to an outsider, or non-believer, might be seen to be "bigoted", "prejudice", etc., etc., is of no concern whatsoever to the believer; these concepts having no reality in the belief-system itself.
Elsewhere, on other topics, it is possible to discourse, debate, discuss, and otherwise enjoy exchange of ideas.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 4, 2007 10:49 AMThat last exchange went well...
Posted by on September 4, 2007 10:59 AMWhatever Thomas, and regardless of what you or I think, (you simply ignored when I said I do not support it, but you can think of me whatever you want) it is going on. May be you should remove you blinders once in a while, instead of accusing someone else the same. If you think that things like that is not happening, that you’re either very naïve or ignorant. I merely pointed out the cause and effect, and how some laws which looks good on the surface initially, can backfire. Now I’m the racist bigot, lol. Whatever.
Yes, I think it is sick, I think many thing going on today is sick, so what? What’s going on in men’s restrooms today is sick, Thomas, I’ve posted a link to an article abut it, if it’s a lie, then clear it up, provide proof. Why attack me, I’m not the one doing it! I’m not the one who goes to public places to have sex with strangers, and by chance die from that encounter. And go in public and protest the government for not spending enough on it, because you can’t keep your zipper up. Narrow minded bigot? – lol, actually that’s pretty funny. Therefore it would be logical that if I hated gays and wanted them dead, I would be the champion supporter of that lifestyle. Well, I’m not. Ever since AIDS arrived in this country some 800,000 gay man died from it. Think about that.
Thomas, your thank you means the world to me. Thank you back.
I should have said when "you push the truth at them".
Posted by Sharon B. on September 4, 2007 11:47 AM
“So, to answer your question, Uno...even I had had a previous black or gay person who underperformed, I would not hesitate to hire another black or gay person for that same position if they were qualified...because I don't take those things into consideration when I hire, choose my friends, etc. “ – missed the point again, not surprising. The point was that if you fire that underferfoming person and they take you to court claiming discrimination, you have to prove that you did not discriminate. If you can’t than you pay. Simple as that. And may be you don’t, but thousands of potential employers will take that into consideration. Right or wrong, it’s a fact. I don’t know why you said “You obviously do.”. If somebody brings an issue to the surface, than that person automatically agrees with it? Strange logic, very strange. Perhaps it’s part of the reason why we can’t have an honest discussion about race and gays. Paranoia.
Posted by Uno on September 4, 2007 12:27 PMActually, Uno, the reason you can't have an honest discussion about gays is because you're locked into your dogma.
You have a memory from childhood that is the motivation for your bigotry, as you've said before, and sadly, even with this self awareness, you are unwilling to reflect honestly on the issue.
You dress up your bigotry in all sorts of bullsh*t, but ultimately, you hate gays because you were apparently abused by one.
Anyone seeking to debate you on this issue would save themselves time by understanding this.
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 12:39 PMCharles, thanks for bringing something up I try to forget. At least you could provide an example of what you meant “You dress up your bigotry in all sorts of bullsh*t, but ultimately, you hate gays”.
Keeping 1 mommy 1daddy family is hate? Did you fall down the stairs and hit your head?
Uno,
I bring it up because it is the reason you gave ultimately, when pressed, for your feelings of "sickness" about gays.
Keeping one mommy and one daddy is hate when a child would otherwise have no parents at all, and when perfectly able and competent people are denied the rights you enjoy because of your personal prejudices.
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 01:29 PMCharles, in part, but not entirely true. I try to repress my bad experiences when dealing with people. For example I don’t hate Thomas (I don’t even know who he is!), I just don’t support him or other gays to get married. To you and others it equals hate, to me it’s not.
You guys keep bringing up special circumstances, which to my knowledge is not even against the law, and that’s what puzzles me.
I don’t support gay marriage because I believe that it would further diminish the already diluted importance of what a marriage should be.
Not because of your assumptions; my personal prejudices or hate. And I don’t really care what you assume about me, because you tend to assume the worst about people you disagree with. May be you doing that just to piss people off, hell, I don’t know, sometimes I do the same. Thomas is probably sitting at his computer right now, working on a detailed plan on how to bash my head in with an icepick, who knows.
Uno, you claim to have come to your "one daddy, one mama, no marriage for gays" position "Not because of your( my) assumptions; my personal prejudices or hate."
The reason you give is: "I don’t support gay marriage because I believe that it would further diminish the already diluted importance of what a marriage should be.
As Old Grouch points out often, you "believe" things to be true, but you never really get into the nuts and bolts of why you believe them. You rattle off rhetorical reasons that have no basis in science. You never provide any research to support your faulty premise. You just don't have the weight of evidence on your side, so you meander around the real point.
Given this lack of rigorous analysis, I have to stay with my assumption: You just dislike gays because of personal prejudice.
So either put up some facts to support your position, or I will continue with my default understanding of your reasons for expressing prejudice. That way I won't have to bother talking to you about it.
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 02:59 PMUno:--
"...further diminish the already diluted importance of what a marriage should be"
Please explain what the importance of marriage is.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 03:20 PMNuts and bolts? For one thing that’s what research results on the subject point to (do your own), you and Old Grouch likes this stuff. Better yet, why don’t you show me an unbiased research study that shows that 1 dad and mom is not the best. Show me a study which claims that children are better off in a single parent home or with 2 dads, no mom. Don’t point to one example, but in our society as a whole.
Posted by Uno on September 4, 2007 03:23 PMIf I have to explain that, you’re a lost cause to begin with, post 03:20.
Posted by Uno on September 4, 2007 03:26 PMUno claimed again, without providing evidence:
"...that’s what research results on the subject point to"
Which research specifically?
-I don't expect you will answer, which will help validate my premise.
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 03:33 PMUno:--
"....you’re a lost cause to begin with..."
No; I've just lived in glorious, blissful "sin" with the same woman for 19 years and we have three fairly normal (can't give definitive definition of normal) kids.
So my inquiry is legitimate; Please explain what the importance of marriage is.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 03:58 PMOK, Charles, here is one:
http://www.clasp.org/publications/marriage_brief3_annotated.pdf
Posted by Uno on September 4, 2007 04:15 PMPost 03:58 let me remind you that I’m not religious, albeit our paths do run parallel in some cases, so your “sin” comment is meaningless to me.
So, you only renting an apartment instead of buying one, that is what that means to me, and you can take that however you like.
The importance of marriage is a ceremonial commitment to show your loved one and family that you are serious about making that commitment and ready to carry on the bloodline, to bring up and nurture your parent’s grandchildren in a healthy environment. So, that is what marriage means to me in a nutshell.
It’s must be working because research shows that married couples outlive and healthier than any other group.
Uno
Good afternoon, my friend. I just dropped in while between some very boring meetings and noticed your last post. Permit me to play devils advocate
just to be ornery.
~~~~~~~~~~
"...importance of marriage is a ceremonial commitment to show your loved one and family that you are serious about making that commitment..."
Unless you can correctly assume that all heterosexual couples both desire and are capable of procreation, this definition can fit for homosexual marriage also.
~~~~~~~~~~
"It’s must be working because research shows that married couples outlive and [are] healthier than any other group"
Does this mean that you don't want homosexual couples to live as long as heterosexuals?
Cao -- I'll try to check back later if the windbags don't drone all evening....
Posted by mongoose on September 4, 2007 04:52 PMSure, Mongoose
“Unless you can correctly assume that all heterosexual couples both desire and are capable of procreation, this definition can fit for homosexual marriage also.” – that is correct, it would. I understand that not all couples wish to have a child. But a few people’s decision doesn’t derail the main purpose.
“Does this mean that you don't want homosexual couples to live as long as heterosexuals?” – that is a Charles B style assumption. The answer is; I don’t make personal choices for people. If you want to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, go ahead, I merely point out that that’s a bad choice, and protest if you do it over my house. I may have something to say about the cost of cleanup too, if it involves tax dollars.
Ciao, Mongoose, deflate those windbags.
Uno:--
why do you insult mongoose like that. charles b uses circular logic which crashes into a wall of personal insult of anyone he's debating. he doesn't discuss with anyone but just tries to humiliate them to make himself feel better.
CA
Posted by on September 4, 2007 05:48 PMUno
Taking a break while a bunch of attorneys are debating take menus...gonna be a looong night.
"If you want to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, go ahead, I merely point out that that’s a bad choice, and protest if you do it over my house"
After the military I made of 1100 club jumps, never tried it without a chute; and only (mis)landed in residential twice.
A general question. If you do approve of gay civil unions performed under some type of ritual which reflect a loving relationship, commitment and financial rights, what would you propose to call it.
If it looks like a marriage, binds like a marriage and is done for the same reasons as a marriage between heterosexuals, isn't it a .....
You know, if it looks like duck, waddles like a duck, sounds like a duck...
Gotta go -- finishing orders now......
Posted by on September 4, 2007 06:36 PMYou’re a brave man Mongoose, I assume it was you. Let me point out to you that jumping without one is probably a bad choice.
“A general question. If you do approve of gay civil unions performed under some type of ritual which reflect a loving relationship, commitment and financial rights, what would you propose to call it.” – I’d call it nonsense. Gays chosen that lifestyle for them selves (that’s gonna create a cat 6 hurricane), not me.
Uno
You're right, that's going to cause a Cat 6! Of, course, Thomas may have already already given up on you and let you skate.
I'm heading out to the car to head home. I created my own little Cat 6 by informing the collection of legal beagles that I'm tired of ineffectual meetings and helping them pad their billing hours. So, hast la vista. My group is providing the financing (maybe), so they can't do much without me besides get their ducks in a row for a future meeting.
Speaking of ducks (notice that neat segue?) still not budgeting on calling a duck a duck in regard to gay marriages, I see. Well, it's a changing world -- careful,or you may get yourself caught in the vortex by accident (of course, that might be preferrable to being hit head on and not aware).
Posted by mongoose on September 4, 2007 07:50 PMThanks, Mongoose, I’ll put a helmet on…and tie down.
Posted by Uno on September 4, 2007 08:05 PMAnd the beat goes on...
BOISE, Idaho - Sen. Larry Craig is reconsidering his decision to resign after his arrest in a Minnesota airport sex sting and may still fight for his Senate seat, his spokesman said Tuesday evening.
"It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," said Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital.
"We're still preparing as if Sen. Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we're able to stay in the fight — and stay in the Senate."
Posted by on September 4, 2007 10:01 PM