Plus this: “Can there be any doubt about the Muslim position on gay marriage? While there are no statistics on the Muslim vote, I would be flabbergasted if support for gay marriage mustered more than the single digits. Yet Mormons have been singled out as bigots.
Yet, oddly enough, I didn’t see any ads opposing gay marriage from Muslim organizations, nor did I hear of an organized Islamic campaign against gay marriage, nor were Muslims as a whole, in any detectable manner, identifiable as the single biggest donor group against gay marriage. There’s no mystery at all why Mormons have been singled out as bigots - it’s because they have acted like bigots.
As for the black vote, what would you tender, mush-mouthed apologists for bigotry say if the next initiative on the California ballot was to redefine marriage as a union only between men and women of the same race, and gays voted 70% to 30% in favor of it, and the Southern Baptist church ordered its faithful to support that initiative, and Southern Baptists became the single biggest fundraisers for it?
When blacks started calling Southern Baptists bigots, and started calling gays faggots, would you defend the Baptists and excoriate the blacks for their bigoted name-calling?
You say you would? I say you lie.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
They already do and have since before I was born. Remember to some blacks anything Southern is racist.
Actually, no, it doesn’t answer why the Mormons got singled out as bigots. Mormons, Muslims, blacks, Baptists, and Catholics all voted against this. Choosing one group to blame simply because you don’t like that group is bigotry. People are blaming Mormons (and blacks for that matter) because they don’t like Mormons and this is a great excuse.
My religion (Christan, mostly Baptist) tells me certain things are wrong. When given the opportunity, I then vote my conscience. I do that for taxes (as in, “Thou shalt not steal”) and abortion (”Thou shalt not kill”). Why am I suddenly evil when, using the same fundamental text, I vote in accordance with my beliefs for gay marriage? It’s either evil all ways or evil none (I’m not saying right or wrong, I mean evil; I can be wrong without being evil). I have legitimate (to me) reasons for disagreeing with gay marriage. You have legitimate (to you) reasons for desiring it. I am not calling you evil or bigoted. I would like to persuade you, but I would never want to force you to change your mind. If Prop 8 had gone down, I would have been disappointed, but I would have blamed it on the fact that my side wasn’t persuasive, not started screaming about the inherent and organized evil of the other side.
(Caveat: Occasionally, I call some people evil. I truly do think Barak Obama is evil, but Communism is evil. Anyone who is Communist is evil. Supporters of gay marriage? Bah. We see it differently, but in my mind, homosexuality is just one boring sin among many, nothing to get exorcised over. I’m not sinless enough to cast any stones. If someone doesn’t think it’s a sin and wants gay marriage, I just think they’re mistaken, but I get why they think it.)
Deon as Bill has said the Mormons are the most visible and largest group. Blacks are expected to have sympathy for other oppressed groups, therefore their vote was seen as a betrayal.
Deon, we’ve already established that you’re a bigot when it comes to gays and gay marriage. Since you don’t mind the label, and I certainly don’t mind using it to describe you, I consider all the rest of your whining and self-justification to be irrelevant and not worth any further effort from me.
Since you seem determined to do so, just enjoy your bigotry. You don’t need to explain it. Obviously, in your case, bigotry is its own justification.
Personally, I think all religious believers should be barred from exercising the ballot. But that isn’t bigotry, oh no. I have perfectly logical, and rational justifications for my convictions.
For purposes of suffrage, Global Warming is a religion, yes?
Well, Deon, there are passages in the Bible that justify slavery. Do you therefore feel an obligation to own slaves? How about the subjugation of women? Certain Mormons look to their faith to justify bigamy, as do Muslims. Are they right? Are you wrong?
I mean, really. You hide behind your faith, holding it up as a superstitious shield against reasoned thought, just as you and yours have done for millennia. You take a series of writings, decide they are the word of your storm god, and then cherry pick the stuff that you and yours feel is acceptable.
You find slavery abhorrent, don’t you? Yet you scurry behind your book of mythology to fortify yourself in your faith that homosexuality is evil. That people are evil for who they want to love and why. Fuck your faith. There is no arguing with nitwits like you; you’re inured of reality and rational thought.
You are, plain and simple, a vicious bigot. If societal mores were not what they were in this day and age, people like you would be hunting down queers and subjecting them to untold horrors, torture and execution.
It’s not like you and yours haven’t set an historical precedent in this regard.
Victims of the religious right have been flocking to the Democrats.
Look at a map of the last election.
Even some Southern States got picked off.
Social Conservatives have two choices:
Cultural Liberty and Economic Liberty or no Liberty. They have chosen no Liberty. Not wise.
Palin shows the way forward. The people of Alaska had no idea about her religion until she was up for VP. And then she got tarred with all the evils of the socons without practicing any of those evils.
Everyone points to slavery in the Bible in order to do two things: impeach the credibility of the Bible, and in so doing, subconsciously congratulate themselves on being so much more enlightened than our ancestors. The problem with this perspective is that we are only able to afford the luxuries of not having slave labor because technology functions as our slave. Bygone societies could forgo slavery only at extreme peril to their economy, which translated into risking their own enslavement by other powers. In other words - SLAVERY WAS NOT OPTIONAL. Explode some EMPs to ruin our technology or simply have an economic apocalypse and then see how high-minded we are. And given that regular intercourse between men drastically shortens their lifespans, the Bible is merely bowing to both economic and health realities in allowing for one and not the other.
I don’t like to sort people out by “believer” or “atheist”. If I have to sort them out at all, I’d rather use “libertarian” and “authoritarian”. I have problems with anyone who both thinks that they have the One Truth and they’re allowed to force it on others - no matter the nature of that Truth. I can live with just about anyone who doesn’t believe in forcing their beliefs on others, or in using force on others just because their dogma said so.
We’ve got to have some basic rules enforced in order to live in societies, but once you’ve gone much past the general area outlined by the Six Negative Commandments, you’re in danger of going too far. We have a Republic, at least in theory, to determine consensus on where the exact edges should be.
Personally, I think all religious believers should be barred from exercising the ballot. But that isn’t bigotry, oh no. I have perfectly logical, and rational justifications for my convictions.
Mr. Quick,
So, anyone who is religious in any way should be barred from voting. Does that include Wiccans, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Nature Worshipers, and anything that could be construed as a religious belief? How about atheist people, they are as adamant that there isn’t a God as those who believe there is a God. What about all those capitalists who worship money? Just what are your logical reasons for banning people from voting? Can we get a pass on anyone? Oh wait, gays get a pass, because they are victims of religious people.
Your remark shows an unbelievable prejudice and bigotry toward anyone who worships anyone or anything. That is downright ignorance Mr. Quick. Not everyone who has some sort of religious conviction is bad, in fact, most of them are people who try to help others, and who try to live a life devoted to doing good. Just because they didn’t vote like you think they should doesn’t make them bigots or hate filled people.
You honestly need a reality check on this whole gays are victims thing. They are, also, at the moment violent, racists, bigots, and hate filled toward people who, for the most part, live hard working, family involved, community serving lives.
If LDS people turned up at one of the venues revered by gay people and started shouting rude remarks and threatening violence, it would considered a hate crime. Charges would be made, people would go to prison. Funny, none of the LDS people are calling the cops and insisting on arrests for what is, by legal definition in California, a hate crime.
The proposition lost, period. The people voted, all sorts of people, religious, black, Hispanic, white, Asian, Muslim, Baptist, LDS, Catholic, working people, doctors, lawyers, politicians, welfare people, old, young, middle age, decrepit, and healthy. All of them voted on prop. 8, and guess what, MOST of them wanted it to pass. So suck it up and move on.
Going about and bashing people for their beliefs is futile and a total waste of everyone’s time. Threatening to hurt people because of how they voted is hate crime, and only hurts the whiners and moaners in the long run. I find it hilarious in a very dark way, that the factions of the liberals are starting to fight with each other like a bunch of starving rats on a corpse.
As a woman, I could be a victim all I want simply because I am a female. I have more pride than that, and more sense. Gays and Lesbians ought to get out of the pity puddle, stop feeling sorry for themselves, and get on with life. There are a lot better ways to get what you want than to whine and scream when you are told no.
I already told you, fishy, that I cannot be a bigot, because I have perfectly logical and rational reasons for my stance - besides, my anti-religion of atheism told me that’s the way to go.
Gapeseed, that is the most amazing bit of drooling idiocy I’ve seen plunked down in the comments of DP in years.
Let’s take a quick spin through your comment, shall we?
Well, dipshit, that would entail an assumption on your part that I feel it necessary to “impeach the credibility” of your book of mythology. I can assure you that the Bible does that on its own quite well; it doesn’t need my help. Also, I am very consciously able to congratulate myself on being so much more enlightened than my ancestors; morally, philosophically and technologically enlightened. It’s why I’m sitting here typing this out in the vain hope of enlightening a moron like yourself, instead of wallowing in the shit as a serf in front of m’lord’s castle while he dines with the local bishop.
The vapid stupidity of your first sentence is mind boggling to the extreme.
Where did you come up with this lovely piece of imbecility, sunshine? I mean, it really does explain why in 1859, the only slave holding christian nations were the United States and Brazil. Right. Gotcha.
But going further back, you have to make the assumption that economies, as we enlightened modern folks understand the concept, even existed. But let’s give you the benefit of your ignorance. You’re still wrong. Slavery was not a function of economic necessity in ancient times, but was primarily a consequence of warfare. Think of slavery as a form of reparations paid by the defeated to the victor. This saved the victors from simply slaughtering a population, a very time consuming and inefficient means of sealing the deal.
As technology advanced through the years, and slavery of different sorts evolved into two primary types, chattel slavery and indentured servitude, the economic argument becomes far more tenuous. Forests of trees have been destroyed to provide the books that prove that slave economies were an extremely inefficient and wasteful way to run an economy.
Bullshit. Slavery is always optional. How else to explain the concept of manumission, either as a reward or through the purchase of one’s freedom. To hold slaves is a choice no matter how you justify it.
Oh, my! So in the event that this Apocalypse occurs, you plan to abandon your the moral guidance that your precious bible has supposedly taught you? You’re as shallow and hypocritical as you are stupid.
Ah. And now we get to the crux of it all. A statement of pure, venomous bigotry presented absurdly without the least supporting evidence and in the name of god. Sweetness and light you are, pal.
Tell you what, you come tell that to a couple of my regular customers, two elderly gay men in their late 70’s. Seems, at least in their case, they’re doing pretty good in terms of lifespan.
Then, you can try to exercise that pea brain of yours by using the above sentence to explain lesbians.
In conclusion, Gapeseed, I must come to the conclusion that you are a prime example of the type of pinheaded cretin who pops up here on occasion to to spread their vile stench around, hoping that the perfume of their supposed sanctity will provide them with the cover to hide their true shame.
No such luck, punk.
There are a lot better ways to get what you want than to whine and scream when you are told no.
Amen. Look, I am a nominally Baptist Christian and I vote against these anti-gay marriage/anti-civil union/anti-gay, single, co-habitating couples foster care (Arkansas this time around) ballots every time, but they still pass because the majority of my state doesn’t agree with me. So it apparently is with California.
But I don’t like this use of “bigot” to describe those who don’t support gay marriage. Gay Marriage has pretty much never existed, officially, certainly not in this country. Gay people are try to create a new right, and they should be more patient with those who aren’t ready for it. They certainly are not going to get anywhere by protesting religious people or hurling insults are random black supporters!
The fact is, they couldn’t win on the ballot. In CALIFORNIA! So, maybe it’s time for some persuasion, some scaling back of immediate goals. Maybe try to get civil unions passed before leaping to gay marriage. Get people used to the idea.
I don’t give a shit what you like or dislike. You don’t get to characterize your bigotry as something other than what it is. And while somebody like Glenn would probably say alienating people is counter-productive, I don’t give a damn about that, either. I think it’s time gays stopped pretending that bigots are amenable to reason and good fellowship. Basically, the bigots will have to die off - as is happening. In the meantime, gays should take whatever steps are necessary to protect themselves from the religious and other bigots as best they can. And those steps start in recognizing who, and what, those bigots are, and responding accordingly.
Bill: “You don’t agree with me, so you must be a bigot”
Dave: “Um, no I’m not. I don’t support gay marriage because I think the only compelling interest the state has in marriage is the fact that it directly affects future generations of society. Given that it is a biological impossibilty for any gay relationship to naturally do so, I reject the idea that there is an equivalence.”
Bill: “I don’t give a shit! You don’t get to characterize bigotry as something other than what it is, only I can do that. And I say you’re a bigot. You probably believe in a god as well. That makes you a double bigot. Bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot!”
Dave: “Oh, considering the intellectual brilliance of your last argument, how could I possibly have considered myself anything other than a bigot. After all, you did say it more, louder and in nastier terms than I did. Please excuse me while I die off.”
My, aren’t we the intellectual giant, Dave?
Let’s roll the videotape!
It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement, Dave. That is not will Bill (or I) is saying. We are saying that if you suppress and deny the rights rights of the majority to a minority, for any reason, you are a bigot. Look it up, Dave. It’s not rocket science.
Actually, Dave, the state has no compelling interest in marriage. But as long as the state feels that it does, it has no right to deny one group the right to practice said institution, no matter the reasoning. Your reasoning in this case is false. Reproduction is a matter of biology, not relationship. Gays and lesbians are just as capable of producing children as anyone else, as they prove time and time again. Second, homosexuality has always existed. I’m pretty sure it predates marriage. Homosexuals have been in relationships ever since the concept was understood. And yet, despite this, the population keeps growing and growing and growing. Seems that society isn’t having trouble reproducing, despite all those eeeeevil homos trying to keep it from happening.
You can reject “the idea that there is an equivalence,” until you’re blue in the face, Dave. Doesn’t make you right.
Well, let’s look at the word, shall we?
Sounds like you in a nutshell. Oh, interesting fact about the etymology of the word, “bigot.” It has its orgins in Middle German as “bei gott.” By god. Rather telling, no? So, yeah, I’d say if you have a belief in god and you base your prejudices on that belief, then you are a bigot.
No, Bill didn’t say it louder. He just said it right. See above. And yes, based on my last argument, you are indeed a bigot, if (a) you seek to deny the a minority the same rights as the majority, and (b) you base that denial of rights on religious precepts that have no place in the determination of equal protection under the law in a secular society.
What ever floats your boat, Dave.
submandave, that argument just doesn’t hold water. Infertile couples can marry, even if they know they’re infertile, or even if they’ve deliberately sterilized themselves. Old people can marry. People can marry and intentionally never have kids. Bimbos can marry rich octogenarians for their money. People dying of incurable diseases can marry. People can get married on their freakin’ death-beds! None of them will have to contribute directly to future generations for their marriages to be legal!
As far as contributing to future generations of society, gay couples are perfectly capable of adoption, and there are plenty of unwanted kids out there in foster care available. Clearly gayness is not passed on by gay parents, since per your brilliantly obvious biological argument, (almost) all homosexuals had heterosexual parents. (The few children of homosexuals arise from lesbians using fertility clinics and sperm donors, and they’re just as likely or not to be hetero or homo as everyone else.)
Bill’s point, in case your cranial density is still holding in the vincinity of lead, is that marriage laws have already evolved in this country, and not that long ago. It used to be against the law for whites to marry blacks, until Loving v. Virginia, and that was in 1976! Want to see a list of other changes?
Gay couples can’t contribute to the future generations of society because they’re not allowed to. The shape of their plumbing has nothing to do with it except bigotry. In fact, what with the advances in cloning, it won’t be long before gays can have kids that are genetically theirs, with the help of an egg donor and a surrogate mother. In fact, this might already be possible with current tech. What are you going to say to that?
Hmmm, let me see, Chef. Are you and Bill, as demonstrated by this thread, “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions?” Are you “strongly partial to one’s own group [] or politics and is intolerant of those who differ?” What size is this shoe to which they refer?
And they are just as welcome to enter into marriage, as it has been legally defined, as anyone else (just ask Larry Craig). IANAL, but I find the equal protection argument particularly uncompelling. Neither is your claim that “homosexuality has always existed.” I am inclined to ask your reference or reasoning for this article of faith or its relevence to marriage and children, especially because I feel quite comfortable claiming that human society has been having and raising children long before either homosexuality or marriage was understood as such, but I’m really not interested since I see no relevence.
And that, my friends, is called projection. I would challenge you or anyone to read what I wrote and find a single example of me denigrating gays as individuals or humans or even collectively insinuating they are “evil” (sorry, I just can’t seem to muster the indignation and spittle to justify using five Es) or where I used any religious basis (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan or whatever) to support my position, but considering the poor comprehension you’ve demonstrated thus far I shant waste my time.
You don’t want gays to marry each other because solely because they are gay. You’re a bigot. Now stop wasting my time, fuck off, and die.
Bigot.
Martin, I understand your examples of exceptions, but the simple fact that marriage can be abused does not obviate the quiet role that the vast majority of them play in society. Most automobiles are used to transport folks peacefully and safely, and the fact that some are used as get-away cars or as homes or as planters or pieces of art does not, fundamentally, change the broader understanding of what that a car is and the purpose it serves in society.
Yes, it is better for children to grow loved and wanted by caring involved parents, be they natural or adopted, but these same studies regularly show that a child statistically has the best chance to succeed growing up in a traditional family environment. That marriage has “evolved” (to use your word) such that more and more marriages are not based upon the idea of raising children in such an environment is not a compelling argument to further change the understanding and definition of marriage, especially given the evidence that the current state marriage has “evolved” has had a demonstrably negative effect on children.
Yes, as science and technology progresses we may indeed in the future see sex as procreation be relegated to an archaic relic of primative days, but that science fiction is nowhere near. Fusion power has also been “just around the corner” for decades, but I think you would agree that it would have been very bad policy ten years ago to have started dismantling convetional power plants based on that hope and dream.
Finally, I never said that gays or gay couples can’t contribute to the future, largely because I don’t believe that. The can and regularly do make important contributions. But the fact that a gay coule cannot (today) directly add members to future generations does mean that there is a fundamental and (I believe) significant difference between them and the typical heterosexual couple. Recognizing this make me no more of a bigot than recognizing that you will never have to deal with a litter of mice if you only have two males or two females. Who knows what the future may bring, but I don’t see the wisdom in making sweeping changes to an institution that has been a fundamental part of society.
Submoron Dave, save your bigoted crap for tomorrow. We’re in mourning here today. If you post again today, it won’t appear, and you will be permanently banned.
Bill, it’s not a matter of “want,” I simply don’t believe that most gay couples, regardless of how loving or committed they may be to each other, meet what I understand as being a marriage (i.e. forming a new family unit that will grow and continue). I may be wrong, but everything I see and read indicates to me that the majority of those pushing for gay marriage are distinctly focused on the partners, recognition and validation of their relationship, etc. I understand and appreciate that you have a much stronger emotional investment in this than I do, but I’m simply calling it the way I see it. I would only hope that you might recognize that words have meaning and wasting invective and scorn on someone trying to engage in conversation with an honest difference of opinion neither bolsters your argument nor encourages others who aren’t bigots from coming to the table.
In any event, thanks for the gracious hospitality. It was a lovely party. If anything was broken I sure it could be mended.
Bill, sorry, but I did not read your #21 until after I posted my #22. It was not intended as a poke in the eye or an FU. Although I certainly don’t agree with your assesment of myself or argument, I respect this forum as yours and respect your wishes.
‘Kay, I’ll take a turn here -
subman(?)(lessthanaman?)dave - your latest complaint seems to be all about “that’s not what I said (or meant)” - so, let’s take a closer look at what you did say (and whether it has meaning):
Your first sentence implicitly accepts that, in fact, “the state” logically has a “compelling interest” in marriage, and that said interest is confined to how marriage directly affects future generations. However, you offer nothing to back this up as being factual - it’s just an expression of your opinion. Even if we give you the first part (the “compelling state interest” thingy) - and that’s not necessarily evident; we’ll just give it to you for now - it can easily be shown that government (on any level) may be said to have a number of “interests” concerning marriage and the regulation thereof, “compelling” or not.
Therefore, the “logical” basis for your opposition to gay marriage falls apart immediately - unless you’ve got something to offer other than opinion?
As to the second sentence, there - on what basis do you conclude that the fulfillment of any “compelling state interest” in marriage as regards future generations of society must conclusively rest upon your definition of a “natural” (i.e., self-contained biological) resulting generation? Likewise, why would you presume (apparently) that children (whether adopted or otherwise) from a gay/lesbian relationship are inherently inferior in the embodiment of that “compelling interest” thing?
Seems, based upon what you said, you are, in fact, expressing your own personal belief structure in order to justify - in your own mind - an underlying illogical prejudice against gay marriage. Talk about projection…
There’s a real simple term for that - bigotry. Bill’s absolutely correct.
And it’s based upon exactly what you said.
In closing: I’ve been married for 22 years now. During those years, I’ve been asked my opinion on gay marriage a few times. My reply has always been that, if you can somehow show me that a legalized gay marriage will cause the love, strength or commitment in my own relationship to be diminished in any respect or manner, I will agree that you have a point other than simple prejudice.
No one has ever been able to show that to me. I don’t think anyone can.
Those same studies show that foster care is horrible for children, leaving them rootless and frequently changing homes yearly or more. It’s possible that gay couples might not be perfectly optimal, especially considering the sorts of abuse children of gays might attract from children of bigots, but love and caring from committed adopted parents has to be far superior to foster care. Don’t make the “perfect” the enemy of the good.
Also, dismissing my technological irrelevance argument with a “fusion power” handwave when primate cloning passed the proof of concept stage a year ago shows your ignorance of the facts on the ground. Sure, an egg donor and a surrogate mother would be required, but these are both commonplace now. Cloning and all that comes with it isn’t 20 years from now, it is right around the corner.
Dave, I’d be willing to accept that you’re not a mean-spirited person, and you’ve just got a big cognitive blind spot regarding gays. I feel like you didn’t come to your position by reason, and instead you’re defending your pre-existing position with rationalizations. You’re blind to the possibility that you made a decision about “yuck, men kissing men” and “icky gay sex” when you were much younger and aware than you are now. Ever since then you’ve been collecting evidence to support your “ick” reaction and avoiding evidence that would prove you a bigot. You don’t want to be a bigot, and so you’re blind to anything that would harm the carefully constructed fantasy that your position is just sweet reason.
Here’s a news flash, Dave - you’re bigoted against gays. You have been for most of your life. I don’t hate you for it, and I don’t think you’re a bad person. It’s a common and socially acceptable bigotry, found all over the place. If you can see it straight-on, and don’t beat yourself up for being how you are, it will fade away.
J.S., before any further discussion on this, let me express my heartfelt sympathy for your loss. I am truly humbled that you would extend the courtesy of conversation to me at this time.
In the statement you quote, I clearly express it as what I “think.” I (perhaps unwisely) do make the assumption that in order for the government to regulate and license marriage, as it does, it should have a compelling reason to do so. The state licenses motor vehicle operation because it has a compelling reason to ensure the safety of citizens. The safety risk to others posed by riding a bicycle is much less, therefore the reason to license is less compelling and, unless you really live in a sucky nanny-state place, not done. So, given that the state does indeed have laws governing to whom one may marry and licensing same, the first question I have to answer for myself before I ask if these rules should be changed is “why?” There are many possible reasons (simplify inheritance, medical benefits, etc.), but I believe the most compelling of interests is related to those citizens that are both greatly affected by marriage while simultaneously being powerless to affect it: the children. If I did not believe there was a compelling interest in marriage I would still not believe in gay marriage; I simply would rather believe in the complete abolision of any government recognition of marriage.
I believe, further, that you assume far too much in your reading of the second sentance. I did not think my simple statement of fact that a gay couple cannot reproduce without taking exceptional measures would be taked as an insult or in a derogatory way. It certainly was never meant as such. And while I fully expect science to one day make reproduction by any two chosen individuals possible, that is simply not the way it is done today. I fail to see the bigottry in recognizing that the vast, vast majority of children in this country result from garden variety, run-of-the-mill heterosexual coitus. Since this is how most children are produced if one assumes that the state has a compelling interest in child welfare then it follows that the state should have a greater interest in a relationship in which children are a greater likelihood.
Like you, I can’t see gay marriage directly affecting my marriage or the the strength, love or commitment in my relationship, but I am not looking at this issue from an individual perspective. If I were, then I, too, would say “you love each other, great, get married.” I am trying to look at the larger effect on our society as a whole, at the risk of sounding far mor pompous and self-righteous that I really am. By way of analogy, I don’t think easy divorce has any effect upon the strength, love or commitment in my relationship, but there is ample evidence that the eager acceptance of looser no-fault divorce laws in the ’60s and ’70s has had a net negative effect on the family when looked at on a macro scale. The emphasis in marriage that was once placed on “the children” has in many cases shifted to an emphasis on self fulfilment and personal satisfaction. In my opinion, and looking at studies of children from broken or single parent homes, this has been at the expense of the children. I simply find quite plausible the conclusion that another major societal change in the institution of marriage that deemphasizes its role in building a family and raising children will likely again be to the detriment of those most unable to choose in this situation.
Perhaps it was because I did not go into this much detail before, but I honestly don’t understand the reason I should be “presumed” to be such a horribe person as to believe “that children … from a gay/lesbian relationship are inherently inferior.” Thet are simply outside the normal family structure, the same as children of unweb or widdowed parents. Maybe I’m odd, but I never thought a polite dissent in opinion logically leads to such assumptions about a relative stranger.
Much discussion does, essentially , boil down to espressing a belief structure that justifies one’s own conclusions. I sure I could say the exact same thing about many arguments in support of gay marriage. You obviously find my arguments to not be convincing (or probably more accurately in your view, illogical), and I’m fine with that. We simply don’t agree. But that doesn’t mean I think you or Bill or Chef or anyone else here is bad or “eeeeevil.” I don’t automatically and reactively assume that anyone wants to (fill in sterotypically gay bad thing to do to someone).
I think words have meaning (or at least they should). When “bigot” is expanded to mean “you don’t actually have or express any animosity or hatred against gays individually or collectively, but I don’t agree with your position concerning redefining marriage” it looses a lot of its punch, and that is noticed by others. Just like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other race hustlers have “dumbed down” the definition of racism. Then again, it’s just an opinion.
Martin, again, thanks for the even-toned response. Bottom line, for me, is that while there are other ways besides the convetional for getting children, today the likelihood of children in a traditional marriage compared to these other means makes it distinctive from other human relationships. If you disagree, then I guess that’s where we shake hands and move on to another topic.
BTW, I do not closely follow cloning science, but was aware of the primate work. But “proof of concept” to two men having a child is a long road. I’d make a hefty wager that we will still not see the latter ten years from now. As for the issue of egg donor, I read an article recently indicating that stem cell research may one day allow eggs to be grown from ovarian tissue in vitro. What a strange new world that will be, eh?
We all have our things that make you go “ick,” and I freely admit that while I’m not pathological there are other things I’d rather do than watch Brokeback Mountain with my wife again. I guess more than “icky gay sex,” it is just not something in which I have much interest. Then again, I’ve had more than one gay friend or associate express in no uncertain terms an “ick” factor associated with typical male locker room conversations of conquest. Like I said, we all have those things, but I tend to think of bigotry more in terms of what an individual does than how one feels.