King Family Split on Gay Marriage

From the AP, via the Boston Globe,

Martin Luther King Jr.'s youngest child lighted a torch at her father's tomb last month to kick off a march advocating a ban on gay marriage, creating a strong image linking the slain civil rights icon to today's heated social debate.

But nine months earlier, King's widow defended the rights of gays and lesbians in a speech at a New Jersey college….

The Kings' youngest child, Bernice King, helped lead thousands of people in an Atlanta march last month that had an antigay agenda. The march, organized by Bishop Eddie Long and his 25,000-member New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, also advocated issues such as education overhauls and affordable healthcare, but its first goal listed was an amendment to "fully protect marriage between one man and one woman."…

Alveda C. King -- niece of the slain civil rights leader, founder of the faith-based King for America Inc., and a vocal opponent of gay marriage -- said she joined her cousin in the Atlanta march because she believes her uncle never intended gay rights to be part of the civil rights movement. "Bernice says herself that she knows deep within that her father did not march and did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage," Alveda King said.

Whole thing, which notes that Martin Luther King, Jr. never addressed the issue of gay rights, here.

Comments

[Henry]

To be blunt, who gives a fuck what the children of great men and women have to say about anything?

Go out and do something 1/100th as significant as your father or mother, then come back and talk to me.

Somehow the Reagan spawn come to mind....

[Ultimate Fitness Program]

Right on, Henry.

[The Real Bill]

Oh, Henry! So true, so true...

Not that Bush I was great or anything, but does anyone have a single doubt about whether or not Bush II would be President if it weren't for the career of his father? Whatever one might think of the current Prez, I have little doubt that Bush II would have been just another middle-class Texan. The man exudes averageness.

[Eric II]

Is their anything more pathetic than the sight of descendants of a famous man trying to draw attention to themselves by using their family name to push a pet cause that the famous man never paid attention to?

[Rick Barton]

Michael Reagan's pretty good.

[crimethink]

OK, I'll bite. Should the govt endorse unions between adults and 14-year-olds who demonstrate a mature understanding of the commitment? To say otherwise is to deny the right of pedophiles to marry those they love and are loved by.

I await rebuttal from everyone's favorite happily married bisexual francophile law student.

[Ultimate Fitness Program]

Bill: Would Kennedy have been president, under those same circumstances? Heck, Bush I had some considerable advantages, too. The list of self-made presidents is pretty short, and I'll (perhaps naively, waiting for correction) put Clinton and Reagan on the list. It generally helps to be born to power.

[Stateless Marriage Now!]

CrimeThink asks:
"Should the govt endorse unions..."

From my perspective, what comes next is irrelevant.

Why is it the business of government to meddle in the private affairs of others *at all*? Before circumscribing other people's marriages, please justify the involvement of the state in marriage in the first place.

[Eric II]

"Should the govt endorse unions between adults and 14-year-olds who demonstrate a mature understanding of the commitment?"

You should ask the Republican-dominated Texas state government. It, along with several other states, continues to "endorse" such marriages.

[madpad]

I'm mystified that ANYONE, especially relatives, would stoop to assume what King would or wouldn't have supported 36 years after he died.

King was only 39 years old when he died. Still, he was a pretty well-educated fellow. A lot of time has passed. Who knows how his opinions would have been shaped if he'd lived. In 1968, Gay Rights (as an issue) wasn't even on the radar screen.

It's one thing to appropriate someone's rhetoric for your own cause. It's another thing entirely to assume they would support it.

[Scott Harris]

On the subject of gay rights, perhaps Dr. King thought actions and associations spoke louder than words in the person of Bayard Rustin.
http://www.rustin.org/biography.html

[dead_elvis]

"in the person of Bayard Rustin."

Thanks for the link. Sounds like he should have a holiday himself!

[The Real Bill]

That was a great link. Thanks, Scott. I wouldn't be surprised if most of humanity's greatest heroes are mostly or completely unknown.

[Jennifer]

Nice to know that the progeny of Martin Luther King and the Grand Knights of the KKK finally have something to agree on.

[EG]

Maybe we should poll the descendents of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to determine what they believe their relatives would have thought about Gay marriage. It's equally relevant.

(right on Henry)

[Phil]

Should the govt endorse unions between adults and 14-year-olds who demonstrate a mature understanding of the commitment? To say otherwise is to deny the right of pedophiles to marry those they love and are loved by.

Keeping up with my continuining interest in pedantry, "pedophile" is not the droid . . . er, word you're looking for. It's "ephebophile."

And, even in light of the fact that I see nothing morally wrong with an 18-year-old marrying a sufficiently mature and understanding 14-year-old, I'll ignore your attempt to equate homosexuality with the hot-button word "pedophilia," the latter of which is almost always understood to denote a lack of consent and involving pre-teen children. If you can't argue honestly, you aren't worth talking to.

[Dark Helmet]

Wait! There's something all of you should know:

My uncle's great-great-grandfather's first cousin's wife's roommate in college was George Washington's sister's husband's second cousin.

So what does that make my opinion? um, actually, completely irrelevant.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Gay people have my sympathies. They never get a break. I simply don't understand why some "straight" people are so pathologically obsessed over the issue, and I'm far from being Mr. Rainbow here.

[crimethink]

Stateless Marriage Now!,

I totally agree, but the question at hand assumes that state-sanctioned marriage isn't a concept that's going away.

Eric II,

That is true only with parental consent. What about a 14-year-old who is emotionally mature and in love with a 40-year-old, but whose parents are for whatever reason against the marriage? We don't make 18-year-olds get parental permission; that's discrimination!

Phil,

Your pedantry is appreciated, but I was harldly trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia (or ephebophilia). I was pointing out the logical conclusion of one of the more cherished arguments of gay marriage advocates.

[crimethink]

Also Phil,

Considering I specified that the would-be marriage in question was consensual, your accusations of dishonesty on my part are way off the mark.

[Phil]

1. It's only a "logical conclusion" if one assumes, absent any other context, that we should always treat adults and nonadults the same way, which you're going to have to establish first if you want to proceed with that argument.

2. I'm sure you just chose the word "pedophilia" neutrally and not because of its connotations, right? Please. For the same reason you didn't specifiy the age of the "adult" (18? 25? 60?) wanting to marry a 14-year-old. I'll maintain my skepticism about your motivations, thanks very much.

[crimethink]

Phil,

1. I don't consider limiting marriage to one man and one woman to be discrimination against gays, since both gay and straight men are restricted in the same way; govt will only endorse their marriage to unmarried adult females to whom they are not related.

But when I offer this argument, it is often countered that I'm missing the point; since a gay man wouldn't be in love with a woman, this restriction is discriminatory, because everyone has the right to govt endorsement of their marriage to the person they love. But if this is indeed a fundamental right, why should it be denied to minors?

2. The age of the adult in question is irrelevant; in NY, at least, an 18-year-old and a 60-year-old would be equally guilty of statutory rape in this situation.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

Of course you were trying to equate the two; there was no other reason for your red herring.

I don't consider limiting marriage to one man and one woman to be discrimination against gays, since both gay and straight men are restricted in the same way; govt will only endorse their marriage to unmarried adult females to whom they are not related.

This is as absurd as Virginia's argument in Loving that Virginia's anti-miscegination law wasn't discriminatory because it treated both parties equally. Of course its discriminatory; indeed, it can't help but be discriminatory, since it favors one type of relationship over another. Take your sophistic bullshit elsewhere.

[PintofStout]

crimethink,
I don't think gays need the government to endorse their marriages just for warm fuzziness. It may have something to do with all the inherant "priviledges" of a state-sanctioned marriage. That is where the inequality derives from. That is also why the government shouldn't be involved in the first place.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

BTW, a pedophile is a person who favors sexual encounters (or has sexual fantasies about such) with prepubescent children; meaning children under the age of thirteen.

[Eric II]

"That is true only with parental consent."

So? The bottom line is that the state is willing to endorse a marriage in which one of the parties is a 14-year-old, and the other is an adult. The approval of the 14-year-old's parents doesn't change the underlying nature of the relationship.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

But if this is indeed a fundamental right, why should it be denied to minors?

Obviously because on average a minor is not expected to have the functional ability to make such decisions, just as minors are denied the right to make legally binding contracts, are restricted from having abortions, etc.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink is of course trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good here. Because there is some fuzziness in the area of minors he would argue that consenting adult homosexuals (that is those over the age of 18) are all wet in the area of marraige rights.

[jbk]

crimethink,

1. If we are not allowed to put stateless marriage on the table because it is not likely to occur any time soon, then it is equally fallacious for you to bring up this situation as realistic. Most of the people on this board favor stateless marriage exactly bevcause it avoids my moral beliefs imposing costs on you.

2. The age of the boy in this case certainly does matter. In NY, for instance, a 14 year old girl is capable of consenting to a 17 year old boy, but not an 18 year old boy. A 15 year old girl is capable of consenting to an 18 year old boy, but not a 19 year old.

[Gary Gunnels]

jbk,

It also matters with regard to whether a prosecutor will press charges; an 18 year old HS guy screwing a 15 year old HS girl is less likely to receive his attention or a get charged than a 60 year old with a 14 year old.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

I simply don't understand why some "straight" people are so pathologically obsessed over the issue,

I've wondered the same. It's like an OCD-based reaction.

[Rhywun]

But if this is indeed a fundamental right, why should it be denied to minors?

Because minors aren't capable of making informed decisions to the same degree as adults. That's why they typically live with parent who raise them and teach them many things, the ability to make wise decisions being one of those things. Therefore, such a union cannot be considered "consensual".

govt will only endorse their marriage to unmarried adult females to whom they are not related.

Are you trying to argue that governement should get out of marriage? Have you realized that in reality that will never, ever happen? That's why -- in the REAL world -- the only possible interpretation is that you are in favor of discrimination against gays.

[Gary Gunnels]

TPG,

Its for the same reasons that white and black people used to (and still sometimes do) reacted negatively to "interracial coupling"; it violates sexual mores and the like which are to be defended no matter how irrational they may be.

Regarding the King issue, this is just typical of how the formerly oppressed react to later groups who try to win freedom for themselves. That's happened time and time again throughout human history.

[jbk]

gg,

Right. I'm not really taking a position on how likely this is to be enforced, merely pointing out that the law in NY certainly does take the age difference into account, whereas the poster implied that it didn't.

[Gary Gunnels]

Rhywun,

crimethink is a "fag basher" who claims not to be. There really is no other way to interpret his/her sophistry and hostility regarding the issue. Of course, we've already witnessed crimethink's willingness to delve into ludditism, so what else should one expect?

[clarityiniowa]

What I can't wrap my head around is the "protection of marriage" concept. Somebody PLEASE explain to me how the two interior decorators down the street enjoying hospital visitation, inheritance rights, spousal rights regarding gov't entitlements that shouldn't be there in the first place, etc., either threatens the "institution" of marriage or my relationship with my wife in particular?

Usually, I can at least see the other guy's point, even if I don't agree with it. In this case, I really can't even grasp the concept. Am I stupid, or is it the concept?

[Gary Gunnels]

clarityiniowa,

There us no substantive argument behind the claim. Its all about "symbolism," prejudice, etc.

[dhex]

it's largely a case of magical warfare.

[clarityiniowa]

Gary, G., - I agree with you entirely. There doesn't seem to be any "there" there.

What puzzles me is why the other side seems to think the symbolism represents any kind of concrete threat. Threat to WHOM and exactly what form does that threat take?

We have a regional right-wing AM mouthpiece who, to his credit, admits that if it weren't for the supposed Biblical admonitions against homosexual behavior and those who practice it, there would be no concrete argument to make against it beyond the "icky" factor. But, he goes on to assert, as a thoroughgoing Calvinist, that the Biblical admonitions, in and of themselves, are paramount. He also tries to make the economic case that expanding the priviledges government grants to married couples to persons of the same sex will somehow make the country go bankrupt faster than it already is.

[jbk]

The Christian argument against gay marriage goes something like this:

Marriage is not a social contract. Marriage is not voluntary agreement between two people to care for each other. Marriage is a relationship created by god that a man and a woman may enter into.

This is why it really is possible for them to not care what gays are doing in their privacy of their own homes, and why they don't oppose civil unions. The word marriage itself has religious overtones to them; it does not merely designate a social contract. Note that this is also exactly why gay Christians won't be satisfied by civil unions; the word is just as important to them.

[Ben Webster]

?But when I offer this argument, it is often countered that I'm missing the point; since a gay man wouldn't be in love with a woman, this restriction is discriminatory, because everyone has the right to govt endorsement of their marriage to the person they love."

Then you should argue (as pointed out by Gary Gunnels) against interracial unions, as clearly, blacks and whites had equal rights: the right to marry an opposite-sex person of the same race.

Regardless, government sanction of any type of relationship over another is a violation of equal protection: if marriage isn?t an institution of protection, then what is? Homosexuals deserve, legally, all the protections afforded currently to married couples. Do homosexual unions deserve the word ?marriage?? I believe that legally, the answer is ?no,? as the government?s legitimate concern is legal protection, not social recognition. If this is a so-called ?separate but equal? system, then it is just that: separate but equal. Rather than considering a Vermont-like system a dual system, perhaps we should consider it a system with one bucket of rights with two different names. Leave cultural connotations to society.

That said, it seems redundant and arguably absurd to create a new name (or new system, depending on one?s view) for homosexual relationships, as they would be protected under Amendment IX. However, it seems the only currently-practical way to reconcile equal protection with majority opinion. Court decisions can only go so far before the tyranny of the majority raises its head.

Let heterosexuals have the word ?marriage,? at least for now.

[bill brennan]

Not all resistance to gay marriage is hate based as some of you,rather self-righteously,would like to think.There is a natural antipathy to profound social change that has people digging their heels in.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"What puzzles me is why the other side seems to think the symbolism represents any kind of concrete threat. Threat to WHOM and exactly what form does that threat take?"

The holy writ of the Abrahamic religions is very clear about what happens to those who stray their God's decrees: Fire and brimstone, Sodom and Gomorra, 40 days and nights of rain, smitting of bowels, etc.

To a significant number of Christians, that is not allegory,or myths created by harsh desert nomads, but literal truth. They are really and truly afraid that if homosexuality gains social acceptance, then God will show his displeasure in many nasty ways.

Was it any surprise that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson put the blame for 9-11 on gays, feminists and other secular movements that defy the Christian view of morality? Of course, these two assholes are really playing on the fears of Christians to rake in contributions from their flocks. (See James Randi's "The Faith Healers") However, if the fear didn't exist, they would not be able to capitalize on it.

Throw in apocalyptic propaganda like the "Left Behind" books (i.e. "Jesus is coming! Everyone look busy!") and the occassional Jeffery Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy ancedote and you have the formula for American homophopia.

[crimethink]

jbk,

Yes, I am aware of the laws in NY, which is why I said that a 60-year-old and an 18-year-old would both be guilty of statutory rape if they had sex with a 14-year-old. The legal status of a 17-year-old doing so wasn't mentioned because I was talking about teenagers marrying adults, not other teenagers.

[crimethink]

crimethink is a "fag basher" who claims not to be. There really is no other way to interpret his/her sophistry and hostility regarding the issue. Of course, we've already witnessed crimethink's willingness to delve into ludditism, so what else should one expect?

I'll leave it to the forum to decide which of us has a hostility problem.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"Not all resistance to gay marriage is hate based as some of you,rather self-righteously,would like to think.There is a natural antipathy to profound social change that has people digging their heels in."

Really? Isn't that sort of like saying that not all opposition to Civil Rights is based on racial hate as some of us "self-righteously" would like to think, and that there is a natural antipathy to profound... etc. etc. etc.?

"I don't really HATE blacks. I just don't think that they should have the same rights as caucasians."

Hatred doesn't exist in a vacuum. If bigotry toward homosexuality isn't the motivating factor, then what causes the antipathy to change?

[clarityiniowa]

Akira McKenzie - Nice post. The problem, though is turning that rock-solid foundation of "revealed truth" into applicable civil law. For that, armchair theologians need something a little more rhetorically airy, thus the "threat to marriage" argument. The fact that it is so nebulous makes it both hard to grasp if you aren't already a believer, and almost impossible to argue against.

[clarityiniowa]

Akira M - As to the "hate" thesis, though, I think you may be speaking in absolutes where it may not be appropriate. To swallow the bigotry argument, you have to swallow the idea that homosexuality is morally neutral, so that it is impossible to "love the sinner, but hate the sin." Personally, I do swallow that argument, so it isn't a stretch for me.

I do have some issues, however, with the idea of any group of people who elicit a certain set of psychosexual attitudes and behaviors claiming "rights" on that particular ground alone. The problem lies in the concept of group rights itself, as codified in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a well-intentioned piece of legislation which, unfortuately, has opened the door to this sort of confusing argument.

To Christians' credit, I believe many of them are sincere when they say that their aversion to homosexuality is rooted in their sexual and religious mores, and thus non-negotiable, but that they harbor no hatred toward people who elicit homosexual behavior insofar as they don't victimize others. That is no more hypocritical to me than a mother seeking to discipline her child for a behavioral infraction. Does she, by doing so, elicit "hatred" for her child? Or, one may love a dear friend, but have problems with the friend's habit of telling Polish jokes in public. Does not sanctioning that behavior automatically translate into "hatred" for the friend?

[crimethink]

Of course, we've already witnessed crimethink's willingness to delve into ludditism, so what else should one expect?

I assume you're referring to our recurring less-than-friendly discussions of abortion; but while I acknowledge that one side of that debate clings to dogma in the face of contradictory evidence offered by science in recent decades, it is not the one I'm on.

[bill brennan]

Akira-maybe it's just inertia.We all can't be as hip and forward thinking as you.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"To Christians' credit, I believe many of them are sincere when they say that their aversion to homosexuality is rooted in their sexual and religious mores, and thus non-negotiable, but that they harbor no hatred toward people who elicit homosexual behavior insofar as they don't victimize others."

The notion of "loving the sinner and hating the sin" is, at best, condecsending and insulting. In my view, since acts of homosexual love are inseperable from homosexuals, it is irrational to believe that you abhor one, but not the other. I think it's more of a rehtorical bait-and-switch. Christian Double-Think if you will.

Of course, I've always found that Christianity is a "bi-polar" faith; all New Testement love and compassion one minute, Old Testement damnation and judgement the next. I've never understood how the two concepts have been able to operate together, but I see it as a very weak ideological alliance that, one day, will fall apart. When it does, I think we're all going to be in trouble.

[Tyrone Biggs]

I am certain that MLK would not a suported the right of rectum rodent faggots to fuck.

This is a disgusting perversion of what this great man stood for. Being black, hispanic, italian, chinese etc. is a chance condition of birth, being gay ia a behaviour. No on should get special privledges for a behavior.

[crimethink]

In my view, since acts of homosexual love are inseperable from homosexuals, it is irrational to believe that you abhor one, but not the other.

Is theft inseperable from a kleptomaniac? Is arson inseperable from a pyromaniac? Is adultery inseperable from a married man having desires towards women other than his wife?

Just because you feel the urge do do something does not mean it is right to do it. This is a basic tenet of all but the most vacuous of moral systems. Thus, it's possible to hate an act but love the person who feels the urge to do it.

[clarityiniowa]

Akira - In my view, since acts of homosexual love are inseperable from homosexuals...

Exactly - In your view, as is the premise of that inseparation itself. You have to realize, however, that yours, and to a great extent, mine, are not the prevailing view, so your characterization of all negative sentiment regarding "rights" for homosexuals?as homosexuals?as being "bigotry," is again, only your point of view. Doesn't make you less eligible to fight for it, but yelling "bigot" every five minutes isn't likely to get you very far.

There is another interesting argument that pertains, the idea that there is no such thing as a homosexual identity, only homosexual behavior. The identity concept is attributed to Kinsey, whose research, unfortunately, is full of flaws and interior contradictions.

Can one be prejudiced, or bigoted, against a "behavior" as over against a person who elicits that behavior? I don't know, but, Christians being Christians, you can't fault them for doing their best to support and promote the tenets of that which they hold true to the core of their beings.

[Ben Webster]

To clarityiniowa:

To Christians' credit, I believe many of them are sincere when they say that their aversion to homosexuality is rooted in their sexual and religious mores, and thus non-negotiable, but that they harbor no hatred toward people who elicit homosexual behavior insofar as they don't victimize others.

Why are sexual and religious mores non-negotiable? If we subject the Bible to at least SOME criticism based on history, then it is clear from history that so-called ?non-negotiable? mores swing with the times. Slavery, the role of women, death-by-stoning, certain hair length for men, etc. are all condoned by the Bible. So, why pick on homosexuality? It?s picked on because there is disgust with what homosexual men do that is deeply rooted in Western culture, and Christians inconsistently and hypocritically use their so-called ?mores? as a cover for this disgust.

If the view isn?t based on bigotry, then it must be based on Biblical principle (at least with Christians)?so why condemn everything that is condemned by the Bible?

That is no more hypocritical to me than a mother seeking to discipline her child for a behavioral infraction. Does she, by doing so, elicit "hatred" for her child?

It is totally hypocritical, because modern Christians refuse to acknowledge all ?behavioral infractions? laid out in The Bible.

The religious right dehumanizes homosexuals with their hypocritical condemnations and attempt to separate a person?s ?lifestyle? with his sense of identity. In order to justify it, they need to be totally consistent and condemn everything the Bible condemns: and in return, show themselves for the true inconsistent, hypocritical people that they are.

[smacky]

Maybe Tyrone Biggs should change his name to Tyrone Biggot.

[PintofStout]

I can fault the Christians for trying to legislate their views. So much for that "...so long as they don't victimize others" bit.

[clarityiniowa]

PintofStout - I can fault the Christians for trying to legislate their views. So much for that "...so long as they don't victimize others" bit.

Personally, I agree with you. But understanding, or at least exploring, a person's point of view is the first step to countering it if, indeed, it is an incorrect one. That's what I'm doing here.

It can easily be said that what sympathy there is for those who elicit homosexual behavior is very recent, very media-driven, trendy and "hip," and not very well rooted in Western history, tradition or law. So, rather than merely point fingers, those who support extending priviledges or benefits that come from civil marriage to homosexual couples need to make the affirmative case for why. And in doing so, they must directly address the objections of those opposed, hopefully?in ways that won't get them lynched in the process. So far, I'm not hearing that case.

I wonder, where is the gay Martin Luther King? I think people will pay more attention when there is at least one leader or spokesperson in this movement with such an articulate mix of logic, passion and compassion that he or she cannot be denied a fair hearing from the public. So far, what we've got is the Fab Five.

[clarityiniowa]

Ben Webster - The religious right dehumanizes homosexuals with their hypocritical condemnations and attempt to separate a person?s ?lifestyle? with his sense of identity.

The religious right would put it another way; that homosexuals dehumanize themselves by their lack of impulse control and by centering their sense of "identity" around with whom they choose to have sex.

[Tyrone Biggs]

Maybe Tyrone Biggs should change his name to Tyrone Biggot.

As an African American man I find that insulting.

[Fong Phuhn]

As an African American man I find that insulting.

You must be a shit dicked faggot.

[Phong Phuhn]

As an African American man I find that insulting.

I agree with you.

Maybe Tyrone Biggs should change his name to Tyrone Biggot.

You must be a shit dicked faggot.

Got Aids Yet

[rst]

since acts of homosexual love are inseperable from homosexuals

being gay ia a behaviour. No on should get special privledges for a behavior.

No dude, fucking another guy in the ass is a behavior. I know this may come as a shocker, but not every guy who'll fuck another guy in the ass is homosexual.

And no, there is no such thing as bisexual. Watch HBO enough and you'll learn sex has a few fundamental truths: people have holes. Some are big enough, some aren't. Some like things to be put in them, others don't.

The question is whether the state is obliged to extend the terms of the marriage contract to homosexuals by virtue of the theoretical sameness of the love that exists in said relationships. Problem is there's no real link between "love" and "marriage" at all.

Arguments against miscegenation didn't characterize the union between a white person and a colored person as not a marriage, rather a real marriage that was permitted elsewhere but not permitted in Virginia. The definition of the term was never at issue, neither to government nor to society. Now a minority within a minority (homosexuals who want to be able to get married) whose platform hasn't captured one sliver of the public outrage that was present in 1967 over civil rights, thinks both government and society will re-examine the definition of that term? Good luck.

[rst]

oh, and the corollary to the holes: some people like putting things into holes, others don't.

[clarityiniowa]

Tyrone Biggs -

"Maybe Tyrone Biggs should change his name to Tyrone Biggot."
"As an African American man I find that insulting.

So, black Americans are incapable of bigotry? Let me ask you this: Why is it bigotry to condemn Christians for espousing and acting upon their core beliefs, but it isn't bigotry to denegrate gay people for doing the same thing?

[Tyrone Biggs]

So, black Americans are incapable of bigotry?

I didn't say that, but you are not capable of knowing what my people have gone througth unless you are black.

Why is it bigotry to condemn Christians for espousing and acting upon their core beliefs, but it isn't bigotry to denegrate gay people for doing the same thing?

Because it is against GOD, as written in the bible, and is not to be questioned.

Jah live!

[dhex]

"The religious right would put it another way; that homosexuals dehumanize themselves by their lack of impulse control and by centering their sense of "identity" around with whom they choose to have sex."

which is interesting, because the condemnation of the behavior helped create the identity in the first place.

then again, the whole thing is sort of interesting and sort of frustrating at the same time. as much as i like being able to compare the beliefs of senators like santorum and the usual array of falwellians to aleister crowley (re: the non-local, magickal effects of sodomy), it gets tiring after a while.

[clarityiniowa]

rst - The question is whether the state is obliged to extend the terms of the marriage contract to homosexuals by virtue of the theoretical sameness of the love that exists in said relationships. Problem is there's no real link between "love" and "marriage" at all.

I'd amend that to say that there is no connection between love and "civil marriage." The legal category "married person" or "married couple" does not denote anything other than an economic contract that he state recognizes. In this I think you are correct.

So, the question arises, why are same-sex couples ineligible to enter into such a contract? Is it because they cannot reproduce? Nonsequitur, since many married hetero couples don't have children, yet they are afforded civil status and all the priviledges pertaining to it. The only two possible answers are religion, the sanction of which is not supposed to be a state function, or the "icky" factor, which is hardly grounds for civil policy.

[raymond]

imo, Marriage is not a "fundamental right".

State requirements for marriage. Note that in New Hampshire the minimum age for a girl is 13. In Massachusetts and Kansas... 12.

"Antipathy" is Greek for... hatred.

It also matters with regard to whether a prosecutor will press charges; an 18 year old HS guy screwing a 15 year old HS girl is less likely to receive his attention or a get charged than a 60 year old with a 14 year old.

I refer you to this case. Also read this.

[clarityiniowa]

Tyrone - Because it is against GOD, as written in the bible, and is not to be questioned. Jah live!

Hard to tell if you are sincere here, or are just satirizing yourself, but I'll do you the credit of assuming sincerity. So why not, as many have suggested here, condemn ALL anti-Biblical behaviors as strongly? Like having sex with the slave of another man without his permission? And why don't you promote behaviors that the Bible apparently supports, like slavery?

Read Leviticus carefully, the same book in which homosexuality is first strongly condemned, and you will also find that the slavery your people endured is not forbidden by the Bible, it is only regulated.

[B.P.]

Which holes aren't big enough and don't like things put into them? Nasal passages?

[clarityiniowa]

Leviticus 25:44

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

Leviticus 25:45

45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

[clarityiniowa]

I & I be off to de slave market, mon. Jah, rule!

[outSide@@N]

Chiming in on the "homosexual behavior", what "Christians being Christians" will not accept is that this "condition" may not be chosen behavior, there are numerous credible studies which suggest that the "condition" may be inherited/genetic. So there may be in fact "no choosing of this lifestyle".

?How does a 8y.o. boy obviously displaying signs of the female gender make this choice. He has no sisters, his father and three brothers are all macho types, and his mother is that exceptional female that CEO's here home as well as a business.

I'm kind of foggy on this but maybe one of you guys can rip this thought to pieces or add something constructive.

[Brett]

outSide - I couldn't agree more, I've seen numerous credible studies and have long felt that homosexuality was inherited/genetic. I haven't been close to many homosexuals, but every single one of them (ok, 3) tells me it is not a choice. FWIW, Andrew Sullivan once told me he sure as hell didn't choose it.

One of my best friends is quite religious and we argue about this. His sister is a lesbian and he SWEARS that this was a choice that stemmed from never having any luck with guys. Knowing his sister, I tend to bite my lip at that point, not wanting to bring his family too deeply into the discussion.

[Tim Higgins]

What would Tyrone know about what MLK thinks about gay marriage? He isn't even related to him! ; )

[clarityiniowa]

Brett and outside - My quite extensive experience with gay folks, being a sometime musician, writer and theater buff, tells me you both may be right. Who in their right mind would purposely set themselves up for all the crap gay people take? Personally, I prefer a little strident militancy to staying in the closet and wallowing in self-disgust. But the fact remains that homosexuals ? as distinct from otherwise "normal" individuals who sometimes elicit homosexual behavior ?are a very tiny biological and societal minority. They still have the burden of the affirmative case as to why the civil priviledges (they are not "rights") afforded to male/female married couples should be extended to them.

The only sane argument, it seems to me, is "why not?" As I mentioned in a previous post, there are no arguments for reserving civil marriage to hetero couples besides the religious, and the reproductive - both of which fail fairly quickly.

[Brett]

clarityiniowa - thanks. As for "the burden of the affirmative case", I tend to feel that we'll see the status quo for some time to come, with perhaps a gradual demographic shift towards increased tolerancy for homosexuality (I tend to feel we're in the middle of such a shift, but don't have any facts or figures to back that up).

However, I've also often felt that we'd discover the cause of homosexuality in my lifetime (I'm 34). I don't have time to find a link to it, but back in the 90s I remember some scientist apparently finding the gene which caused homosexuality in sheep. They could mess with this gene in the embryonic stage and predict (with great, but perhaps not total) accuracy whether the sheep would display homosexual tendencies. Anyway, some of my facts might be off and I don't know what became of that study, but I've had a hunch we'd see a similar discover in humans in the next few decades.

If it happens, it'll be interesting to see the reaction. My first hunch was that if it could be scientifically proven that it is genetic, this would help their cause as the "behavior" argument would lose some steam. However, I also remember some conservative politician once saying "well, if it's genetic, then we can cure it", which also pissed off homosexuals.

[raymond]

if it could be scientifically proven that it is genetic...

If it's ever proven to be genetic, and if a prenatal test is devised to determine the trait, then you'll find a whole lot of pro-life people suddenly converted to the pro-choice cause.

[raymond]

ps - And one "cures" a disease.

Perhaps homosexuals don't consider it any more a disease than blonds consider blondness.

[Philip]

if it could be scientifically proven that it is genetic...

Then if so why is it not naturally selected out? It seems to me that a trait that reduces offspring should be eliminated in time.

[biologist]

phil wrote:
"if it could be scientifically proven that it is genetic...

Then if so why is it not naturally selected out? It seems to me that a trait that reduces offspring should be eliminated in time."

recessive traits tend to persist in a population even if they have adverse effects upon individual fitness, especially if the gene(s) influencing the trait are linked (occuring nearby on the same chromosome) to a gene which has strong positive effects on fitness, a phenomenon referred to as genetic drag

a bit of an oversimplification, but I think you get the idea

also, traits can be biological without necessarily being genetically based or controlled. it's important to remember that the phenotype is the result of the interaction between the genotype (genes) and the environment

[Ersatz Datura]

"recessive traits tend to persist in a population even if they have adverse effects upon individual fitness, especially if the gene(s) influencing the trait are linked (occuring nearby on the same chromosome) to a gene which has strong positive effects on fitness, a phenomenon referred to as genetic drag"

A large portion of the gay (and lesbian, of course) people I know over 40 or so have children and were married at some point (to someone of the opposite sex). The pressures of society overcame their natural (to them) urges. For a time.

Of course, it ended up falling apart, but hey.

[biologist]

ersatz:

you're partially right, but it doesn't nullify what I wrote.

homosexuality also doesn't necessarily negate maternal/paternal desires. exclusive homosexuality (without modern reproductive technology) would prevent reproduction, obviously. many people who identify as homosexual (as well as many who identify as hetero-) have participated in the opposite form of sexual activity (opposite from their stated sexual identity)

[Gary Gunnels]

I wonder if Tyrone Biggs and crimethink are the same person. It wouldn't surprise me.

crimethink,

I love how you equate homosexual acts with arson and other crimes, that is acts which harm others property, etc. First it was pedophilia (though of course you were too ignorant to realize that wasn't the term for the act you were describing) and now its arson.

There is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. Now you may argue differently, but I don't see why your view should have any force in law. You can be a bigot all you want to and I defend you in your right to be so, but keep it out of the legal framework of our nation (this is of course illustrates the biggest difference between you and me - you'd steal money from me afterall to support your causes).

Also, I have to ask: have you gotten off your lazy ass and read the Supreme Court's decisions regarding abortion? Or do you still in ignorance about them?

Ben Webster,

Christians hardly have any right to lecture folks on morality; shit, they've conspired with some of the most vile regimes in history (including the Nazis), so its pretty clear that Christians have no real hold "moral authority" whatsoever.

clarityiniowa,

Its cultural. A sect of Christians (which includes crimethink) loathe gay people for cultural reasons that are largely divorced from homosexuality's very limited role in the Old and New Testaments. You see this focus on particular "sins" based on cultural standards throughout Christian history.

philip,

Not neccessarily. Homosexuality could be a recessive trait that is only rarely (in comparison to the number of people born) expressed but is passed on by homosexuals who happen to have sex with those of the opposite sex from time to time. And there are benefits to homosexuality that are easy to conjecture about; for example, homosexuals could have been "helpers" for procreating mates (aiding in the raising of children, etc.). A number of bird species have individuals which forgo sex with the opposite sex in order to fulfill such a role; however, they do have sex with members of the same sex as I recall.

biologist,

Yes, the fetal environment could be a huge factor.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

No, I'm referring to your neo-luddite response to stemcell research.

[Gary Gunnels]

rst,

Actually you'll find that the statutory definition of marraige was indeed the heart of the matter in Loving. More specifically, a "marraige" between a black person and a white person was not a "legal marraige" in Virginia (indeed, it was a criminal act to be involved in such a "marraige"). Accordingly the case concerned exactly the same issue that we have here; what is and what is not a legally sanctioned marraige and who has the right to marry. I'll give you the same advice I gave to crimethink about the case law he misinterprets, mangles and otherwise misapprehends; read it before commenting on it.

[Gary Gunnels]

clarityiniowa,

In a few words Christians like crimethink are interested in social control and dictating what the individual may do regarding issues intimate to what makes an individual an individual. There's really no other way to explain their obsession with dildos, pornography, homosexuality, recreational drugs, etc.

[crimethink]

Gary Gunnels,

It's amazing that you know my positions on so many issues, when I've never discussed them here!
[/sarcasm]

I know that strawmen are easier to argue against than real people, but you really should try the latter once in a while.

[Jadagul]

Let me start by saying that
1 I have no problem with gay people, and
2 I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. However, I think I can see a fair amount of coherence in the arguments of people who want to ban gay marriage.

Basically, were I they and trying to establish it formally, I would argue something like this:

We as a society seem to have accepted the basic premise that the role of government is to do what people want and make people happy (we on this board have not accepted this premise; but if you look at what most people actually do, it seems to fit). We don't want gay people to marry or be recognized in any way, so the government shouldn't let them marry or recognize them in any way.

Basically, allowing straight people to have a civil marriage is not a recognition of a natural right, but a special privilege granted to themby the government because it approves of their lifestyle. I honestly can't think of a good argument for state-marriage other than "we approve this lifestyle, so let us endorse it." In this sense, allowing gay marriage would undermine the purpose of civil marriage--namely, to endorse straight marriage.

Now, I don't think the government has any role endorsing a one lifestyle over another. But if your justification for a policy is to support one lifestyle, making it apply equally to all lifestyles seems, well, silly. Sort of like having a program to benefit companies that hire X% minorities, then arguing that those benefits should extend to other companies because it's just a value choice (the metaphor may not be entirely apposite...sorry, it's late. But it's close enough, I think).

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

I know your positions via your past statements/arguments/positions. After all, its known that you oppose gay marraige, abortion, stem-cell research and euthanasia. Its fairly clear from that short list that you do indeed favor social control and what to short circuit the control of individuals over their own lives. Then again, as I recall, you are a Catholic, and social control via the heavy hand of the government seems to be de rigeur for the RCC.

Jadagul,

Given your line of reasoning it is clearly discrimination and based on bigotry. Thanks for fisking crimethink's pathetic argument.

[clarityiniowa]

The fact is that civil marriage of ANY type, that is, a nation, state or territory licensing or choosing not to license couples for marriage, is a fairly recent historical phenomenon. It stemmed from a purely archival function, wherein couples who married within their church or by "jumping a broomstick" and moving in together registered the fact AFTERWARD with the local magistrate or justic of the peace. Such registration allowed for proper record-keeping regarding homesteading, census, inheritance, etc. My Mormon ancestors favored common law marriage, and some of the older ones favored HIGHLY alternative forms of marriage indeed.

Basically, one got married, THEN mentioned it to the government if and when they got around to it. How this morphed into a government license to marry rather than a voluntary registration after the fact would be a very interesting study. Historically, then, this whole argument is moot.

[Tyrone Biggs]

There's really no other way to explain their obsession with dildos, pornography, homosexuality, recreational drugs, etc.

Because those things are immorral, period, end of discussion. Those things are not victimless because of the negative downstream effect on society and family values they have. It is up to the government to enforce the will of the majority of society.

[clarityiniowa]

Tyrone - Ah, yes, the tyranny of the majority. That's certainly what the United States is all about.

Please, this obsession with other peoples' sexuality does neither you, nor your religious cohorts any credit. Take the beam out of your own eye, brother, before grinding the sawdust out of the eyes of others.

[clarityiniowa]

Tyrone, by the way, did you READ Leviticus yet? How much are you going for on the open market these days? I need a valet.

[dhex]

juanita? is that you?

dildoes are floating downstream, my love!
run for your life!

i realize the world is filled with monumental idiots who believed everything their teachers and preachers told them but c'mon, dildoes?

the downstream affect of dildoes is what, exactly? aside from people tripping over them, i mean.

[clarityiniowa]

Hey.. there's an idea. Airdrop tons and tons of dildoes and inflatable rubber women over militant Muslim strongholds, undermine their morals, and victory will be ours!!!

[Gary Gunnels]

Tyrone Biggs,

Are you sure you want to couch your argument in the will of the majority? It seems that you would justify all manner of despotic regimes, atrocities, etc. by doing so. As a Christian are you willing to condone the "will of the majority" to play out in the Sudan, for example? Or the "will of the majority" in Nazi Germany? Indeed, when its your ox being gored I would imagine that you would change your tune right quick.

[Tyrone Biggs]

i realize the world is filled with monumental idiots who believed everything their teachers and preachers told them but c'mon, dildoes?

the downstream affect of dildoes is what, exactly? aside from people tripping over them, i mean.

The downstream effect of dildoes and pornography is a breakdown of sexual morals which leads to violence and rape. Also, drug use ( = abuse) and alcohol abuse.

It is wrong, period, end of discussion. You cannot argue with that. It is immoral.

If something is immorral, it is up to the government to protect us from it. I don't like it, as do most others, so there ougtht to be a law.

[Gary Gunnels]

The downstream effect of dildoes and pornography is a breakdown of sexual morals which leads to violence and rape.

Prove it.

It is wrong, period, end of discussion. You cannot argue with that.

Sure I can. I can argue with it all day. You claiming otherwise means very little. Indeed, its the height of unfounded, fuzzy-headed circular reasoning.

Furthermore, claiming that it is "immoral" merely begs the question: why is it immoral? Who defines what is and what is not immoral? Doesn't the notion of what is and what is not "immoral" change over time?

You stupidly and ignorantly try to short circuit debate on these matters because I suspect you're nothing but a bullying stuffed shirt.

[Gary Gunnels]

Tyrone Biggs' (or crimethink's) basic argument is this:

I am right, you are wrong, end of discussion. Now I am going to plug my ears and yell "Na na na na na" like the child-man that I am.

[Tyrone Biggs]

The downstream effect of dildoes and pornography is a breakdown of sexual morals which leads to violence and rape.

Prove it.

Because sex is between a man and woman for procreation.

Furthermore, claiming that it is "immoral" merely begs the question: why is it immoral?

Because it is wrong.

Who defines what is and what is not immoral?

Society.

Doesn't the notion of what is and what is not "immoral" change over time?

No, I don't believe in moral relativism, for example, if marijuanna is imoral today, it was imorral 1000 years ago.

You stupidly and ignorantly try to short circuit debate on these matters because I suspect you're nothing but a bullying stuffed shirt.

All you can come up with is an ad hominim attack? That is not logical.

[Tyrone Biggs]

Dildoes should be illegal because they are fucked up.

[clarityiniowa]

Um, Tyrone:

Who defines what is and what is not immoral?

"Society."

Doesn't the notion of what is and what is not "immoral" change over time?

"No, I don't believe in moral relativism, for example, if marijuanna is imoral today, it was imorral 1000 years ago."

Those two statements of yours above are mutually exclusive. If "society" decides what is moral, than morality is TOTALLY relative. As long as it is up to a vote of the majority, it means society could well "vote" one way in one era, and another way in another era about the same issue.

Incidentally, didn't you voice a Rastafarian expression earlier in this thread? Lemme check:

Because it is against GOD, as written in the bible, and is not to be questioned. Jah live!

By golly you did! Isn't marijuana a SACRAMENT in your sect?

Gary G. - Don't bother with this guy. He's his own worst enemy, having refuted himself so many times, all one can do is sit back and be sadly amused.

[Gary Gunnels]

Tyrone Biggs,

Because sex is between a man and woman for procreation.

That's not proof, that is just another one of your mindless claims.

Because it is wrong.

Another mindless assertion. crimethink, I get the feeing that you're just a useless troll.

No, I don't believe in moral relativism, for example, if marijuanna is imoral today, it was imorral 1000 years ago.

Get a dictionary. Arguments from tradition alone are hopelessly fallacious. Many things considered immoral not just one hundred years ago - such as interracial marraige - are no longer considered so today. In other words, you must bring something more to the table than mere tradition to convince me. What's especially funny of course is that you - a Christian no less - have based your opinions regarding morality on human notions of such; its rather bizarre that this is the first place you would reach for to defend your silly notions and I think illustrates how inconsistent and muddle-headed you are.

All you can come up with is an ad hominim attack?

(A) I came up with far more (see what you avoided above) and it wasn't a personal attack; it was an accurate observation of your behavior. (B) All you can come up with are mere assertions. You can't actually explain why your assertions are correct or meritworthy.

[dhex]

"Dildoes should be illegal because they are fucked up."

at least you're being honest now.

dildoes are legal most places - except those joints down south where the sex toy parties are the hot contraband for housewives.

i do wonder whether a certain someone was downsized by a hello kitty vibe, though. it's hard to compete with duracell-powered adorability. (but lord it's fun to try)

arguments from tradition are not hopelessly fallacious - they are hopelessly hilarious. it is the good stuff.

[clarityiniowa]

Guys, please, you're running up the score on ol' Tyrone. He's obviously suffering from some sort of brain trauma.

Tyrone Biggs: "Wow, here's my ass, there's a hole in the ground. I CAN"T TELL THE DIFFERENCE!

😉

[clarityiniowa]

Tyrone - By the way, THAT was an ad hom attack. Sorry about that. 😉

[crimethink]

Gary Gunnels,

What are you now, the alias-spotter? It makes sense I guess, since it does take one to know one.

But rest assured that I've used no aliases since the Unborn Angel incident. Though Tim Cavanaugh has rightly refused to offer any evidence one way or the other regarding your own identity, it's now clear that Christians are not afforded the same courtesy at H&R. I'd be lucky if he didn't post my real name and address next time.

[crimethink]

I know your positions via your past statements/arguments/positions. After all, its known that you oppose gay marraige, abortion, stem-cell research and euthanasia. Its fairly clear from that short list that you do indeed favor social control and what to short circuit the control of individuals over their own lives.

You're not paying attention to my arguments on those issues -- none had anything to do with social control. I have argued that abortion and ESC research violate the right to life of unborn individuals. On the topic of gay marriage, remember that ideally, I said I'd rather the state not to involve itself in marriage at all.

As far as euthanasia goes, I don't think I've ever discussed it here. While I'm morally opposed to any form of suicide, I don't think that it should be illegal. On this I disagree with the political views of JP2, but papal infallibility does not apply to political beliefs, only faith and morals.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink/Tyrone,

They have everything to do with social control and the violation of individual choice. You want to control how people procreate and how individuals do medical research; that is social control. You also want to steal from me (and others) to support your religiously-inspired ideas. Now you may try to package such in the terminology of protecting individuals, but that indeed is not the case; you want to control the lives of others in order to force them to live as you live and believe as you believe.

There is nothing morally wrong with suicide.

On the topic of gay marriage, remember that ideally, I said I'd rather the state not to involve itself in marriage at all.

Yet you are more than willing to countenance discrimination in our less than ideal world; indeed you openly support it with your sophistic arguments.

There is no such thing as papal infallibility; its made up bullshit.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink/Tyrone,

Have the Supreme Court's abortion case law yet?

[Jadagul]

Gary: you're missing the point. I don't agree with the argument I presented, but it's internally coherent. As for discriminatory, yes, it is and it's supposed to be. So is a law prohibiting convicted repeat child molesters from opening day care centers. That a law is 'discriminatory' isn't ipso facto bad; it's only bad if it's discriminating on something stupid--I think you and I would include sexual orientation in that list. But the core of the argument requires two premises:

1: A major role of the government is to encourage people to live in ways beneficial to themselves and/or society at large.

2: Monogamous sexual union between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising children is beneficial to the man and woman and/or the children and/or society at large.

Therefore, the government ought to encourage monogamous sexual union between a man and a woman.

I reject (1) and am agnostic, but have serious doubts, about (2), so I don't think government should endorse marriage at all. The Religious Right, for instance, accepts (1) and (2), so want to endorse hetero marriage but not gay marriage. Many gay groups accept (1) whole-heartedly, but disagree with (2), preferring in its place

2': Monogamous sexual union between two adults for the purpose of raising children is beneficial to the man and woman and/or the children and/or society at large.

Or some variant thereof. If you accept (1) and (2') then you should support gay marriage and straight marriage. If you support (1) and (2) you should support straight marriage and oppose gay marriage. If you reject (1) then you should reject the whole system. If you reject (1) but accept (2) it makes perfect sense to argue for the abolition of state marriage, but say that while it exists it shouldn't extend to gays.

[crimethink]

It's clear to me that Tyrone Biggs is an alias, invented either for the thrill of trolling or to serve as an easy opponent for the pro-gay-marriage posters here to refute -- since they know from experience that defeating real people like myself can be tough.

Despite the fact that I find the views expressed by this alias wrongheaded and vile, I've ignored him up to this point, if only to prevent this thread from becoming a bad episode of Crossballs. 😉

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink/Tyrone,

You aren't tough at all. There isn't an argument that you've made that wasn't easily undermined and cast aside as a worthless rambling. Look at your vapid argument about the current marraige laws in this country not being discriminatory towards homosexuals when in fact they clearly are. Your attempt to resurrect Loving in a different form was flat out laughable.

I dunno about other posters here, but I am not "pro-gay," I'm pro-human. Some humans are of course gay, but I do not support the rights of gay people to the exclusion of others.

[Jadagul]

I don't think current law discriminates against gay people, per se. Rather, it discriminates against the union of two people of the same sex. Gay people can do exactly the same thing straight people can do (though they don't care too much about doing that). The law discriminates against another action--which neither gay people nor straight people are allowed to perform. So while it disproportionately harms gay people, and is used to harm gay people, the law itself doesn't discriminate against gay people.

[crimethink]

Gary Gunnels,

If I weren't tough, you could make yourself feel superior without having to resort to building gigantic straw men, advancing ad hominem attacks, and claiming to know my positions on issues which I've never discussed here.

I suppose I should be flattered.

[Gary Gunnels]

Jadagul,

Sure it discriminates against gay people (and anyone else who may want to get legally married in a fashion not allowed by law). Indeed, since many (most?) state laws now specifically name same-sex couples as those who may not legally marry (one another) the fact that it is blatantly discriminatory is even more clear. Only the morally blind (like crimethink) can't see this.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

Your comment would be interesting if it were actually true. I do know your positions because you've made them abundantly clear. I've as yet lay a straw man on you. Now clearly I pepper my language with insults (after you started the practice against me) but that's for my own pleasure and not to advance my arguments.

Anyway, how anyone could be so obtuse as to claim that a state law which specifically forbids same-sex marraige doesn't discriminate against homosexuals I don't know.

[crimethink]

I do know your positions because you've made them abundantly clear.

Then how come you got my position on euthanasia and drug legalization wrong?

And don't even try to blame me for your insulting behavior. You've been insulting those you disagree with (not just me) ever since you've been here, though you've picked up the pace since your involvement in Bartgate was exposed.

[pococurante]

you are not capable of knowing what my people have gone througth [sic] unless you are black.

Tyrone, rather OT, but: how do you reconcile blacks' once selling other blacks into slavery in Africa, or that blacks are currently killing one another in the Sudan?

Oh, and learn to spell. Or at least misspell consistently. (FTR, it's "i-m-m-o-r-a-l".)

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

I only insult those who insult me first.

Then how come you got my position on euthanasia...

You've changed your position in the meantime.

...and drug legalization wrong?

My statements above don't mention drug legalization of course. 🙂

Again, how anyone could be so obtuse as to claim that a state law which specifically forbids same-sex marraige doesn't discriminate against homosexuals I don't know.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

I guess I should repeat myself for emphasis:

Again, how anyone could be so obtuse as to claim that a state law which specifically forbids same-sex marraige doesn't discriminate against homosexuals I don't know.

[Isaac Bartram]

Tyrone, rather OT, but: how do you reconcile blacks' once selling other blacks into slavery in Africa, or that blacks are currently killing one another in the Sudan?

Actually it's ARABS killing blacks in the Sudan.

[crimethink]

In a few words Christians like crimethink are interested in social control and dictating what the individual may do regarding issues intimate to what makes an individual an individual. There's really no other way to explain their obsession with dildos, pornography, homosexuality, recreational drugs, etc.

Comment by: Gary Gunnels at January 18, 2005 09:42 PM [emphasis mine]

And perhaps you could tell me when I stated that I think euthanasia should be illegal.

[Jadagul]

As I said, the discrimination against homosexuals exists in practice, but not in law. That doesn't mean it isn't bad (though it doesn't mean that it is--I could advance an argument that allowing doctors to charge money for services discriminates against poor people, in fact if not in law). But it does make the idea that "we're not discriminating against homosexuals" somewhat valid.

To repeat: the law doesn't discriminate against homosexuals, it discriminates against people who want to marry others of the same gender. I as a straight man can't marry another straight man; it's perfectly legal for a gay man to marry a lesbian. This winds up screwing over gays and not straights, but it's not legal discrimination against gays specifically. It's discrimination against gay marriage, an activity which those who wish to ban it believe is fundamentally different from straight marriage and harmful to society.

Similarly, the law bans me from taking something when its owner hasn't given consent and allows me to take it when he has. This doesn't mean the law discriminates against people who like to steal; it means the law discriminates against the act of stealing--which I think is a good thing. Those who wish to outlaw gay marriage believe that allowing men to marry other men is as bad and as harmful (or along the same magnitude) as allowing petty theft. So they're not discriminating against gays specifically--they have no problems with them. They're keeping gays from doing something they believe to be harmful.

[raymond]

the law doesn't discriminate against homosexuals, it discriminates against people who want to marry others of the same gender.

Just as (and I think someone already said it above) miscegenation laws didn't discriminate against black people, they discriminated against people- black or white - who wanted to marry someone of a different race.

So they're not discriminating against gays specifically--they have no problems with them.

Baloney.

[Jadagul]

First, I agree with you about the miscegenation law thing--it's exactly the same issue. But the miscengenation laws are just as good an example--they discriminated against anyone who wanted to marry someone of a different race. IF a black guy wanted to marry a white woman, he couldn't. IF a white guy wanted to marry a black woman, he couldn't (I assume--I've never looked the laws up myself). This was the outgrowth of society's dislike for interracial marriage, which itself was an outgrowth of extreme racism and disgust for members of a certain race.

Laws confining marriage to man-woman marriages aren't intended to punish gay people, or cause them pain (just as anti-theft laws aren't designed to piss of kleptomaniacs). The laws are intended to prevent something that lots of people see as genuinely bad for the country. They're probably wrong, but that doesn't make them less honest.

[smacky]

"Dildoes should be illegal because they are fucked up."

OK, clearly Tyrone Biggs is insane. Dildoes *should* be fucked up - that's what they were made for. 😛 He probably just wants them banned because they are competing with his manhood.

Now THAT'S how you do an ad hominum attack.

Oh, one other thing. Quoting Tyrone again:

"All right thinking Americans want death to the fags." - Tyrone

I love how this asshole gets a stage for his bigoted views here, but I make one tasteless yet vague gerbil reference on the Spongebob thread, and I get edited for posting content! My comment wasn't even allowed to be posted, and it wasn't even hate speech, like the way this guy is talking. It wasn't even a bad comment, really. Open forum my eye. F*** the world!